Have you ever wondered exactly what differences rubber compound or studs can make to a winter tyres performance?
To find out, I test a Central European winter tyre designed for milder winters, a Nordic / Extreme winter tire, designs for countries which get more snow and ice such as Finland or Canada, and a studded tyre, designed for climates which have a lot of ice.
What will make more of a difference on snow and ice? Compound, or studs?
The test car is a VW Golf using 205/55 R16 tires. The tyres on test are the Nokian WR SnowProof, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3 and the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9.
Great test!
I wonder how the Michelin Cross Climate +, the Bridgestone Weather Control A005 and the Vredestein Quatrac 5 would behave in such conditions compared to a studded, a nordic or just a
european winter tyre, being those three the best summer bias All Season tyres on the market. After all, usually the ice comes first on the road before the snow.
We've seen the Michelin CC showing good results on ice, but how good are they compared to those tyres shown on the video?
https://www.tyrereviews.co.... (175/65 R14)
https://www.tyrereviews.co.... (205/55 R16)
Maybe in a future test...
You're on a roll, great test showing what's up.
It's a shame most european winter tyre test don't test on ice. It is certainly something to consider, in the same way dry performance can be relevant to a studded tyre even if it's not the intended main use.
Because the challenge is of course to further improve the compounds and threads so they perform both on ice and in the wet/dry.
Also something to consider, the studded tyres literally loose their edge as they wear especially if used a lot on bare roads, while compound remains even if thread reduces.