Confused by tyre ratings and user experience

[Devonboy]

Like many here - I do enjoy the tyre debate but I am confused. Everyone seems to hate the Pzeros and like the Michelin Pilot sports. I have only ever had Pzeros and so cannot comment but when I look at the EU ratings the Pzeros Score F for Fuel, A for wet grip and 74 dB. The Michelin's score E for their higher fuel efficient, a B for wet grip and 75 dB for noise which suggests the Pzeros are better?

Why does the view from the scoring system differ so markedly form this forums view? The Continenetals come out at F, A, 75 so equal to the Pzeros but a bit noisier.

Please note I am not disagreeing with any views expressed just trying to understand what the rating really mean and why real world experience seems so different

 

[allandwf]

Take road temperature into account. Pirellis are great in warm climes, unfortunately UK is cold and damp hence the bad press.

 

[2b1ask1]

The Pirelli have very stiff sidewalls and on the super low profile tyres seem to suffer from catastrophic failures where the sidewalls split from the tread on heavy impacts like potholes, plenty of damaged rims as a result. I agree with the warmer climates being better suited too.

I used to only ever have Pirelli on motorcycles as they were totally reliable and would gradually drift rather than stick and break away like the Avon/Michelin or more so the Japanese ones would do. My confidence in Pirelli was rocked however when they would continually fail on our first people carrier, my tyre guy suggested trying Bridgestones and they were perfect; seems the Pirelli couldn't handle the weight of the vehicle. My feeling is it is the same with the GT cars.

 

[Trev Latter]

I don't think there's much between any of them in reality. Having used the Michelins on both the 3200 and the Giulietta, I like them and they're especially good in wet conditions, but I also like the ContiSports for cars and bikes for pretty much the same reasons as Newton for bikes. I'd say that dry grip is on par with the Michelins, but the wet grip not quite as good (on the same car). I wouldn't read too much into the ratings. They're a bit like fuel economy figures for cars, in that they don't necessarily reflect real world driving. The reality is that tyres that grip well will be unlikely to be fuel efficient, plus we're all driving high power (mostly) V8s on here, so economy isn't likely to be our primary concern. Often it's just down to personal preference.

Edited to add...The Michelins were shockingly bad in the snow recently, but that was to be expected.

 

[jasst]

As I understand it, the rating system is not policed, or carried out by an independent organisation, but it is down to each manufacturer to give there own tyres a rating, so I always take those figures with a pinch of salt, personal experience is far more useful as it reflects 'real world' driving.

 

[Zep]

As I understand it, the rating system is not policed, or carried out by an independent organisation, but it is down to each manufacturer to give there own tyres a rating, so I always take those figures with a pinch of salt, personal experience is far more useful as it reflects 'real world' driving.

This ^^

Manufacturers make their own ratings based on their own test data against the criteria for A, B, C etc. The whole system is open to abuse / interpretation.

 

[Devonboy]

Ah manufactures measurement - now it all makes sense!