Tests – · none yet Owners – · 1 review (needs 5)
Head-to-head
Updated
Bridgestone Potenza RE97AS RFT vs Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT — Compared
Relative Score (0–100): the weighted average of the categories below, each 60% road tests and 40% owner reviews (comfort 40/60). Based on 0 + 0 road tests and 1 + 79 owner reviews. How we score
Add your size for an exact match
/R
Both Amazon links then search this exact size.
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
Tests – · none yet Owners 46 · 79 reviews
Category by category
Relative Score per category, 0–100. Open “Why this score” for the tests and owner ratings behind it.
-
–
Dry
No comparison54Why this score
Source Potenza RE97AS RFT Potenza S001 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) – ≈ 59 (est.) Reviews found online – 47 Potenza S001 RFT: 60% × 59.3 (est.) + 40% × 47.2 = 54
No road tests of dry for Potenza S001 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.42).
-
–
Wet
No comparison58Why this score
Source Potenza RE97AS RFT Potenza S001 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) – ≈ 61 (est.) Reviews found online – 53 Potenza S001 RFT: 60% × 61.1 (est.) + 40% × 53.2 = 58
No road tests of wet for Potenza S001 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.55).
-
–
Snow
No comparison41Why this score
Source Potenza RE97AS RFT Potenza S001 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) – ≈ 53 (est.) Reviews found online – 23 Potenza S001 RFT: 60% × 52.8 (est.) + 40% × 22.8 = 41
No road tests of snow for Potenza S001 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.37).
-
–
Comfort
No comparison46Why this score
Source Potenza RE97AS RFT Potenza S001 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) – ≈ 63 (est.) Reviews found online – 35 Potenza S001 RFT: 40% × 62.8 (est.) + 60% × 34.6 = 46
No road tests of comfort for Potenza S001 RFT. The test half is the tested tires’ average (69): owners’ comfort ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
–
Noise
No comparison61Why this score
Source Potenza RE97AS RFT Potenza S001 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) – ≈ 67 (est.) Reviews found online – 53 Potenza S001 RFT: 60% × 66.6 (est.) + 40% × 52.8 = 61
No road tests of noise for Potenza S001 RFT. The test half is the tested tires’ average (67): owners’ noise ratings barely follow the road tests.
-
–
Treadwear
No comparison58Why this score
Source Potenza RE97AS RFT Potenza S001 RFT Professional tests (TWG score) – ≈ 61 (est.) Reviews found online – 53 Potenza S001 RFT: 60% × 61.5 (est.) + 40% × 52.7 = 58
No road tests of treadwear for Potenza S001 RFT. The test half is estimated from the owner ratings, as far as owners and testers agree (correlation 0.35).
-
–
Handling (owners)
No comparison49Why this score
Source Potenza RE97AS RFT Potenza S001 RFT Reviews found online – 49
Scores at a glance
| Category | Bridgestone Potenza RE97AS RFT | Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Score | – | 53 |
| Dry | – | 54 |
| Wet | – | 58 |
| Snow | – | 41 |
| Comfort | – | 46 |
| Noise | – | 61 |
| Treadwear | – | 58 |
| Handling (owners) | – | 49 |
Higher is better. The Relative Score follows your weights below; category scores do not change.
Weight the categories that matter to you
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.
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Neutral
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Less important
NotLessNeutralImportantMost
Recomputed
Headline score
–
/ 100
Potenza RE97AS RFT
53
/ 100
Potenza S001 RFT
Only categories both tires have data for count toward the headline score.
Pros, cons & observations
Themes extracted from owner reviews found online — not the opinion of TireWheelGuide.
Tire A Potenza RE97AS RFT
Not enough owner reviews yet to extract themes.
Tire B Potenza S001 RFT
Pros
- Exceptional tread life and durability
- Precise steering feedback and handling responsiveness
- Strong dry-road grip
Cons
- Poor wet-weather traction and hydroplaning resistance
- High levels of road noise and cabin vibration
- Harsh, stiff ride quality over road imperfections
Specs side by side
| Attribute | A · Bridgestone Potenza RE97AS RFT | B · Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT |
|---|---|---|
| Category | All-Season tire | Summer |
| Vehicle type | Passenger Car / Crossover | Passenger Car / Crossover |
| Sizes available | — | 14 |
| Rim diameters | — | 17″ – 21″ |
| Tread depth | — | 9/32″ |
| UTQG | — | 280 A A |
| Sidewall | — | Blackwall |
| Max pressure | — | 51 psi |
Which one should you actually buy?
–
/ 100
Bridgestone Potenza RE97AS RFT
53
/ 100
Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT
Only Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT has enough test and review data for a Relative Score, so there is no head-to-head winner yet.
Tire A · Bridgestone Potenza RE97AS RFT
Tire B · Bridgestone Potenza S001 RFT
TireWheelGuide may earn a commission from purchases made through these links.
How do we compare tires?
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