S2000 Racing and Competition The S2000 on the track and Solo circuit. Some of the fastest S2000 drivers in the world call this forum home.

RS-3 vs Z1SS vs 595 RS-R vs RE-11 vs Z2 vs Rivals

Thread Tools
 
Old 08-19-2011, 05:51 AM
  #301  
Former Sponsor
 
Gernby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by IntegraR0064
Gernby - First, hankooks require more pressure. I'd recommend 35 PSI-ish for the street. That's definitely a huge part of it. Driving on the tires at 30 psi is like driving on big floppy pillows, so I wouldn't be surprised at your results. The feel that remains after pumping the tires up is probably largely your diameter change.

Second, have you considered that a big part of the higher rolling resistance is simply due to them being a stickier tire? When you add significantly more surface adhesion, like these tires do, you get more rolling resistance. So any other tire with similar traction properties would do the same thing.

Anyway, I don't think anyone in this thread is worried about rolling resistance. It was an interesting discovery to mention and I'm glad you did but now it seems like you're continually recommending people to steer away from them solely for that reason - that is not everyone else's main criteria for choosing a tire, least of all in this thread.

On another note, a little earlier people were talking about wet traction for RE11 vs Star spec - not sure if anyone else saw this month's GRM, but at least for their conditions/test the star specs were significantly faster in the wet.
I'll play around with pressure more, but I'm already running higher pressure than before. From a physics standpoint, I don't see how the rubber compound would contribute much to the rolling resistance at all. I believe it is mostly due to the internal construction. I remember back in the 90's when Hoosier autocross tires were bias plys, and they had so much rolling resistance that it took an army of people to push the car forward at grid while all the guys running radials (BFG R1's, etc.) could push their cars one handed.

My issue is also unrelated to tire diameter. I had these same sized tires earlier last year, and they didn't cause this issue. I only had to change the tire size in my software dyno, and all the numbers worked out. With these tires, I have to add an additional ~5% correction on top of that.

Lastly, I don't understand what you mean by "continually recommending people to steer away ...". I've only mentioned it to ONE PERSON, who clearly said that he didn't think he needed the maximum performance. I think my advice was spot on for him.
Old 08-19-2011, 07:06 AM
  #302  

Thread Starter
 
psychoazn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Gernby, have you considered that the RS may have more intertia and/or have a weight difference from your previous Sumitomos? Also, the RS3 tends to run wide for any given size; you may need to physically measure the diameter as well.
Old 08-19-2011, 07:12 AM
  #303  

 
IntegraR0064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 1,884
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gernby
I'll play around with pressure more, but I'm already running higher pressure than before. From a physics standpoint, I don't see how the rubber compound would contribute much to the rolling resistance at all. I believe it is mostly due to the internal construction. I remember back in the 90's when Hoosier autocross tires were bias plys, and they had so much rolling resistance that it took an army of people to push the car forward at grid while all the guys running radials (BFG R1's, etc.) could push their cars one handed.
A tire with high surface adhesion will have the tread continually deforming to fill voids in the road surface. This happening to a larger extent will absorb more energy.

Originally Posted by gernby
My issue is also unrelated to tire diameter. I had these same sized tires earlier last year, and they didn't cause this issue. I only had to change the tire size in my software dyno, and all the numbers worked out. With these tires, I have to add an additional ~5% correction on top of that.
But did you do the measurement with higher pressure? I was saying that the pressure is most likely the main cause of it, and the only reason it still feels slower is because the wheels are bigger. But it sounds like you do have experience with that size tire so you're probably right. I'd be interested to see what the difference is with higher pressure.

I can also use my DL1 to get a pure acceleration difference between my stock tires and my RS3's once they come back after nationals next month, to see if I get a similar result.

Originally Posted by gernby
Lastly, I don't understand what you mean by "continually recommending people to steer away ...". I've only mentioned it to ONE PERSON, who clearly said that he didn't think he needed the maximum performance. I think my advice was spot on for him.
You're right, it seemed like you had said it multiple times but looking back you were just defending your point for most of them. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
Old 08-19-2011, 07:19 AM
  #304  

 
IntegraR0064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 1,884
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rjones
Did the GRM test include the Toyo R1R? If so how did it do?

I guess the test was on wet performance. What tires did they test? Who won?

I have to start getting GRM.
GRM has been an awesome magazine recently. I've been getting it for many years, but as of the last year or so they've been doing much more of engineering-style testing that is really useful. It's been great.

Anyway I'm at work and don't have it in front of me but from memory actually the R1R did not do very well. It was mid-pack and the star specs were actually faster than it. I believe the fastest tire in the wet was the advan neova, but only by a somewhat small margin over the dunlops.

I do think that the dunlops had a slight advantage in their test since the car has been tuned with dunlops the whole time, and the drivers are used to them. But still I don't think it's a huge effect.
Old 08-19-2011, 07:47 AM
  #305  
Registered User
 
rjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by IntegraR0064
Originally Posted by rjones' timestamp='1313705180' post='20891866
Did the GRM test include the Toyo R1R? If so how did it do?

I guess the test was on wet performance. What tires did they test? Who won?

I have to start getting GRM.
GRM has been an awesome magazine recently. I've been getting it for many years, but as of the last year or so they've been doing much more of engineering-style testing that is really useful. It's been great.

Anyway I'm at work and don't have it in front of me but from memory actually the R1R did not do very well. It was mid-pack and the star specs were actually faster than it. I believe the fastest tire in the wet was the advan neova, but only by a somewhat small margin over the dunlops.

I do think that the dunlops had a slight advantage in their test since the car has been tuned with dunlops the whole time, and the drivers are used to them. But still I don't think it's a huge effect.
Thanks, I just subscribed to GRM with any luck I will get the Oct. issue.
Old 08-19-2011, 08:34 AM
  #306  
Former Sponsor
 
Gernby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

I think we just need to drop the rolling resistance topic until someone has additional data. I agree that soft rubber would technically add to the rolling resistance, but I don't think it could account for the ~9 ft-lbs of torque I lost. I think the most obvious cause is a soft internal construction that gives a much larger contact patch at a given air pressure. If so, then I think raising the air pressure is a good thing to try.
Old 09-19-2011, 02:24 AM
  #307  
Registered User
 
andrew15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

That is a very good idea. I also want to upload few pics. Can i post pictures here? as i am new member.
Old 12-11-2011, 11:19 PM
  #308  

Thread Starter
 
psychoazn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

quick bump. added a picture.

Loose Z1SS vs loose RE-11

Name:  IMAG1990.jpg
Views: 20
Size:  436.8 KB
Old 12-11-2011, 11:44 PM
  #309  
Registered User
 
momofoolio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

^wow that might explain sth..

I don't know what I do with my RE-11s
I think they hate me
Old 12-12-2011, 08:37 AM
  #310  

 
Bullwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,635
Received 613 Likes on 428 Posts
Default

I'm on my first set of RE-11s, but it's been said that they cycle really well and will hold grip down to the cords (or at least the tread wear bar). They might not grip like RS3s, but they won't fall off as fast when you have so much tread still left. I'll find out next season. My RE-11s have 3 track days on them so far, and I'm hoping they'll last me all of the 2012 season (hoping to make it to at least 9 S2KC events, minus 1 ACS event, and Laguna i still up in the air for me $$$$)... I might need to get tires towards the end.


Quick Reply: RS-3 vs Z1SS vs 595 RS-R vs RE-11 vs Z2 vs Rivals



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:02 PM.