Test Charts / Tire Reviews
2022/23 UHP All Season Tire Test
Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tire, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.
- Tested size
- 245/40 R18
- Tires tested
- 4
- Disciplines
- 13
Read the measurements, not just the rank
Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tires can be separated by very different margins.
Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.
Focus on your tires
Select tires to highlight them throughout the charts.
Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tires does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.
Dry
3Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 122 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 124 ft | +2 ft | 10 mph | |
| 128 ft | +6 ft | 17 mph | |
| 133 ft | +11 ft | 23 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 9% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Pirelli P Zero All Season Plus would still be travelling at 23 mph when the Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Dry Handling
Dry handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 69.53 s | Best | |
| 69.58 s | +0.05 s | |
| 69.83 s | +0.30 s | |
| 70.56 s | +1.03 s |
All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.
Subj. Dry Handling
Subjective Dry Handling Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 10% (1 Points).
Wet
4Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (55 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 99 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 102 ft | +3 ft | 15 mph | |
| 109 ft | +10 ft | 25 mph | |
| 117 ft | +18 ft | 32 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 18.4% (18 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Pirelli P Zero All Season Plus would still be travelling at 32 mph when the Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 39.01 s | Best | |
| 39.08 s | +0.07 s | |
| 40.67 s | +1.66 s | |
| 40.81 s | +1.80 s |
The difference between best and worst was 4.6% (1.8 s).
Subj. Wet Handling
Subjective Wet Handling Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.75 Points | -0.25 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 5% (0.5 Points).
Wet Circle
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 29.13 s | Best | |
| 29.71 s | +0.58 s | |
| 29.86 s | +0.73 s | |
| 30.12 s | +0.99 s |
The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (0.99 s).
Snow
4Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (20 - 5 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 47 ft | +1 ft | 14 mph | |
| 50 ft | +4 ft | 25 mph | |
| 56 ft | +10 ft | 34 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 22.3% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Pirelli P Zero All Season Plus would still be travelling at 34 mph when the Bridgestone Potenza RE980AS Plus had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (5 - 20 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 5.17 s | Best | |
| 5.84 s | +0.67 s | |
| 6.1 s | +0.93 s | |
| 6.61 s | +1.44 s |
The difference between best and worst was 27.9% (1.44 s).
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 100.14 s | Best | |
| 102.29 s | +2.15 s | |
| 107.2 s | +7.06 s | |
| 116.04 s | +15.90 s |
The difference between best and worst was 15.9% (15.9 s).
Subj. Snow Handling
Subjective Snow Handling Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 8 Points | -2.00 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 20% (2 Points).
Comfort
1Subj. Comfort
Subjective Comfort Score
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Points | Best | |
| 9.5 Points | -0.50 Points | |
| 9 Points | -1.00 Points | |
| 8.75 Points | -1.25 Points |
The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (1.25 Points).
Value
1Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.69 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 9.75 kg/t | +0.06 kg/t | $2 | |
| 10.32 kg/t | +0.63 kg/t | $19 | |
| 11.15 kg/t | +1.46 kg/t | $44 |
The difference between best and worst was 15.1% (1.46 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Bridgestone Potenza RE980AS Plus uses about 12 gal ($44) more fuel than the Michelin Pilot Sport All Season 4.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tire selection above.
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Show full testing methodology
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62 → 3 mph
- Wet Braking
- 55 → 3 mph
- Snow Braking
- 20 → 5 mph
- Snow Traction
- 5 → 20 mph
Score Weighting
Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.
| Test | Within category | Share of overall score |
|---|---|---|
| Dry · 35% | ||
| Dry Braking | 50% | 17.5% |
| Dry Handling | 35% | 12.25% |
| Subj. Dry Handling | 15% | 5.25% |
| Wet · 35% | ||
| Wet Braking | 50% | 17.5% |
| Wet Handling | 30% | 10.5% |
| Subj. Wet Handling | 10% | 3.5% |
| Wet Circle | 10% | 3.5% |
| Snow · 20% | ||
| Snow Braking | 40% | 8% |
| Snow Traction | 20% | 4% |
| Snow Handling | 30% | 6% |
| Subj. Snow Handling | 10% | 2% |
| Comfort · 5% | ||
| Subj. Comfort | 100% | 5% |
| Value · 5% | ||
| Rolling Resistance | 100% | 5% |
Our standard methods
The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.
Dry Braking
For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.
Dry Handling
For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.
Subj. Dry Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.
Wet Braking
For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tire performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tire set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tire category justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.
Wet Handling
For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tire's natural balance, transient response, and limit behavior without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, depending on the circuit, tire type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tires so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.
Subj. Wet Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.
Wet Circle
For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 meters, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tire.
Snow Braking
For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tires repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.
Snow Traction
For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tire ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.
Snow Handling
For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.
Subj. Snow Handling
I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tires are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behavior, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tire before evaluating each candidate.
Subj. Comfort
To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tire's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tire.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tire is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.
More tire tests
Cross-check this test
Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.
Tire Rack Ultra High Performance All-Season Tire Test
235/40R194 tires tested
2 of these 4 tires tested again
2025 AutoView Ultra High Performance All-Season Tire Test
245/40R195 tires tested
2 of these 4 tires tested again
2024 Tire Rack UHP All Season Tire Test
225/45 R189 tires tested
2 of these 4 tires tested again