Test Charts / Tire Reviews

2023/24 Tire Reviews UHP Winter 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: 255/40 R19
Tires tested: 6
Disciplines: 21

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.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	137 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	138 ft	+1 ft	7 mph
3Vredestein Wintrac Pro	138 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	140 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	141 ft	+4 ft	13 mph
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	141 ft	+4 ft	14 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (4 ft). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 would still be travelling at 14 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.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	52.46 s	Best
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	52.87 s	+0.41 s
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	53.01 s	+0.55 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	53.09 s	+0.63 s
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	53.18 s	+0.72 s
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	54.9 s	+2.44 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.7% (2.44 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	10 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3Vredestein Wintrac Pro	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Superia Bluewin UHP2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 5% (0.5 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	91 ft	Best	0 mph
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	100 ft	+9 ft	25 mph
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	100 ft	+9 ft	25 mph
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	103 ft	+12 ft	28 mph
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	104 ft	+13 ft	28 mph
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	110 ft	+19 ft	33 mph

The difference between best and worst was 21% (19 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 would still be travelling at 33 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 - Cool
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	101 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	102 ft	+1 ft	10 mph
3Vredestein Wintrac Pro	104 ft	+3 ft	14 mph
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	108 ft	+7 ft	21 mph
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	108 ft	+7 ft	21 mph
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	111 ft	+10 ft	25 mph

The difference between best and worst was 10.4% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 would still be travelling at 25 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 - Worn
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	107 ft	Best	0 mph
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	108 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	109 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	114 ft	+7 ft	19 mph
5Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	122 ft	+15 ft	28 mph
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	138 ft	+31 ft	38 mph

The difference between best and worst was 29.1% (31 ft ≈ 2.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Superia Bluewin UHP2 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 Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	84.77 s	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	85.01 s	+0.24 s
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	85.73 s	+0.96 s
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	86.57 s	+1.80 s
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	87.85 s	+3.08 s
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	91.97 s	+7.20 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.5% (7.2 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	10 Points	Best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	10 Points	Best
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	5 Points	-5.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 50% (5 Points).

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	11.81 s	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	12.02 s	+0.21 s
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	12.05 s	+0.24 s
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	12.09 s	+0.28 s
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	12.32 s	+0.51 s
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	12.43 s	+0.62 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.2% (0.62 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	62.2 mph	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	59.0 mph	-3.2 mph
3Vredestein Wintrac Pro	57.7 mph	-4.5 mph
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	57.5 mph	-4.7 mph
5Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	57.4 mph	-4.8 mph
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	54.4 mph	-7.8 mph

The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (7.8 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	10.8 ft/s²	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	7.8 ft/s²	-3.0 ft/s²
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	7.6 ft/s²	-3.2 ft/s²
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	7.5 ft/s²	-3.3 ft/s²
5Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	6.1 ft/s²	-4.7 ft/s²
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	4.0 ft/s²	-6.8 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 62.8% (6.8 ft/s²).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	52 ft	Best	0 mph
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	53 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	53 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	53 ft	+1 ft	11 mph
5Superia Bluewin UHP2	54 ft	+2 ft	13 mph
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	54 ft	+2 ft	14 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (2 ft). From 80 mph, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro would still be travelling at 14 mph when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	7.93 s	Best
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	7.94 s	+0.01 s
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.2 s	+0.27 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	8.34 s	+0.41 s
5Vredestein Wintrac Pro	8.36 s	+0.43 s
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	8.8 s	+0.87 s

The difference between best and worst was 11% (0.87 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	79.76 s	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	80 s	+0.24 s
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	80.32 s	+0.56 s
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	80.48 s	+0.72 s
5Superia Bluewin UHP2	81.04 s	+1.28 s
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	82.56 s	+2.80 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.5% (2.8 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	10 Points	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9.2 Points	-0.80 Points
4Superia Bluewin UHP2	9.2 Points	-0.80 Points
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (1 Points).

Snow Slalom
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	1.1 ft/s²	Best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	1.1 ft/s²	Best
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	1.1 ft/s²	0.0 ft/s²
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	1.1 ft/s²	0.0 ft/s²
3Superia Bluewin UHP2	1.1 ft/s²	0.0 ft/s²
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	1.1 ft/s²	0.0 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 5.7% (0 ft/s²).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	10 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points
4Superia Bluewin UHP2	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points

The difference between best and worst was 7.5% (0.75 Points).

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Superia Bluewin UHP2	71.3 dB	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	72 dB	+0.70 dB
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	72.4 dB	+1.10 dB
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	73.1 dB	+1.80 dB
5Vredestein Wintrac Pro	73.7 dB	+2.40 dB
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	75.1 dB	+3.80 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (3.8 dB).

Value

Wear
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	19,548 miles	Best
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	18,741 miles	-807 miles
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	16,156 miles	-3,392 miles
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	15,833 miles	-3,715 miles
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	10,824 miles	-8,724 miles
6Superia Bluewin UHP2	10,340 miles	-9,208 miles

The difference between best and worst was 47.1% (9,208 miles).

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Superia Bluewin UHP2	4.19 Price/1000	Best	£33.64
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	5.71 Price/1000	+1.52 Price/1000	£46.94
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	7.29 Price/1000	+3.10 Price/1000	£50.74
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	7.83 Price/1000	+3.64 Price/1000	£56.41
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.58 Price/1000	+4.39 Price/1000	£59.74
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	12.41 Price/1000	+8.22 Price/1000	£88.97

The difference between best and worst was 196.2% (8.22 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Superia Bluewin UHP2) works out £1,383 cheaper than the most expensive (Bridgestone Blizzak LM005).

How this is calculated

Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at £5.49 per gallon and £60 fitting per set of four. Purchase prices are from the time of the 2023 test; financing costs are excluded.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Hankook Winter i cept evo3	7.84 kg/t	Best	$0
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	7.97 kg/t	+0.13 kg/t	$5
3Superia Bluewin UHP2	8.02 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t	$7
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	8.45 kg/t	+0.61 kg/t	$23
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	8.58 kg/t	+0.74 kg/t	$28
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	9.3 kg/t	+1.46 kg/t	$55

The difference between best and worst was 18.6% (1.46 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro uses about 15 gal ($55) more fuel than the Hankook Winter i cept evo3.

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.

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.

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: 62.1 → 0.0 mph · 59–68 °F
Dry Handling: 66–68 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 0.0 mph · 64–70 °F
Wet Braking - Cool: 49.7 → 0.0 mph · 39–52 °F
Wet Braking - Worn: 49.7 → 0.0 mph · 70–73 °F
Wet Handling: 48–52 °F
Wet Circle: 52–55 °F
Snow Braking: 24.9 → 0.0 mph · 12–21 °F
Snow Traction: 0.0 → 12.4 mph · 12–21 °F
Snow Handling: 19–30 °F
Snow Slalom: 23–28 °F

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 · 20%
Dry Braking	50%	10%
Dry Handling	45%	9%
Subj. Dry Handling	5%	1%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	20%	7%
Wet Braking - Cool	20%	7%
Wet Braking - Worn	15%	5.25%
Wet Handling	25%	8.75%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	1.75%
Wet Circle	2.5%	0.88%
Straight Aqua	10%	3.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	2.5%	0.88%
Snow · 30%
Snow Braking	35%	10.5%
Snow Traction	20%	6%
Snow Handling	30%	9%
Subj. Snow Handling	5%	1.5%
Snow Slalom	10%	3%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 10%
Wear	40%	4%
Value	20%	2%
Rolling Resistance	40%	4%

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 Braking - Cool

This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but is conducted at cooler ambient temperatures, typically below 7°C. The lower temperature allows assessment of how each tire's compound performs when cold, which is particularly relevant for all-season and winter tire evaluation. Reference tires are run at the same frequency as the standard wet braking programme.

Wet Braking - Worn

This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but uses tires that have been worn to low tread depth, typically around 2mm. This evaluates how each tire performs as its tread wears down, which is a critical safety metric. Many tires lose significant wet braking performance at lower tread depths, and this test quantifies that degradation.

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.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tire set and average the valid results.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 meters in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

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.

Snow Slalom

My slalom layout is variable rather than fixed, with cone count and spacing adjusted to suit the vehicle, tire category, and objective of the programme. On snow, the test is designed to evaluate transient response, lateral grip recovery, body control during rapid load transfer, and steering precision on a low-friction surface. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. Timing is usually recorded using VBOX rather than light gates. I average the valid runs and, where appropriate, disable ESC so the result reflects the tire's behavior rather than the intervention strategy of the vehicle.

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.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

Wear

I do not conduct tread wear testing myself; where wear is included in a programme, it is carried out by a contracted specialist test provider using either an on-road convoy method or an accelerated machine-based method. In convoy wear testing, multiple vehicles run a defined public-road route over an extended distance, with tread depth measured at intervals and tires rotated methodically to reduce positional and vehicle-specific effects. In accelerated machine wear testing, the tire is run on a specialized roadwheel or rough-surfaced drum system designed to simulate real-world wear under controlled load, speed, alignment, and force inputs. I then use the contracted provider's measured wear rate relative to the reference tire to estimate projected tread life.

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.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tire shortlist →Read the test →

More tire tests