How are they for all out dry performance? They don't look like a dry performance tyre.
Printable View
How are they for all out dry performance? They don't look like a dry performance tyre.
Seems like the Yokos S-Drives aren't getting the nod from you fellas? I had C-Drives and found them beautiful especially in the wet :p
Anyone know the difference between say the RE001 Adrenalin, RE050A/RE050 and RE040?
Anyone got AD07? I got 2nd set for my car. Very good on both dry and wet. I used FM901, ST115 and GIII. AD07 is the best at this moment.
If you are happy with the C drives in the wet at the moment, you will be creaming in your pants if you had a set of RE001 on your car ( not that the C drives are bad in the wet at all, far from it ).Quote:
Originally Posted by DreadAngel
RE050(A) is a replacement of the RE040, they are OE tyres optimised for quietness which is very important in the OE market. The RE040 ( and RE010 and 030 before it ) was a crap tyre hardly worthy of the Potenza name ie more like Pretenza not Potenza. RE050 far better tyre despite similar apperance; but very different construction and compound.
The RE001 has a lot more rubber on the road compared with the same sized RE050, more aggresive tread pattern, asymetrical concept with much higher land to sea ratio. Noisier tyre though with whining noises under braking from 60Km/h - 10Km/h and distinct humming harmonic noises from 60-80Km/h on my car with 195/50R15 on a EG5. Re001 cheaper than RE050 too, esp now that Bridgestone Aust ( now wholly owned by Bridgestone Japan ) is pushing it very aggressively in terms of pricing and marketing.
The unique selling proprosition of the RE001 is not so much the absolute grip it provides on the most loaded tyre under hard cornering ( which is still long way off R compund tyres ) but how the lightly loaded wheels stay planted on the road despite having not a lot of mechanical downward pressure on those tyres. As a result it's a lot more forgiving, predictable and inspires a lot of coinfidence at the transitional phases of cornering; even in the wet.
^^ can vouch for this.. i got re001 and just tried to do hard cornering in wet..
the result is it doesn't lose a grip at all :)
This isn’t a recommendation, so much as an ‘anti-recommendation’ and a bit of a rant and whinge! Keep in mind here that I’m not talking about more expensive ‘performance’ rubber, only cheaper tyres to fit standard rims (but cheap doesn’t have to mean utter crap!). This is because my car budget is limited, not because I wouldn’t prefer higher spec tyres!
I do make some positive comments below on a couple of different tyres I've had / have on my car, but they are cheaper tyres and I'm sure others may think them utter rubbish, but hey, we can't all afford $200 a corner!
Some background to application, my chassis (CB7 Accord) isn’t completely bog standard, it’s fitted with Koni yellow dampers set quite stiff (love my Konis, but that’s where the budget went!!), caster increased to 5°, -1.5° front camber, and front/rear strut braces (home made, but better – i.e. stiffer mounting brackets - than any I’ve seen commercially available). Next step when $s allow is rear ARB upgrade, but I’ve made a substantial improvement in rear roll stiffness already just by fitting poly D bushes and reinforcing (stiffening) the ARB mounting brackets (the ones that attach with three bolts and are very flimsy, deducting substantially from roll stiffness as they flex). This made a significant improvement on the understeer front.
Where was I, oh yes, crap tyres:
Just fitted a pair of Falken ZE329 tyres (a known brand and a tyre of which I’d heard some good things as being a decent good value/performance cheaper tyre). So I only paid $120 each, and I do know you generally get what you pay for, but I’ve bought far better for similar or less money. These are about the worst tyre I can remember driving on, with the possible exception of some very early Hankooks from maybe twenty years ago! I’ve had better retreads!!
Falken tyre size is 185/65/15 on the standard rims (5.5J/15). Standard tyre size is 195/60/15, but this is a lot of case width for a 5.5” rim (the narrowest permissible rim with this case width, good for a softer ride but giving a soggy soft sort of sidewall behaviour not good for steering response etc), which is why I opted for the narrower 185/65 tyre (5.5” being the Falken *recommended* rim width for these tyres, i.e. not the narrowest permissible).
If I’d gone with 195/60 then I’d have been putting them on the narrowest possible rim for that tyre size, not good for handling etc, so problems would in probability have been even worse! In the best of all possible worlds I’d get wider rims for 195/60 (6.5J to 7J), but it all comes down to the dreaded budget, and what ‘She Who Must Be Placated’ (to paraphrase Rumpole) allows me to get away with spending on the car!
I’m happy to trade a bit of outright grip for a bit more steering response, the aspect ratio may not be as good on paper, but the sidewall depth is pretty much the same between 195/60 and 185/65, and it’s the sidewall depth AND angle that’s more important for steering response (at least in theory and all else being equal…). Also, on rough roads narrower treads can perform better than wider (for a number of reasons).
I first fitted the Falkens to the front at 38psi, instantly resulting in poor steering response, plenty of understeer at all but walking speed and tyre howling when pushed harder. So I upped pressure to 45psi which improved things but still pretty bad. Even after 100+km (wearing off the mould release) the problem got no better. Funny thing, even at 45psi on rough roads with stiff damper settings these tyres don’t feel harsh or stiff at all, if anything they feel like they are under inflated (they have a max inflation of 51psi, I may well end up there!). I already dislike these tyres!
Problem seems to be very soft casings, in particular the sidewalls seem / feel to flex a lot, and consequently the tyres develop very large slip angles, just like an under inflated tyre.
Plan B, swapped them to the rear (at 38psi to not be higher than the front) where I thought they might be somewhat more acceptable, but sadly not so! The car now became borderline dangerous (no exaggeration) with truly horrible handling, so I upped pressure to 45psi - problem better but still totally unacceptable.
The upside is that the car now (with Falkens on rear) had better steering response (at least better turn in), but, it was then followed by a nasty wobbly pudding oversteer that was truly dreadful and fairly unresponsive to steering correction because the Falkens just wanted to keep on sliding!! The car felt for all the world like it had a huge weight in the back end acting like a monster pendulum! In an emergency manoeuvre at speed I think it would be dead easy to lose the back end and spin, especially on the dirt roads which I have to drive on.
I now really really hate these tyres, to say I’m disappointed in them is an understatement, and my expectations weren’t huge!! I’ve had to put the Falkens back on the front because on the rear there would eventually be a crash, yes it was that bad! At least with the Falkens on the front the car is directionally stable… too directionally stable!
The two tyres I replaced with the Falkens were Sava Intensa (195/60/15), cheap ($120ish from memory) but surprisingly good - for the money, no complaints, except wear rate – when inflated to 38/40psi. The biggest surprise were with the other tyres I’m currently running, the two I had to buy at the only tyre emporium open in the late afternoon last Xmas eve (Kmart, in desperation after having two flats that day, Merry bloody Xmas!).
These are Sonar SX608 (195/60/15), that cost me I think $115, (basically from the Nankang even more cheapo range!). If I’d had any choice at the time I wouldn’t have considered buying this then unknown generic brand, but surprisingly they are subjectively 5 times as good as the Falken ZE329, and about as good as the Sava Intensa (a bit less grip, but better steering response, I think the sidewalls are reasonably stiff but somewhat harder rubber).
I originally had these Sonars fitted to the rear (with the Intensas up front) at 35psi where they seemed to work well, and forgot about them (well, I didn’t really think – incorrectly – that the rear end asked all that much of the rear tyres, and they’re a very ordinary looking tyre!). This set up gave a fairly neutral handling characteristic once I’d stiffened up the rear ARB mounting.
I recently had to move them to the front (and Intensas to rear) when the Intensas started losing grip (they were getting pretty thin on tread!), fully expecting them to be awful when on the front, but was pleasantly surprised with their competence, especially at 38psi (not so good at 40 though). Not quite as grippy as the Intensas (with tread!), but better steering response, so better turn in / correction behaviour but a bit more mid corner understeer. This may come down to the sidewall angles related to the Intensa being quite wide in the tread for a 195 section casing, and the Sonar being quite narrow treaded for a 195…?
All in all, with the Konis and strut braces, caster, front camber, and rear roll stiffness improvements (does still need a thicker ARB though, still rolls a bit much and could use more rear / less front weight transfer to reduce inherent understeer) and the Sonars or Savas up front, and probably any half decent tyre (i.e. not ZE329s!) on the rear, and all tyres at highish pressures, even with standard rims the old Accord is quite entertaining to drive for what it is, even if the outright grip levels may not be massive…
I nearly bought another two Sonars or Savas (in a 185/65), but I didn’t, and I regret it. So (unless anyone wants to buy them…please!?), I’m now stuck with these bloody Falkens for quite a while, which doesn’t fill me with delight. They really make the car far less enjoyable to drive (maybe better at 51psi???!!!), but I won’t feel too bad about giving them a bit of a caning, the sooner they wear out the better!
Ah Icic! Thanks EG30 and Hans Bond :) I think I'll give these RE001s a try see how things go ;) I'll report when the new car has them then can give you a comparo to the C-Drives even if its not much of a competitionQuote:
Originally Posted by EG30
Instead of 38psi, did you try 33psi instead? 38psi is on the high side for such a high profiled tyre. You get bulging in the middle, reducing your contact patch.
when the time came to replace my dunlop 2050 205/55R16s last month, a friend recommended Sumitomo (made by dunlop?) I have 205/55R16 HTR 55Z and in wet and dry, my opinion is that they are much better tyre than the OE the car came with - grip/turn in is great, and when cornering hard (VSA off) - rear end stays inline (unlike the 2050's !)
only thing - 2050's lasted me 57K - damm!
I haven't yet tried the Falkens at a more conservative pressure, I probably will but my expectation is that this is likely to be even worse. What I do expect is that lowering the pressure will result in even larger slip angles and less response. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that 'tread bulge' in modern radials (with their fairly stiff steel belts) isn't much affected by higher pressures, certainly not nearly as much as cross ply tyres are. The tread isn't visibly bulging at 38 or 45psi, and they did behave somewhat better at 45 vs 38...Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
Put another 2psi in them this morning (47psi), but haven't driven on them at that pressure yet. If it's no better or worse then I'll try dropping them down to a more sane psi as you suggest. If this works then they'll be the only tyre I've ever used that gets better steering response at lower pressure, even my go-kart steers more sharply at 20psi than at say 15. If I'm lucky the Falkens may get a bit better when the tread blocks wear down, but I really think the case stiffness is most likely to be the problem.
Re the Sava Intensa tyre, we also have some on a Mazda 323 in a 195/55/15 size. On this car they perform not nearly as well as the 195/60/15 Intensa on the Accord. The difference isn't just when cornering hard, it's there even when driven quite conservtively, manifesting most obviously in steering response and directional stability (i.e. the Intensas on the Accord or more responsive and have better stability in a straight line and in corners than those on the Mazda).
I know the cars are quite different with very different suspension designs (with the Accord suspension obviously being far superior!) and the Mazda has a 6J rim (which in theory should work better with a 195 tye than the 5.5J on the Accord), but I suspect the difference is at least mostly in the tyres themselves and may not just be the different aspect ratio. All else being equal the 195/55 on a 6J rim should be significantly superior to a 195/60 on a 5.5J rim, but it isn't. Why, I don't know for sure but assuming the tyres themselves are the problem, the Savas on the Accord are made in New Zealand, but the ones on the Mazda are made in Slovenia. Might this mean there may be significant differences other than aspect between these tyres...??
Since the curret topic seems to be on the Bridgestone Potenza RE001, I thought I might just include my 2 cents.
I've currently got the RE001s on my 06 ODC in the size of 225/45/ R18 @38psi. The tyres are made in Japan and cost me about $265 a corner.
I got the tyres when I installed my ARBs, lowered the car and new rims. I was initially afraid of the road noise that the tires would produce, but to my surprise, it was only very slightly nosier than stock tires (Yokohama Aspec 215/60/16). Grip is amazing, been going around round-abouts at higher speeds and still feel very safe. Wet grip is also amazing, imagine throwing a 1.6 ton mini-van around a wet corner and feeling in control.
Best tires I've gotten so far.
geez very good price for such BIG size, thought they would be closer to $300 or more in 18". Is that a run of the mill price at a non anti-bridgestone tyre shop or the best price you found in a bridgestone sympathetic shop?