Test Charts / Vi Bilagare

2024 Studded 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: 225/45 R17
Tires tested: 8
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.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	103 ft	Best	0 mph
2Mazzini Ice Leopard	106 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
3Continental IceContact 3	107 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	107 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	109 ft	+6 ft	18 mph
6Michelin X Ice North 4	109 ft	+6 ft	18 mph
7Nordman North 9	110 ft	+7 ft	20 mph
8Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	112 ft	+9 ft	22 mph

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (9 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3 would still be travelling at 22 mph when the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 had stopped.

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	5 Points	Best
1Continental IceContact 3	5 Points	Best
3Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	4 Points	-1.00 Points
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	3 Points	-2.00 Points
4Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	3 Points	-2.00 Points
4Nordman North 9	3 Points	-2.00 Points
4Mazzini Ice Leopard	3 Points	-2.00 Points
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	2 Points	-3.00 Points

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

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Mazzini Ice Leopard	113 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental IceContact 3	114 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	116 ft	+3 ft	14 mph
4Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	116 ft	+3 ft	14 mph
5Nordman North 9	119 ft	+6 ft	19 mph
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	122 ft	+9 ft	22 mph
7Michelin X Ice North 4	122 ft	+9 ft	23 mph
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	126 ft	+13 ft	26 mph

The difference between best and worst was 11.9% (13 ft ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Mazzini Ice Leopard 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
1Continental IceContact 3	40.7 s	Best
2Mazzini Ice Leopard	41.4 s	+0.70 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	41.5 s	+0.80 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	41.7 s	+1.00 s
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	41.9 s	+1.20 s
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	41.9 s	+1.20 s
5Nordman North 9	41.9 s	+1.20 s
8Michelin X Ice North 4	42.1 s	+1.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.4% (1.4 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	46.0 mph	Best
2Mazzini Ice Leopard	44.2 mph	-1.8 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	43.9 mph	-2.1 mph
4Michelin X Ice North 4	43.0 mph	-3.0 mph
5Continental IceContact 3	42.4 mph	-3.6 mph
6Nordman North 9	42.4 mph	-3.6 mph
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	39.1 mph	-6.9 mph
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	36.4 mph	-9.6 mph

The difference between best and worst was 20.8% (9.6 mph).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nordman North 9	40 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental IceContact 3	40 ft	0 ft	4 mph
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	41 ft	+1 ft	7 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	41 ft	+1 ft	7 mph
5Michelin X Ice North 4	41 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	41 ft	+1 ft	10 mph
7Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	42 ft	+2 ft	14 mph
8Mazzini Ice Leopard	42 ft	+2 ft	18 mph

The difference between best and worst was 5.1% (2 ft). From 80 mph, the Mazzini Ice Leopard would still be travelling at 18 mph when the Nordman North 9 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
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	4.1 s	Best
2Michelin X Ice North 4	4.21 s	+0.11 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	4.24 s	+0.14 s
4Continental IceContact 3	4.32 s	+0.22 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	4.32 s	+0.22 s
6Nordman North 9	4.35 s	+0.25 s
7Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	4.4 s	+0.30 s
8Mazzini Ice Leopard	4.45 s	+0.35 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.5% (0.35 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 3	75.1 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	75.2 s	+0.10 s
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	75.6 s	+0.50 s
4Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	75.8 s	+0.70 s
5Michelin X Ice North 4	76.2 s	+1.10 s
6Nordman North 9	76.4 s	+1.30 s
7Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	77.1 s	+2.00 s
8Mazzini Ice Leopard	78 s	+2.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.9 s).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	36 ft	Best	0 mph
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	38 ft	+2 ft	20 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	41 ft	+5 ft	29 mph
4Michelin X Ice North 4	44 ft	+8 ft	34 mph
5Nordman North 9	45 ft	+9 ft	36 mph
6Continental IceContact 3	52 ft	+16 ft	44 mph
7Mazzini Ice Leopard	58 ft	+22 ft	49 mph
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	59 ft	+23 ft	49 mph

The difference between best and worst was 62% (23 ft ≈ 1.5 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 would still be travelling at 49 mph when the Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3 had stopped.

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

Ice Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	4.61 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	5.38 s	+0.77 s
3Nordman North 9	5.55 s	+0.94 s
4Michelin X Ice North 4	5.66 s	+1.05 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	6.19 s	+1.58 s
6Continental IceContact 3	6.81 s	+2.20 s
7Mazzini Ice Leopard	7.99 s	+3.38 s
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	9.42 s	+4.81 s

The difference between best and worst was 104.3% (4.81 s).

Ice Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	47.8 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	48 s	+0.20 s
3Michelin X Ice North 4	48.2 s	+0.40 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	48.4 s	+0.60 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	48.5 s	+0.70 s
6Continental IceContact 3	50.2 s	+2.40 s
7Nordman North 9	50.7 s	+2.90 s
8Mazzini Ice Leopard	52.2 s	+4.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 9.2% (4.4 s).

Comfort

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	71.5 dB	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	73.6 dB	+2.10 dB
3Michelin X Ice North 4	74.6 dB	+3.10 dB
4Mazzini Ice Leopard	74.8 dB	+3.30 dB
5Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	75.2 dB	+3.70 dB
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	75.5 dB	+4.00 dB
7Nordman North 9	75.6 dB	+4.10 dB
8Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	76.4 dB	+4.90 dB

The difference between best and worst was 6.9% (4.9 dB).

Value

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	5.25 l/100km	Best	$0
2Nordman North 9	5.45 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	$37
3Michelin X Ice North 4	5.5 l/100km	+0.25 l/100km	$46
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10	5.55 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
4Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3	5.55 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	$55
6Mazzini Ice Leopard	5.65 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km	$73
7Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2	5.7 l/100km	+0.45 l/100km	$83
8Continental IceContact 3	5.75 l/100km	+0.50 l/100km	$92

The difference between best and worst was 9.5% (0.5 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Continental IceContact 3 uses about 26 gal ($92) more fuel than the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5.

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.