LRR tires recommendations for my 2017 Elantra SE?

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: flinter
CapriRacer,

Thanks, but isnt the OEM tires on my 2017, the Kumho Solus TA31, considering mediocre at best?? They appear towards the bottom of Tire Rack's rating in the Grand Touring category. I am looking at the Pirelli Cinturato P7 Plus. This tire appears to be superior in almost very category to my OEM Kumho tires. My second choice is the General Altimax RT43.


Looking at the Tire Rack ratings, the Kumho Solus TA31 is rated 7.5 in the comfort category. The best tire in that group (Pirelli Cinturato P7 All Season Plus) is rated 9.0, a 1.5 point difference - BUT - the worst tire (Kumho Solus KH25) is rated a 5.2, a 2.3 point difference. Over all the TA31 is rated 26th out of 43 - mid pack.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: Traction
I don't know what happened, but I thought the industry was going to be require to list rolling resistance in the spec. That would be a huge amount of info, along with traction, wear, and temp. The problem is even with the current ratings, they are generally adding to the confusion as the what you want from a tire, because it usually isn't even close. I have seen tires with a 480 tread wear rating last 3 times longer as one rated at 700. So it's all a gamble, like buying new shoes online.


Here's what I remember (I hope I get this right!):

Back in the 2008 year range, NHTSA proposed a regulation on rolling resistance. It was the last item to be addressed as part of the TREAD Act. By that time, they had solved 2 out of the 4 issues involved:

1) Test Method: Turns out that all the rolling resistance test methods give the same result. So they decided on a single point test - quick and easy.

2) Correlation between test labs: They settled on using the SRTT (Standard Reference Test Tire) as the tool to adjust each test result (as a percentage).

3) The size problem: It turns out that even tires within a tire line give different results for each size. That means that unless some scheme were proposed to deal with the problem, every tire in every tire line would have to be tested - and that would take 3 years totally occupying the test rigs. Any research testing would just add more time to complete - and since there are tire lines added constantly ....... NHSTA did not propose a solution.

4) RRF vs RRC: The test result of a rolling resistance test can be expressed as either a force (RRF) or a coefficient (RRC, the force divided by the test load). NHTSA wanted to use RRF because they wanted to drive the market towards smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles (that use smaller load capacity tires) - and large tires give large RRF values.

The tire manufacturers wanted to use RRC as that is what the consumer buying tires should look at and if they made the mistake of changing size, it would be to a larger tire (larger load capacity tires have better RRC values) and that was safer than the other way.

The GAO (General Accounting Office) agreed with the tire manufacturers and suggested that NHTSA withdraw the proposed rule, and come back with something that dealt with both the test volume problem and the RRF problem.

In the meantime, the Tanaka air bag problem came up and NHTSA was busy dealing with that.

About a year and a half ago, I saw a announcement that NHTSA had proposed a revised regulation and would be publishing it shortly. I don't think they did.

And that is what I remember.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Thanks to our resident tire guy! Always appreciated.

One thing I had already learned was that tire size greatly affects test results even in the same type and brand. And we all know that LRR is an acronym for poor performance!

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
...... And we all know that LRR is an acronym for poor performance!


Ah ..... No, we don't know that. That label is applied to many tires that have good performance. The problem is when an OEM specifies RR values so low that it really compromises the traction and treadwear - and those get the label as well.

I could talk a bit about how this happens, but it's a bit long and not very exciting.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
...... And we all know that LRR is an acronym for poor performance!


Ah ..... No, we don't know that. That label is applied to many tires that have good performance. The problem is when an OEM specifies RR values so low that it really compromises the traction and treadwear - and those get the label as well.

I could talk a bit about how this happens, but it's a bit long and not very exciting.


You would be welcome to tell all. I love the insider info.

I never even knew about spec tires until I heard you explain it here

 

[MParr]

You can choose LRR tires if you like, you won’t see a big improvement in fuel mileage. Now for Tire Rack ratings, I wouldn’t hold them as the final arbiter. For instance, I bought a set of General Atimax RT 43 tires for a 2006 Hyundai Tucson, based on Tire Rack’s recommendation. Those tires were horrible, 3 of the 4 were defective. They couldn’t be balanced and rode like something that would go on the Flintmobile. I made the dealer exchange them for Cooper CS3 Touring, a big improvement. Now on to the Michelin X Energy Saver. The Michelin came as OE tires on my 2017 Ford Escape. The ride is pretty good and they are fairly quite. Traction is their major problem. They have poor dry and wet handling characteristics. When the Michelin need replacing, I’ll replace them with either Cooper CS5 Ultra Touring or Cooper RS3-G1 tires. I replaced the OE Kumho tires on my KIA Optima with Goodyear Eagle Sport tires. They have excellent handling in wet and dry conditions. However, they are a little noisy. If you want a good ride, stay away from any tire with a tread wear rating above 640.

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
...... And we all know that LRR is an acronym for poor performance!


Ah ..... No, we don't know that. That label is applied to many tires that have good performance. The problem is when an OEM specifies RR values so low that it really compromises the traction and treadwear - and those get the label as well.

I could talk a bit about how this happens, but it's a bit long and not very exciting.


You would be welcome to tell all. I love the insider info.

I never even knew about spec tires until I heard you explain it here


OK, allow me to set the stage.

If people aren't already aware of it, the tires supplied to vehicle manufacturers (Ford, GM, Toyota, etc) are designed to the vehicle manufacturers specifications. They all do it similarly, by issuing a page of specs that cover all aspects of tire performance - wet traction, dry traction, snow traction, ride, handling, treadwear, etc. Each specification requires a test to be performed. Some tests are performed by the tire manufacturer (and the results are submitted) and some are conducted by the vehicle manufacturer. They start with the least expensive tests first - the lab tests (RR, force and moment, etc.), followed by the proving ground tests (traction, ride, handling) and lastly, the most expensive test - treadwear!

These specs are usually issued about 2 years before the first tire is to be supplied. so there is plenty of time to do all the testing and go through a number of redesigns.

And just for clarity, No, vehicle manufacturers do NOT shop for the least expensive tire and build specs around how those perform! The specs they issue are formulated in house to the goals set by the manager of that particular vehicle platform (or a committee set up for that purpose) and that means that each tire has to be uniquely designed (although, the easy way to accomplish the task is to take an existing tire and just modify it.)

Further, every OE tire is unique. Even within a vehicle manufacturer, the goals are different each time a spec is issued. The tires are not similar (mostly meaning tread compound). What OE tires generally have in common is low rolling resistance, and to get that, traction (especially wet traction), and/or treadwear are sacrificed.

And just to reiterate a point: Vehicle manufacturers are required to prominently display an MPG value on each new car. Consumers make buying decisions based on the value, so there is a lot of pressure to get a low MPG value - and since tires contribute to this, there is also a lot of pressure to keep the RR value low. Further, since the vehicle manufacturers do not warrant tires (the tire manufacturer does), there is very little pressure to provide good wearing tires.

All of this is in opposition of what the tire manufacturers make for the replacement market (meaning the tires at the corner tire shop). Those tires not only have to have good treadwear (or they won't sell!), but also a reasonable amount of grip (except the opposite is true for performance tires) - and fuel economy (rolling resistance) is not in the picture. That means the OE tires are not at all like Replacement Market tires.

- AND - within a line of replacement market tires, each size will be similar to every other size (tread compound, casing materials, etc) - which is not true for OE tires.

So some tire manufacturers will have a separate line of tires specifically for OEM usage, and some will have OE tires scattered within replacement lines. I want to say that Tire Rack will help sort this out by labeling each tire that is supplied OE (by indicating the vehicle manufacturer it is being supplied to), but I am not convinced that is 100% the case. I am seeing tires that are labeled *Eco* within lines where both vehicle manufacturers are indicated and not marked at all - and that leads me to believe that the tires marked *Eco* are also OE, but unspecified as to whom they are going.

OK, so how does it happen that OE tires - which are tested to a high degree - have such poor performance?

Sometimes the vehicle manufacturers will push the envelope. They will purposely specify low rolling resistance values with the hope that there will be a miracle in the tread compound development area to get good grip and good wear. And since treadwear is the very last thing tested, it is frequently the thing that gets a waiver (at the 11th hour). The net result is a tire that doesn't wear well - supplied in the tens of thousands!

But there is something I noticed about grip. Most of the tires with reported poor grip come from the Japanese car manufacturers. I dug a bit and found out that they all specify traction testing be done in Japan, and not in the US. If you aren't aware of it, traction testing is highly variable and depends highly on the testing surface. There are reversals depending on which surface a tire is tested - and apparently, the traction surfaces used in Japan don't correlate well to some of the paving materials used in the US. Hence, there will be some OE tires that don't have good grip in the US.

Further, tire manufacturers have spent a great deal of time formulating their tread compounds to minimize this and those are the ones used in the replacement market. This does not translate well to the tread compounds used in the OE market. There the pressure to get good RR values frequently result in tread compounds being used where the affect on treadwear is largely unknown.

- BUT -

Remember the Ford/Firestone thing that happened in August, 2000? That changed the relationship between vehicle manufacturers and tire manufacturers. Before, the vehicle manufacturers really didn't want any negative feedback to their specs - and punished those who did. After, they were willing to listen and actually changed the specs when they got enough pushback. In theory, that should mean better performing OE tires - and that seems to be the case - but, unfortunately, things seem to be reverting back.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
What OE tires generally have in common is low rolling resistance, and to get that, traction (especially wet traction), and/or treadwear are sacrificed.


This was what I was always led to believe. For many years I had wondered why the tires that came on my new rides had seemingly poorer performance than what was available in the aftermarket.

In my most recent example, our 14 RAM, the stock Goodyears were pretty good but not up to the standards we were used to here. Changing to aftermarket even gave us a small hit to the gas mileage which seems to have gone away as we got some miles on the tires. But there is no question the truck stops better wet or dry and rides much smoother. And the tires we bought are well known for long treadlife.


Thanks again for the expertise.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
...... And we all know that LRR is an acronym for poor performance!


Ah ..... No, we don't know that. That label is applied to many tires that have good performance. The problem is when an OEM specifies RR values so low that it really compromises the traction and treadwear - and those get the label as well.

I could talk a bit about how this happens, but it's a bit long and not very exciting.


You would be welcome to tell all. I love the insider info.

I never even knew about spec tires until I heard you explain it here


OK, allow me to set the stage.

If people aren't already aware of it, the tires supplied to vehicle manufacturers (Ford, GM, Toyota, etc) are designed to the vehicle manufacturers specifications. They all do it similarly, by issuing a page of specs that cover all aspects of tire performance - wet traction, dry traction, snow traction, ride, handling, treadwear, etc. Each specification requires a test to be performed. Some tests are performed by the tire manufacturer (and the results are submitted) and some are conducted by the vehicle manufacturer. They start with the least expensive tests first - the lab tests (RR, force and moment, etc.), followed by the proving ground tests (traction, ride, handling) and lastly, the most expensive test - treadwear!

These specs are usually issued about 2 years before the first tire is to be supplied. so there is plenty of time to do all the testing and go through a number of redesigns.

And just for clarity, No, vehicle manufacturers do NOT shop for the least expensive tire and build specs around how those perform! The specs they issue are formulated in house to the goals set by the manager of that particular vehicle platform (or a committee set up for that purpose) and that means that each tire has to be uniquely designed (although, the easy way to accomplish the task is to take an existing tire and just modify it.)

Further, every OE tire is unique. Even within a vehicle manufacturer, the goals are different each time a spec is issued. The tires are not similar (mostly meaning tread compound). What OE tires generally have in common is low rolling resistance, and to get that, traction (especially wet traction), and/or treadwear are sacrificed.

And just to reiterate a point: Vehicle manufacturers are required to prominently display an MPG value on each new car. Consumers make buying decisions based on the value, so there is a lot of pressure to get a low MPG value - and since tires contribute to this, there is also a lot of pressure to keep the RR value low. Further, since the vehicle manufacturers do not warrant tires (the tire manufacturer does), there is very little pressure to provide good wearing tires.

All of this is in opposition of what the tire manufacturers make for the replacement market (meaning the tires at the corner tire shop). Those tires not only have to have good treadwear (or they won't sell!), but also a reasonable amount of grip (except the opposite is true for performance tires) - and fuel economy (rolling resistance) is not in the picture. That means the OE tires are not at all like Replacement Market tires.

- AND - within a line of replacement market tires, each size will be similar to every other size (tread compound, casing materials, etc) - which is not true for OE tires.

So some tire manufacturers will have a separate line of tires specifically for OEM usage, and some will have OE tires scattered within replacement lines. I want to say that Tire Rack will help sort this out by labeling each tire that is supplied OE (by indicating the vehicle manufacturer it is being supplied to), but I am not convinced that is 100% the case. I am seeing tires that are labeled *Eco* within lines where both vehicle manufacturers are indicated and not marked at all - and that leads me to believe that the tires marked *Eco* are also OE, but unspecified as to whom they are going.

OK, so how does it happen that OE tires - which are tested to a high degree - have such poor performance?

Sometimes the vehicle manufacturers will push the envelope. They will purposely specify low rolling resistance values with the hope that there will be a miracle in the tread compound development area to get good grip and good wear. And since treadwear is the very last thing tested, it is frequently the thing that gets a waiver (at the 11th hour). The net result is a tire that doesn't wear well - supplied in the tens of thousands!

But there is something I noticed about grip. Most of the tires with reported poor grip come from the Japanese car manufacturers. I dug a bit and found out that they all specify traction testing be done in Japan, and not in the US. If you aren't aware of it, traction testing is highly variable and depends highly on the testing surface. There are reversals depending on which surface a tire is tested - and apparently, the traction surfaces used in Japan don't correlate well to some of the paving materials used in the US. Hence, there will be some OE tires that don't have good grip in the US.

Further, tire manufacturers have spent a great deal of time formulating their tread compounds to minimize this and those are the ones used in the replacement market. This does not translate well to the tread compounds used in the OE market. There the pressure to get good RR values frequently result in tread compounds being used where the affect on treadwear is largely unknown.

- BUT -

Remember the Ford/Firestone thing that happened in August, 2000? That changed the relationship between vehicle manufacturers and tire manufacturers. Before, the vehicle manufacturers really didn't want any negative feedback to their specs - and punished those who did. After, they were willing to listen and actually changed the specs when they got enough pushback. In theory, that should mean better performing OE tires - and that seems to be the case - but, unfortunately, things seem to be reverting back.


Thank you for sharing the insider knowledge.