Firestone Destination ST

Hmmm, I don't quiet get the reason for the strange designs from wet pavement performance perspective.
It simply looks "wrong" to me. Maybe, it is just me....
Think about where and how the water flows under the tire.
Other than the wide single channel, where else the water should go.
Most tires push the water to go to outer edges of tires.
This design does not allow that unless it goes in a zig-zag pattern, which is slow down water flow.
Bad wet performance leads to hydroplaning.
 
Last edited:
ceric said:
Hmmm, I don't quiet get the reason for the strange designs from wet pavement performance perspective.
It simply looks "wrong" to me. Maybe, it is just me....
Think about where and how the water flows under the tire.
Other than the wide single channel, where else the water should go.
Most tires push the water to go to outer edges of tires.
This design does not allow that unless it goes in a zig-zag pattern, which is slow down water flow.
Bad wet performance leads to hydroplaning.
Click to expand...

I agree it looks weird. There are only 5 reviews on tirerack and all 5 are positive with one mentioning great wet traction and if I remember right it was on a CX-7.
 
Somewhat reminds me of the Continental Extreme Contact DWS, which I'm considering for my Cadillac STS.

09541071000
 
Still different by a lot.
The Conti has 3 center channels for expeling water. The Firestone has only 1.
The grooves of the wide central band connects the two channels. Not so on the Firestone.
In short, the tread design of the Conti makes sense to me.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
    • Wow
18" CX-9 Wheel Tire Options
Replies
6
Views
2K
Snaab508
S
D
    • Wow
Down to 3 tire options. Opinions Appreciated!
2 3
Replies
54
Views
10K
GTXT23
GTXT23
N
Running review: Continental TerrainContact H/T
Replies
3
Views
5K
norsairius
N

Latest posts

Back