To stud or not to stud?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: mva
This is all interesting discussion.

My theory for winter tires is that dry traction is not really a significant factor. I buy a winter tire for safety during extreme conditions. I do not typically explore the dry traction limits of any tire in my vehicles. Even wet traction is vastly better than traction on ice.

Extreme conditions include going from wet conditions to sheets of ice on a highway trip when temperatures are near 0C, stopping at ice covered intersections, sharp corners on ice, emergency accident avoidance on snow and ice and traction in deep snow. These are the sort of conditions that can be very scary with an all season tire. I don't like that heart in the throat feeling when I am sliding towards another vehicle or the edge of the road while pushing the brake pedal through the floor.



Well, it depends. You're in Northern BC, I'm outside of Toronto. Most of my miles are in wet and dry and if something like studs makes wet/dry even worse than "typical" I have just decreased my family's safety (and my sporting driving pleasure, which is admittedly secondary in the winter anyways). I need to avoid accidents at 120kph in the dry just as much as at 60kph in the snow.

I'm living in a society which prefers all-seasons (and doesn't know the difference), shops for tires based on price alone (hey, they're round and black, right? Do they have a 120,000km guarantee?) and isn't full of truly knowledgeable people.

The trick is that snow tires have many more compromises than it seems summer (not all-season) tires do. Shopping for summer performance tires is easy compared to this. Within the High, max and ultra performance categories you spend more money and get more grip. Then you just need to worry about noise, or vehicle specific wear problems (German cars tend to need connected tread blocks about 1-2" in from the outside edges to avoid noisy heel/toe tire wear, for instance).

With snows you have so much more. Performance traction is opposite to winter traction, wet/dry is different than deep snow, studs or no studs, speed rating is opposite to winter grip, sipe wear is so much more sensitive than large tread block wear, the different mechanics of braking versus turning, on and on...

I thought the masses might be right on the M3s and I disagree. Now I'm pretty lost. Buying top of the line Hakka 5s w/ studs may have very little wet/dry traction. Buying great studless tires may be unsafe at speed. Buying performance snows might leave me still sliding all over. Nothing seems universally "best" in the snow tire world.

Quote:

For the BMW - I would look to try to find as narrow a tire as possible that would fit those rims and still maintain the same overall diameter. I don't know about the speed rating but I noticed the Goodyear Nordics look narrower than other tires for a given size.


I have already done this with the 225/55/16. This is the narrowest option on the E39 platform (except for possibly a 215 15" size). They only get wider from here. I'm not sure I'd like to mess around with altering from the recommended size. It's still a reasonably heavy car that corners hard in the dry and I still want dry/wet braking performance so I'm not sure I want to give up too much contact patch.

Quote:

Also, I always cross rotated my snow tires to reverse the wear on the stipes. This is not possible for directional tires.


I always front/rear rotated since all of my tires were directional until I got my summer PS2s. BMW doesn't recommend rotating but all of the North American owners still seem to do it. Someone who moved to Europe and continued to post in North American forums came back to clearly state that none of the Europeans rotate because of serious high speed stability problems, proving BMW's recommendation. I personally experienced a dramatic improvement in handling on a summer rotation where the two pairs were visibly identical (tread depth, appearance, scuffing, wear, same pressure split) but handled dramatically different. I now agree with BMW and will never rotate tires on a German car again. I stopped rotating my snows because one has a roadforce of 22 and causes vibration at 120kph that couldn't be tuned out to my satisfaction. That tire is permanently left as a right-rear.

I can feel that each sipe has heel/toe wear - from braking on the fronts and acceleration on the rears. Rotating would put the sharper edges doing opposite duty. When I used to rotate, it didn't really seem to help that much because it seems like they're still rounded off (as my photo shows) so they're still ineffective.

Sometimes I wondered if I really didn't need to just throw them on in the summer once and go and run them hard in some twisties. They still have 8-9/32nds left, but the sipes are shot. If I could shave about 1/32 off, maybe they'd be closer to new again.


Quote:

Back to my case. I hate to bring price and value into the discussion but I am seriously considering going a bit cheap and buying studded Nexen Winterguard tires from Walmart. Including studs they are $200 cheaper than the Goodyear Nordic and I havn't priced out the Hakka 5's yet.

What ever I decide - I will provide some feedback on how they work once winter arrives.


Hakka 5s w/ studs from my local dealer are $299ea installed (still plus taxes, I believe)
 
Last edited:
wow thats way too much money for the hakka's

My "dunflops" lasted 3 seasons and about 18000miles before they werent adequate.

the m3 sports balanced horribly from the start.. I had them balanced 3x and they were still horrible.

The conti's I mentioned are available in Load range XL, for heavier cars like yours they are aprox 90-130$ each depending on size. even if they only last 2 years I think you would be happier than with 300$ hakka's

You might go with the michelin xice xi2's they are susposed to have "long tread life" according to michelin.

honestly if the 2 tires I mentioned wont cut it.. you shouldnt be out in it.. as the snow would be ripping your bumpers off.
 
Originally Posted By: Rand
wow thats way too much money for the hakka's


Welcome to Canada. No rebates, no incentives, far worse prices than exchange rates explain. Synthetic oil is always $10/L here, or more. No rebates, no BOGOs. $4/gal is a good price for gas here.

As I mentioned, the cheapest thing on the list (Hakka RSi on promo sale) would still be $800 for the set.

Quote:

My "dunflops" lasted 3 seasons and about 18000miles before they werent adequate.

the m3 sports balanced horribly from the start.. I had them balanced 3x and they were still horrible.

The conti's I mentioned are available in Load range XL, for heavier cars like yours they are aprox 90-130$ each depending on size. even if they only last 2 years I think you would be happier than with 300$ hakka's


I highly, HIGHLY doubt they'll be $90-130 here, but I'll be checking it out. Shipping and import fees make tirerack not as attractive as in the US.

Quote:

You might go with the michelin xice xi2's they are susposed to have "long tread life" according to michelin.

honestly if the 2 tires I mentioned wont cut it.. you shouldnt be out in it.. as the snow would be ripping your bumpers off.


cheers3.gif
 
Last edited:
Visit a friend in detroit... road trip for tires. (alternatively buffalo)

I got mine shipped without rebate for 551$ I didnt do the tPMS sensors though.. for my car the sensors cost more than the tires... sigh.


Well you have to pick what makes you happy.. I wasnt trying to decide for you.. just share my experiences.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rand

Well you have to pick what makes you happy.. I wasnt trying to decide for you.. just share my experiences.




...and it's appreciated. I need more personal observations - it helps.

Thanks,
 
Originally Posted By: Craig in Canada

I have already done this with the 225/55/16. This is the narrowest option on the E39 platform (except for possibly a 215 15" size). They only get wider from here. I'm not sure I'd like to mess around with altering from the recommended size. It's still a reasonably heavy car that corners hard in the dry and I still want dry/wet braking performance so I'm not sure I want to give up too much contact patch.


We are definitely looking for different things. It is good that you are going as narrow as practical. You probably already know this but the contact patch does not change in total area when you go to narrow tires.

The contact patch area equals the load on the tire divided by the tire pressure. For example, assuming flexible sidewalls, a tire loaded to 900 lbs inflated to 30 psi will have a 30 square inch contact patch. Wide or narrow this total area will stay constant. For example, a wide tire could have a 10" by 3" contact patch whereas a narrow tire under the same conditions could have a 6" by 5" contact patch. For this reason a narrow tire will cut down to the pavement while a wider tire will tend to float on snow.

I visualize those 2 tires approaching a 1" deep puddle of water at high speed. The 6" wide tire has a much better chance of cutting through the water. The 10" wide tire gives the water a longer path to escape and will tend to float a lot easier.
 
Last edited:
To complicate this even more rubber compound and tread pattern also have a big role to play of course.
 
Originally Posted By: mva


We are definitely looking for different things. It is good that you are going as narrow as practical. You probably already know this but the contact patch does not change in total area when you go to narrow tires.


Yes, I do, and have had to explain it to others several times :)

The narrowest I think I could go is 215, which is only 10mm (
While the contact patch is the same, the shape of the contact patch changes. A wider but shorter contact patch improves lateral road holding (excluding standing water or snow effects). This is what I meant to communicate in the same paragraph as "corners hard".
19.gif


I think I'm going to submit some pretty direct questions to Nokian NA's technical email address and see what I get. Perhaps they'll be able to answer questions about characteristics of otherwise equal tires with and without studs.

After a bunch more reading last night (including some reviews in a Canadian Driving column written by an engineer) I'm leaning in the direction of the RSi, but am still wary of dropping all the way to R-rated albeit with 99XL load rating (stiff). The Contis are still on the list, but I think the PA3s are off the list based on some E39 series accelerated wear I've seen on the Pilot Alpin PA2 and Pilot Sport A/S series of tread patterns which are similar in layout to the Primacy Alpin PA3. I'm also going to seek out other E39 owners with RSis for opinions.

I think the WRG2s might not be "quite enough" in terms of winter traction, unless someone can tell me that they've had them work better in slippery conditions than Pilot Alpins, Dunlop M3 and 3D, and/or Pirelli Snowsport 210s. I think that going with studs might be going a bit too far with a growing list of cons and a list of pros I may not have the opportunity to use often enough. I think that some of the studdable Hakkas might be pointless without studs, but I'll see what Nokian says. Xi2s aren't available in the correct size but are in nearby sizes. I don't have a good personal vibe about Conti and the WinterExtreme are somewhat of an unknown - I haven't found much in writing comparing them to anything else. I'll continue to see what I can find out, and I know that these new tires may very well be 90%+ Gislaved which I do have a good vibe about (but they badly need a new web site).
 
mva:

Re-reading your original post, you state your conditions as "severe". Even in some of the rural locations in my area I wouldn't think twice about studs.

Hakka 5s are expensive, but if you end up with a set I'd love to hear about them. I would certainly go with Hakka 5s or possibly Hakka 4s which you might find on sale as opposed to some lower technology, old-fashioned tire that happens to have studs. You still have mixed conditions, not only ice, so you still need a modern tire design to maximize safety.
 
I would be careful with studs in Ontario, as I think they are banned in the GTA area, and only allowed in northern portion of Ontario, you don't want to spend all this money and get a ticket at the end, so check that to be sure.

H rated winter tires are nothing more than all seasons with deeper tread, you have to look for a lower speed rating, but they are much softer, so don't expect the same handling.

Also, some shops will not downgrade the speed rating, as customers later come back and complain that their car doesn't handle as well, but they don't understand that you can't have one without sacrificing the other.

As long as you understand that lower speed ratings provide better traction at the expense of handling and sidewall stiffness you will not be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I would be careful with studs in Ontario, as I think they are banned in the GTA area, and only allowed in northern portion of Ontario, you don't want to spend all this money and get a ticket at the end, so check that to be sure.

I wasn't going to bring this up publicly, but you are correct. They are technically banned until a line about 100km north of me. In that area you can run "Nordic" studs (no old-school heavy studs) and only during limited months. While I haven't directly asked a police officer, everyone I've talked to has indicated that since I'd be following the rest of the rules (lightweight Nordic studs, month restrictions) and live relatively close to the cutoff I would have to be "very unlucky" and "unlikely" to ever catch any heat over it.

How do they enforce it mid-winter? Stand at the road side listening for studs, then run every plate to see where your primary residence is, then pull you over? Never seen that before. Whip by a R.I.D.E. program with the studs on in July, however, and it might be a different story.

Quote:

H rated winter tires are nothing more than all seasons with deeper tread, you have to look for a lower speed rating, but they are much softer, so don't expect the same handling.

Also, some shops will not downgrade the speed rating, as customers later come back and complain that their car doesn't handle as well, but they don't understand that you can't have one without sacrificing the other.

I know my shop isn't going to do that. There would be trouble reconciling with my W/Z-rated summers then...
Quote:

As long as you understand that lower speed ratings provide better traction at the expense of handling and sidewall stiffness you will not be disappointed.


Yes, I do understand the trade-offs, but speed rating is only part of the picture. For instance, I found that my original Q-rated Alpins actually handled, braked and accelerated fairly well at city and rural speeds - sometimes better than the H-rated Wintersport M3s. The Alpins only had issues at Interstate speeds.

Not ending up with "Interstate donuts" is one of my primary considerations. Precision handling is down the list of concerns since I fully realize these are snow tires. I believe the load rating on the RSis is significantly higher than the Alpin Qs, but the Alpins have been gone for a long time so I'm not certain. Hopefully that speaks to carcass rigidity.
 
While I can surely understand that winter driving is variable, even in Canada, I really have a hard time with the debate over speed ratings. If you truly need the traction enhancements ..to the point of even pondering the need, then the "luxury" of having 120+mph capability out of the same tire just seems "odd" to me.

Luckily 75mph is about max cruise that my chassis are sensible to drive at (aerodynamics turn stuff into wet cement at 90+)..so even the lowest rating is good enough ..especially when severe winter conditions are the norm.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
While I can surely understand that winter driving is variable, even in Canada, I really have a hard time with the debate over speed ratings. If you truly need the traction enhancements ..to the point of even pondering the need, then the "luxury" of having 120+mph capability out of the same tire just seems "odd" to me.

Luckily 75mph is about max cruise that my chassis are sensible to drive at (aerodynamics turn stuff into wet cement at 90+)..so even the lowest rating is good enough ..especially when severe winter conditions are the norm.


I fully understand, that's why my winter tires a Q rated, and I've done multiple trips to Montreal (about 1200km round trip) with speeds up to 130kph and tires performed great. But having said that I can definitely notice the difference in handling and steering response, and my all seasons are H rated, but I fully understand the trade offs.

People's ignorance is the reason a lot of shops will not deviate more that one speed rating from OEM tires when going to the winter set up. They just don't want customers coming back and demanding a refund or another set of tires. And if you had V or Z rated tires, your car will handle very differently on snow tires and some people just expect the car to behave the same as on summer tires.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
While I can surely understand that winter driving is variable, even in Canada, I really have a hard time with the debate over speed ratings. If you truly need the traction enhancements ..to the point of even pondering the need, then the "luxury" of having 120+mph capability out of the same tire just seems "odd" to me.

Luckily 75mph is about max cruise that my chassis are sensible to drive at (aerodynamics turn stuff into wet cement at 90+)..so even the lowest rating is good enough ..especially when severe winter conditions are the norm.


As I've pointed out in other threads, the speed reading can be an indicator of other important tire properties.

My Q-rated Alpins were floaty FAR below their speed rating at everyday, dry/wet Interstate speeds. It wasn't theory or Internet debate, it was experience. I don't intend to repeat that.

Similarly, my Z-rated summer tires feel far superior to H and V rated tires without having to go 300kph to appreciate the difference.

My Hakka dealer indicated that the R-rated tires have soft outer compound which is the reason for the low speed rating (heat build up) but have a stiff inner carcass (he says the load rating indicates that) so it should be a decent handler and not a marshmallow at speed. Maybe - his primary goal is for me to purchase them. Someone else's R-rated snows may be completely different.

Cheers,
 
I find that any tires below H-rated that I've tried feel mushy in the corners, even when the tread is more summer-oriented, so I'd prefer winter tires with at least that rating. I don't care about speed ratings for the ability to drive fast, as the maximum speed I'd ever hit passing a couple of semis is 100 mph and I normally drive at the speed limit. However, I'm not willing to sacrifice deep tread or studs, so the winter tires I've bought range from Q to T.

For those who didn't or couldn't read the Swedish tire test posted, eleven of the seventeen tires tested were studded, and they took the top two spots and eight of the top ten spots when it came to braking on wet asphalt. Maybe they'd have done better without the studs, but they certainly didn't perform poorly because of them.

I try to go easy on my studs when the roads are clear, whether dry or wet, but I'll occasionally launch with them when the situation and my mood calls for it and they have plenty of traction for that. I've never reached their limits in cornering or braking on dry or wet pavement, but I've never reached the limits of my summer all-seasons either when it comes to cornering, so I can't compare that way. I did easily exceed the dry/wet limits a few times on a rental car I once had (unintentionally), so I can say that my studded Cooper Weathermasters have better dry and wet traction than the OEM all-seasons on a 2006 Malibu!
 
Originally Posted By: rpn453

For those who didn't or couldn't read the Swedish tire test posted, eleven of the seventeen tires tested were studded, and they took the top two spots and eight of the top ten spots when it came to braking on wet asphalt. Maybe they'd have done better without the studs, but they certainly didn't perform poorly because of them.

I have trouble being sure that I understand everything I see there, at least, but your points are interesting. I guess they do feel that the studded Hakka 4 is head and shoulders above the Hakka Q, which is probably about the same comparison as the present-day Hakka 5 w/studs vs. the Hakka RSi.

How is the noise on your studs in the dry at 100kph?

Quote:

I try to go easy on my studs when the roads are clear, whether dry or wet, but I'll occasionally launch with them when the situation and my mood calls for it and they have plenty of traction for that. I've never reached their limits in cornering or braking on dry or wet pavement, but I've never reached the limits of my summer all-seasons either when it comes to cornering, so I can't compare that way. I did easily exceed the dry/wet limits a few times on a rental car I once had (unintentionally), so I can say that my studded Cooper Weathermasters have better dry and wet traction than the OEM all-seasons on a 2006 Malibu!


While far from an everyday event I DO hit or come within sight of the traction limits of my summer performance tires (Toyo T1R and less so my current Michelin PS2) in the dry at times. Most of the time the PS2s are just for headroom and great precision and feel. Running lower category all-seasons and definitely snows I can cross that line in a jiffy. If I was running some mid-pack 600UTQG all-seasons I would probably be hitting their limit often. On the PS2s, for instance, braking is fantastic. It feels like I can stand the car on its nose if needed. It's the first thing I miss when the snows go on despite not being a tailgater or late braker.

All drivers are different, and this is why I assert that many may not know the difference and don't understand the shopping that some go through.

I don't expect snows to perform like my summers. And, if they did, they would be terrible snows. I'm not delusional.

I dropped by my tire guy this evening. Still no Hakka Rs in my size in Canada (and none on order) and he cannot get the Conti Extreme WinterContact in Canada either despite being a Conti dealer.
frown.gif
The RSis are pretty squishy by hand. The Rs seemed to have noticeably stabilized outer blocks, which help with dry/wet braking. The RSi carcass felt as strong as the WRG2 carcass but the compound was far different.

My short list is now Hakka 5 w/studs, Hakka RSi, Hakka WRG2 or wait until next year and run the Dunflops again this year while praying for the best.
 
Originally Posted By: Craig in Canada

I have trouble being sure that I understand everything I see there, at least, but your points are interesting. I guess they do feel that the studded Hakka 4 is head and shoulders above the Hakka Q, which is probably about the same comparison as the present-day Hakka 5 w/studs vs. the Hakka RSi.

How is the noise on your studs in the dry at 100kph?


I've only purchased Cooper Weathermasters and BFG Winter Slaloms, and they don't bother me at all on the highway. I have a few friends running studded Hankooks that were a bit louder, but they never seemed like they'd be loud enough to bother me and they don't seem to bother them. I think most of the noise they do make is from the siping and not the studs, unless you roll the window down and listen to the ticking (I love that sound; it's a sign of spring for me!). I had studded Cooper Discoverer M+S on my Pathfinder and they were very quiet, but that's to be expected with a body-on-frame SUV.

The tests on that Swedish link are as follows (all speeds in km/hr, all distances in meters, all time in seconds):

1. 50-0 braking distance on ice.
2. 5-30 acceleration time on ice.
3. Time to complete a 60m diameter ice circle.
4. Time to complete an ice course.
5. Braking distance on snow.
6. Braking distance on wet asphalt.
7. 5-30 acceleration time on snow.
8. Time to complete a snow course.
9. Something to do with hydroplane speed.

The friend I consulted wasn't fluent in Swedish, but knew a bit. I also used online translators to fill in some gaps.

Did you ever see the Car and Driver test I linked to on another thread? I thought it was interesting:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post780849

While those are considered performance snow tires, it shows that the mushiness of a winter tire tread doesn't necessarily mean it won't still grip reasonably well on clean pavement.
 
Go for it give the studs a try, by the looks of it today in Iowa we had some snow already, might be a long winter.
 
Quote:
I've only purchased Cooper Weathermasters and BFG Winter Slaloms, and they don't bother me at all on the highway


I found the BFG winter slalom to be extremely squirmy on dry roads. I did not like them at all. Just goes to proove a point somebody made earlier about different vehicles and a particular tires behavior.

I've got a set of Winter Claws (Cooper made off-brand) that are leaps and bounds ahead of the BFGs (same vehicle).

Alex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom