Do lower speed rated tires...

[CharBaby]

...necessarily ride better than their own higher speed rated brethren?

Since I just bought 4 Pirelli Cinturato P7 A/S+, I'll use them as the reference.
Or my current Michelin Primacy MXV4 in "T" "H" or "V" speed ratings but, not in all sizes.

The reason that I ask is because, I have had/have e.g., "V" speed rated tires that are actually the best riding/quietest tires I've ever owned. And also currently and in the past, have had "T" speed rated tires(not bad riding nor loud) that really handle and held the road quite well compared to some/certain "V" speed rated tires.

I do understand that speed rating isn't only about handling/cornering or high speeds. But, about other factors as well(IDK all of the factors at play).

However, said Michelin Primacy MXV4 are among the(not worst) but, least good handling tire I've owned also.
And I've had some "T" speed rated tires that were among the best overall tires I've ever owned.

Any Comments?

 

[Cujet]

As a very general rule, tires that ride well have noticeably soft sidewalls and are more compliant in general.

While a tire's temperature and speed rating are different and seem to be mutually exclusive, it's pretty obvious in the performance tire world that tires with a high speed rating are able to perform under great stress without catastrophic heat buildup. As any racer knows, tires grip best at the proper temperature. For handling this generally requires a stiffer carcass and higher quality construction.

Many people are unwilling to change tire pressure to manage handling characteristics. Your Michelin tires have soft sidewalls and to some extent will require higher pressure to handle well. I've found that mine need about 45 PSI to "feel" right. Far above the 35 PSI the car requires. And of course, a higher pressure may result in far lower temperatures. Whether that's good or bad depends on the tire in question, the tread compound and the driving style along with the weight of the vehicle in relation to the tire size.

I had a Honda S2000, a fairly light car with big tires. I hated the harshness of some performance tires on that car and started actively looking for performance tires with soft sidewalls. It made a huge difference. Yes, "turn-in" suffered with softer sidewalls. But 3 extra PSI solved that, without introducing the harshness of a tire with ultra stiff sidewalls.

 

[zeng]

No, according to your post titles .
Anyway, you answered the above within post .

Note: Not smart enough to understand your other question, if any .

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted by zeng
No, according to your post titles .
Anyway, you answered the above within post .

Note: Not smart enough to understand your other question, if any .


Oh, you did fine. You're smart!

I may have made this a bit confusing anyway!

Yeah, I guess I did sort of answer my own question. However, I was speaking more along the lines of same model pf tire but, with different speed ratings. Even though I did mention different speed ratings from one brand to another.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Cujet already did a great explanation.

I believe there are simply too many variables. I have had excellent handling and response from bias ply tires in the old daze. I have had IMO much better response from modern radials. Some were very good at braking, some turning, others were good in the wet. I'm sure some had good snow manners that I would never get to feel. Everything from weight to rim size to car type to... almost anything! All of it affects both the real performance envelope and the perceived one.

 

[CapriRacer]

I'm going to expand on what Cujet wrote:

First, what controls ride harshness (mostly) is the stiffness of the sidewall. Generally we are talking about the bead filler - a stiff rubber insert above the bead bundle. What gets sacrificed is steering crispness - what is generally referred to as "Handling".

What controls the speed rating (mostly) is cap plies - the more cap plies, the higher the speed rating. Cap plies are circumferential cords place over the steel belts (which are at about a 15° angle, one angle left, one angle right).

Notice that these 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

So it is possible to have a harsh riding, but low speed rated tire - and a cushy riding, high speed rated tire.

HOWEVER, most vehicles with high speed capability are also desired to handle good. So not only is grip emphasized (and treadwear and rolling resistance sacrificed), but the ride softness is also sacrificed.

By contrast, vehicles on the other end of the spectrum - the ubiquitous 4 door sedan - not only doesn't need high speed rated tires, but ride harshness is not desired, so handling gets sacrificed.

In other words, there is a trend that low speed rated tires ride soft, but don't handle well, and that high speed rated tires handle well, but don't ride softly. But it isn't always true and there are enough exceptions to make this relationship barely true.

Now I want to talk about heat generation.

It is true that the faster one goes, the more heat is generated in the tires. However, the more cap plies, the stiffer the tread and less heat is generated - to the point that even at higher speeds, the same tread compound can be used as on a lower speed rated tire. (Please note: What I am trying to say is that it is only at the extremes where a high speed rated tire needs to have a tread compound that generates less heat.)

Most folks have seen me talk about the technology triangle for tread compounds involving treadwear, traction (especially wet traction), and rolling resistance - that if one property is emphasized the others are compromised. (I'll talk about the exception in a moment.)

Rolling resistance is about heat generation - the technical term is Hysteresis. So tread compounds that wear well and tread compounds that grip well generally generate the same amount of heat. It's the tires with low rolling resistance that don't generate as much heat.

The only place you see truly low rolling resistance tires is OE - the tires that come on new cars from the vehicle assembly plant.

Please note: Tires labeled LRR generally aren't actually low in rolling resistance. The term is used for tires that have lower RR compared to tires with comparable treadwear and traction properties. So it is not uncommon for LRR tires with have RR values HIGHER than some tires not so labeled!

And this brings up the exception I mentioned above. There are things that can be done to a tread compound that will change the 3 way treadwear/traction/RR relationship. However, that kind of change is small compared to how wide the difference between a tire with truly low RR and one that wears extremely well (or grips extremely well)

The most common change in tread compounds is the addition of silica (Yes, a form of sand!) Interestingly, the replacement of carbon black with silica results in improved wet traction - BUT - the way this is usually done is to adjust the mix so the improved RR comes out. (Note: There is an upper limit to how much silica you can add to a tread compound before you adversely affect other properties, such a tear resistance - which affects tread chunking.)

So to answer Char Baby's question: Higher speed rated tires don't necessarily ride worse, but they do often enough that it is almost a rule of thumb.

 

[DrDanger]

A tire place guy once said to me- H rated are better wearing,V better handling, but quicker wearing.
In the EU a few same model tyres seem to have a better fuel economy sticker with the H rating - like Nexen Nblue HD's, suggesting its all to do with a slightly tweaked compound, allowing V's a better handling, possibly slightly softer compound and H to be longer wearing, possibly slightly more fuel efficient. Just a theory.
How it all runs on your car, well there are a few more things involved.

 

[NO2]

Higher speed rated tires have stiffer sidewalls in general, so they handle better. But there are some nuances, such as how well the tire handles bumps and the noise it makes. Most importantly (for safety) is traction, especially in wet, snowy, and icy surfaces. Lower profile tires are more prone to rim damage too if you hit a pothole.

Wear varies a lot. V rated tires such as the Continental PureContact LS go 90K, according to CR. Others are 40K. There is too much variation. Tires that have different speed ratings, such as the General Altimax RT43, have slightly lower wear ratings as they progress from T to V.

There is no 'best' , just the compromise that works for you and your vehicle.

 

[Cressida]

Everyone, regarding the stiffness of the sidewall and how that contributes to whether a tire tends to handle well / harsh riding vs. more a comfort highway cruiser.

I just had a family member split the sidewall (and destroy the tire) by running into the curb in a parking lot. This was on a pretty high end tire ("H" speed rated - 205/60/r16) that seemed to have a stiff sidewall. I somewhat assumed that a stiffer sidewall would also mean a stronger sidewall. Is there any correlation between the sidewall stiffness and the strength of that sidewall for typical passenger tires in "T" or "H" ratings - or is that something that one should not try and relate when purchasing tires ?

If I remember correctly CapriRacer has told us that the number of plies in the sidewall does not always equate to more strength; meaning that a single sidewall ply can be as strong or stronger than a double ply. It does get confusing.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by Cressida
Everyone, regarding the stiffness of the sidewall and how that contributes to whether a tire tends to handle well / harsh riding vs. more a comfort highway cruiser. ….

Before I start, I want everyone who reads this to understand the concept of "all other things being equal". When I am talking about sidewall stiffness and sidewall strength, it is easy to forget that the sidewall height should be the same.

Originally Posted by Cressida
…….. I just had a family member split the sidewall (and destroy the tire) by running into the curb in a parking lot. This was on a pretty high end tire ("H" speed rated - 205/60/r16) that seemed to have a stiff sidewall. I somewhat assumed that a stiffer sidewall would also mean a stronger sidewall. Is there any correlation between the sidewall stiffness and the strength of that sidewall for typical passenger tires in "T" or "H" ratings - or is that something that one should not try and relate when purchasing tires ? …..


First, what caused the tire to fail was that the tire couldn't absorb the ENERGY. Energy is force times distance. (Yeah, yeah, I know that isn't correct but follow along with me on this.)

So a sidewall that deflects more is more likely to survive an impact with a curb - all other things being equal.

What actually causes the failure is when the tire "bottoms out" - that is the insides of the tire touch - and a tall filler will cause that to happen at a shorter distance.

Plus, most sidewall stiffness is NOT the result of more strength. It's the result of the height of the bead filler - a wedge of rubber just on top of the bead. That filler generally doesn't extend all the way to the belts under the tread, but it can be very short (or even not there!) and yet the strength of the sidewall is the same.

Ergo, a tire with a tall filler is more likely to suffer an impact failure that one with a short filler.

Originally Posted by Cressida
….. If I remember correctly CapriRacer has told us that the number of plies in the sidewall does not always equate to more strength; meaning that a single sidewall ply can be as strong or stronger than a double ply. It does get confusing.


Yes, it is confusing. A weak ply times 2 could be less strong than a strong ply times 1. And yes, that is possible with today's polyester.

But again, the problem here is energy absorption.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by CapriRacer
I'm going to expand on what Cujet wrote:

First, what controls ride harshness (mostly) is the stiffness of the sidewall. Generally we are talking about the bead filler - a stiff rubber insert above the bead bundle. What gets sacrificed is steering crispness - what is generally referred to as "Handling".

What controls the speed rating (mostly) is cap plies - the more cap plies, the higher the speed rating. Cap plies are circumferential cords place over the steel belts (which are at about a 15° angle, one angle left, one angle right).

Notice that these 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

So it is possible to have a harsh riding, but low speed rated tire - and a cushy riding, high speed rated tire.

HOWEVER, most vehicles with high speed capability are also desired to handle good. So not only is grip emphasized (and treadwear and rolling resistance sacrificed), but the ride softness is also sacrificed.

By contrast, vehicles on the other end of the spectrum - the ubiquitous 4 door sedan - not only doesn't need high speed rated tires, but ride harshness is not desired, so handling gets sacrificed.

In other words, there is a trend that low speed rated tires ride soft, but don't handle well, and that high speed rated tires handle well, but don't ride softly. But it isn't always true and there are enough exceptions to make this relationship barely true.

Now I want to talk about heat generation.

It is true that the faster one goes, the more heat is generated in the tires. However, the more cap plies, the stiffer the tread and less heat is generated - to the point that even at higher speeds, the same tread compound can be used as on a lower speed rated tire. (Please note: What I am trying to say is that it is only at the extremes where a high speed rated tire needs to have a tread compound that generates less heat.)

Most folks have seen me talk about the technology triangle for tread compounds involving treadwear, traction (especially wet traction), and rolling resistance - that if one property is emphasized the others are compromised. (I'll talk about the exception in a moment.)

Rolling resistance is about heat generation - the technical term is Hysteresis. So tread compounds that wear well and tread compounds that grip well generally generate the same amount of heat. It's the tires with low rolling resistance that don't generate as much heat.

The only place you see truly low rolling resistance tires is OE - the tires that come on new cars from the vehicle assembly plant.

Please note: Tires labeled LRR generally aren't actually low in rolling resistance. The term is used for tires that have lower RR compared to tires with comparable treadwear and traction properties. So it is not uncommon for LRR tires with have RR values HIGHER than some tires not so labeled!

And this brings up the exception I mentioned above. There are things that can be done to a tread compound that will change the 3 way treadwear/traction/RR relationship. However, that kind of change is small compared to how wide the difference between a tire with truly low RR and one that wears extremely well (or grips extremely well)

The most common change in tread compounds is the addition of silica (Yes, a form of sand!) Interestingly, the replacement of carbon black with silica results in improved wet traction - BUT - the way this is usually done is to adjust the mix so the improved RR comes out. (Note: There is an upper limit to how much silica you can add to a tread compound before you adversely affect other properties, such a tear resistance - which affects tread chunking.)

So to answer Char Baby's question: Higher speed rated tires don't necessarily ride worse, but they do often enough that it is almost a rule of thumb.


+1

 

[CharBaby]

For my Altima, I am looking for the "cushy(er) riding V speed rated tire. Not that I think a 4 cyl Altima needs a V speed rated tire but this is how the car came OE from the factory and door jamb placard states this.

In order to have tires installed in my area(I don't install tires myself), it is difficult to find a tire store/shop/installer to put on tires of a lesser speed rating unless maybe, taking in the wheels & tires separately which is not often the case.

So, I stayed with V speed rated tires when I bought new tires(Pirelli Cint P7 A/S+). They were a closeout price so this worked out for me and less expensive than any rebate would have been otherwise. The P7 have a pretty decent ride quality as experienced with my daughters previous Mazda3.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by Char Baby
For my Altima, I am looking for the "cushy(er) riding V speed rated tire. Not that I think a 4 cyl Altima needs a V speed rated tire but this is how the car came OE from the factory and door jamb placard states this.

In order to have tires installed in my area(I don't install tires myself), it is difficult to find a tire store/shop/installer to put on tires of a lesser speed rating unless maybe, taking in the wheels & tires separately which is not often the case.

So, I stayed with V speed rated tires when I bought new tires(Pirelli Cint P7 A/S+). They were a closeout price so this worked out for me and less expensive than any rebate would have been otherwise. The P7 have a pretty decent ride quality as experienced with my daughters previous Mazda3.


To try to help folks understand how to select tires with good ride (as opposite to tires with good handling), stick to the all-season aisle. Because of the sizes involved, most tires sized for sedans will be better riding that tires sized for sports cars -which will be a different size and be summer tires.

Will there be differences between makes and models within a category? Sure, but no more so than any other category even at the low end.

 

[CharBaby]

Thank you CarpiRacer.

 

[CNT]

Originally Posted by internet
As expected from a grand-touring tire, the Tiger Paw Touring has high levels of traction in dry conditions. It also provides the driver with ample grip in the corners at higher speeds, and with excellent braking performance. High-speed stability is also very good - driving at 70mph feels completely safe.


I have 4 brand new Uniroyal Tiger Paw Touring (pictured below). To me, those are "Cadillac of Tires" (isn't it, or this is going to start a tire war)? What I really meaning is when it comes to Cadillacs (actually, the 'ol days, prior before they starting to be SUV and trucks), first thing is Tiger Paw tires. My father was Cadillac guy (he had nice ones), all of 'em had Tiger Paw tires (so I am bias there). Anyway, reading through this thread, I wonder/curious where Tiger Paw tires range... high speed, softer sides, etc?

What is 96H ?
What is M + S ?

 

[krzyss]

Read this and report back with questions about:

"What is 96H ?
What is M + S ?"

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=33

Krzys

 

[CNT]

Quote
What is 96H ?

96 = 1,565lbs capacity. I never was made aware of that.
H = 130 mph... Sport Sedans & Coupes. That is great news for me. My average speed is 80MPH, so I am all set then! I see that "H" speed is spelled out by the label, but didn't realize it's by that code too.

Quote
What is M + S ?

Originally Posted by internet
What's the difference in snow traction between M+S (Mud and Snow)… it can be the difference between getting to work, getting home or getting stuck.
The original definition of M+S (Mud and Snow) tires is based on the geometry of the tread design and requires no actual performance standard to achieve.
So, it means nothing?

That's really a start for me! I will explore some more on writings on the tires. Thanks for the link (bookmarked)!

I just had several experience with varies tires (not as much as you guys). Just me, I had bad experience with BFGoodrich (bad for wet), Firestone, and Michelin (both wet and dry). Good experience were Goodyear, Road Runner, and Cooper. Probably the best experience would be Pirelli (used with 45PSI all year). Now, it's going to be a test on Tiger Paw (good memories with my Dad's Cadillacs, including he even tow boats with it, it had electronic air shocks).