Article Index

 

 

Michelin CrossClimate+

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

4

22

78,1 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

4

22

8,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

4

22

84,6 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

5

22

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

5

22

57,0 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

5

22

6,6 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

5

22

58,9 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

5

22

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

10

1

25,6 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

10

1

37,5 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

10

1

23,7 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

9

7

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

7

15

3,1 %

5%

Overall

6,4

 

 

100%

 

Behave as summer tires on asphalt

Behave as summer tires on snow and ice

Rolling resistance

Michelin in separate disciplines of the test have shown both the best, and worst results. According to Mr. Collin, the situation here is even more dangerous, than in case with Premiorri as buyers will be guided by the known brand whereas "there is no coupling on ice at all and it is difficult to come around at least on small inclination". According to him, work at snow of the tire better, but to control the car all the same very difficult.

On Michelin asphalt with big separation have bypassed all other tires that should have been expected.

 

 

Premiorri ViaMaggiore Z Plus

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

5

21

65,5 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

5

21

7,4 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

4

21

82,8 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

6

21

55,9 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

7

10

6,2 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

7

12

57,3 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

6

18

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

5

35,2 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

13

40,4 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

9

30,6 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

9

7

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

9

3

1,2 %

5%

Overall

6,5

 

 

100%

 

Rolling resistance

All the rest

 

Tires Premiorri of experts have not impressed at all, and the tester has categorically declared at all that "I hope, we will never see them in Sweden as their only plus - the fact that in the name". On ice tires had dangerously long braking distance, very low side stability, and drifts began without any prevention. At the same time on snow everything was much better.

Use Premiorri asphalt not really well, and though the braking distance was rather short, they have received low marks for controllability. On dry covering situation it was better, but tires can sharply lose coupling during maneuver. Concerning road-holding ability the tester has noted: "If you see the car which carries in the parties, either the driver is drunk, or he goes to Premiorri".

 

Cooper WeatherMaster ice 100

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

6

20

57,6 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

5

20

7,0 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

5

20

81,8 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

6

20

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

8

10

53,7 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

8

7

56,5 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

7

21

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

6

35,7 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

15

40,6 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

5

30,3 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

9

7

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

6

1,8 %

5%

Overall

6,8

 

 

100%

 

Riding qualities on dry asphalt

Results on ice

Tires Cooper best of all feel not on snow and ice as has stuck to winter tires, and on dry asphalt. On ice where efficiency of tires, coupling critically weak is so important and to drive the car, when there is no contact with the road, very difficult as has reasonably noted. On snow the situation is slightly better though Cooper has very weak side stability.

Cooper have good brake properties on asphalt though on wet covering cross coupling was unstable that resulted in difficulties at maneuver commission. But on dry covering as it was already told, Cooper have proved to be very well.

 

Yokohama iceGUARD iG53

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

7

14

49,8 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

6

14

6,1 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

6

15

74,9 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

8

6

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

6

19

55,2 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

7

15

57,5 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

14

40,3 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

6

22

41,6 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

6

22

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

16

32,2 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

6

22

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

9

5

1,4 %

5%

Overall

7,1

 

 

100%

 

Coupling on ice

Braking on snow

Controllability on asphalt

Yokohama have shown good results on ice as they quickly react to actions of the driver, and coupling is never lost without the prevention. At the same time on snow where not spiked tires, as a rule, function very well, Yokohama, on the contrary, have shown not the best braking efficiency and side stability. At the same time tires behave steadily and predictably.

On wet covering at Yokohama too long braking distance, as well as weak cross coupling, and us dry - too slow reactions to turns of wheel and ability to go sharply into skid both on lobby, and on rear axle. Besides, there are claims to road-holding ability.

 

Hankook Winter i*cept iZ2 W616

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

7

16

52,0 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

6

14

6,1 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

5

18

77,2 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

7

17

54,7 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,2 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

9

4

55,9 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

15

40,4 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

21

40,9 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

5

30,3 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

9

7

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

10

1

0,0 %

5%

Overall

7,2

 

 

100%

 

Coupling on ice

Rolling resistance

Controllability on wet asphalt

On Hankook ice have acted at the level of spiked tires, but, besides, you should not gather too big speeds as coupling can be lost. On snow the behavior of tires is stabler.

On wet asphalt all on the contrary, and it is difficult to predict how Hankook will behave in this or that situation, and during maneuver of the tire can easily lose coupling. On dry covering of reaction to turns of wheel too slow and indistinct.

 

Pirelli Ice Zero FR

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

7

15

51,0 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

5

17

6,2 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

6

17

77,0 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

7

15

54,4 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

9

3

55,8 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

12

38,6 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

15

40,6 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

8

30,5 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

9

4

1,3 %

5%

Overall

7,3

 

 

100%

 

Indicators on ice, snow and dry asphalt

Controllability on wet covering

On Pirelli ice provide good controllability, but you should not be zealous with speed as it is difficult to define when coupling begins to be lost. On snow of sharp leaving in drift it is possible not to be afraid any more.

In general work at wet covering of Pirelli well, but coupling can disappear during high-speed maneuver. In tests on dry asphalt to tires no claims existed.

 

Michelin X-ice Xi3

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

7

12

48,4 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

6

13

5,7 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

6

16

75,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

8

6

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

7

16

54,5 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

7

15

57,5 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

6

18

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

10

37,9 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

15

40,6 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

15

31,7 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

8

1,9 %

5%

Overall

7,3

 

 

100%

 

Controllability on ice

Noise

Road-holding ability

Michelin differ in very high longitudinal coupling on ice thanks to what they quickly disperse and stop the car. Besides, tires behave reliably, keeping stable coupling on rear axle. On snow behavior not such balanced, but high coupling allows to make maneuvers without effort.

On wet covering of reaction to turns of wheel could be more precisely, but in general you should not wait for unpleasant surprises. On dry asphalt at Michelin relative weak coupling, but, besides, they behave very predictably. Noise and rolling resistance - low, with road-holding ability are problems.

 

 

Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 2

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

6

18

54,4 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

5

18

6,4 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

5

19

77,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

9

8

52,6 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

9

5

6,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

7

13

57,4 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

9

1

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

8

3

33,4 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

4

39,6 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

3

30,0 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

6

1,8 %

5%

Overall

7,3

 

 

100%

 

Riding qualities on asphalt

Road-holding ability

Side stability on ice

On ice at Goodyear not the most effective braking, but side stability was even weaker, and it is important not to allow too bystry maneuvers as front tires can lose coupling right there. On snow of the characteristic it is better, but also here it is necessary to remember care at entrance to turn.

Use Goodyear asphalt better - both on wet, and on dry - and they were highly appreciated for short braking distance and good road-holding ability. Tires also have the low noise level and rolling resistance.

 

Goodride IceMaster Spike Z-506

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

9

9

41,3 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

9

7

3,8 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

8

11

69,0 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

6

20

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

6

20

55,8 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

7

21

6,3 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

6

20

58,5 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

6

18

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

18

41,0 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

10

40,2 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

14

31,5 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

6

14

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

7

18

3,6 %

5%

Overall

7,3

 

 

100%

 

Riding qualities on dry asphalt

Controllability and low coupling on ice and snow

On ice at tires Goodride bad coupling both in longitudinal, and in the cross direction, and besides the drift begins too quickly and sharply. On snow of Goodride have shown very low performance of braking, and with side stability everything was also bad.

On asphalt riding qualities were better, and Goodride well keep coupling on rear axle during maneuver. Noise and profitability - averages.

 

 

Cordiant Snow Cross

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

8

10

42,2 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

8

10

4,0 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

8

65,3 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

7

11

53,9 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

6

19

58,4 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

21

41,9 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

20

40,8 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

6

20

32,7 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

6

14

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

6

22

4,2 %

5%

Overall

7,4

 

 

100%

 

Indicators on asphalt

Results on ice and snow

The Russian Cordiant could not show good results on ice as long stopped the car, and they had difficulties with arrival on slope. Reactions to turns of wheel exact, but tires on rear axle are too inclined to drift. On snow side stability also leaves much to be desired.

Cordiant has rather low level of noise and good road-holding ability on uneven covering, but at the same time tires have shown the most high resistance to swing in the test. Let's add that the market was already fully entered by new model - Cordiant Snow Cross 2.

 

Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

6

19

54,9 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

5

19

6,4 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

6

14

73,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

8

6

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

7

12

54,0 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

10

2

55,3 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

7

36,9 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

5

39,7 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

10

31,0 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

10

2

0,3 %

5%

Overall

7,5

 

 

100%

 

Riding qualities on snow and ice

Road-holding ability

Nokian is good option for those who prefer not spiked tires, but in respect of coupling on ice there are tires and more effective. However, on ice-covered surface of Nokian behave logically and do not afford sharp goings in drift, and on snow controllability is even better.

On wet asphalt Nokian had only average values as they slowly I react to turns of wheel and aim to continue to go forward. The same understeer was noticeable also on dry covering.

Nokian has low level of noise and good efficiency of consumption of fuel, but with road-holding ability there are problems, and it is necessary to taxi up often.

 

Vredestein Wintrac Ice

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

8

11

42,6 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

8

10

4,0 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

7

12

70,7 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

10

2

51,0 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

6

17

57,9 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

8

2

32,8 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

2

39,5 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

8

2

29,2 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

6

14

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

7

16

3,3 %

5%

Overall

7,6

 

 

100%

 

Riding qualities on asphalt

Controllability on ice and snow

Vredestein have caused a stir in the strongest understeer on ice, and with sharp maneuvers there will be problems as, despite turn of wheel, the car continues to go directly. Fortunately, tires on rear axle well hold coupling. On snow approximately the same situation - demolition begins right after turn of steering wheel.

Use Vredestein asphalt much better, and do not create any problems. Noise and profitability - averages.

 

Nokian Nordman 7

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

9

8

40,2 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

9

7

3,8 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

8

10

65,9 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

7

13

54,1 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

5

20

58,5 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

6

18

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

8

37,1 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

19

40,7 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

12

31,2 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

9

2,0 %

5%

Overall

7,6

 

 

100%

 

Longitudinal coupling on ice

Rolling resistance

Road-holding ability

Tires Nordman provide good longitudinal coupling on ice, but side stability not such any more high because of what the behavior of tires becomes problematic and unpredictable. On Nordman snow too easily lose coupling on rear axle, but it at least will happen not unexpectedly, and tires will manage to warn the driver.

On asphalt at Nordman average results. Tires effectively brake on wet covering, but at sharp turn of wheel they cannot react also quickly. At the same time coupling on rear axle reliable that stabilizes situation.

Nordman are also rather silent and economic tires, but they have bad stability on irregular surface.

 

 

Gislaved Nord*Frost 200

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

7

13

49,2 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

7

12

4,9 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

6

64,0 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

8

6

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

10

2

51,0 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

9

2

5,9 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

8

6

56,4 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

20

41,4 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

7

39,8 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

6

22

34,5 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

6

20

3,9 %

5%

Overall

7,7

 

 

100%

 

Controllability on snow

Coupling and controllability on ice and dry asphalt

Gislaved have given unpleasant surprise, having shown very weak results on ice where they can too quickly and easily lose coupling. On snow everything is much better, and at tires good controllability in any situation.

Here the comment Robert Collin, the expert of Aftonbladet participating in tests who, being Swede, has special relation to the Gislaved brand is remarkable. "When I tested these tires "blindly" on ice, "Weak coupling" was my conclusion. Rigid understeer. Are very inclined to drift. Long braking distance". On scale which we use with Finns I have delivered to them 5. Thus that the worst assessment is 4. Then I have thought that I will reserve the worst assessment for not spiked tires which we tested later. I thought what tires which I have just tested were? Chinese Goodride? Or Russian Cordiant? No, it were the German Gislaved. How it was possible to bring brand to such state? It was later, as Goodride, and Cordiant were better in tests on ice in respect of dispersal and braking, but have conceded by estimates in controllability tests. Anyway, before Germans have bought Gislaved, it were one of absolutely best winter tires. And then they won tests".

On wet covering of Gislaved well cope with emergency to maneuvers though at the beginning it is necessary to make rather big effort on wheel. On dry covering of the tire behave very unstably and can lose coupling both on lobby, and on rear axle, and besides in these conditions they had the longest braking distance among all tested tires.

 

Bridgestone Noranza 001

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

9

5

39,1 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

9

5

3,6 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

7

64,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

8

6

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

7

14

54,2 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

9

5

6,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

6

18

58,2 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

22

43,3 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

15

40,6 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

16

32,2 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

5

20

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

12

2,6 %

5%

Overall

7,7

 

 

100%

 

Coupling on ice

Results on wet asphalt

Noise level

Bridgestone provide high thrust effort on ice, and tires on front axle very willingly respond to turns of wheel - perhaps, even too willingly as rear tires at this moment can go into skid. On snow controllability is even worse as tires obviously lack side stability. However results absolutely bad as quite are suitable for everyday life of the tire are not necessary.

In tests on wet covering of Bridgestone could not be highly appreciated because of weak coupling, long braking distance and slow reactions to actions of the driver. On dry Bridgestone asphalt brake too long too, and in turn tires both on lobby, and on rear axle can lose coupling.

Bridgestone are also quite noisy tires with not really good road-holding ability on uneven covering, but they have low resistance to swing.

 

 

Yokohama iceGUARD iG65

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

9

7

39,6 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

9

5

3,6 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

5

63,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

8

6

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

6

18

55,1 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

10

6,1 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

7

10

57,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

6

18

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

16

40,6 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

9

39,9 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

13

31,3 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

6

14

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

6

20

3,9 %

5%

Overall

7,8

 

 

100%

 

Results on dry covering

Controllability on ice

Road-holding ability

Yokohama well use ice, but not everything is as smooth as could be. Tires precisely react to turns of wheel, but at sharp maneuver there can be oversteer, that is tires on rear axle are capable to lose coupling too easily. On snow there are claims to longitudinal coupling, but in general tires behave predictably.

On wet Yokohama asphalt long stop the car, but in general their results can be considered acceptable including because they well hold coupling on rear axle during maneuver. On dry covering of the tire provide the good level of coupling and can cope with any situations.

Yokohama has average noisiness, but they provide not the best road-holding ability, and they have high resistance to swing.

 

Continental VikingContact 7

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

7

17

52,5 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

6

14

6,1 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

7

13

72,6 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

9

2

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

9

6

52,2 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

10

1

5,8 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

10

1

55,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

11

38,2 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

13

40,4 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

13

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

11

31,1 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

12

2,6 %

5%

Overall

7,8

 

 

100%

 

Coupling on ice and snow

In case of loss of coupling in winter conditions it is recovered too long

Rolling resistance

For not spiked tires of Continental very well use ice where they behave steadily and predictably. At the same time, if coupling is lost, they recover it very long. On snow of Continental guarantee excellent controllability, and they have also well proved to be on asphalt though here coupling was not such impressive. Continental a little in a slowed-up way respond to turns of wheel, but well hold coupling on rear axle and do not give unpleasant surprises. Continental has also very good road-holding ability.

 

Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

9

6

39,5 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

9

7

3,8 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

9

65,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

12

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

9

5

52,1 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

9

5

6,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

7

11

57,2 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

11

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

9

37,8 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

7

39,8 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

19

32,6 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

7

17

3,4 %

5%

Overall

8,1

 

 

100%

 

Balance of characteristics

Road-holding ability

Side stability on snow and ice

Goodyear possess high longitudinal and not really good cross coupling on ice. Front tires easily lose contact with the road if slightly not to calculate the speed of entrance to turn, and Goodyear behave also on snow. It can cause problems if it is necessary to contract sharply.

On wet asphalt everything in general is acceptable and though Goodyear has not the best coupling, they lose it very predictably and without surprises. Besides, tires had good maneuverability on dry covering. Noise, certainly, is present, rolling resistance rather high, but Goodyear provide good road-holding ability on irregular surface.

 

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

10

2

37,2 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

10

2

3,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

4

63,2 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

9

2

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

9

7

52,3 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

9

5

6,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

7

13

57,4 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

17

40,9 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

5

39,7 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

16

32,2 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

6

14

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

11

2,4 %

5%

Overall

8,4

 

 

100%

 

Indicators on snow and ice

Indicators on asphalt

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9 were considered as the best spiked tires in the market quite recently, but competitors do not waste time, and now Finns have "only" the third place. Anyway, at tires all same excellent coupling and reliable behavior on ice. On snow they have also shown very good results, though were not among absolute leaders.

On wet asphalt indicators too good, but not such, as at the best tires. Nokian a little in a slowed-up way react to turns of wheel, but coupling on rear axle high, and the maneuver can be completed with hardly any trouble at all. Approximately the same picture was also on dry asphalt. Noise level - low, and besides at Nokian is good road-holding ability.

 

Hankook Winter i*Pike RS2 W429

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

10

4

38,1 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

10

2

3,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

3

62,9 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

9

2

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

10

1

50,8 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

9

2

5,9 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

8

9

56,8 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

7

11

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

4

34,9 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

10

40,2 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

3

30,0 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

7

14

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

5

20

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

8

10

2,1 %

5%

Overall

8,4

 

 

100%

 

Coupling on ice

Indicators on snow

Price

Controllability on dry covering

On coupling on Hankook ice were one of the best tires in the test this time. The behavior of tires is logical in any situations, and it is easy to control the car. On snow of Hankook have slowed down most quicker than other tires, however implementation of the emergency maneuver can be complicated by undesirable deterioration in coupling on rear axle.

On wet asphalt acceptable results, and Hankook rather effectively disperse and brake, and also do not give the driver unpleasant surprises. At the same time on dry covering of the tire have shown not the best controllability. Noise - high, rolling resistance - low.

 

Continental IceContact 3

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

10

3

37,8 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

10

2

3,5 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

9

2

62,7 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

9

2

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

10

2

51,0 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

9

2

5,9 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

8

8

56,6 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

9

2

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

8

3

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

7

13

39,5 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

8

2

39,5 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

6

21

33,0 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

5

20

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

7

14

3,0 %

5%

Overall

8,5

 

 

100%

 

Riding qualities on snow and ice

Braking on dry asphalt

Continental well use ice and tires quickly stop the car, and also provide high coupling at the movement in any direction. On snow the behavior of Continental also was logical and predictable.

Safety level on asphalt - acceptable. The braking distance was long in comparison with other tires, especially on dry covering, however Continental well cope with maneuvers. Thus, as note in TW, tires in general managed to reach balance between riding qualities on snow, ice and asphalt.

Noise is a little high, as well as rolling resistance. Road-holding ability good.

 

Michelin X-Ice North 4

 

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Perc.

Braking on ice (50-0 km / h)

10

1

36,5 m

10%

Acceleration on ice (5-20 km / h)

10

1

3,3 s

10%

Handling on ice (sec)

10

1

61,0 s

10%

Handling on ice (subjectively)

10

1

 

10%

Braking on snow (80-0 km / h)

8

9

52,8 m

5%

Acceleration on snow (5-35 km / h)

8

5

6,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (sec)

9

5

56,0 s

5%

Handling on snow (subjectively)

10

1

 

5%

Lateral stability on snow (subjectively)

9

1

 

5%

Braking  on wet (80-0 km / h)

6

19

41,1 m

5%

Handling on wet (sec)

7

12

40,3 s

5%

Handling on wet (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Braking  on dry (80-0 km / h)

7

5

30,3 m

5%

Handling on dry (subjectively)

8

2

 

5%

Internal noise (subjectively)

6

14

 

5%

Fuel consumption (%)

6

19

3,8 %

5%

Overall

8,6

 

 

100%

 

Coupling on ice

Road-holding ability

Coupling on wet covering

Michelin have perfectly proved to be on ice so even on very slippery surface they will ensure optimum safety. As it is not surprising if to consider that in four tires more than one thousand thorns are established. On snow of the tire behave steadily and surely though at them and not the shortest braking distance.

On wet covering Michelin had average results as they have rather long brake distance and a little nervous behavior during maneuvering - however, rear tires nevertheless well hold coupling. On dry asphalt of the tire were quite reliable too, but the level of coupling could be above. Resistance swing - average, and that is important, Michelin had the best road-holding ability among spiked tires.

 

 

 

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 8 have once made revolution in the market of winter tires. Finns have installed in the tires record quantity of thorns - 190 pieces that was nearly 50% more than the previous record and twice more, than at many tires in the market. Since then the quantity of thorns continues to grow in winter tires from year to year, and each producer follows sooner or later this tendency and changes design of the tires though for this purpose and additional costs of developments, tests, etc. are necessary.

Experts have made the schedule to look what was average of thorns in the tires participating in tests since 2013. During this time their average quantity in tires has grown by 41%, from 122 to 172 pieces, and this tendency remains.

As tire tests specialists note, only increase in number of thorns can already significantly influence coupling on ice. This year in the test there was no tire which number of thorns on running meter of protector had less than 50 pieces. It means that all producers have carried out override the test and have confirmed that tires keep within standards for road wear.

Michelin which have their 250 pieces (at a rate of 205/55 R16) remain the leader in quantity of thorns. On the second place in this parameter there were unexpectedly Chinese Goodride in which about 200 thorns are established exactly. According to specialists, it was especially interesting to look how large number of thorns helps to score points to tires which are not considered the best in class. 

Tires in which about 190 thorns - Continental are installed, to Bridgestone, by Hankook and Nokian have also taken part in the test. Continental were novelty only, and in sizes with diameter from 17 inches they are offered with the new rubberized thorns which as the producer declares, in addition increase coupling on ice. 17-inch Continental were already won in the Vi Bilagare test, but tires of the smaller size with standard metal thorns participated in tests. Perhaps, choose other dimension, the final rating could change.

"The fact that thorns of new type appear, speaks about importance of their characteristics and pressure which is put upon producers, - the expert has noted. - The competition is very rigid, and eventually it is favorable to motorists who prefer studded rubber".

In participating the Vredestein and Yokohama tests there were about 170 thorns, and in Cordiant, Gislaved, Goodyear and Nordman - on 130, that is in this plan all of them are still faithful to traditions, and it affects their results on ice. According to the expert, all these tires are suitable for everyday life, but small amount of thorns can negatively affect in extreme situation.

Correlation between quantity of thorns and coupling on ice is obvious, however there are also exceptions. For example, Goodyear have shown more good results, than it was possible to expect, being guided by number of thorns whereas Goodride had everything on the contrary. "It is good examples of how characteristics of tires are influenced by other technological know-how of producers, - the expert has noted. - Increase in number of thorns can increase coupling on ice, but only to certain limit".

The expert also notes that actually modern not spiked tires on some characteristics approach studded tires more and more, and part of models perfectly works at slippery snow. On the other hand, there are also not really successful models. According to experts, the best of frictional tires use ice the same as some spiked tires, and the surface of ice becomes colder and more rigid, the thorns help less.

This year tires Michein from the range CrossClimate which has caused much controversy have also taken part in the TW test, but at the same time also has forced many producers to review the marketing strategy. Tires are positioned as summer, but capable at the same time to keep coupling in cold weather. At the same time even in the northern countries they are defined sometimes as all-weather which they in this climate are not. The nuance is that they are supplied with marking with the image of snowflake, as well as all winter tires in the test. This symbol can be received if tires have passed official tests for coupling on snow and have proved that in such conditions they work significantly more effectively than summer tires which cannot pass these tests.

The test has shown that actually Michelin are not especially effective on snow though there is scope for interpretation of results. At the same time on ice at them very weak coupling and dangerous indicators if to compare them to winter tires. At the same time on asphalt everything was on the contrary, and as the expert, Michelin have shown how winter tires in the conditions of off-season have to work.

"Unfortunately, in work of developers of tires still there are a lot of compromises, and meanwhile it is impossible to create tires which would be effective in any conditions, - the expert says. - When one characteristic improves, another becomes worse. Michelin well will be suitable for cold northern summer, but still obviously to refuse seasonal change of tires early".

Have won against studded Michelin which have shown excellent results on snow and ice the overall ranking of the test and with the minimum separation in 0,1 points have outstripped Continental.

In general no surprises existed, and all studded and almost all frictional tires have shown at least acceptable results. On the other hand, summer Michelin, as expected, are not suitable for winter at all though they and can legally be used during the winter period in the countries with obligatory seasonal change of rubber.

Have taken part in the test of this year including the Russian Cordiant which have taken not really high place because of weaknesses on ice and snow however need to be noted that tires of the previous generation were tested, and on change the new model has been already presented to them.

 

 

 

Goodride SW601

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

8

13

20

Braking on snow

2

18

20

Braking  on wet

9

2

10

Braking  on dry

8

2

10

Handling on ice

10

16

20

Handling on snow

4

18

20

Handling on wet

9

2

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

4

8

10

Elk test on dry

8

4

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

6

9

10

Fuel consumption

7

7

10

Overall

75

 

150

 

Cheap tires with the weak level of coupling in any conditions

It is not recommended to buy

 

LingLong Green-Max Winter Ice I-15

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

6

15

20

Braking on snow

14

10

20

Braking  on wet

4

16

10

Braking  on dry

7

4

10

Handling on ice

12

13

20

Handling on snow

14

14

20

Handling on wet

4

17

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

3

15

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

7

6

10

Fuel consumption

5

11

10

Overall

83

 

150

 

Short braking distance and good controllability on snow

Weak results on wet asphalt

Low resistance to hydroplaning

Very long braking distance on ice

 

GT Radial IcePro 3

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

4

18

20

Braking on snow

8

17

20

Braking  on wet

6

4

10

Braking  on dry

7

4

10

Handling on ice

12

13

20

Handling on snow

14

14

20

Handling on wet

7

4

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

4

7

10

Elk test on dry

8

4

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

6

9

10

Fuel consumption

8

4

10

Overall

84

 

150

 

Weak results on snow and ice

Tires prove that only one existence of thorns optional provides high coupling in winter conditions

 

Nexen WinGuard WinSpike WH62

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

8

13

20

Braking on snow

12

14

20

Braking  on wet

6

4

10

Braking  on dry

6

11

10

Handling on ice

12

13

20

Handling on snow

16

12

20

Handling on wet

6

7

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

4

6

10

Elk test on dry

8

3

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

5

15

10

Fuel consumption

4

16

10

Overall

87

 

150

 

Very good result in the moose test

Weak results on snow and ice (Nexen obviously has no such budget for development of winter tires, as at the leading players of the market)

 

Bridgestone Blizzak WS80

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

10

11

20

Braking on snow

16

5

20

Braking  on wet

4

16

10

Braking  on dry

7

4

10

Handling on ice

14

12

20

Handling on snow

16

12

20

Handling on wet

2

18

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

3

12

10

Elk test on dry

6

15

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

7

6

10

Fuel consumption

8

3

10

Overall

93

 

150

 

The disappointing result for tires from the largest global manufacturer

Very weak results on wet asphalt

 

Giti GitiWinter W1

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

6

15

20

Braking on snow

12

14

20

Braking  on wet

8

3

10

Braking  on dry

8

2

10

Handling on ice

10

16

20

Handling on snow

14

14

20

Handling on wet

9

2

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

6

2

10

Elk test on dry

9

2

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

7

6

10

Fuel consumption

6

8

10

Overall

95

 

150

 

In general quite good tires, and lag from leaders gradually decreases

Very good result in the moose test

Weak results on snow and ice

 

Vredestein Wintrac Ice

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

12

8

20

Braking on snow

14

10

20

Braking  on wet

6

4

10

Braking  on dry

6

11

10

Handling on ice

16

11

20

Handling on snow

18

7

20

Handling on wet

6

7

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

4

9

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

6

9

10

Fuel consumption

5

13

10

Overall

100

 

150

 

High level of comfort

Weak results on snow and ice

 

Continental WinterContact TS 860

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

6

15

20

Braking on snow

10

16

20

Braking  on wet

10

1

10

Braking  on dry

10

1

10

Handling on ice

10

16

20

Handling on snow

12

17

20

Handling on wet

10

1

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

10

1

10

Elk test on dry

10

1

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

8

4

10

Fuel consumption

6

9

10

Overall

102

 

150

 

Good results on dry and wet asphalt

The highest resistance to hydroplaning

Are not suitable for northern winter when it is necessary to move most often on snow and ice

The winner among not spiked tires of the European type

 

Pirelli Ice Zero

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

18

3

20

Braking on snow

14

10

20

Braking  on wet

6

4

10

Braking  on dry

5

15

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

18

7

20

Handling on wet

7

4

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

5

4

10

Elk test on dry

6

15

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

3

18

10

Fuel consumption

3

17

10

Overall

103

 

150

 

Have finished tests with explicit lag from the best tires

Long braking distance on snow

Low level of comfort

High resistance to swing

 

Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

10

11

20

Braking on snow

16

5

20

Braking  on wet

4

16

10

Braking  on dry

7

4

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

18

7

20

Handling on wet

5

13

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

2

17

10

Elk test on dry

5

17

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

9

2

10

Fuel consumption

10

1

10

Overall

104

 

150

 

Good controllability on ice

Rather long braking distance on ice

 

Hankook Winter i*Pike RS2 W429

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

16

6

20

Braking on snow

20

1

20

Braking  on wet

5

10

10

Braking  on dry

5

15

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

18

7

20

Handling on wet

5

13

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

3

11

10

Elk test on dry

4

18

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

4

17

10

Fuel consumption

6

10

10

Overall

104

 

150

 

Good results on snow and ice

Have badly coped with the moose test

 

Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 2

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

12

8

20

Braking on snow

14

10

20

Braking  on wet

5

10

10

Braking  on dry

7

4

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

18

7

20

Handling on wet

6

7

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

5

3

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

8

4

10

Fuel consumption

8

5

10

Overall

108

 

150

 

Good results on wet asphalt

Rather long braking distance and in general weak coupling on ice

 

Pirelli Ice Zero FR

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

18

3

20

Braking on snow

16

5

20

Braking  on wet

5

10

10

Braking  on dry

7

4

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

20

1

20

Handling on wet

5

13

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

2

18

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

9

2

10

Fuel consumption

3

18

10

Overall

110

 

150

 

Pirelli have again confirmed that they can effectively work at snow and ice even in the absence of thorns

Very weak resistance to hydroplaning

High resistance to swing

 

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

16

6

20

Braking on snow

16

5

20

Braking  on wet

5

10

10

Braking  on dry

5

15

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

20

1

20

Handling on wet

7

4

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

3

13

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

6

9

10

Fuel consumption

7

6

10

Overall

110

 

150

 

Good results on snow and ice (though in respect of controllability on ice-covered surface concede to new Michelin)

Low resistance to swing

Rather weak results on wet asphalt

 

Continental VikingContact 7

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

12

8

20

Braking on snow

16

5

20

Braking  on wet

5

10

10

Braking  on dry

7

4

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

20

1

20

Handling on wet

6

7

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

2

16

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

10

1

10

Fuel consumption

9

2

10

Overall

112

 

150

 

Excellent controllability on snow

The highest level of comfort

Low resistance to swing

Rather long braking distance on ice

The winner among not spiked tires of the Scandinavian type

Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

18

3

20

Braking on snow

20

1

20

Braking  on wet

6

4

10

Braking  on dry

6

11

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

20

1

20

Handling on wet

6

7

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

4

5

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

5

15

10

Fuel consumption

4

14

10

Overall

114

 

150

 

Tires Goodyear once again could be among leaders

Have lagged behind leaders with the minimum separation

Indicators on wet asphalt it is better, than at tires on the first place

Coupling on ice is weaker, than at Continental and Michelin that is probably connected with smaller quantity of thorns

 

Michelin X-Ice North 4

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

20

1

20

Braking on snow

18

4

20

Braking  on wet

6

4

10

Braking  on dry

6

11

10

Handling on ice

20

1

20

Handling on snow

20

1

20

Handling on wet

5

13

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

3

10

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

6

9

10

Fuel consumption

4

15

10

Overall

115

 

150

 

Thanks to the increased quantity of thorns could upgrade the final rating significantly

Excellent results on snow and ice

Rather weak results on wet asphalt

Weak resistance to hydroplaning

 

Continental IceContact 2

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Max.

Braking on ice

20

1

20

Braking on snow

20

1

20

Braking  on wet

5

10

10

Braking  on dry

5

15

10

Handling on ice

18

2

20

Handling on snow

20

1

20

Handling on wet

6

7

10

Resistance to longitudinal aquaplaning

3

14

10

Elk test on dry

7

6

10

Comfort / noise (subjective)

6

9

10

Fuel consumption

5

12

10

Overall

115

 

150

 

The last year's winner could defend the title (but this time the victory had to be shared with Michelin)

Excellent results on snow and ice

Rather weak results on wet asphalt

Weak resistance to hydroplaning

The winner among spiked tires

 

Long ago in the tire industry there were no so many news in anticipation of winter season. The market was entered by new studded Michelin X-Ice North 4 and Hankook Winter i*Pike RS2 which had to compete to terrible Nokian Hakkapelliitta 9 which, strangely enough, never participated before in tests. In segment of frictional tires it was not without novelties too, and of them Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3 and Continental VikingContact 7 by right are considered key. Plus to it several interesting inexpensive models, such as GT Radial IcePro 3 from the Singapore Giti which has begun to deliver tires for complete set of the Volkswagen cars not so long ago take part in the test. What their winter tires are capable of? The same question belongs to Nexen which are in quite good demand, but whether are available for this basis? In the list of participants there are also budget Chinese tires Goodride and Linglong which will try to compete with more expensive products.

 

BRAKING EFFICIENCY

Brake properties of tires were evaluated on four types of surface and as in tests on snow and ice above, than on asphalt, spiked tires usually win against ponderability of estimates this part of tests, and so was and this time. At the same time not all tires keep within this rule, and, for example, inexpensive GT Radial is so deplorable have acted in tests on snow and ice that just right to prohibit them in northern latitudes. Those who will think that tires will be good only in view of existence of thorns will cruelly be mistaken. When it is really necessary to slow down quickly, these tires will not come to the rescue. Tires Goodride of the European type are not suitable for driving too on ice and snow so if someone still wants to save on tires, results speak for themselves. The cheapest tires were both the least effective, and it is explicit not coincidence. What you pay for, you have, and it is hardly reasonable to save on own safety.

Since other end of rating we find studded Continental, Goodyear and Michelin which have identical number of points. Continental is better than competitors on snow and ice, but it is a little worse on asphalt, Goodyear and Michelin has all on the contrary, but all three have very good brake properties. The fact that Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9 presented absolutely not so long ago could not show the same good results has a little surprised. The best among frictional tires of Pirelli steel which have left far behind "schoolmates" and have not given chance to catch up with themselves any of novelties of this category.

 

CONTROLLABILITY

It is always interesting to look how beginners who apply for the right to be considered as new leaders of the market prove to be in tests. Michelin cannot call beginners, naturally, but their recently presented X-Ice North 4 really could establish the new standard in respect of coupling on snow and ice. Michelin long and persistently did tires with no more than 50 thorns on running meter of protector (96 at a rate of 205/55 R16), but as a result has directed absolutely in other party. About 250 thorns are installed in their new tires, that is is at least 60 more, than at any other tires in the test and in the market. At the same time it would be precipitate to connect such results only with quantity of thorns as Goodyear were almost also effective on ice-covered poverkhnakolicheost, and they were supplied only with 130 thorns. From here conclusion - it is impossible to be guided only by quantity of thorns blindly. In the test of last year there was similar picture, and then Michelin had less thorns just - 100 pieces, but they, despite it, have acted almost the same as Continental with 190 thorns.

The best of not spiked tires of the Scandinavian type have shown almost identical results, and in general the difference in number of points between 11 tires on the first places was surprisingly insignificant. Thus, it is possible to recommend any of them. Bridgestone were only (except for Linglong) "Scandinavians" who have badly coped with tests. Bridgestone has problems with coupling on ice, but it is much more important frankly weak results in the test on wet asphalt where they reminded tires which were issued five or ten back - with sluggish reactions and unstable behavior. Best of all tires of the European type which at the same time, as usual, lag behind tires of two other classes on snow and ice are suitable for wet roads. They can be recommended only to those who live in regions with soft climate and well serviced roads.

 

RESISTANCE TO HYDROPLANING

Results can seem at first sight strange as from three tires of the European type only Continental alone were located on upper line of rating with huge separation from all others, and two other tires of this class have significantly lagged behind. Continental proved also before that they are able to resist to effect of hydroplaning, but usually tires of the European type win all first place in this discipline. It means, as Giti, and ZC Rubber which releases tires Goodride, still should work seriously over the products.

One more surprise was given by Goodyear of the Scandinavian type which have shown excellent result for tires of this category. At the same time and they significantly lag behind the winner. Meanwhile at anybody it was not succeeded to combine optimum characteristics in any conditions, and it is more difficult to tires of the Scandinavian type to dewater in the parties as their soft protectors created for snow and ice are too strongly deformed. In this discipline they are overtaken even by many spiked tires, whose rubber mix more rigid. Anyway, resistance to hydroplaning is not key priority when developing any tires for northern winter.

 

MOOSE TEST

In the moose test of the tire, classical for Teknikens Värld, are exposed to extreme loadings, and there is no place for nuances - or tires cope, or is not present. Those tires which show good results will help to go round obstacle urgently.

In the best 71 km/h of Continental WinterContact TS 860 steel with result, one of three tires of the European type in the test. Thanks to the rigid rubber mix optimized for dry and wet covering, tires of this category best of all maintain stability during the emergency maneuvers on asphalt that brings closer them to summer tires. It should be noted that the best tires in this discipline have not really well proved to be in tests on snow and ice before, and it is necessary to remember it. Among tires of the Scandinavian type worst of all have coped with the moose Bridgestone, Goodyear and Nokian test which too quickly lose contact with the road.

 

COMFORT

The factor of comfort is of great importance for motorists, and tires influence feelings from driving much stronger, than many drivers think. In this discipline experts evaluated road-holding ability, reactions to turns of wheel, and also smoothness of the course (on asphalt and gravel) and noise in salon. Tests were carried out both on polygon, and on cross country roads.

The appreciation has received Continental of the Scandinavian type which combine very good road-holding ability with pleasant smoothness of the course. They also differ in low level of noise, and actually any shortcomings of the plan of comfort at Continental it was revealed not. Tendency of this year was the fact that it is necessary to consider tires of the Scandinavian type more comfortably, and "Europeans" lag behind with small gap. Spiked tires had advantage which was that they reacted to turns of wheel quicker earlier, but now the best of tires of the Scandinavian type do not concede to them in it. Also you should not forget that noise from thorns too has not got to anywhere.

 

PROFITABILITY

Tires Nokian showed very good efficiency of consumption of fuel earlier, and their new model has proved to be in this discipline from the best party too. The difference between Nokian and Pirelli not the last place has made about 6% or 0,35l/100km. That is economy of fuel for life cycle of tires (30 000 km) will make 105 liters.

The question why Pirelli has so high resistance to swing, remains open. Of course, everything depends on what priorities producers put before the developers, but what this parameter depends on, experts have found it difficult to tell.

Earlier experts measured rolling resistance of tires in laboratory at +20 °C, and thorns before the test were removed as it is accepted in the industry. At the same time in recent years technologies have allowed to begin to test tires for profitability in the conditions of the real world - the equipment defines when certain fuel quantity on different tires in controlled conditions is spent, and experts say that these results are able to afford to understand better what tires will save actually fuel.

 

VERDICT

Before such quantity novelties in tests were not yet, and new Continental and Nokian of the Scandinavian type both have shown very good results. Continental in tests of the Swedish magazine earlier most often bypassed Nokian, and so there was and this time, and reason that though tires of the Finnish brand are traditionally very effective on snow and ice, the balance of all characteristics is important for high final rating.

First place in the test of 2018 was won by three spiked tires, and their indicators show that the largest producers spend considerable resources for improvement of the models equipped with thorns. Engineers of Michelin have done excellent work, and in final offset their new spiked tires could take the first place, having divided it with Continental.

The quantity of thorns in tires Michelin has grown in comparison with the previous generation with 96 to 250 (in Continental there are 190 thorns), and this innovation has helped novelty to declare itself loudly at once. At the same time have got the second place Goodyear which have "only" 130 thorns, and though they not so well use ice as Michelin, in general differences were not such big.

In conclusion experts have noted that in the next season developers from Germany from whom by hearsay it is possible to wait for news at the end of 2018 can change situation in the market.

 

 

Sava Eskimo Stud

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

8

12,3 m

Acceleration on ice

6

4,95 s

Handling on ice

6

44,5 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

8

7

Overall

8

 

Braking on snow

7

13,1 m

Acceleration on snow

8

4,26 s

Handling on snow

7

34,4 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

8

8

Overall

8

 

Braking  on wet

2

35,5 m

Handling on wet

3

31,5 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

4

8-

Braking  on dry

3

30,5 m

Handling on dry

2

7,5

Noise

7

5,5

Overall

2

 

 

Short braking distance and acceptable controllability on dry and wet asphalt

The worst results on ice and snow

High noise level

 

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

2

10,2 m

Acceleration on ice

3

4,24 s

Handling on ice

3

42,3 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

2

9+

Overall

2

 

Braking on snow

2

12,8 m

Acceleration on snow

4

4,05 s

Handling on snow

7

34,4 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

3

9+

Overall

5

 

Braking  on wet

1

34,5 m

Handling on wet

1

31,1 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

1

8,5

Braking  on dry

4

30,9 m

Handling on dry

2

7,5

Noise

3

6

Overall

1

 

 

Very good results on ice

Stable and predictable behavior on snow (though there is the lowered cross coupling)

The best results in tests on asphalt

 

Michelin X-Ice North 4

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

1

10,1 m

Acceleration on ice

1

4,16 s

Handling on ice

1

40,8 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

1

10-

Overall

1

 

Braking on snow

5

13,0 m

Acceleration on snow

3

4,04 s

Handling on snow

3

33,7 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

2

9,5

Overall

3

 

Braking  on wet

3

36,2 m

Handling on wet

8

32,6 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

7+

Braking  on dry

2

30,4 m

Handling on dry

4

7+

Noise

3

6

Overall

6

 

 

The best indicators in all disciplines on ice

Good results on snow (except for rather long braking distance)

Good results on dry asphalt

Insufficiently good controllability on wet asphalt

 

Hankook Winter i*Pike RS2 W429

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

5

10,6 m

Acceleration on ice

2

4,17 s

Handling on ice

2

41,5 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

2

9+

Overall

2

 

Braking on snow

5

13,0 m

Acceleration on snow

1

3,96 s

Handling on snow

2

33,6 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

3

9+

Overall

2

 

Braking  on wet

8

38,6 m

Handling on wet

2

31,3 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

5

7,5

Braking  on dry

7

31,2 m

Handling on dry

7

6,5

Noise

8

5

Overall

7

 

 

High thrust effort and good controllability on snow and ice (have acted at the level of more expensive tires)

Very long braking distance on dry and wet asphalt

The loudest noise

 

Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

3

10,5 m

Acceleration on ice

8

5,36 s

Handling on ice

8

45,6 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

7

8-

Overall

6

 

Braking on snow

2

12,8 m

Acceleration on snow

4

4,05 s

Handling on snow

6

34,3 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

6

8,5

Overall

5

 

Braking  on wet

4

36,6 m

Handling on wet

6

31,6 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

1

8,5

Braking  on dry

6

31,1 m

Handling on dry

4

7+

Noise

3

6

Overall

4

 

 

Acceptable indicators on snow and asphalt

Low thrust effort and weak cross coupling on ice

 

Gislaved Nord*Frost 200

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

6

11,5 m

Acceleration on ice

7

5,18 s

Handling on ice

7

45,3 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

5

8

Overall

7

 

Braking on snow

2

12,8 m

Acceleration on snow

6

4,09 s

Handling on snow

4

33,9 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

5

9-

Overall

4

 

Braking  on wet

7

37,6 m

Handling on wet

7

32,1 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

5

7,5

Braking  on dry

8

31,3 m

Handling on dry

7

6,5

Noise

1

7

Overall

8

 

 

Rather long braking distance, slow dispersal and tendency to sharp drifts on ice on ice

Short braking distance and acceptable controllability on snow

Low level of noise

Long braking distance on dry and wet asphalt

Insufficiently good controllability on dry asphalt

 

Continental IceContact 2

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

3

10,5 m

Acceleration on ice

5

4,76 s

Handling on ice

5

44,1 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

4

9

Overall

4

 

Braking on snow

1

12,7 m

Acceleration on snow

2

4,03 s

Handling on snow

1

33,5 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

1

10-

Overall

1

 

Braking  on wet

5

36,8 m

Handling on wet

3

31,5 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

1

8,5

Braking  on dry

5

31,0 m

Handling on dry

1

8

Noise

1

7

Overall

3

 

 

Good results on ice

The shortest braking distance, bystry dispersal and the best controllability on snow

Very good controllability on dry and wet asphalt

The most low level of noise

 

Bridgestone Noranza 001

Criterion

Pos.

Value

Braking on ice

7

11,8 m

Acceleration on ice

4

4,37 s

Handling on ice

4

43,7 s

Handling on ice (subjectively)

5

8

Overall

5

 

Braking on snow

7

13,1 m

Acceleration on snow

7

4,15 s

Handling on snow

4

33,9 s

Handling on snow (subjectively)

6

8,5

Overall

7

 

Braking  on wet

6

36,9 m

Handling on wet

3

31,5 s

Handling on wet (subjectively)

7

7+

Braking  on dry

1

30,2 m

Handling on dry

6

7

Noise

3

6

Overall

4

 

 

Acceptable controllability and exact reactions to turns of wheel on snow and ice

Rather long braking distance on snow and ice

Long braking distance on wet asphalt

The slowed-down reactions on asphalt

 

 

Tests for efficiency of dispersal and braking on ice were carried out at first in the open air then were duplicated in special polygon with controlled conditions. The average result of all arrivals was considered. On ice-covered surface have won against tires Michelin with record quantity of thorns all tests, and the second place was divided among themselves by Hankook and Nokian.

Tests on snow were carried out both on polygon, and in the covered complex, and Continental have been recognized the best in this part of tests. At the same time their domination was not such explicit as Michelin on ice, and in general between tires had less expressed differences. Again Hankook gets the second place.

In tests on asphalt the best were tires Nokian, and inexpensive tires Sava which in tests on snow and ice lagged behind leaders have got silver. Michelin have shown surprisingly high performance of braking on dry and wet surface, but they had problems with controllability, especially on the irrigated track.

 

VERDICT 

The main issue of winter season was as Michelin with record quantity of thorns in direct comparison with the leading competitors will prove to be. Results were to some extent predictable, and Michelin in which about 250 thorns are established have shown the good results on ice among all tires, having won unconditional first place on this indicator. At the same time in Moottori have emphasized that Michelin has weak indicators on wet covering and it needs to be considered. According to experts, more balanced it is necessary to consider tires Continental (which besides became the best in tests on snow) and Nokian.

 

 

 

Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

1

7

5,74

5

Braking on ice

3

7

15,31

15

Handling on ice

6

7

83,3

15

Overall

10

7

 

35

Acceleration on snow

5

1

5,77

5

Braking on snow

5

1

18,35

5

Handling on snow

6

7

94,8

15

Overall

16

5

 

25

Braking  on wet

2

8

63,86

10

Handling on wet

2

7

40,13

5

Overall

4

8

 

15

Braking  on dry

5

2

52,08

5

Handling on dry

2

7

 

5

Overall

7

3

 

10

Fuel consumption

10

1

4,12

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

1

62,4

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

1

66,4

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

1

67,0

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

1

69,4

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

5

1

 

5

Overall

52

 

 

100

 

Tests have shown that frictional tires do not concede studded on snow, but begin to lag behind hopelessly on ice-covered surface. Besides, soft rubber mix worsens riding qualities of not spiked tires on asphalt, and on wet covering their braking distance was significantly longer, than at tires with the established thorns. At the same time frictional tires have advantages in respect of the noise level and rolling resistance.

Nexen WinGuard WinSpike WH62

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

1

8

6,98

5

Braking on ice

3

8

17,69

15

Handling on ice

3

8

86,4

15

Overall

7

8

 

35

Acceleration on snow

2

8

6,40

5

Braking on snow

3

8

19,11

5

Handling on snow

6

8

97,5

15

Overall

11

8

 

25

Braking  on wet

6

6

58,28

10

Handling on wet

4

4

39,56

5

Overall

10

6

 

15

Braking  on dry

4

3

52,14

5

Handling on dry

3

4

 

5

Overall

7

3

 

10

Fuel consumption

6

4

4,30

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

3

67,2

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

4

69,4

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

2

70,4

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

2

71,8

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

4

2

 

5

Overall

45

 

 

100

 

Low level of noise

Though in Nexen have also increased quantity of thorns, they, seemingly, have also reduced their ledge to reduce damage to roadbed owing to what on ice of the tire have taken only the last place in all three disciplines

Coupling on ice is even worse, than at frictional tires

The highest rigidity of rubber mix among the tested tires in addition has worsened indicators in winter conditions

Low indicators on asphalt, despite rigid rubber mix

 

Yokohama iceGUARD iG65

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

4

4

4,30

5

Braking on ice

9

6

12,23

15

Handling on ice

6

6

81,5

15

Overall

19

6

 

35

Acceleration on snow

4

3

6,03

5

Braking on snow

5

3

18,40

5

Handling on snow

6

6

94,5

15

Overall

15

7

 

25

Braking  on wet

8

4

56,47

10

Handling on wet

5

1

39,19

5

Overall

13

1

 

15

Braking  on dry

4

6

52,80

5

Handling on dry

4

1

 

5

Overall

8

2

 

10

Fuel consumption

8

2

4,19        

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

5

67,6

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

8

70,8

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

3

71,0

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

3

72,4

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

2

5

 

5

Overall

65

 

 

100

 

Short braking distance on wet asphalt

The drawing with wide cross grooves and cross located thorns is designed to increase efficiency of dispersal and braking on ice and snow, but at the same time side stability suffers and controllability worsens

During the movement thorns begin "to sing" unpleasantly because of what assessment for noisiness has been lowered

 

Bridgestone Noranza 001

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

4

3

4,12

5

Braking on ice

12

3

11,61

15

Handling on ice

12

3

76,9

15

Overall

28

3

 

35

Acceleration on snow

4

4

6,05

5

Braking on snow

3

7

19,06

5

Handling on snow

9

5

93,2

15

Overall

16

5

 

25

Braking  on wet

4

7

59,53

10

Handling on wet

2

8

40,20

5

Overall

6

7

 

15

Braking  on dry

3

8

53,86

5

Handling on dry

3

4

 

5

Overall

6

7

 

10

Fuel consumption

8

2

4,19

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

7

69,0

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

6

70,2

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

7

73,0

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

8

74,8

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

2

5

 

5

Overall

66

 

 

100

 

High thrust effort and effective braking on ice (but nevertheless it is worse, than at Continental and Nokian)

Rather long braking distance and weak side stability on snow

The longest braking distance on dry asphalt (tires are obviously oriented first of all to conditions of severe winter and badly work in warm weather)

 

Gislaved Nord*Frost 200

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

3

5

4,71

5

Braking on ice

9

5

12,05

15

Handling on ice

9

4

80,9

15

Overall

21

5

 

35

Acceleration on snow

4

4

6,05

5

Braking on snow

4

4

18,76

5

Handling on snow

12

3

92,1

15

Overall

20

3

 

25

Braking  on wet

8

3

55,83

10

Handling on wet

4

5

39,66

5

Overall

12

4

 

15

Braking  on dry

4

5

52,53

5

Handling on dry

2

7

 

5

Overall

6

7

 

10

Fuel consumption

6

4

4,30

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

2

66,0

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

2

68,4

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

5

71,8

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

4

73,2

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

3

3

 

5

Overall

68

 

 

100

 

The fact that tires are made under Continental control is noticeable by their predictable behavior on coupling limit on snow where Gislaved has very good time of circle

Too high softness deprives of the stability tire on asphalt

Rather weak results on ice that is connected with low quantity of thorns

 

Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

2

6

5,10

5

Braking on ice

12

4

11,66

15

Handling on ice

9

5

81,3

15

Overall

23

4

 

35

Acceleration on snow

3

7

6,09

5

Braking on snow

4

6

18,93

5

Handling on snow

12

4

93,0

15

Overall

19

4

 

25

Braking  on wet

10

1

55,09

10

Handling on wet

3

6

39,90

5

Overall

13

1

 

15

Braking  on dry

4

4

52,38

5

Handling on dry

3

4

 

5

Overall

7

3

 

10

Fuel consumption

6

7

4,39

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

4

67,4

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

3

69,0

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

4

71,4

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

6

73,4

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

3

3

 

5

Overall

71

 

 

100

 

Have not afforded apparent defects in one of disciplines (if not low quantity of thorns, could apply also for victory)

Acceptable results on ice and snow (though in sharp turns there is understeer)

The shortest braking distance on wet asphalt

Short braking distance on dry asphalt

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

5

1

3,97

5

Braking on ice

15

2

10,67

15

Handling on ice

15

1

73,5

15

Overall

35

1

 

35

Acceleration on snow

5

2

5,79

5

Braking on snow

5

2

18,38

5

Handling on snow

12

2

92,0

15

Overall

22

2

 

25

Braking  on wet

6

5

57,88

10

Handling on wet

5

2

39,28

5

Overall

11

5

 

15

Braking  on dry

3

7

53,59

5

Handling on dry

4

1

 

5

Overall

7

3

 

10

Fuel consumption

6

6

4,36

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

8

70,0

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

7

70,4

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

7

73,0

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

4

73,2

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

2

5

 

5

Overall

83

 

 

100

 

Bystry dispersal, short braking distance and excellent controllability on ice and snow (everything is typical for the Finnish brand)

Bystry reactions to turns of wheel and neutral behavior allow to derive true pleasure from driving in winter conditions

Rather long braking distance on dry and wet asphalt (because of what Nokian also could not win this time)

 

Continental IceContact 2

Criterion

Points

Pos.

Value

Max

Acceleration on ice

5

2

3,99

5

Braking on ice

15

1

10,59

15

Handling on ice

15

2

74,6

15

Overall

35

1

 

35

Acceleration on snow

4

4

6,05

5

Braking on snow

4

5

18,88

5

Handling on snow

15

1

90,5

15

Overall

23

1

 

25

Braking  on wet

8

2

55,67

10

Handling on wet

5

3

39,36

5

Overall

13

1

 

15

Braking  on dry

5

1

51,63

5

Handling on dry

4

1

 

5

Overall

9

1

 

10

Fuel consumption

4

8

4,59

10

Internal noise (31 mph)

 

6

68,0

 

Internal noise (43 mph)

 

5

70,0

 

Internal noise (56 mph)

 

6

72,6

 

Internal noise (68 mph)

 

7

73,8

 

Internal noise (subjectively)

2

5

 

5

Overall

86

 

 

100

 

Together with Nokian have shown the best results on ice (differences so insignificant that they can be not considered)

Good traction and brake properties, and also predictable behavior and excellent side stability on snow

Very short braking distance on dry and wet asphalt (indicators on asphalt as a result have allowed Continental to bypass Nokian and to win first place)

High noise level

High-fuel consumption

 

 

Spiked tires quickly evolve, and in the test of this year there is no model which would have less than 130 thorns, and at the majority their quantity has grown to 190. The number of thorns can be increased if the producer has proved that their impact on roadbed keeps within the framework determined by the legislation. One of the main novelties of season - Michelin X-Ice North 4 - possesses already 250 thorns, but, unfortunately, the company does not provide the new products on tests before entry into the market therefore they did not participate in these tests. The prime minister it has been announced in March whereas Swedes carry out the tests on snow and ice in February owing to what Michelin with record quantity of thorns will appear only in the following tests.

Tests in winter conditions have been carried out on polygon "White hell" to Ivalo (Finland) at temperature from-8 to -1 °C and rather low humidity. Then frictional tires about which it will be told later have been tested. Tests on dry and wet asphalt were carried out in May in Tampere (Finland) at temperature from +5 to +14 °C. In all tests Volvo V40 was used, and only profitability was measured on Volvo V60.

Dispersal on ice

The quantity of thorns, and those tires at which is them more obviously affects results, possess higher thrust effort on ice. At the same time Nexen in which 190 thorns, take the last place and concede even to frictional tires.

Braking on ice

Continental and Nokian - obviously the best, it is also worth noting quite good result of Goodyear at which, as well as at Gislaved, "only" 130 thorns. Nexen show unsatisfactory result again.

Controllability on ice

Nokian and Continental "act in own class" as they behave steadily regardless of situation. At the same time in respect of controllability on the first place have delivered to Nokian. Yokohama had explicit problems, and Nexen definitely want to take the last place in final rating.

Dispersal on snow

On soft snow advantage is got by not spiked tires winning first place. All spiked tires have acted almost equally, and noticeable shortcomings are visible only at Nexen.

Braking on snow

Nokian and Yokohama could be compared to frictional tires, and the braking distance of Nexen on half-meter is longer.

Controllability on snow

After three circles on the snow-covered route Continental have been recognized as the best, Nokian and Gislaved whereas at Yokohama rather weak cross coupling, and not spiked tires quickly go into skid and slowly leave it.

Braking on wet asphalt

On wet covering frictional tires hopelessly lose, and their braking distance of boleen four meters is longer, than at the worst of studded tires.

Braking on dry asphalt

Frictional tires on dry asphalt possess more effective braking, than on wet, and among spiked tires the best for steel Continental. At the same time Bridgestone and Nokian in rather warm weather had had noticeable problems.

Results of other tests

Fuel usage was measured with use of Volvo V60 on the constant speed of 80 km/h. Noise was evaluated in Volvo V40 salon within 10 seconds, and pilots also gave to tires value judgment for noisiness.

 


Summer tyre tests


     


Winter tyre tests