2022 Tire Reviews UUHP Summer Tire Test

It's the 2022 Tire Reviews Ultra-Ultra High Performance Summer Tire Test! You can watch the video here, or scroll down for the full write up and data!

Testing Methodology

Test Driver

Jonathan Benson

Tire Size

255/35 R19

Test Location

Professional Proving Ground

Test Year

2022

Tires Tested

10

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Read our complete testing methodology

You might be wondering why this test is out so early in the year? There's a new tire on the market, the Continental SportContact 7, and I really wanted to be the first person to test it!

To find out how good the new new Continental is, I'll be putting it against the recently launched Bridgestone Potenza Sport, the established, if not aging Michelin Pilot Sport 4S and Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport, plus some of the internet's favorites, the Toyo Proxes Sport A, the Kumho Ecsta PS71,  the Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+, the Nankang Sportnex AS-2+, the Federal Evolution ST-1 and the cheapest set of tires we could buy online for this Supra, which is a mix of Star Performer for the front axle and Goodride for the wider rear!

As always, I'm going to deep dive into all the performance qualities of the tires, and given the class of tire, really focus on driving dynamics and enjoyment, so by the end of the test we'll know whether the new Continental really has moved the game on, or whether one of the established tires can remain triumphant!

The Toyota Supra is fitted with 255/35 R19 front tires, and 275/35 R19 rear tires.

Dry

The dry handling circuit is relatively short and fast, and with it's long sweeping corners it is an awesome test of the tires lateral grip, and allows you to really feel how the car and tire package is balanced at the limit. All the tires are close in time, but there's a pretty big difference subjectively, so prepare for me to talk too much about tires again.

In last place was, shockingly, the mixed budget pair. While this is no surprise, you might find it interesting that the balance of grip totally swapped around from the wet test, we've switched from understeer to oversteer, and my gosh what a terrible thing it was to drive. It made the Supra quite nasty to drive, with the front axle bobbing about and the rear suddenly and constantly breaking into oversteer with no ability to control the slide.

A little ahead was the Federal and Nankang. While both these tires had similar levels of grip, they delivered it in totally different ways. The Federal was really difficult to try and drive quickly, it had lots of understeer and if you tried to balance it with the throttle, the oversteer was sudden and abrupt.

Conversely, the eight placed Nankang was like a big soft puppy. The steering was merely a suggestion of where you wanted to go, and once the car rotated you were better off steering the car on the throttle. But it was really easy to slide, really progressive, and one of the most fun tires. People always ask me what tire they should buy if they want to learn to drift - it's this. It doesn't wear out either, we've used it for the drifty filming laps and it held up really well. Not fast, not grippy, but fun.

Kumho and Vredestein are the next two tires. The kumho was the first tire so far where you felt like you were driving the car, rather than managing some sort of situation constantly, the steering was good, but not great, and it had consistent grip.

The Vredestein was next. I thought I'd like this as I was warming up on the way to track as the steering felt good, however the grip was really peaky, it didn't like sliding on either axle, and was just a bit of a handful to drive. Shame, but this is an old tire now and probably ready for an update.

Now we're onto the top 4, it's really close! They're covered by less than 1% in time, but I've still got a lot to say about the handling differences.

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S was fourth. If you've watched any of my previous videos you'll know I think this tire gives up a little too much in dry handling on it's quest to be a tire for everyone, and I'm sticking to that. As always with the Michelin, the grip is fantastic, it's really strong on the brakes, but it's steering has a big delay compared to the best, and it gives you little information at the limit. Am I understeering? Am I about to oversteer? You have to wait for your inner ear to tell you rather than the steering wheel. Oh, and it liked to understeer. 

The Bridgestone Potenza Sport was third fastest. It had great grip, and direct, quick steering, the quickest of the group actually, and it was very precise. While that did make it feel a bit nervous, I'm ok with that. What I'm not ok with was the communication at the limit. At 90% it was really fun, and possibly the best tire here, but at 100% it just gave up some detail you want. 

Essentially joint first is the new Continental SportContact 7 and Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport.

The Continental is mega, and was the faster of the two tires by 0.02 seconds. The steering wasn't quite as quick as the bridgestone, but it was the most liniar of the group in terms of steering force build up. It was also one of the nicest to drive quickly, as it communicated everything at the limit really beautifully and was really progressive past the limit, meaning you weren't scared to slide. It was confidence inspiring, and felt the best on the brakes of the group.

The Goodyear is just at home on the dry track. I get a lot of questions on the Tire Reviews website asking what's my recommendation for the best road tire to use on track days, and people always seem surprised when I say the F1 SuperSport. Stop being surprised, it is awesome. Quick steering, loads of lateral grip, lovely controllability at the limit, yes it's not quite as easy to drive at the limit as the Conti, which leads the group, but it's fun and fast. It's not the best in the wet anymore, but it handles the heat of track driving so well, it's great. Fit this tire if you're looking for a road tire that will take abuse of track days, it's just a dream in this environment and feels the most at home here.

Dry braking retained the top 4 from dry handling, but this time had Michelin ahead of Goodyear and Bridgestone, with the Federal stopping the Supra much better than it handled the lap.

Wet

The wet handling lap is long enough and varied enough to get some pretty good time differences between the tires. 

So, the slowest tires in the test were NOT the extreme "Cheap as it can get" mixed set, to my surprise. It was the Federal, which was the only tire over 100 seconds.

This tire had zero redeeming features. Like, not even "fun to drive sideways" as the grip was so low, and so difficult to recover when sliding, it was just frustrating. I wrote in my notes "almost undriveable, extremely low grip at both ends, poor traction, poor braking, understeer and oversteer, really difficult tire to drive consistently" and was happy to get them off.

Next up, another 3 seconds on, WAS the mix budget group, the Goodride rear and Star Performer front. If you've seen my all season test, you'll know the star performer is definitely not the star of any tire test, and in this mixed fitment, the front end was the weakest link. This DID mean the Supra had quite an understeer balance, which is usually considered safe, but I guess it's only safe if the car actually turns. Not recommended.

Goodyear was next, and the balance of the car felt really bad, in fact not knowing what I was driving on at the time, I thought this might be the mixed tires as the grip difference was so big between the axles. The front end had great, nicely weighted steering, the car turned in quickly, but the rear tire just couldn't hook up, and I found myself oversteering mid corner. Not because I was trail braking, not because I was applying throttle, just because the car wanted to slide and I had no idea why. They did feel better as they started to warm up, but not enough to jump places.

Kumho was seventh fastest. Now, this felt a little more sporty initially, the steering felt fine, it turned quickly, but, the levels of grip were pretty low overall, and the biggest issue was once you were past the limit of grip, you were sliding a long time, waiting and waiting for the grip to come back. On both axles.

The Vredestein was another tire like the goodyear with good front grip, but a flighty rear that didn't want to turn, and meant you were waiting forever to get back on the throttle in the corners.

Toyo was fifth. It didn't feel like it had a huge amount of grip, but the grip it had was friendly and balanced and I really enjoyed it. You could push on and attack the track, which made me smile. In fact, it's the first tire of the group I really enjoyed subjectively.

Nankang placed FOURTH! It didn't have the most grip, but it did have good front rear balance unlike some of the previous tires, which made it easy to drive. It was kind of like driving a big soft warm bath, which might not be the best analogy, but it's how I felt driving the car. Not sporty but impressive, especially considering the price.

Michelin in third repeated the issues of the Vredestein and Goodyear, it was rear limited, but unlike the Goodyear and Vred, this felt like it had awesome grip, especially on the brakes. Soft steering though, and not the most communication.

A significant step on in second place was the Bridgestone Potenza Sport, once again proving that this is the real deal in the wet. As in previous tests, it was a tire you had to hustle around the track, it felt meaty, it made you work, but ultimately it rewarded you with a good lap time. Honestly, I'm not sure that this is the best quality for a road tire, but I enjoyed it, and it delivered the grip, doubly impressive when you consider how little tread depth it starts with...

And speaking of delivering the grip, the new Continental SportContact 7 was quite simply a different category of tire. Yes I know it's the newest tire here by quite some margin, so it's no surprise it's the best in the wet, but it was five seconds faster than the next best tire!

Continental were bullish at the launch event, saying they'd found a big jump in wet performance, but every tire manufacturer says that at launch events. This time it's true. 

It had so much grip, but not horrible fighty grip, lovely progressive grip. Good turn in, it was happy sliding, it was forgiving, I still can't get over just how good it is, and how easy it was to drive fast, as fast and easy aren't often a thing. The Sport Contact 7 is very impressive.

Continental and Michelin again led the way in wet braking, with the Nankang repeating its impressive performance from wet handling. Federal struggled in both wet tests.

Straight aquaplaning was led by Kumho and Nankang, by a significant margin over the rest of the group. Unlike Bridgestone, Continental and Goodyear, Michelin didn't sacrifice aquaplaning resistance for its excellent grip in the dry and wet.

Curved aquaplaning had a similar overall result to straight aquaplaning.

Environment

The Nankang AS2+ had the lowest noise on test.

The Nankang also had the joint highest subjective comfort score, tying with Vredestein and Toyo.

The Goodride budget tire had the lowest rolling resistance, narrowly beating the Michelin and Nankang. The Bridgestone Potenza Sport had an unusually high result in rolling resistance.

Results

1^st

Continental SportContact 7

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: D/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.49 kgs
• Tread: 7.4 mm

The best in wet braking and handling by a considerable margin, fastest in the dry with shortest dry braking.

Poor aquaplaning resistance, increased rolling resistance.

The just released Continental SportContact 7 sets a new benchmark in the wet, finishing both tests with an impressive gap to the next best tire. Fortunately this steller wet performance doesn't come at the expense of dry performance, as the new SC7 is also the fastest in the dry, with the shortest dry braking. The drawbacks, the tire isn't the strongest in aquaplaning, and is 6% off the best in the rolling resistance test. With such an advantage in the wet the new Continental Sport Contact 7 is a deserving test winner, and with it, a new standard for the UUHP segment.

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	33.17 M			100%
Dry Handling	1st	52.16 s			100%

Wet

95.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	50.13 M			100%
Wet Handling	1st	83.24 s			100%
Straight Aqua	8th	86.61 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-3.46 Km/H	96.16%
Curved Aquaplaning	8th	2.43 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.46 m/sec2	84.08%

Comfort

93.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	6th	9 Points	10 Points	-1 Points	90%
Noise	4th	73.5 dB	71.3 dB	+2.2 dB	97.01%

Value

93.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	7th	9.565 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.58 kg / t	93.94%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

2^nd

Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: C/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 11.72 kgs
• Tread: 7.5 mm

Excellent grip in the dry and wet, good aquaplaning resistance, low levels of noise, low rolling resistance.

Lack of steering feel and speed during handling tests.

The Michelin Pilot Sport 4S continues to be a tire that does everything well, excelling in every test and having a range of abilities no tire can rival. The negative of the PS4S is the same as always, it has slightly slower steering and worse feedback than the best on test, but this does bring levels of refinement the sportier tires can't match.

Dry

98.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	33.73 M	33.17 M	+0.56 M	98.34%
Dry Handling	4th	52.5 s	52.16 s	+0.34 s	99.35%

Wet

93.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	2nd	52.91 M	50.13 M	+2.78 M	94.75%
Wet Handling	3rd	91.11 s	83.24 s	+7.87 s	91.36%
Straight Aqua	3rd	88.1 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-1.97 Km/H	97.81%
Curved Aquaplaning	3rd	2.59 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.3 m/sec2	89.62%

Comfort

96.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	4th	9.5 Points	10 Points	-0.5 Points	95%
Noise	3rd	73 dB	71.3 dB	+1.7 dB	97.67%

Value

99.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	2nd	9.04 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.05 kg / t	99.39%

Read Reviews Test Results Buy from £310.99 Results Table Test Charts

3^rd

Bridgestone Potenza Sport

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: D/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 11.46 kgs
• Tread: 6.6 mm

Excellent in the dry with quick handling and sharp steering, very good in the wet.

Low aquaplaning resistance, high levels of noise, lowest comfort on test, highest rolling resistance on test.

The Bridgestone Potenza Sport continues to be an exciting tire to drive, with sporty handling and excellent dynamic properties in the dry and wet. This does compromise the aquaplaning ability, comfort levels and rolling resistance of the tire, and as the only tire with the starting tread depth below 7mm, this is a tire for the enthusiast that prioritises driving enjoyment.

Dry

96.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	4th	35.4 M	33.17 M	+2.23 M	93.7%
Dry Handling	3rd	52.37 s	52.16 s	+0.21 s	99.6%

Wet

92.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	3rd	53.41 M	50.13 M	+3.28 M	93.86%
Wet Handling	2nd	88.57 s	83.24 s	+5.33 s	93.98%
Straight Aqua	7th	86.87 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-3.2 Km/H	96.45%
Curved Aquaplaning	5th	2.51 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.38 m/sec2	86.85%

Comfort

87.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	10th	8 Points	10 Points	-2 Points	80%
Noise	8th	74.4 dB	71.3 dB	+3.1 dB	95.83%

Value

87.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	10th	10.29 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+1.31 kg / t	87.32%

Read Reviews Test Results Buy from £280.99 Results Table Test Charts

4^th

Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: D/A/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 11.43 kgs
• Tread: 7.2 mm

Excellent in the dry with the best dry handling and short dry braking distances.

Low grip in the wet with long wet braking distances, low aquaplaning resistance, noisiest tire on test, low levels of comfort.

The Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport once again proves itself to be one of the best road bias tires if you're interested in taking your car on track. Unfortunately, that does come at the expense of some road manners, such as wet performance and comfort levels but this is still the tire to pick if you're planning track work.

Dry

97.3%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	3rd	35.06 M	33.17 M	+1.89 M	94.61%
Dry Handling	2nd	52.18 s	52.16 s	+0.02 s	99.96%

Wet

89.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	7th	56.65 M	50.13 M	+6.52 M	88.49%
Wet Handling	8th	93.99 s	83.24 s	+10.75 s	88.56%
Straight Aqua	10th	85.23 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-4.84 Km/H	94.63%
Curved Aquaplaning	6th	2.5 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.39 m/sec2	86.51%

Comfort

90.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	9th	8.5 Points	10 Points	-1.5 Points	85%
Noise	10th	74.9 dB	71.3 dB	+3.6 dB	95.19%

Value

94.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	6th	9.52 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.54 kg / t	94.38%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

5^th

Nankang Sportnex AS2+

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: E/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 12.36 kgs
• Tread: 7.9 mm

Good grip in the wet, high aquaplaning resistance, quietest tire on test, excellent levels of comfort, low rolling resistance, low purchase price.

Poor grip in the dry with oversteer balance.

The Nankang Sportnex AS-2+ punched above its price category, beating the more established brands of Kumho and Toyo. The tire might not have been the most dynamic in the dry, but it performed well in all the wet testing and had good levels of comfort, low noise, and low rolling resistance. The AS2+ does seem more comfort than performance bias, but it's still an impressive set of results for the price point.

Dry

92.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	9th	37.48 M	33.17 M	+4.31 M	88.5%
Dry Handling	8th	54.4 s	52.16 s	+2.24 s	95.88%

Wet

93.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	4th	55.9 M	50.13 M	+5.77 M	89.68%
Wet Handling	4th	91.69 s	83.24 s	+8.45 s	90.78%
Straight Aqua	2nd	89.43 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-0.64 Km/H	99.29%
Curved Aquaplaning	2nd	2.77 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.12 m/sec2	95.85%

Comfort

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	1st	10 Points			100%
Noise	1st	71.3 dB			100%

Value

98%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	3rd	9.165 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.18 kg / t	98.04%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

6^th

Kumho Ecsta PS71

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: D/A/73
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 11.42 kgs
• Tread: 7.7 mm

Highest aquaplaning resistance on test, low rolling resistance.

Poor grip in the dry and wet.

The Kumho Ecsta PS71 seems to have put all its eggs in the deep water basket, where it excelled, however a tire needs to perform well in more than a single category, and unfortunately the PS71 struggled in the dry and wet, in both braking and handling.

Dry

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	6th	36.58 M	33.17 M	+3.41 M	90.68%
Dry Handling	7th	53.94 s	52.16 s	+1.78 s	96.7%

Wet

94.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	5th	56.18 M	50.13 M	+6.05 M	89.23%
Wet Handling	7th	93.86 s	83.24 s	+10.62 s	88.69%
Straight Aqua	1st	90.07 Km/H			100%
Curved Aquaplaning	1st	2.89 m/sec2			100%

Comfort

91.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	8th	8.8 Points	10 Points	-1.2 Points	88%
Noise	9th	74.8 dB	71.3 dB	+3.5 dB	95.32%

Value

96.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	4th	9.285 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.3 kg / t	96.77%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

7^th

Toyo Proxes Sport A

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: E/A/70
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 10.96 kgs
• Tread: 7.2 mm

Predictable wet handling, good straight aquaplaning performance, good leves of comfort.

Long braking distances in the dry and wet, high rolling resistance.

The Toyo Proxes Sport A peaked in comfort testing and wet handling, where the tire was predictable, but the levels of grip in the dry and wet were average at best, and the tire had long braking distances in both tests.

Dry

94%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	7th	36.83 M	33.17 M	+3.66 M	90.06%
Dry Handling	5th	53.24 s	52.16 s	+1.08 s	97.97%

Wet

88.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	9th	61 M	50.13 M	+10.87 M	82.18%
Wet Handling	5th	91.75 s	83.24 s	+8.51 s	90.72%
Straight Aqua	5th	87.66 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-2.41 Km/H	97.32%
Curved Aquaplaning	8th	2.43 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.46 m/sec2	84.08%

Comfort

98.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	1st	10 Points			100%
Noise	5th	73.6 dB	71.3 dB	+2.3 dB	96.88%

Value

93.1%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	9th	9.655 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.67 kg / t	93.06%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

8^th

Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: D/A/71
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 12.7 kgs
• Tread: 7.4 mm

Good levels of comfort.

Poor grip in the wet and dry, average aquaplaning resistance, high rolling resistance.

The Vredestein Ultrac Vorti+ was a comfortable performance tire, but the comfort came at the cost of handling, with the Vorti+ feeling woolly with low levels of grip in the dry and wet.

Dry

93.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	8th	36.85 M	33.17 M	+3.68 M	90.01%
Dry Handling	6th	53.51 s	52.16 s	+1.35 s	97.48%

Wet

90.2%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	6th	56.31 M	50.13 M	+6.18 M	89.03%
Wet Handling	6th	93.57 s	83.24 s	+10.33 s	88.96%
Straight Aqua	6th	87.1 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-2.97 Km/H	96.7%
Curved Aquaplaning	7th	2.49 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.4 m/sec2	86.16%

Comfort

98.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	1st	10 Points			100%
Noise	6th	73.7 dB	71.3 dB	+2.4 dB	96.74%

Value

93.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	8th	9.605 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.62 kg / t	93.55%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

9^th

Goodride SA37

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: C/B/72
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 11.59 kgs
• Tread: 7.7 mm

Good straight aquaplaning resistance, low rolling resistance, low purchase price.

Very poor grip in the dry and wet with unbalanced handling.

The mixed budget combination of Goodride and Star Performer created an unbalanced vehicle with unpredictable handling characteristics. Not Recommended.

Dry

91.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	10th	37.52 M	33.17 M	+4.35 M	88.41%
Dry Handling	10th	54.95 s	52.16 s	+2.79 s	94.92%

Wet

88.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	8th	60.97 M	50.13 M	+10.84 M	82.22%
Wet Handling	9th	96.95 s	83.24 s	+13.71 s	85.86%
Straight Aqua	4th	88.08 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-1.99 Km/H	97.79%
Curved Aquaplaning	4th	2.57 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.32 m/sec2	88.93%

Comfort

95.9%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	4th	9.5 Points	10 Points	-0.5 Points	95%
Noise	6th	73.7 dB	71.3 dB	+2.4 dB	96.74%

Value

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	1st	8.985 kg / t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

10^th

Federal Evoluzion ST 1

255/35 R19 96Y

• EU Label: E/B/73
• 3PMSF: no
• Weight: 12.44 kgs
• Tread: 7.2 mm

Low external noise, low purchase price.

Extremely low grip in the wet with long wet braking distances and difficult to control handling, low aquaplaning resistance, low grip in the dry with poor handling.

The Federal Evolution ST-1 has poor grip in every condition, and dangerously long wet braking distances. Not recommended.

Dry

93.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	5th	36.36 M	33.17 M	+3.19 M	91.23%
Dry Handling	9th	54.57 s	52.16 s	+2.41 s	95.58%

Wet

84.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	10th	64.06 M	50.13 M	+13.93 M	78.25%
Wet Handling	10th	101.1 s	83.24 s	+17.86 s	82.33%
Straight Aqua	9th	85.26 Km/H	90.07 Km/H	-4.81 Km/H	94.66%
Curved Aquaplaning	10th	2.38 m/sec2	2.89 m/sec2	-0.51 m/sec2	82.35%

Comfort

94.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	6th	9 Points	10 Points	-1 Points	90%
Noise	2nd	71.8 dB	71.3 dB	+0.5 dB	99.3%

Value

95.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	5th	9.4 kg / t	8.985 kg / t	+0.42 kg / t	95.59%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts