Test Charts / Tire Reviews

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R VS Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport RS VS Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R

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: 325/30 R21
Tires tested: 3
Disciplines: 5

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
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	143 ft	Best
2Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport RS	155 ft	+12 ft
3Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R	159 ft	+16 ft

The difference between best and worst was 11.3% (16 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths).

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	63.2 s	Best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport RS	63.2 s	Best
3Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R	64.9 s	+1.70 s

All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R	125 ft	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	150 ft	+25 ft
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport RS	166 ft	+41 ft

The difference between best and worst was 33% (41 ft ≈ 2.8 Car Lengths).

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R	106.47 s	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	113.3 s	+6.83 s
3Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport RS	116.87 s	+10.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 9.8% (10.4 s).

Comfort

Tire Weight
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Eagle F1 SuperSport RS	111.7 lb	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	114.2 lb	+2.5 lb
3Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R	117.6 lb	+5.9 lb

The difference between best and worst was 5.2% (5.9 lb).

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 · 39%
Dry Braking	50%	19.5%
Dry Handling	50%	19.5%
Wet · 56%
Wet Braking	50%	28%
Wet Handling	50%	28%
Comfort · 5%
Tire Weight	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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests