Car & Driver - winter tire test

[Jetronic]

it does, but a true snow tyre like hakka is no good here in western or southern europe.... we get sleet, and rain more than snow, and if there's snow it's an inch or less, very exceptional 4 inches...

compares good to michelin alpin A5...

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: krzyss
Where?

WS80 beats Xi3 on ice in acceleration but looses in braking:

Tire

60' Acceleration (seconds)

12 - 0 mph Stopping Distance (feet)


Bridgestone Blizzak WS80 4.554 30.9
Michelin X-Ice Xi3 4.644 30.3

But in snow testing Bridgestone edges out Michelin.

Apparently Swedish snow was better for Bridgestone and Finnish snow better for Michelin.

CR does not post raw numbers and Xi3 and WS80 got matching circles in all categories except noise where Michelin was quieter. Maybe American snow was neutral ;-)

Krzys

Testing is one thing, driving on the roads is another. ANY winter tire will do decently on packed snow. Michelin has high-tech compound like other manufacturers and very dense tread pattern helps on packed snow.
However, that dense patter is downfall in deep snow and slush. Yet to hear anyone to praise them in Colorado mountains when s... hits the fan. They are good overall, but in blizzard situations or a lot of slush, they are far behind Blizzak's, Continentals or anything that has lot of space between tread blocks.

 

[DeepFriar]

I've only owned two sets of modern snow tires in recent years. A set of Happas at the recommendation of an Air Force buddy and Blizzak, I think WS-50's, on a Taurus about ten years ago. I was bowled over by both of them. I just was not expecting that kind of performance difference. The Happas were very, very good in snow I recall and the Blizzaks seemed to handle ice better than snow but were great for both. Prices for the Hakkas drove me to the Blizzaks if I recall. Gripping the ice on acceleration with them was like having a new toy. I was probably overconfident.

As an aside, I visited a place in Finland once called Rovaniemi just above the Arctic Circle where the Finnish military runs their cold weather trials. The interesting thing to me though (aside from the self propelled howitzer I was trying to upgrade) was seeing all the different manufacturers cars running around the general area doing the same thing. Didn't think to look at their tires though.

 

[rslifkin]

The biggest shock to me from the first time I drove on snow tires wasn't just how much grip there is, but how much slip angle you can get away with on slick surfaces.

Most all seasons let go completely at very low slip angles in the snow, which makes it very hard to use all of the grip they do have. Most snow tires will take much more slip angle without just letting go (and suffer less loss of forward drive while they're spinning too), so it's easier to push them to their limits.

 

[Rand]

This is very true. It also explains why you get sideways on all seasons much more easily.

Generally speaking:
You spin the tire and you are done with as low as 15% slip rate losing both forward and lateral traction. Where modern winter tires can maintain traction with slip rates as high as 75%.

 

[rslifkin]

Yep. And I tend to spend more time a little sideways with the snows on, as it's far more controllable and can be useful at times (can power the tail around a tight turn to keep from pushing the front end through it without much concern for losing the rear end completely).

 

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: krzyss
So this is famous Crossclimate that is available in the Europe.
I have never seen them before.

They do not look the like any other winter capable tire.

Krzys

PS
http://www.michelin.co.uk/tyres/michelin-crossclimate

"occasional snowy conditions" - that sounds like all seasons in the USA.


There are some interesting new tires in the European "all-weather" category. Nokian's version, called the WeatherProof, is a bit more winter biased than the Cross-Climate. If they wanted to, they could probably sell it in the North American market as a "performance winter".

https://www.nokiantyres.com/winter-tyres/nokian-weatherproof/

 

[ak737pilot]

I've been very happy with Blizzaks. The WS-60s I had on my Subaru lasted 6 seasons. I am very careful to swap them out when the temps rise above 45*f to prevent wear. My previous snow tires for the Honda were studded. The problem I've found with studded tires is that when the studs wear (>2 seasons?) they don't perform as well as the Blizzaks with comparable wear. I now have Blizzaks on all my vehicles for winter driving. (Except the Merc, which is in storage).

 

[harbor]

Depends on how much credence you place on anything from Car & Driver. They have fallen dramatically from their heyday in the '60's and '70's, and are now owned by Hearst (as is Road & Track) with many commonly shared departments.
I would rely more on Tire Rack reviews than anything from the soon-to-be extinct C&D.

 

[krzyss]

Do you suggest they cooked the results?

Krzys

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: krzyss
Do you suggest they cooked the results?

Krzys

I do not think so, but I also do not think that that resembles true road conditions.
I always found interesting how Michelin Xi3 is regarded as great in snow, but it is always tested in packed snow. What about slush? deep snow etc?
When I go to ski I have tendency to look at peoples tires, and I can say 8 out of 10 winter tires are Blizzaks. I think there is a very good reason for that.

 

[CapriRacer]

Just so everyone knows:

Tire traction testing is not easy and gives highly variable results. It doesn't matter if it is dry, wet or snow traction, it's difficult to get reliable and repeatable data.

In the case of snow traction, the snow conditions can vary considerably. There's a difference between light powdery snow and heavy wet snow - and you get different results. Further, you can get reversals - where a tire does well in one type and not in the other.

And slush? Define slush! How do you make it? Is it semi-frozen water or partially melted snow? How do you keep it consistent while you change tires on the test machine? Yup, not going to even try to test in that stuff!

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
Just so everyone knows:

Tire traction testing is not easy and gives highly variable results. It doesn't matter if it is dry, wet or snow traction, it's difficult to get reliable and repeatable data.

In the case of snow traction, the snow conditions can vary considerably. There's a difference between light powdery snow and heavy wet snow - and you get different results. Further, you can get reversals - where a tire does well in one type and not in the other.

And slush? Define slush! How do you make it? Is it semi-frozen water or partially melted snow? How do you keep it consistent while you change tires on the test machine? Yup, not going to even try to test in that stuff!

That is my point, it is not replicating real driving conditions, and it should serve as information, but not as something carved in stone.
I always take into consideration peoples experiences and then make decision combining test results.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
When I go to ski I have tendency to look at peoples tires, and I can say 8 out of 10 winter tires are Blizzaks. I think there is a very good reason for that.


That's great, and Blizzks ARE a phenomenal tire, but how do you know that the above is true because of superiority, and not all those schussers being either unable to, or unwilling to seek out various Nokians, or other brands??

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: edyvw
When I go to ski I have tendency to look at peoples tires, and I can say 8 out of 10 winter tires are Blizzaks. I think there is a very good reason for that.


That's great, and Blizzks ARE a phenomenal tire, but how do you know that the above is true because of superiority, and not all those schussers being either unable to, or unwilling to seek out various Nokians, or other brands??

True, but people her are very knowledgable about snow tires, especially those who spend time skiing. I mean I saw a lot of various tires on cars, Nokians, Conti, GY, Hankook etc, etc. And these are local ski resorts, not much tourists.
But, it is always that Blizzaks are dominant tire.

 

[Jetronic]

http://www.evo.co.uk/features/15600/michelin-cross-climate-vs-winter-and-all-season-tyres

Quote:
The tyre certainly looks good on paper. Compared with mid-spec Michelin winter rubber, braking distances shrink by a claimed 7.6 metres from 62mph. As much as 0.67 lateral G can be achieved during wet cornering too, just beating winter rubber (which one might expect to be more suited to the wet) by 0.01G. It’s also 0.05G more than mid-spec summer tyres can manage.






http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/Michelin-CrossClimate-First-Review.htm that's a test under summer conditions, and in the comments below is a user from Greece who used the tyres in 100°F+


Michelin claimes performance on snow equal to a winter tyre.




It'll work for me. If/when I need better it's snow chain time. Chances are I won't see snow or ice

 

[LotI]

Originally Posted By: krzyss
The C&D committed winter tire test. It is a little narrow as it tests ice and snow performance (no dry or wet to be found) but they did stopping, acceleration and handling tests.

Looser - Michelin Pilot Sport A/S ;-)

When they post it on the web I will add the link. For now it is in print.

Krzys

C&D test online now