Test Charts / Tire Reviews

The BEST Performance Winter Tires for 2024 / 2025

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: 235/35 R19
Tires tested: 6
Disciplines: 18

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
RefReference Summer	113 ft	-19 ft	0 mph
RefReference All Season	121 ft	-11 ft	0 mph
RefReference All Season Avg	128 ft	-4 ft	0 mph
1Hankook Winter i cept evo3	132 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	132 ft	0 ft	5 mph
3Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	133 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	134 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	135 ft	+3 ft	12 mph
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	136 ft	+4 ft	14 mph

The difference between best and worst was 20.5% (23 ft ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride ZuperSnow Z507 would still be travelling at 14 mph when the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 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
RefReference Summer	84.3 s	-2.72 s
RefReference All Season	84.96 s	-2.06 s
RefReference All Season Avg	86.76 s	-0.26 s
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	87.02 s	Best
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	87.31 s	+0.29 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	87.79 s	+0.77 s
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	88.19 s	+1.17 s
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	88.64 s	+1.62 s
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	90.46 s	+3.44 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.3% (6.16 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	10 Points	Best
2Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8 Points	-2.00 Points
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	4 Points	-6.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 60% (6 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefReference Summer	78 ft	-22 ft	0 mph
RefReference All Season	82 ft	-18 ft	0 mph
RefReference All Season Avg	92 ft	-8 ft	0 mph
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	100 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	100 ft	0 ft	6 mph
3Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	101 ft	+1 ft	8 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	102 ft	+2 ft	11 mph
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	103 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	114 ft	+14 ft	28 mph

The difference between best and worst was 45.6% (36 ft ≈ 2.4 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride ZuperSnow Z507 would still be travelling at 28 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 had stopped.

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

Wet Braking - Cool
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefReference All Season	82 ft	-9 ft	0 mph
RefReference Summer	86 ft	-5 ft	0 mph
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	91 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	91 ft	0 ft	8 mph
3Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	92 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
RefReference All Season Avg	92 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	94 ft	+3 ft	16 mph
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	95 ft	+4 ft	17 mph
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	106 ft	+15 ft	31 mph

The difference between best and worst was 29.1% (24 ft ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride ZuperSnow Z507 would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 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
RefReference Summer	103.02 s	-4.33 s
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	107.35 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	107.94 s	+0.59 s
RefReference All Season	107.96 s	+0.61 s
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	108.88 s	+1.53 s
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	109.92 s	+2.57 s
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	110.83 s	+3.48 s
RefReference All Season Avg	112.59 s	+5.24 s
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	117.52 s	+10.17 s

The difference between best and worst was 14.1% (14.5 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	10 Points	Best
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	10 Points	Best
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	6 Points	-4.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 40% (4 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefReference All Season	49.2 mph	+3.8 mph
RefReference Summer	47.5 mph	+2.1 mph
RefReference All Season Avg	47.2 mph	+1.8 mph
1Hankook Winter i cept evo3	45.4 mph	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	45.2 mph	-0.2 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	44.7 mph	-0.7 mph
3Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	44.7 mph	-0.7 mph
5Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	44.5 mph	-0.9 mph
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	42.4 mph	-3.0 mph

The difference between best and worst was 13.7% (6.8 mph).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
RefReference Summer	8.3 ft/s²	+1.0 ft/s²
RefReference All Season Avg	7.6 ft/s²	+0.3 ft/s²
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	7.3 ft/s²	Best
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	7.1 ft/s²	-0.2 ft/s²
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	7.0 ft/s²	-0.3 ft/s²
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	6.9 ft/s²	-0.4 ft/s²
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	6.8 ft/s²	-0.5 ft/s²
RefReference All Season	6.3 ft/s²	-1.0 ft/s²
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	5.7 ft/s²	-1.6 ft/s²

The difference between best and worst was 31.1% (2.6 ft/s²).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	57 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	58 ft	+1 ft	7 mph
RefReference All Season	59 ft	+2 ft	15 mph
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	60 ft	+3 ft	16 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	60 ft	+3 ft	17 mph
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	60 ft	+3 ft	17 mph
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	60 ft	+3 ft	18 mph
RefReference All Season Avg	62 ft	+5 ft	23 mph
RefReference Summer	145 ft	+88 ft	62 mph

The difference between best and worst was 152.9% (88 ft ≈ 5.9 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Goodride ZuperSnow Z507 would still be travelling at 18 mph when the Pirelli P Zero Winter 2 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
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	5.16 s	Best
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	5.18 s	+0.02 s
RefReference All Season	5.31 s	+0.15 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.37 s	+0.21 s
4Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	5.42 s	+0.26 s
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.53 s	+0.37 s
RefReference All Season Avg	5.58 s	+0.42 s
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	5.63 s	+0.47 s
RefReference Summer	29.97 s	+24.81 s

The difference between best and worst was 480.8% (24.81 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	78.28 s	Best
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	79.07 s	+0.79 s
3Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	79.28 s	+1.00 s
RefReference All Season	79.65 s	+1.37 s
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	80.05 s	+1.77 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	80.25 s	+1.97 s
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	81.53 s	+3.25 s
RefReference All Season Avg	83 s	+4.72 s
RefReference Summer	143.3 s	+65.02 s

The difference between best and worst was 83.1% (65.02 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	10 Points	Best
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	10 Points	Best
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (1 Points).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefReference All Season	30 ft	-1 ft	0 mph
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	31 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	31 ft	0 ft	6 mph
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	31 ft	0 ft	9 mph
4Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	32 ft	+1 ft	17 mph
RefReference All Season Avg	34 ft	+3 ft	24 mph
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	36 ft	+5 ft	31 mph
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	37 ft	+6 ft	31 mph
RefReference Summer	106 ft	+75 ft	67 mph

The difference between best and worst was 256.5% (76 ft ≈ 5.1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Continental WinterContact TS 870 P would still be travelling at 31 mph when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 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
RefReference All Season	4.5 s	0.00 s
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	4.5 s	Best
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	4.5 s	Best
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	4.63 s	+0.13 s
4Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	4.82 s	+0.32 s
RefReference All Season Avg	4.95 s	+0.45 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.14 s	+0.64 s
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.32 s	+0.82 s
RefReference Summer	17.55 s	+13.05 s

The difference between best and worst was 290% (13.05 s).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	10 Points	Best
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
3Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	7 Points	-3.00 Points

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

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	71.4 dB	Best
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	71.6 dB	+0.20 dB
RefReference All Season	72 dB	+0.60 dB
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	72.3 dB	+0.90 dB
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	72.5 dB	+1.10 dB
RefReference All Season Avg	72.7 dB	+1.30 dB
RefReference Summer	73.3 dB	+1.90 dB
5Hankook Winter i cept evo3	73.5 dB	+2.10 dB
6Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	75 dB	+3.60 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5% (3.6 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
RefReference All Season	7.76 kg/t	-0.89 kg/t	$0
RefReference All Season Avg	8.55 kg/t	-0.10 kg/t	$0
1Goodride ZuperSnow Z507	8.65 kg/t	Best	$0
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.67 kg/t	+0.02 kg/t	$1
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.69 kg/t	+0.04 kg/t	$1
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	8.71 kg/t	+0.06 kg/t	$2
5Pirelli P Zero Winter 2	8.95 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t	$10
6Hankook Winter i cept evo3	8.98 kg/t	+0.33 kg/t	$11
RefReference Summer	9.9 kg/t	+1.25 kg/t	$42

The difference between best and worst was 27.6% (2.14 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Hankook Winter i cept evo3 uses about 3 gal ($11) more fuel than the Goodride ZuperSnow Z507.

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 · 72–77 °F
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 3.1 mph · 75–84 °F
Wet Braking - Cool: 49.7 → 3.1 mph · 45–48 °F
Wet Handling: 68–73 °F
Snow Braking: 24.9 → 3.1 mph · 19–23 °F
Snow Traction: 3.1 → 21.7 mph · 19–23 °F
Snow Handling: 19–23 °F
Ice Braking: 15.5 → 3.1 mph
Ice Traction: 3.1 → 15.5 mph

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 · 20%
Dry Braking	50%	10%
Dry Handling	40%	8%
Subj. Dry Handling	10%	2%
Wet · 30%
Wet Braking	20%	6%
Wet Braking - Cool	20%	6%
Wet Handling	30%	9%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	3%
Straight Aqua	15%	4.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	1.5%
Snow · 30%
Snow Braking	35%	10.5%
Snow Traction	20%	6%
Snow Handling	30%	9%
Subj. Snow Handling	15%	4.5%
Ice · 5%
Ice Braking	60%	3%
Ice Traction	40%	2%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 10%
Rolling Resistance	100%	10%

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 Braking - Cool

This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but is conducted at cooler ambient temperatures, typically below 7°C. The lower temperature allows assessment of how each tire's compound performs when cold, which is particularly relevant for all-season and winter tire evaluation. Reference tires are run at the same frequency as the standard wet braking programme.

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.

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.

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