Reviews of the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S like this seem very good:
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/Michelin-Pilot-Sport-4-S-Press-Release.htm
Such reviews, however, are often nonsense and downright misleading. So, for example, in this one, the Michelin is shown beating the Goodyear Eagle in Wet Braking from 80km/h by "0.10m".
Yes, that's 10cm - 4" in old money - which is neither here nor there, but which the graphic makes look like a bonnet length.
The extreme basis of the tests can be nonsense, too. 'If it brakes shortest in the wet, it's the best wet tyre', for example, is obviously questionable. Driving in the wet needs much more than straight line braking - not least, changing direction - but the 'review' makes it appear to be the be-and-end-all criterion.
I suspect that many drivers skim several such reviews and come to a general consensus: 'The Michelin does best in most, so it must be the best tyre' sort of thing. Sadly, like a lot of journalism, many such reviews are bo//ocks.
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/Michelin-Pilot-Sport-4-S-Press-Release.htm
Such reviews, however, are often nonsense and downright misleading. So, for example, in this one, the Michelin is shown beating the Goodyear Eagle in Wet Braking from 80km/h by "0.10m".
Yes, that's 10cm - 4" in old money - which is neither here nor there, but which the graphic makes look like a bonnet length.
The extreme basis of the tests can be nonsense, too. 'If it brakes shortest in the wet, it's the best wet tyre', for example, is obviously questionable. Driving in the wet needs much more than straight line braking - not least, changing direction - but the 'review' makes it appear to be the be-and-end-all criterion.
I suspect that many drivers skim several such reviews and come to a general consensus: 'The Michelin does best in most, so it must be the best tyre' sort of thing. Sadly, like a lot of journalism, many such reviews are bo//ocks.