Goodyear Eagle F1 vs Falken Azenis FK460 vs Wildpeak AT Trail

In this test we find out how the new Falken Azenis FK460 AS and Falken WildPeak Trail compare to the Tesla Model Y OE fitment Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S.

Testing Methodology

Test Driver

Jonathan Benson

Tire Size

255/40 R20

Test Location

Professional Proving Ground

Test Year

2023

Tires Tested

3

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.

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

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.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tire is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

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: ISO 28580 UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6

Read our complete testing methodology

Score Weighting Hide Score Weighting

How each category is weighted in the overall score:

Dry 26%

Dry Braking 50%

Dry Handling 50%

Wet 37%

Wet Braking 50%

Wet Handling 50%

Snow 21%

Snow Braking 35%

Snow Traction 30%

Snow Handling 35%

Comfort 5%

Subj. Comfort 50%

Subj. Noise 50%

Value 11%

Rolling Resistance 100%

Why is this interesting? Firstly, it's always nice to test the newest tires on the market, but more importantly it should help answer the question as to whether moving away from the OE tire your vehicle came fitted with is always a good option.

The OE fitted Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S has been developed with Tesla, and as such it is focused on low energy use, low noise levels and good comfort. This is pretty much now the standard set of rules car manufacturers want from an OE tire, whether they're developing an electric vehicle or regular internal combustion powered vehicle!

As this version of the Asymmetric 5 is specifically listed as M+S, it's been categorised as an ultra high performance all season tire, which is a perfect match for the new Falken Azenis FK460 AS. At face value, as both these tires sit in the same category, the main differences are that the Goodyear is fitted with acoustic foam and the Falken is not, and the Falken is warranted to 50,000 miles, where the Goodyear has no tread life warranty.

Finally, to give the test even more depth, what if you want to fit a mild all terrain tire on a smaller wheel size so you can do light off-roading with piece of mind? It's a lot of things to test, but I'm also including the Falken WildPeak Trail in 18" (the other tires are 20") as it will be a super interesting test to see how compromised the Model Y becomes with such a drastic change of wheel size and intent. The Wildpeak Trail is an mid all terrain tire which is offered with at 65,000 mile treadwear warranty.

Wet

As always, I started the test in the wet, and as the OE tire should be the perfect fit for this Model Y, I ran it first. Tesla and Goodyear done a really great job with this tire.

I know from murmurings from the industry that Tesla not only focus on noise, comfort and range, but that they also love a tire to steer hyper quickly, I'm not sure if it's to do with the desire to feel digital, but the Model Y with the Goodyear tire almost feels like a sports car it turns so quickly.

As you would expect, while the tire turned very quickly, it did break into understeer first which was manageable and pleasant.

So with this tire so tuned, what chance does the aftermarket all season tire have. Well, it turns out, quite a lot! I'm not going to claim that in terms of subjective handling it was better, but it pretty much equaled it, which I did not expect.

The steering was still crisp, the balance was still understeer and safe, though the FK460AS didn't quite give you the at limit feedback the Goodyear did, it did feel better on the brakes, and better midcorner in terms of outright grip. Really really impressive.

The difference in lap time was just over 1% in favour of the Falken. Given the fact that the Tesla tire is optimised for energy use, this is actually really impressive for the Goodyear, however the wet braking data shows a different story, with the Goodyear stopping nearly 10% later than the Falken. Would the average driver notice anything between the two tires, I really don't think so, other than braking if they really needed it.

How's your car going to be in the wet if you want to go offroading? Well, a little worse. Given the wheel size drop and the fact it's an AT tire, we are comparing a lot of variables at once which isn't ideal. The turn-in is slower, which will be down to both the wheel size and the tire type, there was less peak grip when turning and braking, which will be down to the fact it's a mild AT tire, and everything just happened a little more slowly.

Dry

The performance of the tires was very similar in the dry. The OE Goodyear did stretch it legs subjectively a little more. It was just a bit sharper than the FK460 AS, and a lot sharper than the all terrain, which certainly wasn't at home during the handling lap. The Goodyear also took back the lead in lap time and braking, but by a much smaller margin than in the wet.

Perhaps the Tesla chassis and steering combination hides certain negative aspects of the tires, but I'm genuinely impressed with just how good the Goodyear is on this, also impressed with how close the FK460 is given its higher starting tread depth.

Snow

Snow, now this is where it gets even more interesting! To be as transparent as I possibly can be, due to timing,  this snow data came from Falken as part of an internal evaluation. I do however trust the data.

If you've looked at how the tires tread pattern looks, It will come as zero surprise the Goodyear was the worst in snow performance, 20% behind the all season in snow braking. What might be surprising to you is that the all terrain, the Wildpeak AT Trail was another 25% ahead of the all season! The AT Trail is "severe snow rated", which means it carries the 3 peak mountain snowflake symbol and it really shows with a huge difference in safety. 

The story was similar in traction and handling, though not as pronounced as braking, with the Wildpeak AT Trail maintaining it's significant advantage over the FK460, which in turn had a sizeable advantage over the OE Goodyear.

Comfort

The all terrain proved to be the most comfortable, which if everything was equal would be a very unusual result, but it is on a 2" smaller wheel so it has way more sidewall meaning it could absorb the impacts with ease. But, it was also the noisiest - it wasn't loud, but on smooth road there was tread pattern noise there wasn't with the other two.

That said, if noise is a big deal for you, the acoustic foam does work. The OE tire was slightly quieter than the aftermarket, and generally more comfortable on all surfaces and impacts, but again not by as much as I thought it was going to be. I keep coming back to would the average person notice? I think on the noise, maybe, on the comfort, probably not.

Value

It should be no surprise that the OE Goodyear had the lowest energy use / rolling resistance, this is something manufacturers optimise heavily now to give better range numbers or a high MPG. On an electric vehicle the tire accounts for around one quarter of energy use, and on a traditional IC vehicle, one fifth of all energy used.

Results

So, what to make of all the data? As you can see from the spider chart below, The Goodyear OE tire has a clear advantage in areas which are good for car selling statistics - noise, rolling resistance, and subjective comfort if we ignore the 18" all terrain. The Goodyear also has an advantage in dry braking, but this is likely a result of the lower starting tread depth which is a huge advantage for dry performance.

The Azenis FK460 AS aftermarket ultra high performance all season certainly loses out in energy use, potentially losing out on 7% of range to the OE tire, but the gap in noise and comfort isn't huge. For the other performances of the tire, those which can be classified as driving safety in the wet and snow, the aftermarket tire vastly out performs the stock option. This is a worthy trade for a lot of people, and if I'd tested hydroplaning, that advantage would have been further extended.

Lastly, the Wildpeak AT Trail all terrain tire moved the balance of grip towards snow, and if we'd tested the off-road ability of the tires, it's safe to assume it would have a huge advantage here.

All three set of tires have their own sets of merits. Some people will be highly focused on energy use making the OE tire the only option, but others will want a higher level of safety in the wet and snow than provided.

Three excellent products giving the customer choice.

1^st

Falken Wildpeak AT Trail

255/40 R20 109V

• 3PMSF: yes
• Weight: 16.57 kgs
• Tread: 8.6 mm

Dry

91.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	3rd	41 M	35.5 M	+5.5 M	86.59%
Dry Handling	3rd	44.35 s	42.73 s	+1.62 s	96.35%

Wet

88.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	3rd	52.6 M	43.8 M	+8.8 M	83.27%
Wet Handling	3rd	50.25 s	47.41 s	+2.84 s	94.35%

Snow

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	1st	13.1 M			100%
Snow Traction	1st	21.6 s			100%
Snow Handling	1st	82.5 s			100%

Comfort

97.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	1st	100 Points			100%
Subj. Noise	3rd	95 Points	100 Points	-5 Points	95%

Value

88.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	2nd	8.3 kg / t	7.35 kg / t	+0.95 kg / t	88.55%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

1^st

Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S

255/40 R20 101W

• Weight: 11.95 kgs
• Tread: 6.6 mm

Dry

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	1st	35.5 M			100%
Dry Handling	1st	42.73 s			100%

Wet

95.6%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	2nd	47.2 M	43.8 M	+3.4 M	92.8%
Wet Handling	2nd	48.15 s	47.41 s	+0.74 s	98.46%

Snow

81.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	3rd	19.1 M	13.1 M	+6 M	68.59%
Snow Traction	3rd	26.5 s	21.6 s	+4.9 s	81.51%
Snow Handling	3rd	87.6 s	82.5 s	+5.1 s	94.18%

Comfort

98.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	2nd	97 Points	100 Points	-3 Points	97%
Subj. Noise	1st	100 Points			100%

Value

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	1st	7.35 kg / t			100%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts

1^st

Falken Azenis FK460 AS

255/40 R20 101Y

• Weight: 13.79 kgs
• Tread: 7.7 mm

Dry

97.8%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Dry Braking	2nd	37.1 M	35.5 M	+1.6 M	95.69%
Dry Handling	2nd	42.79 s	42.73 s	+0.06 s	99.86%

Wet

100%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Wet Braking	1st	43.8 M			100%
Wet Handling	1st	47.41 s			100%

Snow

90.7%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Snow Braking	2nd	15.9 M	13.1 M	+2.8 M	82.39%
Snow Traction	2nd	23.1 s	21.6 s	+1.5 s	93.51%
Snow Handling	2nd	85.8 s	82.5 s	+3.3 s	96.15%

Comfort

95.5%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Subj. Comfort	3rd	95 Points	100 Points	-5 Points	95%
Subj. Noise	2nd	96 Points	100 Points	-4 Points	96%

Value

78.4%

Test	#	Result	Best	Diff	%
Rolling Resistance	3rd	9.38 kg / t	7.35 kg / t	+2.03 kg / t	78.36%

Read Reviews Test Results Results Table Test Charts