ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Conti’s are c**p





Just fitted new set of contis on the front and basically they are as bad as the worn ones i had on b4(yes they have been worn in).

Will not put any power down regardless of how u apply the throttle.

Bridgestone 720s have been recommended.

Any suggestions please.
 


Cheers for that mailto:m@thew">m@thew but what are the wear ratings like as im only getting approx 5k on my contis?
 

GR7

  Shiny red R32


I soon got rid of my Contis too, after a scary slide one day, and that was going quite slowly, turning from our local high street into a side road. Toyos are much grippier with a pretty pattern on the tread too!
 


Quote: Originally posted by m@thew on 16 January 2003

TOYOs are fantastic its like a new car after those conti crap tyres. and STU they are v good in the wet



I would totally disagree with this.... (if we are talking about the same tyre here?! "Toyo Proxy T1s".. not sure how long youve been using toyos for steve!?

Very grippy in the dry!!, same if not better the F1s!! however in the wet... totally useless... and i dont push my car too hard in the wet either, i wouldnt trust a toyo further then i could "roll it"?! in the wet!!!

highly recommended as a summer tyre! (very soft compound though, wear out quicker then your average tyre.. 6k - 8k miles depending how you drive) but at £40 a corner from Elite.. you cant complain.
 


I agree the Contis on the cup spin like feck no matter how u apply the throttle and slide all over the road too!

Changing to Michelin or Goodyear in a few ks
 
  Corsa 1.3 CDTI


I found Contis to be fine. I very rarely loose it in the rain. I do hammer my tyres as Glenn and Rockport can verify but mine arent showing signs of where and I have 5.6k on the clock from new.

Most people expect tyres to be sh1t hot in all types of weather but you cant have your cake and eat it.

It seems like people just throw their cars into a corner and expect it not to slip and slide a little but you have to compose the car before the bend, breaking etc. You must also allow the tyres to warm up to temp as well to get maximum grip.

Contis I find arent cheap either so you cant say Renault put them on because of that either. Contis are put on because they are a good all rounder but if you drive alot in the dry only then get tyres to suit the situation you do most driving in.

Just my thoughts anyway and I am sure many of you will disagree.
 


Yep.... Contis wear fast, dont grip in the dry as good as other tyres. They have a huge gap in the tread which means less rubber touching the road. They are a ecconomical tyre not performance tyre. Once you try bridgestones Pontenza RE720s those contis seem to grip like woosungs
 
  Renault Laguna Coupe


I think personal preference has a big part to play here. Saying Tyre X is better than Tyre Y really just means I preferred tyre Y. I like the Contis. Ive done 13k now and Im going to fit my 3rd set of fronts soon.
 


Cant say I agree telford_mike about it being a personal preference, the contis as ive said just do not grip in the wet/damp etc.

All Im looking for is a good all round tyre, and a reduced amount of wear as 5k per set of fronts is taking th p**s, and this is with my mrs driving to work and back every day and me just getting to drive it mostly at w/ends

think Ill be going for the 720s.

cheers stu
 


Good Choice Stu.... Once they are fitted you wont regret it, your have to come on here and explain what its like to not have understeer as much as with contis
 
  S2000


Ive never had any complaints re: the Contis on my 172, huge grip in the wet and dry. Of course if you gun the throttle in the wet your wheels are gonna spin no matter what tyre you have on it.

Also Autocar did a test a few months back where it pitted most of the top hot hatches round a track, the 172 beat all of them(Civic Type R by 1 second!!). The track was drenched, as I recall there was no mention of sever understeer or lack of grip!! Again EVO did a group tyre test and the Conti came second!

Oh and who said the Contis were Eco Tyres, try telling that Halfords mate, £106 per tyre!!!!!!!!!
 


Quote: Originally posted by teady172 on 17 January 2003


Ive never had any complaints re: the Contis on my 172, huge grip in the wet and dry. Of course if you gun the throttle in the wet your wheels are gonna spin no matter what tyre you have on it.

Also Autocar did a test a few months back where it pitted most of the top hot hatches round a track, the 172 beat all of them(Civic Type R by 1 second!!). The track was drenched, as I recall there was no mention of sever understeer or lack of grip!! Again EVO did a group tyre test and the Conti came second!

Oh and who said the Contis were Eco Tyres, try telling that Halfords mate, £106 per tyre!!!!!!!!!




Yeah! I totally agree... The same thing happened here in Greece in similar test comparing several tyres... Continental were very good both in wet and dry conditions and overall 1 among the others.



Afterwards, the same magazine (4T) testing mini cooper S, clio 2.0 16v MKII seat leon (180hp) and Toyota corolla Tsport, the clio ranked 2nd because of the bad behaviour of Michelin Pilots. They said that the measure overheating in the front right tyre and moreover after 50 minutes they changed the fornt tyres because they had a flat tyre!!!
 


At £106 per tyre someone is seriously ripping u off!!!

Last set I had fitted on the front cost me £120 all inc from Hi-Q in glos.

That was only 2 months ago
 


They are ecco tyres as they have a low rolling resistance, not a lot of rubber touching the road. I didnt say they were a bad tyre though just they wear quickly with hard driving and they are not as good as bridgestones RE720s
 
  S2000


Mate, there not bloody Ecco tyres!!!!! Why are they tested in magazines along with other performance tyres, Toyos nall, they always do well!

The £106 was only a quote i got from Kwik Fit, i eventually got them for 60 odd quid from somewhere else!
 
  Clio 1.6 16V


Afraid guys Im with telford_mike and teady172 on this issue. I have no real gripes with the Conti Sports. Like any tyres they will let go under the right conditions wet or dry! Im sure Reno (will give them some credit here) did their sums when they chose the Contis and tried to select a tyre with a section width and sidewall compliance that closely matches the suspension dynamics. As said before they are not the cheapest tyre on the shelves but manufacturers have to strike some compromise against cost. Reno have obviously went for these, as these quality German tyres are also made in France.

Everything about the Conti Sport stacks up for optimisation in the wet, the large central grooves and soft compound rubber, hence their fast wear rate, more so when used in dry conditions. The Conti Sports perform as well as other brands if not better in heavy rain and puddles on the light Clio with very little aquaplaning. If you have more tread contact with the road they will be crap in the wet, similar to a worn tyre. Hence why Conti have used an assymetric tread design to improve cornering on the outside edge of the tyre, leaving the rest of the tyre optimised for wet conditions.

At the end of the day, tyre design (compound/tread/carcase) is a big compromise when you push them to the limits. If it wasnt the case (in the extreme case) we wouldnt see the Formula X tyre changes between wet and dry track conditions? They would be using the ideal wet & dry tyre ..... which doesnt exist! To be honest the differences in tyre performance in the upper performance tyre class these days is minimal and can only be really exploited when used on smooth clean track racing conditions (not the British crap road surfaces with traces of the No 59 bus diesel spilled all over the road).

Im getting old so probably I drive like a nancy girl (no offence gals) these days compared to you younger road racers. Ill leave you all with this thought ....the best tyres on a good handling car (eg. 172) are not much better at the end of the day than lesser brands if the driver doesnt take command of the car and anticipate/control the car correctly to the road conditions. Better tyres will help to some extent to mask bad driving techniques. Its not difficult at the end of the day to purposely make any car go off line around a corner, whether it has good or bad tyres.

..... fire retardant suit now fitted so ready for constructive abuse!!;)
 

GR7

  Shiny red R32


Do you think that the Contis disperse water as well as the tyres which have a diagonal / zig zag tread pattern?
 
  Clio 1.6 16V


When you compare the tread patterns on the Toyo Proxies and the Conti Sport there is very little difference visually. The Conti has an assymetrical tread which claims to strike a better compromise between wet and dry handling. They both have main grooves that circumvent the tyre but with lots of wee diagonal agua grooves. So really they are a mix regards method of water dispersion.

The Michelin Pilot Sport has a couple of small central grooves but with lots of larger diagonals so is biased the other way. The Uniroyal Rainsport is based purely on diagonal dispersal and dosesnt have any main grooves around the tyre. Also the Goodyear F1 follows the same principals with no main grooves. These are all directional treads.

Main grooves around the circumference of the tyre (Conti / Toyo) are supposed to improve directonal stability at high speeds, with main water dispersal front to back through main grooves.

The directional diagonal designs (Goodyear / Michelin / Uniroyal) disperse water sideways and are supposed to be more stable under wet braking.

If you use all these theories and add other factors like tread depth, compound material, sidewall compliance and section bracing, all performance road tyres are still a compromise.

If you compare with the extreme case, the old F1 tyres were either slick with no tread or had just main grooves for water dispersal. The dry slicks were awful on wet surfaces due to lack of water dispersal and the grooved wets with soft compounds overheated in the dry. Both out of their depth in the wrong conditions.

As I said in my previous post tyre tread designs are generally all a mix of the same basic techniques and optimised for wet, dry or a mix of both. The later is generally the road tyres we see and push to the limits in both wet and dry conditions. Im sure all these designs disperse similar amounts of water at the end of the day. Tyre Manufacturers also have an added problem - to make the tread designs look pretty and sexy, to aid sales and marketing!

Anti-aquaplaning/water dispersal on the stock performance road tyre is therefore really dependant on tread wear at the end of the day. A worn tyre will have less volume in its aqua grooves so will tend to aquaplane and slip more during braking. The main reason we are compelled to change our tyres at 1.6mm tread depth.
 

GR7

  Shiny red R32


_____________________________________________________________

When you compare the tread patterns on the Toyo Proxies and the Conti Sport there is very little difference visually.

The directional diagonal designs (Goodyear / Michelin / Uniroyal) disperse water sideways and are supposed to be more stable under wet braking.

_____________________________________________________________

Well you must have different Toyos to mine, as mine have a very different tread pattern than my old Contis!!!
 
  Clio 1.6 16V


I take it then you are using Proxes T1 S as apposed to the T1 Plus (as I used in the above comparison)? Your right The T1 S is very similar to the GY F1 in design with diagonal grooves.
 
  Clio 1.8 16v


Based on the number of 1st/2nd and 3rd places achieved






OVERALL RESULTS


Bridgestone

67%


Vredestein

60%


Dunlop

53%


Continental

48%


Michelin

39%


Uniroyal

38%


Goodyear

34%


Pirelli

33%


Firestone

31%


Avon

17%



Bridgestone Number One

Top spot in the Giant Test goes to Bridgestone by quite a convincing margin. They came top by scoring a lot of first and second places. They scored particularly well on the high performance sizes. Bridgestone was b on almost all measures, certainly the best in wet braking and scored well on comfort. Their only weakness was on noise level.

Vredestein are in 2nd place

Vredestein continued to do well in these tests. In last years equivalent tests they took first place. They continued to do well in the most recent tests but not quite well enough to maintain their position at the top. Their products came out consistently well on both dry and wet handling. They were also good in the noise level tests but slightly below average on rolling resistance tests. If price levels had been included as a more significant factor in the tests then Vredestein would have benefited. They have a significant price advantage over the major premium brands.

Dunlop/ Continental

Dunlop and Continental were both clearly ahead of the pack in third and fourth places respectively. Dunlop has improved its position from last year having performed well in the more recent tests perhaps reflecting a newer product range. Dunlop was particularly b in dry conditions, but relatively weak in aquaplaning tests.

Continental which was our leading premium brand tyre last time (very marginally ahead of Bridgestone) suffered somewhat in the more recent tests. It was still b in terms of wear rate with some poorer results in the wet.

The Remaining Premium Brands

Pirelli did not score many first or second places but made up for this to some extent with plenty of third places. They scored well in aquaplaning tests but was less convincing in dry and wet straight line braking.

Michelin did particularly well in mileage comparisons and when its Energy version was tested it was not surprisingly very good on rolling resistance.

Goodyear was good in the dry and scored well in the high performance tests.

Non Premium Brands

Vredestein was best of the non-premium brands. Uniroyal and Firestone both performed creditably. The Uniroyal was very good in the wet but not as good in the dry. The Firestone had good dry handling but was weaker in the wet. It benefited from a low wear rate. Avon did less well in the more recent tests particularly in the higher performance sizes.

It was only on the really high performance sizes where a clear distinction was evident between all of the premium brands and all of the non premium brands. The premium brands came into their own in these tests as shown below.

Separate Results for Standard Tyres and High Performance Tyres.

In addition to the overall result we show below the results separately for both standard tyres and high performance tyres. Continental comes out top for standard tyres. Bridgestone were not included in these results as they appeared in only two tests for standard tyres.
 
  Clio 1.8 16v


RESULTS for HIGH PERFORMANCE TYRES


Bridgestone

70%


Dunlop

50%


Michelin

46%


Goodyear

35%


Continental

33%


Vredestein

33%


Pirelli

32%


Uniroyal

25%


Avon

0%


Firestone

0%
 


Top