Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

2021 Tyre Reviews UHP Summer Tyre Test

Name: 2021 Tyre Reviews UHP Summer Tyre Test
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2021-05-10

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tyre, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 225/40 R18
Tyres tested: 14
Disciplines: 8

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	33.18 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli P Zero PZ4	33.34 m	+0.16 m	9 km/h
3Bridgestone Potenza Sport	33.4 m	+0.22 m	11 km/h
4Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	33.57 m	+0.39 m	14 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4	33.93 m	+0.75 m	19 km/h
6Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	34.17 m	+0.99 m	22 km/h
7Continental Premium Contact 6	34.27 m	+1.09 m	23 km/h
7Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	34.27 m	+1.09 m	23 km/h
9Nokian PowerProof	34.62 m	+1.44 m	27 km/h
10Falken Azenis FK510	34.69 m	+1.51 m	27 km/h
11GT Radial SportActive 2	36.73 m	+3.55 m	40 km/h
12Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	36.81 m	+3.63 m	41 km/h
13Avon ZV7	36.93 m	+3.75 m	41 km/h
14Altenzo Sports Comforter +	39.08 m	+5.90 m	51 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 17.8% (5.9 m ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Altenzo Sports Comforter + would still be travelling at 51 km/h when the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	93.92 s	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	94.34 s	+0.42 s
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	94.42 s	+0.50 s
4Continental Premium Contact 6	94.83 s	+0.91 s
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4	94.87 s	+0.95 s
6Pirelli P Zero PZ4	95.17 s	+1.25 s
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	95.52 s	+1.60 s
8Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	95.87 s	+1.95 s
9Falken Azenis FK510	95.91 s	+1.99 s
10Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	96.04 s	+2.12 s
11Nokian PowerProof	96.17 s	+2.25 s
12GT Radial SportActive 2	96.19 s	+2.27 s
13Avon ZV7	97.61 s	+3.69 s
14Altenzo Sports Comforter +	97.97 s	+4.05 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.3% (4.05 s).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	30.67 m	Best	0 km/h
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	33.71 m	+3.04 m	39 km/h
3Pirelli P Zero PZ4	34.29 m	+3.62 m	42 km/h
4Bridgestone Potenza Sport	34.79 m	+4.12 m	45 km/h
5Falken Azenis FK510	34.82 m	+4.15 m	45 km/h
6Michelin Pilot Sport 4	35.08 m	+4.41 m	46 km/h
7Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	35.52 m	+4.85 m	48 km/h
8Continental Premium Contact 6	35.86 m	+5.19 m	49 km/h
9Avon ZV7	36.13 m	+5.46 m	51 km/h
10Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	36.6 m	+5.93 m	52 km/h
11Nokian PowerProof	37.04 m	+6.37 m	54 km/h
12Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	38.09 m	+7.42 m	57 km/h
13GT Radial SportActive 2	38.31 m	+7.64 m	58 km/h
14Altenzo Sports Comforter +	41.06 m	+10.39 m	65 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 33.9% (10.39 m ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Altenzo Sports Comforter + would still be travelling at 65 km/h when the Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport 4	64.46 s	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Sport	64.53 s	+0.07 s
3Pirelli P Zero PZ4	64.84 s	+0.38 s
4Falken Azenis FK510	65.17 s	+0.71 s
5Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	65.2 s	+0.74 s
5GT Radial SportActive 2	65.2 s	+0.74 s
7Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	65.23 s	+0.77 s
7Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	65.23 s	+0.77 s
9Continental Premium Contact 6	65.3 s	+0.84 s
10Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	65.59 s	+1.13 s
11Nokian PowerProof	65.63 s	+1.17 s
12Avon ZV7	66.2 s	+1.74 s
12Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	66.2 s	+1.74 s
14Altenzo Sports Comforter +	69 s	+4.54 s

The difference between best and worst was 7% (4.54 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1GT Radial SportActive 2	80.9 km/h	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	78.5 km/h	-2.40 km/h
3Continental Premium Contact 6	77.9 km/h	-3.00 km/h
4Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	77.4 km/h	-3.50 km/h
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4	76.7 km/h	-4.20 km/h
6Falken Azenis FK510	75.8 km/h	-5.10 km/h
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	75 km/h	-5.90 km/h
8Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	74.1 km/h	-6.80 km/h
9Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	74 km/h	-6.90 km/h
10Bridgestone Potenza Sport	73.4 km/h	-7.50 km/h
11Pirelli P Zero PZ4	72.3 km/h	-8.60 km/h
12Nokian PowerProof	72.1 km/h	-8.80 km/h
13Avon ZV7	70.6 km/h	-10.30 km/h
14Altenzo Sports Comforter +	68.7 km/h	-12.20 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 15.1% (12.2 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1GT Radial SportActive 2	2.4 m/sec2	Best
2Continental Premium Contact 6	2.3 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
3Michelin Pilot Sport 4	2.23 m/sec2	-0.17 m/sec2
4Falken Azenis FK510	2.2 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
4Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	2.2 m/sec2	-0.20 m/sec2
6Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	2.18 m/sec2	-0.22 m/sec2
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	2.1 m/sec2	-0.30 m/sec2
8Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	2.07 m/sec2	-0.33 m/sec2
9Pirelli P Zero PZ4	2 m/sec2	-0.40 m/sec2
10Bridgestone Potenza Sport	1.93 m/sec2	-0.47 m/sec2
11Avon ZV7	1.9 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
11Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	1.9 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
11Nokian PowerProof	1.9 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
14Altenzo Sports Comforter +	1.7 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 29.2% (0.7 m/sec2).

Comfort

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1GT Radial SportActive 2	69.5 dB	Best
2Altenzo Sports Comforter +	70.2 dB	+0.70 dB
3Pirelli P Zero PZ4	70.5 dB	+1.00 dB
4Michelin Pilot Sport 4	70.8 dB	+1.30 dB
4Avon ZV7	70.8 dB	+1.30 dB
6Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	71.1 dB	+1.60 dB
7Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	71.2 dB	+1.70 dB
8Falken Azenis FK510	71.3 dB	+1.80 dB
8Nokian PowerProof	71.3 dB	+1.80 dB
10Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	71.5 dB	+2.00 dB
11Bridgestone Potenza Sport	71.7 dB	+2.20 dB
12Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	72.2 dB	+2.70 dB
13Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	72.3 dB	+2.80 dB
14Continental Premium Contact 6	73.5 dB	+4.00 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5.8% (4 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Altenzo Sports Comforter +	7.05 kg/t	Best	£0
2Nokian PowerProof	8.44 kg/t	+1.39 kg/t	£87
3Hankook Ventus S1 evo 3	8.48 kg/t	+1.43 kg/t	£89
4GT Radial SportActive 2	8.55 kg/t	+1.50 kg/t	£94
5Michelin Pilot Sport 4	8.56 kg/t	+1.51 kg/t	£94
6Avon ZV7	8.66 kg/t	+1.61 kg/t	£101
7Continental Premium Contact 6	8.84 kg/t	+1.79 kg/t	£112
8Falken Azenis FK510	9.1 kg/t	+2.05 kg/t	£128
9Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	9.31 kg/t	+2.26 kg/t	£141
10Pirelli P Zero PZ4	9.44 kg/t	+2.39 kg/t	£149
11Bridgestone Potenza Sport	9.47 kg/t	+2.42 kg/t	£151
12Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+	9.62 kg/t	+2.57 kg/t	£161
13Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S	9.67 kg/t	+2.62 kg/t	£164
14Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport	9.68 kg/t	+2.63 kg/t	£164

The difference between best and worst was 37.3% (2.63 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport uses about 113 L (£164) more fuel than the Altenzo Sports Comforter +.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tyre selection above.

Petrol/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

19,000 km

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

£1.45/L

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tyre age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 1 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 1 km/h

Score Weighting

Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 35%
Dry Braking	50%	17.5%
Dry Handling	50%	17.5%
Wet · 50%
Wet Braking	35%	17.5%
Wet Handling	35%	17.5%
Straight Aqua	15%	7.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	15%	7.5%
Comfort · 5%
Noise	100%	5%
Value · 10%
Rolling Resistance	100%	10%

Our standard methods

The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests