Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 3 + 1 road tests and 453 + 80 owner reviews. How we score
Potenza RE 71RS is ahead, 74–64
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests 79 · 3 tests Owners 69 · 453 reviews
Best test result: #1 of 11 in 2022 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test (dry handling)
“Drove my GR86 coast to coast on pre-thrashed 200tw tires in 3.5 days AMA 2024 GR86 Premium performance package mt Bridgestone Potenza RE-71rs tires Car had 24,000ish miles and now has 27,000ish”
Tests 65 · 1 test Owners 61 · 80 reviews
Best test result: #3 of 7 in 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test (dry handling long run)
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
| Source | Potenza RE 71RS | G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 3 / 1 tests | 78 | 61 |
| Reviews found online | 92 | 78 |
| Dry Braking (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 93% |
| Dry Handling (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 100% |
| Dry Handling Long Run (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 100% |
| Dry Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 91% |
Potenza RE 71RS: 60% × 78.2 + 40% × 91.5 = 84
G Force Rival S 1.5: 60% × 61.1 + 40% × 77.8 = 68
| Source | Potenza RE 71RS | G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 2 / 1 tests | 85 | 69 |
| Reviews found online | 67 | 48 |
| Wet Handling (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 81% |
| Wet Braking (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 91% |
| Wet Handling (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 100% | 96% |
Potenza RE 71RS: 60% × 84.6 + 40% × 66.7 = 77
G Force Rival S 1.5: 60% × 69.4 + 40% × 48 = 61
| Source | Potenza RE 71RS | G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / 1 tests | 71 | 66 |
| Reviews found online | 52 | 54 |
| Comfort (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 96% | 92% |
Potenza RE 71RS: 40% × 71 + 60% × 52.2 = 60
G Force Rival S 1.5: 40% × 65.7 + 60% × 53.6 = 58
| Source | Potenza RE 71RS | G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) · 1 / 1 tests | 67 | 62 |
| Reviews found online | 63 | ≈ 66 (est.) |
| Noise (tester's mark) (% of best) · 1 shared test · wins 1–0 | 84% | 80% |
Potenza RE 71RS: 60% × 66.6 + 40% × 63.4 = 65
G Force Rival S 1.5: 60% × 62.4 + 40% × 66.4 (est.) = 64
No owner ratings of noise for G Force Rival S 1.5. The owner half is the owners’ average (66): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests, so the tests say nothing about how owners would rate it.
| Source | Potenza RE 71RS | G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Professional tests (TWG score) | ≈ 61 (est.) | ≈ 63 (est.) |
| Reviews found online | 52 | 55 |
Potenza RE 71RS: 60% × 61.3 (est.) + 40% × 52.2 = 58
G Force Rival S 1.5: 60% × 62.5 (est.) + 40% × 55.4 = 60
No road tests of treadwear for Potenza RE 71RS. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
No road tests of treadwear for G Force Rival S 1.5. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.36).
| Source | Potenza RE 71RS | G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews found online | 86 | 74 |
| Category | Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS | BFGoodrich G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | 74 | 64 |
| Dry | 84 | 68 |
| Wet | 77 | 61 |
| Comfort | 60 | 58 |
| Noise | 65 | 64 |
| Treadwear | 58 | 60 |
| Handling (owners) | 86 | 74 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Wet grip starts at “Important”. Treadwear starts at “Neutral” here: road tests measured it for at most one of the two tires, so it rests on owner reviews. Move the sliders and the scores update instantly.
Potenza RE 71RS
G Force Rival S 1.5
Per discipline: the average % of the best tire over every test both tires were in, and how many of those tests each one won. “Different tests” rows compare results from separate tests.
In the overall rankings of 1 tests that ran both, Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS finished ahead 1 times and BFGoodrich G Force Rival S 1.5 0 times.
| Discipline | Category | Potenza RE 71RS | G Force Rival S 1.5 | Δ | Head-to-head |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry Braking | Dry | 100% | 93% | +6.5 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Dry Handling | Dry | 100% | 100% | +0.3 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Dry Handling (tester's mark) | Dry | 100% | 91% | +8.6 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Dry Handling Long Run | Dry | 100% | 100% | +0.4 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Wet Braking | Wet | 100% | 91% | +8.7 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Wet Handling | Wet | 100% | 96% | +3.7 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Wet Handling (tester's mark) | Wet | 100% | 81% | +18.7 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Comfort (tester's mark) | Comfort | 96% | 92% | +4.1 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Noise (tester's mark) | Noise | 84% | 80% | +4.0 | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
| Also published by the testers (not in the score) | |||||
| Overall Ranking | Overall | #1/7 | #3/7 | – | 1–0 in 1 shared test Newest: 2025 Tire Rack Extreme Performance Track Tyre Test · 275/35 R18 |
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
From Reddit, forums and review threads. Not part of our score
Community sentiment toward the Bridgestone Potenza RE-71RS is overwhelmingly positive, with drivers praising its high grip levels, responsive turn-in, and improved refinement over the older RE-71R. Discussions frequently center around track and autocross setups, optimal hot tire pressures, clearance pricing, and its streetability regarding road noise and gravel pickup. Minor caveats noted include fast wear characteristic of 200tw competition tires and rotation limits stemming from an asymmetrical tread design.
“Need heat cycle advice I recently got a screaming deal on some Bridgestone Potenza RE-71RS for my daily driver. It usually doesn't see track time but I figured it would be fun to try it out for the cost. The tires were cheap because they had a 2021 production date. In the past to heat cycle a tire, I've just driven on the highway a couple of hours and let the tire sit for 24 hours. The hurdle is, It's winter and too cold to really make an impact. To add to that, I doubt I will have clean enough roads for that tire. My track does have winter lapping when it is clean and dry, but it still may be cold. Any suggestions on how to get a heat cycle on these tires in cold temperatures? Read more”
“I just put some Bridgestone Potenza Re71rs on my FC1 and holt shit these things kick ass. I took the same turn series before/after the tire change and the turn-in is ridiculous. Looking forward to hitting up some backroads and Lagun Seca for a trackday.”
“Quote: Back to the RE71RS tires: 1. How loud is the tread noise? 2. How much gravel are they picking up in normal and back roads driving? Just replaced my 7 and 8 year old Bridgestone S04 tires (aged out). Less than 100 miles so far. I'm happy. 1. No increase in tread noise I can detect. Surprisingly quiet. My former RE-11As were a little noisey. The Dunlops were LOUD. 2. Twinkling of fine gravel is present under the car. Noticeable and expected. -- Chuck”
Based on 33 community posts
We haven't collected enough community discussion about this tire yet.
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS | B · BFGoodrich G Force Rival S 1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Summer | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | 10 | — |
| Rim diameters | 15″ – 19″ | — |
| Tread depth | 7/32″ | — |
| UTQG | 200 A A | — |
| Sidewall | Blackwall | — |
| Max pressure | 51 psi | — |
Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS
BFGoodrich G Force Rival S 1.5
Winner: Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS — better dry, wet and handling. Where the BFGoodrich G Force Rival S 1.5 is ahead, it is by less than 3 points.
Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS scores 84 vs 68 on dry.
Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS scores 77 vs 61 on wet.
Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS scores 86 vs 74 on handling.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS, 77 vs 61 on our wet score.
Bridgestone Potenza RE 71RS, 84 vs 68 on our dry score.
Neither, by our numbers: 65 vs 64 on the noise score, within 3 points.
Neither, by our numbers: 60 vs 58 on the comfort score, within 3 points.
Neither, by our numbers: 58 vs 60 on the treadwear score, within 3 points.
Every category score blends two independent signals. 60% comes from professional tire tests (braking distances, lap times, noise measurements), each result compared with every other tire in the same test and newer tests counting more. 40% comes from owner reviews found online, adjusted for how generously each site rates. Both use one scale: the average tested tire gets 70, the best 100. When a tire has only one of the two, the missing half is estimated from the other and the score stays closer to average; with no road test and fewer than five owner reviews it gets no score yet.
Handling is the exception: road tests measure it inside the dry and wet scores, so its own row comes from owner ratings only and starts as less important.
Community buzz from Reddit and forums is shown for context only — it never changes the score. Full methodology
