Mazda 6 Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,497 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
View from the interior.
Only to be sure if those tires are installed ok.

Left side.



Right side



Any advantage of the assymetrical tires over the symetrical? They have and special use?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,497 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
:D not my 6. Some friend bought that set.
My 5 SSR GT1 are on my 6 :drive:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
View from the interior.
Only to be sure if those tires are installed ok.

Left side.



Right side



Any advantage of the assymetrical tires over the symetrical? They have and special use?
[/b]
Can't see the pics. Asymmetrical tires are useful because it allows them to tailor the tread blocks for the position of the wheel. For example-bigger blocks for more stability on the lateral side, more rain sipes on the middle side...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
But you didn't really explain what advantages asymmetrical patterns have vs. symmetrical. And I would disagree with you about Pirelli being on the forefront of tire research. Yokohama has had asymmetrical patterns since the '80's, long before other tire manufacturers started using them (although Michelin did it first, Yokohama took the concept to much higher levels) and I would consider them the innovator where asymmetrical patterns are concerned. Scorpion6, Yokohama has some good info regarding tread designs, so I'll link you to them for this question:

http://www.yokohamatire.com/uttread.asp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,497 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
But you didn't really explain what advantages asymmetrical patterns have vs. symmetrical. And I would disagree with you about Pirelli being on the forefront of tire research. Yokohama has had asymmetrical patterns since the '80's, long before other tire manufacturers started using them (although Michelin did it first, Yokohama took the concept to much higher levels) and I would consider them the innovator where asymmetrical patterns are concerned. Scorpion6, Yokohama has some good info regarding tread designs, so I'll link you to them for this question:

http://www.yokohamatire.com/uttread.asp
[/b]
Yeah, I could have gone into more detail in the earlier post, but that thread was a thread about directional tire rotation, so my comment about asymmetricals was a gratis throw-in.

The Yokohama link you provide is a good one (didn't you once work for Yokohama USA?), but it relates only to the tread pattern of asymmetrical tires, which is -- to me -- a less interesting aspect of asymmetrical tires than the possibility of asymmetrical internal construction. Granted, the construction of some or most asymmetrical tires is conventionally symmetrical with merely an asymmetrical tread pattern; back when I was in high school, we all knew of girls who walked around with more cantilevering than God endowed them with, too. :boobs:

Not much after those long-ago days, I purchased my first set of asymmetrics, Michelin XAS tires, which were more radically internally asymmetrical than their mildly asymmetrical tread pattern let on; I was convert right then to asymmetrically constructed tires, and have been a believer ever since (though I have bought some pairs of directional-tread tires -- most recently a pair of Toyo T1-S tires in 2005 -- specifically and exclusively for front-mounting).

It is the asymmetrical construction aspect that arouses my interest in the new Goodyear Eagle "featuring ResponsEdge" tire. (Goodyear does not call the tire ResponsEdge, but says that it "features" ResponsEdge: strange.) The design brief for that tire is a bit diferent than the criteria I use to choose a tire (the ResponsEdge was designed with more emphasis on soft ride and low noise, less emphasis on handling and braking, than my preferences), but its sidewall stiffening inserts located in the outer sidewall only and Goodyear's use of a completely different tread compound for the tread on the inside of the car from the compound used for the tread on the outer side of the tire distinguish it from the other entries in the usually boring world of "grand touring" tires.

In weighing my own impending purchase of a set of tires for my recently purchased Mazda6, I keep bouncing back and forth between Yokohama Advan Sport and ContiSportContact 3 -- if the latter, I will have to wait a bit longer for the recently announced 225/50-17 size to make its way down to the retail channel -- both asymmetrical tires.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Pirelli's role in tire R&D. I was not meaning to put down Yokohama or Michelin: there is room at the top for technology innovators. But over the years, spurred on by its active role in the European road racing circuits, Pirelli has managed to stay at or near the top in coming up with an edge in tire technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
The Yokohama link you provide is a good one (didn't you once work for Yokohama USA?), but it relates only to the tread pattern of asymmetrical tires, which is -- to me -- a less interesting aspect of asymmetrical tires than the possibility of asymmetrical internal construction.
[/b]
Understood, but the question was related to asymmetrical tread patterns, so the link I provided answered the question asked. And yes, I worked for Yokohama for 7 years.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Pirelli's role in tire R&D. I was not meaning to put down Yokohama or Michelin: there is room at the top for technology innovators. But over the years, spurred on by its active role in the European road racing circuits, Pirelli has managed to stay at or near the top in coming up with an edge in tire technology.
[/b]
That's fine, but I haven't seen anything new or innovative come from Pirelli in a very long time (not since the assimetrico/direzionale concept).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
The Yokohama link you provide is a good one (didn't you once work for Yokohama USA?), but it relates only to the tread pattern of asymmetrical tires, which is -- to me -- a less interesting aspect of asymmetrical tires than the possibility of asymmetrical internal construction.
[/b]
Understood, but the question was related to asymmetrical tread patterns, so the link I provided answered the question asked.
[/b]
I think it was Scorpion6 who asked the question, and that hsi question was (exactly): "Any advantage of the assymetrical tires over the symetrical?"

I haven't seen anything new or innovative come from Pirelli in a very long time (not since the assimetrico/direzionale concept).
[/b]
Can you name a company with greater innovations? Recently, Pirelli has been on the cutting edge of run-flat technology. Pirelli also has run-flats over a wider range of tire types than any other tire maker I am aware of. Pirelli invented a safety wheel (the SWS) that has a chamber with air at 140 lb. pressure, interconnected with the tire. If the tire loses pressure via a slow leak, it is reinflated from the chamber in the wheel. I think that Pirelli holds patents on some of the ways it has implemented Bluetooth within its tire pressure monitoring system. Can you name another company that has been so innovative with materials -- for instance in using PenTec PEN fiber, a reengineered high modulus polyester fiber, in the P Zero Rosso?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
I think it was Scorpion6 who asked the question, and that hsi question was (exactly): "Any advantage of the assymetrical tires over the symetrical?"
[/b]
Which included pictures of a tire tread pattern with an asymmetrical tread pattern. And the specific tire mentioned, the Bridgestone Turanza ER300, is an original equipment tire with symmetrical construction. How on earth did you ascertain that he was asking about asymmetrical construction when tread pattern was the obvious question?

Can you name a company with greater innovations? Recently, Pirelli has been on the cutting edge of run-flat technology. Pirelli also has run-flats over a wider range of tire types than any other tire maker I am aware of. Pirelli invented a safety wheel (the SWS) that has a chamber with air at 140 lb. pressure, interconnected with the tire. If the tire loses pressure via a slow leak, it is reinflated from the chamber in the wheel. I think that Pirelli holds patents on some of the ways it has implemented Bluetooth within its tire pressure monitoring system. Can you name another company that has been so innovative with materials -- for instance in using PenTec PEN fiber, a reengineered high modulus polyester fiber, in the P Zero Rosso?
[/b]
Absolutely! Let's start with Toyo:

Toyo recently patented a new, interlocking sipe design called a "Multi-Wave" sipe. This helps eliminate heel-toe wear and is featured on the Proxes4 and Open Country H/T, among others.

Toyo recently developed a patented, new modular production process (ATOM) that eliminates all splices in a tire. While it is similar to Michelin's C3M process and Pirelli's MIRS process, Toyo's system is different and delivers levels of uniformity that are unmatched by any other manufacturer in the world. Our new plant in Georgia features this production process exclusively.

Toyo has led the industry in new aftermarket sizing. Toyo was the first to develop the 205/40R17 and 215/35R18 sizes for sport compacts (17s and 18s had never before been developed for those applications). Toyo was first to develop 23 inch sizing for SUVs. Toyo was first to develop 20, 22 and 24 inch M/T and 22 & 24 inch A/T sizes for lifted trucks. Toyo was also first to develop 24 inch passenger tire applications. Toyo also led the way in reinforced sizes in plus applications. Other manufacturers are following suit.

Toyo continues to innovate in winter tire technology with the use of finely ground walnut shells and lamella crystals (which, incidentally, is the hydrophilic property you've been speaking about, but is also water repellant at the SAME TIME! It is used to REMOVE the film of water on the road and EXPEL it from the tire. This technology is NOT USED in our all-season tires).

Michelin

Michelin probably holds more patents than anybody (maybe except Goodyear). From their previously mentioned C3M production process to their ZP (Zero Pressure) tires to their PAX run-flat system, Michelin continues to be a leader in tire technology (despite what many of you think of the oe Michelin tire). In fact, Michelin's PAX system is so good, Michelin has licensed the technology to other manufacturers, including Toyo. Michelin was also first to introduce silica to the tread compound for increased wet traction. Virtually every other manufacturer now uses silica in one or several of their tires.

Goodyear

More than product innovations, I would consider Goodyear to be a leader in materials use. They were first to introduce multiple compounds across the face of the tread and they have been innovative in the use of Kevlar, aramid and most recently, carbon fiber (although I have my doubts about the true benefits of the asymmetric construction you're so excited about. If the two different sidewalls don't flex at the same rate, I predict Goodyear will have irregular wear problems). I would also consider Goodyear to be a leader in run-flat technology since they were first to market with it. They are also a leader in original equipment fitments, so they are often first to market with new oe sizes.

Yokohama

Yokohama has been very innovative in the area of tread patterns. Although they weren't first with the asymmetric pattern, they did pioneer its use. From the original A-008 sprouted other unique products like the original AVS system (there was an AVS wet, AVS dry and AVS intermediate) and the asymmetric and unidirectional ADVAN Nexus. Yokohama was also first to develop a DOT-approved race tire, the A-001R. Yokohama also held the world record for the largest OTR tire (mining equipment) among other innovations (ie 2-stage bead fillers).

While I'm sure Pirelli has had their share of innovations, I don't agree with your opinion that they are the LEADER in the fields you mentioned, or on the "cutting edge," since they're not doing anything that hasn't already been done by someone else.

Btw, you mentioned that Pirelli offers run-flat technology over a wider range of tires than anyone else. However, Pirelli's own website only lists the [email protected] as run-flat and TireRack only lists 4 other lines with RFT (total of 5 lines). Goodyear, by constrast, offers its EMT technology on the following products:

Eagle F1 GS-D3
Eagle F1 Supercar
Eagle F1 GS
Eagle F1 GS-2
Eagle GS-C
Eagle GS-D
Eagle F1 A/S-C
Eagle RS-A
Eagle NCT5
Eagle Ultra Grip GW3

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statement or something, but it would appear that Goodyear offers a wider variety of run-flat choices. TireRack shows 12 run-flat lines for Bridgestone (2 more than Goodyear)!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
I think it was Scorpion6 who asked the question, and that hsi question was (exactly): "Any advantage of the assymetrical tires over the symetrical?" [/b]
Which included pictures of a tire tread pattern with an asymmetrical tread pattern. How did you ascertain that he was asking about asymmetrical construction when tread pattern was the obvious question?[/b]
The obvious question was not about tread pattern. He asked about asymmetrical tires, not about asymmetrical tread patterns. Asymmetrical construction is the steak, and the tread pattern is merely the sizzle. For a lot of marketing people (maybe you are among them, maybe you are not: you tell me) appearance is more important than substance; it's all about bling. In my earlier (October 10) post, I indicated that I thought that the steak was more important than the sizzle, that the substance was more important than the bling.

I do not know of any asymmetrically constructed tire that does not have an asymmetrical tread pattern, but there are symmetrically constructed tires that have asymmetrical tread patterns While the asymmetrical tread patterns do no harm, and may actually provide some benefit (like the spoiler wings on the back of econobox cars), the real benefits of an asymmetrically constructed tire are under the skin, not confined to the tread. So IMHO a proper response to Scorpion6's question about the advantage of an asymmetrical tire ought to concentrate on what is important, not on the cosmetics.

While I'm sure Pirelli has had their share of innovations, I don't agree with your opinion that they are the LEADER
[/b]
The word "leader" is yours, not mine. I wrote, "Pirelli has managed to stay at or near the top in coming up with an edge in tire technology." Not worth arguing about.

Let's start with Toyo:

Toyo continues to innovate in winter tire technology with the use of finely ground walnut shells
[/b]
I believe that that innovation (dating to the 1970s, actually) came from the retreading operation of one of Toyo's largest customers, Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc., headquartered here in Oregon, with whom I have <ahem> more than casual familiarity.

I would consider Goodyear to be a leader in materials use. They were first to introduce multiple compounds across the face of the tread and they have been innovative in the use of Kevlar, aramid and most recently, carbon fiber [/b]
I, too, consider Goodyear a leader in materials use. Incidentally, aramid and Kevlar are not two different materials. Goodyear and Dupont jointly developed aramid, at that time code-named Fiber B, a few decades back. Originally, aramid was developed specifically as a tire fabric, intended for use both as a carcass material and as a belting material. (In fact, it is superb in both applications, but, from a marketing standpoint, it was an initial failure: consumers got all stary-eyed about steel-belted radials, and the first aramid-belted radial tires may as well have been nailed to the tire showroom floor. Aramid, which is not cheap, also proved difficult to work with on a tire production line, and so it all but disappeared from view in automobile tire construction, though it long has been a staple in high-performance bicycle tires.) Dupont designated its aramid Kevlar, and, IIRC, Goodyear called its aramid Flexten. When aramid flopped initially as a tire material, Dupont sought out new uses for its baby, and eventually came up with relatively lightweight "bulletproof" (well, protective, anyway) body armor. The cachet that then developed around "bulletproof" Kevlar helped the marketing when later forays were made to incorporate aramid in automobile tires. I notice that, although Goodyear has its own brand of aramid, it advertises the ResponsEdge as having a Kevlar® layer under the steel belts.

Btw, you mentioned that Pirelli offers run-flat technology over a wider range of tires than anyone else. However, Pirelli's own website only lists the [email protected] as run-flat and TireRack only lists 4 other lines with RFT (total of 5 lines). Goodyear, by constrast, offers its EMT technology on the following products:

Eagle F1 GS-D3
Eagle F1 Supercar
Eagle F1 GS
Eagle F1 GS-2
Eagle GS-C
Eagle GS-D
Eagle F1 A/S-C
Eagle RS-A
Eagle NCT5
Eagle Ultra Grip GW3

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statement or something, but it would appear that Goodyear offers a wider variety of run-flat choices. TireRack shows 12 run-flat lines for Bridgestone (2 more than Goodyear)!
[/b]
I don't think you are misinterpreting my comment so much as overlooking one important word: "types." I wrote "Pirelli also has run-flats over a wider range of tire types than any other tire maker I am aware of." For instance, Pirelli has run-flat winter tires and run-flat off-road tires. I am unfamiliar with the GW3 tire you mantioned, but the other Goodyear tires you cite are all conventional passenger-car tires, most of them summer tires.

I have my doubts about the true benefits of the asymmetric construction you're so excited about. If the two different sidewalls don't flex at the same rate, I predict Goodyear will have irregular wear problems[/b]
The carbon fiber sidewall insert is only one of the asymmetries of the Goodyear ResponsEdge. In another context, you mentioned another when you wrote: "They were first to introduce multiple compounds across the face of the tread." The ResponsEdge has an all-season tread compound on the inside of the tread and a summer compound on the outside part of the tread.

The inner sidewall and the outer sidewall of a tire -- especially the outside tire when cornering -- are called upon to perform different roles under cornering forces. Not knowing more about the specific Goodyear tire, I cannot tell whether performance considerations as such suggested the use of an insert. My guess (it is only a guess) is that Goodyear wanted a very soft-riding tire for the market segment the tire is aimed at, which can be achieved partially by making the sidewall very flexible. However, an overly flexible sidewall is in danger of rolling under when subjected to lateral forces, so (my guess) Goodyear added the carbon fiber insert to keep the tire fron squishing down to the rim in tight turns. Because the cornering forces apply much more strongly to the tire on the outside of the turn, there was no need to stiffen the inner sidewall of the tire, and it could be left very flexible to absorb bumps in normal driving. (The preceding is only a guess, but it illustrates the additional degrees of freedom handed to the engineers who design tires when they can determine in advance which side of the tire will be on the outside and which on the inside.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,497 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
QUOTE

Toyo Guy wrote:
I think it was Scorpion6 who asked the question, and that hsi question was (exactly): "Any advantage of the assymetrical tires over the symetrical?"

Which included pictures of a tire tread pattern with an asymmetrical tread pattern. And the specific tire mentioned, the Bridgestone Turanza ER300, is an original equipment tire with symmetrical construction. How on earth did you ascertain that he was asking about asymmetrical construction when tread pattern was the obvious question?

Which included pictures of a tire tread pattern with an asymmetrical tread pattern. How did you ascertain that he was asking about asymmetrical construction when tread pattern was the obvious question?
The obvious question was not about tread pattern. He asked about asymmetrical tires, not about asymmetrical tread patterns. Asymmetrical construction is the steak, and the tread pattern is merely the sizzle. For a lot of marketing people (maybe you are among them, maybe you are not: you tell me) appearance is more important than substance; it's all about bling. In my earlier (October 10) post, I indicated that I thought that the steak was more important than the sizzle, that the substance was more important than the bling.

I do not know of any asymmetrically constructed tire that does not have an asymmetrical tread pattern, but there are symmetrically constructed tires that have asymmetrical tread patterns While the asymmetrical tread patterns do no harm, and may actually provide some benefit (like the spoiler wings on the back of econobox cars), the real benefits of an asymmetrically constructed tire are under the skin, not confined to the tread. So IMHO a proper response to Scorpion6's question about the advantage of an asymmetrical tire ought to concentrate on what is important, not on the cosmetics.
The word "leader" is yours, not mine. I wrote, "Pirelli has managed to stay at or near the top in coming up with an edge in tire technology." Not worth arguing about.
[/b]
Both of you have the reason. I put the title of the topic very general.
Initially I only think about the tread pattern but I forget a very important point: the construction.
Thanks fot the explanations.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top