A&Q about Lotus
Q:
I'm getting ready to replace the rear Yokohama A-048's. Is there a difference between the normal Yoko 225/45-17's A-048's and the ones that are designed for the Lotus? Obviously there is a price difference.
Thanks,
Bobby Smith
A:
I've heard that the lotus ones are lighter. Because the car is lighter than most cars, Yoko was able to make the tire lighter. there was a thread on this recently. You might want to do a search.
A:
Originally Posted by Bobby Smith
I'm getting ready to replace the rear Yokohama A-048's. Is there a difference between the normal Yoko 225/45-17's A-048's and the ones that are designed for the Lotus? Obviously there is a price difference.
Thanks,
Bobby Smith
how many miles did you get out of them? any track miles?
A:
I have 4500 miles on them. Fronts look good and rears look like your photos. No track time and less than 6 auto-x's. I believe you only had 3100 miles???
Still seeking advice on which Yohohama A-048 is best. The LSS Advan A-048 or just use the regular A-048.
Bobby
A:
My recollection from the other posts is that there are three 048s:
M - Medium
MH - Medium Hard
MH LTS - Medium Hard Lotus
The first is a softer compound and the last is a lighter construction. My guess it the tire you're looking at is the middle one. I don't know what the price difference is, but the middle one seems like the least compelling choice.
A:
as per Yokohamas engineer, the LSS that come on the car have a traction rating of AA, the other ao48s have just A. I had always thought and was previously told by Yoko that we had the medium hard tires, not the medium that was available on non LSS tires. I talked to them about this a few days ago. You can also consider Hoosiers or Kumho v710. Kumho will have a 215/45/16 in about 3 months. No weight specs yet. They will have a 225/45/17 rear also. My contact at Kumho says the front will work with the 6.5" and 7.5" rims. I don't suggest these for the street. Kumho wear number is 30.
A:
Originally Posted by Bobby Smith
I have 4500 miles on them. Fronts look good and rears look like your photos. No track time and less than 6 auto-x's. I believe you only had 3100 miles???
Still seeking advice on which Yohohama A-048 is best. The LSS Advan A-048 or just use the regular A-048.
Bobby
impressive miles... *sigh* and with about 5 autoXs... amazing... i'm jealous
A:
check and see if robert at blackwatch racing has any AO32s left for the rear.
A:
Tire Rack tech support says the MH has the same compound as the Elise OE, but a stiffer sidewall construction designed to work better on cars heavier than the Elise. He definitely did not recommend it for the Elise, but I had already used a set of MH from another source and they seemed fine to me. However, I do remember the tech that mounted them saying they were the most difficult tires to work onto the rim that he had ever experienced.
I'm using OE now, but I can't make a good comparison with the MH because I changed shocks and chassis specs along with the tires.
A:
The MH are only 1-2 lb heavier each. I think it would be hard to notice the different unless you were very well calibrated.
A:
I spoke with a salesperson at TireRack today and he said the "Lotus specific" A-048 is designed to be better in the wet and that all A-048's have a wear rating of 60, so dry weather performance should be the same. I don't know if this guy knew his stuff, but that was his explaination. I'm looking for the best performance possible using the A-048 tire. I may try the V-710 when they make the correct size.
Bobby
A:
My conversation with Yokaham was centerd around getting the stickiest and best handling tire. He said the LTS was it. As he said, the LTs has AA/A rating. In other words, the dry traction was AA, not A as with the others. try this link:
check out the traction rating near the bottom
A:
I have read here that the correct operating temp is 200. But the highest temp I've seen posted is 170. If this tire was made specifically for the Elise why is it so difficult to get them to the correct temp?
A:
Originally Posted by MikeW
In other words, the dry traction was AA, not A as with the others.
The UTQG traction rating refers to the ability of the car to stop in the wet. It does not rate dry traction. This agrees with what Bobby Smith said.
Originally Posted by Ram
The MH are only 1-2 lb heavier each. I think it would be hard to notice the different unless you were very well calibrated.
Might be hard to notice, but it's unsprung weight, so it's in effect more than 1-2lbs each.
A:
Originally Posted by MikeW
...the LTs has AA/A rating. In other words, the dry traction was AA, not A as with the others...
Many tires rated A have better grip than those rated AA. The AA rating is a fairly new one and many tires were released before it was available. Example: AD07 has AA/A, A048 has A/A, Victoracer has A/A. Can you draw a conclusion from those ratings?
A:
Originally Posted by O4dW
Many tires rated A have better grip than those rated AA. The AA rating is a fairly new one and many tires were released before it was available. Example: AD07 has AA/A, A048 has A/A, Victoracer has A/A. Can you draw a conclusion from those ratings?
What can I say? I asked Yokohama. It's AA/A. He said it has better traction that the other AO48s at A/A. I guess you could keep asking them the same question. Try calling them.
A:
Originally Posted by Tirerack
Traction Grades
UTQG Traction Grades are based on the tire's straight line wet coefficient of traction as the tire skids across the specified test surfaces. The UTQG traction test does not evaluate dry braking, dry cornering, wet cornering, or high speed hydroplaning resistance.
The Traction Grade is determined by installing properly inflated test tires on the instrumented axle of a "skid trailer." The skid trailer is pulled behind a truck at a constant 40 mph over wet asphalt and wet concrete test surfaces. Its brakes are momentarily locked and the axle sensors measure the tire's coefficient of friction (braking g forces) as it slides. Since this test evaluates a sliding tire at a constant 40 mph, it places more emphasis on the tire's tread compound and less emphasis on its tread design.
In 1997, the UTQG Traction Grades were revised to provide a new category of AA for the highest performing tires in addition to the earlier A, B and C grades. Previously the A grade had been the highest available and was awarded to tires that offered wet coefficients of traction above 0.47 g on asphalt and 0.35 g on concrete. Today the grades and their traction coefficients are as follows:
Traction
Grades Asphalt g force Concrete g force
AA Above 0.54 0.41
A Above 0.47 0.35
B Above 0.38 0.26
C Less Than 0.38 0.26
Unfortunately the immediate value of this change to tire buyers will be limited. Use of the AA grade will first be seen on new tires that are introduced after the standard was enacted and will then appear later on tires that have had the required wet traction all along, but were introduced when the single A was the highest available grade.
Personal experience tells me that the M compound A048 (A/A) provides better dry lateral traction than LTS A048 (AA/A) or LTS AD07 (AA/A). Haven't personally tried or tested the MH A048. FWIW...
A:
Listen to the guys at Tire Rack, they know their stuff. The A048 is a great street/Track tire but by all means can not compete with Hoosiers or Kumhos and is not intended to. It is designed to blend a good combination of steet and track and will give you many more enjoyable miles than the Hoosiers or Kumhos. If SCCA trophies are what you are after then the A048 is not for you. If you want a tire that you can drive to the track and have confidence it will get you home then the A048 is the tire. You will not see 200 temps with the A048 because it is not as soft as the Hoosiers or Kumho. You can shave your tires down and that will help bring the temps up more. Good luck!
A:
I'm know I'm a track noob, but the highest temp I've gotten was 137F on a 90F day.