2020 UHP, UUHP and Track Day Tyre Test

Below are all the data points for the 2020 UHP, UUHP and Track Day Tyre Test, displaying how each tyre performed across all test categories. The spider chart below provides a complete overview of performance, where one hundred percent represents the best performance in each category. The larger the area covered by each tyre's plot, the better its overall performance.
How to read these charts: For each test category, data is presented relative to the best performing tire. The direction indicates whether lower or higher values are better - pay close attention to this when interpreting results.

Performance Overview

This radar chart shows relative performance across all test categories, with 100% representing the best performance in each category. Reference tires may have gaps where data is not available.

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2
Continental Sport Contact 6
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5
Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
Bridgestone Potenza S007 RS
Giti GitiSport GTR3
Nokian PowerProof
Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
Toyo Proxes Sport

Quick Navigation

Dry Performance Overview

Dry Braking (M)

Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 with a result of 32.7 M. The difference between best and worst was 8.9%.

Dry Handling (Km/H)

Dry Handling Average Speed (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 with a result of 135.9 Km/H. The difference between best and worst was 4%.

Subj. Dry Handling ( Points)

Subjective Dry Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 with a result of 12 Points. The difference between best and worst was 33.3%.

Wet Performance Overview

Wet Braking (M)

Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental Sport Contact 6 with a result of 26.6 M. The difference between best and worst was 28.1%.

Wet Handling (Km/H)

Wet Handling Average Speed (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 with a result of 83.7 Km/H. The difference between best and worst was 10.5%.

Subj. Wet Handling ( Points)

Subjective Wet Handling Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 with a result of 10 Points. The difference between best and worst was 50%.

Wet Circle (m/s)

Lateral wet grip in m/s squared (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental Sport Contact 6 with a result of 7.33 m/s. The difference between best and worst was 14.5%.

Straight Aqua (Km/H)

Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Continental Sport Contact 6 with a result of 83.4 Km/H. The difference between best and worst was 15.6%.

Comfort Performance Overview

Subj. Comfort ( Points)

Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 with a result of 10 Points. The difference between best and worst was 40%.

Noise (dB)

External noise in dB (Lower is better)

Key Insight: All the tyres in the noise test finished less than 3% apart.

Tyre Weight (Kg)

Tyre Weight Per Set (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 with a result of 9.84 Kg. The difference between best and worst was 16.5%.

Value Performance Overview

Rolling Resistance (kg / t)

Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 with a result of 8.7 kg / t. The difference between best and worst was 17.1%.

Overall Findings

Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:

Position Tyre Score
1 Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 0%
2 Continental Sport Contact 6 0%
3 Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S 0%
4 Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 0%
5 Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport 0%
6 Bridgestone Potenza S007 RS 0%
7 Giti GitiSport GTR3 0%
8 Nokian PowerProof 0%
9 Vredestein Ultrac Vorti 0%
10 Toyo Proxes Sport 0%
comments powered by Disqus