Continental ExtremeContact Force - Sidewalls are made of cheese

[2sporty]

Don't buy this tire if you want to go to the track and drive reasonably hard. Went to the track with brand new tires and did one and a half track days. Perhaps about 3 hours of on track driving at most.

I ran these at 32psi hot at around 160-180F for all sessions except the first session where I ran it a bit higher. -1.9 front camber. They rolled over like they were cheese compared to RE-71Rs and they felt like they had less grip. I am not sure if the tires, in this condition, can be used again for one more session.

I normally use RE-71Rs, but the 265 front was not available, so I tried these. I will never buy them again. I've heard the same from the 911 guys at rennlist, but my sidewall rollover seems worse because the M3/4 is so front heavy when compared to a 911.

The RE-71Rs are excellent and I can probably get at LEAST 6 track days out of them. The problem is that they don't make them in 265/35/19 anymore.

Has anyone tried the AD09s?

[melanthius]

It seems like your pressure was a bit on the low side and not that much camber; I'm not sure if it's really fair to blame the tire for outside wear under those conditions

32 psi hot is really on the low side for this platform

[2sporty]

Originally Posted by melanthius

It seems like your pressure was a bit on the low side and not that much camber; I'm not sure if it's really fair to blame the tire for outside wear under those conditions

32 psi hot is really on the low side for this platform

Well, it obviously is too low for the Continentals, but for the RE-71Rs, I get a very good contact patch when I chalk them. I have also used a pyrometer for the RE-71Rs and 32 psi works fine with the temperatures I usually run on the track with RE-71Rs.

https://rennlist.com/forums/racing-a...l#post18170730

take a look at this. They literally blew up when the driver of a porsche, a relatively lightweight car, ran them below 30psi hot for a while. This should not happen with any of these tires in this category.

[FaRKle!]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Conti's more enthusiast focused tires follow their street tires trend of having softer sidewalls than others. It was very apparent to me going from Conti DWS06 and ECS to Michelin Pilot Sport AS3+ and AS4 that the Contis had softer sidewalls.

I agree with melanthius that -1.9deg is pretty low camber for our platform. I'd expect to see closer to -3deg.

[sc_tr0jan_m3]

I can't kill my ecf tires faster even if I wanted to. To me there a rs4 equivalent tire. Not super fast but they last.

[NYG]

I don't think 32 psi is low at all, especially if you can get the heat into the tire.

You need more camber -1.9 will do that to almost any tire under extreme use. It's enough for a rear multilink but not enough for a strut.

[Gomeler]

Ran -3.25 front camber with Conti ECF 275 square on a M235iR, and we had decent wear with no shoulder issues. A fantastic practice tire.

Beating the community dead horse, but try another degree of negative camber.

[polarbearz]

Originally Posted by Gomeler

Ran -3.25 front camber with Conti ECF 275 square on a M235iR, and we had decent wear with no shoulder issues. A fantastic practice tire.

Beating the community dead horse, but try another degree of negative camber.

What hot psi do you suggest to run on f82? I just got these tires on Friday

[drroc]

ECFs with six full track days on them. I also drove to the track and back on them. I run them around 33~34PSI hot. The main trick is not to be too pushy on the first lap. I do have exactly -3.0 camber up front. I would say that it is a pretty good tire where you can get consistent time lap after lap.

[SYT_Shadow]

-1.9 of camber up front for a m3 is ridiculous. Everyone runs -3 for a reason.

Before deciding a certain tire is crap, first have your car setup with the minimums

I would not put too much stock into what p owners run in their cars. They are completely different platforms.

[Gomeler]

Originally Posted by polarbearz

What hot psi do you suggest to run on f82? I just got these tires on Friday

I am on a F22 with this tire and we ran 34 psi hot. My weight + distribution + tire size is about equal to a lighter lower power F82, I imagine 32-34 is a good range to start with and gather data on.

A thread with feedback on the tire => https://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1877211

I've gone through 2 sets(my lapping opportunities have been real slim the last ~18 months) and I'll likely buy a 3rd for 2023 + a set of Potenza Race.

[2sporty]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

-1.9 of camber up front for a m3 is ridiculous. Everyone runs -3 for a reason.

Before deciding a certain tire is crap, first have your car setup with the minimums

I would not put too much stock into what p owners run in their cars. They are completely different platforms.

hah, who are you to say what the "minimums" are? This is a comparison with the RE-71s on the same setup. The sidewalls are obviously weaker on the ECFs. Even if you ran these two tires with -3 camber, the ECF will still have a weaker sidewall and it's a flat out slower tire. Probably at least two seconds slower on most racetracks.

You're over there in the other thread preaching that the M3/4 is fine to run STOCK on the track. Now, you come here preaching what the "minimums" are.

[Theruleslawyer]

Originally Posted by 2sporty

hah, who are you to say what the "minimums" are? This is a comparison with the RE-71s on the same setup. The sidewalls are obviously weaker on the ECFs. Even if you ran these two tires with -3 camber, the ECF will still have a weaker sidewall and it's a flat out slower tire. Probably at least two seconds slower on most racetracks.

You're over there in the other thread preaching that the M3/4 is fine to run STOCK on the track. Now, you come here preaching what the "minimums" are.

You obviously misunderstood your quote.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by 2sporty

hah, who are you to say what the "minimums" are? This is a comparison with the RE-71s on the same setup. The sidewalls are obviously weaker on the ECFs. Even if you ran these two tires with -3 camber, the ECF will still have a weaker sidewall and it's a flat out slower tire. Probably at least two seconds slower on most racetracks.

You're over there in the other thread preaching that the M3/4 is fine to run STOCK on the track. Now, you come here preaching what the "minimums" are.

You seem upset., is everything ok? If you don't want advice, it may be best not to open a thread saying something is shit when people who track frequently and are known to be fast use that same thing and are fine with it.

You've received the same comment multiple times in this thread, it's just the reality of tracking an M3. Half of the posts on this thread are people telling you more camber is needed up front.

There are tires with stiffer or softer sidewalls and you're not the first person that finds a tire that allow suboptimal camber to function, but it's an exception rather than the rule.

M3s indeed are fast even stock, but it's pointless to eat through a set of tires in a day because you don't have enough camber. Camber is not really a speed mod as much as it is a tire longevity mod.
I wouldn't want to confuse another thread talking about picking the fruit at the top of the tree (changing stock control arms for aftermarket) with another thread talking about picking fruit that's already on the ground, waiting to be picked up (camber plates)

[5thscaleracer]

If you are not impressed with how these tires are then don't bother trying Yokohama Advan A052 which is a faster tire IMO.

The conti and advan tires NEED camber. -3.0 up front and -2.5 minimum back. the sidewalls are soft and they will roll but when you give it camber thats where these tires work the best.

Not every tire construction is the same so you will also need to make necessary camber and alignment adjustments.

Also your tire pressure is too soft for the weight of the car. At the lowest run 34-35 HOT at the highest run 40Hot. Adjust the tire pressures according to track, weather and driving style for that day.

[NYG]

Originally Posted by 2sporty

hah, who are you to say what the "minimums" are? This is a comparison with the RE-71s on the same setup. The sidewalls are obviously weaker on the ECFs. Even if you ran these two tires with -3 camber, the ECF will still have a weaker sidewall and it's a flat out slower tire. Probably at least two seconds slower on most racetracks.

You're over there in the other thread preaching that the M3/4 is fine to run STOCK on the track. Now, you come here preaching what the "minimums" are.

To be honest, I know SYT_Shadow and I don't think his response was intended to be aggressive or demeaning but I can see how you would interpret it that way.

[2sporty]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

You seem upset., is everything ok? If you don't want advice, it may be best not to open a thread saying something is shit when people who track frequently and are known to be fast use that same thing and are fine with it.

You've received the same comment multiple times in this thread, it's just the reality of tracking an M3. Half of the posts on this thread are people telling you more camber is needed up front.

There are tires with stiffer or softer sidewalls and you're not the first person that finds a tire that allow suboptimal camber to function, but it's an exception rather than the rule.

M3s indeed are fast even stock, but it's pointless to eat through a set of tires in a day because you don't have enough camber. Camber is not really a speed mod as much as it is a tire longevity mod.
I wouldn't want to confuse another thread talking about picking the fruit at the top of the tree (changing stock control arms for aftermarket) with another thread talking about picking fruit that's already on the ground, waiting to be picked up (camber plates)

my intent was to share information with the forum members about the sidewall strength, which I said was cheese, compared to the RE-71Rs. This is plainly a fact. Although pretty much all of the responses were helpful and polite, it seems that this forum has several people who own products and take offense and respond rudely when I point out that the product that they own performs worse than another. In your above message, you simply reaffirmed what you did (which was come in late, repeat what everyone already stated but in a rude manner). You literally had nothing additive to say. Remember, this is on a stock M3, which, I am sure, several people here track. It is useful information for people who have a stock M3. Not everyone here wants to change their M3 into a track car. I'd argue that a lot of people are taking their cars to the track, stock. For me, it's much too heavy and I have other machines that I actually can enjoy racing with, instead of doing "hot laps" once a month in a heavy car where I have to brake incredibly early compared to most other lighter machines at the track. The M3 is a great all around car which is fun to take to the track once in a while, but I am not going to pretend it's some race machine and make track focused modifications on it. As for the Contis, I have removed them and changed them up for Advan AD09s. I will likely not report back on the AD09s due to your tactless responses.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by 2sporty

my intent was to share information with the forum members about the sidewall strength, which I said was cheese, compared to the RE-71Rs. This is plainly a fact. Although pretty much all of the responses were helpful and polite, it seems that this forum has several people who own products and take offense and respond rudely when I point out that the product that they own performs worse than another. In your above message, you simply reaffirmed what you did (which was come in late, repeat what everyone already stated but in a rude manner). You literally had nothing additive to say. Remember, this is on a stock M3, which, I am sure, several people here track. It is useful information for people who have a stock M3. Not everyone here wants to change their M3 into a track car. I'd argue that a lot of people are taking their cars to the track, stock. For me, it's much too heavy and I have other machines that I actually can enjoy racing with, instead of doing "hot laps" once a month in a heavy car where I have to brake incredibly early compared to most other lighter machines at the track. The M3 is a great all around car which is fun to take to the track once in a while, but I am not going to pretend it's some race machine and make track focused modifications on it. As for the Contis, I have removed them and changed them up for Advan AD09s. I will likely not report back on the AD09s due to your tactless responses.

For what it's worth, I haven't run a single set of Extreme Contacts. The last 200TW I ran was the RE71 and I have fond memories of it.

You'll benefit from adding camber to your car. Camber plates don't transform a car into a track focused one, they just make tires last longer. But to each their own!

[Theruleslawyer]

I wonder if the cheese walls will make them faster on Road America?

[Suds]

When at the track I like to point out to newer drivers my cold scrub lines on the tire from cold inflation to where the primary scrub surface forms once the tire comes up to temperature & pressure. I do like negative camber, -3.7 front & -2.2 rear on the M2 with a square setup.

Your cold scrub line looks really low, the hot scrub line still looks low like the tires want more pressure.

Originally Posted by 2sporty

Don't buy this tire if you want to go to the track and drive reasonably hard. Went to the track with brand new tires and did one and a half track days. Perhaps about 3 hours of on track driving at most.

I ran these at 32psi hot at around 160-180F for all sessions except the first session where I ran it a bit higher. -1.9 front camber. They rolled over like they were cheese compared to RE-71Rs and they felt like they had less grip. I am not sure if the tires, in this condition, can be used again for one more session.

I normally use RE-71Rs, but the 265 front was not available, so I tried these. I will never buy them again. I've heard the same from the 911 guys at rennlist, but my sidewall rollover seems worse because the M3/4 is so front heavy when compared to a 911.

The RE-71Rs are excellent and I can probably get at LEAST 6 track days out of them. The problem is that they don't make them in 265/35/19 anymore.

Has anyone tried the AD09s?

[polarbearz]

Originally Posted by Suds

When at the track I like to point out to newer drivers my cold scrub lines on the tire from cold inflation to where the primary scrub surface forms once the tire comes up to temperature & pressure. I do like negative camber, -3.7 front & -2.2 rear on the M2 with a square setup.

Your cold scrub line looks really low, the hot scrub line still looks low like the tires want more pressure.

What hot tire pressure do you recommend? 35 for ECF?

[5thscaleracer]

Originally Posted by 2sporty

my intent was to share information with the forum members about the sidewall strength, which I said was cheese, compared to the RE-71Rs. This is plainly a fact. Although pretty much all of the responses were helpful and polite, it seems that this forum has several people who own products and take offense and respond rudely when I point out that the product that they own performs worse than another. In your above message, you simply reaffirmed what you did (which was come in late, repeat what everyone already stated but in a rude manner). You literally had nothing additive to say. Remember, this is on a stock M3, which, I am sure, several people here track. It is useful information for people who have a stock M3. Not everyone here wants to change their M3 into a track car. I'd argue that a lot of people are taking their cars to the track, stock. For me, it's much too heavy and I have other machines that I actually can enjoy racing with, instead of doing "hot laps" once a month in a heavy car where I have to brake incredibly early compared to most other lighter machines at the track. The M3 is a great all around car which is fun to take to the track once in a while, but I am not going to pretend it's some race machine and make track focused modifications on it. As for the Contis, I have removed them and changed them up for Advan AD09s. I will likely not report back on the AD09s due to your tactless responses.

AD09 has a far more stiffer sidewall in comparison to the Conti's and A052 tires.

you will notice the following when up to temp.
quick steering response (initial)
Consistent grip and when driven hard it breaks away quick. If you hear it squeal get ready for the catch. it takes a while for the tire to cool down and recover when overdriven.

Overall it feels like a hard compound tire.

the tire will benefit from more camber with stock suspension you can push -2 up front and -1.8 (toe arms will limit the rear).

heat them up good before you go HAM. I have found them to be happy with 37 hot tire pressure.

curious to hear your feedback on this tire over the conti. The conti is a better overall tire compared to the AD09.

Ever consider trying something more motorsport focused?

Nankang CR-S for 200TW and Nanakang AR-1

Both tires are not the fastest but the most consistent even on tire life. I run AR-1 on my F80 and 190E 16V. I will get a full year before needing to replace the tires.

Sidewalls are STIFF so you might like it

FYI CR-S run wider than AR-1 so if you run a 275 in CRS it's sized like a 295 in AR1.