Test Charts / Tire Reviews

Goodyear Eagle F1 vs Falken Azenis FK460 vs Wildpeak AT Trail

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tire, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 255/40 R20
Tires tested: 3
Disciplines: 10

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tires can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	116 ft	Best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	122 ft	+6 ft
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	135 ft	+19 ft

The difference between best and worst was 15.5% (19 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	42.73 s	Best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	42.79 s	+0.06 s
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	44.35 s	+1.62 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.8% (1.62 s).

Wet

Wet Braking
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	144 ft	Best
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	155 ft	+11 ft
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	173 ft	+29 ft

The difference between best and worst was 20.1% (29 ft ≈ 2 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	47.41 s	Best
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	48.15 s	+0.74 s
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	50.25 s	+2.84 s

The difference between best and worst was 6% (2.84 s).

Snow

Snow Braking
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	43 ft	Best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	52 ft	+9 ft
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	63 ft	+20 ft

The difference between best and worst was 45.8% (20 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths).

Snow Traction
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	21.6 s	Best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	23.1 s	+1.50 s
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	26.5 s	+4.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 22.7% (4.9 s).

Snow Handling
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	82.5 s	Best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	85.8 s	+3.30 s
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	87.6 s	+5.10 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.2% (5.1 s).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	100 Points	Best
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	97 Points	-3.00 Points
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	95 Points	-5.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 5% (5 Points).

Subj. Noise
Tire	Result	Gap to best
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	100 Points	Best
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	96 Points	-4.00 Points
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	95 Points	-5.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 5% (5 Points).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S	7.35 kg/t	Best	$0
Falken Wildpeak AT Trail	8.3 kg/t	+0.95 kg/t	$38
Falken Azenis FK460 AS	9.38 kg/t	+2.03 kg/t	$81

The difference between best and worst was 27.6% (2.03 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Falken Azenis FK460 AS uses about 23 gal ($81) more fuel than the Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 5 M+S.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tire selection above.

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Show full testing methodology

Score Weighting

Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 27%
Dry Braking	50%	13.5%
Dry Handling	50%	13.5%
Wet · 37%
Wet Braking	50%	18.5%
Wet Handling	50%	18.5%
Snow · 26%
Snow Braking	35%	9.1%
Snow Traction	30%	7.8%
Snow Handling	35%	9.1%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Subj. Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 5%
Rolling Resistance	100%	5%

Our standard methods

The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.

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 analyze 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 behavior 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 analyze 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 behavior 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 analyze 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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests