In my experience, a tyre with small linear tread patterns such as Uniroyal Rainsport or Vredestein Sessanta.....

.....will be excellent in the wet, but will wear quickly and won't corner well in the dry as the tread is easily pushed around due to its minimal structure. For good dry cornering you need sturdy blocks in the tread, especially to the outer edges. Bridgestone RE070 and Toyo R888 are awesome for this....

...but don't expect them to perform well in the wet. Continental's always seem to have lots of linear banded tread which won't corner well, but will give good economy and wet grip, but will also wear quickly if pushed hard.

Choose to suit your driving needs, style and personal requirements.

Really good in the wet ^

The Kuhmo's are pretty good in the dry too from memory of my Ibiza

and cheap too - likely to be my choice next month when i need tyres

Why the shock at Kumho Mr wja?.[/Quote]

Because they were quietest. I've always thought that Michelin were the best for quiet, but they weren't this time. Again - preconceptions and prejudices.

With contradictory results like those between aquaplaning and wet handling and braking performance, I'm inclined to suggest that there are flaws in the test procedure.[/Quote]

I don't think there is anything contradictory about the three sets of results. They clearly say that tyres with large block sizes and deep channels clear water well when the road is wet, but when the road is flooded, the large blocks turn into skis and the car aquaplanes. There are also significant differences in how the edge blocks work which is shown in the dramatic differences in straight line and curved aquaplaning.

Also, with about 1.5% difference between best and worst dry handling, does that test really matter?

If it's the difference between getting round a corner at 30mph and not getting around it at 29.5mph, possibly. And at 100mph vs. 98.5mph? Probably.

And if you had two tyres that were equally good in the dry, but one was shocking in the wet, you'd buy the one that was good in the wet, no?

And if you don't test it, you wouldn't know, because lots of people still seem to buy tyres because they like the look of the tread pattern:rofl:

But if you had a tyre which was astounding in the dry and shocking in the wet, you'd have them like a shot. I did Bridgestone RE070 were simply astounding, adding +30mph to my cornering speeds in the dry, but I had a second set of wheels with some 'normal' tyres for winter.

But if you had a tyre which was astounding in the dry and shocking in the wet, you'd have them like a shot. I did Bridgestone RE070 were simply astounding, adding +30mph to my cornering speeds in the dry, but I had a second set of wheels with some 'normal' tyres for winter.

I wouldn't have tyres that were shocking in the wet. That would be daft in the UK. I have tried some of the Yokohama Advan A048's on a trackday Octavia and they were fabulous in the dry, but you literally couldn't do 50mph when it started raining.

Hence why I had a second set of wheels. Well worth it !

I run two sets normally but can't afford it this year :(

I run two sets normally but can't afford it this year :(

Yes, but with the wear rate on those 912's you'll buy 2 sets anyway:rofl:

Yes, but with the wear rate on those 912's you'll buy 2 sets anyway:rofl:

Not sure where your getting your info from because mine are excellent. If you have had a set then you must have had some bad luck.

They are on track to do about 25k at their current wear rate. Problem is that is 8 months mileage so it will be near enough two sets this year but I can't really justify something like F1's for the summer months if there is nothing wrong with the very good tyres I currently have fitted

short of giving up my whole night to read the thread.............................. goodyear eagle f1's

expensive but white lightning or magners?

Vredestein Ultrac Sessanta - Thatchers Katy

short of giving up my whole night to read the thread.............................. goodyear eagle f1's[/Quote]

ok - there's some sound advice.

expensive but white lightning or magners?

but's that's actually comparing Kumho to Linglongs surely?

Not sure where your getting your info from because mine are excellent. If you have had a set then you must have had some bad luck.

They are on track to do about 25k at their current wear rate. Problem is that is 8 months mileage so it will be near enough two sets this year but I can't really justify something like F1's for the summer months if there is nothing wrong with the very good tyres I currently have fitted

I got my advice from 3 places - the guy on the phone at Mytyres who said the 912's were a source of complaints for poor life, Falken's own website that describes the 912 as the 'The spirit of the all-season performance tyre' and the 452 as 'The spirit of the ultra-high performance tyre' and then, finally, my next-door neighbour, who bought a set of 912s, which lasted just under 5,000 miles in Milton Keynes (roundabouts!) and then bought a set of 452's which have 12,000 miles on them and still have 2-3mm of tread on.

The fact that you are doing 25,000 miles in 8 months almost inevitably means you are running on the motorway or good A-roads. If you want to really measure a tyre's durability then you need to compare it across hard driving in different environments.

I appreciate that you are quite pleased with your 912's, but the 912's are Falken's cheapos, the 452's are their performance tyre, which is still cheaper than most other people's performance tyre, but is just as good. Maybe 2006 was just a good vintage?

I got my advice from 3 places - the guy on the phone at Mytyres who said the 912's were a source of complaints for poor life, Falken's own website that describes the 912 as the 'The spirit of the all-season performance tyre' and the 452 as 'The spirit of the ultra-high performance tyre' and then, finally, my next-door neighbour, who bought a set of 912s, which lasted just under 5,000 miles in Milton Keynes (roundabouts!) and then bought a set of 452's which have 12,000 miles on them and still have 2-3mm of tread on.

The fact that you are doing 25,000 miles in 8 months almost inevitably means you are running on the motorway or good A-roads. If you want to really measure a tyre's durability then you need to compare it across hard driving in different environments.

I appreciate that you are quite pleased with your 912's, but the 912's are Falken's cheapos, the 452's are their performance tyre, which is still cheaper than most other people's performance tyre, but is just as good. Maybe 2006 was just a good vintage?

I admitt I took a chance on the 912's in terms of the price etc but I just can't get over how good they have been as an allrounder. I live in Cwmbran (Which they modelled MK on, this is ground zero for roundabouts) but apart from a run to Poole down the a350 most of my time is spent on larger a roads and motorways. My time spent with the 452 was noisy and cost me a lot in fuel and I didn't feel they were that good in the grip department (Had them on my SRI)