Hercules vs Falken vs Kumho

Mike242GT · Nov 25, 2006

Here comes the "someone". I agree with every word toocrazy wrote about the performance of the Dunlop Sport A2s in wet conditions. Best "in the wet" tire I've ever driven on. However, I also had two of mine develop belt separations after somewhat less than 20K of driving on them. Vehicle is a Volvo 740 turbo, not driven especially hard, tires were 205/50-15s, and I'm almost anal about checking inflation pressures, always keeping them within a pound or two of 32 psi.

I replaced both failed tires (the cost was "pro-rated" under warranty so the new tires were each about half price), but I was leery of putting another set of Dunlops on my wife's car, and bought Kumho Ecstas for her 940 turbo instead. No, they don't stick quite as well in the wet, but they're close. Yes, they were less expensive. And no belt separations yet (about 15K on the Kumhos now).

Mike242GT · Nov 25, 2006

Ah, yes; my kingdom for an edit function. Tire size was 205/60-15, not 50. Sorry for the typo.

toocrazy2yoo · Nov 25, 2006

I KNEW "Someone" would come along!!!

Ken E. · Nov 25, 2006

BennyL, it's your mom we're talkin' about here. COSTCO sells Michelin and Bridgestone and either brand would offer much more peace of mind than some second-rate rubber like Falken or Hercules. I doubt that the arguments about "all season" and "three season" apply to Mom, but you need to pony up and put a first class tire on Mom's Cougar. My wife's car has COSTCO Michelin Pilot Exalto AS (as in all season) and they perform quite well and seem to be wearing OK too. My wife (and probably your mom too) does not care much about performance and would not appreciate the handling difference between "summer high performance" and "all season" tires anyway.

GC4lunch · Nov 26, 2006

Quote:

Went with the 65-85.00 tire in every instance.

I put some Dunlop Sport A2 Plus on the car, ...

... they were the best real world tires I've EVER driven on.

Thank you for providing the frame of reference for your comparison.

Quote:

I dunno from skid pads, tracks, NHTSA un-rreal-world testing,

Thos are called "objective" tests. They simulate the real-world, with repeatability.

Quote:

or GC4's bias away from all season tires,

It is a bias shared by much of the world. For safety reasons, all season tires are illegal in most civilized nations.

Quote:

these were the best tires I've ever ridden on. It was the grip of the tire and the ability to channel water out from under at high speeds,

Really, seriously, if there is sufficient water standing on the roadway that it needs to be channeled, on any tire, you have a very thin margin of safety. If the tread depth of a tire is (as most tires are when brand new, and not for long thereafter) 10/32" or 11/32", then the tire must hydroplane when the water depth on the pavement exceeds 10/32" (or 11/32") inch. Under such circumstances, you are endangering not only yourself but others if you are traveling at high speeds.

Quote:

If you go to an uncompromised, soft, fast-wearing compound, you MIGHT build a tire that would beat these Dunlop Sport A2's in the wet but I doubt it.

Now you are taking up Auto Union's nonsense. Not all three season tires are "soft" and not all all season tires are hard. Generally, because the target market for an all season tire is the group of people who would rather save money by using one set of tires year round rather than having two sets of tires (each of which sets will have correspondingly lower wear, incidentally), to appeal to those buyers, the tire manufacturers also make the all season tires long-wearing; but there is no necessary correlation between all season tires and hard compound tires.

The distinction between all season tires and three season tires is, rather, in whether the tread compound -- whether hard or soft -- is designed to shed water (so that the contact patch between the tire and the pavement is as dry as possible for maximum friction), as in three season tires, or whether the tire is designed to adhere to water for snow traction, which means, of course, that in in wet pavement conditions water also adheres to the tread, leaving a film of water between the tread and the pavement that impairs braking performance.

Quote:

And what's the point, if it's going to wear out quickly in the dry? And please, ANY tire is ok for normal usage in the dry, it's the wet, real-world conditions that we buy our tires for.

Exactly. Wet, real-world conditions are the very conditions where three season tires have the greatest advantage over all season tires, because they have a greater coefficient of friction with the pavement than all season tires do (or can).

Quote:

The Nth degree testing they do on tracks and skidpads in controlled conditions is hardly applicable to real-world usage, where all of a sudden your exit is before you and you're a little hot going in with a lot of rain on the pavement. Or the drainage is a little suspect on a particular patch of road and you really need the ability to channel a couple of inches of water at speed.

You sound like the perfect candidate to trade in your all season tires for three season tires that can much better handle the conditions that concern you.

y_p_w · Nov 26, 2006

Quote:

Now you are taking up Auto Union's nonsense. Not all three season tires are "soft" and not all all season tires are hard. Generally, because the target market for an all season tire is the group of people who would rather save money by using one set of tires year round rather than having two sets of tires (each of which sets will have correspondingly lower wear, incidentally), to appeal to those buyers, the tire manufacturers also make the all season tires long-wearing; but there is no necessary correlation between all season tires and hard compound tires.

The distinction between all season tires and three season tires is, rather, in whether the tread compound -- whether hard or soft -- is designed to shed water (so that the contact patch between the tire and the pavement is as dry as possible for maximum friction), as in three season tires, or whether the tire is designed to adhere to water for snow traction, which means, of course, that in in wet pavement conditions water also adheres to the tread, leaving a film of water between the tread and the pavement that impairs braking performance.

Much like there's no hard and fast rule that hardness corresponds to all-season/summer tires, I don't think that there's any hard and fast rule that an all-season tire has to have worse wet traction than a corresponding three-season tire in the same size. Technology is a wonderful thing. Tire manufacturers are making tires with multiple tread compounds in the same tire, including ones that increase wet traction as the tread (and grooves) wear. They might have "microtexturing" on the shoulders but not the center of the tread. There are all sorts of things that tire manufacturers are doing these days to improve the wet traction performance of all-season tires.

If you want to talk Europe, automakers are allowed to mandate that only certain replacement parts are used (and specified by brand and model), including tires. My manager (from Europe) tells me that he wouldn't be able to register his car if the tires/wheels don't match a manufacturer's approved list.

Auto-Union · Nov 26, 2006

I'm still waiting for the comprehensive list of "3-season" tires that have a wear rating of 500 or greater.

y_p_w · Nov 26, 2006

Quote:

I'm still waiting for the comprehensive list of "3-season" tires that have a wear rating of 500 or greater.

Treadwear rating the bluntest of all blunt tools. That being said, the highest I've seen in my tire size (205/55R16) is 380.

The difference between all-seasons and 3-seasons in the wet is probably less important than simple common sense when driving. We've had some moderate rain today, and there are reports of 90+ car crashes in the SF Bay Area mostly attributed to people driving to fast and too close to each other in wet conditions.

GC4lunch · Nov 26, 2006

Quote:

I doubt that the arguments about "all season" and "three season" apply to Mom, but you need to pony up and put a first class tire on Mom's Cougar.

My wife (and probably your mom too) does not care much about performance and would not appreciate the handling difference between "summer high performance" and "all season" tires anyway.

It's not about "handling"; it's about braking. On wet surfaces, all season tires take a longer distance to stop than three season tires do.

I think that any Mom will appreciate that if a jack-knifed truck is sideways in the road 100 feet ahead of her, a tire that stops in 98 feet will allow her vehicle to be at rest short of the truck, while one that takes 110 feet to stop will have her smashed into the truck. Its a pretty easy concept to appreciate.

GC4lunch · Nov 26, 2006

Quote:

The difference between all-seasons and 3-seasons in the wet is probably less important than simple common sense when driving. We've had some moderate rain today, and there are reports of 90+ car crashes in the SF Bay Area mostly attributed to people driving to fast and too close to each other in wet conditions.

I agree. It is also why I cringe when I see people equate wet traction with resistance to hydroplaning (riding the bow wave created from the water the tire pushes in front of it). Much too much is attributed to the myth that, with just the right artistic design of the tread pattern, a tire magically will grip a wet road. On any road with enough water on it that hydroplaning is an issue, a sensible driver slows .way down. The ability of any tire to "channel" more than a tiny bit of standing water on the roadway exists only in the fantasies of the copywriter at the advertising agency. Problem is, people read those ads and buy into the fantasy that tread design is a magic bullet that will allow them to drive at the same speeds on roads where the pavement is invisible through the standing water as they do on dry pavement.

Hydroplaning keeps the tire from contacting the pavement altogether, whereas wet traction is measure of friction when the tire does contact the pavement. The advantage of three season tires over all season tires in wet conditions is that a three season tire has better wet traction than an all season tire does.

Although the tires that have the best resistance to hydroplaning (such as the Goodyear Eagle GS-D3) happen to be three season tires with "aggressive" tread designs with large voids, in conditions when there is so much water on the road that .no tire of any type could have contact with the pavement, there can be no difference in wet traction between three season and all season tires. However, when the pavement is merely wet, not covered with standing water, the superior wet traction of a three season tire will stop the vehicle shorter than it would stop if fitted with all season tires.

CapriRacer · Nov 26, 2006

I have to step in here and correct a misconception about the physics of tire traction.

There exists a point at which the depth of the water, the tread on the tire and the vehicle speed, where the same physics that cause hydroplaning become a factor in traction. Note the tire has not yet lifted off the pavement, but the footprint is affected. Needless to say, the footprint can be affected very slightly, or to the point just short of completely lifting the tire off the pavement.

Most folks don't make the distinction between traction in the hydroplaning regime and traction when the road surface is just damp - e.g. no standing water. But if we are to discuss "wet traction" we have to consider all of these regimes and identify those as such.

That is why I take issue with Tire Rack's wet traction testing - the water depth is not enough to put the tire well away from "damp". Add some water depth and the results would be different and sometimes dramatically different.

Hope this helps.

y_p_w · Nov 26, 2006

Quote:

Although the tires that have the best resistance to hydroplaning (such as the Goodyear Eagle GS-D3) happen to be three season tires with "aggressive" tread designs with large voids, in conditions when there is so much water on the road that .no tire of any type could have contact with the pavement, there can be no difference in wet traction between three season and all season tires. However, when the pavement is merely wet, not covered with standing water, the superior wet traction of a three season tire will stop the vehicle shorter than it would stop if fitted with all season tires.

It it really a given that every 3-season tire (let's say in my 205/55R15 size) I could get today will stop better than any all-season tire? It doesn't sound as if that will necessarily be true. Tire manufacturers are doing all sorts of things with all-season tires (their biggest sellers in the US) and I think that someone has come up with an all-season tire that can outperform at least one tire marketed as "three season". It sounds like an overgeneralization, like saying a pickup truck can't beat a couple in a quarter-mile. There's got to be some example of an all-season tire that does outperform a particular 3-season tire in wet traction.

y_p_w · Nov 27, 2006

Quote:

That is why I take issue with Tire Rack's wet traction testing - the water depth is not enough to put the tire well away from "damp". Add some water depth and the results would be different and sometimes dramatically different.

Regardless of all this, I take issue with the way some of the Tire Rack's test results have been sliced and diced and selectively used. Many of their comparison tests in the same session seem to place one well-known marginally OK all-season tire (GY Eagle RS-A seems to be their choice) against three/four considerably better "summer" tires. They seem to use the same test car (2003 BMW 330Ci) for much of their testing, and here are some of their results on this car.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=52
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=47
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=56
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=54

Granted some of the results are from different sized tires on the same car, but they do have results of all-season tires outperforming 3-season tires in wet braking during different testing times. They have a Pirelli PZero Nero M+S slightly outperforming the Yokohama AVS ES100 and Dunlop SP Sport FM901 in 50-0 MPH wet braking, as well as three other 3-season tires tested on the same BMW. The AVS ES100 seems to be a staple of their comparison testing, and they seem to get different results each time they test it. From a practical point of view, some of their best braking numbers come from expensive tires that are known for low tread-life.

They also happened to get some impressively good wet braking numbers from the Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS Pole Position (225/45R17) tires on their 2006 325i.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/chartDisplay.jsp?ttid=72

toocrazy2yoo · Nov 27, 2006

Well, GC4Lunch, I'll still take real-world, real-driver testimony on the Sport A2Plus over your skidpads, stats, and figures from NHTSA, all of which can be bent around to any viewpoint YOU sir, wish to push. Three -season, 4 season, or twenty season, from the Mid-Atlantic on up to New England, or all the way to Florida, any weather, these are the best balance of quiet, durability, and uncompromised wet-weather performance I've driven on. Do I want to race them Paris to Drakkar? Nope! But for MY (and lots of others') driving habits, in a standard issue vehicle, in the world *I* drive in (again, the only world that matters), they're the best. And stick your price-range snobbie-ism somewhere, too. Price means nothing once you've met the size requirements, and you know it.

You behave as though you're scoring points throwing my quotes and your rebuttals up there, while conveniently ignoring that I never said the SportA2 Plus is the best tire in the make believe, hose-down-the-perfectly-paved-skidpad statistical world YOU dream and reside in, I deliberately (and now repeatedly) said in my post they were the best in the world for the world *I* (and lots of others, read Tire Racks' reviews) drive in for real. That would be exit ramps with a little oil, a little sudden spray, potholes, debris, things like that, that probably don't make it to the NHTSA skidpad for appraisal.

But then, even if they did, you'd find a way to bend it to your slavish devotion to skidpads and stats from NHTSA.

Enjoy your stats..

GC4lunch · Nov 27, 2006

Quote:

It it really a given that every 3-season tire (let's say in my 205/55R15 size) I could get today will stop better than any all-season tire?

Of course not, any more than we can say every all season tire brakes equally competently or that every three season tire brakes equally competently. Is it true that Dutch men are taller than Chinese men? Yes, if we are talking about mean height, median height, or modal height. But then there is Yao Ming, who plays center for the Houston Rockets.

Moreover, some all season tires are less "all season" than others. For instance, the Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge is sold as an all season tire, but it has a tread that has an all-season (hydrophilic) compound on one side and a three season (water-shedding) compound on the other side. That means that it gives up some snow traction compared to other all season tires but gains some wet traction compared to other all season tires. So is it "really" an all season tire or is it "really" a three season tire? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Quote:

Tire manufacturers are doing all sorts of things with all-season tires (their biggest sellers in the US) and I think that someone has come up with an all-season tire that can outperform at least one tire marketed as "three season". It sounds like an overgeneralization, like saying a pickup truck can't beat a couple in a quarter-mile. There's got to be some example of an all-season tire that does outperform a particular 3-season tire in wet traction.

See above. But .every aspect of .every tire design is a compromise. A tire designer who designs a tire for three seasons does not need to worry about making the tire grip on snow, but does worry about how well it will brake on wet pavement, so he (or she) adjusts those compromises accordingly. Now, tell the designer to make the same tire .also work in the snow, and he (or she) is going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Specifically, the tire will require a hydrophilic tread compound (to stick to the snow) that compromises the wet braking capability designed into the three season tire. It is a compromise that does not need to be made in the first instance and that does need to be made in the second instance, so ceteris paribus (as John Maynard Keynes used to write: it means, "all other parameters being equal") the three season tire will brake better than the all season tire.

GC4lunch · Nov 27, 2006

Quote:

Many of their comparison tests in the same session seem to place one well-known marginally OK all-season tire (GY Eagle RS-A seems to be their choice) against three/four considerably better "summer" tires. They seem to use the same test car (2003 BMW 330Ci) for much of their testing, and here are some of their results on this car.

Explanation: the Goodyear RS-A was selected by BMW as the OEM tire for the 330Ci in North America, so it makes a convenient benchmark.

Quote:

The AVS ES100 seems to be a staple of their comparison testing, and they seem to get different results each time they test it.

Although I find the Tire Rack user reviews completely worthless, Tire Rack's actual in-house tests are quite useful .provided the comparisons are limited to the specific test grouping and date.

Between tests, the testing personnel differ; the weather and temperature conditions at the outdoor testing facility differ; etc. So the same tire may test very differently in different test suites on different dates. But how the tire tests on a specific date with the personnel who are conduct the tests on that specific date is valid data.

y_p_w · Nov 27, 2006

Quote:

Quote:

It it really a given that every 3-season tire (let's say in my 205/55R15 size) I could get today will stop better than any all-season tire?

Click to expand...

Of course not, any more than we can say every all season tire brakes equally competently or that every three season tire brakes equally competently. Is it true that Dutch men are taller than Chinese men? Yes, if we are talking about mean height, median height, or modal height. But then there is Yao Ming, who plays center for the Houston Rockets.

Moreover, some all season tires are less "all season" than others. For instance, the Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge is sold as an all season tire, but it has a tread that has an all-season (hydrophilic) compound on one side and a three season (water-shedding) compound on the other side. That means that it gives up some snow traction compared to other all season tires but gains some wet traction compared to other all season tires. So is it "really" an all season tire or is it "really" a three season tire? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS seems to benefit from a lot of advanced design. They got it to post an incredible wet stopping distance as well as some reasonably impressive performance(different size though) for an "all-season" tire on ice. They rated it rather close to a dedicated winter tire.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=80

Quote:

Quote:

Tire manufacturers are doing all sorts of things with all-season tires (their biggest sellers in the US) and I think that someone has come up with an all-season tire that can outperform at least one tire marketed as "three season". It sounds like an overgeneralization, like saying a pickup truck can't beat a couple in a quarter-mile. There's got to be some example of an all-season tire that does outperform a particular 3-season tire in wet traction.

Click to expand...

See above. But .every aspect of .every tire design is a compromise. A tire designer who designs a tire for three seasons does not need to worry about making the tire grip on snow, but does worry about how well it will brake on wet pavement, so he (or she) adjusts those compromises accordingly. Now, tell the designer to make the same tire .also work in the snow, and he (or she) is going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Specifically, the tire will require a hydrophilic tread compound (to stick to the snow) that compromises the wet braking capability designed into the three season tire. It is a compromise that does not need to be made in the first instance and that does need to be made in the second instance, so ceteris paribus (as John Maynard Keynes used to write: it means, "all other parameters being equal") the three season tire will brake better than the all season tire.

Of course the best overall wet traction is going to come from some super-sticky low-life racing tire. There are certain compromises people put up with because of cost and convenience. In addition, I've already talked about "multiple tread compounds in the same tire" that are used for a combination of wet and snow traction in different areas of the tread. There are some tires that don't make as much a compromise as you imply there has to be (the RE960AS for example) yet seem to perform acceptably in moderate winter conditions. The folks at the tire manufacturers seem to be working hard devloping new technologies that make an all-season tire acceptable.

Honestly - if I lived in some place like Minnesota, I'd probably be using a good all-season tire up to light snow followed by an dedicated winter tire.

y_p_w · Nov 27, 2006

Quote:

Between tests, the testing personnel differ; the weather and temperature conditions at the outdoor testing facility differ; etc. So the same tire may test very differently in different test suites on different dates. But how the tire tests on a specific date with the personnel who are conduct the tests on that specific date is valid data.

I can understand that. However - there are a few all-season tires that have consistently done well and in fact better than some 3-season tires. You can't simply attribute that to when and who did the test. You can also get manufacturing variations in the tires themselves. It's not that big a compromise in wet braking with some of the better all-season tires. I do get the feeling that you don't want these all-seasons in deep snow, but there are practical reasons why one might go with a particular tire that carries the M+S rating.

toocrazy2yoo · Nov 27, 2006

Quote:

Although I find the Tire Rack user reviews completely worthless,

Of course you do...

GC4lunch · Nov 27, 2006

Quote:

Of course the best overall wet traction is going to come from some super-sticky low-life racing tire. There are certain compromises people put up with because of cost and convenience.

Actually, the super-sticky low-life racing tires are slicks, and tend to do poorly under wet conditions. The best overall wet traction comes from "conventional" (and not especially expensive) three season tires like the Dunlop SP Sport 01, which are excellent in the wet, excellent in the dry, and which have reasonable tread life. Nothing exotic, just not compromised for the specific purpose of making the tire mildly snow-capable.

Quote:

In addition, I've already talked about "multiple tread compounds in the same tire" that are used for a combination of wet and snow traction in different areas of the tread.

I think you previously have referred to the tires that are layered, like the Bridgestone Blizzaks, so that as they wear, they transform from winter tires to all season tires. The striped-not-layered treads, such as in the Michelin Pilot A/S and the Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge, are a new phenomenon, but, OTOH, not a new phenomenon in that they are just another point on the spectrum of compromise. One could argue that they are not "really" all season tires, because half of the tread does not have an all season tread compound, but then it becomes a matter of semantics.

Quote:

There are some tires that don't make as much a compromise as you imply there has to be (the RE960AS for example) yet seem to perform acceptably in moderate winter conditions. The folks at the tire manufacturers seem to be working hard devloping new technologies that make an all-season tire acceptable.

There are a lot of dollars to be made there, as P.T. Barnum proved.

Hercules vs Falken vs Kumho

Similar threads