2022/23 Tire Reviews Studless Winter Tire Test

Snow tires, studless friction tires, extreme winter tires, nordic winter tires. This category of tire goes by many names, and they have one design goal, to be the very best on snow and ice for harsh winter climates, where studded tires aren't appropriate, or for people who don't want studs.

To find out which is the best, Tire Reviews has taken 7 of the most popular tires available to both the North American and Nordic markets, and will be putting them through a full range of tests, including ice, snow, wet and dry testing to find out which is best at what. Also, to help you understand where these tires fit in the market, I'm also including the very best of the central european and studded winter tires, the Continental WinterContact TS870 and the studded Nokian Happapelliita 10.

Dry BrakingContinental WinterContact TS 870: 41.27 MYokohama iceGUARD iG53: 49.49 M
Dry HandlingContinental WinterContact TS 870: 71.03 sFederal Himalaya ICEO: 73.8 s
Subj. Dry HandlingContinental WinterContact TS 870: 110 PointsFederal Himalaya ICEO: 80 Points
Wet BrakingContinental WinterContact TS 870: 25.78 MYokohama iceGUARD iG53: 38.72 M
Wet HandlingContinental WinterContact TS 870: 74.29 sCooper Weathermaster S100: 85.41 s
Subj. Wet HandlingContinental WinterContact TS 870: 120 PointsYokohama iceGUARD iG53: 75 Points
Straight AquaContinental WinterContact TS 870: 99.45 Km/HNokian Hakkapeliitta R5: 71.46 Km/H
Curved AquaplaningContinental WinterContact TS 870: 77.4 m/sec2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5: 55.8 m/sec2
Snow BrakingYokohama iceGUARD iG53: 15.37 MContinental WinterContact TS 870: 16 M
Snow TractionNokian Hakkapeliitta R5: 5.55 sFederal Himalaya ICEO: 6.03 s
Snow HandlingNokian Hakkapeliitta 10: 87.73 sContinental WinterContact TS 870: 92.12 s
Subj. Snow HandlingPirelli Ice Zero FR: 100 PointsFederal Himalaya ICEO: 75 Points
Snow CircleNokian Hakkapeliitta 10: 28.9 SYokohama iceGUARD iG53: 30.35 S
Ice BrakingNokian Hakkapeliitta 10: 7.7 MContinental WinterContact TS 870: 12.71 M
Ice TractionNokian Hakkapeliitta 10: 3.23 sFederal Himalaya ICEO: 9.18 s
Ice HandlingContinental VikingContact 7: 52.17 sContinental WinterContact TS 870: 59.99 s
Subj. Ice HandlingMichelin X Ice Snow: 100 PointsContinental WinterContact TS 870: 70 Points
Subj. ComfortNokian Hakkapeliitta R5: 100 PointsCooper Weathermaster S100: 90 Points
NoiseContinental VikingContact 7: 61.9 dBYokohama iceGUARD iG53: 63.4 dB
Rolling ResistanceMichelin X Ice Snow: 7.25 kg / tFederal Himalaya ICEO: 10.54 kg / t

Ice

Fortunately all the tires performed well during ice handling, apart from maybe the Federal which was over 10% off the best, and just had a lot of understeer, especially on throttle, but still impressive grip on this semi rough ice.

Yokohama, Cooper and Pirelli were next, all three tires having good levels of grip, but you had to be extra careful with all your inputs, instead of the regular amounts of careful ice demands.

The top three, all within a few percent of each other, were Nokian, Michelin and Continental.

The Conti was the fastest, it had excellent levels of grip, but of the three it was the most peaky, meaning the grip fell off a little bit faster. The Michelin was my favorite of all the tires to drive as it felt like it had the best turn in and grip when trying to do more than one thing at the front, but the Nokian was a very close, impressive second, both these tires were the most predictable and balanced and lovely.

As for the two reference tires, the Central European Continental WinterContact TS870, wow, what an impressive tire. Yes it was the slowest, but not THAT much slower than the worst nordic winter tire, and it was easy and friendly to drive. The studded tire felt really great on the brakes, but I was finding quite a lot of understeer mid corner so it didn't have the advantage it should. This is a multiple test winning studded winter tire, so it just goes to show how advanced these friction winter tires are, especially on rough ice.

Ice traction and braking brought back the advantage to the studded Hakkapeliitta 10 which had a huge advantage on the smooth ice. This really highlights how impressive studded tires are in the most difficult conditions.

 

Snow

Once again during snow handling, none of these tires were really bad. Yokohama, Cooper and Federal were at the back, because shockingly, they had less grip than the rest. This meant you just had to do everything more slowly, steering, throttle, cornering, with the Cooper and Federal having the most understeer of all the tires.

The top 4 were all within 1% of each other, with the order being Michelin, Continental, Pirelli and Nokian the fastest.

Like on ice, the Conti was a small amount more difficult to drive as the transition from grip to sliding was more abrupt, but we're talking very small amounts. If I had to pick one to drive just on snow, it would be the Pirelli as it was a tire that felt like it willed you around the lap, or the Nokian, or the Michelin. This Golf 8 test car makes separating things really hard.

The CE TS870 again managed to pretty much match the best extreme winter tire on test, which is very impressive again as I think this is going to do very well in the dry and wet, and the studded tire pretty much matched the Nordic Nokian, which means Nokian technically won this test twice.

Snow traction had the Nokian once again leading the group, with the Central European winter tire actually beating three of the studless friction tires!

The Yokohama stopped the car extremely well, leading snow braking.

Like snow handling, snow circle was another double win for Nokian.

Wet

Even though these tires are going to see a lot of snow and ice, the wet grip is still very important. Of the seven, Cooper was the slowest of the group and was difficult to drive with limited grip in all directions. Yokohama was the next slowest, this was the only tire that made the VW Golf have a loose rear end and while the oversteer was fun, it wasn't what I'd call the best balance for the road. Federal was fifth, it felt like it had much better grip than the previous two, but the steering was a bit vague, while the Nokian in fourth had a great balance and what felt like good grip, but it was one of only two tires that felt like it was aquaplaning in parts during the wet handling lap which was costing it time. The top three were very close, and were formed of Pirelli, Michelin and Continental. All three of these tires were a joy to drive, if I had to give it to one it would be the Michelin by the smallest of margins in terms of balance and steering reactions, however the Continental clearly had the most grip as it was the fastest, all while having the same micro aquaplaning issues that slowed down the Nokian! 

The all important wet braking test was led by Federal, with the Continental, Nokian and Michelin all performing well. I'm really not sure how the federal jumped up the order here, I knew what I was on when doing the braking test and it was definitely this good in braking, so gotta respect that result. Even if it is at odds with the rest of the tests.

The aquaplaning tests backed up my subjective feelings with the Nokian and Continental having the worst performance over the straight and curved tests, with the Michelin proving best in both deep water tests. This is impressive considering the Michelin did so well in wet handling and in my head this will be good for slush, though I don't actually know that.

If you've been looking at the data you may have noticed two things about the reference tires. Firstly, there was no data for the studded tire, that's because the test facility I conducted the braking and handling didn't allow studded tires on their tracks due to damage, which I totally respect. But more importantly you should have noticed that the central european Continental Wintercontact TS870 absolutely owned the wet grip tests. It wasn't even close! I actually wrote in my notes when testing "This is how I imagine most people imagine going from road tires to slicks, only it's a bigger difference. And it's a winter tire!"

Dry

The dry handling data almost perfectly matched dry braking, so I'll summarize them together. The Continental was the best in both handling and braking with the Pirelli close behind it in terms of grip and subjective handling. The Nokian was excellent around the dry handling lap and fourth in braking, closely followed by the Michelin. 

Like in the wet the Federal, Yokohama and Cooper were the slowest over the lap with the Federal being particularly difficult to drive, and like in the wet the Federal was much better in dry braking than dry handling. 

If I've done my job properly, by this point it should be no surprise that the CE winter tire held its wet advantage in the dry too, though not as vast, but it was certainly noticeable, especially in braking.

Noise and Comfort

What about noise and comfort? The Nokian and Continental led the way in the internal noise measurements, with the CE winter tire joint third with Michelin. The Nokian was also the most comfortable subjectively, tying for points with the far noiser Federal and Yokohama so if you want a quiet and comfortable tire, the Nokian excels. 

Environment

The rolling resistance of the top four performing tires was only split by 4% which is a pretty insignificant difference in fuel use, maybe around 1% in the real world.

The next group of tires dropped 15% from the best and the Federal was 32% behind, which you would certainly notice. Again, it was Michelin, Nokian and Continental leading the way with the lowest rolling resistances, with Yokohama sliding into the front running group.

Results

For the overall results I'm going to use a score weighting which matches these tires intended use, IE heavily in favor of the snow and ice performance of the tires. If you want to use a different score weighting you can now alter this to your own taste using the link below.

1st: Continental VikingContact 7

Continental VikingContact 7
  • 205/55 R16 94T
  • Weight: 9.2kgs
  • Tread: 8.2mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking2nd45.87 M41.27 M+4.6 M89.97%
Dry Handling2nd72.6 s71.03 s+1.57 s97.84%
Subj. Dry Handling2nd100 Points110 Points-10 Points90.91%
Wet Braking3rd35.03 M25.78 M+9.25 M73.59%
Wet Handling2nd80.8 s74.29 s+6.51 s91.94%
Subj. Wet Handling3rd95 Points120 Points-25 Points79.17%
Straight Aqua7th75.12 Km/H99.45 Km/H-24.33 Km/H75.54%
Curved Aquaplaning7th58.1 m/sec277.4 m/sec2-19.3 m/sec275.06%
Snow Braking4th15.63 M15.37 M+0.26 M98.34%
Snow Traction2nd5.62 s5.55 s+0.07 s98.75%
Snow Handling4th88.08 s87.73 s+0.35 s99.6%
Subj. Snow Handling2nd95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Snow Circle6th29.49 S28.9 S+0.59 S98%
Ice Braking4th10.34 M7.7 M+2.64 M74.47%
Ice Traction3rd6.1 s3.23 s+2.87 s52.95%
Ice Handling1st52.17 s100%
Subj. Ice Handling2nd95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Subj. Comfort4th95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Noise1st61.9 dB100%
Rolling Resistance4th7.56 kg / t7.25 kg / t+0.31 kg / t95.9%
Excellent in all conditions, Best wet and dry handling lap times, shortest dry braking, very good wet braking, good in snow, best ice handling lap, very low noise levels and low rolling resistance.
Average aquaplaning resistance.
The Continental was the best in the dry and had a small advantage in the wet grip tests, but did struggle in the deeper water of the two aquaplaning tests. It was excellent in the snow and ice, had the lowest internal noise and was comfortable, but of the top three tires it did have the highest rolling resistance, but even that was just 3.1% off the best.


Read Reviews

1st: Michelin X Ice Snow

Michelin X Ice Snow
  • 205/55 R16 94H
  • Weight: 9.1kgs
  • Tread: 8.1mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking6th47.88 M41.27 M+6.61 M86.19%
Dry Handling5th73.01 s71.03 s+1.98 s97.29%
Subj. Dry Handling4th98 Points110 Points-12 Points89.09%
Wet Braking5th35.59 M25.78 M+9.81 M72.44%
Wet Handling3rd81.55 s74.29 s+7.26 s91.1%
Subj. Wet Handling2nd100 Points120 Points-20 Points83.33%
Straight Aqua2nd80.11 Km/H99.45 Km/H-19.34 Km/H80.55%
Curved Aquaplaning2nd63.8 m/sec277.4 m/sec2-13.6 m/sec282.43%
Snow Braking6th15.81 M15.37 M+0.44 M97.22%
Snow Traction5th5.66 s5.55 s+0.11 s98.06%
Snow Handling5th88.56 s87.73 s+0.83 s99.06%
Subj. Snow Handling2nd95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Snow Circle3rd29.09 S28.9 S+0.19 S99.35%
Ice Braking2nd10.14 M7.7 M+2.44 M75.94%
Ice Traction4th6.12 s3.23 s+2.89 s52.78%
Ice Handling2nd52.92 s52.17 s+0.75 s98.58%
Subj. Ice Handling1st100 Points100%
Subj. Comfort4th95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Noise3rd62.1 dB61.9 dB+0.2 dB99.68%
Rolling Resistance1st7.25 kg / t100%
Best aquaplaning resistance and very good in the wet with excellent handling, best ice braking and very good on ice, good in all the snow tests, very good in the dry. Low noise, high levels of comfort, lowest rolling resistance on test.
Average dry braking.
The Michelin couldn't quite match the Continental in the dry, but was essentially the same in the wet and had the best hydroplaning resistance of all the tires on test. It was a few percent behind the Continental in the snow but equaled it on the ice. It was also quiet and comfortable and had the best rolling resistance of all the tires tested.


Read Reviews

1st: Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5

Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
  • 205/55 R16 94R
  • Weight: 8.55kgs
  • Tread: 8.5mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking5th47.45 M41.27 M+6.18 M86.98%
Dry Handling4th72.96 s71.03 s+1.93 s97.35%
Subj. Dry Handling2nd100 Points110 Points-10 Points90.91%
Wet Braking4th35.21 M25.78 M+9.43 M73.22%
Wet Handling5th83.2 s74.29 s+8.91 s89.29%
Subj. Wet Handling3rd95 Points120 Points-25 Points79.17%
Straight Aqua8th71.46 Km/H99.45 Km/H-27.99 Km/H71.86%
Curved Aquaplaning8th55.8 m/sec277.4 m/sec2-21.6 m/sec272.09%
Snow Braking3rd15.51 M15.37 M+0.14 M99.1%
Snow Traction1st5.55 s100%
Snow Handling2nd87.8 s87.73 s+0.07 s99.92%
Subj. Snow Handling2nd95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Snow Circle2nd28.98 S28.9 S+0.08 S99.72%
Ice Braking3rd10.18 M7.7 M+2.48 M75.64%
Ice Traction2nd6.06 s3.23 s+2.83 s53.3%
Ice Handling3rd53.5 s52.17 s+1.33 s97.51%
Subj. Ice Handling2nd95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Subj. Comfort1st100 Points100%
Noise1st61.9 dB100%
Rolling Resistance2nd7.34 kg / t7.25 kg / t+0.09 kg / t98.77%
Best in the snow with the best handling lap, traction and lateral grip, very good in ice with best traction on smooth ice, good wet and dry braking, very low noise, best subjective comfort, very low rolling resistance.
Lowest aquaplaning resistance on test.
The Nokian ever so slightly edged the Michelin in the dry, matched it in the wet grip tests but was the worst in hydroplaning resistance, but then was the best in the snow overall. It had the best traction on ice, but then the Michelin had the best braking and the Continental the best handling. The Nokian was also joint quietest and had the second lowest rolling resistance overall.


Read Reviews

4th: Pirelli Ice Zero FR

Pirelli Ice Zero FR
  • 205/55 R16 94T
  • Weight: 9.22kgs
  • Tread: 8.9mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking3rd46.66 M41.27 M+5.39 M88.45%
Dry Handling3rd72.88 s71.03 s+1.85 s97.46%
Subj. Dry Handling4th98 Points110 Points-12 Points89.09%
Wet Braking6th35.94 M25.78 M+10.16 M71.73%
Wet Handling4th82.65 s74.29 s+8.36 s89.89%
Subj. Wet Handling5th92 Points120 Points-28 Points76.67%
Straight Aqua6th75.71 Km/H99.45 Km/H-23.74 Km/H76.13%
Curved Aquaplaning5th58.7 m/sec277.4 m/sec2-18.7 m/sec275.84%
Snow Braking8th15.9 M15.37 M+0.53 M96.67%
Snow Traction3rd5.63 s5.55 s+0.08 s98.58%
Snow Handling3rd88 s87.73 s+0.27 s99.69%
Subj. Snow Handling1st100 Points100%
Snow Circle4th29.21 S28.9 S+0.31 S98.94%
Ice Braking5th10.68 M7.7 M+2.98 M72.1%
Ice Traction6th6.51 s3.23 s+3.28 s49.62%
Ice Handling4th54.18 s52.17 s+2.01 s96.29%
Subj. Ice Handling4th90 Points100 Points-10 Points90%
Subj. Comfort4th95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Noise5th62.7 dB61.9 dB+0.8 dB98.72%
Rolling Resistance7th8.38 kg / t7.25 kg / t+1.13 kg / t86.52%
Very good grip in the snow, the wet and the dry. Dynamic handling in all conditions.
Limited snow braking, average rolling resistance, average aquaplaning resistance.
The Pirelli Ice Zero FR was a fun tire to drive, and well deserved fourth overall. It's only weakness was snow braking, but that was only 3.3% off the best, it excelled in snow handling being the fastest and nicest tire to drive, to had excellent snow traction, it was good on ice, and very good in the wet and dry. I'm recommending the Ice Zero FR as a good all round tire.


Read Reviews

5th: Yokohama iceGUARD iG53

Yokohama iceGUARD iG53
  • 205/55 R16 91H
  • Weight: 9.76kgs
  • Tread: 8.9mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking8th49.49 M41.27 M+8.22 M83.39%
Dry Handling7th73.31 s71.03 s+2.28 s96.89%
Subj. Dry Handling6th95 Points110 Points-15 Points86.36%
Wet Braking8th38.72 M25.78 M+12.94 M66.58%
Wet Handling7th84.16 s74.29 s+9.87 s88.27%
Subj. Wet Handling8th75 Points120 Points-45 Points62.5%
Straight Aqua5th75.99 Km/H99.45 Km/H-23.46 Km/H76.41%
Curved Aquaplaning4th59.4 m/sec277.4 m/sec2-18 m/sec276.74%
Snow Braking1st15.37 M100%
Snow Traction7th5.92 s5.55 s+0.37 s93.75%
Snow Handling8th90.99 s87.73 s+3.26 s96.42%
Subj. Snow Handling6th80 Points100 Points-20 Points80%
Snow Circle9th30.35 S28.9 S+1.45 S95.22%
Ice Braking6th10.97 M7.7 M+3.27 M70.19%
Ice Traction5th6.41 s3.23 s+3.18 s50.39%
Ice Handling7th54.74 s52.17 s+2.57 s95.31%
Subj. Ice Handling4th90 Points100 Points-10 Points90%
Subj. Comfort1st100 Points100%
Noise8th63.4 dB61.9 dB+1.5 dB97.63%
Rolling Resistance3rd7.5 kg / t7.25 kg / t+0.25 kg / t96.67%
Best snow braking on test, reasonable ice traction, good aquaplaning resistance, low rolling resistance.
Very long wet braking with difficult wet handling, longest dry braking on test, average ice performance, high internal noise.
The Yokohama Iceguard IG53 peaked in snow braking where it had a surprise win, but that was the only standout result. It had the longest braking in the wet and dry, it was mid pack on ice and has the noisiest tire on test. It did however have one of the lowest rolling resistances on test. A tire like this is certainly a better buy than a tire like the Federal, but it still sits behind the rest of the group.

Read Reviews

6th: Cooper Weathermaster S100

Cooper Weathermaster S100
  • 205/55 R16 91T
  • Weight: 9.88kgs
  • Tread: 8.6mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking7th49.47 M41.27 M+8.2 M83.42%
Dry Handling6th73.15 s71.03 s+2.12 s97.1%
Subj. Dry Handling7th90 Points110 Points-20 Points81.82%
Wet Braking7th37.76 M25.78 M+11.98 M68.27%
Wet Handling8th85.41 s74.29 s+11.12 s86.98%
Subj. Wet Handling6th80 Points120 Points-40 Points66.67%
Straight Aqua4th76.46 Km/H99.45 Km/H-22.99 Km/H76.88%
Curved Aquaplaning3rd59.8 m/sec277.4 m/sec2-17.6 m/sec277.26%
Snow Braking7th15.85 M15.37 M+0.48 M96.97%
Snow Traction7th5.92 s5.55 s+0.37 s93.75%
Snow Handling7th89.87 s87.73 s+2.14 s97.62%
Subj. Snow Handling6th80 Points100 Points-20 Points80%
Snow Circle8th30.15 S28.9 S+1.25 S95.85%
Ice Braking7th11.97 M7.7 M+4.27 M64.33%
Ice Traction7th7.92 s3.23 s+4.69 s40.78%
Ice Handling6th54.63 s52.17 s+2.46 s95.5%
Subj. Ice Handling7th85 Points100 Points-15 Points85%
Subj. Comfort8th90 Points100 Points-10 Points90%
Noise7th63.3 dB61.9 dB+1.4 dB97.79%
Rolling Resistance8th8.45 kg / t7.25 kg / t+1.2 kg / t85.8%
Good aquaplaning resistance, no huge weakness in the snow.
Long dry, wet and ice braking distances, lower grip on ice, high internal noise, high rolling resistance.
The Cooper Weathermaster S1000 has a fine, if not class leading snow performance, but struggles more on ice where it has the second weakest smooth ice traction of the test and below average in handling and braking. In the wet the Cooper has longer wet braking distances and the slowest wet handling lap, but the aquaplaning resistance is good. A longer than average dry braking distance and high rolling resistance rounds out the test for Cooper.

Read Reviews

7th: Federal Himalaya ICEO

Federal Himalaya ICEO
  • 205/55 R16 91Q
  • Weight: 11.2kgs
  • Tread: 9.1mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking4th46.88 M41.27 M+5.61 M88.03%
Dry Handling8th73.8 s71.03 s+2.77 s96.25%
Subj. Dry Handling8th80 Points110 Points-30 Points72.73%
Wet Braking2nd33.61 M25.78 M+7.83 M76.7%
Wet Handling6th83.5 s74.29 s+9.21 s88.97%
Subj. Wet Handling6th80 Points120 Points-40 Points66.67%
Straight Aqua3rd79.61 Km/H99.45 Km/H-19.84 Km/H80.05%
Curved Aquaplaning5th58.7 m/sec277.4 m/sec2-18.7 m/sec275.84%
Snow Braking5th15.74 M15.37 M+0.37 M97.65%
Snow Traction9th6.03 s5.55 s+0.48 s92.04%
Snow Handling6th89.24 s87.73 s+1.51 s98.31%
Subj. Snow Handling9th75 Points100 Points-25 Points75%
Snow Circle7th29.94 S28.9 S+1.04 S96.53%
Ice Braking8th12.66 M7.7 M+4.96 M60.82%
Ice Traction9th9.18 s3.23 s+5.95 s35.19%
Ice Handling8th58.28 s52.17 s+6.11 s89.52%
Subj. Ice Handling8th80 Points100 Points-20 Points80%
Subj. Comfort1st100 Points100%
Noise6th62.9 dB61.9 dB+1 dB98.41%
Rolling Resistance9th10.54 kg / t7.25 kg / t+3.29 kg / t68.79%
Very good wet braking, high aquaplaning resistance, good dry braking, good snow braking.
Weaker in the handling tests, very low grip on ice, higher levels of noise, very high rolling resistance.
The Federal Himalaya ICEO was excellent in the wet with good braking and high levels of aquaplaning resistance. It was also good in dry braking, but struggled more on the dry handling lap. The snow performance was average, however for a nordic winter tire it struggled on ice, and was nearly 40% worse than the best on test during ice traction. The ICEO also had the highest rolling resistance on test.

Read Reviews

7th: Continental WinterContact TS 870

Continental WinterContact TS 870
  • 205/55 R16 91H
  • Weight: 8.15kgs
  • Tread: 8.9mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Dry Braking1st41.27 M100%
Dry Handling1st71.03 s100%
Subj. Dry Handling1st110 Points100%
Wet Braking1st25.78 M100%
Wet Handling1st74.29 s100%
Subj. Wet Handling1st120 Points100%
Straight Aqua1st99.45 Km/H100%
Curved Aquaplaning1st77.4 m/sec2100%
Snow Braking9th16 M15.37 M+0.63 M96.06%
Snow Traction6th5.85 s5.55 s+0.3 s94.87%
Snow Handling9th92.12 s87.73 s+4.39 s95.23%
Subj. Snow Handling6th80 Points100 Points-20 Points80%
Snow Circle5th29.33 S28.9 S+0.43 S98.53%
Ice Braking9th12.71 M7.7 M+5.01 M60.58%
Ice Traction8th9.13 s3.23 s+5.9 s35.38%
Ice Handling9th59.99 s52.17 s+7.82 s86.96%
Subj. Ice Handling9th70 Points100 Points-30 Points70%
Subj. Comfort4th95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Noise3rd62.1 dB61.9 dB+0.2 dB99.68%
Rolling Resistance5th8.02 kg / t7.25 kg / t+0.77 kg / t90.4%
Read Reviews    Buy from £124.49

7th: Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
  • 205/55 R16 94T
  • Weight: 9.33kgs
  • Tread: 9.1mm
  • 3PMSF: no
Test#ResultBestDifference%
Snow Braking2nd15.5 M15.37 M+0.13 M99.16%
Snow Traction4th5.64 s5.55 s+0.09 s98.4%
Snow Handling1st87.73 s100%
Subj. Snow Handling2nd95 Points100 Points-5 Points95%
Snow Circle1st28.9 S100%
Ice Braking1st7.7 M100%
Ice Traction1st3.23 s100%
Ice Handling5th54.33 s52.17 s+2.16 s96.02%
Subj. Ice Handling4th90 Points100 Points-10 Points90%
Rolling Resistance6th8.29 kg / t7.25 kg / t+1.04 kg / t87.45%
Read Reviews


Discussion:

comments powered by Disqus