Menu

2019 Tire Reviews UHP Summer Tire Test

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
7 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Dry
  4. Wet
  5. Environment
  6. Results
  7. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
  8. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
  9. Continental Sport Contact 6
  10. Falken Azenis FK510
  11. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
  12. Toyo Proxes Sport
  13. Kumho Ecsta PS91
  14. Accelera PHI

As this is the worlds first full video tire test, I encourage you to watch rather than read, and if you have any comments or suggestions please leave them on the YouTube page. If you'd rather read, all the glorious tire test detail can be found below the video!

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tire Size
265/35 R19
Test Vehicle
BMW M2
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Tire Pressures
OE
Test Year
2019
Tires Tested
8
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

Every tire is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tires are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tire wear does not affect accuracy.

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tires are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.

Categories Tested

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 tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires 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 tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire 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 tires 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

Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 tire 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 tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires 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 tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire 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 tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Subj. Wet Handling

Objective data is only part of the picture, so 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 tire 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 tire 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 tire's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tire.

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 tire 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.

Standards: UNECE Regulation 117 ISO 13325 ISO 28580 UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6
Here it is, the 2019 Tire Reviews UUHP tire test! This is a HUGE tire test, which includes the first test of the new Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport, and its two current top rated rivals, the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, and the Continental SportContact 6, plus five other maximum performance summer tire patterns.

This test was conducted at Continentals test facility in Uvalde texas, and has the added advantage of all the tires (other than Goodyear) being available to both the European and American markets! 

The test car is a BMW M2 wearing 245/35 R19 fronts and 265/35 R19 rears. This is a full tire test, so all the usual categories are on test including dry and wet handling, dry and wet braking, aquaplaning, rolling resistance, noise and comfort. Where this test is slightly different from other tests is we've put a greater emphasis on subjective handling scoring in the dry and wet, as we believe on a car like the BMW M2, how the car feels and how it's balanced is as important as saving a few tenths of a second.

Sadly Pirelli, Hankook, Yokohama and Nokian only made one of the two tire sizes we needed for this test in aftermarket fitment, testing mixed fitment like on the M2 is always difficult.

 

Dry

The gap in dry handling was extremely close between the Continental, Michelin and Goodyear, with all three tires being separated by just 0.3 seconds. Subjectively, the Continental felt the most exciting tire on test, with the quickest steering and most feedback through the front axle. The Goodyear and Michelin offered a very similar balance, which gave the M2 a little more understeer than on the Continental.

The midrange battle was won by the Vredestein, which subjectively felt as good as the Continental but was on average, 0.6 seconds behind across the lap. Falken have managed to produce a tire with good grip, but the more comfort bias of the tire made it subjectively too soft. Kumho was very fast on its first lap, but the grip fell away quickly as the tire overheated, as did the Toyo, but to a lesser degree.

Dry Handling

Spread: 3.50 s (5.8%)|Avg: 61.33 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Continental Sport Contact 6
    60.30 s
  2. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    60.50 s
  3. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    60.60 s
  4. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    60.90 s
  5. Falken Azenis FK510
    61.10 s
  6. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    61.20 s
  7. Toyo Proxes Sport
    62.20 s
  8. Accelera PHI
    63.80 s

Subj. Dry Handling

Spread: 3.40 Points (37.8%)|Avg: 7.78 Points
Subjective Dry Handling Score (Higher is better)
  1. Continental Sport Contact 6
    9.00 Points
  2. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    8.90 Points
  3. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    8.70 Points
  4. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    8.30 Points
  5. Toyo Proxes Sport
    7.60 Points
  6. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    7.50 Points
  7. Falken Azenis FK510
    6.60 Points
  8. Accelera PHI
    5.60 Points

Dry braking was dominated by the three premium manufacturers.

Dry Braking

Spread: 5.50 M (15.7%)|Avg: 37.29 M
Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    35.00 M
  2. Continental Sport Contact 6
    35.40 M
  3. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    35.80 M
  4. Falken Azenis FK510
    37.40 M
  5. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    37.70 M
  6. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    37.70 M
  7. Toyo Proxes Sport
    38.80 M
  8. Accelera PHI
    40.50 M

Wet

By using a BMW M2, wet handling became as much about rear grip as about front. This is where the new Goodyear excelled, offering a really neutral balance between the front and the rear of the car, while providing excellent grip across the lap. While the Vredestein couldn't match the best during wet braking, the extra rear grip it had over its rivals meant it finished the second fastest time, and it was a similar story for Toyo. Continental and Michelin were fourth and fifth, and while they both had excellent grip, both struggling more at the rear than the Goodyear to get the power down. The Falken was another tenth of a second slower, and the Kumho and the budget struggle in the wet with a lack of grip.

Wet Handling

Spread: 16.06 s (22.8%)|Avg: 74.74 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    70.37 s
  2. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    72.78 s
  3. Toyo Proxes Sport
    73.17 s
  4. Continental Sport Contact 6
    73.36 s
  5. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    73.40 s
  6. Falken Azenis FK510
    73.54 s
  7. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    74.83 s
  8. Accelera PHI
    86.43 s

Subj. Wet Handling

Spread: 7.00 Points (77.8%)|Avg: 6.44 Points
Subjective Wet Handling Score (Higher is better)
  1. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    9.00 Points
  2. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    8.00 Points
  3. Falken Azenis FK510
    7.00 Points
  4. Toyo Proxes Sport
    7.00 Points
  5. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    6.50 Points
  6. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    6.00 Points
  7. Continental Sport Contact 6
    6.00 Points
  8. Accelera PHI
    2.00 Points

There was no issue with rear grip during wet braking, which highlighted the Contnental and Michelins raw grip in shallow water.

Wet Braking

Spread: 27.00 M (58.3%)|Avg: 53.00 M
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
  1. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    46.30 M
  2. Continental Sport Contact 6
    46.90 M
  3. Falken Azenis FK510
    48.40 M
  4. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    48.60 M
  5. Toyo Proxes Sport
    49.90 M
  6. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    53.80 M
  7. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    56.80 M
  8. Accelera PHI
    73.30 M

During aquaplaning testing, the Michelin showed the best balance betwen braking and aquaplaning results.

Straight Aqua

Spread: 4.00 Km/H (4.6%)|Avg: 85.04 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
  1. Toyo Proxes Sport
    86.90 Km/H
  2. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    86.70 Km/H
  3. Falken Azenis FK510
    85.90 Km/H
  4. Continental Sport Contact 6
    85.80 Km/H
  5. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    84.70 Km/H
  6. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    83.80 Km/H
  7. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    83.60 Km/H
  8. Accelera PHI
    82.90 Km/H

Environment

The Continental offered an excellent low rolling resistance result in the 265 fitment.

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 1.23 kg / t (15%)|Avg: 8.87 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Continental Sport Contact 6
    8.18 kg / t
  2. Accelera PHI
    8.31 kg / t
  3. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    8.70 kg / t
  4. Toyo Proxes Sport
    8.91 kg / t
  5. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    9.04 kg / t
  6. Falken Azenis FK510
    9.10 kg / t
  7. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    9.31 kg / t
  8. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    9.41 kg / t

The subjective comfort of all tires on test was incredibly close, however there were a couple of patterns at the extremities of the results. The Falken proved to be the most comfortable tire on test, appearing to transmit the least amount of tire noise into the cabin, and round off the bumps and road imperfections in a way other tires couldn't match. The Michelin, Continental and Toyo all had good levels of comfort, while the Goodyear and Vredestein transmitted slightly more noise, and higher levels of discomfort when hitting obstacles such as potholes.

Subj. Comfort

Spread: 3.30 Points (33.7%)|Avg: 7.85 Points
Subjective Comfort Score (Higher is better)
  1. Falken Azenis FK510
    9.80 Points
  2. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    8.50 Points
  3. Accelera PHI
    8.00 Points
  4. Continental Sport Contact 6
    8.00 Points
  5. Toyo Proxes Sport
    8.00 Points
  6. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    7.00 Points
  7. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    7.00 Points
  8. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    6.50 Points

The Continental proved to be quietest during drive by noise testing in the rear 265 fitment.

Noise

Spread: 1.70 dB (2.4%)|Avg: 72.84 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
  1. Continental Sport Contact 6
    72.10 dB
  2. Accelera PHI
    72.30 dB
  3. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    72.40 dB
  4. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    72.50 dB
  5. Falken Azenis FK510
    72.90 dB
  6. Toyo Proxes Sport
    73.30 dB
  7. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    73.40 dB
  8. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    73.80 dB

There was an interesting correlation between tire weight, and the overall results.

Tire Weight

Spread: 7.80 Kg (17.9%)|Avg: 46.90 Kg
Tire Weight Per Set (Lower is better)
  1. Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
    43.50 Kg
  2. Continental Sport Contact 6
    44.10 Kg
  3. Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
    45.20 Kg
  4. Toyo Proxes Sport
    45.30 Kg
  5. Falken Azenis FK510
    47.80 Kg
  6. Accelera PHI
    47.90 Kg
  7. Kumho Ecsta PS91
    50.10 Kg
  8. Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
    51.30 Kg

Results

Score weighting - dry 55%, wet 40%, comfort and env 5%

Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 3rd 35.8 M 35 M +0.8 M 97.77%
Dry Handling 3rd 60.6 s 60.3 s +0.3 s 99.5%
Subj. Dry Handling 3rd 8.7 Points 9 Points -0.3 Points 96.67%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 4th 48.6 M 46.3 M +2.3 M 95.27%
Wet Handling 1st 70.37 s 100%
Subj. Wet Handling 1st 9 Points 100%
Straight Aqua 5th 84.7 Km/H 86.9 Km/H -2.2 Km/H 97.47%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 6th 7 Points 9.8 Points -2.8 Points 71.43%
Noise 8th 73.8 dB 72.1 dB +1.7 dB 97.7%
Tire Weight 1st 43.5 Kg 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 5th 9.04 kg / t 8.18 kg / t +0.86 kg / t 90.49%
2nd

Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S

265/35 R19
Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 35 M 100%
Dry Handling 2nd 60.5 s 60.3 s +0.2 s 99.67%
Subj. Dry Handling 4th 8.3 Points 9 Points -0.7 Points 92.22%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 46.3 M 100%
Wet Handling 5th 73.4 s 70.37 s +3.03 s 95.87%
Subj. Wet Handling 5th 6.5 Points 9 Points -2.5 Points 72.22%
Straight Aqua 2nd 86.7 Km/H 86.9 Km/H -0.2 Km/H 99.77%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 2nd 8.5 Points 9.8 Points -1.3 Points 86.73%
Noise 3rd 72.4 dB 72.1 dB +0.3 dB 99.59%
Tire Weight 3rd 45.2 Kg 43.5 Kg +1.7 Kg 96.24%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 3rd 8.7 kg / t 8.18 kg / t +0.52 kg / t 94.02%
Continental Sport Contact 6
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 35.4 M 35 M +0.4 M 98.87%
Dry Handling 1st 60.3 s 100%
Subj. Dry Handling 1st 9 Points 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 46.9 M 46.3 M +0.6 M 98.72%
Wet Handling 4th 73.36 s 70.37 s +2.99 s 95.92%
Subj. Wet Handling 6th 6 Points 9 Points -3 Points 66.67%
Straight Aqua 4th 85.8 Km/H 86.9 Km/H -1.1 Km/H 98.73%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 8 Points 9.8 Points -1.8 Points 81.63%
Noise 1st 72.1 dB 100%
Tire Weight 2nd 44.1 Kg 43.5 Kg +0.6 Kg 98.64%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 1st 8.18 kg / t 100%
4th

Falken Azenis FK510

265/35 R19
Falken Azenis FK510
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 4th 37.4 M 35 M +2.4 M 93.58%
Dry Handling 5th 61.1 s 60.3 s +0.8 s 98.69%
Subj. Dry Handling 7th 6.6 Points 9 Points -2.4 Points 73.33%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 3rd 48.4 M 46.3 M +2.1 M 95.66%
Wet Handling 6th 73.54 s 70.37 s +3.17 s 95.69%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 7 Points 9 Points -2 Points 77.78%
Straight Aqua 3rd 85.9 Km/H 86.9 Km/H -1 Km/H 98.85%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 1st 9.8 Points 100%
Noise 5th 72.9 dB 72.1 dB +0.8 dB 98.9%
Tire Weight 5th 47.8 Kg 43.5 Kg +4.3 Kg 91%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 6th 9.1 kg / t 8.18 kg / t +0.92 kg / t 89.89%
5th

Vredestein Ultrac Vorti

265/35 R19
Vredestein Ultrac Vorti
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 37.7 M 35 M +2.7 M 92.84%
Dry Handling 4th 60.9 s 60.3 s +0.6 s 99.01%
Subj. Dry Handling 2nd 8.9 Points 9 Points -0.1 Points 98.89%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 6th 53.8 M 46.3 M +7.5 M 86.06%
Wet Handling 2nd 72.78 s 70.37 s +2.41 s 96.69%
Subj. Wet Handling 2nd 8 Points 9 Points -1 Points 88.89%
Straight Aqua 6th 83.8 Km/H 86.9 Km/H -3.1 Km/H 96.43%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 8th 6.5 Points 9.8 Points -3.3 Points 66.33%
Noise 7th 73.4 dB 72.1 dB +1.3 dB 98.23%
Tire Weight 8th 51.3 Kg 43.5 Kg +7.8 Kg 84.8%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 7th 9.31 kg / t 8.18 kg / t +1.13 kg / t 87.86%
6th

Toyo Proxes Sport

265/35 R19
Toyo Proxes Sport
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 7th 38.8 M 35 M +3.8 M 90.21%
Dry Handling 7th 62.2 s 60.3 s +1.9 s 96.95%
Subj. Dry Handling 5th 7.6 Points 9 Points -1.4 Points 84.44%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 5th 49.9 M 46.3 M +3.6 M 92.79%
Wet Handling 3rd 73.17 s 70.37 s +2.8 s 96.17%
Subj. Wet Handling 3rd 7 Points 9 Points -2 Points 77.78%
Straight Aqua 1st 86.9 Km/H 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 8 Points 9.8 Points -1.8 Points 81.63%
Noise 6th 73.3 dB 72.1 dB +1.2 dB 98.36%
Tire Weight 4th 45.3 Kg 43.5 Kg +1.8 Kg 96.03%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 4th 8.91 kg / t 8.18 kg / t +0.73 kg / t 91.81%
7th

Kumho Ecsta PS91

265/35 R19
Kumho Ecsta PS91
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 5th 37.7 M 35 M +2.7 M 92.84%
Dry Handling 6th 61.2 s 60.3 s +0.9 s 98.53%
Subj. Dry Handling 6th 7.5 Points 9 Points -1.5 Points 83.33%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 7th 56.8 M 46.3 M +10.5 M 81.51%
Wet Handling 7th 74.83 s 70.37 s +4.46 s 94.04%
Subj. Wet Handling 6th 6 Points 9 Points -3 Points 66.67%
Straight Aqua 7th 83.6 Km/H 86.9 Km/H -3.3 Km/H 96.2%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 6th 7 Points 9.8 Points -2.8 Points 71.43%
Noise 4th 72.5 dB 72.1 dB +0.4 dB 99.45%
Tire Weight 7th 50.1 Kg 43.5 Kg +6.6 Kg 86.83%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 8th 9.41 kg / t 8.18 kg / t +1.23 kg / t 86.93%
8th

Accelera PHI

265/35 R19
Accelera PHI
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 8th 40.5 M 35 M +5.5 M 86.42%
Dry Handling 8th 63.8 s 60.3 s +3.5 s 94.51%
Subj. Dry Handling 8th 5.6 Points 9 Points -3.4 Points 62.22%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 8th 73.3 M 46.3 M +27 M 63.17%
Wet Handling 8th 86.43 s 70.37 s +16.06 s 81.42%
Subj. Wet Handling 8th 2 Points 9 Points -7 Points 22.22%
Straight Aqua 8th 82.9 Km/H 86.9 Km/H -4 Km/H 95.4%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Subj. Comfort 3rd 8 Points 9.8 Points -1.8 Points 81.63%
Noise 2nd 72.3 dB 72.1 dB +0.2 dB 99.72%
Tire Weight 6th 47.9 Kg 43.5 Kg +4.4 Kg 90.81%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Rolling Resistance 2nd 8.31 kg / t 8.18 kg / t +0.13 kg / t 98.44%

comments powered by Disqus