Help choosing a DE tire?
01-18-2017, 09:09 PM
#61
Rennlist Member
95 etc is the service rating, ie weight, the higher the more weight
Y etc is the speed rating
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=35
weight is essentially a non-issue, 95 is 1521 pounds per tire. Most high quality tires will be either W or Y, even my all season Michelin Pilot Sport AS/3 are rated Y (186 MPH)
What size tires are you looking at?
Y etc is the speed rating
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=35
weight is essentially a non-issue, 95 is 1521 pounds per tire. Most high quality tires will be either W or Y, even my all season Michelin Pilot Sport AS/3 are rated Y (186 MPH)
What size tires are you looking at?
Either 225/35-18 or 235/40-18 for the front and 265/35-18 for the rear (possibly a 275/40-18 if I can soften the ride of the new-to-me PSS10s. Have not touched settings or tire pressures).
Mark, I;d compare the prices with $70 off that Costco provides, no shipping charge (that might be offset by taxes, though, but, more importantly, only $15 per tire install and balance by Costco. Flats are also covered (ironically, GF just got a screw into thread today, went to Costco, waited an hour till they got the car in, turned out this was just a screw head that didn't puncture through).
There's also a trick, apparently, where one doesn't even need a Costco membership, just Costco gift card to get in and buy stuff from them.
Regarding designations - I completely disregard letters and numbers for speed and load rating. Just like I disregard the two letters like AA that stand for traction and temperature, IIRC.
There's also a trick, apparently, where one doesn't even need a Costco membership, just Costco gift card to get in and buy stuff from them.
Regarding designations - I completely disregard letters and numbers for speed and load rating. Just like I disregard the two letters like AA that stand for traction and temperature, IIRC.
Sorry for the threadjack, _snowbird_.
01-19-2017, 12:08 PM
#62
Banned
Thanks, Bob. However, you had mentioned something about BMW-specific tires. Sounds like there is some sort of difference, yes?
Either 225/35-18 or 235/40-18 for the front and 265/35-18 for the rear (possibly a 275/40-18 if I can soften the ride of the new-to-me PSS10s. Have not touched settings or tire pressures).
Either 225/35-18 or 235/40-18 for the front and 265/35-18 for the rear (possibly a 275/40-18 if I can soften the ride of the new-to-me PSS10s. Have not touched settings or tire pressures).
On the C4S I generally set the PSS10's at 4F/5R, however I also have full RS suspension so the sways are pretty stiff, set mid range. I also tend to run under factory recommendations on tire pressure (36/44 on the plate), I tend to take a little more out of the front then the rear. My view of the factory tire pressure numbers is they had to take in account people hitting the autobahn at 160MPH and did not want the tires rolling off.
01-20-2017, 01:04 AM
#64
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After combing through the TireRack to see different tire options in different sizes, I'm still confused about how to select an appropriate high-grip street tire without it being too advanced for a novice.
If the treadwear rating is not the right indicator of grip/performance, what is?
All of these tires have near identical treadwear, traction, and temp ratings:
RE-11 (200 A A, but discontinued)
RE-71R (200 A A)
Direzza ZII (200 A A)
Ventus R-S3/R-S4 (200 A A)
Advan AD08-R (180 A A)
... but I'm hearing that an RE-71 is too advanced for a novice learning track driving. Are all of these similarly too advanced? Or does the RE-71 somehow outperform despite similar ratings?
If the treadwear rating is not the right indicator of grip/performance, what is?
All of these tires have near identical treadwear, traction, and temp ratings:
RE-11 (200 A A, but discontinued)
RE-71R (200 A A)
Direzza ZII (200 A A)
Ventus R-S3/R-S4 (200 A A)
Advan AD08-R (180 A A)
... but I'm hearing that an RE-71 is too advanced for a novice learning track driving. Are all of these similarly too advanced? Or does the RE-71 somehow outperform despite similar ratings?
01-20-2017, 03:32 AM
#65
Rennlist Member
Snowbird, the consensus at Fort Devens where we Autocross is that the 200 rating on the RE 71's is B.S. Many events require a minimum of 200 tread wear, but the testing is anything but objective. https://www.google.com/amp/blackflag...?client=safari
The Direzzas, like the now unavailable RE 11's, are probably closer to a true 200 rating than are the RE 71's. My RE 11's have only a few DE sessions left on them, so I'm in the same boat as you.
The Direzzas, like the now unavailable RE 11's, are probably closer to a true 200 rating than are the RE 71's. My RE 11's have only a few DE sessions left on them, so I'm in the same boat as you.
01-20-2017, 11:00 AM
#66
Snowbird, the consensus at Fort Devens where we Autocross is that the 200 rating on the RE 71's is B.S. Many events require a minimum of 200 tread wear, but the testing is anything but objective. https://www.google.com/amp/blackflag...?client=safari
The Direzzas, like the now unavailable RE 11's, are probably closer to a true 200 rating than are the RE 71's. My RE 11's have only a few DE sessions left on them, so I'm in the same boat as you.
The Direzzas, like the now unavailable RE 11's, are probably closer to a true 200 rating than are the RE 71's. My RE 11's have only a few DE sessions left on them, so I'm in the same boat as you.
another thing that helps the RE71 in track use is the low tread depth oe, these come at a depth that used to be associated w/ a shaved tire
01-20-2017, 01:40 PM
#67
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Oh, 200 complete BS, caused by SCCA requiring autocross tires for Street classes to be a minimum of 200 starting in 2016 season, announced in 2014. It used to be a minimum of 180 before 2016 and most autocross tires were marked as such. The funniest of the bunch was Toyo, that simply re-marked R1R tire from 180 to 200 without any changes to the tire. They claimed that they did "testing.
On the other hand, I pay zero attention to UTQG ratings. Firstly, they always differed between manufacturers and secondly... they just never made any real life sense to me.
On the other hand, I pay zero attention to UTQG ratings. Firstly, they always differed between manufacturers and secondly... they just never made any real life sense to me.
01-20-2017, 01:45 PM
#68
Rennlist Member
Michelin makes different versions of the MPSS, some are specific to a certain manufacturer. I pulled up your 225/265 and they are standard MPSS on tire rack. As to what the differences are I do not know, I just know I want them to match!
On the C4S I generally set the PSS10's at 4F/5R, however I also have full RS suspension so the sways are pretty stiff, set mid range. I also tend to run under factory recommendations on tire pressure (36/44 on the plate), I tend to take a little more out of the front then the rear. My view of the factory tire pressure numbers is they had to take in account people hitting the autobahn at 160MPH and did not want the tires rolling off.
On the C4S I generally set the PSS10's at 4F/5R, however I also have full RS suspension so the sways are pretty stiff, set mid range. I also tend to run under factory recommendations on tire pressure (36/44 on the plate), I tend to take a little more out of the front then the rear. My view of the factory tire pressure numbers is they had to take in account people hitting the autobahn at 160MPH and did not want the tires rolling off.
01-30-2017, 03:00 PM
#69
Rennlist Member
I used a set of Re-71s for the first time this weekend @ Chuckwalla.
I was 4 - 5 seconds a lap quicker as compared with my Yoko Advan AD08r's, run on the same day.
The confidence the Re's inspired was amazing.
WOWZA!!!!
01-30-2017, 04:45 PM
#70
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't express how hard it is for me, a DE novice, to AVOID buying RE71's after feedback like this 
The idea of intentionally buying less grippy, less confidence inspiring, and probably more expensive tires is so counter-intuitive for me.
The idea of intentionally buying less grippy, less confidence inspiring, and probably more expensive tires is so counter-intuitive for me.
01-30-2017, 05:42 PM
#71
Any experience here with the new Federal RS-RR? Both price and spec sheet looks tempting. They even offer a 245/35/18.
I am just worried about fit in the front. I am currently running NT01 in 245/40/18 and they slightly rub at the fender when new. People claim in other forums that the RS-RR run wide but looking at the spec sheets (diameter / width) it should fit:
NT01 245/40/18: 25.55 / 9.72
RS-RR 245/35/18: 24.7 / 9.7
This about the theory. Did anyone try them? The price is just too low not to try them (particularly if you run through 3 sets NT01 a season ..)
I am just worried about fit in the front. I am currently running NT01 in 245/40/18 and they slightly rub at the fender when new. People claim in other forums that the RS-RR run wide but looking at the spec sheets (diameter / width) it should fit:
NT01 245/40/18: 25.55 / 9.72
RS-RR 245/35/18: 24.7 / 9.7
This about the theory. Did anyone try them? The price is just too low not to try them (particularly if you run through 3 sets NT01 a season ..)
01-30-2017, 07:29 PM
#72
Just do it. They are a great value. You can work up to the grip level. I found the re71 to be plenty communicative at the limit.
01-30-2017, 10:29 PM
#73
Rennlist Member
they may ruin you.
I switched back to the yoko's for a run session after 2 sessions on the Re-71's.
I spun 1/2 way into the lap because I wasn't paying enough attention to what the car was telling me and was foolishly driving the same speeds as the Re71s permitted.
Good tyres can be a "crutch", but that conversation is too long for me to type.
01-31-2017, 12:16 AM
#74
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a big golfer, but this conversation reminds me of when people say that you can never become a great golfer when using super-forgiving cavity-back irons or an oversized driver. The club technology is masking your errors in swing and form, and allowing you to achieve results better than your actual ability.
My counter-argument is typically: so what?
But seriously, I truly respect and acknowledge the experienced perspectives that my actual skill level becomes critical as I start pushing the limits of my car and the track. It's not something to "fake" given what's at stake when my skill runs out (ie mine/others' safety and our cars).
But with golf, who really gives a sh_t?
My counter-argument is typically: so what?
But seriously, I truly respect and acknowledge the experienced perspectives that my actual skill level becomes critical as I start pushing the limits of my car and the track. It's not something to "fake" given what's at stake when my skill runs out (ie mine/others' safety and our cars).
But with golf, who really gives a sh_t?
