Menu

2018 Vi Studded Winter Tire Test

Jonathan Benson
Data analyzed and reviewed by Jonathan Benson
5 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Dry / Wet
  3. Snow
  4. Ice
  5. Environment
  6. Results
  7. Continental IceContact 2
  8. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9
  9. Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic
  10. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
  11. Bridgestone Noranza 001
  12. Yokohama iceGUARD iG65
  13. Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62
  14. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3

Test Publication:
205/55 R16 8 tires 5 categories
Test Size: 205/55 R16
Tires Tested: 8 tires
Test Categories:
5 categories (9 tests)
Similar Tests
While studded tires aren't suitable for the normal UK winter, Tire Reviews does have a lot of international readers, which is why we're covering this excellent studded winter tire test from the Swedish publications Vi Bilägare.

Why this one? Well, they've used a Volvo V30 to test seven studded tires in the very common 205/55 R16 tire size, and they've also included a friction studless nordic winter tire.

It's worth noting that the nordic winter tire included in the test, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3, is STILL too extreme for the UK winters. Instead we use a winter tire type called "European winter tire" which is covered in the Nokian line up by the WRD4 and WRA4.

These European winter tires are again a step below the nordic winter tires in snow and ice, but offer a better dry and wet performance, meaning they're more suitable to the type of winters we see in central Europe.

Dry / Wet

In the dry, Continental IceContact 2 was the only tire able to beat the Nordic friction tire, but in the wet the friction tire surpsingly performed badly, taking over 4 meters extra to stop when compared to the worst studded tire!

Dry Braking

Spread: 2.23 M (4.3%)|Avg: 52.63 M
Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)
Dry Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tire

Wet Braking

Spread: 8.77 M (15.9%)|Avg: 57.83 M
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
Wet Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tire

Snow

During the snow testing, the friction tire won both the traction and braking tests, but struggled more with the lateral stability requirements of the snow handling lap.

Snow Traction

Spread: 0.63 s (10.9%)|Avg: 6.03 s
Snow acceleration time (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3
    5.77 s
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9
    5.79 s
  3. Yokohama iceGUARD iG65
    6.03 s
  4. Continental IceContact 2
    6.05 s
  5. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    6.05 s
  6. Bridgestone Noranza 001
    6.05 s
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic
    6.09 s
  8. Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62
    6.40 s

Snow Braking

Spread: 0.76 M (4.1%)|Avg: 18.73 M
Snow braking in meters (Lower is better)
Snow Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tire

Snow Handling

Spread: 7.00 s (7.7%)|Avg: 93.45 s
Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Continental IceContact 2
    90.50 s
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9
    92.00 s
  3. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    92.10 s
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic
    93.00 s
  5. Bridgestone Noranza 001
    93.20 s
  6. Yokohama iceGUARD iG65
    94.50 s
  7. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3
    94.80 s
  8. Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62
    97.50 s

Ice

Unsurprisingly, the studded tires had a big advantage during the ice testing.

Ice Traction

Spread: 3.01 s (75.8%)|Avg: 4.86 s
Ice acceleration time (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9
    3.97 s
  2. Continental IceContact 2
    3.99 s
  3. Bridgestone Noranza 001
    4.12 s
  4. Yokohama iceGUARD iG65
    4.30 s
  5. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    4.71 s
  6. Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic
    5.10 s
  7. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3
    5.74 s
  8. Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62
    6.98 s

Ice Braking

Spread: 7.10 M (67%)|Avg: 12.73 M
Ice braking in meters (Lower is better)
Ice Braking: Safety Impact: Best vs Worst Tire

Ice Handling

Spread: 12.90 s (17.6%)|Avg: 79.80 s
Ice handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9
    73.50 s
  2. Continental IceContact 2
    74.60 s
  3. Bridgestone Noranza 001
    76.90 s
  4. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    80.90 s
  5. Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic
    81.30 s
  6. Yokohama iceGUARD iG65
    81.50 s
  7. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3
    83.30 s
  8. Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62
    86.40 s

Environment

The friction tire proved to be the quietest tire on test, and had the lowest rolling resistance.

Rolling Resistance

Spread: 0.47 kg / t (11.4%)|Avg: 4.31 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3
    4.12 kg / t
  2. Bridgestone Noranza 001
    4.19 kg / t
  3. Yokohama iceGUARD iG65
    4.19 kg / t
  4. Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62
    4.30 kg / t
  5. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    4.30 kg / t
  6. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9
    4.36 kg / t
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic
    4.39 kg / t
  8. Continental IceContact 2
    4.59 kg / t

19,000 km
£1.45/L
--
Annual Difference
--
Lifetime Savings
--
Extra Fuel/Energy
--
Extra CO2

Estimates based on typical driving conditions. Rolling resistance accounts for approximately 20% of IC vehicle fuel consumption and 25% of EV energy consumption. Actual savings vary based on driving style, vehicle weight, road conditions, and tire age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Results

1st

Continental IceContact 2

205/55 R16
Continental IceContact 2
2nd

Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9

205/55 R16
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9
Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic
4th

Gislaved Nord Frost 200

205/55 R16
Gislaved Nord Frost 200
5th

Bridgestone Noranza 001

205/55 R16
Bridgestone Noranza 001
6th

Yokohama iceGUARD iG65

205/55 R16
Yokohama iceGUARD iG65
Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62
8th

Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3

205/55 R16
Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3

comments powered by Disqus