Guest Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yeah ... this seems like kind of a no-brainer ... Hydroplaning = Driving too fast for conditions. Oversimplification. Different tires have different hydroplanning resistance. Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirSix Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires It's all semantics....just slow your a$$e$$ down! I tell myself that an N/A Forester is just an STI without all the fluff like, power, handling, style, racing heritage, and curb appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 It's all semantics....just slow your a$$e$$ down! No, it's not. I can much faster without hydroplanning on GY F1 DS-G3 then I could have even thought of going with RE92s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Oversimplification. Different tires have different hydroplanning resistance. Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires You can hydroplane any tire at the (im)proper speed, at what point do you determine you're driving on crappy tires and at what point to you determine you're driving too fast for conditions? If you're hydroplaning, you're going too fast. Slow down. It's pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yes. Your and AirSix statements seemed like it's the driver fault to hydroplane ONLY and tires are not part of the equation. I am saying they are as some tires hydroplane much worse than others. RE92 happens to hydroplane worse than most. It's pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brady Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 No, it's not. I can much faster without hydroplanning on GY F1 DS-G3 then I could have even thought of going with RE92s... Super ... how well do your F1's do on snow? Mud? Subaru pretty much has to provide a tire that's good for use year round. So that's what they do. Sure, we all pretty much agree that there are better tires out there, but you can't convince me there aren't worse tires than the RE92. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Super ... how well do your F1's do on snow? Mud? Subaru pretty much has to provide a tire that's good for use year round. So that's what they do. Sure, we all pretty much agree that there are better tires out there, but you can't convince me there aren't worse tires than the RE92. I wasn't trying to convince you there are worse tires than RE92s. I don't know how F1s do on snow. Have Nokian WRs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirSix Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I dont disagree that certain tires have better hydro- resistance. I believe I said I've experienced hydro-planing with the 92's. My overall point was to look at your driving habits first and know that the majority of drivers can function quite safely on the stockers. If you feel that your GY tires allow you to plow through standing water one and half times faster than my stockers....knock yourself out. I tell myself that an N/A Forester is just an STI without all the fluff like, power, handling, style, racing heritage, and curb appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Why the hate? And did I say something about one and half times faster? And I disagree with the recommendation to keep the stockers. Sure, they can be safe most of the time for ppl driving gradma style. However, the real deal breaker is the braking distance - substantially shortened with better tires. That reason alone should be good enough to ditch the stockers. I am done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nKoan Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Oversimplification. Different tires have different hydroplanning resistance. Hydroplaning = driving too fast for conditions on given tires Given conditions should include your tires. You should ALWAYS be taking your tires in consideration when you are driving. So, the original statement is correct. Hydroplaning equals driving too fast for the condition (or situation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nKoan Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Why the hate? And did I say something about one and half times faster? And I disagree with the recommendation to keep the stockers. Sure, they can be safe most of the time for ppl driving gradma style. However, the real deal breaker is the braking distance - substantially shortened with better tires. That reason alone should be good enough to ditch the stockers. I am done. Or you could just learn to break earlier and not have to worry about wasting money by throwing away perfectly acceptable tires. Sure, they aren't great, but there are a lot worse out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgt_nube Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 However, the real deal breaker is the braking distance - substantially shortened with better tires.Are there tests that show that? A few photos of the LGT My current ride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Or you could just learn to break earlier and not have to worry about wasting money by throwing away perfectly acceptable tires. Sure, they aren't great, but there are a lot worse out there. Luckily there are members like you who like them and even buy them for not a bad price here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legandrex Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I think they get a bad rap. It all started back in 02 with the wrx crowd. I had them on my wrx and they were ok and they are ok with my legacy. I have 24000 miles and tread wear is still decent and they are still quiet. Snow performance is acceptable for me. Maybe I need to put P ZeroNero M+S on to see difference, but I will never find out. When mine wear out I will probably purchase RE-92's used from someone willing to part with them due to the perceived performance being equal to our spare tire. Many are almost giving them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nKoan Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Luckily there are members like you who like them and even buy them for not a bad price here! No, I wouldn't exactly say I like them. I won't buy them again unless I bought a new car on which they came stock, and this car would be my third. But to say they are worthless is disingenuous to the quality of the tire. I think its a waste of money to replace the tires right after driving off the lot, because they will do just fine in most situations if the driver is reasonable. The trick is, of course, the driver, and getting them to realize the limits of the tire and not just have them make that split second bad call. But, then again most drivers don't take car control clinics, and probably can't be expected to drive properly in all situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirSix Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Why the hate? And did I say something about one and half times faster? And I disagree with the recommendation to keep the stockers. Sure, they can be safe most of the time for ppl driving gradma style. However, the real deal breaker is the braking distance - substantially shortened with better tires. That reason alone should be good enough to ditch the stockers. I am done. No hate bro, I just speak from the standpoint of a trainer. People are more than willing to drop 500 bills on some high speed sways or springs because of perceived "balance" issues, but with that same money they could go out to an 8-hour high-speed driving clinic and really make a difference. I tell myself that an N/A Forester is just an STI without all the fluff like, power, handling, style, racing heritage, and curb appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trax Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 A driver must obviously drive within the limits of his/her ability and vehicle. That doesn't mean the driver has to like the limitations of the tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I was being blasted by on the highway Thanksgiving evening during some heavy rain. Talking 90% of the cars on the highway were flying by me. My car did not feel comfortable at all. Now I know everybody thinks they are a better driver than everybody else, but I am certainly average at least with a smattering of track schools, autocross school, autocrosses and rally crosses under my belt. I doubt everybody else was feeling what I was feeling when standing water was hit. If so, everybody else was far braver than I. Certainly a situation where the RE92s suck if I had to slow down so much to feel comfortable with the hydroplaning, especially versus the majority of other cars on the highway. Why Subaru continues to use an inferior tire on their performance models is beyond me, especially when in car tests the Subaru gets horrible "numbers" much of which can be attributed to the tire selection. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjundi Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Beanboy you were probably the only smart one driving at a reasonable speed. Just because people blast by that does not mean there cars are hydroplaning on occasion, most vehicles are too numb anyway (as are drivers) to tell what is going on with the tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tantal Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 The guys posting that people should be mindful of their car's capabilities under given conditions are totally correct - if you are worried about not having enough traction then you should slow down or you are being a moron. OK, point taken and whole-heartedly agreed with. NOT the point. The point is, the RE 92 is not a very capable tire, and there are a great many tires which outperform it under most conditions, and many which outperform it under any and all conditions. A further point is that very few of these tires which b@%#-slap the RE 92 are more expensive than the RE 92. Some of you guys are sophomorically changing the argument when you say "yea, don't blame the tire, when it's the driver." The argument is not about who is at fault for an accident or whatever, the argument is that the RE 92 is not very capable, and is a poor choice of tire for such a high performance car. Certainly if you drive on them you should be careful, but this is NOT the point. Mmm'kay? Can we all just get along now =) Lots of good posts on this thread (seriously), but not enough conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tantal Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Beanboy you were probably the only smart one driving at a reasonable speed. Just because people blast by that does not mean there cars are hydroplaning on occasion, most vehicles are too numb anyway (as are drivers) to tell what is going on with the tires. There's no doubt in my mind that many or most of the people driving faster than Beany were driving below the hydroplaning limits of their tires. There are many Mass-holes around here, but not that many that are completely stupid. Err, have I got that right ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 That's right tantal... I could see some folks not caring and just flying through (is MA and all), but this seriously was the vast majority of people driving around 60 in a 55 zone during the rain. Not the first time this has happened, alignment specs are good and tire wear normal. Running slightly higher psi than stock, but not enough to make stability an issue at 38/36 for cold psi. And folks think the RE92s give plenty of warning before slipping? Couldn't believe how floppy the sidewalls felt at stock pressure. Felt weird starting a turn, then having the whole car settle a bit when the sidewalls rolled over. And when they let go, I hear nothing. That fine tire squeal doesn't happen until right before the tires let go, not much of a guide. Are they death traps? No, I drive at their level. But with so many cheaper tires on the market that are better to much better at everything (noise, dry traction, wet traction, winter traction, price) I still want to question why Subaru uses them for OEM tires. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tantal Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 That's right tantal... I could see some folks not caring and just flying through (is MA and all), but this seriously was the vast majority of people driving around 60 in a 55 zone during the rain. Not the first time this has happened, alignment specs are good and tire wear normal. And folks think the RE92s give plenty of warning before slipping? Couldn't believe how floppy the sidewalls felt at stock pressure. Felt weird starting a turn, then having the whole car settle a bit when the sidewalls rolled o I think cold and wet is the worst conditions for the RE92's. I can feel them slipping at totally sane speeds. Not good. Maybe the roads are a little greasy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilesA Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 ...Some of you guys are sophomorically changing the argument when you say "yea, don't blame the tire, when it's the driver." The argument is not about who is at fault for an accident or whatever, the argument is that the RE 92 is not very capable, and is a poor choice of tire for such a high performance car. Certainly if you drive on them you should be careful, but this is NOT the point. Mmm'kay?... Well, no... The original poster started this thread to say, "You know, the RE-92s aren't as bad as I thought they'd be." Other people agreed, saying they are OK within their modest limits. If anyone started changing the argument, it was to ask "why is the driver at fault in hydroplaning?". To which some people replied, "just slow down, you're overdriving the tire." And then we began to have yet another RE-92 bashfest. Mmm'kay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayu Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 As a New England driver, I was debating on whether or not buy a set of dedicated snow tires (to go on the stock rims) or see the RE92's through the winter. My decision was determined on Sunday in the middle of Nebraska on I-80 as a wicked cold front dropped the temperature of everything, including the rain, form 50 to 24. I shook my head as high plains drivers in their SUV's and pick-up's roared past at 80 even as ice began to accumulate on everything. No one slowed down until they saw the group of vehicles that had slid off the road. A very nasty accident between a black SUV and a black pick-up closed I80 totally in the east bound direction. I was very glad that my old 99 FWD Passat 5MT wagon that my son and I were driving to Colorado for him to use at college was wearing Bridgestone Blizzaks, perhaps (when in outer tread depth) the best ice tire in the world. If you want to see what others think of the RE92's, go to tirerack.com (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+RE92). With over 40,000,000 miles reported, this tire comes in 20 our of 21 tires in its category with an extraordinary low score of 2.4 (out of 10) for "Would you buy this tire again?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.