Is Michelin changing the rating on some tires? I have French made CrossClimate SUV's on my car and they are A rated for traction. The model is being replaced by CrossClimate 2's, Canadian made with a B rating on traction. A B rating seems skimpy, especially for them
Change in ratings by Michelin
- Thread starter DaveSwan
- Start date
The cross climate 2 focuses more on treadlife.
And while I would always want a traction A rating.. the rating itself is somewhat not real life and garbage.
it involves mounting the wheel on a trailer and locking it up on a wet surface.
Cars arent trailers.. and most have ABS & traction/stability control.. just offhand 2 differences from real world to that test.
I wouldnt let that influence me to NOT buy the crossclimate 2's
the slightly worse wet braking is a tradeoff for the massively improved treadlife.
And while I would always want a traction A rating.. the rating itself is somewhat not real life and garbage.
it involves mounting the wheel on a trailer and locking it up on a wet surface.
Cars arent trailers.. and most have ABS & traction/stability control.. just offhand 2 differences from real world to that test.
I wouldnt let that influence me to NOT buy the crossclimate 2's
the slightly worse wet braking is a tradeoff for the massively improved treadlife.
Could be as simple as they changed their reference tire and the new tire is actually better in traction than the old.
Something people don’t realize is that tires which excel in the snow often trade wet traction for it. Snow is slippery which makes it hard to believe.
No doubt about it “ ya don’t get it both ways”. If you want a sticky tire you’re not going to get a extremely long tread wear .
Just an FYI:
There is a technology triangle for tread compounds that involves rolling resistance, traction (especially wet traction), and treadwear. To get better values in one area, one or both of the other areas has to be sacrificed.
OE tires (the ones that come on new vehicles from the assembly plant), use this to improve the fuel economy rating of the vehicle. That's why you'll hear so many complaints about wear and traction.
But there is a kind of loophole for this triangle and it involves the use of silica. Replacing carbon black with silica (which is a bit more expensive than carbon black) improves the wet traction with little loss in rolling resistance and treadwear, so the formulation of the tread compound can be altered to get better RR with no change in treadwear and traction. HOWEVER, there is an upper limit to how much carbon black can be replaced with silica, and the limit means such a change is only slightly better- enough to measure, not not nearly enough to render the triangle relationship as invalid. Tire manufacturers use this to adjust the RR/Wear/Traction to get the characteristics they want, albeit at a slight cost penalty.
There is a technology triangle for tread compounds that involves rolling resistance, traction (especially wet traction), and treadwear. To get better values in one area, one or both of the other areas has to be sacrificed.
OE tires (the ones that come on new vehicles from the assembly plant), use this to improve the fuel economy rating of the vehicle. That's why you'll hear so many complaints about wear and traction.
But there is a kind of loophole for this triangle and it involves the use of silica. Replacing carbon black with silica (which is a bit more expensive than carbon black) improves the wet traction with little loss in rolling resistance and treadwear, so the formulation of the tread compound can be altered to get better RR with no change in treadwear and traction. HOWEVER, there is an upper limit to how much carbon black can be replaced with silica, and the limit means such a change is only slightly better- enough to measure, not not nearly enough to render the triangle relationship as invalid. Tire manufacturers use this to adjust the RR/Wear/Traction to get the characteristics they want, albeit at a slight cost penalty.
Yup! Seems counterintuitive, but the BF Goodrich Advantage T/A seems to reinforce this. They do amazing in snow on the CX-5, but in wet (non-snowy) conditions they break traction very easily.
However the Triangle appears to be getting bigger.
We now have tires that are...
20% Lower Rolling Resistance.
10% Shorter stopping in snow.
10% Shorter stopping in wet.
2% better road holding in dry.
10% longer tread wear.
Much improved chip resistance.
All in one tire.
In less than a decade...
Technology moves the bar.
You wouldn't really be able to make a comparison looking at the sidewall for UTQG ratings, as dedicated winter tires are not required to have UTQG ratings on them.
What makes snow slippery is the thin layer of water that forms when the snow is slightly melted from friction due to contact of other surfaces. Tire companies try to exploit the snow-on-snow traction to help with grip. Making tires to exploit this usually means a trade-off in expelling water and slush.
When you make a snowman, you roll a snowball on the snow and the snow sticks to the snowball, which then increase its size as you roll over more fresh snow.
On the other hand, what makes a downhill ski (or snowboard glide) is some friction, melting a boundary layer of water for the glide
But, my Nokian WR G4 SUV is rated by Nokian 540 A A
But, you can also lean on EU tire label ratings, since that's mandatory. Looking at 205/55r16 tires:
the CC2 isn't in Europe yet, but the CC+ is rated B.
The Continental VikingContact 7 is rated E.
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3 is E
Nokian WR A4 (which is the basis of the G4) is B
Last edited:
That's a fantastic amount of detail. Do you have a make and model? Perhaps a link?
It may not be exact (I was going from memory but it's ballpark). It's from a fair number of different sources but primarily Consumer Reports, Tyre Reviews on Youtube, and Tire Rack Testing based on the newest tire designs vs some benchmark older tires. I will admit that I took.some liberties on benchmarks using testing from 5 years ago that included currently 10-year old designs and recent test that then included the latest as well as one of the best tires from 5 years ago.
i really like Tyre Reviews on YouTube as he does really good winter testing in Sweden. However you often have to read his actual report to get actual numbers as the Youtube Videos are pretty much a synopsis and don't include a lot of hard data.
i really like Tyre Reviews on YouTube as he does really good winter testing in Sweden. However you often have to read his actual report to get actual numbers as the Youtube Videos are pretty much a synopsis and don't include a lot of hard data.