Appropriate N-Tires for Different Types of Cars to Simulate Real Life Control?

[niky]

But on which? I generally prefer to go with N2-N3 tires, as they are most realistically what any of us would have on our cars, no matter WHAT they came with. Unless you're driving a Fiat Panda or a Honda Fit, there's no reason for you to be on N1s.

That drag-problem is another interesting conundrum... drag-racing times aren't realistic on N-tires either...

 

[colnago]

"Normal" Tires maybe? Yes, that's a big problem with the search engine. According to many people's observations, lap times are most realistic with N1 tires. But N2-N3 tires will give you the most realistic road-holding, depending on what the car originally came with.

On N1 tires, the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight match their lateral acceleration skidpad numbers from real-life. On N3 tires, they run close to 1 g. On N1 tires, a Dodge Viper runs around .8g around the skidpad, on N3 tires, it matches its real life skidpad numbers (just a tick over 1g)...

Just to clarify, are people saying that GT4 lap times are at least "close" to real life lap times, with like tires? That is, people are running a lap in GT4, in a Toyota Prius, with "N1" tires, and getting a "similar" lap time in real life with the same car, and what we generally agree are "N1s" (low cost budget, 50k mile tires)?

On the other end of the spectrum, take say a "Corvette", fitted with what we would probably all agree, would come with "N3" tires from the dealer, are people getting similar times in real life?

Suffice it to say, I doubt that any "track enthusiast", would take their car out on an open track day, on anything less than "N3".

 

[colnago]

My $0.02 about "N" tires...

The only thing N tires give you is a more realistic 'lap time' but what good is that when the car doesn't 'perform/handle' at all near its real counterpart? Case in point, put any N tire on a car, get to the car up to about 30-40mph and the put the brakes on....lightly..and you'll hear those N tires lockup so fast it's pathetic...

SRD

The brakes locking up in GT4 may be more a function of the DFP pedal calibration than game physics. I've been playing "GTR", for the PC (far from an Arcade racer) with the DFP (drivers need to be loaded for Force Feedback to work...freakin' awsome game, and I never say the phrase "freakin' awsome" ), and the game allows you to set the sensitivity of wheel and pedal input.

At the default setting, if the pedal is depressed only 1-2cm, braking force is nearly 40-50%. In other words, you don't have to push the pedal down 100% to get 100% braking. I had to turn down the sensitivity to about 15% for there to be a 1-to-1 correlation between pedal position and pedal force (i.e. - 30% pedal down equals 30% braking, etc.).

 

[niky]

In regard to lap times: From what I've read while researching for my testing of lateral grip on these things, people say that Gran Turismo lap times are closest (but still faster) to real life lap times in RUFs and other sports cars with N1s. I agree with you that it would be ridiculous to go to a track day on economy rubber, as the lateral grip it gives you is just way off, and the driving characteristics are extremely degraded.

And I still say those times are unrealistic because of the lack of pucker factor, and the impossibility to correlate even a perfectly simulated track 1:1 with the real thing.

I'd say N3s are most realistic for their depiction of lateral grip for most cars, but I can't vouch for forward traction, as that seems to be another kettle of fish.

 

[Gabkicks]

gtr is much closer to RL than gt4 in terms of tire modeling and every other aspect. With gt4.... your not supposed to analyse things so much aparently


I reccomend downloading Mt Panorama, watkins glen, Nurburgring Nordsheif/zurich 24hr. Sears Pt is awsome also.

Those tracks have great elevation changes and awsome turns. Great racing experiences. 👍
you can find em here http://www.gtndclnr.com/lt/tracks/

.......i'll stop going off topic now.


there is absolutely no pt in discussing the realism of tires in gt4 anymore.

 

[colnago]

...I reccomend downloading Mt Panorama, watkins glen, Nurburgring Nordsheif/zurich 24hr. Sears Pt is awsome also.

Those tracks have great elevation changes and awsome turns. Great racing experiences. 👍
you can find em here http://www.gtndclnr.com/lt/tracks/

...

Do they "drop-in" to GTR? I hear there is a BMW M3 GTR "car" add-in as well.

 

[Gabkicks]

yeah, you just cut and paste the tracks into the locations folder. cars go in a different folder I just got GTR a few days ago. i havent added any cars except the Nissan R390 gt1 and MC12. I havent added the M3 gtr yet. I'm still struggling to keep pace with the AI on the full simulation Difficulty.

I have no idea why Mt. Panorama is not in gt4!!! it is an amazing track.

 

[Ezz777]

i know its late in the discussion - but why are people placing so much emphasis on just the tires in terms of real life accuracy? I have no idea of real world data, but i am guessing that variable track conditions (which aren't modelled in GT4) would have a huge impact on whatever real life comparisons are being made. i would guess that even early morning to late arvo to night would show considerable variation - not to mention the season. All this on a track like the 'ring and i am not surpised that GT4 is a little off.

 

[niky]

That's a good point... and also why I always ask myself: Do the people doing the time comparisons do them in Practice or in Qualifying?... if the lap in question is done in Pre-Race Practice instead of standard Practice mode, you're also simulating tire wear, a big issue on a track as long as the Nurburgring, and sure to take at least 5-10 seconds off your "Practice" (no tire wear) pace.

Variable track conditions would affect tires, wind resistance, and engine output... and is a major contributing factor on tracks with straights this long.

 

[romanryunin]

I am not very good at technical data, physics etc. Just my maybe silly impression is that driving anything in GT4 using N tires makes the cars slide around like crazy. That's what I can't figure out. WHy is there so much stress on using N tires for realism. With S tires, all cars in GT4 are driveable. WIth N tires, they slide and spin even at very slow speeds, which doesn't seem to be very realistic. The only explanation would be that I feel no speed in GT4 hence I think I am driving slowly. BUt I am using DFP, take a Mercedes something AMG or Mercedes 600 for a spin, drive slowly and still slide around like on ice. That just doesn't seem realistic. I think such cars IRL have great handling characteristics and moderate speed doesn't make an average driver look like an idiot driving these cars. Take Lotus Esprit turbo 87 on N tires around Autumn Ring.THe car will slide 2 meters wide in corners, it will be really all over the place. I have never seen anything like that on video or TV, let alone with my own eyes.

Any explanation?

 

[Brock5000]

too much right foot

 

[Gabkicks]

road cars and most sportscars seem quite tame with n class tires to me. but then again i dont even really play gt4 much anymore. If you analyse gt4 too much you will just be left with annoying conclusions. Radial tires will get you the closest to realism with most sportscars. even the 500 and 600hp cars feel "just fine" with n3 tires.

If you dont think a 600hp very heavy rwd car is supposed to slide when you put your foot to the floor IRL than maybe you havent driven many 600hp cars?
Most of the cars in the game handle very predictably and are very easy to drive. even with radial tires. Maybe its because i am good at the game. If i sucked i might think differently.

 

[Wolfe]

None of the tires in GT4 will be "realistic" because the physics and tire simulations themselves aren't realistic.

When you equip N tires the game becomes a chore to play because you have to deal with all of the understeer and open-diff wheelspin in LSD-equipped cars. When you equip the S tires the game becomes silly because you can take turns faster than you should be able to and the tail doesn't kick out as easily as it should in real life.

R tires are just a sick joke.

 

[Gabkicks]

the cornering speeds of the racecars arent really that unrealistic. its the way the cars react that is unrealistic. Group C racers and lemans cars corner rediculously fast like in the game but nowhere near as responsive at highspeeds... its freaky.

Now i'm back to playing LFS

 

[Kent]

Opinion And Evidence To Support...

Opinion:
N-tires only simulate low end cars from this game.

The highest level of performance I can see on N-tires would have to be something like a Corvette or Tuscan on N3s.

Cars such as the Mine's skyline seem to roll on S-tires (relative to the game).

Evidence:
The Amuse Supra (Best Motoring Screen-cap).

Reffer to the picture below and then the GT4 pictures accompanying "N" tires as well as "S" tires.

 

[orubasarot]

...

 

[Wolfe]

the cornering speeds of the racecars arent really that unrealistic. its the way the cars react that is unrealistic. Group C racers and lemans cars corner rediculously fast like in the game but nowhere near as responsive at highspeeds... its freaky.

Now i'm back to playing LFS

I said that the R tires were a sick joke, not that the racecars' ridiculous cornering speeds were all that far off...

Opinion And Evidence To Support...

Opinion:
N-tires only simulate low end cars from this game.

The highest level of performance I can see on N-tires would have to be something like a Corvette or Tuscan on N3s.

Cars such as the Mine's skyline seem to roll on S-tires (relative to the game).

Evidence:
The Amuse Supra (Best Motoring Screen-cap).

Reffer to the picture below and then the GT4 pictures accompanying "N" tires as well as "S" tires.

Pictures of what tires look like are evidence now...?

Though I would agree that S tires could conceivably be racing tires of some sort...

Obviously there's a lot of room for improvement if I, only a recent car enthusiast, abandoned GT4 for the abomination that is Enthusia for several months simply because of the physics engine.

Oh come on, Enthusia's non-physics attributes aren't that bad...

 

[Kent]

Pictures of what tires look like are evidence now...?

Though I would agree that S tires could conceivably be racing tires of some sort...

Well hold on there partner... :brakes:
I said "evidence."
Evidence is not "Proof."
Evidence is subject to interpretation and might not always "prove" something.
"Proof" implies that something is being proven.

I claimed to have evidence, not proof.
Keep that in mind alrighty. 👍
(I think you were reacting a bit like I was saying proof)

Now regarding those pictures, I must ask.
Did you reffer to the game and my picture as asked?

If so I am sure you will have seen the obvious differences between "economy, comfort, road" N tires, and S tires with little to no tread, wide surface area and low-profile side walls.

That is a good indincator that PD made a distinction between grocery getter tires and track tires when seperating N and S.

Just my opinion,

 

[Wolfe]

Well hold on there partner... :brakes:
I said "evidence."
Evidence is not "Proof."
Evidence is subject to interpretation and might not always "prove" something.
"Proof" implies that something is being proven.

I claimed to have evidence, not proof.
Keep that in mind alrighty. 👍
(I think you were reacting a bit like I was saying proof)

Now regarding those pictures, I must ask.
Did you reffer to the game and my picture as asked?

If so I am sure you will have seen the obvious differences between "economy, comfort, road" N tires, and S tires with little to no tread, wide surface area and low-profile side walls.

That is a good indincator that PD made a distinction between grocery getter tires and track tires when seperating N and S.

Just my opinion,

The difference between "evidence" and "proof" is a relatively thin line, at best.

However, as you assumed, I jumped the gun. The sports tires do indeed look like the track tires as fitted to the Mine's Skyline, and now that I've actually bothered to look at the pictures and read the descriptions at the bottom, the "Economy," "Comfort," "Road," and "Sports" monikers are all very misleading, comparitive to what PD had in mind with each one. I now believe that -- understeer and oversteer behavior aside -- the S tires' gripping power is pretty close to what it should be (track tires), and that the N tires' gripping power is ridiculously low.

Now we just have to find out why all of the dealers fit track tires to their cars...

 

[Ezz777]

The difference between "evidence" and "proof" is a relatively thin line, at best. :

"Thin"? what part of the distinction is thin? i think Kent put it ideally, evidence is to support your argument, proof implies it is conclusive evidence. Proof is a subset of evidence yes, but there is clear distinction there. maybe you need to sit closer to your PC if the line is only "thin" to you.

Now we just have to find out why all of the dealers fit track tires to their cars...

You mean your dealers don't do this in Wisconsin - poor feller.

 

[Wolfe]

"Thin"? what part of the distinction is thin? i think Kent put it ideally, evidence is to support your argument, proof implies it is conclusive evidence. Proof is a subset of evidence yes, but there is clear distinction there. maybe you need to sit closer to your PC if the line is only "thin" to you.

Dictionary.com:

evidence (n.)
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.

Dictionary.com's Thesaurus:

Main Entry: evidence
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: proof
Synonyms: affirmation, attestation, averment, cincher, clincher, clue, confirmation, corroboration, cue, data, declaration, demonstration, deposition, documentation, dope, goods, gospel, grabber, grounds, hold water, index, indication, indicia, info, manifestation, mark, sign, significant, smoking gun, substantiation, symptom, testament, testimonial, testimony, token, witness

And here's one for you:

Main Entry: relatively
Part of Speech: adverb
Definition: by comparison
Synonyms: almost, approximately, comparably, comparatively, nearly, proportionately, rather, somewhat

 

[Ezz777]

Dictionary.com:

evidence (n.)
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

Maybe you need to get even closer to your PC. A broken window IS evidence but it IS NOT proof that a burglary occurred. I can think of many ways in which a window can break, hence it is not proof, merely evidence. The fact that evidence (according to dictionary.com) can be both for and against an hypothesis proves that there is a significant difference between evidence and proof.

Onto thesaurus vs dictionary. Dictionaries give the definition of a word, thesaurusi tend to give similar words. You showed that yourself, so thanks, saved me the time.

And yes relatively speaking one could say that the world is really really small, but i don't know about you, but my head is not in a galaxy far far away...

This is fun.

 

[niky]

You mean your dealers don't do this in Wisconsin - poor feller.

I wish mine did.


Hmm... aren't Proofs formalized statements regarding a conclusion?

Evidence is merely the facts referred to in these proofs...

That is, if we're talking Scientific-like or Legalese...

Just because they are used synonymously in layman's speech doesn't make them co-equal.

And can we get back on-topic? Whatever that was.... ...I think I'm lost.

 

[Kent]

I will show you the subject to get back to as well as one of the most courageous members here at the board....

However, as you assumed, I jumped the gun. The sports tires do indeed look like the track tires as fitted to the Mine's Skyline, and now that I've actually bothered to look at the pictures and read the descriptions at the bottom, the "Economy," "Comfort," "Road," and "Sports" monikers are all very misleading, comparitive to what PD had in mind with each one. I now believe that -- understeer and oversteer behavior aside -- the S tires' gripping power is pretty close to what it should be (track tires), and that the N tires' gripping power is ridiculously low.

Wolfe2x7...

Very well done.
Not because you agree with me, but because you had the balls to do it. 👍

Many people stick to their guns right or wrong and what you did here was something those members never even think to do.

Very well played my friend, very well played.

Now of course, getting back to the true topic... I think my views are obvious.
N tires are not for all cars.
S tires are for all the cars that shouldn't be on N tires.
R tires are for racecars and cars dedicated to racing.

I mentioned that last one the way I did because I'm a huge fan of R tires on highly modified street cars (3.0 pwr and lower with an added spoiler and many drivetrain/suspension mods).

Anyway, back to the subject. 👍
And once again, way to step up to the plate "Wolfe."

 

[Wolfe]

Maybe you need to get even closer to your PC. A broken window IS evidence but it IS NOT proof that a burglary occurred. I can think of many ways in which a window can break, hence it is not proof, merely evidence. The fact that evidence (according to dictionary.com) can be both for and against an hypothesis proves that there is a significant difference between evidence and proof.

Onto thesaurus vs dictionary. Dictionaries give the definition of a word, thesaurusi tend to give similar words. You showed that yourself, so thanks, saved me the time.

And yes relatively speaking one could say that the world is really really small, but i don't know about you, but my head is not in a galaxy far far away...

This is fun.

I think you're the one that needs to sit closer to the PC. If you've been paying attention at all, the point I am making is that evidence and proof are often used interchangibly, and the definitions at Dictionary.com, in both its dictionary and its thesaurus, reflect this. I'll repeat the thesaurus definition for "evidence" -- "proof."

The dictionary entry reflects the classical, literary definition, whereas the thesaurus entry reflects other common uses for the term. These uses differ from each other, and I posted both of them to demonstrate that in ordinary speech, the words "evidence" and "proof" aren't so different.

If I had wanted to show that "evidence" simply means "proof," and never, ever, ever anything else, I wouldn't have posted the Dictionary definition, now would I?

A "relatively thin line" may be somewhat thin, but it is still a line...

Very well done.
Not because you agree with me, but because you had the balls to do it. 👍

Many people stick to their guns right or wrong and what you did here was something those members never even think to do.

Very well played my friend, very well played.

Now of course, getting back to the true topic... I think my views are obvious.
N tires are not for all cars.
S tires are for all the cars that shouldn't be on N tires.
R tires are for racecars and cars dedicated to racing.

I mentioned that last one the way I did because I'm a huge fan of R tires on highly modified street cars (3.0 pwr and lower with an added spoiler and many drivetrain/suspension mods).

Anyway, back to the subject. 👍
And once again, way to step up to the plate "Wolfe."

Going back to my original response to your post, for a moment; since I had not looked at the pictures right away, I wasn't disputing your claim of S tires being track tires. I was questioning the use of a tire's appearance to determine how it should behave in a videogame. Polygons and textures have nothing to do with the physics engine.

I retracted my statement when I understood what you were getting at, and you were right. 👍

 

[Ezz777]

Apologies to all those put out by the OFF TOPIC stuff, i guess for some these forums are not all about the content but also about the interactions.

I think you're the one that needs to sit closer to the PC. If you've been paying attention at all, the point I am making is that evidence and proof are often used interchangibly, and the definitions at Dictionary.com, in both its dictionary and its thesaurus, reflect this. I'll repeat the thesaurus definition for "evidence" -- "proof."

The dictionary entry reflects the classical, literary definition, whereas the thesaurus entry reflects other common uses for the term. These uses differ from each other, and I posted both of them to demonstrate that in ordinary speech, the words "evidence" and "proof" aren't so different.

If I had wanted to show that "evidence" simply means "proof," and never, ever, ever anything else, I wouldn't have posted the Dictionary definition, now would I?

A "relatively thin line" may be somewhat thin, but it is still a line...

:

I guess it would be pertinent to remind you at this stage that it was YOU who had jumped down Kent's throat over the semantics of using the pictures of the tyres as 'evidence'.

Seems you backed down on that one - well played indeed.

Perhaps you should try understanding the dictionary rather than merely quoting it. The whole point of our discussion is on how significant the difference between proof and evidence actually is. My standpoint has been that everything can be seen as being "relatively" small if you are looking from far enough away. However in the context of your comments to Kent, i was pointing out that your perspective was simply too far away, and you should try to see Kent's statement from closer to where he was looking from. Your initial response was that there was no difference, then you moved to a small difference. But given the context of the discussion i feel the difference is highly significant.

Another example - humans are animals, and animals can be human, just as proof is evidence, and evidence can be proof. However you cannot use the words interchangeably as you are implying. Sure if you think like a rock - there is little relative difference, but if your perspective gets a bit closer to the point (an ape lets say) there is a BIG difference.

In forum discussions of semantics, 'ordinary speach' is of little consequence as we are restricted here to typology. What you write on here is all that us others have to go by, hence literary definitions are paramount.

Anyway, don't feel you need to back down on this one as well, i am enjoying this.

 

[Wolfe]

Apologies to all those put out by the OFF TOPIC stuff, i guess for some these forums are not all about the content but also about the interactions.

Personally I don't see how consistently remaining on topic is so important to some people (on any internet forum). As for people being left out by this discussion, there's nothing stopping them from hitting the "post reply" button and leaving a quick, little (or long, detailed) post with their opinion.

I guess it would be pertinent to remind you at this stage that it was YOU who had jumped down Kent's throat over the semantics of using the pictures of the tyres as 'evidence'.

Seems you backed down on that one - well played indeed.

Semantics?? That wasn't a question of semantics, it was a question of judgment (and a question that has already been settled). And I would hardly call a simple question, if perhaps caustic, followed imediately by an expression of agreement "jumping down Kent's throat." Kent even responded to my comment in a calm, friendly way himself. The only one who seems to have been upset in any way by my post is you...

Perhaps you should try understanding the dictionary rather than merely quoting it. The whole point of our discussion is on how significant the difference between proof and evidence actually is. My standpoint has been that everything can be seen as being "relatively" small if you are looking from far enough away. However in the context of your comments to Kent, i was pointing out that your perspective was simply too far away, and you should try to see Kent's statement from closer to where he was looking from. Your initial response was that there was no difference, then you moved to a small difference. But given the context of the discussion i feel the difference is highly significant.

I never said there was no difference between evidence and proof. I initially assumed that Kent had meant "proof" when he said "evidence," when in fact he had meant "evidence" in its more specific, literal sense.

He explained this to me, so I responded by expressing my opinion that the words are quite similar (not the same, as you seem to insist I said), and with a smilie face. Smilie faces denote friendliness and/or a sense of mutual understanding on forums, among other things, in case you didn't know.

Another example - humans are animals, and animals can be human, just as proof is evidence, and evidence can be proof. However you cannot use the words interchangeably as you are implying. Sure if you think like a rock - there is little relative difference, but if your perspective gets a bit closer to the point (an ape lets say) there is a BIG difference.

In forum discussions of semantics, 'ordinary speach' is of little consequence as we are restricted here to typology. What you write on here is all that us others have to go by, hence literary definitions are paramount.

"Ordinary speech" is very much a part of any internet-based communication program. We are indirectly talking to each other, in what happens to be a text-based format. Nearly everything I type on this website, and any other forum, is what I would've said if the discussions were occurring in "the real world." Now and then I take advantage of the relatively slow pace of forums to pick a particularly clever or creative word here or there, or to work on a specific phrase until it sounds right, but most of what you see is what you would get, if we were to meet each other.

I will re-iterate once again that a thin line is a line nonetheless. Or must I be blunt about it? "Evidence" and "proof" are similar words that are often used interchangibly despite having differing literary definitions. This has been my opinion from the very beginning. If you thought otherwise, you have misinterpreted me. And this certainly wouldn't be the first time a misinterpretation ignited an argument over semantics....

 

[Ezz777]

Semantics?? That wasn't a question of semantics, it was a question of judgment (and a question that has already been settled). And I would hardly call a simple question, if perhaps caustic, followed imediately by an expression of agreement "jumping down Kent's throat." Kent even responded to my comment in a calm, friendly way himself. The only one who seems to have been upset in any way by my post is you...
:

Interpreting the meaning of words (ie making a judgement) is indeed semantics. Perhaps dictionary.com needs another visit.

I never said there was no difference between evidence and proof. I initially assumed that Kent had meant "proof" when he said "evidence," when in fact he had meant "evidence" in its more specific, literal sense.
:

That was never said, and i merely pointed out that your interpretation implied that you weren't appreciating the difference between evidence and proof in the context of this discussion. Kent had used EVIDENCE to support his view. You interpretted it as PROOF. Both of our initial responses were fairly kind in their wording and clear in their meaning. I guess jumping down someone's throat sounds harsh, but generally on a public forum, telling someone they are wrong (with or without smilies ) is as abrupt as you need to be to get a prickly response from any interested parties.

On ordinary speach and its applicability to forum banter - sure the context and actual words are sometimes similar, but the delivery of a verbal conversation conveys much more than a text base chat will ever approach (again, smilies or no smilies ).

 

[niky]

- smilies are a form of nonverbal communication that are also subject to the same rules of non-verbal communication outside of the text-based forum.

They are, just like ordinary forms of non-verbal communication, sometimes misleading, at times purposely so, and most times, accidentally.

But smilies, unlike other forms of non-verbal comm, are completely voluntary... except for those people who use them so much that others just stop paying attention to them...

 

[Wolfe]

Interpreting the meaning of words (ie making a judgement) is indeed semantics. Perhaps dictionary.com needs another visit.

I already explained this to Kent. In my initial response, it wouldn't have mattered if he used the word "proof" or "evidence." Because I had not taken the time to look at the pictures (in fact, the computer I was using at the time was far away from my PS2), I was questioning Kent's use of "pictures" or a tire's appearance to confirm whether or not it should behave one way or another (operating on the notion that a videogame developer can make a tire look like a slick and behave like a rally tire, or vice versa...). This was a poor assumption, and a mistake on my part. I admitted this, and apologized to Kent. If you think that this semantics argument is dealing with the heart of the issue between Kent and I, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

That was never said, and i merely pointed out that your interpretation implied that you weren't appreciating the difference between evidence and proof in the context of this discussion. Kent had used EVIDENCE to support his view. You interpretted it as PROOF. Both of our initial responses were fairly kind in their wording and clear in their meaning. I guess jumping down someone's throat sounds harsh, but generally on a public forum, telling someone they are wrong (with or without smilies ) is as abrupt as you need to be to get a prickly response from any interested parties.

On ordinary speach and its applicability to forum banter - sure the context and actual words are sometimes similar, but the delivery of a verbal conversation conveys much more than a text base chat will ever approach (again, smilies or no smilies ).

Perhaps I'm not appreciating the difference between "evidence" and "proof" to the extent that you would like me to, but I do understand, and have understood since a time long before I even joined this forum, that there is a difference, however small I may consider it to be, or however large you may consider it to be.

Evidence is something that can be used to prove something.
Proof is something that can be used to prove something.

Evidence is indicative.
Proof is irrefutable.

The word "proof" is often used in situations where the "proof" can be proven false.
The word "evidence" is also used in situations where the "evidence" is irrefutable.

This is the way I see it, and the reason why I consider the difference to be small, but present.

As for "appreciating the difference between evidence and proof in the context of this discussion," I assume you are referring to the discussion of the S tires between Kent and I....?

The difference between "evidence" and "proof" is a relatively thin line, at best.

However, as you assumed, I jumped the gun. The sports tires do indeed look like the track tires as fitted to the Mine's Skyline, and now that I've actually bothered to look at the pictures and read the descriptions at the bottom, the "Economy," "Comfort," "Road," and "Sports" monikers are all very misleading, comparitive to what PD had in mind with each one. I now believe that -- understeer and oversteer behavior aside -- the S tires' gripping power is pretty close to what it should be (track tires), and that the N tires' gripping power is ridiculously low.

Now we just have to find out why all of the dealers fit track tires to their cars...

Well, whaddya know? I looked at Kent's "evidence" and appreciated his point.