Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport?

[plenty]

Supersports, PS5s and CSC7s arent track tyres, they're UHP road tyres. As good as these road tyres are, they're not designed for the sustained high temperatures of track driving and wouldn't last a full trackday.

Conversely a dedicated track tyre such as Direzza DZ03G or Nankang AR-1 will be borderline dangerous on a wet road.

The majority of drivers don't drive hard enough to get close to the limits of top-tier UHP tyres (although you might if you regularly attend forum driving tours ) A decent mid-range option such as Ultrac Vorti is more than capable for most people's needs.

[coldel]

Supersports, PS5s and CSC7s arent track tyres, they're UHP road tyres. As good as these road tyres are, they're not designed for the sustained high temperatures of track driving and wouldn't last a full trackday.

Conversely a dedicated track tyre such as Direzza DZ03G or Nankang AR-1 will be borderline dangerous on a wet road.

Yes when I mentioned track days, it was more for someone wanting to take their road car on a track for the day. Rather than a dedicated track car which of course you would have dedicated track tyres for.

The side by side comparisons you see on websites are road tyres being tested on tracks, rather than tested on the road where they will never build up the level of grip/heat they would on track. So the reviews are telling you how a road tyre performs on track, rather than how a road tyre performs on the road.

[sars]

Oh and just as a heads up, for that tyre review site, they dont know how to use illustrative charts to properly show data. In fact, its dreadful and shows they have no statistical knowledge at all for example the charts here https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/202 ... e-Test.htm

From your referenced article, with the multicoloured bar charts, I'm interested to know how you would display the data such that it is easily understood by a layperson and not out for peer revue!

What I like about the tests he does and the results, per your exampled, is that they are as close to a scientific test as commercially practicable and to test them they need to be used on a consistent surface, usually a test track. Whilst you state that these are track tests, this is agreed, however these tests types such as wet braking etcetera are relative and transfer well to road use. Doing these tests on a public road would be impractical and with the state of public roads, inconsistent. Yes these tests could be more accurate by increasing the number of test car types, plus more drivers, and with a longer test duration to promote more tyre wear data. Unfortunately, that costs significantly more money and not commercially viable unless commissioned by a tyre manufacturer which then can promote bias.

[B21]

Oh and just as a heads up, for that tyre review site, they dont know how to use illustrative charts to properly show data. In fact, its dreadful and shows they have no statistical knowledge at all for example the charts here https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/202 ... e-Test.htm

From your referenced article, with the multicoloured bar charts, I'm interested to know how you would display the data such that it is easily understood by a layperson and not out for peer revue!

What I like about the tests he does and the results, per your exampled, is that they are as close to a scientific test as commercially practicable and to test them they need to be used on a consistent surface, usually a test track. Whilst you state that these are track tests, this is agreed, however these tests types such as wet braking etcetera are relative and transfer well to road use. Doing these tests on a public road would be impractical and with the state of public roads, inconsistent. Yes these tests could be more accurate by increasing the number of test car types, plus more drivers, and with a longer test duration to promote more tyre wear data. Unfortunately, that costs significantly more money and not commercially viable unless commissioned by a tyre manufacturer which then can promote bias.

FWIW I agree 100%!

I think he's probably the most authorative tester of road tyres with a vast body of experience snd skill..his verbal explanations are very good and clear.

Certainly for the tyres I've used that he's tested I've never disagreed with his views..albeit I'm not drifting cars in a way he does..

Yes most folks never stretch the envelope of their cars or tyres capablities..but if you are caught out or things go wrong for whatever reason then the reserves of grip and the predicability of response and feedback could make the difference between either a small prang / big accident and nothing at all..

If the OP isn't in a world of tyres lasting less tham 10k miles the GY Eagle F1 SS is defintely not his tyre.in the wet there are much much better tyres..and they don't need to be expensive.

[coldel]

In terms of the charts, because the scale is not starting from zero it exacerbates the differences. Your brain will automatically use the visual of the bars to compare, so if one looks ten times longer than the other, it takes ten times longer to do something. The point of charting is to help display data in a way it is more understandable and comparable, but by cutting the scale they change the comparison.

Here is the first chart on the website showing what looks like significant differences between the brands

Capture.JPG (43.83 KiB) Viewed 165 times

Here is the actual data fully visualised with a full scale, does that now change your perception of how different the brands performance is

Picture1.png (46.47 KiB) Viewed 165 times

They do this throughout their entire website. The funny thing is if you put the data into Excel and just auto chart, it replicates exactly what they have on their website. So what they are doing is pumping data in and just copy pasting without understanding firstly WHAT charts are actually for and secondly WHY they are doing what they are doing.

/endrant

[B21]

In terms of the charts, because the scale is not starting from zero it exacerbates the differences. Your brain will automatically use the visual of the bars to compare, so if one looks ten times longer than the other, it takes ten times longer to do something. The point of charting is to help display data in a way it is more understandable and comparable, but by cutting the scale they change the comparison.

Here is the first chart on the website showing what looks like significant differences between the brands
Capture.JPG

Here is the actual data fully visualised with a full scale, does that now change your perception of how different the brands performance is
Picture1.png

They do this throughout their entire website. The funny thing is if you put the data into Excel and just auto chart, it replicates exactly what they have on their website. So what they are doing is pumping data in and just copy pasting without understanding firstly WHAT charts are actually for and secondly WHY they are doing what they are doing.

/endrant

One could reasonably argue that the power / skill / capability of humans is to able to differentiate fine levels of detail irrespective of the absolute scale…

To use your logic if we measured everything in degrees Kelvin and used zero as a baseline then my house temperature ranges from 290k to 293k…you’re argument based on scale and a chart whose axis pass through zero is that it is de minimis..however I would contend we perceive those 3 degrees change in 300 quite markedly…

Discuss?

[plenty]

What the chart based from zero does reveal is that the performance difference between good brands is marginal, and even something like a Nankang AS-2 and Goodride SA37 which some might dismiss as budget ditchfinders aren't actually that far behind.

Another proof point for why for many drivers there's little practical difference between top-flight UHP options (and let's be honest, most Z4 drivers who aren't B21 and Andy don't push hard).

[B21]

What the chart based from zero does reveal is that the performance difference between good brands is marginal, and even something like a Nankang AS-2 and Goodride SA37 which some might dismiss as budget ditchfinders aren't actually that far behind.

Another proof point for why for many drivers there's little practical difference between top-flight UHP options (and let's be honest, most Z4 drivers who aren't B21 and Andy don't push hard).

For the record I’m not suggesting that people should only buy premium brand tyres ..if their budget, priorities , skills, style of driving or demands don’t require or need those last few percentile points of capabilities then that’s their prerogative

After the OE run flats everything is a bonus

[coldel]

The point is, that visuals are only useful if they are presented in a way that adds something to the numbers. A good old data table can be just as, if not more, effective than a bar chart - you dont use bar charts just for the sake of it which is what a lot of writers and reviewer do simply because they think it makes things look better - context and reason for using it is important.

The reason I started from zero was not because I arbitrarily took zero, its because the data was measuring the time it took to complete the course of which you need to measure the range of data we are looking at. The car started at zero seconds and finished somewhere around 50 odd seconds, if you want a visual representation to show the true difference you show it from zero.

In the Kelvin example, again you need to understand why you would show 0-300K - is that because your house can range anywhere between those values? If so, and you could survive it and live within those temperatures, the chances are if one day it was 10 and then heated to 290, you wouldnt notice the difference if the following day it was 20 then heated up to 280 because the range is so wide. However as your body and its relationship with temperature in the house is more like 290K plus then charting that shows a difference.

The one and only reason the chart above in the website starts at 52 is because thats the biggest whole number below the quickest time - they put no thought into what they are trying to show, and why they are using a bar chart.

[coldel]

What the chart based from zero does reveal is that the performance difference between good brands is marginal, and even something like a Nankang AS-2 and Goodride SA37 which some might dismiss as budget ditchfinders aren't actually that far behind.

Another proof point for why for many drivers there's little practical difference between top-flight UHP options (and let's be honest, most Z4 drivers who aren't B21 and Andy don't push hard).

For the record I’m not suggesting that people should only buy premium brand tyres ..if their budget, priorities , skills, style of driving or demands don’t require or need those last few percentile points of capabilities then that’s their prerogative

After the OE run flats everything is a bonus

No neither am I looking across many metrics its clear some brands once you take into account all the variables will cumulatively be noticeably different to other brands, just because there are small differences in individual tests, they do all add up - the marginal gains idea.

[plenty]

As someone who draws charts for a living I'm secretly enjoying this thread diversion.

There are so many examples of bad visualisation, sometimes innocuous and often not. In an election year it's useful to keep this in mind.

(Example from 2019)

[sars]

In terms of the charts, because the scale is not starting from zero it exacerbates the differences. Your brain will automatically use the visual of the bars to compare, so if one looks ten times longer than the other, it takes ten times longer to do something. The point of charting is to help display data in a way it is more understandable and comparable, but by cutting the scale they change the comparison.

Here is the first chart on the website showing what looks like significant differences between the brands
Capture.JPG

Here is the actual data fully visualised with a full scale, does that now change your perception of how different the brands performance is
Picture1.png

They do this throughout their entire website. The funny thing is if you put the data into Excel and just auto chart, it replicates exactly what they have on their website. So what they are doing is pumping data in and just copy pasting without understanding firstly WHAT charts are actually for and secondly WHY they are doing what they are doing.

/endrant

One could reasonably argue that the power / skill / capability of humans is to able to differentiate fine levels of detail irrespective of the absolute scale…

To use your logic if we measured everything in degrees Kelvin and used zero as a baseline then my house temperature ranges from 290k to 293k…you’re argument based on scale and a chart whose axis pass through zero is that it is de minimis..however I would contend we perceive those 3 degrees change in 300 quite markedly…

Discuss?

This and you beat me to it So its not about them having no statistical knowledge, it about displaying the data in such a way that it differentiates more clearly the relative difference between the tyres. There is so little difference, as a %, between the big brands, that choosing any of them will be great for 95% of road users and then we are back to my first post: -

For me the important qualities are wet grip, comfort, noise and rolling resistance, therefore list the qualities that are important to you and decide on the tyre that best meets those requirements.

But to do that you need empirical data, not some tyre marketing teams advert, so it is not critical that the origin isn't zero because if wet handling/breaking is best for me, then the SportContacts is the way to go

[coldel]

Yes been years in jobs at data companies and the like, the amount of utter rubbish you see just like that Lib Dem chart which I have no idea what its trying to visually demonstrate there is no scale no axis no context nothing, so many example like that where style over substance prevails

The Tyre review chart is utter rubbish too as it easily fools the brain into thinking there is a big difference in that measure, when there is statistically speaking no difference in that variable across at least the top four brands - you could probably repeat the test time and again as the tyres wear and the top three or four interchange order.

[plenty]

The Tyre review chart is utter rubbish too as it easily fools the brain into thinking there is a big difference in that measure, when there is statistically speaking no difference in that variable across at least the top four brands - you could probably repeat the test time and again as the tyres wear and the top three or four interchange order.

I mostly ignore professional tests myself for the above reasons, although crowdsourced scores from large numbers of reviews on places like tyrereviews do hold some sway.

It makes me laugh when you read the magazine reviews and the prose describes differences as if they were night and day, when in reality the margins between top brands are so slim and there so many other variables that come in play that could equally impact the results, such as pressures, the weather, and the quality of the road surfaces. On the latter point for example, if you've ever driven hard on the 'brown' roads in Wales you'll know how much more grippy in the wet and dry they are compared with typical black tarmac in England and Scotland.

If you're someone who can tell the difference between +/- 2 PSI or a half-tank of fuel versus empty then maybe the marginal differences will resonate, but most of us can't.

[coldel]

The Tyre review chart is utter rubbish too as it easily fools the brain into thinking there is a big difference in that measure, when there is statistically speaking no difference in that variable across at least the top four brands - you could probably repeat the test time and again as the tyres wear and the top three or four interchange order.

I mostly ignore professional tests myself for the above reasons, although crowdsourced scores from large numbers of reviews on places like tyrereviews do hold some sway.

It makes me laugh when you read the magazine reviews and the prose describes differences as if they were night and day, when in reality the margins between top brands are so slim and there so many other variables that come in play that could equally impact the results, such as pressures, the weather, and the quality of the road surfaces. On the latter point for example, if you've ever driven hard on the 'brown' roads in Wales you'll know how much more grippy in the wet and dry they are compared with typical black tarmac in England and Scotland.

Yes I agree to a degree on the crowdsourcing, but it has to be relevant, if Michelin Primacy got good scores on Tyre Review I wouldnt put some on my Ferrari (if I had one) as the scores are likely from cars like Nissan Qashqais and the like

And yes the pro testers are probably amazing at testing the minute differences, but 95% of the country would never notice the difference nor ever push the car to that level. I was in a research job a few years back and we had professional taste testers for new food products. It was amazing what they could do, there would be 8-10 of them in for the day we would give them something to try and then get them to score between 1-100 on things like sourness, saltiness etc. more often than not they would all score within a couple of percentage points of each other without knowing what each other has put. The general public however would be scatter gunning all over the place