Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The Best Snow Tires for 2025/26

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: 205/55 R16
Tires tested: 5
Disciplines: 21
Test vehicle: VW Golf

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
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	142 ft	-7 ft	0 mph
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	149 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental VikingContact 8	150 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
3Marshal iZen KW31	156 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	159 ft	+10 ft	21 mph
5Michelin X Ice Snow	159 ft	+10 ft	21 mph

The difference between best and worst was 12% (17 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin X Ice Snow would still be travelling at 21 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.

Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	56.8 s	-1.30 s
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	58.1 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	58.4 s	+0.30 s
3Continental VikingContact 8	58.5 s	+0.40 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	59 s	+0.90 s
4Marshal iZen KW31	59 s	+0.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.2 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	12 Points	+2.00 Points
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	10 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	10 Points	Best
1Continental VikingContact 8	10 Points	Best
4Marshal iZen KW31	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Michelin X Ice Snow	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points

The difference between best and worst was 22.9% (2.75 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	110 ft	-14 ft	0 mph
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	124 ft	Best	0 mph
2Continental VikingContact 8	139 ft	+15 ft	27 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	143 ft	+19 ft	30 mph
4Marshal iZen KW31	146 ft	+22 ft	31 mph
5Michelin X Ice Snow	152 ft	+28 ft	34 mph

The difference between best and worst was 38.3% (42 ft ≈ 2.8 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Michelin X Ice Snow would still be travelling at 34 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.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	86.3 s	-4.34 s
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	90.64 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 8	93.12 s	+2.48 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	93.51 s	+2.87 s
4Marshal iZen KW31	97.2 s	+6.56 s
5Michelin X Ice Snow	98.01 s	+7.37 s

The difference between best and worst was 13.6% (11.71 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	12 Points	+2.00 Points
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	10 Points	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
3Continental VikingContact 8	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Michelin X Ice Snow	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Marshal iZen KW31	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 25% (3 Points).

Wet Circle
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	12.34 s	-0.68 s
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	13.02 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 8	13.44 s	+0.42 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	13.64 s	+0.62 s
4Marshal iZen KW31	14.08 s	+1.06 s
5Michelin X Ice Snow	14.32 s	+1.30 s

The difference between best and worst was 16% (1.98 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	53.4 mph	+15.9 mph
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	37.5 mph	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	36.4 mph	-1.1 mph
3Michelin X Ice Snow	35.6 mph	-1.9 mph
4Continental VikingContact 8	35.2 mph	-2.3 mph
5Marshal iZen KW31	34.9 mph	-2.6 mph

The difference between best and worst was 34.7% (18.5 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	11.0 ft/s²	+4.4 ft/s²
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	6.6 ft/s²	Best
2Marshal iZen KW31	5.9 ft/s²	-0.7 ft/s²
3Michelin X Ice Snow	5.5 ft/s²	-1.1 ft/s²
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	5.3 ft/s²	-1.3 ft/s²
5Continental VikingContact 8	5.0 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 55.1% (6 ft/s²).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	54 ft	Best	0 mph
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	54 ft	0 ft	5 mph
2Michelin X Ice Snow	55 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	55 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
4Continental VikingContact 8	55 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	56 ft	+2 ft	15 mph
5Marshal iZen KW31	56 ft	+2 ft	16 mph

The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (2 ft). From 80 mph, the Marshal iZen KW31 would still be travelling at 16 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 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
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	2.79 s	-0.21 s
1Continental VikingContact 8	3 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	3.08 s	+0.08 s
3Michelin X Ice Snow	3.12 s	+0.12 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	3.13 s	+0.13 s
5Marshal iZen KW31	3.18 s	+0.18 s
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	3.23 s	+0.23 s

The difference between best and worst was 15.8% (0.44 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	79.64 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 8	80.2 s	+0.56 s
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	80.64 s	+1.00 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	81.06 s	+1.42 s
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	81.44 s	+1.80 s
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	81.91 s	+2.27 s
5Marshal iZen KW31	82.94 s	+3.30 s

The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (3.3 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	10 Points	0.00 Points
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	10 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	10 Points	Best
1Continental VikingContact 8	10 Points	Best
4Michelin X Ice Snow	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Marshal iZen KW31	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	7 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 30% (3 Points).

Snow Slalom
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	12.0 ft/s²	+0.9 ft/s²
1Continental VikingContact 8	11.1 ft/s²	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	10.9 ft/s²	-0.2 ft/s²
3Michelin X Ice Snow	10.7 ft/s²	-0.4 ft/s²
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	10.7 ft/s²	-0.4 ft/s²
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	10.4 ft/s²	-0.7 ft/s²
5Marshal iZen KW31	10.4 ft/s²	-0.7 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 13.4% (1.6 ft/s²).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	20 ft	-3 ft	0 mph
1Michelin X Ice Snow	23 ft	Best	0 mph
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	24 ft	+1 ft	17 mph
3Continental VikingContact 8	24 ft	+1 ft	17 mph
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	28 ft	+5 ft	33 mph
5Marshal iZen KW31	28 ft	+5 ft	35 mph
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	38 ft	+15 ft	51 mph

The difference between best and worst was 90% (18 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Marshal iZen KW31 would still be travelling at 35 mph when the Michelin X Ice Snow 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
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	4.49 s	-1.97 s
1Michelin X Ice Snow	6.46 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 8	6.48 s	+0.02 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	6.5 s	+0.04 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	7.54 s	+1.08 s
5Marshal iZen KW31	8.2 s	+1.74 s
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	10.52 s	+4.06 s

The difference between best and worst was 134.3% (6.03 s).

Ice Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	54.53 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	54.76 s	+0.23 s
3Continental VikingContact 8	54.99 s	+0.46 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	56.59 s	+2.06 s
5Marshal iZen KW31	57.31 s	+2.78 s
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	58.77 s	+4.24 s
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	59.24 s	+4.71 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.6% (4.71 s).

Subj. Ice Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta 10	10 Points	0.00 Points
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	10 Points	Best
1Continental VikingContact 8	10 Points	Best
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Michelin X Ice Snow	9 Points	-1.00 Points
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Marshal iZen KW31	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.5 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	10 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	10 Points	Best
3Michelin X Ice Snow	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
3Continental VikingContact 8	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
5Marshal iZen KW31	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
1Continental VikingContact 8	69.1 dB	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	69.3 dB	+0.20 dB
3Michelin X Ice Snow	69.6 dB	+0.50 dB
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	70.5 dB	+1.40 dB
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	71.5 dB	+2.40 dB
5Marshal iZen KW31	71.8 dB	+2.70 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.9% (2.7 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Continental VikingContact 8	7.29 kg/t	Best	$0
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	7.48 kg/t	+0.19 kg/t	$8
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	7.59 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t	$12
4Michelin X Ice Snow	8.14 kg/t	+0.85 kg/t	$34
RefContinental WinterContact TS 870	8.29 kg/t	+1.00 kg/t	$40
5Marshal iZen KW31	9.55 kg/t	+2.26 kg/t	$91

The difference between best and worst was 31% (2.26 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Marshal iZen KW31 uses about 25 gal ($91) more fuel than the Continental VikingContact 8.

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 → 3.1 mph · 37–39 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph
Snow Braking: 24.9 → 3.1 mph · 30–25 °F
Snow Traction: 0.0 → 12.4 mph · 30–25 °F
Snow Slalom: 9–10 °F
Ice Braking: 12.4 → 3.1 mph · 27–21 °F
Ice Traction: 0.0 → 12.4 mph · 27–21 °F
Ice Handling: 10–5 °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 · 10%
Dry Braking	50%	5%
Dry Handling	40%	4%
Subj. Dry Handling	10%	1%
Wet · 15%
Wet Braking	40%	6%
Wet Handling	30%	4.5%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	1.5%
Wet Circle	5%	0.75%
Straight Aqua	10%	1.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	0.75%
Snow · 35%
Snow Braking	27.8%	9.72%
Snow Traction	27.8%	9.72%
Snow Handling	22.2%	7.78%
Subj. Snow Handling	11.1%	3.89%
Snow Slalom	11.1%	3.89%
Ice · 25%
Ice Braking	25%	6.25%
Ice Traction	25%	6.25%
Ice Handling	40%	10%
Subj. Ice Handling	10%	2.5%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	50%	5%
Noise	50%	5%
Value · 5%
Rolling Resistance	100%	5%

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 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.

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.

Ice Handling

For ice handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated ice handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tire set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Surface temperature is continuously monitored. Control runs are carried out frequently — typically every two candidate test sets — to account for changing ice surface conditions.

Subj. Ice Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment on a prepared ice circuit. I score steering response, predictability, grip progression, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on ice using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. Surface temperature is monitored throughout. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary.

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