Is there a new UHP king?

[davey_83]

 

245/35 R19 & 265/35 R19 tested 

[Andy_Muxlow]

Cracking test there. Nice video covers a lot of stuff. 

[350Butcher]

Been saying it for years but this type of information is what the Police should be preaching and putting out to folk and try to put these lethal tyre manufacturers out of business...........instead of still banging on the decades long "speed kills" campaign!

[davey_83]

Exactly, massive difference between even mid range and super budget tyres #lethal

A 35 profile tyre is arguably always going to be fitted to a performance car, meaning they're even more important than on a 3 cylinder grocery getter.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by davey_83

[G1en]

Anyone that puts budget tyres on an M car is only gonna contribute to the evolution of the human race through natural selection so crack on i say. 

On a serious note, even the man himself said a lot of the results were very close and subjective between the premium brands and mid range choice which is why its so hard to say the “best” tyre. 

I have been 2 seconds apart on a lap with the same car/conditions AND same tyres so human skill is a massive variable as is car setup/configuration. The same tyres can be a world apart in feel and performance from one car to the next, low pressures to high pressures and so on and so on. Good video none the less 

[coldel]

11 hours ago, davey_83 said:

Exactly, massive difference between even mid range and super budget tyres #lethal

A 35 profile tyre is arguably always going to be fitted to a performance car, meaning they're even more important than on a 3 cylinder grocery getter.

 

 

 

 

 

Is it massive a difference? As a side point the charts are appalling and symptomatic of journos who don't understand how to present data. The handling dry test for example, the worst vs the best, the difference is 5% The chart would attempt to fool you into thinking one is around x3 worse than the other when its not, in fact no where near that. Charts have one goal, to visualise data, in that respect all the above fail miserably to present the true view and can just as easily mislead to false conclusions.

[350Butcher]

I know what you’re saying but I wasn’t being fooled by presentation myself so much at looking at the numbers and the wet braking stood out for me with budget taking best part of 30m more to stop than the 46m total the best on test managed (at only 62mph), bear in mind the people who install these type of tyres will also have budget pads too and you could be looking at doubling stopping distances over oem equipment. 

 

Whenever I’m in the scenario where traffic suddenly stops, especially on motorways, the first thing I do is look in the rear view mirror to make sure I don’t need to dive out the way for mr budget behind me!! These products just should not be on sale in my mind, there should be a minimum standard these products should meet as there are in plenty of other things.........that won’t kill you or worse someone else either!! 

[coldel]

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer the better tyres, but the graphics are fundamentally wrong. And given how much our brains work subconsciously vs consciously plenty would have looked at those charts and taken the relative size differences and committed that to memory than the numbers to the side.

 

There is a two and a half metre difference in dry braking between first and sixth place, that is a small amount in reality given the distances of 35m and 37.7m but the chart makes those 'distances' look four times further. In dry braking, given peoples reaction times in real driving scenarios, any of those top 6 or 7 tyres are fine for instance.

[G1en]

I see where you are coming from coldel but in defence of the charts/data there has to be a baseline and then a proportionate improvement gap. Ie 3 tyres do a 50,52,54 sec lap. Tyre 2 shows a 50% improvement over tyre 3 when compared against tyre 1. Now overall the 2 second difference is just 4% but when comparing against each other the percentages/difference feels much greater. 

I mean for the tests above, he could have done laps with no tyres (just rims) and still set a time, maybe twice as long but we wouldnt say that driving without tyres is only 50% worse than with tyres. 

Not having a go at all, just explaining my view on it and why they may have presented it like they have, not saying its right either but they have to display the results somehow and displaying a bar chart from zero would not get across the required effect (or deception) delete as necessary. 

[coldel]

If you want to show improvement difference the visualisation has to be different. This stuff is all explained in year one stats degrees. It is astonishing how the journalistic world continues to show data poorly, even worse, interpret it poorly and mislead people who rely on them to present the data to them. Fundamentally, you do not use charts to create an impact, you use charts to visualise data but it should lead to the same conclusions as looking at data tables. Those charts should start at zero for the purposes of the video, what they have shown is wrong.

 

Anyway, rant over, I get some people wont understand my point of view. But it is a bug bear how lazy people are around understanding and interpreting data.

Edited July 9, 2019 by coldel

[G1en]

Fair enough, if your saying its wrong then i’ll accept that and they should have displayed it differently. As i said above though, i think (maybe wrongly, who knows) that they were trying to display the relative performance difference in relation to each tyre and emphasise the big drop off to a budget tyre. If they have displayed it wrong they have probably got someone who's not done a stats degree to do the charts or someone like me that just “wings it”

[davey_83]

Poorly presented stats or not the budget tyre performance is awful and clearly bottom both on paper and subjective feel. When the top manufacturers are all within shades of each other and a cheap tyre is stone last every time then the numbers speak for themselves. The Chinese tyres performance isn't defendable. It's not even as if it placed second to last once, not once. It's was thrown in purely to present where not to spend ones money. 

 

Great to see Goodyear smash Michelin and Continental in the wet handling mind. 

 

265 35 R19

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by davey_83

[coldel]

Nobody is denying the budget tyre is last, chart style or not we can see that. I don't buy budget tyres and would never recommend them. The issue is that the relativates i.e. how different one tyre is to the next is grossly misrepresented and can lead people to make spurious claims because the data has been mishandled and visualised incorrectly. Here is the Dry Handling data which the chart shows the apparently massive differences between last to first for example when charted in its correct visualisation if using the bar chart approach:

 

If we are talking marginals i.e. F1 levels of required performance improvement, then yes you need the detail, this isn't that sort of test by a long shot though. 

 

As much as AttakZ likes to look at grammar I like to look at stats, as they inform us every day on multiple issues, people believe them, yet those delivering them are not qualified. Just sayin.

 

 

[davey_83]

Im looking at the numbers along with the graph and again the numbers speak for themselves, both on youtube and online tyre reviews. The graphs in the YT videos are equal to all tyres to present stats, its fair I don't have an issue with it. In F1 qually it shows lap times and +/- figure to show difference. It doesn't show the next car is 0.2sec slower but that's only 0.03% over the entire lap. No one is interested in the 100 odd seconds that happen before, its the difference that's important at the finish line to determine performance.

 

Again only my view and your chart is pretty pointless at a glance to convey performance differences.

[coldel]

Again, that shows how the public in general don't understand data.

 

My chart shows that in terms of significant differences the first 3 tyres are much of a muchness in terms of everyday use. In fact if you re-ran the test a 1000 times due to the lack of significant difference you would get them in different orders. Thats why sig testing is hugely important in using test data, its the reliance on likelihood that repeat tests would be different. 

 

In terms of F1, you prove my point with your statement, the differences are required to be tiny percentage differences because you are measuring order and magnitude which bar charts are completely inappropriate for. The visualisation is wrong, it does not show order and magnitude correctly as the magnitude of difference is exacerbated by the incorrect scaling. Those charts would indicate that if the test were repeated say 100 times the difference is so large that Michelin would never beat Continental, but look at my chart, clearly the order can change. The journalistic world defaults to bar charts, and even worse pie charts, without understanding that the visualisation has a huge subconscious impact on interpretation. 

 

I am actually going to end it here as I am derailing the thread, I thought it might be useful for people to always take a second look at charts they see and conclusions lazy journo's come to - it's always a good thing to try understand the data yourself.

 

 

[coldel]

The funny thing is, if you put the data into Excel and click 'chart' it comes out automatically with the same scale used by the journalist above. So clearly someone there has just charted it and copy pasted it, without any thought as to what they are trying to display.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Truncated_graph