Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

oh really? shit.. I've been driving on the streets with them to the track LOL...

been pulled over once and a copper said they look bald.. so I showed him the tread indicator and he was happy they were above the indicators and off I went

DOT? We're not in America. These are DOT too:

ho_a7_ci2_l.jpg

NT01 have no load index rating on the sidewalls. They're not road legal in Australia. They're not CAMS approved either. They're not good for much at all really.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Are the nankangs road legal?

I reckon 265 vs 265 Nitto v nankang that they would be very similar speed, but also willing to bet the Nitto would be more consistent over the lifespan of the tyre and the nankang will fall off.

Yet you hold such a grudge.

Anyway I'm over it. Back to real data and no more speculations.

lol Silly me! I thought I had real data having used both tyres on the same car. I defer to your "I reckon" and "I bet" guesswork based on never even having seen one of these tyres...

Edited by hrd-hr30
  • Like 1

no, but your post did - you asked me a question (yes the Nankangs are road legal btw), then told me I hold "such a grudge".

NT01 are consistent, that's true. But you can't lose what you never had :P

AR01 could drop off at least a second over their life and still be as good as brand new NT01s. The soft compound Hankook Z221s when they had totally given up the ghost and were sliding around all over the place were still faster than the NT01s, but it was time to chuck them out as absolute garbage.
What the Nankangs do over heat cycles remains to be seen. I've had tyres that heat cycle really well and ones that deteriorate very quickly after a handful of track days, but I certainly can't tell which would do what from just driving on them once, let alone just from their brand name.

FWIW, Nankang has technology licencing and technical support agreements with Yokohama... That's from Yokohama's website, not Nankang's - they don't mention it at all. Who knows how much of their technology is involved with the AR1, but it was one of the factors that encouraged me to take the gamble on these $209 semis! lol I wouldn't be so quick to write them off before trying them.

I'm keen, but they need a new name LOL

call them Yokakangs.. I will buy

Nankangs, no...

I nearly killed myself 10+ years ago on Nankangs NS-2.. now that I am older, wiser and have some form of cash flow I refuse to buy Nankangs.

Nt01 is only a intro semi which back before the rsrr was released they could be had for the same price.

This argument is silly.

I agree, because Nitto has beautiful women promoting the brand so it must be good.

post-22311-0-42861300-1466143821_thumb.png

  • Like 1

lol this thread heated up ;) I've used NT01's which are a real semi slick and not bad but not up there with the best for racing in 2016. One thing with Harry's reports is that they are roughly comparative with the other tyres he has used so to dismiss them outright is just plain dumb. Then again he won't say what cold pressures are used so...........

lol this thread heated up ;) I've used NT01's which are a real semi slick and not bad but not up there with the best for racing in 2016. One thing with Harry's reports is that they are roughly comparative with the other tyres he has used so to dismiss them outright is just plain dumb. Then again he won't say what cold pressures are used so...........

Agree that testing with the same car and driver is the best evidence. Not sure why you think his cold pressure is a big deal, just play with it and see what works. Will be different on different cars anyway.

1. They're the slowest semi money can buy.

2. They're not road legal so you can't even legally drive to the track on them which is a PITA.

3. They're not CAMS approved for production car classes.

You're better of doing very similar times on street tyres, or buying literally any other semi (other than R888 :P)

What's wrong with the R888 (besides being the same compound as NT01)?

The replacement tyre R888R is street legal, it'll be interesting to see if the upcoming NT01 replacement will be too, and whether they'll again share the same compound.

Also the NT01 vs. RS-RR comparison seems a little odd, they're a different category tyre aren't they (100 treadwear semi vs. 140 treadwear street semi)?

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...