Pirellis?
- Thread starter Busterboo
- Start date
Scotland 🏴
and wet rating is certainly needed in the ukZed Baron said:
Wary of worm can opening :roll: just lately i had been running the Dunlop SportMaxx RT2 in 18inch on my ZMR , initially surprised how good they felt which soon turned into impressed 
so much so i bought a set of 19s for the CSLs which are now on the car & zero complaints so far .
Pricewise they are below Michelin , Pirelli , Conti & Goodyear but above Vredestein + Hankooks
so much so i bought a set of 19s for the CSLs which are now on the car & zero complaints so far .Pricewise they are below Michelin , Pirelli , Conti & Goodyear but above Vredestein + Hankooks
mr wilks said:Wary of worm can opening :roll: just lately i had been running the Dunlop SportMaxx RT2 in 18inch on my ZMR , initially surprised how good they felt which soon turned into impressed
Pricewise they are below Michelin , Pirelli , Conti & Goodyear but above Vredestein + Hankooks
Sportmaxx have always been a decent tyre,always been very soft and quick to wear though. Not sure what the new generation stuff is like though.
I wouldn’t go near Pirelli’s after a few sets experience of them going off after half wear, however that was a good few years ago I admit but mud sticks, just wouldn’t take the risk throwing money at them since there is so much choice. Michelin every time for me, current Dunlop’s on the M CSL’s are fine, no issues, but the MPSS on the 224’s feel softer and grippier.
North West Surrey
I've never had them on a Z4, but my 1 Series came with 17" Pirelli Euforia run-flats, then I went through 2 sets of P-Zero run-flats and finally fitted P7 run-flats before I sold it.
I had 17" non-runflat P Zeros on my E46 3 Series and finally 17" P Zero run-flats on my E91 325i, and never had any issues with any of them.
They were all certainly far better than the god-awful Bridgestone run-flats I had on both my 3 litre Coupes! :roll:
I had 17" non-runflat P Zeros on my E46 3 Series and finally 17" P Zero run-flats on my E91 325i, and never had any issues with any of them.
They were all certainly far better than the god-awful Bridgestone run-flats I had on both my 3 litre Coupes! :roll:
my comment was a serious one, as in, a tyre that is rated better in the wet is far more useful in our wet climate in most situations as oppose to a tyre that performs slightly better in hot sticky conditions, but not as good in wet conditions.Busterboo said:Sadly, much of the 'rating' of tyres in the UK is nonsense, methodologically and statistically. So, I'm not looking for what the comics say, but for members' own experience and choices.Phoenixboy said:… and wet rating is certainly needed in the uk
lets be honest, few people are pushing there tyres to anywhere near there limits, so a tyre that gives better performance in the wet, with slightly less grip in super dry and sticky conditions, is imo a better option for most in normal driving conditions.
i have discussed this subject on here in the past, and yes a good tyre is always a good choice, but a super sticky tyre, with less wet grip is to most people not needed.
you are not going to exceed the capabilities of a good tyre like a goodyear f1, so little point in sacrificing wet grip in favour of extra dry grip that you are not really going see any noticeable gains from unless your on track..
Yes, I appreciate that. The difficulty is how the 'ratings' are produced and expressed.Phoenixboy said:my comment was a serious one ...Busterboo said:Sadly, much of the 'rating' of tyres in the UK is nonsense, methodologically and statistically. So, I'm not looking for what the comics say, but for members' own experience and choices.Phoenixboy said:… and wet rating is certainly needed in the uk
Commercial sites - i.e. 'buy tyres from us' - elicit customer feedback, which can only be subjective, and express it as a percentage, which then becomes 'data' and looks scientific.
Journalists - 'we are authorities' - produce feedback, partly objective, and usually express it as a percentage, when then becomes 'data' and looks (and is) more scientific.
The commercial stuff is nonsense and the journo data is better, although journos are commercially driven, too, of course, and there is no universal scheme of measurement between one journo and another. The outcome is 'ratings' that are unreliable, inconsistent and misleading.
Attleborough, Norfolk
The tyre ratings are not just an impression from a comic, clown, journo, or any other random person.
They are legally required to be applied by the manufacturers.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/eu-tyre-labelling-regulation-compliance-and-guidance
Regulation No 1222/2009 (the Labelling of Tyres with respect to Fuel Efficiency and other Essential Parameters)
Regulation 228/2011 (with regard to the wet grip testing method for C1 tyres)
Regulation 1235/2011 (with regard to the wet grip grading of tyres, the measurement of rolling resistance and the verification procedure)
They are legally required to be applied by the manufacturers.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/eu-tyre-labelling-regulation-compliance-and-guidance
Regulation No 1222/2009 (the Labelling of Tyres with respect to Fuel Efficiency and other Essential Parameters)
Regulation 228/2011 (with regard to the wet grip testing method for C1 tyres)
Regulation 1235/2011 (with regard to the wet grip grading of tyres, the measurement of rolling resistance and the verification procedure)