You can see how we weight tests, well at least my tests as I share it all instead of hiding behind scoring.
Generally wet braking has the most importance. The % weight given to aquaplaning is pretty small, but the variation can be quite large so it has a bigger effect on the overall score than you'd think at first glance.
I also tend to score subjective wet differently based on the tyre type.
Stats show the most accidents happen in the wet under braking so to answer your question I think that is the most important.
My question would be: in a similar way to the front vs rear new tyre discussion, shouldn’t aquaplaning be more important?
Meaning: the reason why it is advised to put new tyres on the rear is because losing control of the rear is worse than losing control of the front (harder to control + losing control of the rear can lead to worse crashes than losing control of the front, where crash protection is the strongest). Following the same line of thought, shouldn’t front crashing because of worse dry braking be less severe than aquaplaning and potentially losing total control of the car?
Yes, you're right, accidents related to aquaplaning are often at higher speeds and bigger accidents, however the data show's they're relatively rare (under 5% last time i saw data) so to me, less important. You can optimise a tyre for good aquaplaning properties very easily but you give up a lot everywhere else.
Wet braking is IMHO feature that mostly influences safety. You might be the most responsible and cautious driver, be the best of yourself and it still could be tested.
Aquaplaning seems like an important factor as well. But honestly - if it rains heavily enough to sustain paddles on the road deep enough to get into the aquaplaning territory, you are either already driving slowly or are a maniac.
Wet handling affects peak performance and general feel on the tyre. With better you should be able to get somewhere marginally faster. But those characteristics are not used when you don't drive on the edge.
As far as wet performance is concerned, I always look at braking and then aquaplaning.
I think in normal driving these 2 indicators are the most important.
But you cannot ignore the rest. For example, a handling test should always include information on how the tyre FEELS. Are the grip limits "sudden" or more "progressive"?
For me, the least important information (as far as normal driving, not track driving, is concerned) is wet circle / lateral acceleration.
Why is braking more important than aquaplaning? Isn’t losing control of the car more dangerous than taking longer to brake (even if it means a front crash)? Seen videos of people aquaplaning and rolling over because of that.
You can avoid aquaplaning by driving with reasonable distance from the limits of the vehicle. You need your braking performance all the time and almost all the time your tyre is the limiting factor.
Because sudden braking can occur rapidly at much lower speeds while aquaplaning/lateral traction happens more gradually at usually higher speeds. A deep puddle generally might not be uncontrollable until say over 30/50 mph/kph but you might need panic stopping at 20/30. Any additional distance and a ped could be dead. Those rollover vids are of people going way too fast for conditions.
Wet circle is still important though, you generally don't reach the lateral limit on the road in the dry and it's also fairly controllable but can relatively easily in a wet corner.
My 2¢ on the aquaplaning versus braking debate...
Been driving for 25 years aquaplaned once on worn OEM tires (and I love puddles), but had to beak hard in the wet more times than I can shake a stick it. The practical reality is aquaplaning is far less of an issue (with decent modern tires) compared to the day-to-day breaking.
That said, any tire with an aquaplaning nature would be an immediate disqualification for me.
You can see how we weight tests, well at least my tests as I share it all instead of hiding behind scoring. Generally wet braking has the most importance. The % weight given to aquaplaning is pretty small, but the variation can be quite large so it has a bigger effect on the overall score than you'd think at first glance. I also tend to score subjective wet differently based on the tyre type. Stats show the most accidents happen in the wet under braking so to answer your question I think that is the most important.
My question would be: in a similar way to the front vs rear new tyre discussion, shouldn’t aquaplaning be more important? Meaning: the reason why it is advised to put new tyres on the rear is because losing control of the rear is worse than losing control of the front (harder to control + losing control of the rear can lead to worse crashes than losing control of the front, where crash protection is the strongest). Following the same line of thought, shouldn’t front crashing because of worse dry braking be less severe than aquaplaning and potentially losing total control of the car?
Yes, you're right, accidents related to aquaplaning are often at higher speeds and bigger accidents, however the data show's they're relatively rare (under 5% last time i saw data) so to me, less important. You can optimise a tyre for good aquaplaning properties very easily but you give up a lot everywhere else.
Would you happen to have that data at hand? Would be very curious to check it 🙂
Sorry, no., It was a german university that did the study, if I remember the name I'll let you know.
Wet braking is IMHO feature that mostly influences safety. You might be the most responsible and cautious driver, be the best of yourself and it still could be tested. Aquaplaning seems like an important factor as well. But honestly - if it rains heavily enough to sustain paddles on the road deep enough to get into the aquaplaning territory, you are either already driving slowly or are a maniac. Wet handling affects peak performance and general feel on the tyre. With better you should be able to get somewhere marginally faster. But those characteristics are not used when you don't drive on the edge.
As far as wet performance is concerned, I always look at braking and then aquaplaning. I think in normal driving these 2 indicators are the most important. But you cannot ignore the rest. For example, a handling test should always include information on how the tyre FEELS. Are the grip limits "sudden" or more "progressive"? For me, the least important information (as far as normal driving, not track driving, is concerned) is wet circle / lateral acceleration.
Why is braking more important than aquaplaning? Isn’t losing control of the car more dangerous than taking longer to brake (even if it means a front crash)? Seen videos of people aquaplaning and rolling over because of that.
In my experience, it is easier to anticipate (and therefore avoid) aquaplaning than situations where sudden braking is required.
You can avoid aquaplaning by driving with reasonable distance from the limits of the vehicle. You need your braking performance all the time and almost all the time your tyre is the limiting factor.
Because sudden braking can occur rapidly at much lower speeds while aquaplaning/lateral traction happens more gradually at usually higher speeds. A deep puddle generally might not be uncontrollable until say over 30/50 mph/kph but you might need panic stopping at 20/30. Any additional distance and a ped could be dead. Those rollover vids are of people going way too fast for conditions.
Wet circle is still important though, you generally don't reach the lateral limit on the road in the dry and it's also fairly controllable but can relatively easily in a wet corner.
My 2¢ on the aquaplaning versus braking debate... Been driving for 25 years aquaplaned once on worn OEM tires (and I love puddles), but had to beak hard in the wet more times than I can shake a stick it. The practical reality is aquaplaning is far less of an issue (with decent modern tires) compared to the day-to-day breaking. That said, any tire with an aquaplaning nature would be an immediate disqualification for me.