Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 VS Asymmetric 3 VS Continental PremiumContact 6 - In depth test

Name: Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 VS Asymmetric 3 VS Continental PremiumContact 6 - In depth test
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2019-04-01

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: 3
Disciplines: 9

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tyres can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tyres does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	33.6 m	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	33.9 m	+0.30 m
3Continental Premium Contact 6	34.2 m	+0.60 m

All the tyres in the Dry Braking test finished less than 3% apart.

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	94 s	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	95.12 s	+1.12 s
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	96.3 s	+2.30 s

All the tyres in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	9 Points	Best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	9 Points	Best
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	7 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 22.2% (2 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	35.2 m	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	35.6 m	+0.40 m
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	36.4 m	+1.20 m

The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (1.2 m).

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental Premium Contact 6	65.29 s	Best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	65.29 s	Best
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	66.14 s	+0.85 s

All the tyres in the Wet Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	10 Points	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
2Continental Premium Contact 6	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (1 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	76.5 km/h	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	76.4 km/h	-0.10 km/h
3Continental Premium Contact 6	75.4 km/h	-1.10 km/h

All the tyres in the Straight Aqua test finished less than 3% apart.

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	10 Points	Best
2Continental Premium Contact 6	9 Points	-1.00 Points
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	8 Points	-2.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5	67.6 dB	Best
2Continental Premium Contact 6	67.8 dB	+0.20 dB
3Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3	69.1 dB	+1.50 dB

All the tyres in the Noise test finished less than 3% apart.

Test setup & methodology

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

Show full testing methodology

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 · 39%
Dry Braking	46%	17.94%
Dry Handling	45%	17.55%
Subj. Dry Handling	9%	3.51%
Wet · 56%
Wet Braking	37%	20.72%
Wet Handling	37%	20.72%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	5.6%
Straight Aqua	16%	8.96%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Noise	50%	2.5%

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.

Subj. Dry Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

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.

Subj. Wet Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

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.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.

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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests