Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The FASTEST Track Tires In The World Tested

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: 235/35 R19
Tires tested: 4
Disciplines: 8
Test vehicle: VW Golf GTI CS

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	Residual speed
1Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	106 ft	Best	0 mph
2Vitour Tempesta P1+	108 ft	+2 ft	11 mph
3Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	110 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
4Bridgestone Potenza Race	117 ft	+11 ft	25 mph

The difference between best and worst was 10.7% (11 ft ≈ 0.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone Potenza Race would still be travelling at 25 mph when the Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	79.53 s	Best
2Vitour Tempesta P1+	80.84 s	+1.31 s
3Bridgestone Potenza Race	81.37 s	+1.84 s
4Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	81.51 s	+1.98 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	8.8 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	8.5 Points	-0.30 Points
2Vitour Tempesta P1+	8.5 Points	-0.30 Points
4Bridgestone Potenza Race	8.2 Points	-0.60 Points

The difference between best and worst was 6.8% (0.6 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Potenza Race	92 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	108 ft	+16 ft	31 mph
3Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	114 ft	+22 ft	35 mph
4Vitour Tempesta P1+	119 ft	+27 ft	38 mph

The difference between best and worst was 29.6% (27 ft ≈ 1.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Vitour Tempesta P1+ would still be travelling at 38 mph when the Bridgestone Potenza Race had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Race	103.87 s	Best
2Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	109.72 s	+5.85 s
3Vitour Tempesta P1+	111.54 s	+7.67 s
4Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	111.67 s	+7.80 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.5% (7.8 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Potenza Race	9.1 Points	Best
2Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	8.4 Points	-0.70 Points
3Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	8.2 Points	-0.90 Points
4Vitour Tempesta P1+	7.2 Points	-1.90 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20.9% (1.9 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	45.6 mph	Best
2Bridgestone Potenza Race	45.4 mph	-0.2 mph
3Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	43.9 mph	-1.7 mph
4Vitour Tempesta P1+	42.9 mph	-2.7 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.9% (2.7 mph).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Potenza Race	8.9 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R	9.4 kg/t	+0.50 kg/t	$17
3Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS	9.9 kg/t	+1.00 kg/t	$33
4Vitour Tempesta P1+	10.9 kg/t	+2.00 kg/t	$66

The difference between best and worst was 22.5% (2 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Vitour Tempesta P1+ uses about 18 gal ($66) more fuel than the Bridgestone Potenza Race.

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.

Tire Pressures (as recorded): 2.5
Test Driver: Jonathan Benson

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 62.1 → 6.2 mph
Dry Handling: 75–77 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 6.2 mph
Wet Handling: 64–66 °F

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 · 85%
Dry Braking	20%	17%
Dry Handling	40%	34%
Subj. Dry Handling	40%	34%
Wet · 10%
Wet Braking	30%	3%
Wet Handling	30%	3%
Subj. Wet Handling	30%	3%
Straight Aqua	10%	1%
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.

Subj. Dry Handling

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 behavior, 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 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.

Subj. Wet Handling

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 behavior, 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.

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