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
- Snow Braking
- 24.9 → 3.1 mph
- Snow Traction
- 3.1 → 24.9 mph
- Ice Braking
- 15.5 → 3.1 mph
- Ice Traction
- 3.1 → 15.5 mph
Fortunately, our friends at Vi Bilagare once again have us covered. During their Nordic winter testing in 2020, the magazine included an all season and "european" winter tire alongside their usual selection of Nordic friction and studded winter tires.
As the all-season and European winter tire were being tested from a Nordic perspective, they had a significant testing on ice, which is a rarity for an all-season tire.
The results... well, I’m sure you can guess how each of the four tire types performed on each surface, but it's really cool to see all this data from one source.
One last thing worth noting, while the all-season and winter tires are named tires, the Nordic winter tire and studded winter tire are an average of the five best tires for each category from their respective full tests, not a single tire pattern we can name.
Ice
Ice is the most extreme surface for winter tires, so it's no surprise that during the ice braking and traction testing on smooth ice, the studded tire held the advantage.
The Nordic winter tire was impressively close to the studded tire during ice braking, stopping the car just 4 feet further on, with a larger 11 feet gap back to the European winter tire. The all-season tire also had an impressive result considering it's not developed for harsh winters, stopping less than 3 feet longer than the European winter tire.
Ice Braking
Ice braking in feet (16 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Studded |
32 ft | -14 ft | 0 mph |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
36 ft | -10 ft | 0 mph |
| 46 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 50 ft | +4 ft | 20 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 52.4% (18 ft ≈ 1.2 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Continental AllSeasonContact would still be travelling at 20 mph when the Continental WinterContact TS 860 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
The order of the tires remained the same for the traction test.
Ice Traction
Ice acceleration time (3 - 16 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Studded |
4.55 s | -3.06 s |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
6 s | -1.61 s |
| 7.61 s | Best | |
| 8.16 s | +0.55 s |
The difference between best and worst was 79.3% (3.61 s).
Ice handling was a real surprise, with the Nordic winter tire actually besting the studded tire! This is down to the ice handling testing taking part on rough, not smooth ice, where the softer compound of a Nordic winter tire is better at adapting to the rough surface, and the steering response better than a studded tire.
Ice Handling
Ice handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Nordic |
53.85 s | -4.64 s |
RefReference Winter Studded |
54.18 s | -4.31 s |
| 58.49 s | Best | |
| 60.57 s | +2.08 s |
The difference between best and worst was 12.5% (6.72 s).
Snow
Snow testing showed a similar pattern to ice, just with slightly bigger gaps between the different types of tires.
The Nordic and studded winter tires were very close during the snow braking testing, with the all season tire falling further behind the European winter tire than during the ice testing.
Snow Braking
Snow braking in feet (25 - 3 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Nordic |
58 ft | -4 ft | 0 mph |
RefReference Winter Studded |
58 ft | -4 ft | 0 mph |
| 62 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 68 ft | +6 ft | 24 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 18.5% (10 ft ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Continental AllSeasonContact would still be travelling at 24 mph when the Continental WinterContact TS 860 had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
This pattern was again replicated during snow traction testing, but this time the studded winter tire had a slight advantage over the Nordic winter tire.
Snow Traction
Snow acceleration time (3 - 25 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Studded |
4.19 s | -0.36 s |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
4.23 s | -0.32 s |
| 4.55 s | Best | |
| 4.77 s | +0.22 s |
The difference between best and worst was 13.8% (0.58 s).
Snow handling had the all-season tire fall significantly behind the european winter tire.
Snow Handling
Snow handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Studded |
86.76 s | -4.05 s |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
87.47 s | -3.34 s |
| 90.81 s | Best | |
| 98.88 s | +8.07 s |
The difference between best and worst was 14% (12.12 s).
Wet
While the all season tire struggled in snow and ice, the results were reversed during wet testing.
Like in previous testing, there was larger gap between the more extreme winter tires and the European winter tire, than the European winter tire and the all-season tire, with the Continental AllSeasonContact and WinterContact TS860 performing vastly better during wet braking.
Wet Braking
Wet braking in feet (50 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 85 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 87 ft | +2 ft | 13 mph | |
RefReference Winter Studded |
99 ft | +14 ft | 30 mph |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
104 ft | +19 ft | 34 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 21.9% (19 ft ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Continental WinterContact TS 860 would still be travelling at 13 mph when the Continental AllSeasonContact had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
This trend continued to wet handling.
Wet Handling
Wet handling time in seconds
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 39.63 s | Best | |
| 40.45 s | +0.82 s | |
RefReference Winter Studded |
43.65 s | +4.02 s |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
44.4 s | +4.77 s |
The difference between best and worst was 12% (4.77 s).
Aquaplaning was also very close between the two milder climate tires, with the snow and ice specialists struggling to clear standing water.
Straight Aqua
Float Speed in mph
Higher is better ↑| Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
| 46.5 mph | Best | |
| 46.4 mph | -0.1 mph | |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
38.5 mph | -8.0 mph |
RefReference Winter Studded |
37.3 mph | -9.2 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 19.9% (9.2 mph).
Dry
As in the wet, the more extreme the tire, the more it struggled in the dry, with a large gap between the all-season and studded tires during the dry braking testing.
Dry Braking
Dry braking in feet (62 - 0 mph)
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best | Residual speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 132 ft | Best | 0 mph | |
| 137 ft | +5 ft | 17 mph | |
RefReference Winter Nordic |
148 ft | +16 ft | 27 mph |
RefReference Winter Studded |
153 ft | +21 ft | 30 mph |
The difference between best and worst was 16.1% (21 ft ≈ 1.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Continental WinterContact TS 860 would still be travelling at 17 mph when the Continental AllSeasonContact had stopped.
Residual speed is calculated from the measured braking distances, assuming constant deceleration; it is not a separate measurement.
Environment
The gaps in rolling resistance weren’t huge, which was impressive for a studded tire.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance in kg t
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best | Extra fuel / year |
|---|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Nordic |
4.47 kg/t | -0.09 kg/t | $0 |
RefReference Winter Studded |
4.54 kg/t | -0.02 kg/t | $0 |
| 4.56 kg/t | Best | $0 | |
| 4.66 kg/t | +0.10 kg/t | $6 |
The difference between best and worst was 4.3% (0.19 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Continental WinterContact TS 860 uses about 2 gal ($6) more fuel than the Continental AllSeasonContact.
Adjust the assumptions
Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.
Naturally, the studded tire was significantly nosier than any of the other tires, with the softer compound of the Nordic winter tire producing the lowest noise.
Noise
External noise in dB
Lower is better ↓| Tire | Result | Gap to best |
|---|---|---|
RefReference Winter Nordic |
66.2 dB | -0.90 dB |
| 67.1 dB | Best | |
| 68 dB | +0.90 dB | |
RefReference Winter Studded |
70.1 dB | +3.00 dB |
The difference between best and worst was 5.9% (3.9 dB).
Results
Continental AllSeasonContact
205/60 R16
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 132 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 85 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 39.63 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 46.4 mph |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 68 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 4.77 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 98.88 s |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 50 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 8.16 s |
| Ice HandlingLower is better | 60.57 s |
| NoiseLower is better | 68 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4.56 kg/t |
Continental WinterContact TS 860
205/60 R16
All discipline results (13)
Discipline positions compare the ranked tires in this test, not the whole market. These are individual measurements, not weighted overall scores.
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| Dry BrakingLower is better | 137 ft |
| Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better | 5 Points |
| Wet BrakingLower is better | 87 ft |
| Wet HandlingLower is better | 40.45 s |
| Straight AquaHigher is better | 46.5 mph |
| Snow BrakingLower is better | 62 ft |
| Snow TractionLower is better | 4.55 s |
| Snow HandlingLower is better | 90.81 s |
| Ice BrakingLower is better | 46 ft |
| Ice TractionLower is better | 7.61 s |
| Ice HandlingLower is better | 58.49 s |
| NoiseLower is better | 67.1 dB |
| Rolling ResistanceLower is better | 4.66 kg/t |
I live in South West Norway, where winter is mostly wet asphalt, but with periods of everything from snow, through slush to thick, uneven, wet ice. Up to now I have driven on nordic winter tires, but will soon be switching to quite a heavy EV. I have read that nordic rubber doesn't suit EVs well and was wondering if the extra weight might warrant using a good European tire, like the winter contact TS870p, which has better drainage and might be better in the wet conditions that we get the most. The standard winter tires for the car in Norway are Viking contact 7.
I know a lot of the US guys really rate the X-Ice Snow on the Teslas, which I realise is a nordic winter tire but it seems less extreme than some.
If the Viking Contact 7 is an OE tire for the vehicle it will have been developed with the weight and torque in mind so that would likely be the best option.
Thanks for that. After reading your reply and checking out the local company that deals with tires for Polestar, I went with the X-Ice Snow. Not the best in the wet, but one of the better nordics and a good all-rounder.
It's pretty cool to see how different types of winter tires act and compare to each other. I've long wanted to test different "blends" myself but, well, real life and budgets and stuff like that. However...
I live in a nordic country and we have mandatory winter tires that have to have M+S and 3PMSF ratings on them from December 1st until last day of February. You can legally run your summer tires from March 1st but that I would consider as chasing the Darwin's award.
I have used different winter tires over the 12 years I've owned cars. I've used expensive studs, very very cheap chinese brands, mid-range winter tires, very expensive top of the line nordic un-studded tires and I once did try chasing the Darwin's award by replacing winters with summers on 1st of March. I survived. It was a poor winter tho, no snow, no ice, just cold and dry roads. But I have not tested a proper good quality all-season tire during winter.
Now, I've looked at most of the tire tests and yes, nordic and studded "blends" are awesome on snow and ice. You really can't beat a set of Nokians or Contis doing their business on snow and ice. But, as I am a city dweller who quite occasionally takes a drive out of town, mostly on major roads, 90% of my driving time is spent on wet roads since we use a stupendous amount of salt on our roads. The temperature is mostly a few degrees below freezing and we get an occasional snow-storm or overnight fresh powder but there's hardly ever any ice on the roads. It's a bit different when navigating through supermarket parking lots, it seems that nobody tends to those, and small city streets in residential areas might have a lof of loose or packed snow as it's really difficult to clean those areas up with cars that are parked everywhere. But the speeds are low and the chance to slip and crash are non-existent unless you drive like an idiot.
So here I am, wondering away, if I should take a plunge and try a decent set of all-seasons next time I replace winter tires. Or not.
It's an interesting dilemma, but I'm not sure you'll find a tester / tire company in the world that would recommend an all season tire as a winter for nordic climates, as ice is the downfall.
It's worth remembering that these Conti all season tires are a fairly winter bias set, and a tire like the CrossClimate or A005 would be even further back on ice.
Back again to regret and repent my stupid ideas.
The thing that got me thinking about using all-seasons was that we haven't had a proper winter in years now. Well, proper winter happened. It's mayhem. There's so much snow. And ice. And it's fun. Unless you have to dig out your car every morning from the snow.
Yes, Nordic blends all the way. I pity the fools with no proper rubber and am ashamed of my heretical thinking. I hope the Spanish Inquisition won't catch me.
Glad you came to that conclusion before purchasing any tires :)
There is one gap in recomment - You haven't bought nor tested and all-season tire. So that's a shame because I thought that would be respectfull information. Nonetheless good for you that you have proper tires anyway. : )
We done it, there's a full video on youtube
Yes you have! Thank you for that, at last I can compare results of test made in the same environment and conditions. My comments was about Mike's heretical thinking. :)
I am very close to buy an all-season tire (vector gen-3) as winter tires for my S-max 2.2 200hp but there is still a bit of concern if that will be fine with occasional snow in Poland where i live. I have used an all-seasons before as allyear tire (Quadraxer 2 and Nokian weatherproof) on my Skoda Rapid and Renault Megane 3 but an S-max is way heavier and powerfull.
On one hand all-seasons seems to be better at everything except snow vs winter tires but on the other the difference is not that big. But on the snow the difference is theoretically not that big either but in the real life amount of snow might be way bigger that on the video with test.
Tests will be tests, I guess everyone have to make his own choice. :)
I do enjoy watching your videos TireReviews, as an engineer I appreciate methodology and precision with a bit of entertainment.
Cheers!
I think if it's just snow, I'll be fine with all season as winter. However if you start to see any serious ice or compacted snow, that's when the winter tire stretches its legs :)