Below are all the data points for the 2015 AutoBild All Season Tyre Test, displaying how each tyre performed across all test categories. The spider chart below provides a complete overview of performance, where one hundred percent represents the best performance in each category. The larger the area covered by each tyre's plot, the better its overall performance.
How to read these charts:
For each test category, data is presented relative to the best performing tire. The direction indicates whether lower or higher values are better - pay close attention to this when interpreting results.
Spider chart cannot be displayed because there are no test categories common to all tires.
7000 klm after, this is my 3d review and still very satisfited with CrossClimate to dry and wet both, the wear also still great, seems that they have strong materials. Finaly i tested them at snow. First of all you don't stuck nowhere! Even to snow or ice. When you start once, you have the full command of the car. They are not for WRC but they are ownest and do the job. Dont forget, they are summer tyres! And also very good to snow, not top but very good! Better than all weathers and almost equal to winters. Overall is the most complete summer tyre ever made for all weather conditions!
Hi there! Interesting to compare that Nokian Weatherproof is again number 1 and wins over vector4season in new Auto Zeitung 2015 All Season test ...
Very interesting! We will look for this today
I await your write-up! ;-)
Though I'll have a look myself if I have time...
Can't find it, got a link?
Short test result is on Nokian web page, copy paste Nokian Weatherproof "TEST WINNER“ Auto Zeitung 22/2015 “Nokian Weatherproof is the benchmark on snow and on the wet road - test winner”. Best performance on snow and wet asphalt. The quietest - highest score
in the noise test. “Nokian is the fastest and most stable tyre in the
test on snow.” Highest score with slush. “Highest safety with
aquaplaning, short braking distances, good wet grip, safe driving
properties on the wet road. “Exact steering, reliable driving behaviour -
that makes the Nokian fast on dry surfaces.”
It seems that currently whole test is available only in Auto Zeitung 22/2015 paper edition or like epaper. Probably it would show up on the web soon.
Hmm, well there is no doubt that the Nokians are the best winter tyres, but wet and dry, I don't know, will be interesting to see the scores.
As soon as we find this we'll publish the results. It's worth bearing in mind, the European publications are very kind with their overall results, often crowning more than one tyre the winner. This means more than one tyre company can put out press releases saying they've won
I've noticed that, manufacturers who com in the top 3 claiming to have won, then reading the article I find they technically haven't, but are second or third...
Auto Zeitung Test with Nokian Weatherproof as overall Test Winner is available online as Auto Zeitung 22/2015 epaper edition. You can buy it for 2 Eur online.
Agree, I would only use these as a winter tyre personally not all year round.
Still can't find the test, I see the intro text on the site, but no results ...
Hi TyreReviews,
which characteristic is most important for slushy roads? I mean rather wetslush, no snowslush. I think that aquaplaning results give me the answer.
For slush it will be worth looking at the whole test on the Auto Bild site and looking at a combination of the snow and aquaplaning performances.
I know the Dutch ANWb tested the Quatrac3 as being really good at slush, it was even better than wintertyres and to my surprise also than the Goodyear V4 (but not gen2).
I made a little chart with what I think is a better conversion of the Autobild ranking.
You can check it here :
http://CS-SDS-02.synology.me:5000/fbsharing/CKd1STVl
Sounds good but link doesn't work!
Edit: it's only half a link, copy and paste the whole line and it works, I'll have a nosey...
Good table, makes a lot of sense and the comparison much easier!
I agree that putting percentages is clearer, and a little table like that at the foot of the page wouldn't take too long to rustle up as a nice addition.
Yah, note that I did remove the price out of the equation, prices change and are not everywhere the same. This way you can compare with your local dealer prices. If you can get a promo or a good deal on for example the Vredestein, it might be a better choice than the test winners.
I also downgraded the weight of Comfort and upgraded the weight of Value. For Value the Milage and Wear are weighted 50/50.
About the link, I can't fix it, it is because a custom tcp port is used and the editor here doesn't give the option to manually edit it.
Here is the excel file, so you can play around with it yourself
http://CS-SDS-02.synology.me:5000/fbsharing/fGynWBMf
*Jonathan Benson*
Tyre Reviews
www.tyrereviews.com | [email protected] | +44 (0) 7879 423185 | @TyreReviews <http: twitter.com="" tyrereviews=""> on Twitter
I can't agree, Tyrereviews gives a 6 on 10 ( 60% ) for Dry for the Goodyears, while a correct percentage would be 75%
75% is using the same weighting as Tyrereviews uses. Only using the handling and breaking from the Dry tests., as Tyrereviews does.
It is not about the weighting it is about the conversion of the rating from Autobild ( 1+ to 6 ) to a score between 10 to 1.
What Tyrereview does is cutting of the scores below 4+. and giving everything below 4+ a score of 1.
Furthermore when the Michelins get a score of 8,5 ( by Tyrereview ) it gets rounded up to 9.
The numbers are skewed, either way you look at it.
You raise an interesting point, thank you. We'll look to improve this for next year's Auto Bild test, but as always we recommend reading the article source where possible, as we summarise the data.
Our raw data from testing the CrossClimate against other tyres can now be found here:
http://www.tyrereviews.co.u...
This should help you make your own mind up.
Thanks for considering it.
@TyreReviews:disqus I would like to know how you converted the 1+ to 6 rating from Autobild to the number scale you are using.
Because how can a 1- for the Wet for the Goodyears in Autobild translate to an 8 on your scores, while the 1- for the Dry for the Michelins in Autobild translates to a 9 on your scores?
Edit : I think I understand how you did it, but by doing it the way you did you skewed the numbers.
The way you calculated it, the Michelins got an 8 + 9 for the Dry ( not countng comfort and noise ), which results in a 8,5, then you round up to 9.
But the scale goes from 1+ to 6 not from 1+ to 4+. 1- and 2+ lie much closer together than what you make it out to be.
Hi Ibe,
We explained it in the other thread, but here's the explanation again :)
Unlike Auto Bild we categorise rolling resistance and comfort outside of "dry" performance, so we try and average out the dry handling and dry braking scores were possible, to give a total. In the example of the Michelin, the score was 1- (8) for dry handling and 1 (9) for dry braking. Where there's no way of averaging cleanly, we put the preference on dry braking, which gives the Michelin a score of 1 (9).
I hope that makes sense.
It makes sense, I did 2 more edits, maybe you didn't see them, but the way you do it, it makes the differences bigger then they should be, especially with a 6 for Dry for the Goodyears and a 9 for Dry for the Michelins ...
Also a 4 for the Michelins for Snow is really low, on a scale of 1 to 10 that would be failed. But that is not the case at all. 3+ is still above 50% on a scale of -1 to 6.
If you would want to scale it properly you should put the -1 to 6 at a scale of 100% to 1% ( in steps of 6,2 )
Which would result in :
Goodyears : Snow 75% - Wet 88% - Dry 75%
Michelins : Snow 63% - Wet 81% - Dry 91% ( avg of 94% and 88% )
And then you can let the readers make their own weighting.
Are you seriously still falling for that marketing hype? The Michelins are made for year round driving, other All Seasons are made for year round driving. The CrossClimates are All Season tyres period, or are they only good for dry and snow? So you will be getting a seperate set of rain tyres?
Hi Ibe,
We agree that both tyres are all season tyres, but they really do go about it in a different way.
Having recently tested the CrossClimate against the Gen 2 Vector 4Seasons, the CrossClimate feels much more like a summer tyre and the Goodyear feels like a winter tyre. While the objective dry handling lap times were fairly close, the way the two tyres delivered the performance couldn't be further apart.
Sadly raw numbers only tell part of the story. We'll have a full write up on the site shortly.
I can agree with you there
About a week ago I bought a set of Cross Climate tyres due to positive feedback in media. And a very next day I found in Auto Bild, that I could do better with Vector 4 gen 2... Up yours journalists!
Better is a subjective thing, in the snow, yes, on a hot summer's day on a twisty road, no...
It depends where you'll drive this tires if mostly during wet/dry conditions during winter and on hot summer days CrossClimates are great tires. If you like to drive it in snow and you need to drive a week or more on snowy roads Goodyear and Nokian have better snow performance although Michelin will do the job too... It is all about priorities...
Well you fell for the hype. I always said to wait for a serious review of the latest versions of all the top tyres.
Nonetheless, the Cross Climates are good All Season tyres, only just behind the Vector 4 seasons Gen 2.
As others have pointed out, it depends on where you feel the balance of performance sits.
For us, living around London and doing way more dry and wet miles than snow and ice, we feel this test was weighted too much towards snow and wet, with only a small percentage on dry performance. With our driving patterns, a dry emergency stop is still the most likely emergency maneuver so we'd be happier with the CrossClimates for our personal use.
Yes, I think this evergrip thing needs to be made known to the masses (or at least all us who care) it shows thinking that the other tyre companies by and large seem not to care about, but all of us on the road do or should do...
Some interesting points here, trouble is there is no straight answer as preferences vary from driver to driver, so it's up to the individual to collate all the results and see which tyre fits their requirements the best.
I do agree though that non safety related aspects should be weighted less, yes a quiet tyre is nice, for example, but it comes way down the list in terms of saving lives/preventing injury/avoiding substantial costs for damaged vehicles, and so-on, which is what matters.
Pricing does come into the equation though, if money was no object I want the safest, best handling tyres, but say for example there was a 2% difference between the very best and the second best, but the second best was £30 less per tyre, I'd go for second best.
I think that tyres should be evaluated for their safety related aspects only, followed by a rating for cost, wear, comfort, efficiency and noise, of some sort, which the end user can use to determine themselves which is the tyre for them. Not sure exactly how this would be achieved off the top of my head tbh but just for the point of conversation...
Agree with your points there. My own opinion after reading a few reviews bow is that the crossclimates are the best overall for the UK, due to the milder winters. They have the strongest dry performance and with tyres on all year round there's more dry weather than snow and ice. There were close to the gen2 in the wet with pretty good performance and even though the snow and ice handling isn't as good as the gen2, the snow traction is pretty much on par with them I believe for getting up hills without getting stuck, and the handling is most likely superior to summer tyres in these conditions. Cheers
I'm really planing to buy crossclimate, as were I live we have very hot and dry summers and not so cold and also dry winters. Snow we get 3-5 days a year average, and only at night the temperatures goes below zero.
Last 7 years I'm driving only summer tires, Continental Premium Contact, which are great for most of the year except the snow days, and the wear (or the lack of it) is outstanding. I've covered 57000km so far with them and they have still 4mm left.
The AB test is giving more emphasize on dry and wet tests, less on snow. The weight is 30% for both wet and dry and 20% for both snow and cost.
And if you count without the cost, the standings would be a little different from 3rd-6th place. First two will still be the same, than third will be Vredestein, fourth Nokian, fifth Pirelli, sixth Hankook. The last will also stay the same.
I downloaded the pdf AB magazine from here (the tyre test is in No. 39)
http://www.world-of-files.n...
full Autobild test here for 2€ with column charts:
http://www.autobild.de/heft...
Auto Express All Season Tires Test 2015 here, much better testing of tire performance, entire magazine including All season tire test:
http://www.pressreader.com/...
If I understand AB implied wighting they used 5 out of 8 results of completely safety unrelated results ( price/cost, wear, noise, rolling and comfort) and they missed to evaluate safety critical aquaplaning and possibly ice! So in my opinion Auto Express 2015 test is much more usefull in real world scenario. Sorry AutoBild but in my opinion this test is pretty unimpressive.
Right, in that case it appears a weird weighting to me. 21% to resistance, noise, price is a very high percentage. Also 29% for snow is rather high. Maybe with a non-weighted calculation (excluding resistance, noise, etc.) we would already get a better result.
Edit:
I tryed summing all the important items of Auto Express test (without weighting) and I get this:
1st Nokian, 2nd Continental (winter tyre), 3rd Goodyear
Probably this ranking would be too biased on winter performance, as dry items are only 2 out of 11 (the others: 4 for snow, 2 for aquaplaning, 3 for wet).
I understand that the tyre that is labelled "4 seasons" should be able to face any enviroment but I think that some situations are more difficult to face, and in my opinion they should include situations like aquaplaning and ice (that I don't find in the items) in the test for a "safe" tyre.
Interesting to see such different results from AutoExpress test. Isn't it questionble to test the tyre price? It doesn't hold at all on the road. Also a lot of people noticed that there is discrepancy between real life pricing and results for tyre cost. For example Goodyear is soo expensive yet they gave it 8 points for cost. On the other side better priced Nokian Weatherproof 1st (winner) in Auto Express 2015 All Season Test got only 4 points for tyre cost. It seems also that this test is missing one important result aquaplaning (straight and curved) results. However both magazines agree about snow performance results :-)
The Auto Bild price column is actually tyre price / wear, the Nokian scores poorly due to high wear, and while the Michelin is probably the most expensive tyre on test, it also does the most miles so the price per mile works out well.
I understand price/wear score, although tyre cost really does not affect performance on the wet, dry or snow. It is interesting to mention that Nokian scored 1st 100% in aquaplaning curved in Autoexpress test yet Goodyear scored only 57% in the same test. It seems that in this test aquaplaning which is critical performance result specially in autumn/winter is not rated at all?
Aquaplaning tests have huge variances based on tyre size and water depth. In this test, Auto Bild only tested straight line aquaplaning.
European studies have shown that less than 1% of all accidents involve aquaplaning, which is pushing the tyre industry into focusing in areas with greater safety benefits. To score well in aquaplaning you need a large void area in the tyre, which reduces the amount of rubber on the road, and the dry and wet braking potential.
I can understand that less than 1% of all accidents involves aquaplaning, but I think that in these cases accidents are in worse situations. I think that aquaplaning typical accident is with a car running at high speed (as the tyre "floats" more easily at higher speeds) and in that case the consequences are usually dramatic.
I guess most of accidents happen in city traffic (the more cars, the more chance to have an accident) at lower speeds (for example a car in a queue that doesn't brake in time, because the driver is distracted talking at phone) and luckly most of them are not deadly. In such cases a tyre good for dry/wet condition could save from the little accident and for statistics could be the right choice, but I am not sure it would save many lives.
For instance I am checking 2012 statics of Italian accidents. Most of accidents happen in urban streets: 141715 with 1,10% of deaths, on motorway accidents are 9398 with 3,51% of deaths, on suburban roads 35613 with 4,94% deaths.
Almost 76% of accidents happen in city, but most of deaths happen in the other 24% of cases. I think in these latter cases probably speed is higher and a sudden unexpected problem, like aquaplaning, might be fatal.
Good point maxghi, accidents induced by aquaplaning could have dramatic consequences and it seems that this test only partly evaluates aquaplaning at least they does not score it. At the same time this test evaluates tyre price/cost ratio which doesn't have any influence on tyre performance. Can anyone explain a bit how AutoBild weighted performance results and cost results in total results score because it is not equally important how much the tyre cost or how noisy it is or how good is at wet or snow breaking or aquaplaning, which is critical for most drivers.
I think in some ways they weighted more the score of dry/wet tests. I tryed to calculate the scores giving different weights to dry/wet and adjusting with the % of accidents happening in such situations (in Italy is about 78,8% for dry and 20,7% for wet) but in such case the winner would be Michelin (actually the absolute winner would be the Summer tyre) and Goodyear would be the 3rd. So probably they also considered cost and wearing of tyres that with safety have no relation.
In my opinion Auto Express did a better test, even for noise. They checked the noise inside the car and with different roads, while in Autobild magazine I can see a picture of a microphone staying on the street, outside the car.
Lately it pours very occasionally in Europe. When I experienced straight aquaplaning on my old tyres on highway at 140km/h, I reduced my speed to 90-100 and reached my goal safely without any further incidents.
So common sense is as good (or even better) than best "Anti aquaplaning tyre". But your brains would be useless if your tyre won't give you enough grip to move your car on snow.
Here in Italy (centre-north) in the last years, expecially in autumn, we are experiencing frequent heavy raining with water floods. In these cases people are generally aware of aquaplaning risk and probably go slower than usual. I think the problem is when you don't expect aquaplaning and you find it.
Common sense is at nr. 1 but I think the surprise effect is another big factor.
I agree about the snow performance of the tyre, also because if the tyre is not capable of facing snow, then it might worth using a summer tyre which, according to AutoBild tests, is not that bad in wet weather and usually have better performance in dry conditions.
By the way, when they test the tyre in dry conditions, they don't mention the temperature, but, from what I understand, summer/winter tyre performance vary much according to different temperature.
Then maybe it would be the case to perform the dry test in summer and winter weathers.
Interestingly at 205/55/16 I can get the crossclimate for £10 a corner cheaper than the 4seasons gen 2 after searching online for best price!
For the UK climate, this would be our choice. Elsewhere in Europe, the Goodyear might be the better tyre.
Really? Where did you look? I couldn't find em in that size less than 70-odd quid, but the gen2 I saw around the late 50's early 60's... I'd love to find cheap crossclimate's...
Fully fitted gen2 in 205/55/16 for £60? I couldn't find them for under £80 fitted. Black circles and tyre shopper are doing the crossclimates for just over £70 fully fitted at the moment though.. Which with the superior dry performance I'm going to go for, as I don't want to compromise summer performance too much. Cheers
I was quoting tyre prices without fitting.
Best bang for buck I have found in this size is quatrac 5 for £50 delivered from jungletyres, then add fitting and you're looking £60-65, but as you say crossclimate can be had for £74 fitted which is a very good price!
Got mine from Blackcircles in 205/55/16 for £71 a corner a month ago, including fitting. Was tempted by the Goodyears but they were far more expensive.
Just had a quick check on Blackcircles and they're charging £89.11 for the Goodyears and £73.68 for the Michelins. That's a crazy price difference.
Same load rating? That's very unusual, Michelin are definitely priced above Goodyear in the market!
Both 94V. I too was shocked, but if Goodyear want to price themselves out of the market that's their loss not mine.
Black Circles is now owned by....Michelin!
Indeed, I had trouble finding the goodyears cheap too. Just had my crossclimates fitted for £73 per corner (load rating 94), seem a little better comfort wise than the continental premium contact 2's I've just taken off and there doesn't seem to be any loss in handling or breaking in the dry from what I can tell so far.
I can't remember where it was but the gen 2 is available to purchase from somewhere, probably tyreleader, for shy of £60 which with fitting comes out on par with the michelin.
The Michelin however seems the new benchmark/No brainer choice for UK all season tyres, unless you live in northern Scotland or similar with really heavy snow, then the nokian would be the all season choice...
what about ice performance ? usually we dont have a lot of snow, maybe 3 days per year, but we have a lot of icy roads, because in mainland europe january and february can get to about -15 or even -20 degrees celsius
In climates where the temperature can fall to such extremes, the tyre companies would always recommend a dedicated winter / summer tyre combination.
If you were concentrating on ice performance in an all season tyre, the more sipes the better, which moves the CrossClimate further down the list.
Well zero degrees is not such extreme temp and testing all season tires performance on ice at least basic test would be beneficial.
Counting sipes and evaluating performance of a tire without really testing it sounds quite superficial doesn't it? In that way Nokian Weatherproof would be the winner or close to 1st place taking into count that it has much higher number of sipes than Cross Climate :)
True, the number of sipes doesn't entirely evaluate ice performance, as compound has much to do with it too (as I have found on my mtb where the soft slow rebound rubber that kenda/maxxis do so very well (different companies rule the cycle tyre world!) has fooled me into thinking the ice wasn't too bad until I got off the bike and turned into bambi...)
i use dedicated tires, for summer i have uniroyal rainsport 3, for winter falken hs 449, both are very good. But since i only do about 8000km per year (about 5000miles) i`m thinking about allseason tires for the future. But only if they became good enough, safety is still first prior.
Interesting, I would have expected the more winter-focused Nokian to do better in AutoBild's test, and maybe not so good in Auto Express'. Does anybody know what could account for such a big difference in results for the WeatherProof, apart from the Michelin maybe slipping in to take up a position? Anyway, both magazines seem to love the new Vector 4, at least there's something like unanimity on that one :-)
There will be variance due to tyre size, test parameters and the vehicle used, however it seems the biggest difference between the AE and AB tests is the weighting, with AB putting a greater emphasis on dry performance.
I agree and I think that for Nokian the difference in the two tests is big, too.
I am looking for an all season tyre good for wet roads and I noticed that strangely enough there is a parameter that Auto Express tested (and apparently Autobild did not) and that reports a huge difference between Nokian and Goodyear: "Curved Aqua"
They rated 100 to Nokian and 57,5 to Goodyear.
For "Straight Aqua" the ratings are near:
Nokian 100 and Goodyear 90,2
I have read the German version of the test but I don't speak German, so I am not 100% sure but from what I understand Autobild only tested Aquaplaning, not specifying what kind (curved/straight) and they rated approx the same value to both the tyres (difference is about 0,1%).