Test Charts / ADAC
2023 ADAC 16 Inch 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
- 205/60 R16
- Tires tested
- 16
- Disciplines
- 12
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
1Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 136 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 141 ft | +5 ft | 15 mph | |
| 141 ft | +5 ft | 15 mph | |
| 141 ft | +5 ft | 15 mph | |
| 142 ft | +6 ft | 16 mph | |
| 143 ft | +7 ft | 18 mph | |
| 145 ft | +9 ft | 20 mph | |
| 145 ft | +9 ft | 20 mph | |
| 146 ft | +10 ft | 21 mph | |
| 146 ft | +10 ft | 21 mph | |
| 146 ft | +10 ft | 21 mph | |
| 147 ft | +11 ft | 22 mph | |
| 147 ft | +11 ft | 22 mph | |
| 147 ft | +11 ft | 22 mph | |
| 148 ft | +12 ft | 23 mph | |
| 150 ft | +14 ft | 24 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (14 ft ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Uniroyal WinterExpert would still be travelling at 24 mph when the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Wet
4Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 115 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 118 ft | +3 ft | 11 mph | |
| 119 ft | +4 ft | 15 mph | |
| 121 ft | +6 ft | 17 mph | |
| 121 ft | +6 ft | 17 mph | |
| 122 ft | +7 ft | 19 mph | |
| 125 ft | +10 ft | 22 mph | |
| 126 ft | +11 ft | 23 mph | |
| 126 ft | +11 ft | 23 mph | |
| 127 ft | +12 ft | 24 mph | |
| 128 ft | +13 ft | 25 mph | |
| 128 ft | +13 ft | 25 mph | |
| 130 ft | +15 ft | 26 mph | |
| 131 ft | +16 ft | 28 mph | |
| 135 ft | +20 ft | 31 mph | |
| 150 ft | +35 ft | 38 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 29.5% (35 ft ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Austone SP 901 would still be travelling at 38 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Wet Braking - Concrete
Wet braking on Concrete in feet (50 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 119 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 126 ft | +7 ft | 18 mph | |
| 127 ft | +8 ft | 19 mph | |
| 127 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 128 ft | +9 ft | 20 mph | |
| 129 ft | +10 ft | 22 mph | |
| 129 ft | +10 ft | 22 mph | |
| 131 ft | +12 ft | 23 mph | |
| 132 ft | +13 ft | 25 mph | |
| 132 ft | +13 ft | 25 mph | |
| 133 ft | +14 ft | 25 mph | |
| 135 ft | +16 ft | 27 mph | |
| 137 ft | +18 ft | 29 mph | |
| 138 ft | +19 ft | 29 mph | |
| 139 ft | +20 ft | 30 mph | |
| 148 ft | +29 ft | 35 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 23.9% (29 ft ≈ 1.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Austone SP 901 would still be travelling at 35 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 56.3 mph | Best | |
| 55.2 mph | -1.1 mph | |
| 54.2 mph | -2.1 mph | |
| 53.7 mph | -2.6 mph | |
| 53.6 mph | -2.7 mph | |
| 53.1 mph | -3.2 mph | |
| 53.1 mph | -3.2 mph | |
| 52.8 mph | -3.5 mph | |
| 52.5 mph | -3.8 mph | |
| 52.4 mph | -3.9 mph | |
| 51.7 mph | -4.6 mph | |
| 51.3 mph | -5.0 mph | |
| 51.1 mph | -5.2 mph | |
| 50.6 mph | -5.7 mph | |
| 49.8 mph | -6.5 mph | |
| 42.9 mph | -13.4 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 23.7% (13.4 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 12.8 ft/s² | Best | |
| 12.5 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 12.5 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 12.5 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 12.5 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 11.8 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² | |
| 11.8 ft/s² | -1.0 ft/s² | |
| 11.5 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² | |
| 11.5 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² | |
| 11.2 ft/s² | -1.6 ft/s² | |
| 11.2 ft/s² | -1.6 ft/s² | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -2.0 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -2.3 ft/s² | |
| 6.9 ft/s² | -5.9 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 46.2% (5.9 ft/s²).
Snow
2Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (19 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 31 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 31 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 31 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 31 ft | 0 ft | 8 mph | |
| 31 ft | 0 ft | 8 mph | |
| 31 ft | 0 ft | 8 mph | |
| 31 ft | 0 ft | 8 mph | |
| 32 ft | +1 ft | 11 mph | |
| 32 ft | +1 ft | 16 mph | |
| 32 ft | +1 ft | 16 mph | |
| 33 ft | +2 ft | 18 mph | |
| 33 ft | +2 ft | 21 mph | |
| 34 ft | +3 ft | 25 mph | |
| 37 ft | +6 ft | 32 mph | |
| 37 ft | +6 ft | 33 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 20% (6 ft ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 would still be travelling at 33 mph when the Kleber Krisalp HP3 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Snow Traction
Pulling Force in pounds-force
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 60 lbf | Best | |
| 59 lbf | -1 lbf | |
| 59 lbf | -1 lbf | |
| 58 lbf | -2 lbf | |
| 58 lbf | -2 lbf | |
| 58 lbf | -2 lbf | |
| 58 lbf | -2 lbf | |
| 58 lbf | -2 lbf | |
| 56 lbf | -4 lbf | |
| 56 lbf | -4 lbf | |
| 56 lbf | -4 lbf | |
| 55 lbf | -5 lbf | |
| 55 lbf | -5 lbf | |
| 53 lbf | -7 lbf | |
| 51 lbf | -9 lbf | |
| 50 lbf | -10 lbf |
The difference between best and worst was 15.7% (10 lbf).
Ice
1Ice Braking
Ice braking in feet (20 - 0 )
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 63 ft | +2 ft | 13 mph | |
| 64 ft | +3 ft | 17 mph | |
| 64 ft | +3 ft | 18 mph | |
| 65 ft | +4 ft | 19 mph | |
| 66 ft | +5 ft | 21 mph | |
| 67 ft | +6 ft | 23 mph | |
| 67 ft | +6 ft | 23 mph | |
| 67 ft | +6 ft | 24 mph | |
| 68 ft | +7 ft | 26 mph | |
| 69 ft | +8 ft | 27 mph | |
| 69 ft | +8 ft | 27 mph | |
| 69 ft | +8 ft | 27 mph | |
| 70 ft | +9 ft | 28 mph | |
| 70 ft | +9 ft | 29 mph | |
| 72 ft | +11 ft | 31 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 17.2% (11 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip 9+ had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Comfort
1Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 70.4 dB | Best | |
| 70.6 dB | +0.20 dB | |
| 70.8 dB | +0.40 dB | |
| 70.9 dB | +0.50 dB | |
| 71.1 dB | +0.70 dB | |
| 71.1 dB | +0.70 dB | |
| 71.2 dB | +0.80 dB | |
| 71.3 dB | +0.90 dB | |
| 71.3 dB | +0.90 dB | |
| 71.4 dB | +1.00 dB | |
| 71.8 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 71.8 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 72.1 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 72.4 dB | +2.00 dB | |
| 72.8 dB | +2.40 dB | |
| 74.1 dB | +3.70 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (3.7 dB).
Value
3Wear
Predicted tread life in KM
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 34,983 miles | Best | |
| 33,119 miles | -1,864 miles | |
| 29,639 miles | -5,344 miles | |
| 29,142 miles | -5,841 miles | |
| 27,775 miles | -7,208 miles | |
| 27,278 miles | -7,705 miles | |
| 26,160 miles | -8,823 miles | |
| 26,160 miles | -8,823 miles | |
| 25,911 miles | -9,072 miles | |
| 25,911 miles | -9,072 miles | |
| 25,911 miles | -9,072 miles | |
| 24,855 miles | -10,128 miles | |
| 24,047 miles | -10,936 miles | |
| 22,991 miles | -11,992 miles | |
| 22,183 miles | -12,800 miles | |
| 21,624 miles | -13,359 miles |
The difference between best and worst was 38.2% (13,359 miles).
Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumption in Liters per 100 km
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.5 l/100km | Best | $0 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.8 l/100km | +0.30 l/100km | $55 |
The difference between best and worst was 5.5% (0.3 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Austone SP 901 uses about 15 gal ($55) more fuel than the Barum Polaris 5.
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.
Abrasion
Weight of Tire Wear Particles Lost (mg/km/t)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 51 mg/km/t | Best | |
| 56 mg/km/t | +5.00 mg/km/t | |
| 56 mg/km/t | +5.00 mg/km/t | |
| 62 mg/km/t | +11.00 mg/km/t | |
| 65 mg/km/t | +14.00 mg/km/t | |
| 67 mg/km/t | +16.00 mg/km/t | |
| 69 mg/km/t | +18.00 mg/km/t | |
| 70 mg/km/t | +19.00 mg/km/t | |
| 71 mg/km/t | +20.00 mg/km/t | |
| 71 mg/km/t | +20.00 mg/km/t | |
| 74 mg/km/t | +23.00 mg/km/t | |
| 76 mg/km/t | +25.00 mg/km/t | |
| 78 mg/km/t | +27.00 mg/km/t | |
| 83 mg/km/t | +32.00 mg/km/t | |
| 89 mg/km/t | +38.00 mg/km/t | |
| 90 mg/km/t | +39.00 mg/km/t |
The difference between best and worst was 76.5% (39 mg/km/t).
Test setup & methodology
The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.
Recorded test conditions
Recorded test conditions
- Dry Braking
- 62.1 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Braking
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph
- Wet Braking - Concrete
- 49.7 → 0.0 mph
- Snow Braking
- 18.6 → 0.0 mph
More tire tests
Cross-check this test
Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.
2024 Winter 55 Tire Braking Test
205/55 R1655 tires tested
12 of these 16 tires tested again
2022 Winter Tire Market Overview
215/55 R1756 tires tested
12 of these 16 tires tested again
2023 Winter Tire Test 54 Set Braking Test
225/45 R1854 tires tested
11 of these 16 tires tested again

