Winter Tire Reviews

[kenny]

The thing everyone has to realize is that the test really brings out the performance of a certain tire because they are driving way harder than you do. How often do you go WOT on ice from a stop? Who does skidpads out there on ice? Probably not too many people, even the people who are out doing donuts in an empty parking lot aren't pushing their cars 100%.

[alloroc]

Originally posted by Ben


haha, well I was giving them a trial tonight on some rather tricky terrain and they performed very well to my standards and expectations.

You get your's studded?

[lint]

Originally posted by Ben
I just put the Kumhos on my car, love them. I rarely trust some review by a magazine, I listen to real people that I know, respect and can appreciate.


Thanks E36S50B32, You should feel good that I value what you say over some magazine trash.

Which Kumho's do you have?I could only find two tires with the right size for m car, the Kumho Powergrip 749 and the Blizzak WS15. Both being discontinued. I've had Blizzak's before, and I thought they worked great, just wondering how the Kumho's would compare.

[Ben]

WS 11 Izen Stud.

[grassy_fields]

I'm wondering if Mikko is still on the boards and if he would be willing to devote his time as generously to translate this year's winter tire test results from Sweden. This is the link to the Oct. 17, 2004 article. The pdf of the test results is a link with that article (which needs some password, maybe paid, to access - I couldn't figure it out in Swedish!).

I'm especially interested in whether there is data on the Nokian RSI, as I do a lot of driving between Montreal and Mont-Tremblant, which is mostly highway driving, but with some curves, and often early morning or late night when snow/ice clearance may not be the best, and with some smaller hilly roads at the end, so I'm wondering whether these new Nokian RSI studless tires begin to approach the studded tires more. The VW dealership is offering both the Nokian RSI and the Pirelli Carving (and the Nokia AK2 - what is that?). How much do winter tire testers look at wet/dry pavement performance (as opposed to ice/snow), since this would seem to be where the studless may have an advantage that could be quantitated for more effective comparison.

[Khyron]

When the test consists of simply driving at a fixed speed then slamming the brakes, how can you really dispute that?

Full ABS braking on smooth ice. From 50km/h to stop.

Goodyear UG500 - 38.5 meters.
Khumo : 58 meters

I'm sure you could find guys with those tires that say they are great, but that's kind of like arguing with crash tests isn't it?

Good thread (even if it's old).

Khyron

[Mikko]

Originally posted by grassy_fields
I'm wondering if Mikko is still on the boards and if he would be willing to devote his time as generously to translate this year's winter tire test results from Sweden. This is the link to the Oct. 17, 2004 article. The pdf of the test results is a link with that article (which needs some password, maybe paid, to access - I couldn't figure it out in Swedish!).

- Hey Glad you found that to be useful. This years tests are for members only so far, but is highly likely to be 'unlocked' for regular joes in a while. I might do another translation.

As for pavement, due to studless tires needing the rubber a bit softer and cut into many many small slits to find ANY grip on ice, they usually perform worse on pavement than studded tires. No gain there, sorry (unless they are pavement tires, in which case they have no grip on ice to speak of).

[grassy_fields]

Hi Mikko! Welcome back!

I found the testing a very clear way to try to compare tires. I printed out last year's Swedish pdf file from your link, and then printed out your translations (Oct 29 and 30) to help me navigate through the data.

As for this year, I guess we'll wait, unless you can translate and tell us how much the membership costs, and maybe enough of us are interested (at this time of the year) to together contribute to a membership to get this year's test results right away.

As for studless winter tires doing better on wet/dry pavement compared to studded, that seemed to have been a generally agreed upon statement in various messages I was reading, but since you questioned it, with some explanations of why not (and since generally agreed upon statements are certainly not always true), I did a quick search and found an old study of the original Blizzaks from Jan. 1995 (almost a decade ago!) that is available at this site.

They tested the studless Blizzak winter tire against both studded winter tires and studless all-season tires, on compacts, sedans, pickups, and a van, on packed snow, glare ice, icy pavement, and bare pavement, for stopping, starting, cornering, and hill climbing.

For stopping on glare ice from 25 mph, the studded did best taking 106 feet to stop, with Blizzaks at 118, and the all-seasons at 128.

On icy pavement, on the other hand, from 40 mph, the Blizzaks actually were best, taking 121 feet to stop, compared to the studded at 141 and the all-season at 179.

On bare pavement, the advantage of the Blizzaks over the studded was ranged from 2 to 35 or even 40%. On some tests, the all-seasons were marginally superior to the Blizzaks.

Finally, on packed snow, the Blizzaks were the best by slight margins, except for pickups where it did worse.

More details, and data for starting tests can be found at the link. Surprisingly, they found no differences between tires for cornering and hill climbing!

Of course, this is a very old study, and technology for both studded and studless tires is much more advanced (note how the Blizzaks did on last year's Swedish tests!). So I'm still wondering about the studded vs studless tradeoffs. If I drive long highway stretches with some curves (the max speed goes from 90 km/hr to 75 km/hr, with the traffic often going respectively 120-130 km/hr and 100 km/hr during summer), during times when snow and ice may still be present, and at the ends some smaller roads up and down hills for a bit of time, shouldn't I get a studded tire like the Pirelli Carver, or is the risk on the highway pavement so high and the improvement on ice of the new studless Nokian RSI so much that I should get the latter? And so, I'll do some more searching for published tests/reviews, but I'd be happy to hear of the knowledge and experience that any of you can share. Thanks!

[tirebob]

No Single tire is the only one to use. Every different driver, car, road surface, temperature fluctations, etc, etc, etc, will all have an effect on the tires, and how a driver percieves them. You just need to find someone you trust who actually knows what they are talking about, and spends some time asking questions that will help evaluate what tire will best suit your own individual preferences and needs...

Again, no matter what winter tire you use, even the biggest POS winter tire going, will still be far better in true winter conditions than any all season tire you can get...

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by bart
the dangerous part about the blizzaks ws-50s is BS! i had them going 210 when i went skiing once, the limit is like 160. and i'm still here arent i???

the rating doesn't mean you can't go pass 160. It just mean it passes test @ 160. Beyond that speed would be very unpredictible what the tire would do.

It's like overclocking a processor. You get lucky, it'll work all year long, if not, it burns out in a month or two.

And if you're doing 210 on winter condition and live to tell about it, thank god not the tires.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by Xtrema


the rating doesn't mean you can't go pass 160. It just mean it passes test @ 160. Beyond that speed would be very unpredictible what the tire would do.

It's like overclocking a processor. You get lucky, it'll work all year long, if not, it burns out in a month or two.

And if you're doing 210 on winter condition and live to tell about it, thank god not the tires.

The speed rating is one of the most understood discriptions...

All the speed rating says (like a Q rated at 160kph for example) is that the tire can roll at that speed (properly inflated and not overloaded) consistently all day long, without any tire deformation. It has "NOTHING" to do with indicating the tires handling ability whatsoever.

There are many tires that have the same speed ratings, but massively different handling abilities. Do not assume that because the speed rating is 160kph that it means the tire is made to handle like it is on rails cuz it just ain't so...

[Blur911]

Hi Guys, I'm new here, first post.
Unfortunately the Swedish test doesn't mean much over here in Canada as we don't have the same tires. Most of the tires can't be found here as the manufacturers market different models. Plus, in most of the country, we can't use studs.

For my use, which includes a lot of bare pavement highway, and the occasional winter rally I've had good luck with Goodyear Eagle GW-2 and GW-3, they can handle the snow and ice without giving up all pavement performance. YMMV

[rio_rex]

Any reviews on the new michilin X-Ice?

[Mikko]

grassy_fields wrote:

As for this year, I guess we'll wait, unless you can translate and tell us how much the membership costs, and maybe enough of us are interested (at this time of the year) to together contribute to a membership to get this year's test results right away.

- I think the member fee is ridiculously small, maybe 5 dollars or so. But the hassle measured in money is large. :p No point in bothering, they will make it public sooner or later.

grassy_fields wrote:

As for studless winter tires doing better on wet/dry pavement compared to studded, that seemed to have been a generally agreed upon statement in various messages I was reading

- The studs themselves don't in any way deterioate tarmac grip. Therefore the explanation on why studded (hardcore) winter tires perform better should rule our judgement.

grassy_fields wrote:

They tested the studless Blizzak winter tire against both studded winter tires and studless all-season tires

- What type of tires? How hardcore were they? The continential ones sold in Germany are made for mild winters with nearly everything put to tarmac. So basically a tarmac tire that works in colder temperatures. No ice grip to speak of and the snow grip is nasty.

Not to mention, there are and were plenty of lousy studded winter tires, too.

grassy_fields wrote:

they found no differences between tires for cornering and hill climbing!

- That might tell you something of the quality of the test. Anyway, it is nine years old, a lot of things happened since then.

In the Aftonbladet tests, they have test tracks, several test drivers, who all use the same car but are at no point aware of what tire they are really using. This is for the subjective handling tests, btw. They just know them as Tire A, Tire X, etc and they write down their opinions. When everyone agrees that a certain tire behaves a certain way, they find that grounds enough to publish in their review. Such as being nearly impossible to stop skidding, etc.

grassy_fields wrote:

If I drive long highway stretches with some curves (the max speed goes from 90 km/hr to 75 km/hr, with the traffic often going respectively 120-130 km/hr and 100 km/hr during summer), during times when snow and ice may still be present, and at the ends some smaller roads up and down hills for a bit of time, shouldn't I get a studded tire like the Pirelli Carver, or is the risk on the highway pavement so high and the improvement on ice of the new studless Nokian RSI so much that I should get the latter?

- If you require hardcore winter tire ice/slush/snow grip, then there is no 'compromise' to choose one of the best studded ones. Well, except for a bit more road noise and marginally higher fuel consumption due to roll resistance.

Personally I don't see any particular reason to choose the lesser of two tires. There's nothing to be gained, except the said noise and tiny fuel difference.

CMSbob wrote:

No Single tire is the only one to use. Every different driver, car, road surface, temperature fluctations, etc, etc, etc, will all have an effect on the tires, and how a driver percieves them.

- It is a logical choice to surrender some tarmac grip - because the grip is so large to begin with (as long as it is stable and not very flimsy), to gain a lot of ice grip.

Ice and similar counditions are absolutely critical. Grip MUST be had. It is said that dry tarmac is 100% traction, gravel is 60%, compressed snow is 20% and ice is 1%. To be left with a huge huge weakness when things are the most critical is irrational. Tarmac grip is still great even if it's 80% of a tarmac geared winter tire.

CMSbob wrote:

no matter what winter tire you use, even the biggest POS winter tire going, will still be far better in true winter conditions than any all season tire you can get...

- I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. In those winter tire tests, some tires appear from time to time that behave almost like summer tires. The most lousy grip on anything winter related but do decently on tarmac. So the same behaviour as a poor all season tire then?

The quality range is huge.

CMSbob wrote:

Unfortunately the Swedish test doesn't mean much over here in Canada as we don't have the same tires.

- Really? I recall directing some people over there to some of the tires sold. I think Volvo/Saab dealers actually stock Nokian and other tires sometimes.. and some tire firms import them.

CMSbob wrote:

Any reviews on the new michilin X-Ice?

- I haven't heard of any, but I doubt things have changed much over the course of just one year.

[benyl]

Originally posted by Blur911
Plus, in most of the country, we can't use studs.

If you look further up in this thread, you will see that in Alberta, we can use studded tires all year round. They are only banned in Ontario, the rest of the country can use them in at least the winter months.

[tirebob]

[Quote]
CMSbob wrote:

No Single tire is the only one to use. Every different driver, car, road surface, temperature fluctations, etc, etc, etc, will all have an effect on the tires, and how a driver percieves them.
- It is a logical choice to surrender some tarmac grip - because the grip is so large to begin with (as long as it is stable and not very flimsy), to gain a lot of ice grip.

Ice and similar counditions are absolutely critical. Grip MUST be had. It is said that dry tarmac is 100% traction, gravel is 60%, compressed snow is 20% and ice is 1%. To be left with a huge huge weakness when things are the most critical is irrational. Tarmac grip is still great even if it's 80% of a tarmac geared winter tire.

Quote
CMSbob wrote:

no matter what winter tire you use, even the biggest POS winter tire going, will still be far better in true winter conditions than any all season tire you can get...
- I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. In those winter tire tests, some tires appear from time to time that behave almost like summer tires. The most lousy grip on anything winter related but do decently on tarmac. So the same behaviour as a poor all season tire then?

The quality range is huge.[Quote]

As we live in Canada, and conditions vary dramatically across the country, what I am saying is that circumstances are different and needs are different, so you must address your own individual needs if you want a tire that is going to do what you need it to do.

For example, if you live in Vancouver where winter generally means maybe a few snow days a year that generally melts extremely quickly, and all your driving is local city and higher speed freeway driving, you will probably be more safe using a winter tire that is oriented more to providing better handling and wear, instead of using a pure ice traction tire like the Blizzak WS50 that provides heightened ice traction at the sacrifice of emergency manueverability on bare and wet pavement.

Conversely, if you live in northern Quebec, and 90% of your driving is on ice and compact snow covered roads for a massive part of the winter season, than going to a hardcore ice/snow traction tire will be the main priority as you probably aren't going to be doing the higher speeds and will not need the bare road performance handling as much as the ice traction...

Now as for any true winter tires being better than all seasons in regards to severe winter abilities, this is a fact. Transport Canada requires certain testing to be done before a tire can be branded with the specific "severe winter condition" symbol of a snowflake within a mountain, which is what differentiates an all season from a winter tire. An tire branded all season, does "not" have to go through any testing procedure before it can be called all season, and that is why the new severe winter condition procedure was created. All season is a marketing strategy and not an indicator of the tires abilities...

[Mikko]

Well yeah, you are right about the Vancouver comment But that isn't even winter conditions is it? It's a sub-tropical zone (the city).

All-season = no-season tire.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by Mikko
Well yeah, you are right about the Vancouver comment But that isn't even winter conditions is it? It's a sub-tropical zone (the city).

All-season = no-season tire.

Exactly my point... Different drivers + different conditions + different cars = different needs.

I used the Vancouver (As you pointed out has virtually no winter at all the lucky bastids!) and Quebec examples because I have lived and worked continually for many, many years in the tire industry in both of these areas, as well as running an internet tire business dealing with customers and shipping goods all over North America, before moving to Calgary, and it is interesting how the tires that seem to be preferred in the different areas, are never the same. Especially over the last 10 years or so, as the technology has advanced sooooo much over this time period that the choices are even more wide and varied than ever...

[Blur911]

Originally posted by benyl


If you look further up in this thread, you will see that in Alberta, we can use studded tires all year round. They are only banned in Ontario, the rest of the country can use them in at least the winter months.

Oops, you're right, I misinterpreted the map and thought studs were not allowed in more provinces.

But I will stick by my statement that we get a different mix of tires in North America than in Europe. Take a look at the Goodyear website and you'll see that we don't get the UG500, we have a different Ultra-Grip Ice, we don't have the UG5 or the UG6 either. We do get the GW2 and GW3 though, also, we do get the Eagle M+S and Ultra Grip not available in Europe

I also don't recognize any of the Michelins in the survey, we don't get the Nokian Hakka 4, and the Hakka Q is being discontinued. We don't get either of the Continentals listed either. I haven't bothered checking the other manufacturers, but most of the products listed are unfamiliar to me.

[grassy_fields]

Originally posted by Mikko

- If you require hardcore winter tire ice/slush/snow grip, then there is no 'compromise' to choose one of the best studded ones. Well, except for a bit more road noise and marginally higher fuel consumption due to roll resistance.

- It is a logical choice to surrender some tarmac grip - because the grip is so large to begin with (as long as it is stable and not very flimsy), to gain a lot of ice grip.

Ice and similar counditions are absolutely critical. Grip MUST be had. It is said that dry tarmac is 100% traction, gravel is 60%, compressed snow is 20% and ice is 1%. To be left with a huge huge weakness when things are the most critical is irrational. Tarmac grip is still great even if it's 80% of a tarmac geared winter tire.

So, I looked over the 2003 Aftonbladet tests again. There was one test looking at braking on wet pavement, and in fact, the tires that were usually best in the other tests (on ice and snow, all studded, like the Nokian Hakka 4, the Goodyear UG500 and the Pirelli Carving) were all midrange for the wet pavement, and the best for the wet pavement included some studless tires. However, the difference was minimal, whereas the difference between the best and the midrange in the other tests was often quite substantial.

I guess initially I was worried that the implications of losing control on highway pavement going at higher speeds with more traffic including trailer trucks and risks of dropping off a cliff if not holding a curve were much worse than losing control on icy village roads at low speed on small hills. But, as you are suggesting, it looks like there is much more to gain using studded tires and minimal loss.

I would have liked to have seen tests done on the new studless Nokian RSI with its new technology, but I suppose it's hard to imagine that it will be better than the studded Pirelli Carving that I will likely get now. By the way, what is the Nokian AK2? (Note that the three tires I have mentioned in this paragraph are available in the VW dealership in St. Jerome, Quebec, about half way between Mont-Tremblant and Montreal, probably more expensive than elsewhere, though I haven't checked yet if they are available elsewhere).

As for the noise, maybe it will help to warn away deer (what a fright while going on a curve to suddenly see a deer appear in the blackness of night just ahead at highway speeds!!), though I doubt it's that loud.

Thanks, Mikko, for your input.