I'm not buying the tire's performance gains. A true accounting of the tire's performance superiority would be an independent instrumented test. The closest I could find was a link to an Automobile Magazine article from 3 years ago and the editors state the article was intentionally short on specific testing, but don't say why. Usually, that means it is not a true evaluation article, but closer to one of those articles you see where the word "advertisement" is in tiny letters on the border of the article. There is no reason to NOT do a full evaluation of what looks like the most dramatic shift in tire design in 50 years, right? So it's a bit fishy in that respect.
Then, I read the article and looked at the data chart which only has 5 pieces of data on each of the 3 tires. The leaning camber tire did NOT do better than the stock tire on the Mitsubishi EVO's tires - the STOCK tires that come on it. Of 5 measurements, the leaning camber tire managed to do better in one single measurement. However, the leaning tire company also sent along another set (the 3rd set of tires in the chart). What's this? This third set - a leaning camber tire set stopped much shorter? While that's impressive, it made me suspicious because camber should not impact braking like that. So I looked again and then started laughing that Automobile Magazine would be taken in so easily. The 3rd set of tires are a race set of super sticky, super soft rubber. That short stopping distance would be expected when you use such a compound, and Automobile Magazine's own chart shows you something Automobile should have noticed themselves.
The stock tires on the test EVO are the hardest tires in the test at 180. The leaning camber tires are much softer at 140, yet the stock tires STILL beat them. Then the 3rd set of leaning camber tires are the exact same tire and tread pattern, just a softer compound, and they did finally beat the stock tires. So Automobile should have realized that the already softer leaning camber tire did NOT improve on the stock tires, it was only when they used the wildly softer leaning camber tire that they got improvements. So the VERY obvious conclusion should have been that the improvement in the EVO handing was 100% due to the soft rubber compound, and 0% due to the leaning camber tire's unusual design.
In full disclosure, I have no interest whatsoever in posting this, other than to help people make good tire decisions. I have never heard of these leaning camber tires until about 30 minutes ago when I read the thread. However, I have had a long career in vehicle design and also in data analysis. I see no advantage to these tires in overall vehicle performance that could not also be achieved with stickier high performance tires of a conventional design.