Test Charts / ADAC
2026 ADAC Winter Tire Test - 185/65 R15
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
- 185/65 R15
- Tires tested
- 16
- Disciplines
- 13
- Test vehicle
- Skoda Fabia
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 142 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 144 ft | +2 ft | 9 mph | |
| 145 ft | +3 ft | 11 mph | |
| 145 ft | +3 ft | 12 mph | |
| 145 ft | +3 ft | 12 mph | |
| 146 ft | +4 ft | 13 mph | |
| 146 ft | +4 ft | 13 mph | |
| 146 ft | +4 ft | 14 mph | |
| 147 ft | +5 ft | 15 mph | |
| 148 ft | +6 ft | 16 mph | |
| 148 ft | +6 ft | 16 mph | |
| 151 ft | +9 ft | 20 mph | |
| 152 ft | +10 ft | 20 mph | |
| 152 ft | +10 ft | 21 mph | |
| 156 ft | +14 ft | 24 mph | |
| 159 ft | +17 ft | 26 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 11.8% (17 ft ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Viking WinTech NewGen would still be travelling at 26 mph when the Linglong Sport Master Winter 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 110 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 116 ft | +6 ft | 18 mph | |
| 118 ft | +8 ft | 21 mph | |
| 120 ft | +10 ft | 23 mph | |
| 122 ft | +12 ft | 25 mph | |
| 122 ft | +12 ft | 25 mph | |
| 122 ft | +12 ft | 25 mph | |
| 124 ft | +14 ft | 27 mph | |
| 126 ft | +16 ft | 29 mph | |
| 128 ft | +18 ft | 30 mph | |
| 128 ft | +18 ft | 30 mph | |
| 131 ft | +21 ft | 32 mph | |
| 131 ft | +21 ft | 32 mph | |
| 143 ft | +33 ft | 38 mph | |
| 160 ft | +50 ft | 45 mph | |
| 169 ft | +59 ft | 47 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 53.4% (59 ft ≈ 4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Rockblade ROCK 868S would still be travelling at 47 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 121 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 128 ft | +7 ft | 19 mph | |
| 129 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 129 ft | +8 ft | 20 mph | |
| 131 ft | +10 ft | 22 mph | |
| 132 ft | +11 ft | 23 mph | |
| 132 ft | +11 ft | 23 mph | |
| 132 ft | +11 ft | 23 mph | |
| 137 ft | +16 ft | 27 mph | |
| 138 ft | +17 ft | 28 mph | |
| 138 ft | +17 ft | 28 mph | |
| 145 ft | +24 ft | 32 mph | |
| 146 ft | +25 ft | 33 mph | |
| 159 ft | +38 ft | 39 mph | |
| 175 ft | +54 ft | 44 mph | |
| 184 ft | +63 ft | 47 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 51.8% (63 ft ≈ 4.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Rockblade ROCK 868S would still be travelling at 47 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 61.3 mph | Best | |
| 60.4 mph | -0.9 mph | |
| 59.7 mph | -1.6 mph | |
| 59.1 mph | -2.2 mph | |
| 58.7 mph | -2.6 mph | |
| 58.1 mph | -3.2 mph | |
| 54.7 mph | -6.6 mph | |
| 54.2 mph | -7.1 mph | |
| 53.9 mph | -7.4 mph | |
| 53.5 mph | -7.8 mph | |
| 53.4 mph | -7.9 mph | |
| 53.4 mph | -7.9 mph | |
| 52.0 mph | -9.3 mph | |
| 48.6 mph | -12.7 mph | |
| 45.7 mph | -15.6 mph | |
| 41.9 mph | -19.4 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 31.6% (19.4 mph).
Curved Aquaplaning
Remaining lateral acceleration
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 14.4 ft/s² | Best | |
| 14.1 ft/s² | -0.3 ft/s² | |
| 13.5 ft/s² | -0.9 ft/s² | |
| 13.1 ft/s² | -1.3 ft/s² | |
| 12.8 ft/s² | -1.6 ft/s² | |
| 12.8 ft/s² | -1.6 ft/s² | |
| 11.5 ft/s² | -2.9 ft/s² | |
| 11.2 ft/s² | -3.2 ft/s² | |
| 10.8 ft/s² | -3.6 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -3.9 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -3.9 ft/s² | |
| 10.5 ft/s² | -3.9 ft/s² | |
| 9.8 ft/s² | -4.6 ft/s² | |
| 9.5 ft/s² | -4.9 ft/s² | |
| 7.2 ft/s² | -7.2 ft/s² | |
| 4.3 ft/s² | -10.1 ft/s² |
The difference between best and worst was 70.5% (10.1 ft/s²).
Snow
2Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (19 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 33 ft | 0 ft | 8 mph | |
| 33 ft | 0 ft | 11 mph | |
| 33 ft | 0 ft | 11 mph | |
| 33 ft | 0 ft | 11 mph | |
| 33 ft | 0 ft | 11 mph | |
| 34 ft | +1 ft | 14 mph | |
| 34 ft | +1 ft | 16 mph | |
| 34 ft | +1 ft | 16 mph | |
| 34 ft | +1 ft | 17 mph | |
| 35 ft | +2 ft | 19 mph | |
| 35 ft | +2 ft | 20 mph | |
| 35 ft | +2 ft | 20 mph | |
| 35 ft | +2 ft | 20 mph | |
| 36 ft | +3 ft | 23 mph | |
| 36 ft | +3 ft | 24 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 10% (3 ft). From 80 mph, the Atlas Polarbear HP would still be travelling at 24 mph when the Barum Polaris 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 666 lbf | Best | |
| 658 lbf | -8 lbf | |
| 653 lbf | -13 lbf | |
| 645 lbf | -21 lbf | |
| 641 lbf | -25 lbf | |
| 639 lbf | -27 lbf | |
| 638 lbf | -28 lbf | |
| 636 lbf | -30 lbf | |
| 635 lbf | -31 lbf | |
| 632 lbf | -34 lbf | |
| 631 lbf | -35 lbf | |
| 631 lbf | -35 lbf | |
| 629 lbf | -37 lbf | |
| 624 lbf | -42 lbf | |
| 623 lbf | -43 lbf | |
| 578 lbf | -88 lbf |
The difference between best and worst was 13.2% (88 lbf).
Ice
1Ice Braking
Ice braking in feet (12 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 64 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 64 ft | 0 ft | 8 mph | |
| 66 ft | +2 ft | 15 mph | |
| 66 ft | +2 ft | 16 mph | |
| 69 ft | +5 ft | 21 mph | |
| 69 ft | +5 ft | 22 mph | |
| 69 ft | +5 ft | 22 mph | |
| 70 ft | +6 ft | 23 mph | |
| 71 ft | +7 ft | 25 mph | |
| 71 ft | +7 ft | 25 mph | |
| 71 ft | +7 ft | 25 mph | |
| 72 ft | +8 ft | 27 mph | |
| 72 ft | +8 ft | 28 mph | |
| 72 ft | +8 ft | 28 mph | |
| 73 ft | +9 ft | 29 mph | |
| 74 ft | +10 ft | 30 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 16.5% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 would still be travelling at 30 mph when the Rockblade ROCK 868S 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 69.9 dB | Best | |
| 70.2 dB | +0.30 dB | |
| 70.5 dB | +0.60 dB | |
| 71.2 dB | +1.30 dB | |
| 71.3 dB | +1.40 dB | |
| 71.5 dB | +1.60 dB | |
| 71.5 dB | +1.60 dB | |
| 71.5 dB | +1.60 dB | |
| 71.6 dB | +1.70 dB | |
| 72.1 dB | +2.20 dB | |
| 72.3 dB | +2.40 dB | |
| 72.3 dB | +2.40 dB | |
| 72.4 dB | +2.50 dB | |
| 72.5 dB | +2.60 dB | |
| 72.9 dB | +3.00 dB | |
| 73.1 dB | +3.20 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 4.6% (3.2 dB).
Value
4Wear
Predicted tread life in KM
Higher is better ↑| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 24,855 miles | Best | |
| 22,245 miles | -2,610 miles | |
| 21,934 miles | -2,921 miles | |
| 21,313 miles | -3,542 miles | |
| 20,567 miles | -4,288 miles | |
| 19,884 miles | -4,971 miles | |
| 19,076 miles | -5,779 miles | |
| 18,952 miles | -5,903 miles | |
| 18,517 miles | -6,338 miles | |
| 18,330 miles | -6,525 miles | |
| 18,020 miles | -6,835 miles | |
| 18,020 miles | -6,835 miles | |
| 17,585 miles | -7,270 miles | |
| 17,523 miles | -7,332 miles | |
| 16,963 miles | -7,892 miles | |
| 13,919 miles | -10,936 miles |
The difference between best and worst was 44% (10,936 miles).
Value
Euros/1000km based on cost/wear
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 1.18 Price/1000 | Best | |
| 1.3 Price/1000 | +0.12 Price/1000 | |
| 1.68 Price/1000 | +0.50 Price/1000 | |
| 1.74 Price/1000 | +0.56 Price/1000 | |
| 1.86 Price/1000 | +0.68 Price/1000 | |
| 2.02 Price/1000 | +0.84 Price/1000 | |
| 2.03 Price/1000 | +0.85 Price/1000 | |
| 2.07 Price/1000 | +0.89 Price/1000 | |
| 2.16 Price/1000 | +0.98 Price/1000 | |
| 2.19 Price/1000 | +1.01 Price/1000 | |
| 2.31 Price/1000 | +1.13 Price/1000 | |
| 2.33 Price/1000 | +1.15 Price/1000 | |
| 2.34 Price/1000 | +1.16 Price/1000 | |
| 2.42 Price/1000 | +1.24 Price/1000 | |
| 2.48 Price/1000 | +1.30 Price/1000 | |
| 3.26 Price/1000 | +2.08 Price/1000 |
The difference between best and worst was 176.3% (2.08 Price/1000).
Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumption in Liters per 100 km
Lower is better ↓| Position / Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.3 l/100km | Best | $0 | |
| 5.3 l/100km | Best | $0 | |
| 5.4 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.4 l/100km | +0.10 l/100km | $18 | |
| 5.5 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.5 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.5 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.5 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.5 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.5 l/100km | +0.20 l/100km | $37 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.30 l/100km | $55 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.30 l/100km | $55 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.30 l/100km | $55 | |
| 5.6 l/100km | +0.30 l/100km | $55 | |
| 5.7 l/100km | +0.40 l/100km | $73 | |
| 5.8 l/100km | +0.50 l/100km | $92 |
The difference between best and worst was 9.4% (0.5 l/100km). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Linglong Sport Master Winter uses about 26 gal ($92) more fuel than the Barum Polaris 6.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 63 mg/km/t | Best | |
| 72 mg/km/t | +9.00 mg/km/t | |
| 73 mg/km/t | +10.00 mg/km/t | |
| 77 mg/km/t | +14.00 mg/km/t | |
| 79 mg/km/t | +16.00 mg/km/t | |
| 82 mg/km/t | +19.00 mg/km/t | |
| 82 mg/km/t | +19.00 mg/km/t | |
| 82 mg/km/t | +19.00 mg/km/t | |
| 87 mg/km/t | +24.00 mg/km/t | |
| 93 mg/km/t | +30.00 mg/km/t | |
| 95 mg/km/t | +32.00 mg/km/t | |
| 107 mg/km/t | +44.00 mg/km/t | |
| 108 mg/km/t | +45.00 mg/km/t | |
| 110 mg/km/t | +47.00 mg/km/t | |
| 113 mg/km/t | +50.00 mg/km/t | |
| 117 mg/km/t | +54.00 mg/km/t |
The difference between best and worst was 85.7% (54 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
- Ice Braking
- 12.4 → 0.0 mph
More tire tests
Cross-check this test
Where these tires were tested again, and how the verdict held up.
2026 AvD Winter Tire Test
225/45 R1715 tires tested
6 of these 16 tires tested again
2024 ADAC 16 Inch Winter Tire Test
205/55 R1612 tires tested
6 of these 16 tires tested again
2024 Winter 55 Tire Braking Test
205/55 R1655 tires tested
6 of these 16 tires tested again

