All thing being equal,would a studded tire really

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
Studs do help on ice, but are far worse to stop when on dry payment.


Tire Rack testing showed that studding a set of General Altimax Arctics decreased wet and dry braking performance by 5%, while improving ice performance by 35%. Not only that, but studdable tires usually perform better on wet/dry pavement than studless winter tires because they don't have to rely on soft rubber and excessive siping for ice performance. The studded tires outperformed the studless tires on the wet braking test in the Norwegian winter tire test I posted. Unfortunately, no dry test was performed.

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
I wouldn't believe all you read. Try it yourself in the real world then make a decision.


I have. So have almost all my friends and family. It's too bad I can't put you in the passenger seat of my buddy's S4 with studded Gislaved Nord Frost 5s for a demo! What studded tires have you used?

 

[eljefino]

Guys, studs are like religion. You may not convince someone by prosletyzing even if you have "proof".

List your conditions, anecdotes, vehicle, and area, so OP can match the closest up to his own conditions.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Hallmark
According to traction experts, yes. However, the best winter treads are superior to studded tires in most snow conditions.


What snow conditions would that be? In snow without an ice base, it doesn't matter whether the tire is studded or not, and studded tires work just as well in snow as studless tires.

Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Then, there's the angst over damage to road surfaces by studded tires.


Especially with the archaic TSMI studs that we still use in North America!

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Guys, studs are like religion. You may not convince someone by prosletyzing even if you have "proof".

List your conditions, anecdotes, vehicle, and area, so OP can match the closest up to his own conditions.


City roads here are covered in a continuously frozen snow/ice base from mid-November to early March, and the highways are kept clean within a day of a snowfall. Sand/gravel is applied to intersections, but often not until a day or two after a snowfall. We get a few big snow days every year.

I can understand why some people wouldn't want to use studded tires, even here. But the idea of studded tires being inferior on ice to modern studless tires is based on experiences with cheap or old tires that do not represent the performance of a modern studded tire.

 

[KST]

these are vids from the storm we just had

 

[spasm3]

I would be happy if most people would run either a true winter tire like blizzaks or studded tires. I hate it when people get out on the road with standard tires on a fwd or rwd and are a danger to the rest of us. Either run the correct tires or just stay off the roads and be safe!!!

 

[Jim 5]

The best way I can describe what studded tires feel like on ice and hard-packed snow is that they feel like some gravel has been spread on the snow/ice. In a sense, having the studs there does the same thing as gravel, the gravel just remains in your tires.

 

[odie]

Studded tires are better than those without . We did a motor route for over 10 years and the use of studs made for more control on those ice covered roads in the countryside and having to stop on slopes . As for bare pavement and very windy days can be tricky .

 

[AnnabelleR]

Hello,
I just run normal snows (I don't want a tire that wears out early then becomes a worn snow tire) and don't want to pay for it. If you don't drive much in the winter and the best part of the tire lasts a long time then they do well....

 

[Craig in Canada]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: Hallmark
According to traction experts, yes. However, the best winter treads are superior to studded tires in most snow conditions.


What snow conditions would that be? In snow without an ice base, it doesn't matter whether the tire is studded or not, and studded tires work just as well in snow as studless tires.

Originally Posted By: Hallmark
Then, there's the angst over damage to road surfaces by studded tires.


Especially with the archaic TSMI studs that we still use in North America!


@Hallmark: How are the "best winter tire treads" better than the best winter tire treads plus studs? As rpn says, studs aren't for snow (or wet, or dry) they are for ice exclusively.

Also, all of my comments assumed that we were talking about modern light weight Nordic stud systems, not some 1970s left-over technology kicking around for bottom dollar.

I'd bet that studded Hakkapeliitta 5s would out perform WS70s on ice any day of the week. I believe the Nordic tests show Hakka 4s doing just that (to the euro WS60 equivalent) with lots of margin. Ditto for Altimax Arctics (a rebranded, previous generation Gislaved tire at value prices).

Unlike some cheap, antiquated studded tires, modern Nordic winter tires still have most of the other traction features incorporated and don't rely on just the studs to get around so they still perform well in snow, slush, wet and dry. As others have said, getting everyone around me to run any kind of winter tire at all instead of talking on the cell phone while sliding around on bald all seasons would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

[Rand]

It depends on the tire heavily.

the top 6 modern snow tires werent available for that outdated 2006 canadian tire test.

I've used both.

As far as the second test I see a bunch of non us snow tires.

I'd like to see someone post a good link with modern studless vs modern studded tires.. widely available ones..

In the end any good new design snowtire will be lightyears ahead of an all season.. studless or studded isnt as big a difference as winter vs all season.

For my driving I went with cont. extreme winter contacts. I do like studded but for ohio weather I feel these are better.

IF you lived somewhere the road is never plowed, I'd probably be more likely to go studded.

Also it feels like these tires have 2-3x the ice grip compared to the dunlop winter M3 Sports I used to have.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Guys, studs are like religion. You may not convince someone by prosletyzing even if you have "proof".


I do get a little worked up when it comes to defending studs. I dream of a world where studs are allowed across Canada, where we have access to the best factory studded designs without pre-paying $2000 for a set of special order Hakka7s so we don't have to accept that the kid at the tire shop might install the studs poorly or use the wrong ones, where we use modern stud designs that reduce road damage and improve grip, and where enough people use them that salt, sand, and gravel are no longer required. Especially salt. I hate salt with a passion!

The important point is this: modern studless tires will have better traction on certain ice conditions than many studded tires, but not the best studded tires. Tire Rack showed this with the Blizzak outperforming the studded Winterforce on ice, the 2009 Norwegian test showed this with the studless tires outperforming the Tone Road Winguard (Nexen Winguard in NA) on ice, and the 2003 Swedish test showed this with a couple of studless designs outperforming the Kumho KW-11 on ice. I also have copies of reports from studies in both Alaska and Washington where the Blizzak outperformed an anonymous studded tire that they wouldn't even name. But these examples are not representative of a quality modern studded tire.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Rand
As far as the second test I see a bunch of non us snow tires.


Many of those studded tires can be found here in Canada, but it's not always easy to get them and it's even harder to get the factory studded versions. The Hakka7s are available factory studded from Kal Tire here (for big money), the factory studded ContiWinterViking can be special ordered from Canadian Tire for a reasonable price (I just found this out a couple days ago), the Pirelli Winter Carving is easy to find and sold on Tire Rack, the Hankook I-Pike is easy to find (I have four different friends using them), the Gislaved Nord Frost 5 can be found online (my buddy got them a few weeks ago), the Tone Road Winguard is sold at Walmart as a Nexen, and the Gislaved Nord Frost 3 is easy to find as the General Altimax Arctic. The studless designs from all manufacturers should be easy to find in North America.

 

[Rand]

I ordered up 4 conti EWC's WITH rims for 350$ where are the studded snow tires that will beat them I can order in?
I could have went with the generals but they were 50$ more.. and im not convinced an older design studded tire is superior to a new design studless.

Also the michelin xice is somewhat Mediocre at best.

the second generation xice (xice xi2?) is much better in every way and longwearing/durable. Its also T? rated

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: KST
Work better than a winter tire on ice?



Yes! At temperatures above approximately 5F. But at temperatures below approximately 5F non-studdable winter tires will begin to show a moderate advantage over studded tires when braking on ice. As temperatures rise to 30F, non-studdable winter tires rapidly lose the braking advantage they had at sub 5F temperatures.

Look at the graph and chart in this Russian test of winter tires at various temperatures: http://www.zr.ru/a/16906/

At -19C (-2.2F) the best studless tire requires 9.8m less to stop on ice than the worst studded tire. A significant advantage for the studless tire.

At -1C (30.2F) the best studded tire requires 58.3m less to stop on ice than the worst studless tire!! A monumental advantage for the studded tire.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Rand
I ordered up 4 conti EWC's WITH rims for 350$ where are the studded snow tires that will beat them I can order in?
I could have went with the generals but they were 50$ more.. and im not convinced an older design studded tire is superior to a new design studless.

Also the michelin xice is somewhat Mediocre at best.

the second generation xice (xice xi2?) is much better in every way and longwearing/durable. Its also T? rated


I'm sure the Continentals will be fine. Continental makes good winter tires. The X-Ice that was the highest-rated studless tire in the Norwegian test was the Xi2. The only test I've seen with the first-gen X-Ice was a Tire Rack test from 2007. They ranked it second out of four, behind the Blizzak WS-60.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Yes! At temperatures above approximately 5F. But at temperatures below approximately 5F non-studdable winter tires will begin to show a moderate advantage over studded tires when braking on ice. As temperatures rise to 30F, non-studdable winter tires rapidly lose the braking advantage they had at sub 5F temperatures.

Look at the graph and chart in this Russian test of winter tires at various temperatures: http://www.zr.ru/a/16906/

At -19C (-2.2F) the best studless tire requires 9.8m less to stop on ice than the worst studded tire. A significant advantage for the studless tire.

At -1C (30.2F) the best studded tire requires 58.3m less to stop on ice than the worst studless tire!! A monumental advantage for the studded tire.


Great link! It doesn't surprise me that the studless tires are better in the cold, because I do notice the studs don't dig into cold ice as well as warm ice, but it does surprise me that the difference is significant. However, it surprises me even more how big the difference is at warmer temperatures.

Leaving out the indecipherable Russian tire brand and comparing the Continental CWV2 and Michelin X-Ice North studded tires to the Blizzak WS-60, Nokian Hakka R, and Michelin X-Ice2 studless tires, the average braking distances are:

At -19C:
Studless - 31.3m
Studded - 37.4m (19% longer than studless)

At -13C:
Studless - 34.7m (1% longer than studded)
Studded - 34.4m

At -5C:
Studless - 54.9m (88% longer than studded)
Studded - 29.2m

At -1C:
Studless - 82.3m (149% longer than studded)
Studded - 33.1m

The studded tires are far more predictable, with the worst average stopping distance being only 28% longer than their best. The worst average stopping distance of the studless tires is 163% longer!

This is why it annoyed me when Tire Rack published the test that showed the studded Winterforce performing poorly compared to studless tires, while saying that they simply chipped the ice. If they had run that test at a variety of warmer temperatures, especially on wet ice, I think this Russian test makes it obvious that the Firestones would have been far superior to the others. The Norwegian test I posted accounts for temperature by performing "16-20 brake tests and the test series was repeated three times on different days and in different temperatures."

The studded continental performed much better than the studded Michelin at all four temperatures. For studless tires, the X-Ice2 was the best in the colder tests, the Nokian Hakka R was best in the warmer tests, and the Blizzak was the most consistent, taking the middle spot at all three temperatures. The Hakka R was probably the best overall of the studless tires, but not by a lot.

Even if the stud performance suffers a bit in cold weather because they chip the ice, at least they're doing something good for the next guy by roughing it up instead of polishing it!

 

[Rand]

They should do a followup with 10,000 miles on all the tires and see how much studded degrades vs studless. would be interesting for sure.

I'm not for or against either really.

My driving conditions made me choose a very good value studless tire.

If I lived in the middle of nowhere instead of a major city I may have went studded.

I had some cheap cooper studded tires on my 1994 t-bird and they made a very front heavy v8 car(RWD).. pretty much unstoppable.

 

[Craig in Canada]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Originally Posted By: KST
Work better than a winter tire on ice?



Yes! At temperatures above approximately 5F. But at temperatures below approximately 5F non-studdable winter tires will begin to show a moderate advantage over studded tires when braking on ice. As temperatures rise to 30F, non-studdable winter tires rapidly lose the braking advantage they had at sub 5F temperatures.

Look at the graph and chart in this Russian test of winter tires at various temperatures: http://www.zr.ru/a/16906/

At -19C (-2.2F) the best studless tire requires 9.8m less to stop on ice than the worst studded tire. A significant advantage for the studless tire.

At -1C (30.2F) the best studded tire requires 58.3m less to stop on ice than the worst studless tire!! A monumental advantage for the studded tire.


I have to take exception to your conclusions when you're comparing the best studless with the worst studded to draw a conclusion.

The OP said "all things being equal". That should obviously mean not comparing best vs. worst. That means something like comparing Hakka 4s with and without studs, or at least comparing among "bests" in each camp.

Your second quoted finding - the best studded outbraked the best studless by 58.3m - should be the answer.

 

[weebl]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
the 2003 Swedish test showed this with a couple of studless designs outperforming the Kumho KW-11 on ice.


I ran those non-studded once. I bought them when I lived in the Vancouver area, so they were suited for the conditions there, occasional snow and ice, but lots of rain and dry roads, temperatures rarely below -10C, and only sometimes below 0C. These tires are by no means good on ice (but still better than the old BF Goodrich Winter Slalom without studs), and were good in light to moderate snow. Not surprised they weren't great on ice with studs either.