I've had Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 tires on the last 3 MINIs, about 38k of motoring with them. I've been very happy with the Eagles, the first thing I did with both Tristan and Shawn was to drive to the tire dealer to get Eagles fitted.

However, last year we went to a track day sponsored in part by "Advan" tires (ie Yokohama's high performance brand), and we managed to win the raffle for gift certificate for a set of Advan tires anything except racing slicks. As the Eagles on the front were more or less shot after 12.5k miles and 2 track days, I traded the certificate for a set of S.Drive tires. S.Drives don't call themselves Advans, but Yokohama don't do many if any Advan tires in the 205/50-16 size we have. So they'd send us the S.Drives.

I've been comparing the performance of the S.Drives vs the Eagles. My main conclusion is I think the Eagles perform better, but the S.Drives are quieter.

In the dry, the S.Drives don't seem to have quite the grip the Eagles do, but then the Eagles are the grippiest tires I've ever run on. The S.Drives aren't bad, but I can feel things starting to slide before I'd expect them to. I'd be interested in comparing them on the track, but I wasn't planning on taking Tristan back to the track for a while. It was the instructor at the track day who recommended the S.Drives as a good choice.

We haven't had much wet conditions to try the S.Drives in, the Eagles were phenomenal in the wet, you'd hardly notice any reduction in grip when they're fresh. With the tires down to 3/32" tread just before I swapped them the Eagles were starting to feel a little slippy in the wet, but still very good.

The S.Drives are noticeably quieter, and my dB meter agrees with me. The S.Drives are about 3-4 dBA quiter than the Eagles. I noticed that most on a trip down to LA. After driving all day I was still feeling relatively fresh, I usually feel quite frazzled after that long of a drive. It could be the quieter tires which made the difference.

The worst thing about the S.Drives so far is the tramlining. There's some nasty grooved concrete freeways around here, I could feel some tramlining with the Eagles in places. With the S.Drives, on certain stretches, the front end was dancing around like it was possessed, I wondered if the wheels were about to fall off. Looking at the tread patterns, I can see why. The S.Drive has big circumferential grooves, and about an inch of solid rubber in the centre. Those strong gooves could easily catch grooves in the pavement. The Eagles don't have any circumferential grooves at all, just ones running diagonally out to the edge of the tire. They wouldn't tend to catch in the grooves in the pavement.

The S.Drives also just feel slightly vague. The front end just doesn't seem to want to point in one direction. I think I got used to this after a few hundred miles, but my wife was complaining that Tristan was wandering off the side of the freeway all the time. This could be just in comparison to the Eagles. When I first got them, my impression of the Eagles was they were super-precise, or even twitchy, I got used to that, now the S.Drives maybe just normally responsive, but feel vague in comparison.

I can't say I've noticed any difference in ride quality, but I may not be very sensitive to that. I did think the Eagles rode better than the stock runflats the first time I got them.

One interesting difference between the tires is how they behave when inflated more than MINI recommends. I was experimenting with tire pressures, as by one theory (involving measuring the tire temperature at different points across the tire) they really should be inflated to about 38-40psi, instead of the 33psi MINI recommends. The wear patterns from the track days bear this out as well. With the Eagles inflated like that I didn't notice any difference in handling at all. With the S.Drives inflated like that they were absolutely horrible. It felt like I was just floating over the road with no connection to the earth. I quickly dropped the pressures back to 33psi.

My conclusion is, I'm not sure. If I'd never driven on the Eagles, I think I'd be thrilled with how well the S.Drives perform, and I'm quite happy with how quiet they are. I usually rank my requirements for tires in order as performance, noise, comfort, treadlife. So I think I'd go with the Eagles, they'd also be the choice for the track junkie. If I were driving long distances on a regular basis, I might be tempted by the S.Drives instead, they do seem to make a difference being quieter.

Of course all this may be moot now, as I hear they're discontinuing the Eagles. Maybe I should go buy a spare set now.

One thing I haven't mentioned is treadlife. As mentioned its the thing I'm least concerned about, and I have no idea how the S.Drives will hold up long term. Their wear ratings are very similar, 300 (S.Drive) vs 280 (Eagle). I reckon a set of Eagles would last about 12k on an R53 and 18k on an R56, at least the way I drive. Subtract about 3k miles for a track day.

 

3 of my 4 as good as new Eagles DS-G3 looked like this on the inner side. Until then I enjoyed the Eagles very much. Good-Year replaced 2 tires but I got 4 new Eagles but another type, not the GS-D3. These are just as good but hold up better in cold and wet weather. And so far no cracks, I check frequently.

 

Nice review! I had the S.Drives on my list the last time I was replacing tires, but rejected them after going through Tire Rack's tests for them compared to the Goodyears.

My Goodyears have lasted quite a bit longer than yours. I replaced 2 at 20,000 miles due mostly to uneven wear and just replaced the other 2 at around 30,000 miles. They could have gone further, but one was blown out and the other was around 5/32 so I decided to replace them as a pair. (I'll double-check those mileage figures, but I think they're accurate. Obviously my miles are generally highway commuting so I'm very gentle on tires.)

[Edit: I was off by 10,000 miles. The 1st 2 lasted 30K, the others 40K.]

 

Now is the time. 205/50-16 at $49 each.
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ml#post2612672

 

Does anybody use these for autocross? Seems like a pretty inexpensive way to go if they do the job.

 

I don't know but I find my F1s (215/45/17) to be mushy on the sidewalls and seem to lack the grip I had with the RSA RF's. Call me nutz but that's what I feel. The understeer is more obvious and now the rear moves around more.

On the otherhand, in the rain they're tops and there is no question that they are quieter and smoother than the stock tires.

I know the only way to really see the difference is to have track times and compare. One of the DCMM members went from Rfs to the F1s and lost time, he too complains of the same issues. However, he insist they are good street tires which I agree too when you gain the comfort.

Perhaps the RSA is a better performer, the treadwear rating is higher which usually indicates more grip. The $300 price tag makes my F1s just fine

 

After driving Tristan with the S.Drives for 1500 miles over new year, I switched back to Shawn, who still has the Eagles this week. It felt like the tires needed to warm up and soften a bit, I could feel every little bump in the road. I think that's the tires, not the suspension difference, the S.Drives seem to give you quite a bit smoother ride, smoothing out small bumps.

Also I'm not convinced as to which tire gives you better grip, its difficult to tell without a side by side comparison. The S.Drives may even grip better, but it doesn't feel like it. I'm trying to work that one out, maybe if you get to the limit the S.Drives slide more than the Eagles do, but the S.Drive's limit is higher. I tried my standard on ramp test today, the S.Drives took a particular on ramp as fast, if not faster than the Eagles could. Maybe 1mph faster, but it felt like it was sliding a lot. With the Eagles the front end would just run a little wide as I tried to put more power down.

I'm still not sure which I'd choose, I like the less noise and smoother ride from the S.Drives, and their performance seems OK, they just don't feel so good. There's the slidy feeling as well as the disconnected from the road vague feeling.

 

I agree 100% with you. I felt I could push the RFs much harder than the F1s but the comfort and price just keeps me from going back. It is really nice to hit a bump and not feel like I need to go to the dentist for tooth repair.

I think my F1s are going to wear out faster, but I can almost buy two sets for the price of 2 RFs.

 

I've been using my iPhone and "Dynolicious" to try to get some comparions of performance, its also been wet this week so I can compare wet handling. Dynolicious will produce a nice graph of g forces as I take a corner. As I have S.Drives on Tristan and Eagles on Shawn, I'm not quite sure if the differences I'm seeing are due to the tires of the difference in suspension.

In the dry its not clear which tire is grippier, it depends on what I'm measuring. Sometimes the Eagles do better, sometimes the S.Drives. They can both sustain 0.86g cornering around a particular freeway interchange with long constant radius corner, as well as generate better than 0.8g braking.

In the wet the S.Drives really don't feel good, unlike the Eagles I hardly notice the wet with the Eagles. Exploring the wet traction with the S.Drives I found out what real understeer feels like, like the front was on ice and just going its own way, quite disconcerting. If I push the Eagles I can make them do something similar, but then they find some grip and start turning again. Dynolicious tells me the S.Drives couldn't do more than 0.56g, the Eagles peaked at 0.78g in the same conditions.

 

prada spec 2's 205 45 17

 

Its been very wet here in the last week, so I did some more comparisons, I've been using Dynolicious again, this time in the wet.

The result is, again, I'm not sure which are better. Some situations the S.Drives can pull more gs, in other cases the Eagles did better. Overall the S.Drives may do better, but not by much. Again, the Eagles feel more grippy, but the numbers don't bear that out.

Running down a really flooded freeway, the S.Drives felt more resistant to hydroplaning, but that could be because they still have 9mm of tread, the Eagles are down to 4-5mm.

I'm wondering if its worth trying to take both sets to my next track day and see if either performs better. I'm not planning on getting back to the track until July currently.

At the moment I think I'm leaning towards the S.Drives if I needed to spend my own money on this, but I'm not going to dump the Eagles before they're worn out.

 

S.Drives suck. Check out the EVO UK review of top tires (err tyres). 35ft longer stopping distance on S.Drives over the best performer. That right there is worth skipping them.

 

I second the prada spec 2 choice.

Although I have had no actual experience with them, I have obsessively read reviews. They seem to have a lot going for them. Alas this great economy has made a used set more practical after purchasing Blizzaks for the winter. I ended up with Hankook sr2. So we will see what they are like in a couple days, or months depending on when the snow stops...

 

Do you have a link for that, I can't find any such article.

 

googling 'EVO magazine tire test' yields:

1) Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric , $960.00
2) Vredestein Ultrac Sessanta
3) Continental ContiSportContact 3 , $984.00
4) Bridgestone Potenza REO50A , $1202.00
5) Michellin Pilot Sport PS2 , $1136.00
6) Pirelli PZero Nero , $868.00
7) Kumho Ecsta SPT KU31
8) Dunlop Sport Maxx , $858.00
9) Yokohama S. Drive , $666.00

 

That's not the GY Eagle F1 GS-D3 in that test, it's the Asymmetric.

 

thanks, edited the list (I copied and pasted from elsewhere and didn't see the error).

I've had Kumho SPT, F1 GS-D3, F1 Asymmetric among others. The Asymmetric gets

 

Pity there isn't more detail in that. There's something funny going on here. The S.Drive's braking performance is fine for me, and looking at one Tirerack test, Tirerack would agree with me. In that test the S.Drives outperform the Prada Spec 2s, however Tirerack also have another test with the S.Drives which do show them braking badly, and generally performing worse.

I got the good version of the S.Drives, I don't know what's with the other sort.

 

that test you linked is comparing entry level performance tires. the one I posted is top tier performance tires (not the max perf that give up rain performance). The S.Drive might be better than a DZ101 but that's not saying much. I've had Ecsta SPT and DZ101 and hated both so much I got rid of them sooner than later.

 

found the complete scan - uploaded

 

Has anybody tried the Goodyear Triple Treads?

 

Thanks, interesting.

If I'd read that review, I wouldn't want an S.Drive either. Having run on them they work fine.

 

It's sort of like hi-fi audio. Most people don't know what they're missing until they hear an expensive system and realize better can be had.

Nobody is saying S.Drive's are dangerous. Nobody says they don't work. It's just that there are MUCH better choices for similar money out there.

Lastly, 'low rolling resistance' is NOT a trait to look for in a performance tire. If you're looking for efficiency, you won't get grip. Mutually exclusive.

 

What the test is comparing doesn't change the raw data. The Tirerack tests look like they use a consistant methodology, so you can compare the raw data across tests. In that case the S.Drive's wet braking performance is either 90% or 94% of the F1 Assymetric, comparing the Tirerack tests for both tires. That would put the S.Drive in either 6th or 8th position, not stellar, but not "That right there is worth skipping them."I'm specifically comparing the S.Drive to the DS-G3, my conclusion is the S.Drives that I have may be slightly better than the DS-G3, that I have. The S.Drives certainly perform on a par with the DS-G3. The DS-G3 in similar tests (like this one), amoung similar tires (both tests include the RE050, Sport Maxx and Pilot sport PS2), so it looks like i have a real hi-fi system to compare them to. All I'm saying is the S.Drive's I have are not as bad as the one they tested.

Why that is is an interesting question, it could be that he whole tire testing methodology is severely flawed and its only use is to sell magazines, or it could be that there's a lot of batch variation in the Yokohama tires, which would be a good reason to avoid them. However Yokohama have a 30 day trial, so if you're interested you can see if you get a good set or a bad set.

The test you're quoting is one data point, other data points don't paint such a clear picture.
I would agree with you there. However, one of the things I like about the S.Drives is they're surprisingly comfortable, both for noise and ride, both traits which are also mutually exclusive with performance, but they don't seem to give up any performance in delivering that improved comfort. As someone who'll take performance over comfort, it was actually quite refreshing to feel fresh after an 8 hour trip, rather than cooked.

I don't see much evidence of the low rolling resistance in my MPG figures either. The 5 fillups since I got the S.Drives show much the same mileage as the 5 fillups before (excluding track time). The 0.5 mpg difference could easily be accounted for by different driving style.

 

35ft longer braking distances could mean the difference between an accident and not. That's what stands out for me. We all know grippier rubber = safety when braking. If you've ever gotten into ABS trying to avoid an accident, that's proof positive your tires are lacking.

As for comfort, the GS-D3 is comfy and soft (one major complaint for those who want an edgier turn-in). Having owned them and the F1 Asymmetric, I can say you can have your cake and eat it too. I ran 215/45/17 GS-D3 and 225/35/18 Asymmetric - I can honestly say they were not jarring but handled better (Asymmetric > GS-D3).