Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph
Snow Braking: 21.7 → 3.1 mph
Snow Traction: 3.1 → 21.7 mph
Ice Braking: 9.3 → 3.1 mph
Ice Traction: 3.1 → 9.3 mph
Fuel Consumption: 55.9 mph

For the 2020 Vi Bilägare Winter studded tire test, the Swedish magazine has tested 8 of the most extreme studded winter tires in 205/60 R16.

As this is a studded winter tire test, the testers placed much more emphasis on snow and ice performance, so if you're in a region that sees a lot of compacted snow and ice on the road during normal winters, this is a very useful test.

Scroll down to see the full results.

Dry

The GT Radial IcePro 3 had a significant advantage during dry braking, with the next best Continental IceContact 3 nearly 7 feet behind.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1GT Radial IcePro 3	95 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental IceContact 3	101 ft	+6 ft	20 mph
3Pirelli Ice Zero 2	102 ft	+7 ft	21 mph
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	102 ft	+7 ft	21 mph
5Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	104 ft	+9 ft	23 mph
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	105 ft	+10 ft	25 mph
7Michelin X Ice North 4	106 ft	+11 ft	26 mph
8Nokian Nordman 7	109 ft	+14 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (14 ft ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nokian Nordman 7 would still be travelling at 29 mph when the GT Radial IcePro 3 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

The magazine didn't give dry handling lap times, instead just awarding the tires subjective handling scores.

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	5 Points	Best
2Pirelli Ice Zero 2	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Continental IceContact 3	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	3 Points	-2.00 Points
7Nokian Nordman 7	2 Points	-3.00 Points
7GT Radial IcePro 3	2 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 60% (3 Points).

Wet

In the wet the GT Radial held onto its advantage, with the Pirelli Ice Zero 2 a meter behind in second place.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1GT Radial IcePro 3	111 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli Ice Zero 2	114 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
3Michelin X Ice North 4	115 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	119 ft	+8 ft	20 mph
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	121 ft	+10 ft	23 mph
5Continental IceContact 3	121 ft	+10 ft	23 mph
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	122 ft	+11 ft	24 mph
8Nokian Nordman 7	128 ft	+17 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 14.9% (17 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nokian Nordman 7 would still be travelling at 29 mph when the GT Radial IcePro 3 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

The GT Radial continued its advantage during a wet handling lap.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1GT Radial IcePro 3	43.11 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	43.77 s	+0.66 s
3Pirelli Ice Zero 2	44.1 s	+0.99 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	44.12 s	+1.01 s
5Hankook Winter i pike RS2	44.75 s	+1.64 s
6Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	45.17 s	+2.06 s
7Nokian Nordman 7	45.75 s	+2.64 s
7Michelin X Ice North 4	45.75 s	+2.64 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.1% (2.64 s).

Pirelli and GT again scored well during straight aquaplaning testing.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Ice Zero 2	40.1 mph	Best
2GT Radial IcePro 3	39.8 mph	-0.3 mph
3Continental IceContact 3	39.6 mph	-0.5 mph
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	39.1 mph	-1.0 mph
5Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	38.8 mph	-1.3 mph
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	38.6 mph	-1.5 mph
7Nokian Nordman 7	38.3 mph	-1.8 mph
8Michelin X Ice North 4	36.9 mph	-3.2 mph

The difference between best and worst was 8% (3.2 mph).

Snow

GT Radial couldn't continue its wins in the braking test, this time finishing last during snow braking. It's not unusual for a tire that performs well in the dry and wet to lack grip during snow and ice testing, however the Continental IceContact 3 proved to have a rounded ability.

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin X Ice North 4	34 ft	Best	0 mph
1Continental IceContact 3	34 ft	Best	0 mph
3Nokian Nordman 7	34 ft	0 ft	2 mph
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	35 ft	+1 ft	7 mph
5Hankook Winter i pike RS2	35 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	35 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
6Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	35 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
8GT Radial IcePro 3	35 ft	+1 ft	12 mph

All the tires in the Snow Braking test finished less than 3% apart. From 80 mph, the GT Radial IcePro 3 would still be travelling at 12 mph when the Michelin X Ice North 4 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Snow traction showed a similar story.

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Ice Zero 2	3.62 s	Best
2Michelin X Ice North 4	3.67 s	+0.05 s
2Continental IceContact 3	3.67 s	+0.05 s
4Nokian Nordman 7	3.72 s	+0.10 s
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	3.75 s	+0.13 s
6Hankook Winter i pike RS2	3.79 s	+0.17 s
7GT Radial IcePro 3	3.83 s	+0.21 s
8Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	3.92 s	+0.30 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (0.3 s).

The winter specialists Nokian took their first win with the Hakkapeliita 9 during the important snow handling test.

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	74.62 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	75.04 s	+0.42 s
3Nokian Nordman 7	75.19 s	+0.57 s
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	75.19 s	+0.57 s
5Michelin X Ice North 4	75.69 s	+1.07 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	75.74 s	+1.12 s
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	76.85 s	+2.23 s
8GT Radial IcePro 3	78.81 s	+4.19 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (4.19 s).

Ice

Ice braking had the Nokian and Michelin leading with a significant advantage.

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	11 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin X Ice North 4	11 ft	0 ft	9 mph
3Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	13 ft	+2 ft	32 mph
4Continental IceContact 3	14 ft	+3 ft	34 mph
5Nokian Nordman 7	14 ft	+3 ft	36 mph
6Hankook Winter i pike RS2	15 ft	+4 ft	41 mph
7Pirelli Ice Zero 2	17 ft	+6 ft	47 mph
8GT Radial IcePro 3	17 ft	+6 ft	48 mph

The difference between best and worst was 54.8% (6 ft ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the GT Radial IcePro 3 would still be travelling at 48 mph when the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9 had stopped.

Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.

Michelin and Nokian continued to lead during the ice traction testing.

Ice Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	1.89 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	1.94 s	+0.05 s
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	2.08 s	+0.19 s
4Continental IceContact 3	2.18 s	+0.29 s
5Nokian Nordman 7	2.22 s	+0.33 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	2.42 s	+0.53 s
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	2.8 s	+0.91 s
8GT Radial IcePro 3	3.29 s	+1.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 74.1% (1.4 s).

Rounding off their excellent snow performance, Michelin and Nokian also led in ice handling.

Ice Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	51.23 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	51.4 s	+0.17 s
3Continental IceContact 3	52.24 s	+1.01 s
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	53.52 s	+2.29 s
5Nokian Nordman 7	55.11 s	+3.88 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	56.42 s	+5.19 s
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	59.02 s	+7.79 s
8GT Radial IcePro 3	61.42 s	+10.19 s

The difference between best and worst was 19.9% (10.19 s).

Environment

Michelin proved to have the lowest rolling resistance on test.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin X Ice North 4	5.66 l/100km	Best	$0
2Hankook Winter i pike RS2	5.67 l/100km	+0.01 l/100km	$2
3Continental IceContact 3	5.69 l/100km	+0.03 l/100km	$6
4Pirelli Ice Zero 2	5.71 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km	$9
5Nokian Nordman 7	5.74 l/100km	+0.08 l/100km	$15
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
6Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	$18
8GT Radial IcePro 3	5.78 l/100km	+0.12 l/100km	$22

All the tires in the Fuel Consumption test finished less than 3% apart. Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the GT Radial IcePro 3 uses about 6 gal ($22) more fuel than the Michelin X Ice North 4.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

Gas/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

12,000 mi

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

$3.60/gal

GBP (£)

EUR (€)

USD ($)

Set my vehicle consumption

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.

Michelin also had the lowest subjective noise, being the only tire awarded 5/5.

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	5 Points	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Pirelli Ice Zero 2	3 Points	-2.00 Points
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	2 Points	-3.00 Points
5Nokian Nordman 7	2 Points	-3.00 Points
5Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	2 Points	-3.00 Points
5GT Radial IcePro 3	2 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 60% (3 Points).

Results

Dry91.2%

Wet95.1%

Snow99%

Ice99.6%

Comfort100%

Fuel Consumption100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	106 ft	+11 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	115 ft	+4 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	45.75 s	+2.64 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	36.9 mph	-3.2 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	34 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	3.67 s	+0.05 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	75.69 s	+1.07 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	11 ft	0 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	1.89 s	Best in this discipline
Ice HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	51.23 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 8	5.66 l/100km	Best in this discipline

Origin: Russia

Dry88.2%

Wet95.5%

Snow99.3%

Ice88.7%

Comfort80%

Fuel Consumption99.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	101 ft	+6 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	121 ft	+10 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	43.77 s	+0.66 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	39.6 mph	-0.5 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	34 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	3.67 s	+0.05 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	75.04 s	+0.42 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	14 ft	+3 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	2.18 s	+0.29 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	52.24 s	+1.01 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	2^nd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	5.69 l/100km	+0.03 l/100km

Origin: Germany

Dry85.2%

Wet94.8%

Snow98.6%

Ice99%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption98.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	105 ft	+10 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	121 ft	+10 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	44.12 s	+1.01 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	38.6 mph	-1.5 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	35 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	3.75 s	+0.13 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	74.62 s	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	11 ft	Best in this discipline
Ice TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	1.94 s	+0.05 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	51.4 s	+0.17 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 8	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km

Origin: Finland

Dry87.2%

Wet95.3%

Snow97.9%

Ice86.5%

Comfort60%

Fuel Consumption99.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	102 ft	+7 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	119 ft	+8 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	44.75 s	+1.64 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	39.1 mph	-1.0 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	35 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	3.79 s	+0.17 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	75.19 s	+0.57 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	15 ft	+4 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	2.08 s	+0.19 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	53.52 s	+2.29 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	5.67 l/100km	+0.01 l/100km

Origin: South Korea

Dry90.9%

Wet97.8%

Snow98.9%

Ice78.2%

Comfort60%

Fuel Consumption99.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	102 ft	+7 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	114 ft	+3 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	44.1 s	+0.99 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	40.1 mph	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	35 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	3.62 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	75.74 s	+1.12 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	17 ft	+6 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	2.42 s	+0.53 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	56.42 s	+5.19 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 8	5.71 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km

Origin: Russia

Dry78.8%

Wet91.1%

Snow98.8%

Ice85.8%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption98.6%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	109 ft	+14 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	128 ft	+17 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	45.75 s	+2.64 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 8	38.3 mph	-1.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	34 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	3.72 s	+0.10 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	75.19 s	+0.57 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	14 ft	+3 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	2.22 s	+0.33 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	55.11 s	+3.88 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	5.74 l/100km	+0.08 l/100km

Origin: Russia

Dry86.1%

Wet93.6%

Snow95.7%

Ice79.6%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption98.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	104 ft	+9 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	122 ft	+11 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	45.17 s	+2.06 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	38.8 mph	-1.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	35 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	3.92 s	+0.30 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	76.85 s	+2.23 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	13 ft	+2 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	2.8 s	+0.91 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	59.02 s	+7.79 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 8	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km

Origin: Malaysia

Dry89.8%

Wet99.9%

Snow95.6%

Ice68.4%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption97.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.

Test	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	95 ft	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	111 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	43.11 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	39.8 mph	-0.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	35 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	3.83 s	+0.21 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	78.81 s	+4.19 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	17 ft	+6 ft
Ice TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	3.29 s	+1.40 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	61.42 s	+10.19 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 8	5.78 l/100km	+0.12 l/100km

Origin: China

Tire	Michelin X Ice North 4	Continental IceContact 3	Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	Hankook Winter i pike RS2	Pirelli Ice Zero 2	Nokian Nordman 7	Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	GT Radial IcePro 3
Position	1^st	Joint 2^nd	Joint 2^nd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	91.2%	88.2%	85.2%	87.2%	90.9%	78.8%	86.1%	89.8%
Wet	95.1%	95.5%	94.8%	95.3%	97.8%	91.1%	93.6%	99.9%
Snow	99%	99.3%	98.6%	97.9%	98.9%	98.8%	95.7%	95.6%
Ice	99.6%	88.7%	99%	86.5%	78.2%	85.8%	79.6%	68.4%
Comfort	100%	80%	40%	60%	60%	40%	40%	40%
Fuel Consumption	100%	99.5%	98.3%	99.8%	99.1%	98.6%	98.3%	97.9%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry

Wet

Snow

Ice

Environment

Results

Cross-check this test