Goodyear Eagle Assymetrics !!

[LostKiwi]

So compounds and tyre construction play no part in grip? Just tread patterns?

 

[JBell]

I meant with regard to rotation

I literally don't see the point in rotating, replacing in pairs with new on the rear will always handle better particularly in the wet than having 4 worn tyres.

Also spreads the cost

 

[lolboy147]

I don't subscribe to the different tyres on axles being bad unless the tread patterns are significantly different as I said earlier.



You need to investigate more rather than just blaming tyres, the GY F1 is one of the best tyres out there, my father has them on his W204 and it handles considerably better than the Conti SC5 it had before.

If you look at my original post you will see how much investigation I have done, including resolving the issue by putting my winter wheels on the back. It's categorically the new GY F1's causing the problem.

Now, if that is down to a mismatch between front and rear axles then I come back to my point that manufacturers bear a responsibility to either ensure tyres are compatible - which may or may not be possible - and if it's not then they should make their customers aware of what tyres can and cannot be used in conjunction.

Yes, that would cost them money and research and cross company co-operation to achieve but I know for a fact that I'm not the only driver to be screwed over by this situation.

 

[JBell]

If you look at my original post you will see how much investigation I have done, including resolving the issue by putting my winter wheels on the back. It's categorically the new GY F1's causing the problem.

Then complain to GoodYear

 

[lolboy147]

Then complain to GoodYear

I have. But also I wanted to get other opinions and make others aware. As always, others can take note or ignore.

Cheers

 

[LostKiwi]

I literally don't see the point in rotating, replacing in pairs with new on the rear will always handle better particularly in the wet than having 4 worn tyres.

Also spreads the cost

If you start with new tyres all round then replace the rears after the fronts are half worn (assuming the fronts last twice as long as rears) you end up with a car with significantly more grip on the rear than the front. If you rotate them you are maintaining a much closer balance of tread depth across all 4 tyres thereby maintaining a more balanced vehicle across a longer period.
I accept that the tyres wear differently but that will even itself out after a very short distance (sub 1k miles usually).

As for spreading the cost - the cost over the life of the car is going to be the same irrespective of how you do it. Just poke the money in the bank and spread the cost that way.

 

[JBell]

I have. But also I wanted to get other opinions and make others aware. As always, others can take note or ignore.

You seem to be in an unusual position, I have never heard of anyone complaining about that tyre for handling problems, it is usually that they didn't do 30k miles

 

[AMGeed]

The Goodyears on the rear are not the problem, its the Conti's on the front.

Had Goodyears already been on the front, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

As the Conti's already on the front are part worn, I'd be replacing them, not the new Goodyears.

 

[JBell]

If you start with new tyres all round then replace the rears after the fronts are half worn (assuming the fronts last twice as long as rears) you end up with a car with significantly more grip on the rear than the front.

That is the point to have more rear grip i.e. tread.

It is for wet conditions where a car can aquaplane particularly under braking:

When you brake the front of the car is pushed down therefore increasing grip, the opposite happens at the rear (it goes light) therefore having more tread on the rear tyres will provide more grip and remove more water reducing the chance of aquaplaning

 

[lolboy147]

The Goodyears on the rear are not the problem, its the Conti's on the front.

Had Goodyears already been on the front, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

As the Conti's already on the front are part worn, I'd be replacing them, not the new Goodyears.

You may well be right - but so is my point about Manufacturers not making people aware of the potential handling issues. Even on one thread on one website we have a diversity of opinion. All goodness for the manufacturers - kerching!

 

[LostKiwi]

Now, if that is down to a mismatch between front and rear axles then I come back to my point that manufacturers bear a responsibility to either ensure tyres are compatible - which may or may not be possible - and if it's not then they should make their customers aware of what tyres can and cannot be used in conjunction.

Yes, that would cost them money and research and cross company co-operation to achieve but I know for a fact that I'm not the only driver to be screwed over by this situation.

Again you're being unrealistic. That would mean testing every combination of tyre from every manufacturer across every vehicle. No amount of cross company cooperation would make that achievable.

For example - if there is one vehicle with 15 manufacturers making a tyre that fits it (using a single size option) the combinations would run to over 200 just for one car and tyre size! For example A with B, A with C, A with D, A with ....O then start again with B with A, B with C, B with D... and so on!

 

[gizze]

When I had my M3 CSL I thought there was an issue with the handling, it was a new car to me, so I wasn't sure, but you know when something is not right.

I took it into BMW, the ended up changing front and rear shocks, front and rear control arms, in fact they ended up putting a whole new suspension set up in, full alignment and still the back end was twitchy.

I got a call one day to say someone who was working at Norwich BMW for 2 weeks races these and knows them inside out, pop down and he will go out with me. I did.
We left the dealership and hit the dual carrigeway, came off at the first exit and took one right turn when he pulled over and said "You've got mixed tyres on."
I swore blind they were Pilot Sports all round, they were, but Pilot Sports on the front and Pilot Sport 2's on the rear. We went back, put PS2s on the front so they all matched and the car was solid as a rock.

I now know what to look for, and pretty much every time I have been in a car with mixed front and rear tyres it is the same, some cars with not much power highlight it far less, but they all do it to some degree.

I found it hard to believe at the time, but it is obvious if you think about it.

 

[LostKiwi]

W

That is the point to have more rear grip i.e. tread.

It is for wet conditions where a car can aquaplane particularly under braking:

When you brake the front of the car is pushed down therefore increasing grip, the opposite happens at the rear (it goes light) therefore having more tread on the rear tyres will provide more grip and remove more water reducing the chance of aquaplaning

Even if you rotate you still have more tread on the rear than the front after rotation. In fact you have less difference in tread depth front to rear throughout the entire life of the set of tyres.

 

[Craiglxviii]

You may well be right - but so is my point about Manufacturers not making people aware of the potential handling issues. Even on one thread on one website we have a diversity of opinion. All goodness for the manufacturers - kerching!

Manufacturers do make people aware. LK has shown this.

The issue you are handling is down to friction, or friction coefficient differential between front and rear axles.

The SportContact Contis you have on your front wheels are not bad as far as performance goes. I'd rate them as a 6.5/10. As all Contis they are quite a hard wearing tyre, they achieve this with a fairly hard compound rubber and relatively stiff sidewalls. They have 3 gutters cut into the very clearly directional tread pattern.

The GY Eagle F1s you have on your rear wheels are very high performance. I'd rate them as 10/10, they beat every other tyre either hands down or very slightly across all performance categories, with the exception of wet (where they're equal to the Rainsport 3) or cold (where specialist cold weather tyres come into their own). By cold I mean below -5 C so fairly rare conditions for the UK. This level of performance is achieved by a very soft rubber compound that provides superb grip (high "sticktion" as it's called) on various road surfaces. They also have 4 very wide rain gutters cut into the almost-square on tread pattern.

So you can see there that the tread patterns are rather different.

Those, and the totally different grip characteristics will mean that the fixed non-steering rear wheels will try to hold the road far harder than the fronts do. Make the grip dynamic (e.g. put torque into the rear wheels, steer through an arc) and the rears will be forced to bounce from one position to another laterally as the fronts will slide very slightly. We're only talking fractions of an inch here- either your car bends or the tyre rubber will pucker and skip.

So, that's the problem you're having. Nothing at all to do with the GY tyres being rubbish- they're really not. It's the opposite, it's everything to do with them being far, far better than the relatively middling-performing Continental product while at the same time being the deliverer of torque and power to the road surface.

 

[Frosty149]

Manufacturers do make people aware. LK has shown this.

The issue you are handling is down to friction, or friction coefficient differential between front and rear axles.

The SportContact Contis you have on your front wheels are not bad as far as performance goes. I'd rate them as a 6.5/10. As all Contis they are quite a hard wearing tyre, they achieve this with a fairly hard compound rubber and relatively stiff sidewalls. They have 3 gutters cut into the very clearly directional tread pattern. View attachment 37744

The GY Eagle F1s you have on your rear wheels are very high performance. I'd rate them as 10/10, they beat every other tyre either hands down or very slightly across all performance categories, with the exception of wet (where they're equal to the Rainsport 3) or cold (where specialist cold weather tyres come into their own). By cold I mean below -5 C so fairly rare conditions for the UK. This level of performance is achieved by a very soft rubber compound that provides superb grip (high "sticktion" as it's called) on various road surfaces. They also have 4 very wide rain gutters cut into the almost-square on tread pattern. View attachment 37743

So you can see there that the tread patterns are rather different.

Those, and the totally different grip characteristics will mean that the fixed non-steering rear wheels will try to hold the road far harder than the fronts do. Make the grip dynamic (e.g. put torque into the rear wheels, steer through an arc) and the rears will be forced to bounce from one position to another laterally as the fronts will slide very slightly. We're only talking fractions of an inch here- either your car bends or the tyre rubber will pucker and skip.

So, that's the problem you're having. Nothing at all to do with the GY tyres being rubbish- they're really not. It's the opposite, it's everything to do with them being far, far better than the relatively middling-performing Continental product while at the same time being the deliverer of torque and power to the road surface.

Nice one Craig!
I've been looking at these tyres for some time as other posts...
Thanks

 

[Craiglxviii]

I took Jon Bell's advice and for the cost vs performance, went with Uniroyal Rainsport 3 on my 211. Not only do they stick like poo on a blanket but they have pictures of sharks on them, which is a win-win for me. And at around £80 a corner what's not to like?

 

[ZZZZ]

...
The issue you are handling is down to friction, or friction coefficient differential between front and rear axles. ...

Thanks for that Craig, great stuff - I'm saving it for future reference!

I have four GY Efficient Grip Performance tyres on at the moment (fitted at the same time, when I switched from Contis 2/5 and avoided the problem OP is having), and the drive axle tyres are wearing quicker, obviously (not using 'rear tyres' deliberately, to avoid confusion - the W169 is FWD).

Would I benefit from fitting GY Eagle F1s as a replacement, or stick with GY EGP, or shall I rotate first and even out?

 

[00slk]

I bought Goodyear Asymmetric 3 for the 500 and they are superb in the wet and dry

 

[John Laidlaw]

This is a great thread and a reminder what these forums are all about. I think tyre technology and ranking importance in the performance of all of our cars is very often overlooked
So it seems in summary a very good plan to change tyres together regardless...
Ok that may mean a few thousand miles lost scrapping tyres for those of us with staggered sizes...
I must admit it's another step for me on top of another I already decided (and have done for the past 10 years)which is that I change out tyres at 3.0mm...frankly it ain't worth the grief tip toeing around when there isn't enough tread on a performance car...

 

[00slk]

I have also found that once the tyres become more than half worn they don't last too long afterwards.
My youngest son drifts and went through hundreds of tyres and a weekends drifting could chew through up 20 tyres during the events.
I always said to him he should use brand new tyres..........Cut a long tyre story short a new set can last 2 or 3 sessions, cutting the aggravation of changing tyres every 5 laps and it was also a good test to find the best cheap new tyres and the worse for grip and wear, though grip is not a thing you want with this type of fun!!!
So buying used tyres of any quality in my mind is a bit of a false economy.
Just thought I would add my bit ......Oh and as usual this is my own opinion and should be taken with a pinch of salt.