2022 Auto Bild All Season Tyre Test

wat is more important, dry braking or wet braking? This depends on where you are living .
We, in stuttgart have only 31 rainy days a Year.
And the goodyear is winning the compare. I d'ont understand the conclusion.

When they say projected wear 45.000 km, to what thread depth are they talking? 1.6 mm? Because if you are bellow 4 mm, you can't use that tyre any more during winter in Serbia. And since it is an all season tyre, yeah...

It's a shame we don't know the temperature these tests were done in. I'm more interested in brake distance in cooler wet weather, than warmer wet.

All this detailed information has left me with analysis paralysis, so let's see what the comments say. I'm in the UK, will mostly be driving north of Edinburgh with a few jaunts down to the North every year. I don't particularly care about price - if a good set of tyres stop me from hitting someone or skidding into a ditch once, they've paid for themselves a dozen times over.

Thoughts? I've been fiddling around with the custom score weights, and I've cut the list down to: Bridgestone Weather Control A005 EVO, Goodyear Vector 4Seasons Gen 3, Michelin CrossClimate 2.

Interesting results with rolling resistance vs real world fuel economy.

Perhaps the differences could be explained by:

Tyre weight (there is a weak positive correlation)?

Drag from the tyre sidewalls? I read that Bridgestone purposly designed the sidewalls on the Driveguard runflats to increase drag which would generate more air turbulance to cool the tyre better.

Deflection in the tyre?

Definitely something that needs to be looked into further in future tests if real world fuel economy results are so different than rolling resistance.

I also struggle to see how the Goodyear which stops 25ft further than the summer tyre in dry braking can be described as exemplary!!!!

I must admit I find German tyre tests a combination of the sublime - the extent and depth of their testing regimes which are truly impressive - and the ridiculous - their conclusions which are frequently frankly bizarre.

For example the Kumho beats the Michelin in only wet handling by one place and wet circle by 7 places. In every other dry, wet, aqua and snow test it is behind the Michelin - often by a margin Yet it is 5th and the French tyre 9th. So this test result is totally dependent on cost, wear and fuel consumption.

To prove my point further let's look at the Falken which is described as good and the Michelin as only fair.

In the dry tests the Michelin beats the Falken comfortably in both braking 1st to 10th and handling 3rd to 7th.

In the wet tests the Michelin beats the Falken in both braking 8th to 10th and handling 10th to 12th. In wet circle the Falken comes out on top 12th to 13th.

In aqua the Falken comes out on top in both straight 3rd to 7th and curved 8th to 12th.

On snow the Michelin wins comfortably across all four categories. In braking 2nd 12th to traction 1st to 13th, handling 5th to 12th and slalom 1st to 11th.

So apart from acqua the Michelin is massivly superior. Yet the Falken is good and the Michelin only fair!!!!!

Fascinating. I just put in a 40% dry, 40% wet and 20% snow ratio and nothing for price/wear and guess who came out top.

Michelin.

Clearly the Autobild test massively punishes Michelin and Continental for wear and price. Now these are important but ultimately I want the best tyre for braking, handling, traction etc. Given the cost of an accident both physical and monetary that trumps the cost of the tyre for me (others of course may have different priorities).