Michelin tire ratings
- Thread starter DaveSwan
- Start date
Maybe they went to a harder compound to get better wear??
B traction is actually pretty bad. The best is AA, then A, etc.
I would personally be inclined to shop elsewhere. I consider stopping distance as the number 1 consideration for tires.
I would personally be inclined to shop elsewhere. I consider stopping distance as the number 1 consideration for tires.
Traditionally, aren't tires that are better on snow worse on wet roads? I know people are thinking, snow is wet, how is that?
I think that is a "depends".
Snow tires often rely on a soft compound for a lot of their grip, or specifically rubber that stays soft in the cold. One of the reasons they don't last long in the heat.
Wet traction has to do with tread dispersing water out and away from the tire.
So you can have both soft compound and good water dispersion tread, but its not automatic.
Wet traction is locked tire. Michelin says with anti locks the measurement is useless.
That is 100% counter intuitive.
ABS works by releasing the tire rotation momentarily as soon as the tire starts skidding instead of turning. If the locked traction is better it will absorb more force before skidding, hence ABS will need to release for less time and less often - ie you will stop sooner.
ABS isn't magic - it simply stops the tire from skidding.
Do they have any explanation?
From another forum. Believe what you will.
I was reading the reviews for the Defender 2 tires this morning on the Michelin web site and ran into a review from someone expression the "B" rating for traction and this was the response from Michelin.
Consumer Care MIC US
"Sticks49, thanks for taking the time to submit a review on the Defender 2. We understand your concern and wanted to share a bit more information with you. The UTQG traction grade is a 40-year-old, locked-wheel wet braking test and is, in our estimation and in the estimation of the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association, a method that is outdated and inconsistent because all modern vehicles have anti-lock brakes. A braking test based on anti-lock brakes measuring peak adherence rather than slide adherence, which is better suited for today’s vehicle. Michelin has chosen to design tires based on anti-lock braking, not locked-wheel braking. This sometimes produces a lower locked-wheel result, even though our testing and independent testing used in claims show the MICHELIN® Defender®2 tire to have superior wet braking over leading competitors. This question is an excellent one and highlights why regulation needs to be updated and/or eliminated as technology changes and improves. Our testing and independent testing show that consumers will be very pleased with the wet braking performance of the MICHELIN® Defender®2 tire, not only in when the tire is new, but even as it wears."
Hermann
Site Donor 2023
Thank you for sharing.
I would agree that the relationship may not be linear - and they are correct in that the UTQG tests are antiquated. If they actually published their independent testing and who the independent was, and tested vs whom, I would actually be quite impressed.
Tire Rack tests some tires. Its quite interesting. For example:
I
Having purchased not one but two sets of CC2s, we found them to be the best-performing wet-weather tire in my wife’s spin-prone CRV. While I have no way of correlating the traction rating in a reasonable way, or even comparing to the first CC, we found the CC2 to be, for all practical assessments, an excellent tire.
Now - and maybe this is part of the rating, if pushed hard, the CC2 did not have strong lateral grip. In an aggressively driven RWD sedan, the rear end would absolutely come around - however it was so progressive with plenty of warning that I quite enjoyed it and found them very driveable. In an SUV which never saw those kinds of corner forces, the diminished lateral grip never showed up. Be that as it may, acceleration and braking was great both dry and especially wet.
Now - and maybe this is part of the rating, if pushed hard, the CC2 did not have strong lateral grip. In an aggressively driven RWD sedan, the rear end would absolutely come around - however it was so progressive with plenty of warning that I quite enjoyed it and found them very driveable. In an SUV which never saw those kinds of corner forces, the diminished lateral grip never showed up. Be that as it may, acceleration and braking was great both dry and especially wet.
If what Michelin is saying is true on outdated testing weren't the first ones also tested the same manner using outdated test methods but still performed better??
Does your second set have a traction rating of B? I have noticed a very strong relationship between the UTQG ratings and wet grip. AA is much much better than A even, the only tire I had the misfortune of a B rating was a uniroyal and it was junk from day 1(that was in 2004).
I would like to see a tire rack test with the Defender2 B traction michelin tires.... Well I looked it up, they aren't good...
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=330
Those sound like old junk tires to me, not much wet grip with a sharp fall off once they do slip... Tires with no wet grip do last and last though! The uniroyals we had, were 80-90k miles with way over half tread depth left! We tossed them anyways...
Both tirerack and Consumer reports was happy with CC2's with a B traction rating giving them 4/5 for wet grip, so it seems they work well, but CR hasn't reviewed the Defender2's yet.
Last edited:
Does traction apply only to breaking? How about acceleration and lateral cornering?
The traction rating test is specifically about stopping - or how much force can be applied before hydroplaning.
Presumably this helps those other things also, but stopping is what the test was really intended for.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
No. Tires that are better in ice are worse in wet.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Are you talking traction or resistance to hydroplaning? Those are two different things. My BFG Advantage Sport L/T on Pilot have excellent resistance to hydroplaning, and absolutely horrible traction.
This thread is very specifically about the UTQG traction test - and how one specific tire went from A to B.
The UTQG test is very specifically about wet traction.
Going further regarding Snow, ice and water.
Snow does not disperse - it compacts. Ice just "is" The traction on these surfaces has a lot to do about the rubber compound itself.
Water disperses, and if it doesn't its a lubricant. So if you want traction in the water you typically need to disperse the water, usually with both channels parallel and lateral to the direction of travel.
All other things being equal. So as I said, it depends. It is possible to have a snow tire work well in the rain, but not all snow tires do automatically.
