Below is the data from the 2023 16" ADAC winter tire test. 

Noteworthy performers included the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 with good dry braking, Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showcasing remarkable wet braking, and the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelling in snow and ice braking. On the flip side, the Austone SP 901 displayed weaknesses in wet conditions and aquaplaning scenarios. The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 emerged as a durable option with the longest wear, while the Barum Polaris 5 stood out for fuel efficiency. 

The biggest surprise is probably the winner. The  now aging Dunlop Winter Sport 5 emerged as the overall victor in the 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tire Test, exhibiting a balanced performance across various testing categories. Its well-rounded performance underscores its reliability and suitability for diverse road conditions, making it a commendable choice for motorists seeking a harmonized blend of safety, comfort, and efficiency

Dry

In the dry braking test, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 stood out with a shortest braking distance of 41.4 M, showcasing its superior stopping power on dry surfaces. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert lagged with a longer braking distance of 45.6 M, indicating room for improvement in dry braking performance.

Wet

For wet braking the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 demonstrated excellent braking performance, stopping at a distance of 35.2 M. Conversely, the Austone SP 901 had a less desirable outcome with a braking distance of 45.6 M, showing its limitations in wet conditions.

Again, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showed strong performance on concrete wet surfaces with a braking distance of 36.4 M, indicating its reliable wet grip. The Austone SP 901 again struggled with a distance of 45.1 M, reflecting its weaker performance in these conditions.

In the straight aquaplaning test, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 exhibited impressive control, maintaining a speed of 90.6 Km/H. The Austone SP 901, on the other hand, was significantly slower with a speed of 69.1 Km/H, showing susceptibility to aquaplaning.

The Firestone Winterhawk 4 again showcased superior control in curved aquaplaning scenarios with a speed of 3.9 m/sec², indicating its strong aquaplaning resistance. The Austone SP 901 struggled with a speed of 2.1 m/sec², displaying a higher tendency to lose control.

Snow

In snowy conditions, the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelled with a short braking distance of 9.5 M, demonstrating reliable stopping power. In contrast, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 required a longer distance of 11.4 M to halt, suggesting less effectiveness in snow braking.

The BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 led in snow traction with a force of 265.3 N, indicating strong grip on snowy surfaces. The Lassa Snoways 4, however, showed weaker traction with a force of 223.6 N, hinting at its limitations in snow traction.

Ice

The Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus performed exceptionally in ice braking, stopping at 18.6 M, showcasing its capability on icy surfaces. The Kleber Krisalp HP3 had a longer braking distance of 21.8 M, reflecting a lesser performance on ice.

Comfort

Noise test results indicated a quieter ride with Austone SP 901 registering 70.4 dB, thus offering a more comfortable driving experience. In contrast, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 was louder with 74.1 dB, which might be perceived as less comfortable.

Value

In the wear test, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 showcased outstanding durability with 56300 KM, promising a longer tire lifespan. The Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, however, showed quicker wear with 34800 KM, indicating a shorter tire lifespan.

The Barum Polaris 5 proved to be fuel-efficient with a consumption of 5.5 l/100km, making it a more economical choice. The Austone SP 901 consumed more fuel at 5.8 l/100km, making it less economical in comparison.

The Michelin Alpin 6 exhibited the lowest abrasion with 51 mg/km/t, suggesting better material endurance. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert had higher abrasion at 90 mg/km/t, indicating a propensity for quicker material degradation​1​.

Results

1st: Dunlop Winter Sport 5
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 9th 44.4 M 41.4 M +3 M 93.24% Wet Braking 6th 37.2 M 35.2 M +2 M 94.62% Wet Braking - Concrete 6th 39.4 M 36.4 M +3 M 92.39% Straight Aqua 13th 82.3 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -8.3 Km/H 90.84% Curved Aquaplaning 6th 3.6 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.31% Snow Braking 5th 9.6 M 9.5 M +0.1 M 98.96% Snow Traction 4th 260.1 N 265.3 N -5.2 N 98.04% Ice Braking 4th 19.6 M 18.6 M +1 M 94.9% Noise 14th 72.4 dB 70.4 dB +2 dB 97.24% Wear 3rd 47700 KM 56300 KM -8600 KM 84.72% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 7th 69 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +18 mg/km/t 73.91% The DUNLOP Winter Sport 5 demonstrates precise steering and good safety margins on dry roads, including quick stabilization after evasive maneuvers. Braking performance from 100 km/h is rated as good within the test field. On wet roads, the WINTER SPORT 5 tire performs well in all sub-criteria, including above-average scores in braking and handling. However, its performance in longitudinal aquaplaning is below the average of competitors. On snowy and icy roads, the tire scores above average in braking, acceleration, and handling. Regarding environmental impact, the WINTER SPORT 5 also receives good ratings, offering high projected mileage, low wear, low weight, and decent fuel efficiency. Read Reviews
2nd: Michelin Alpin 6
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 4th 43 M 41.4 M +1.6 M 96.28% Wet Braking 3rd 36.4 M 35.2 M +1.2 M 96.7% Wet Braking - Concrete 5th 38.9 M 36.4 M +2.5 M 93.57% Straight Aqua 14th 81.5 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -9.1 Km/H 89.96% Curved Aquaplaning 15th 3.2 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.7 m/sec2 82.05% Snow Braking 14th 10.5 M 9.5 M +1 M 90.48% Snow Traction 3rd 260.9 N 265.3 N -4.4 N 98.34% Ice Braking 3rd 19.5 M 18.6 M +0.9 M 95.38% Noise 7th 71.2 dB 70.4 dB +0.8 dB 98.88% Wear 2nd 53300 KM 56300 KM -3000 KM 94.67% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 1st 51 mg/km/t 100% The MICHELIN ALPIN 6 performs well on dry roads, offering precise steering and sufficient safety margins, even at the limit. Its braking from 100 km/h is slightly above average. On wet surfaces, the tire excels in braking distance measurements but receives only satisfactory ratings in lateral aquaplaning. Handling is nearly rated as good; for better precision, the tire needs to better integrate longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the ALPIN 6 scores well, with slightly below-average braking and above-average traction measurements. Its handling and ice braking are rated as good. Environmentally, the ALPIN 6 stands out for its above-average wear resistance and low fuel consumption, attributed to its low weight and low rolling resistance. Noise levels are average. Read Reviews
3rd: Goodyear UltraGrip 9+
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 13th 44.9 M 41.4 M +3.5 M 92.2% Wet Braking 4th 36.9 M 35.2 M +1.7 M 95.39% Wet Braking - Concrete 9th 40.2 M 36.4 M +3.8 M 90.55% Straight Aqua 2nd 88.8 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -1.8 Km/H 98.01% Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 3.8 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.1 m/sec2 97.44% Snow Braking 1st 9.5 M 100% Snow Traction 7th 257.3 N 265.3 N -8 N 96.98% Ice Braking 1st 18.6 M 100% Noise 5th 71.1 dB 70.4 dB +0.7 dB 99.02% Wear 6th 43900 KM 56300 KM -12400 KM 77.98% Fuel Consumption 2nd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 11th 74 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +23 mg/km/t 68.92% The GOODYEAR UltraGrip 9+ shows minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety margins during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it performs clearly above average, offering short braking distances and secure, easily controllable handling. In lateral aquaplaning, its performance is rated as good, and it narrowly misses an excellent rating in longitudinal aquaplaning. On winter roads, the UltraGrip 9+ scores above average in braking and slightly above average in traction. While it offers good safety reserves in snow handling, steering could be more precise. In ice braking tests, the UltraGrip 9+ excels with the shortest braking distances. Environmentally, the tire achieves a good rating for its projected lifespan and wear, and it receives the best rating in the test for efficiency. Read Reviews
4th: Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 2nd 42.9 M 41.4 M +1.5 M 96.5% Wet Braking 7th 38.2 M 35.2 M +3 M 92.15% Wet Braking - Concrete 6th 39.4 M 36.4 M +3 M 92.39% Straight Aqua 9th 84.5 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -6.1 Km/H 93.27% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.5 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.4 m/sec2 89.74% Snow Braking 10th 9.9 M 9.5 M +0.4 M 95.96% Snow Traction 12th 245.7 N 265.3 N -19.6 N 92.61% Ice Braking 7th 20.3 M 18.6 M +1.7 M 91.63% Noise 4th 70.9 dB 70.4 dB +0.5 dB 99.29% Wear 9th 41700 KM 56300 KM -14600 KM 74.07% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 9th 71 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +20 mg/km/t 71.83% The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P exhibits minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and clearly above-average braking distances. On wet roads, the tire performs consistently well across all sub-criteria, including slightly above-average results in braking and aquaplaning. It also offers easy and secure handling. On winter roads, the tire achieves average scores in braking and traction but excels in handling due to its large safety reserves and precise steering. Ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire receives a barely good rating; its wear is average, and its projected lifespan is slightly below average but still rated as good. Efficiency metrics are average. Read Reviews    Buy from £128.87
5th: Hankook Winter I cept RS3
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 12th 44.8 M 41.4 M +3.4 M 92.41% Wet Braking 4th 36.9 M 35.2 M +1.7 M 95.39% Wet Braking - Concrete 4th 38.7 M 36.4 M +2.3 M 94.06% Straight Aqua 6th 85.5 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -5.1 Km/H 94.37% Curved Aquaplaning 10th 3.4 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.18% Snow Braking 1st 9.5 M 100% Snow Traction 6th 258.1 N 265.3 N -7.2 N 97.29% Ice Braking 5th 19.7 M 18.6 M +1.1 M 94.42% Noise 11th 71.8 dB 70.4 dB +1.4 dB 98.05% Wear 13th 38700 KM 56300 KM -17600 KM 68.74% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 8th 70 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +19 mg/km/t 72.86% The Hankook Winter i*cept RS3 shows minor deficiencies in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but earns a good overall rating due to its safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and braking performance rated as "still good." On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking, longitudinal aquaplaning, and handling, but falls short in lateral aquaplaning with a satisfactory rating. On winter roads, it ranks second-best in the test, excelling in braking and acceleration, and offering secure and precise handling on snow. Its ice braking performance is also above average. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan, although its wear and efficiency are rated as good. Read Reviews
6th: Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 6th 43.7 M 41.4 M +2.3 M 94.74% Wet Braking 1st 35.2 M 100% Wet Braking - Concrete 1st 36.4 M 100% Straight Aqua 4th 86.4 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -4.2 Km/H 95.36% Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 3.8 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.1 m/sec2 97.44% Snow Braking 5th 9.6 M 9.5 M +0.1 M 98.96% Snow Traction 2nd 261.4 N 265.3 N -3.9 N 98.53% Ice Braking 11th 21 M 18.6 M +2.4 M 88.57% Noise 11th 71.8 dB 70.4 dB +1.4 dB 98.05% Wear 16th 34800 KM 56300 KM -21500 KM 61.81% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 14th 83 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +32 mg/km/t 61.45% The BRIDGESTONE BLIZZAK LM 005 has minor issues with steering precision and feedback on dry roads but maintains a good overall rating due to its safety reserves during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it sets the standard, achieving the shortest braking distances in the test and excelling in aquaplaning and handling. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances, good handling, and safety reserves, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tire falls short of a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear rating. While it scores well in fuel efficiency, its weight is rated as satisfactory. Read Reviews    Buy from £106.50
7th: Firestone Winterhawk 4
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 15th 45 M 41.4 M +3.6 M 92% Wet Braking 2nd 35.9 M 35.2 M +0.7 M 98.05% Wet Braking - Concrete 2nd 38.3 M 36.4 M +1.9 M 95.04% Straight Aqua 1st 90.6 Km/H 100% Curved Aquaplaning 1st 3.9 m/sec2 100% Snow Braking 12th 10 M 9.5 M +0.5 M 95% Snow Traction 12th 245.7 N 265.3 N -19.6 N 92.61% Ice Braking 9th 20.4 M 18.6 M +1.8 M 91.18% Noise 3rd 70.8 dB 70.4 dB +0.4 dB 99.44% Wear 15th 35700 KM 56300 KM -20600 KM 63.41% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 15th 89 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +38 mg/km/t 57.3% The Firestone WINTERHAWK 4 provides satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads and remains stable at the limit, earning a good overall rating for dry conditions due to its good braking performance. On wet roads, the tire performs well in braking and handling, with very good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and above-average results in lateral aquaplaning. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in traction and ice braking, receiving only a satisfactory rating for these criteria. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear. However, it scores well in fuel efficiency and weight. Read Reviews
8th: BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 7th 44.2 M 41.4 M +2.8 M 93.67% Wet Braking 13th 39.5 M 35.2 M +4.3 M 89.11% Wet Braking - Concrete 12th 41 M 36.4 M +4.6 M 88.78% Straight Aqua 7th 85.4 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -5.2 Km/H 94.26% Curved Aquaplaning 8th 3.5 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.4 m/sec2 89.74% Snow Braking 5th 9.6 M 9.5 M +0.1 M 98.96% Snow Traction 1st 265.3 N 100% Ice Braking 11th 21 M 18.6 M +2.4 M 88.57% Noise 8th 71.3 dB 70.4 dB +0.9 dB 98.74% Wear 9th 41700 KM 56300 KM -14600 KM 74.07% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 2nd 56 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +5 mg/km/t 91.07% The BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 provides only satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads but remains stable at the limit. Its braking is rated as "still good," earning it an overall good rating for dry conditions. On wet roads, the tire receives a satisfactory overall rating; while its braking and aquaplaning are rated as good, it struggles in wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in ice braking, receiving a satisfactory rating. Environmentally, the tire achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is only rated as satisfactory. Read Reviews
9th: Fulda Kristall Control HP2
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 10th 44.5 M 41.4 M +3.1 M 93.03% Wet Braking 15th 41.2 M 35.2 M +6 M 85.44% Wet Braking - Concrete 14th 42.1 M 36.4 M +5.7 M 86.46% Straight Aqua 10th 84.4 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -6.2 Km/H 93.16% Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 3.8 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.1 m/sec2 97.44% Snow Braking 9th 9.7 M 9.5 M +0.2 M 97.94% Snow Traction 10th 248.6 N 265.3 N -16.7 N 93.71% Ice Braking 6th 20 M 18.6 M +1.4 M 93% Noise 16th 74.1 dB 70.4 dB +3.7 dB 95.01% Wear 1st 56300 KM 100% Fuel Consumption 2nd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 5th 65 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +14 mg/km/t 78.46% The KRISTALL CONTROL HP 2 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, along with good safety margins at the limit. Its braking is also rated as good. On wet roads, the tire receives an overall satisfactory rating; it scores well in aquaplaning but only satisfactory in braking and inadequate in handling due to low grip levels and imprecise steering. On winter roads, it earns a good overall rating due to its strong braking performance on snow and ice, although it falls short in traction and handling. Environmentally, the tire excels across the board, offering the highest projected lifespan in the test, low wear, and above-average performance in fuel efficiency and weight. Read Reviews
10th: Kleber Krisalp HP3
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 8th 44.3 M 41.4 M +2.9 M 93.45% Wet Braking 8th 38.5 M 35.2 M +3.3 M 91.43% Wet Braking - Concrete 11th 40.5 M 36.4 M +4.1 M 89.88% Straight Aqua 5th 86.2 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -4.4 Km/H 95.14% Curved Aquaplaning 10th 3.4 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.5 m/sec2 87.18% Snow Braking 1st 9.5 M 100% Snow Traction 8th 257 N 265.3 N -8.3 N 96.87% Ice Braking 16th 21.8 M 18.6 M +3.2 M 85.32% Noise 2nd 70.6 dB 70.4 dB +0.2 dB 99.72% Wear 9th 41700 KM 56300 KM -14600 KM 74.07% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 2nd 56 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +5 mg/km/t 91.07% The Kleber KRISALP HP3 provides only average steering feedback and lacks precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections during steering and cornering. Its braking distance is average within the test field and rated as good. On wet roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating; it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tire achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is slightly above average and rated as satisfactory. Read Reviews
11th: Falken EUROWINTER HS02
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 1st 41.4 M 100% Wet Braking 8th 38.5 M 35.2 M +3.3 M 91.43% Wet Braking - Concrete 3rd 38.6 M 36.4 M +2.2 M 94.3% Straight Aqua 11th 83.2 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -7.4 Km/H 91.83% Curved Aquaplaning 12th 3.3 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.6 m/sec2 84.62% Snow Braking 16th 11.4 M 9.5 M +1.9 M 83.33% Snow Traction 15th 228 N 265.3 N -37.3 N 85.94% Ice Braking 7th 20.3 M 18.6 M +1.7 M 91.63% Noise 5th 71.1 dB 70.4 dB +0.7 dB 99.02% Wear 7th 42100 KM 56300 KM -14200 KM 74.78% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 12th 76 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +25 mg/km/t 67.11% The FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02 provides good steering feedback and safety margins on dry roads, along with above-average braking performance. On wet roads, it excels in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but receives only a satisfactory rating in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tire offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating, missing good scores in braking, traction, and handling. The vehicle tends to understeer or oversteer early, limiting the handling precision. However, its ice braking performance is average and rated as good. Environmentally, the tire receives a satisfactory overall rating; its projected lifespan and wear are rated as just good, but its higher weight impacts its efficiency rating negatively. Its sustainability, given its production in Turkey, is rated as inadequate. Read Reviews
12th: Barum Polaris 5
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 11th 44.6 M 41.4 M +3.2 M 92.83% Wet Braking 10th 38.7 M 35.2 M +3.5 M 90.96% Wet Braking - Concrete 13th 41.9 M 36.4 M +5.5 M 86.87% Straight Aqua 15th 80.1 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -10.5 Km/H 88.41% Curved Aquaplaning 12th 3.3 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.6 m/sec2 84.62% Snow Braking 10th 9.9 M 9.5 M +0.4 M 95.96% Snow Traction 14th 236.7 N 265.3 N -28.6 N 89.22% Ice Braking 10th 20.8 M 18.6 M +2.2 M 89.42% Noise 15th 72.8 dB 70.4 dB +2.4 dB 96.7% Wear 4th 46900 KM 56300 KM -9400 KM 83.3% Fuel Consumption 1st 5.5 l/100km 100% Abrasion 9th 71 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +20 mg/km/t 71.83% The Barum POLARIS 5 provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic evasive maneuvers, earning the tire a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, the tire achieves a satisfactory overall rating, excelling only in longitudinal aquaplaning. It falls short in braking, lateral aquaplaning, and handling due to early understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it also receives a satisfactory rating, narrowly missing good scores in traction and handling. Its ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tire performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in weight and achieves the best fuel efficiency in the test. Read Reviews
13th: Vredestein Wintrac
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 2nd 42.9 M 41.4 M +1.5 M 96.5% Wet Braking 11th 39.1 M 35.2 M +3.9 M 90.03% Wet Braking - Concrete 8th 39.8 M 36.4 M +3.4 M 91.46% Straight Aqua 8th 85 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -5.6 Km/H 93.82% Curved Aquaplaning 12th 3.3 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.6 m/sec2 84.62% Snow Braking 13th 10.2 M 9.5 M +0.7 M 93.14% Snow Traction 10th 248.6 N 265.3 N -16.7 N 93.71% Ice Braking 2nd 19.1 M 18.6 M +0.5 M 97.38% Noise 8th 71.3 dB 70.4 dB +0.9 dB 98.74% Wear 5th 44700 KM 56300 KM -11600 KM 79.4% Fuel Consumption 2nd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 4th 62 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +11 mg/km/t 82.26% The VREDESTEIN WINTRAC provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, earning the tire a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tire offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its traction performance is only satisfactory. It secures the second-best result in the test for ice braking. Environmentally, the tire performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in fuel efficiency and weight. Read Reviews
14th: Uniroyal WinterExpert
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 16th 45.6 M 41.4 M +4.2 M 90.79% Wet Braking 11th 39.1 M 35.2 M +3.9 M 90.03% Wet Braking - Concrete 15th 42.5 M 36.4 M +6.1 M 85.65% Straight Aqua 12th 82.6 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -8 Km/H 91.17% Curved Aquaplaning 6th 3.6 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.3 m/sec2 92.31% Snow Braking 5th 9.6 M 9.5 M +0.1 M 98.96% Snow Traction 9th 251.1 N 265.3 N -14.2 N 94.65% Ice Braking 11th 21 M 18.6 M +2.4 M 88.57% Noise 13th 72.1 dB 70.4 dB +1.7 dB 97.64% Wear 14th 37000 KM 56300 KM -19300 KM 65.72% Fuel Consumption 2nd 5.6 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.1 l/100km 98.21% Abrasion 16th 90 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +39 mg/km/t 56.67% The UNIROYAL WinterExpert provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer in dynamic maneuvers but earns a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is below average but still rated as good. On wet roads, it narrowly misses a good rating, performing satisfactorily in braking and handling due to imprecise steering. It excels only in aquaplaning tests. On winter roads, it earns a nearly good rating for its snow braking and handling but falls short in snow traction and ice braking. Environmentally, the tire achieves a satisfactory rating, with both its projected lifespan and wear rated as satisfactory. Despite good ratings in weight and fuel efficiency, the overall environmental performance is only satisfactory. Read Reviews
15th: Lassa Snoways 4
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 13th 44.9 M 41.4 M +3.5 M 92.2% Wet Braking 14th 40 M 35.2 M +4.8 M 88% Wet Braking - Concrete 10th 40.3 M 36.4 M +3.9 M 90.32% Straight Aqua 3rd 87.3 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -3.3 Km/H 96.36% Curved Aquaplaning 2nd 3.8 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -0.1 m/sec2 97.44% Snow Braking 15th 11.3 M 9.5 M +1.8 M 84.07% Snow Traction 16th 223.6 N 265.3 N -41.7 N 84.28% Ice Braking 14th 21.2 M 18.6 M +2.6 M 87.74% Noise 10th 71.4 dB 70.4 dB +1 dB 98.6% Wear 7th 42100 KM 56300 KM -14200 KM 74.78% Fuel Consumption 6th 5.7 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.2 l/100km 96.49% Abrasion 13th 78 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +27 mg/km/t 65.38% The LASSA SNOWAYS 4 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, with satisfactory limit behavior and good braking performance. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and aquaplaning tests but lacks the precision needed for a good handling rating. On winter roads, the tire struggles, earning only satisfactory ratings in braking and traction tests and a poor rating in handling. It loses traction early and has a narrow limit of safety, making precise maneuvering difficult. Ice braking performance is also only satisfactory. Environmentally, the tire narrowly misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan and wear are rated as good, but its high weight results in only a satisfactory efficiency rating. Read Reviews
16th: Austone SP 901
205/60 R16 3PMSF: yes	Test # Result Best Difference % Dry Braking 5th 43.2 M 41.4 M +1.8 M 95.83% Wet Braking 16th 45.6 M 35.2 M +10.4 M 77.19% Wet Braking - Concrete 16th 45.1 M 36.4 M +8.7 M 80.71% Straight Aqua 16th 69.1 Km/H 90.6 Km/H -21.5 Km/H 76.27% Curved Aquaplaning 16th 2.1 m/sec2 3.9 m/sec2 -1.8 m/sec2 53.85% Snow Braking 1st 9.5 M 100% Snow Traction 4th 260.1 N 265.3 N -5.2 N 98.04% Ice Braking 15th 21.4 M 18.6 M +2.8 M 86.92% Noise 1st 70.4 dB 100% Wear 12th 40000 KM 56300 KM -16300 KM 71.05% Fuel Consumption 16th 5.8 l/100km 5.5 l/100km +0.3 l/100km 94.83% Abrasion 6th 67 mg/km/t 51 mg/km/t +16 mg/km/t 76.12% The AUSTONE ATHENA SP-901 provides barely adequate steering feedback and is imprecise on dry roads, requiring constant corrections. It tends to oversteer early in dynamic maneuvers, earning it a barely adequate rating for limit behavior. Its braking performance on dry roads is average but rated as good. On wet roads, the tire struggles significantly. Its braking distance is rated as barely adequate, and while it earns a satisfactory rating for longitudinal aquaplaning, it performs poorly in lateral aquaplaning and handling due to low grip levels and early understeer/oversteer tendencies. On winter roads, however, the tire excels, showing the best behavior in the test. It handles securely and precisely on snow, with good results in braking and traction tests. Its ice braking performance is rated as satisfactory. Environmentally, the tire misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan is rated as satisfactory, and although its wear is rated as good, its high weight results in an adequate efficiency rating. Read Reviews