Cross Section of Nexen N Fera SU1 vs Michelin & Continental: This article offers an in-depth look at the performance of premium touring tires in the APAC area. Expanding on our earlier assessment of the Michelin Primacy 4 ST and Continental UltraContact 7, this study widens its focus following the recent completion of the Top Tire Review 2023 APAC Touring Test.
It particularly examines the body ply, bead, cap ply, Under Tread Gauge (UTG), and tread depth of the Nexen N Fera SU1 in contrast to Michelin and Continental models. The goal is to provide comprehensive insights into the design and performance effects of these components, aiding readers in making well-informed choices when selecting tires for touring needs.
Table of Contents
Results: Cross Section of Nexen N Fera SU1
| Body ply | Bead | Capply | Under Tread Gauge (UTG),mm | |
| Nexen N Fera SU1 | 1+0 | 3x4x4x4 | 212 | 1.5 |
| Michelin Primacy 4 ST | 2+0 | 5×5 | 212 hybrid | 3.2 |
| Continental UltraContact 7 | 1+0 | 5×4 | 222 | 3 |
Body Ply:
In comparing the body ply of the Nexen N Fera SU1, Michelin Primacy 4 ST, and Continental UltraContact 7, the Nexen stands out with its 1+0 ply construction. This design offers several advantages, including a lower cost and better rolling resistance, which can lead to improved fuel efficiency. However, it’s worth noting that this comes at the expense of robustness, meaning the tire might not be as durable or sturdy in harsh conditions compared to the Michelin’s 2+0 ply. The Continental also features a 1+0 ply, sharing similar benefits and drawbacks with the Nexen N Fera SU1.
Bead:
Focusing on the bead configuration, the Nexen N Fera SU1 features a 3x4x4x4 structure. This setup uses less bead material compared to the Michelin Primacy 4 ST’s 5×5 and Continental UltraContact 7’s 5×4 configurations. The Nexen’s design might be seen as a cost-effective solution since it uses fewer materials. However, it’s important to consider that while this may reduce the tire’s cost and potentially its weight, it might also affect the tire’s overall performance especially on its bead strength.
Cap Ply:
When comparing the cap ply configuration, the Nexen N Fera SU1 uses a 212 setup. This structure is beneficial for high-speed stability and can offer cost savings, making it a practical choice for many drivers. However, it’s important to note that a 212 setup might lead to irregular wear over the tire’s lifespan, affecting its longevity and performance.
In contrast, the Michelin Primacy 4 ST uses a 212 hybrid configuration, which may provide a much higher high speed capabilities while the Continental UltraContact 7 employs a 222 setup, potentially offering better wear characteristics. The choice between these configurations will depend on the tire design priorities, whether that’s cost, durability, or performance.
Under Tread Gauge (UTG):
In the comparison of Under Tread Gauge (UTG), the Nexen N Fera SU1 has the lowest UTG at 1.5mm among its competitors. This thinner gauge contributes to better handling and improved rolling resistance, potentially enhancing fuel efficiency and responsiveness. However, it’s worth noting that a lower UTG can have downsides. It it bade for tire noise, which can affect driving comfort. Additionally, a thinner UTG can pose challenges during manufacturing, potentially impacting the scrap rates in the plant. In contrast, the Michelin Primacy 4 ST and Continental UltraContact 7 have thicker UTGs of 3.2mm and 3mm respectively, which might offer better noise insulation.
Tread depth:
| Tread depth, mm | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Average |
| Nexen N Fera SU1 | 7.01 | 7.29 | 7.85 | 7.38 | 7.38 |
| Michelin Primacy 4 ST | 6.48 | 7.16 | 7 | 6.64 | 6.82 |
| Continental UltraContact UC7 | 7.41 | 7.53 | 7.3 | 7 | 7.31 |
The Nexen N Fera SU1 stands out with the highest average tread depth of 7.38mm among its competitors. This contrast with its lowest Under Tread Gauge (UTG) offers a unique combination. A deeper tread depth is beneficial for extending mileage, assuming the wear rate is consistent, as it takes longer for the tread to wear down. Additionally, a higher tread depth can improve resistance to aquaplaning to a certain extent, providing better performance in wet conditions.
However, it’s important to note that while these advantages are significant, a deeper tread isn’t without its drawbacks. Generally, a higher tread depth can negatively impact handling and rolling resistance. This means the tire might not respond as swiftly to steering as one with a shallower tread, and it may not roll as efficiently, potentially affecting fuel economy.
In comparison, the Michelin Primacy 4 ST and Continental UltraContact 7 have lower average tread depths of 6.82mm and 7.31mm, respectively. These tires might offer a slightly different balance of mileage potential, handling, and rolling resistance, reflecting the trade-offs inherent in different tread depths.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Nexen N Fera SU1 showcases a unique tire construction when compared to Michelin Primacy 4 ST and Continental UltraContact 7. Its 1+0 body ply and 3x4x4x4 bead configuration suggest a cost-effective design with fewer materials, potentially affecting durability and performance. The 212 cap ply offers advantages in high-speed stability and cost savings, but might lead to irregular wear. Despite having the lowest Under Tread Gauge (UTG), which benefits handling and rolling resistance, it could result in increased noise and manufacturing challenges.
Notably, the Nexen has the highest average tread depth at 7.38mm, enhancing mileage and resistance to aquaplaning but possibly impacting handling and rolling resistance. In comparison, Michelin and Continental tires present a balance of features that might prioritize durability, noise insulation, and a different balance of performance characteristics. Feel free to download the high resolution images below for your own viewing !
High-Resolution cross-section images:
