Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have first hand experience with these? They appear to be in the same space as Falken RT615s and Federal 595RS, but are about half the price. Too good to be true?

Good question, I hope this helps...

Firstly I have been informed that the KU15 is no longer planned for continued sale in Australia.

Secondly if you have a closer look at the specs on the tyre you will notice that the Kumho is not in the same category as the Federal 595RS (probably not the RT615 either).

The Kumho KU15 has a treadwear rating of 220 where as the 595RS is either 140 or 180 depending on size - this can mean that the compound in the Kumho is not quite as soft as the RS (or the 615).

The KU15 would be close matched to the Federal 595EVO (see picture) - which has the same sort of tread design and a similar treadwear rating (240) meaning that both the KU15 and the 595EVO are in the Ultra High Performance STREET tyre category.

These ratings are official UTQG (Uniform Tyre Quality Grading) specs.

You will find also that the 595RS is more of a track tyre than the Kumho because of the difference in tread design... One single continuous circumfrential tread block aswell as across the tread face makes for a very stiff tread pattern - meaning less tread squirm, better steering response and higher levels of traction under load (cornering), where as tyres with separated tread blocks can have more tread squirm.

Just a bit of info for you to help with your tyre choice. :rofl:

post-17958-1195695118_thumb.jpg

post-17958-1195695136_thumb.jpg

Edited by Bullet32

Thanks bullet - that's good info. I had the treadwears as

595RS = 180 (I didnt know about the 140)

RT-615 = 200

KU15 = 220

Which is in the same ballpark, but I agree the Kumho tread pattern looks the least hardcore with the Falken in between it and the 595Rses.

RT-615

bg_RT615.JPG

595RS

ss595rs.jpg

Thanks bullet - that's good info. I had the treadwears as

595RS = 180 (I didnt know about the 140)

RT-615 = 200

KU15 = 220

Which is in the same ballpark, but I agree the Kumho tread pattern looks the least hardcore with the Falken in between it and the 595Rses.

Youre welcome...

The 140 treadwear is only on very few selected sizes - the official rating is 180.

By the way if youre in the market for some street legal semi-slicks then you may be interested to know that the 595RS has recently (in the last few weeks) had a large decrease in sale price...

So if you visit your local Federal Tyre dealer now, you should notice the better pricing compared to about a month ago.

If you have any trouble finding your local dealer call - (02) 9526 7456 for Sydney and surrounding areas or 1800 050 060 for ACT and southern NSW areas.

Happy hunting! :D

Edited by Bullet32

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...