Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The BEST All Weather Tires for 2026/27

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: 235/45 R18
Tires tested: 8
Disciplines: 20

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
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	127 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	134 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
2Atturo AZ810	134 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
4Continental SecureContact AW	135 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
5Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	137 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
6Hankook Weatherflex GT	138 ft	+11 ft	23 mph
7Falken Aklimate	142 ft	+15 ft	26 mph
8Bridgestone WeatherPeak	147 ft	+20 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.4% (20 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone WeatherPeak would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW had stopped.

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

Sponsored by

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Falken Aklimate	77.07 s	Best
2Continental SecureContact AW	77.26 s	+0.19 s
3Atturo AZ810	77.32 s	+0.25 s
4Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	77.35 s	+0.28 s
5Hankook Weatherflex GT	77.37 s	+0.30 s
6Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	77.43 s	+0.36 s
7Bridgestone WeatherPeak	78.56 s	+1.49 s
8Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	78.58 s	+1.51 s

All the tires in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Sponsored by

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	8.6 Points	Best
2Falken Aklimate	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
2Hankook Weatherflex GT	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
2Continental SecureContact AW	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	8 Points	-0.60 Points
6Bridgestone WeatherPeak	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points
6Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points
8Atturo AZ810	7.3 Points	-1.30 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15.1% (1.3 Points).

Sponsored by

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental SecureContact AW	105 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	106 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
3Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	107 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
4Hankook Weatherflex GT	108 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
5Atturo AZ810	111 ft	+6 ft	19 mph
6Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	116 ft	+11 ft	24 mph
7Falken Aklimate	116 ft	+11 ft	25 mph
8Bridgestone WeatherPeak	121 ft	+16 ft	30 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.8% (16 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Bridgestone WeatherPeak would still be travelling at 30 mph when the Continental SecureContact AW had stopped.

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

Sponsored by

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SecureContact AW	72.69 s	Best
2Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	72.83 s	+0.14 s
3Hankook Weatherflex GT	74.17 s	+1.48 s
4Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	74.89 s	+2.20 s
5Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	76.16 s	+3.47 s
6Atturo AZ810	76.4 s	+3.71 s
7Falken Aklimate	77.87 s	+5.18 s
8Bridgestone WeatherPeak	78.86 s	+6.17 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.5% (6.17 s).

Sponsored by

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	8.5 Points	Best
2Hankook Weatherflex GT	8.4 Points	-0.10 Points
3Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	8.2 Points	-0.30 Points
3Continental SecureContact AW	8.2 Points	-0.30 Points
5Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	8.1 Points	-0.40 Points
6Falken Aklimate	7.6 Points	-0.90 Points
7Bridgestone WeatherPeak	7.1 Points	-1.40 Points
7Atturo AZ810	7.1 Points	-1.40 Points

The difference between best and worst was 16.5% (1.4 Points).

Sponsored by

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental SecureContact AW	13.08 s	Best
2Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	13.41 s	+0.33 s
3Bridgestone WeatherPeak	13.46 s	+0.38 s
4Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	13.58 s	+0.50 s
5Hankook Weatherflex GT	13.6 s	+0.52 s
6Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	13.79 s	+0.71 s
7Falken Aklimate	13.97 s	+0.89 s
8Atturo AZ810	13.98 s	+0.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.9% (0.9 s).

Sponsored by

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	46.4 mph	Best
2Bridgestone WeatherPeak	46.2 mph	-0.2 mph
3Hankook Weatherflex GT	46.2 mph	-0.2 mph
4Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	44.1 mph	-2.3 mph
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	43.6 mph	-2.8 mph
6Falken Aklimate	43.6 mph	-2.8 mph
7Continental SecureContact AW	43.2 mph	-3.2 mph
8Atturo AZ810	39.8 mph	-6.6 mph

The difference between best and worst was 14.2% (6.6 mph).

Sponsored by

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Weatherflex GT	10.0 ft/s²	Best
2Bridgestone WeatherPeak	9.0 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
3Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	8.7 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
4Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	8.2 ft/s²	-1.8 ft/s²
5Falken Aklimate	7.6 ft/s²	-2.4 ft/s²
6Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	7.4 ft/s²	-2.6 ft/s²
7Continental SecureContact AW	7.3 ft/s²	-2.7 ft/s²
8Atturo AZ810	6.4 ft/s²	-3.6 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 36.1% (3.6 ft/s²).

Sponsored by

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	52 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental SecureContact AW	53 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
3Bridgestone WeatherPeak	53 ft	+1 ft	10 mph
4Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	54 ft	+2 ft	16 mph
5Hankook Weatherflex GT	56 ft	+4 ft	20 mph
6Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	58 ft	+6 ft	25 mph
7Falken Aklimate	60 ft	+8 ft	29 mph
8Atturo AZ810	60 ft	+8 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.6% (8 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Atturo AZ810 would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW had stopped.

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

Sponsored by

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	3.75 s	Best
1Continental SecureContact AW	3.75 s	Best
3Hankook Weatherflex GT	4.02 s	+0.27 s
4Bridgestone WeatherPeak	4.04 s	+0.29 s
5Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	4.05 s	+0.30 s
6Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	4.14 s	+0.39 s
7Atturo AZ810	4.22 s	+0.47 s
8Falken Aklimate	4.24 s	+0.49 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.1% (0.49 s).

Sponsored by

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	84.27 s	Best
2Continental SecureContact AW	86.28 s	+2.01 s
3Hankook Weatherflex GT	86.92 s	+2.65 s
4Bridgestone WeatherPeak	87.44 s	+3.17 s
5Atturo AZ810	88.17 s	+3.90 s
6Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	89.01 s	+4.74 s
7Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	90.99 s	+6.72 s
8Falken Aklimate	92.25 s	+7.98 s

The difference between best and worst was 9.5% (7.98 s).

Sponsored by

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	8.6 Points	Best
2Continental SecureContact AW	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
3Bridgestone WeatherPeak	8.2 Points	-0.40 Points
4Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
4Hankook Weatherflex GT	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
6Atturo AZ810	7.6 Points	-1.00 Points
7Falken Aklimate	7.2 Points	-1.40 Points
8Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	7 Points	-1.60 Points

The difference between best and worst was 18.6% (1.6 Points).

Sponsored by

Snow Cornering
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	0.36 g	Best
2Bridgestone WeatherPeak	0.34 g	-0.02 g
3Continental SecureContact AW	0.33 g	-0.03 g
3Hankook Weatherflex GT	0.33 g	-0.03 g
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	0.32 g	-0.04 g
6Atturo AZ810	0.31 g	-0.05 g
6Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	0.31 g	-0.05 g
8Falken Aklimate	0.3 g	-0.06 g

The difference between best and worst was 16.7% (0.06 g).

Sponsored by

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	20 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	20 ft	0 ft	3 mph
3Continental SecureContact AW	20 ft	0 ft	10 mph
4Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	21 ft	+1 ft	15 mph
5Bridgestone WeatherPeak	21 ft	+1 ft	16 mph
6Atturo AZ810	21 ft	+1 ft	18 mph
7Hankook Weatherflex GT	21 ft	+1 ft	20 mph
8Falken Aklimate	23 ft	+3 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.5% (3 ft). From 80 mph, the Falken Aklimate would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW had stopped.

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

Sponsored by

Ice Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	5.43 s	Best
2Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	5.82 s	+0.39 s
3Continental SecureContact AW	5.94 s	+0.51 s
4Atturo AZ810	5.97 s	+0.54 s
5Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	6.14 s	+0.71 s
6Bridgestone WeatherPeak	6.23 s	+0.80 s
7Hankook Weatherflex GT	6.34 s	+0.91 s
8Falken Aklimate	6.9 s	+1.47 s

The difference between best and worst was 27.1% (1.47 s).

Sponsored by

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Weatherflex GT	10 Points	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Continental SecureContact AW	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Bridgestone WeatherPeak	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Falken Aklimate	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	9 Points	-1.00 Points
8Atturo AZ810	8.75 Points	-1.25 Points

The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (1.25 Points).

Sponsored by

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	71.1 dB	Best
2Atturo AZ810	72.4 dB	+1.30 dB
3Bridgestone WeatherPeak	72.7 dB	+1.60 dB
4Continental SecureContact AW	72.9 dB	+1.80 dB
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	74.1 dB	+3.00 dB
6Hankook Weatherflex GT	74.5 dB	+3.40 dB
7Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	74.7 dB	+3.60 dB
8Falken Aklimate	75.4 dB	+4.30 dB

The difference between best and worst was 6% (4.3 dB).

Sponsored by

Value

Value
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Atturo AZ810	2.04 Price/1000	Best	$9.95
2Hankook Weatherflex GT	3.14 Price/1000	+1.10 Price/1000	$16.32
3Bridgestone WeatherPeak	3.15 Price/1000	+1.11 Price/1000	$16.21
4Falken Aklimate	3.31 Price/1000	+1.27 Price/1000	$17.36
5Continental SecureContact AW	3.63 Price/1000	+1.59 Price/1000	$17.23
6Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	4.02 Price/1000	+1.98 Price/1000	$25.33
7Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	4.12 Price/1000	+2.08 Price/1000	$19.65
8Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	4.18 Price/1000	+2.14 Price/1000	$20.64

The difference between best and worst was 104.9% (2.14 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tire to own (Atturo AZ810) works out $384 cheaper than the most expensive (Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2).

How this is calculated

Tire life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.

Tire life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes a typical car doing 29 mpg (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at $3.60 per gallon and $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2025 test; financing costs are excluded.

Sponsored by

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Atturo AZ810	8.27 kg/t	Best	$0
2Continental SecureContact AW	8.73 kg/t	+0.46 kg/t	$16
3Pirelli Cinturato WeatherActive	8.89 kg/t	+0.62 kg/t	$22
4Bridgestone WeatherPeak	9.1 kg/t	+0.83 kg/t	$29
5Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	9.14 kg/t	+0.87 kg/t	$31
6Hankook Weatherflex GT	9.15 kg/t	+0.88 kg/t	$31
7Falken Aklimate	9.25 kg/t	+0.98 kg/t	$35
8Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	10.95 kg/t	+2.68 kg/t	$95

The difference between best and worst was 32.4% (2.68 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2 uses about 26 gal ($95) more fuel than the Atturo AZ810.

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.

Sponsored by

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 → 3.1 mph
Dry Handling: 63–72 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph
Wet Handling: 63–70 °F
Snow Braking: 24.9 → 3.1 mph · -4–-6 °F
Snow Traction: 0.0 → 12.4 mph · 9 °F
Snow Handling: -8–-4 °F
Ice Braking: 12.4 → 3.1 mph
Ice Traction: 0.0 → 12.4 mph

Score Weighting

This test uses rated scoring. In each discipline the best tire scores 100 and every 1% behind it costs the rate shown, never below zero. Each rate is set from how far that measurement spread among these tires, so each weight is that discipline’s real share of the result, however widely the tires finished apart. Where the tires finished almost level, a discipline is scaled up no more than double, so a near tie cannot decide the result. Tires within 0.4 points of the best tire in their group share its place. 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	Rate
Dry · 25%
Dry Braking	50%	12.5%	1.28
Dry Handling	40%	10%	8
Subj. Dry Handling	10%	2.5%	0.98
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	40%	14%	0.58
Wet Handling	35%	12.25%	1.21
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	1.75%	0.5
Wet Circle	5%	1.75%	1.67
Straight Aqua	10%	3.5%	0.79
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	1.75%	0.33
Snow · 20%
Snow Braking	30%	6%	0.49
Snow Traction	30%	6%	0.95
Snow Handling	20%	4%	1.53
Subj. Snow Handling	10%	2%	0.54
Snow Cornering	10%	2%	0.64
Ice · 5%
Ice Braking	50%	2.5%	1.07
Ice Traction	50%	2.5%	0.8
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%	0.91
Noise	50%	2.5%	1.8
Value · 10%
Value	20%	2%	0.32
Rolling Resistance	80%	8%	1.2

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.

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 Cornering

For snow cornering, I drive the test vehicle through dedicated snow cornering sections at progressively increasing speeds. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. Lateral acceleration is measured using GPS telemetry and accelerometers. Multiple runs are averaged. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly, the control tire is retested frequently to account for changing conditions.

Ice Braking

For ice braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 35 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a prepared ice surface. Surface temperature is continuously monitored as ice friction properties vary substantially with temperature. My standard programme is twelve runs per tire set but with ice testing, you often do many more. I analyze the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tires are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing surface conditions.

Ice Traction

For ice traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a prepared ice 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. 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 ice twice. Surface temperature is continuously monitored. I complete multiple runs per tire set and average the valid results, with reference tires run typically every two candidate test sets.

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.

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