Hercules vs Falken vs Kumho

[Auto-Union]

Last data I saw on all-season vs snows in snow was not even actually a comparison. I simply noticed all-seasons accelerated to 30mph only one or two tenths slower than snow tires. It's on Tire Racks winter circular. believe me, GC4lunch, the all-season tire is not going away, despite your insistance. Not even everyone with all-season tires even wants to drive in snow, they watch the forecast and just stay home. Not everyone needs snow tires to go around a few times with snow on the ground either. I've had mounted snows sitting around he all winter, and not even bother to bolt them on. They are just not needed and prefer the way my all-season tires perform, like Conti Extremes on my Audi, the 95% of winter when there is not snow on the roads.

I aquired a spare set of wheels for my RSX incase I wanted some snows or smaller 15 inch all-seasons. I really could not imagine getting snows for that car, it's just not right.

If I wanted to drive in snow a lot, I'd get a second car suited just for that.

 

[televascular]

Going back the the original post, the definitive way to determine tread life is to go to the Tire Rack, pick out the tires you want, and look up their UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grade)on their site. The higher the number, the longer the treadlife, as determined by standardized federal testing.

 

[rjundi]

Quote:

---

Going back the the original post, the definitive way to determine tread life is to go to the Tire Rack, pick out the tires you want, and look up their UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grade)on their site. The higher the number, the longer the treadlife, as determined by standardized federal testing.

---

The UTQG # is only meaningful amongst a manufacturer's tires. You cannot apply across tires makers as there testing technique varies and there # means something quite drastically different.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

Not even everyone with all-season tires even wants to drive in snow, they watch the forecast and just stay home.

---

Although I find the decision to stay home when it snows very sensible (that is what I do myself), it takes away 100 percent of the rationale for purchasing an all-season tire. The only reason to get an all-season tire is for snow traction, and, as exchange for that gain, one pays with a significant reduction in wet traction. If one is not going to use the snow traction, why sacrifice the wet traction?

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

The UTQG # is only meaningful amongst a manufacturer's tires. You cannot apply across tires makers as there testing technique varies and there # means something quite drastically different.

---

Actually, the testing procedure is governed by a NHTSA regulation, so the "technique" is the same from tire company to tire company. However, you are circling around a valid point that the testing is unsupervised and the reporting by the tire companies is not subject to independent verification, so some companies may be more punctilious than others.

 

[Auto-Union]

"Signifigant reduction in wet traction". I'll just let that statement speak for itself. fwiw, it's worth considering how well a tire wears while comparing wet performance. Say, a year later, those super-soft "performance" tires are worn past the half-way mark and the comparable all-seasons still retain MORE than half their tread. (take SP5000 and SP9000, for instance. Hard to say SP5000 has a wet braking "problem", lol) So, at that point in time mom would have like 6 or 7/32nds rather than 3 or 4/32nds. I think she can handle the supposed wet braking penalty better than completely loosing control of her car at highway speed from hydroplaning. Every other old coot on the road is on generic all-seasons anyway.
Oh, so my point for even posting again is to tell people who are looking for good wear rating with great grip and hydroplaining resistance should definately look at Yokohama TRZ. Wear is 700 and they really work great in the wet on the wife's CRV. I'd consider using them on my light RSX in a "performance" application ...but someone would probally start lecturing me about speed ratings and the like.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

"Signifigant reduction in wet traction". I'll just let that statement speak for itself.

---

Actually, I wrote, "significant reduction in wet traction." And the reduction in wet traction

is the reason why mounting all-season tires is illegal in much of the world.

Quote:

---

I think she can handle the supposed wet braking penalty better than completely loosing control of her car at highway speed from hydroplaning.

---

Hydroplaning is basically a speed problem. Reducing speed will make a tire that rates poorly in hydroplaning resistance behave better than a better tire at the higher speed. Hydroplaning is also basically a problem only for front-mounted tires, as the rear tires run in the track already cleared by the fronts. For maintaining control while stopping, the rear tires play an important braking role. Finally, tread designs have no effect on hydroplaning except when there is standing (or flowing) water on the roadway: a tread cannot displace water that is not free to be moved. The problem with all-season tires is their low coefficient of friction with the wet pavement due to their inherent (and designed-in) tendency to keep a film of water on the surface of the tread (to allow adhesion to snow), which film acts as a lubricant when braking on wet pavement.

Quote:

---

Oh, so my point for even posting again is to tell people who are looking for good wear rating with great grip and hydroplaining resistance should definately look at Yokohama TRZ. Wear is 700 and they really work great in the wet on the wife's CRV.

---

Yokohama, a Japanese company, makes some excellent tires, but Yokohama is prohibited from selling the AVID TRZ in its home country. Does that not give you pause?

Quote:

---

I'd consider using them on my light RSX in a "performance" application ...but someone would probally start lecturing me about speed ratings and the like.

---

The speed ratings have nothing to do with how a tire handles; effectively the same as the UTQG Temperature rating, the speed rating indicates how well a tire dissipates internally generated heat.

 

[Auto-Union]

Yawn.

 

[Auto-Union]

You missed a lil something:

"a year later, those super-soft "performance" tires are worn past the half-way mark and the comparable all-seasons still retain MORE than half their tread. (take SP5000 and SP9000, for instance. Hard to say SP5000 has a wet braking "problem", lol) So, at that point in time mom would have like 6 or 7/32nds rather than 3 or 4/32nds. I think she can handle the supposed wet braking penalty better than completely loosing control of her car at highway speed from hydroplaning."

So yeah....bald performance tires in winter...way to go.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

You missed a lil something:

"a year later, those super-soft "performance" tires are worn past the half-way mark and the comparable all-seasons still retain MORE than half their tread. (take SP5000 and SP9000, for instance. Hard to say SP5000 has a wet braking "problem", lol) So, at that point in time mom would have like 6 or 7/32nds rather than 3 or 4/32nds. I think she can handle the supposed wet braking penalty better than completely loosing control of her car at highway speed from hydroplaning."

So yeah....bald performance tires in winter...way to go.

---

You must have missed the earlier message where I addressed your misconception.

Maintenance is a continuing obligation of every vehicle owner. When a headlight bulb goes out, it must be replaced; when the brake pads are gone, they must be replaced. Tires are a maintenance category: when they are bald, they must be replaced; this is equally true for all-season tires as for three-season tires. You are knocking down a straw man of your own construction.

The terms "performance tires" and "super-soft" are other straw men that you have invented. My discussion has been on the relative merits and demerits of three-season tires vs. all-season tires. Purely from the standpoint of treadwear, there are some very long-wearing three-season tires, and those long-wearing tires certainly cannot be regarded as either super-soft or as performance tires by any stretch of the imagination.

The very great majority of highways and city streets are crowned (higher in the center, lower at the sides) so that water will run away from the driving lanes and into the gutters. Except for the time that rain is actually falling, there is no standing water on the pavement, and within seconds after the rain has stopped, the pavement, though remaining wet, is clear of flowing water. (Moreover, even while the rain is falling, the rear tires of a moving vehicle are usually running on merely wet pavement where the front tires already have displaced all of the water that can be displaced.)

As discussed in an earlier post, tread depth is totally irrelevant except in cases where water is free to be displaced; on merely wet surfaces, where there is no standing or flowing water, tread depth gains you nothing whatsoever.

On wet surfaces where there is no standing or flowing water, a typical three-season tire will exhibit a higher coefficient of friction with the pavement surface than an all-season tire will, and this is true regardless one of the tires has great tread depth and the other has little tread depth.

 

[Auto-Union]

So, in short: A "summer" tire that wears twice as fast is better than an all-season tire with more tread depth for someone's mom driving in Canada. Brilliant, I don't know how someone could disagree with that.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

So, in short: A "summer" tire that wears twice as fast is better than an all-season tire with more tread depth for someone's mom driving in Canada. Brilliant, I don't know how someone could disagree with that.

---

Again, you are arguing with yourself. For the third time, this is not a discussion of high-treadlife tires vs. low-treadlife tires; it is a discussion of three-season tires vs. all-season tires. Three-season tires do not necessarily have lesser treadlife than all-season tires; there are low- and high-treadlife examples of both types. Your repeated harping on treadlife (which, generally, is inversely related to a tire's coefficient of friction in any event) is a red herring.

Assume two tires, one three-season, one all-season, with equal treadlife. On wet surfaces (and on dry surfaces), the three-season tire will have better traction; in light snow, the all-season will have better traction. (In heavy snow, both types of tire are effectively useless.) In Toronto, where the streets are quickly cleared after a snowfall, there will be many more miles of driving on wet streets than there will be on light snow covered streets. And, when there is light snow on the streets, the driving speeds are likely to be much slower than the driving speeds on merely wet streets. Therefore, for safe braking, the three-season tire is a better choice.

 

[Auto-Union]

"when there is light snow on the streets, the driving speeds are likely to be much slower than the driving speeds on merely wet streets. Therefore, for safe braking, the three-season tire is a better choice."


"Likely"? You assume much. A summer tires is better becuase you "likely" will be driving slower when it is at it's worst. That's rich. You are also equating the snow traction between all-seasons which have snow capabilities engineered into them and summer tires. Hmm. Sorry, I have to excuse myself from this sillyness. I'll keep my family on all-seasons, thanks for the tourtured logic lesson.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

You are also equating the snow traction between all-seasons which have snow capabilities engineered into them and summer tires. Hmm. Sorry, I have to excuse myself from this sillyness. I'll keep my family on all-seasons, thanks for the tourtured logic lesson.

---

Let's see. I wrote (emphasis added):

Quote:

---

On wet surfaces (and on dry surfaces), the three-season tire will have better traction; in light snow, the all-season will have better traction.

---

And you wrote (emphasis added):

Quote:

---

You are also equating the snow traction between all-seasons which have snow capabilities engineered into them and summer tires.

---

To whose "tortured logic" are you alluding?

 

[Auto-Union]

"for safe braking, the three-season tire is a better choice"

"Three-season tires do not necessarily have lesser treadlife than all-season tires"

"In heavy snow, both types of tire are effectively useless"

Why then do they call them "three" season tires?

You still are ignoring the COLD-wet issue.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

"for safe braking, the three-season tire is a better choice"

"Three-season tires do not necessarily have lesser treadlife than all-season tires"

"In heavy snow, both types of tire are effectively useless"

Why then do they call them "three" season tires?

You still are ignoring the COLD-wet issue.

---

All of the quotations from my previous posts that you have listed above are both true and verifiable (though the first one is out of context).

Non all-season tires are called three-season tires because (as I stated in another post, but you did not quote) they are all but useless in snow. Their tread compounds have been designed to shed moisture, which aids traction on wet pavement, but which prevents traction on snow, unlike all-season tires, the tread compounds of which have been designed to retain moisture, which aids traction on snow, but which is a significant detriment to traction on wet pavement.

If I lived in Portland, Oregon, which, as it happens, I do, where we have >100 days a year with wet pavement (and most motorists hardly reduce highways speeds at all in the wet), I would -- and do -- leave my vehicle in the garage and not drive at all on the two or three days a year (some years, it is zero days) that we have snow in the city. I have a set of "chains" (actually made of some sort of fabric) that I keep in the trunk in case I am caught out, away from home, when snow starts. On the rare occasions I have had to use them (over my three-season tires), I have driven at a greatly reduced speed, and only to a safe place to garage my car.

If I lived in Toronto, as the original poster's mother does, where the streets are plowed clear soon after the snowfall stops, I quite probably would follow the same practice there that I do in Portland.

If I lived in a place where I would anticipate any significant amount (more than ten days per year) of driving on snow, then I would change over annually to real winter tires for the duration of the season when snow might threaten.

Quote:

---

The all-season tire is therefore a poor compromise, and is neither a good summer tire, nor a good winter tire.
http://www.thetiresguide.com/

---

(The site quoted above points out that there are some summer tires that truly are dry conditions only tires, not three-season tires. I do not disagree with that: the BFGoodrich TA/KD (KD stands for "killer dry") is an example. But the fact remains: on wet -- not snowy -- surfaces, all of the best-braking tires in the world are either three-season tires or summer tires, not all-season tires, because the all-season tires start out from the deep hole of the tread retaining moisture and thus placing a lubricating film of water between the tread and the pavement.)

And as for "cold and wet," the only difference between that and "warm and wet" is whether the tire remains flexible or gets hard at low temperatures. In that regard, a tire with a softer rubber generally will retain greater flexibility in the cold than a tire with a harder rubber, and so there is (an imprecise, but general) inverse relationship between cold performance and treadwear. For the same reason, almost all true winter tires have soft, low treadlife, tread compounds; and if you want good "cold and wet" braking, you do not want a high treadlife tire.

 

[Auto-Union]

Can you show me some "three-season" (or whatever you call summer or hi-perf tires, I call them "rain" tires if they have a tread) that have a treadwear of 500 or even 700 like all-seasons do? I think I know of one, but will let you have the pleasure.

 

[Auto-Union]

fwiw, I'm getting good cold/wet with the Yoko TRZs, treadwear rating of 700. The performance envelope, pictured on a graph of X-axis being: and the Y being: ...the entire area denoted becomes larger with newer materials and technologies. I feel the most gain overall is with a tire system designed and constructed for the most conditions, overall.

 

[peterr]

I think this has already gone a little bit

and it isn't really a debate since the posters are really talking about two different things, so let me add a third.

The whole term "snow tire" is a misnomer in most cases and the performance of tires in snow is not the main issue in winter tire performance. It is cold performance. The main limitation of all season tires or summer performance tire in winter conditions is not tread, it is the performance of the rubber compound or compounds at low temperatures.

The economics or the logistics or convenience may not make seasonal tire changes worthwhile for every driver or vehicle, there is no arguing with the fact that a set of summer (or three season) tires and a separate set of winter tires offers best performance under all conditions. If you really are plowing through deep snow, you might want a real snow tire, but the main reason for winter tires is proper adhesion to cold and possibly icy pavement in cold ambient temperatures. It is the rubber compound.

If you are concerned about wet performance, one of the biggest limitations of all season tires is adhesion in cold, wet circumstances.

At the moment I have three cars on three different tires. My main three season car - just being put away this weekend - is on Toyo Proxes high performance tires. You can feel these start to lose it when you get down around 40 degrees.

I will be bringing out my winter car, a front wheel drive Mazda which only sees use in the November to April timeframe, so permanently has Toyo Garit winter tires. They are kinda squirmy above 50 degrees or so Farenheit, but they stick in the cold.

The wagon queen family truckster has all seasons on it, because it is three months old and that is what came with it. If I ever had to put new rubber on it it would two sets of seasonally appropriate tires.

And I do live in Toronto. If you think that all season tires are any match for proper winter tires in cold conditions you should try some winter excursions in a rear wheel drive Porsche with proper winter tires, blowing by all the 4 wheel drive SUVs in the ditch on their long lasting all season rubber.

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

Well, I gotta weigh in here, at least where econo-boxes go. 4-door Hyunda Elantra (Sedan, 3000 lbs.), in the 280K I drove the car, I had Michelins, Lazers, Dunlop SP, and GoodYear tires. Went with the 65-85.00 tire in every instance. Some I bought from Costco, some from GoodYear (obviously). A half year or so before I traded the car, I put some Dunlop Sport A2 Plus on the car, drove it another 20,000 miles. Mix of rain, snow, long haul interstate up and down the east coast, city, and suburban driving. Auto Union is correct, they were the best real world tires I've EVER driven on. I dunno from skid pads, tracks, NHTSA un-rreal-world testing, or GC4's bias away from all season tires, 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, AND especially, how sticky they were on rain-soaked exit ramps that had all others hanging on for dear life. And, in a foot of Boston snow last winter, the Sport A2's on my car were the equal or greater than my cousin's Blizzax tires on her Accord. The tires, in MY real-world testing (the only world that counts) were unmatched by any other tire I've ridden on. Is there some other tire that performs better on a wet race track or skid pad? Maybe, but like Union said, we're talking balance here.

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. 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. 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.

Now if you're going to split hairs, and twist and cherry pick the results of this testing by NHTSA, ala' GC4lunch, feel free.

Real-World, Benny, if you haven't already bought tires for Ma's Cougar, you can't do any better than the Sport A2 Plus in a BALANCED application. Of course "someone" will come along that had a bubble, or a flat, or some other problem that may have had something more to do with the car than the tires, but for my money, A2 Plus is the tire. And, at 20K miles, I hadn't made a dent in the treadwear department.

Good call, Union..