Magazine test: RFT vs. Standard tire

Tobias1980 · 01-21-2008, 07:56 AM

Auto Motor und Sport (Germany) tire test: Standard vs. RFT (Article from swedish edition 2006-08-14)

Tires:
Potenza RE 050A
Pilot Sport PS2

Test car: BMW 330
225/40-18 front, 255/35-18 rear.

HANDLING DRY ROAD
Track Distance: 2 770 m
Bridgestone RFT 1.17,0 min
Bridgestone 1.19,4 min
Michelin RFT 1.17,4 min
Michelin 1.17,8 min

HANDLING WET ROAD
Banlängd: 2 300 m
Bridgestone RFT 1.49,3 min
Bridgestone 1.44,7 min
Michelin RFT 1.44,2 min
Michelin 1.42,5 min

BREAKING DRY
100-0 km/h (meters)
Bridgestone RFT 36,7 m
Bridgestone 37,9 m
Michelin RFT 36,7 m
Michelin 35,5 m

BREAKING WET
100-0 km/h (meters)
Bridgestone RFT 52,4 m
Bridgestone 49,2 m
Michelin RFT 54,3 m
Michelin 49,8 m

Conclusions according to the article:
RFT's are handling great on wet tarmac thanks to their stiff sidewalls, they are less good in wet conditions. Should RFT's be avoided? No, and we can expect RFT's to be fully on par in all aspects with standard tires in the future.

IM2C · 01-21-2008, 08:20 AM

How about if they just become good enough...I think "even better" is a stretch..

335i4u2nv · 01-21-2008, 08:55 AM

sweet rft ftw!!

amberzombie · 01-21-2008, 06:04 PM

here's to the "future" then... however long that'll be!

01-21-2008, 07:56 AM	#1
Tobias1980 Read the manual please, just do it before asking! 11 Rep 397 Posts Drives: F31 328i, F55 Cooper Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Sweden iTrader: (0)	Magazine test: RFT vs. Standard tire Auto Motor und Sport (Germany) tire test: Standard vs. RFT (Article from swedish edition 2006-08-14) Tires: Potenza RE 050A Pilot Sport PS2 Test car: BMW 330 225/40-18 front, 255/35-18 rear. HANDLING DRY ROAD Track Distance: 2 770 m Bridgestone RFT 1.17,0 min Bridgestone 1.19,4 min Michelin RFT 1.17,4 min Michelin 1.17,8 min HANDLING WET ROAD Banlängd: 2 300 m Bridgestone RFT 1.49,3 min Bridgestone 1.44,7 min Michelin RFT 1.44,2 min Michelin 1.42,5 min BREAKING DRY 100-0 km/h (meters) Bridgestone RFT 36,7 m Bridgestone 37,9 m Michelin RFT 36,7 m Michelin 35,5 m BREAKING WET 100-0 km/h (meters) Bridgestone RFT 52,4 m Bridgestone 49,2 m Michelin RFT 54,3 m Michelin 49,8 m Conclusions according to the article: RFT's are handling great on wet tarmac thanks to their stiff sidewalls, they are less good in wet conditions. Should RFT's be avoided? No, and we can expect RFT's to be fully on par in all aspects with standard tires in the future. Last edited by Tobias1980; 01-21-2008 at 08:27 AM..
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

01-21-2008, 08:20 AM	#2
IM2C Major General 2067 Rep 5,373 Posts Drives: ∞ Improbability Drive Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: FL iTrader: (9)	How about if they just become good enough...I think "even better" is a stretch.. __________________ ///\| g87 \| f87 Comp \| g29 M40i \| f97 Comp \| f80 Comp \| f80 \| f30 \| e92 \| tt \| S5 \| e92 \| 350z \| e90 \|
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-21-2008, 08:55 AM	#3
335i4u2nv Colonel 66 Rep 2,765 Posts Drives: 335i e9O sL0w Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: im right behind u iTrader: (0)	sweet rft ftw!!
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-21-2008, 06:04 PM	#4
amberzombie Lieutenant 61 Rep 590 Posts Drives: MG F80 ZCP Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia iTrader: (0) Garage List 2007 E90 320i [0.00]	here's to the "future" then... however long that'll be!
	Appreciate 0 Quote