RFT - Tire test in German Magazine Sport Auto
#1
Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hi all,
I just read an article in the latest issue of the German magazine Sport Auto; they tested Bridgestone's Potenza RE50A and the Michelin PS2 both RFT and standard tires. The test was made with an E90 but the result should be the same with the E60.
The difference in the wet is remarkable - the brake distance from 100km/h differed some 4m's!! Also the handling in the wet was very poor compared with the non-RFT tire.
I just thought that only the comfort issue was a stake here but this clearly points out the safety argument as an important factor to consider.
Any other thought? I know that there have been a lot of (negative) discussions regarding RFT's but the poor road performance is all new to me!
/R
I just read an article in the latest issue of the German magazine Sport Auto; they tested Bridgestone's Potenza RE50A and the Michelin PS2 both RFT and standard tires. The test was made with an E90 but the result should be the same with the E60.
The difference in the wet is remarkable - the brake distance from 100km/h differed some 4m's!! Also the handling in the wet was very poor compared with the non-RFT tire.
I just thought that only the comfort issue was a stake here but this clearly points out the safety argument as an important factor to consider.
Any other thought? I know that there have been a lot of (negative) discussions regarding RFT's but the poor road performance is all new to me!
/R
#2
Members
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 530i Manufactured 10/2004, mystic blue with nearly full options and Starspoke 123 with 245/40-18 Bridgestone non-RFT
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Robbo' post='290892' date='Jun 1 2006, 02:44 PM
Hi all,
I just read an article in the latest issue of the German magazine Sport Auto; they tested Bridgestone's Potenza RE50A and the Michelin PS2 both RFT and standard tires. The test was made with an E90 but the result should be the same with the E60.
The difference in the wet is remarkable - the brake distance from 100km/h differed some 4m's!! Also the handling in the wet was very poor compared with the non-RFT tire.
I just thought that only the comfort issue was a stake here but this clearly points out the safety argument as an important factor to consider.
Any other thought? I know that there have been a lot of (negative) discussions regarding RFT's but the poor road performance is all new to me!
/R
I just read an article in the latest issue of the German magazine Sport Auto; they tested Bridgestone's Potenza RE50A and the Michelin PS2 both RFT and standard tires. The test was made with an E90 but the result should be the same with the E60.
The difference in the wet is remarkable - the brake distance from 100km/h differed some 4m's!! Also the handling in the wet was very poor compared with the non-RFT tire.
I just thought that only the comfort issue was a stake here but this clearly points out the safety argument as an important factor to consider.
Any other thought? I know that there have been a lot of (negative) discussions regarding RFT's but the poor road performance is all new to me!
/R
#4
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2005 BMW 545i, Silver Grey, Sport Package, R. Shades, Cold Pkg, Sat. Rad., Prem. Sound.
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by hawkeye74a' post='290929' date='Jun 1 2006, 09:49 AM
The driving with RFT?s in wet conditions is absolutely terrible. I had on my car the Bridgestone RE50 - RFT tires. Three times on the highway i had nearly lost control of the car at wet conditions and this with nearly new tires. Thanks of DSC, it solved the problem... A few weeks ago i have changed it to Bridgestone RE50A non-RFT. What a difference... we had in the last weeks a lot of rain... so i know what i am talking about. But the comfort issue was also an important issue for the change...
On wet pavement, you can easily spin with a touch of the acceleration pedal on a 545i with fairly new RF.
#5
Senior Members
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: '05 545i - scheduled for ED pickup in Munich on 7/22!
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My Dunlop RFTs with 8k miles are very slippery in the corners....much less grip than the Michelin MXM (also w/ 8k miles) on my other car. You can read about my experience during an Autocross session here http://forums.e60.net/index.php?showtopic=26876
#6
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 530i Sport
Silver Gray - Black Leather - Anthracite Maple
Manual Transmission
Premium Audio
Cold Weather Package
Rear sunshade
Sirius Radio
Autobahnd Roadblock (3M) film kit
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Robbo' post='290892' date='Jun 1 2006, 09:44 AM
Hi all,
I just read an article in the latest issue of the German magazine Sport Auto; they tested Bridgestone's Potenza RE50A and the Michelin PS2 both RFT and standard tires. The test was made with an E90 but the result should be the same with the E60.
The difference in the wet is remarkable - the brake distance from 100km/h differed some 4m's!! Also the handling in the wet was very poor compared with the non-RFT tire.
I just thought that only the comfort issue was a stake here but this clearly points out the safety argument as an important factor to consider.
Any other thought? I know that there have been a lot of (negative) discussions regarding RFT's but the poor road performance is all new to me!
/R
I just read an article in the latest issue of the German magazine Sport Auto; they tested Bridgestone's Potenza RE50A and the Michelin PS2 both RFT and standard tires. The test was made with an E90 but the result should be the same with the E60.
The difference in the wet is remarkable - the brake distance from 100km/h differed some 4m's!! Also the handling in the wet was very poor compared with the non-RFT tire.
I just thought that only the comfort issue was a stake here but this clearly points out the safety argument as an important factor to consider.
Any other thought? I know that there have been a lot of (negative) discussions regarding RFT's but the poor road performance is all new to me!
/R
While I don't wish to dispute the findings or the conclusion, this magazine's findings are in stark contrast to BMW's published findings. BMW claims -better- performance with RFTs - not worse. Some kind of explanation must be presented - otherwise we must assume one set of data is flawed, or from a flawed/ill conceived test. Certainly something was the cause for the variation in wet performance between the tires in this magazine test. I wonder if perhaps different tire pressures are required to offset the effect of the stiffer sidewalls on the RFTs? Did they note the parameters of the test?
When switching from RFT to non-RFT, I wouldn't pick either tire... check out Car and Driver's E90 tire test. They have detailed test data for dry, wet, braking, and autocross.
#7
Senior Members
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My Ride: 2006 550i Titanium Silver Metallic, Black Dakota Leather, Anthracite Maple Wood Trim, Cold Weather Package, Premium Sound Package, Sport Package, Steptronic, Navigation, Electric Rear Sunshades, Heated Rear Seats, Sirius Radio
#8
Members
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 525d se auto. black sapphire, 17" 5 spoke 138 style alloys. dark poplar trim, charcoal flat weave cloth, bluetooth phone prep, dimming rear view and side mirrors, lumbar support, heated front deats, phone cradle
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Run Flats are awful compared to your normal summer tires... On the world launch of the E60 BMW, used cars with the most basic wheels and NON-RFT tires, I wonder why?
![Whistling](https://5series.net/forums/images/smilies/imported/whistling.gif)
#9
Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here are the data:
Handling dry (2770 m track):
B-stone RFT: 1,17,0 min
B-stone Std: 1.19,4 min
PS2 RFT: 1.17,4
PS2 Std: 1.17,8 min
Handling wet (2300 m track)
B-stone RFT: 1.49,3 min
B-stone Std: 1.44,7 min
PS2 RFT: 1.44,2
PS2 Std: 1.42,5 min
Braking dry (100 km/h)
B-stone RFT: 36,7 m
B-stone Std: 37,9 m
PS2 RFT: 36,7 m
PS2 Std: 35,6 m
Braking wet (100 km/h)
B-stone RFT: 52,4 m
B-stone Std: 49,2 m
PS2 RFT: 54,3 m
PS2 Std: 49,8 m
4,5 m differance in the wet between RFT and non RFT!!
As a side note, Sport Auto is a very higly regarded magazine and is a sister to Auto Motor & Sport!
I have no trouble trusting their test data.
/R
Handling dry (2770 m track):
B-stone RFT: 1,17,0 min
B-stone Std: 1.19,4 min
PS2 RFT: 1.17,4
PS2 Std: 1.17,8 min
Handling wet (2300 m track)
B-stone RFT: 1.49,3 min
B-stone Std: 1.44,7 min
PS2 RFT: 1.44,2
PS2 Std: 1.42,5 min
Braking dry (100 km/h)
B-stone RFT: 36,7 m
B-stone Std: 37,9 m
PS2 RFT: 36,7 m
PS2 Std: 35,6 m
Braking wet (100 km/h)
B-stone RFT: 52,4 m
B-stone Std: 49,2 m
PS2 RFT: 54,3 m
PS2 Std: 49,8 m
4,5 m differance in the wet between RFT and non RFT!!
As a side note, Sport Auto is a very higly regarded magazine and is a sister to Auto Motor & Sport!
I have no trouble trusting their test data.
/R