Page 1 of 1

Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:51 am
by Anthony P.
Image

i guess they just make it up as they go along

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:55 am
by Mike Yanase
yeah i saw someone post up a pix going "wth rs-3 are now 200tw."
guess they saw the new proposal lol

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:34 am
by Mako Koiwai
remarkable how quickly a corporation CAN react. Perhaps the Korean secret ...

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:07 pm
by Bill Schenker
In related news, Hoosier has announced today that from next week the R6 will have a rating of 205 and the A6, 200.

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:10 pm
by Mako Koiwai
R6 = Looser looser! :D

Image

... except in the hands of Terry Free who won a NASA Nationals last year when the leading drivers A6's wore out just as his R6's were coming into their own.

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:36 pm
by David Barrish
And 14" tires will be produced by?

Yes, Falken and Dunlop. Anyother players?

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:51 pm
by Bill Martin
I wonder if the RS3 200 rating will apply to all sizes. Tire Rack specs show the sizes currently split between 140 and 200.

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:59 pm
by Leonard Cachola
Bill Martin wrote:I wonder if the RS3 200 rating will apply to all sizes. Tire Rack specs show the sizes currently split between 140 and 200.
They're probably just getting rid of all the 140 labeled stock to make room for the 200 label ones. It's not like they can just physically erase the 140 from the existing tire and put a 200 on there.

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:18 am
by Jason Isley BS RX8
From Chris Harvey of the TR:

Tire Rack's official update regarding the subject:

Hankook Tire has changed the Uniform Tire Quality Grade (UTQG) Treadwear rating of their Ventus R-S3 Z222 Extreme Performance Summer tire.
UTQG ratings for Treadwear, Traction and Temperature are based on tests conducted by tire manufacturers and reported to the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These regulations allow tiremanufacturers to under-rate their tires’ capabilities, but prohibit over-rating them. UTQG ratings are required to be branded on each tire’s sidewall and printed on the tire label.
When the Ventus R-S3 Z222 was introduced in spring of 2009, Hankook assigned 140 Treadwear rating to match the UTQG Treadwear rating required by car club competition rules. However subsequent Hankook wear data revealed the tire line provided equivalent wear to its predecessor (Ventus R-S2) and earned the same 200 Treadwear rating. This is also supported by Tire Rack survey results and feedback from our customers indicate the Ventus R-S3 Z222 provides equivalent wear to other tires already featuring similar UTQG Treadwear ratings.
With changes in car club competition rules now requiring higher UTQG Treadwear ratings, Hankook decided it was time to change the rating to better reflect their tire’s capabilities.
Since 140- and 200-Treadwear rated tires are available, both appear on NHTSA’s safercar.gov website for the Ventus R-S3 Z222 line.
Since no changes were made to tire compound or construction, all Ventus R-S3 Z222 tire sizes continue to use the same Hankook S-Code (part number) and both 140- and 200-Treadwear-rated tires are compatible when put into service as singles, pairs or in any combination.
In order to help drivers confirm which tire they will receive, Tire Rack has separated the tires and listed the Treadwear rating on its product Specs tab
. Changes to the website should appear tomorrow, April 5th.

Re: Hankook Rs3 are now 200 utqg

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:02 am
by Jayson Woodruff
Jason Isley BS RX8 wrote:These regulations allow tiremanufacturers to under-rate their tires’ capabilities, but prohibit over-rating them.
Note in this context a "Better" rating is a higher number. I bet more than just me here was thinking "over rating" as being assigned a number too low the first time I read it.

Jay W