Three of the biggest names in winter tires, the Michelin Alpin 7, the Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 and the Nokian Snowproof 3P, are tires I get asked about all the time and had never tested. I have put them up against Continental, Goodyear and Bridgestone tires that have won tests before, plus a Hankook, a Vredestein and a Triangle budget tire, in 205/55 R17 on a Golf, to find out where the new tires sit and which one is best for your own driving.

All nine tires ran in 205/55 R17 on a Golf Mk 8.5. I measured snow braking, snow traction and snow handling, wet braking, wet handling and straight aquaplaning, dry braking, internal cabin noise and rolling resistance, and added subjective scores for snow handling, dry handling, comfort and noise alongside the numbers. The Triangle WinterX TW401 is the budget tire in the group, and the other eight are all established premium brands.

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 → 6.2 mph
Wet Braking: 49.7 → 6.2 mph
Wet Handling: 50–55 °F
Snow Braking: 21.7 → 6.2 mph
Snow Traction: 6.2 → 18.6 mph
Snow Handling: 25–27 °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	80%	8%
Subj. Dry Handling	20%	2%
Wet · 40%
Wet Braking	50%	20%
Wet Handling	40%	16%
Straight Aqua	10%	4%
Snow · 37.5%
Snow Braking	40%	15%
Snow Traction	30%	11.25%
Snow Handling	20%	7.5%
Subj. Snow Handling	10%	3.75%
Comfort · 10%
Subj. Comfort	40%	4%
Subj. Noise	20%	2%
Noise	40%	4%
Value · 2.5%
Rolling Resistance	100%	2.5%

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tire is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

Noise

For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tire rather than external interference.

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 →

Before the results, a few things about how this test went. The snow testing means travelling halfway around the world and committing to a week or two of it, so I cannot move it when the weather turns. The week before I arrived it was -31°F, and while I was testing it was above freezing for a good part of the time. The track was icy on the racing line, soft and fluffy off it, and grooved, so I could not get my usual detailed subjective impressions in the snow and the snow handling gaps deserve a little more caution than usual. There is also no dry handling lap in this test, only subjective scores from a road drive. I cannot control the weather and I cannot go back later in the season, so this is the data I have.For the final order I have used a winter weighting, because these are winter tires: wet and snow performance together make up just over three quarters of the score, dry performance and comfort carry ten percent each, and rolling resistance, the only measurement in the value category, carries 2.5%. You can change the weighting on the website to match your own driving and get the best tire for you, which is what I always try to do.

Dry Braking

Dry braking was won by the Nokian Snowproof 3P, which needed 130 feet to slow from 62 mph to 6 mph, with the Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 only 1 foot behind it and the Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 third. The Continental and Michelin followed, and the Hankook and Bridgestone were a little further back. The Vredestein Wintrac Pro plus was last, needing 138 feet, which is 8 feet more than the Nokian, with the Triangle just ahead of it in eighth. The Bridgestone, so nice to steer in the dry, was only seventh here.

Dry Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Snowproof 3P	130 ft	Best	0 mph
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	131 ft	+1 ft	5 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	132 ft	+2 ft	10 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	133 ft	+3 ft	11 mph
5Michelin Alpin 7	134 ft	+4 ft	14 mph
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	136 ft	+6 ft	17 mph
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	137 ft	+7 ft	18 mph
8Triangle WinterX TW401	138 ft	+8 ft	19 mph
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	138 ft	+8 ft	19 mph

The difference between best and worst was 6.3% (8 ft ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro+ would still be travelling at 19 mph when the Nokian Snowproof 3P had stopped.

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

Dry Handling

In another failure of my scheduling I did not get to run a proper dry handling lap, so there is no lap time to show. What I have is the subjective score from the road drive, covering on-center response, steering weight, linearity at low and high speed and a lane change. The Michelin Alpin 7 scored highest. It is a wonderful tire to drive, with the best linearity at speed and an excellent lane change that only the Bridgestone matched, and the Bridgestone Blizzak 6 was right behind it with the same sharp on-center feel. The Pirelli and Goodyear were once again up near the top in third and fourth. The Continental and Vredestein came next, then the Hankook, and the Nokian was a little vaguer than the rest of the premium group, with only a medium to good response around the straight ahead. The Triangle was last, with a medium on-center response and the least precise steering at speed.

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 7	9.2 Points	Best
2Bridgestone Blizzak 6	9 Points	-0.20 Points
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.8 Points	-0.40 Points
4Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.5 Points	-0.70 Points
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.2 Points	-1.00 Points
5Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.2 Points	-1.00 Points
7Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.1 Points	-1.10 Points
8Nokian Snowproof 3P	7.8 Points	-1.40 Points
9Triangle WinterX TW401	7.3 Points	-1.90 Points

The difference between best and worst was 20.7% (1.9 Points).

Wet Braking

Wet performance matters. Most people spend most of their winter on winter tires in the wet, not on snow, which is why wet carries slightly more weight than snow in the score, and it is where I usually find winter tires spread out the most. The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P needed the shortest distance to slow from 50 mph to 6 mph, at 95 feet, with the Nokian and Pirelli both within 1 foot of it. Eight of the nine tires finished within 4 feet of each other, which is very close for wet braking. The Triangle was the exception, needing 110 feet, which is 15 feet further than the Continental and around 16% longer. The Goodyear was fifth, about 2% off the best.

Wet Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	95 ft	Best	0 mph
2Nokian Snowproof 3P	95 ft	0 ft	4 mph
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	96 ft	+1 ft	6 mph
4Michelin Alpin 7	96 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	97 ft	+2 ft	11 mph
6Bridgestone Blizzak 6	97 ft	+2 ft	12 mph
7Hankook Winter I cept RS3	98 ft	+3 ft	13 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	99 ft	+4 ft	15 mph
9Triangle WinterX TW401	110 ft	+15 ft	29 mph

The difference between best and worst was 15.7% (15 ft ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 80 mph, the Triangle WinterX TW401 would still be travelling at 29 mph when the Continental WinterContact TS 870 P had stopped.

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

Wet Handling

Wet handling was very close at the front. The Continental set the fastest lap, with the Pirelli 0.31 seconds behind, the Goodyear third and the Bridgestone fourth. Apart from the Triangle, the whole field was covered by 2.59 seconds, about 2.4%, and if you also leave out the Hankook the best and worst of the rest are under 2% apart. The Triangle was 9.34 seconds slower than the Continental, just under 9% off the pace.

Subjectively the differences were small. The Continental, Pirelli and Goodyear had a little extra bite and a little extra stability at the rear axle, and the Continental and Pirelli in particular felt assured and planted even in the very fast slalom maneuvers, which gave me the confidence to push on. The Pirelli combined the sharpest turn-in of the group with a rear that never got unsettled in the lane changes, and the Continental had only a slight front to rear phase in the slalom. The Goodyear was stable with good lateral grip. The Michelin Alpin 7 was very Michelin: good on the brakes and easy to drive, which means understeer. This track has a lot of long corners, and that is where the Michelin loses time. The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 was the one that seemed a little down on grip. I like it, but you had to wait a moment for the front end to bite, it did not tuck in on a lift of the throttle the way the Pirelli did, and it did not quite have the lateral grip or braking of the others, though these are tiny differences, and on the lap it was only 0.45 seconds behind the next tire. The Nokian was a touch understeery but tucked in better than the Hankook, and the Bridgestone and Vredestein were solid and stable without anything to complain about.

The Triangle was clearly down on grip, with some understeer and a rear that became unstable through the slalom. It was the only tire to oversteer there, which is quite an achievement on a Golf Mk 8.5 that normally feels so planted. It stayed controllable, and I have driven worse, but it is the only tire in the test I would have an issue fitting.

Wet Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	107.44 s	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	107.75 s	+0.31 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	108.38 s	+0.94 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak 6	108.73 s	+1.29 s
5Nokian Snowproof 3P	109.02 s	+1.58 s
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	109.15 s	+1.71 s
7Michelin Alpin 7	109.58 s	+2.14 s
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	110.03 s	+2.59 s
9Triangle WinterX TW401	116.78 s	+9.34 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.7% (9.34 s).

Straight Aquaplaning

The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 was excellent in the deeper water and the clear winner here, holding on until 56.4 mph, 2 mph faster than the Pirelli in second, with the Goodyear third. The Michelin floated earlier than all but the Vredestein and the Triangle, and the Triangle was last at 47.1 mph, 9 mph below the Hankook.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	56.4 mph	Best
2Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	54.6 mph	-1.8 mph
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	53.8 mph	-2.6 mph
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	53.3 mph	-3.1 mph
5Bridgestone Blizzak 6	52.6 mph	-3.8 mph
6Nokian Snowproof 3P	52.4 mph	-4.0 mph
7Michelin Alpin 7	51.6 mph	-4.8 mph
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	50.1 mph	-6.3 mph
9Triangle WinterX TW401	47.1 mph	-9.3 mph

The difference between best and worst was 16.5% (9.3 mph).

Snow Braking

Snow braking was extremely close, with just 3.1% between the best and the worst. The Goodyear needed the shortest distance, 45 feet, with the Michelin, Bridgestone and Pirelli all within 0 feet of it, which put those four right at the front. The Nokian was sixth, a surprise for Nokian, though it was less than a third of a meter behind the Goodyear. The Triangle was last, but only 1 foot behind the winner, a far smaller gap than it showed in the wet.

Snow Braking
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	45 ft	Best	0 mph
2Michelin Alpin 7	45 ft	0 ft	6 mph
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	45 ft	0 ft	6 mph
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	45 ft	0 ft	7 mph
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	46 ft	+1 ft	9 mph
6Nokian Snowproof 3P	46 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	46 ft	+1 ft	12 mph
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	46 ft	+1 ft	13 mph
9Triangle WinterX TW401	46 ft	+1 ft	14 mph

The difference between best and worst was 3.1% (1 ft). From 80 mph, the Triangle WinterX TW401 would still be travelling at 14 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.

Snow Traction

Snow traction continued the theme of every tire being very close. The top five finished in the same order as in snow braking, with the Goodyear fastest and the Michelin and Bridgestone best of the rest, then the Pirelli and Continental, all within a tenth of a second of the Goodyear. The Hankook was a hair behind, with the Nokian and Vredestein a little further back, and the Triangle rounded out the field, 0.29 seconds behind the Goodyear.

Snow Traction
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	5.15 s	Best
2Michelin Alpin 7	5.17 s	+0.02 s
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	5.19 s	+0.04 s
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	5.21 s	+0.06 s
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.24 s	+0.09 s
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	5.25 s	+0.10 s
7Nokian Snowproof 3P	5.31 s	+0.16 s
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	5.32 s	+0.17 s
9Triangle WinterX TW401	5.44 s	+0.29 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (0.29 s).

Snow Handling

This was the hardest part of the test. I ran it on two days, and on both the track was icy on the racing line, soft and fluffy off it, grooved, and too warm, so I would not read too much into the small gaps.

Two things were very clear. The first is that the budget tire was not awful. It was the slowest, but it got around the lap and gave me no surprises, with only a little less bite in traction and braking and a rear that stepped out a little sooner in the transitions. At 2.54 seconds, about 3.3% off the best lap, it was far closer to the others here than it was in the wet. The second is that the Goodyear was the best on both days by quite a margin, 0.78 seconds on the lap from the Continental. It gave me the confidence that the car would go exactly where I wanted it to go, with rounded, predictable grip, even if it was slightly upset by the icier parts of the track.

The Continental was second on the lap. The 870 P is a very random tire that sometimes does really well in tests and sometimes just average, but in this size it did well. The Nokian was third with very good grip when it was in its happy place, although it was a little peaky once past the limit. The Pirelli was fourth, and it and the Michelin felt more geared towards traction and braking, without quite the turn-in that the Continental and Goodyear had. The Vredestein and Hankook were fifth and sixth, with the Hankook easy to drive. The Bridgestone was seventh on the lap, a very friendly tire with a stable rear and a lovely progressive slide, but it lacked the ultimate grip of the best. The Michelin was eighth, despite being second in snow braking and traction.

Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	76.15 s	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	76.93 s	+0.78 s
3Nokian Snowproof 3P	77.3 s	+1.15 s
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	77.79 s	+1.64 s
5Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	77.99 s	+1.84 s
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	78.1 s	+1.95 s
7Bridgestone Blizzak 6	78.17 s	+2.02 s
8Michelin Alpin 7	78.2 s	+2.05 s
9Triangle WinterX TW401	78.69 s	+2.54 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.3% (2.54 s).

The subjective snow handling scores follow the same shape, though the whole group is covered by a small margin. The Goodyear scored highest with the Continental a tenth behind, the Hankook was third, the Bridgestone, Michelin and Nokian were level behind it, the Vredestein and Pirelli sat a little further back, and the Triangle was last.

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.6 Points	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.5 Points	-0.10 Points
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.4 Points	-0.20 Points
4Bridgestone Blizzak 6	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
4Michelin Alpin 7	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
4Nokian Snowproof 3P	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.2 Points	-0.40 Points
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.2 Points	-0.40 Points
9Triangle WinterX TW401	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8.1% (0.7 Points).

Subjective Comfort

If you want a tire that is plush and absorbs impacts, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro plus is your tire. It had the best ride in the test, absorbing impacts beautifully and well damped, and it was predictable to drive. The Triangle was second, soft over impacts even if it was not as well damped. Six tires shared the same score in the middle, and the Michelin Alpin 7 was last, a little firmer than the rest of the pack. I did not expect that, but there were two of us doing the comfort testing and we both agreed.

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.6 Points	Best
2Triangle WinterX TW401	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
3Nokian Snowproof 3P	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
9Michelin Alpin 7	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points

The difference between best and worst was 8.1% (0.7 Points).

Subjective Noise

We had a little rain while I was doing the subjective noise test, and every tire sounded very similar, which is why the scores are all exactly the same. I could not separate them by ear in the wet, so I measured the cabin noise as well.

Subj. Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Triangle WinterX TW401	8.5 Points	Best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.5 Points	Best
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.5 Points	Best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	8.5 Points	Best
1Bridgestone Blizzak 6	8.5 Points	Best
1Michelin Alpin 7	8.5 Points	Best
1Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.5 Points	Best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.5 Points	Best
1Nokian Snowproof 3P	8.5 Points	Best

All the tires in the Subj. Noise test finished less than 3% apart.

Noise

The internal cabin noise measurement was done on a day that was not raining. The Continental was quietest at 54.21 dB, with the Goodyear a tenth of a decibel behind and the Bridgestone third, although it was relatively close. The Hankook was the loudest at 58.48 dB, more than four decibels above the Continental, which might put some people off, with the Vredestein the next loudest.

Noise
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	54.21 dB	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	54.3 dB	+0.09 dB
3Bridgestone Blizzak 6	55.39 dB	+1.18 dB
4Michelin Alpin 7	55.6 dB	+1.39 dB
5Nokian Snowproof 3P	55.78 dB	+1.57 dB
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	56.35 dB	+2.14 dB
7Triangle WinterX TW401	56.84 dB	+2.63 dB
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	57.7 dB	+3.49 dB
9Hankook Winter I cept RS3	58.48 dB	+4.27 dB

The difference between best and worst was 7.9% (4.27 dB).

Rolling Resistance

The Bridgestone Blizzak 6 and Michelin Alpin 7 had the lowest rolling resistance, at 7.4 and 7.6 kg/t, with the Continental close to the front in third. The Nokian was fourth and the Goodyear fifth. At the back the Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 had the highest rolling resistance of the premium tires at 8.3 kg/t, and the Triangle was well adrift at 9.0 kg/t, more than a fifth higher than the Bridgestone. Rolling resistance carries only a small share of the score in my weighting, but fuel use matters more and more these days and the field is close enough for it to count. Taking it out of the weighting changes one place, with the Nokian moving ahead of the Bridgestone, and the Pirelli would still be third but only a whisker behind the Continental. If you cover a lot of miles, give it more weight.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tire	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Blizzak 6	7.4 kg/t	Best	$0
2Michelin Alpin 7	7.6 kg/t	+0.20 kg/t	$8
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	7.7 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t	$12
4Nokian Snowproof 3P	7.8 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t	$16
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3	7.9 kg/t	+0.50 kg/t	$20
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t	$24
7Vredestein Wintrac Pro+	8.1 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t	$28
8Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3	8.3 kg/t	+0.90 kg/t	$36
9Triangle WinterX TW401	9 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t	$64

The difference between best and worst was 21.6% (1.6 kg / t). Over 12,000 miles a year at $3.60/gal, the Triangle WinterX TW401 uses about 18 gal ($64) more fuel than the Bridgestone Blizzak 6.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions.

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.

Results

This is one of the closest sets of results I have had. Eight of the nine tires finish within about two and a quarter points of each other, and the top three are separated by roughly a quarter of a point, so you could argue all three deserve to be called winners. All of these tires are good apart from the Triangle, and some of them are great.

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 wins. It dominated the snow, which is a great quality in a winter tire, winning snow braking, snow traction and the snow handling lap and scoring highest subjectively on snow, and it did that without any major sacrifices. It was third in dry braking, wet handling and aquaplaning and second quietest in the cabin, with mid-field rolling resistance. If I am going to grumble, fifth in wet braking could be improved, but that was only about 2% off the best. The Continental runs it closest, and if you move five points of weighting from snow to wet the Continental goes ahead.

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P takes a very close second. In traditional Continental fashion it was the best in the wet, winning both wet braking and the wet handling lap, which I like. It was also great in the snow, second on the snow handling lap and second subjectively, the quietest in the cabin, and third for rolling resistance. It just does everything well. The 870 P can be a little inconsistent in tests, but this time it was in near-perfect form. Its dry results were the only thing holding it back, with fourth in dry braking and a mid-table subjective dry handling score. I highly recommend it.

The Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 is third, and on grip alone it was the most consistent tire in the test. It was never lower than fourth in any measured grip or braking test, second in dry braking, wet handling and aquaplaning, with the highest dry score of the nine, and fourth in all three snow tests. Fuel use is becoming more and more important, though, and its rolling resistance was the highest of the premium tires, which widens the gap to the Continental. It is third with or without rolling resistance in the weighting, and I highly recommend it.

The Michelin Alpin 7 is fourth, ever so slightly ahead of the Bridgestone thanks to better dry braking, though it was very close. It had the highest subjective dry handling score, a low rolling resistance and a good snow performance with second place in snow braking and traction, and it was lovely to drive. It needs a little more dry and wet grip to be right at the front of this group, as the wet and snow handling laps were seventh and eighth, and it had the firmest ride of the nine, but it is a great product and I recommend it.

The Bridgestone Blizzak 6 is fifth, in part thanks to the lowest rolling resistance in the test, which lifts it above the Nokian. It was also good in the snow, third in snow braking and snow traction, and it was a really nice, easy tire to drive, second for subjective dry handling and third quietest in the cabin. It was a little behind the very best in the dry and the wet, with seventh in dry braking and sixth in wet braking, but it is still a good product. I recommend it, and I enjoy driving it.

The Nokian Snowproof 3P is sixth, and it is a solid performer. It took the shortest dry stop of the test, essentially tied for the best in wet braking, and had good rolling resistance. Surprisingly for Nokian it was not at the very front in the snow, with sixth in snow braking and seventh in snow traction, although it was third on the snow handling lap, and it was a little less precise in the dry than the best. I still recommend it on the strength of its safety.

The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 is seventh, with a similar overall level of performance to the Vredestein but with some of the harsher edges rounded off. It was easy to drive in the snow and excellent in the deeper water of the aquaplaning test, but it needs a little more dry and wet braking to get right at the front of this group, and it was the loudest tire in the cabin, which might put some people off.

The Vredestein Wintrac Pro plus is eighth. It was the best riding tire, absorbing impacts beautifully, and it was predictable to drive with a tidy fifth on the snow handling lap, but it could not match the top group in the dry and wet, with last place in dry braking, eighth in wet braking and the second loudest cabin. It is certainly a group of giants, which is a factor, but I would like some more dry and wet grip from this tire.

The Triangle WinterX TW401 is last. It is not the worst tire I have ever tested, but next to the best it uses a lot more fuel and struggles to get you stopped in almost every condition: eighth of nine in dry braking, a long way behind the other eight in wet braking and wet handling, and last in every snow test, even though the snow testing was close. The second best ride comfort does not make up for that, and it is the only tire in this test I would have an issue fitting.

The BEST Winter Tires for 2026/27Watch the full video of this test on YouTube Watch on YouTube

Test Winner — Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 — 2026

The Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 is the winner of this test, and a deserved one. It dominated the snow, which is exactly what you want from a winter tire, and it did so without any major sacrifice elsewhere: it was a strong all-rounder in the wet and one of the quietest in the cabin, with only wet braking a little short of the best. The Continental ran it very close, so the weighting matters here, but if you want the best all-round winter touring tire in this size, especially if your winters include real snow, this is the one to buy.

Dry97.3%

Wet98.2%

Snow100%

Comfort97.6%

Rolling Resistance93.7%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 9	132 ft	+2 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	8.5 Points	-0.70 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 9	97 ft	+2 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 9	108.38 s	+0.94 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 9	53.8 mph	-2.6 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 9	45 ft	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 9	5.15 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 9	76.15 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.6 Points	Best in this discipline
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 9	54.3 dB	+0.09 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	5^th / 9	7.9 kg/t	+0.50 kg/t

EU Label: C/B/70
Production: 4325
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.47 kgs
Price: 146.27

Highly Recommended — Continental WinterContact TS 870 P — 2026

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P takes a very close second, and I would not argue with anyone who chose it over the winner. In traditional Continental fashion it was the best in the wet, it was great in the snow, it was the quietest tire in the cabin and its rolling resistance was low, so it simply does everything well. The 870 P can be a little inconsistent in tests, but this time it was in near-perfect form. I highly recommend it, especially if most of your winter is spent on wet roads.

Dry96.2%

Wet99.4%

Snow98.6%

Comfort97.7%

Rolling Resistance96.1%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	4^th / 9	133 ft	+3 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 9	8.2 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 9	95 ft	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 9	107.44 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 9	53.3 mph	-3.1 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 9	46 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	5^th / 9	5.24 s	+0.09 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 9	76.93 s	+0.78 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 9	8.5 Points	-0.10 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 9	54.21 dB	Best in this discipline
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	3^rd / 9	7.7 kg/t	+0.30 kg/t

EU Label: C/B/71
Production: 4525
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.71 kgs
Price: 150.39

Highly Recommended — Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 — 2026

The Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 finishes third, and on grip alone it was the most consistent tire in the test. It was right at the front in dry braking, wet handling and aquaplaning, just behind the leaders in the snow, and it gave me the sharpest turn-in in the wet with a rear that never got unsettled. Fuel use matters more and more, though, and its higher rolling resistance costs it ground on the Continental. It is third with or without rolling resistance in the weighting, and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a very capable, confident winter tire.

Dry98.8%

Wet99.3%

Snow98.4%

Comfort96.2%

Rolling Resistance89.2%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 9	131 ft	+1 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.8 Points	-0.40 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 9	96 ft	+1 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 9	107.75 s	+0.31 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 9	54.6 mph	-1.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 9	45 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 9	5.21 s	+0.06 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 9	77.79 s	+1.64 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	8.2 Points	-0.40 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	6^th / 9	56.35 dB	+2.14 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	8^th / 9	8.3 kg/t	+0.90 kg/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Production: 4025
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.12 kgs
Price: 152.55

The Michelin Alpin 7 finishes fourth, and it is very Michelin: safe, easy to drive and very good on the brakes, which also means understeer, and on a track with a lot of long corners that is where it loses time. It is lovely to drive, has low rolling resistance and is good in the snow, but it needs a little more dry and wet grip to be right at the front of this group, and the ride was firmer than I expected. If you value steering feel and a fuel-efficient winter tire, I recommend it.

Dry97.6%

Wet97.7%

Snow98.8%

Comfort95.7%

Rolling Resistance97.4%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	5^th / 9	134 ft	+4 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 9	9.2 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 9	96 ft	+1 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 9	109.58 s	+2.14 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 9	51.6 mph	-4.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 9	45 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 9	5.17 s	+0.02 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	8^th / 9	78.2 s	+2.05 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	9^th / 9	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 9	55.6 dB	+1.39 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	2^nd / 9	7.6 kg/t	+0.20 kg/t

EU Label: C/B/71
Production: 4525
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.89 kgs
Price: 158.69

Recommended — Bridgestone Blizzak 6 — 2026

The Bridgestone Blizzak 6 finishes fifth, helped by an amazingly low rolling resistance, and it was good in the snow too. It is a really nice, friendly tire to drive with a stable rear and a lovely progressive slide at the limit, but it is a little behind the very best in the dry and the wet. It is still a good product and one I recommend, particularly if you enjoy driving and want to keep fuel use down.

Dry95.6%

Wet97.8%

Snow98.6%

Comfort96.8%

Rolling Resistance100%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	7^th / 9	137 ft	+7 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 9	9 Points	-0.20 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 9	97 ft	+2 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 9	108.73 s	+1.29 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 9	52.6 mph	-3.8 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 9	45 ft	0 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 9	5.19 s	+0.04 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 9	78.17 s	+2.02 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 9	55.39 dB	+1.18 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	1^st / 9	7.4 kg/t	Best in this discipline

EU Label: C/B/70
Production: 1525
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 8.81 kgs
Price: 128.16

Recommended — Nokian Snowproof 3P — 2026

The Nokian Snowproof 3P finishes sixth and is a solid performer. It was the best in dry braking, essentially tied for the best in wet braking and had good rolling resistance, but surprisingly for Nokian it was not at the very front in the snow testing, and it was a little less precise in the dry than the best. I still recommend it on the strength of its safety, particularly if short stopping distances on dry and wet roads are your priority.

Dry97%

Wet98.6%

Snow97.6%

Comfort96.6%

Rolling Resistance94.9%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	1^st / 9	130 ft	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	8^th / 9	7.8 Points	-1.40 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 9	95 ft	0 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 9	109.02 s	+1.58 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 9	52.4 mph	-4.0 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 9	46 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 9	5.31 s	+0.16 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 9	77.3 s	+1.15 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	4^th / 9	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 9	55.78 dB	+1.57 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	4^th / 9	7.8 kg/t	+0.40 kg/t

EU Label: B/A/72
Production: 4425
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.06 kgs
Price: 124.14

The Hankook Winter I cept RS3 finishes seventh. Its overall level of performance is similar to the Vredestein, but with some of the harsher edges rounded off, and I like it: it is easy to drive in the snow and excellent in deep water. It does need a little more dry and wet braking to get right at the front of this group, and it was the loudest tire in the cabin, which might put some people off. Consider it if deep standing water is a regular part of your winter and you can live with some road noise.

Dry94.2%

Wet97.7%

Snow97.6%

Comfort94.8%

Rolling Resistance92.5%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	6^th / 9	136 ft	+6 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	8.1 Points	-1.10 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 9	98 ft	+3 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 9	110.03 s	+2.59 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 9	56.4 mph	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 9	46 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 9	5.25 s	+0.10 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 9	78.1 s	+1.95 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.4 Points	-0.20 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	3^rd / 9	8.1 Points	-0.50 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	9^th / 9	58.48 dB	+4.27 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	6^th / 9	8 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t

EU Label: C/B/72
Production: 4325
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.31 kgs
Price: 110.24

The Vredestein Wintrac Pro plus finishes eighth. If you want a plush, impact-absorbing tire it is the one to pick, as it was the best riding tire in the test and predictable to drive, but it could not match the top group in the dry and the wet. This is a group of giants, which makes it a tough field to be in, but I would like some more dry and wet grip from this tire. Choose it if ride comfort matters more to you than ultimate grip.

Dry93.1%

Wet96.4%

Snow97.1%

Comfort97.6%

Rolling Resistance91.4%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	9^th / 9	138 ft	+8 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 9	8.2 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 9	99 ft	+4 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 9	109.15 s	+1.71 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 9	50.1 mph	-6.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	7^th / 9	46 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	8^th / 9	5.32 s	+0.17 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 9	77.99 s	+1.84 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 9	8.2 Points	-0.40 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.6 Points	Best in this discipline
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 9	57.7 dB	+3.49 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	7^th / 9	8.1 kg/t	+0.70 kg/t

EU Label: C/B/71
Production: 4325
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.19 kgs
Price: 130.64

The Triangle WinterX TW401 finishes last. It is not the worst tire I have ever tested, but compared to the best it will use a lot more fuel and struggles to get you stopped in almost every condition, and it was last in every snow test even though the snow testing was close. It was the only tire to oversteer in the wet slalom, which is quite a result on a Golf that normally feels so planted. It stayed controllable and I have driven worse, but it is the only tire in this test I would have an issue fitting.

Dry91.3%

Wet88.4%

Snow95.7%

Comfort96.8%

Rolling Resistance82.2%

Category scores (% of best)

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	Position in discipline	Result	Gap to best
Dry BrakingLower is better	8^th / 9	138 ft	+8 ft
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 9	7.3 Points	-1.90 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	9^th / 9	110 ft	+15 ft
Wet HandlingLower is better	9^th / 9	116.78 s	+9.34 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 9	47.1 mph	-9.3 mph
Snow BrakingLower is better	9^th / 9	46 ft	+1 ft
Snow TractionLower is better	9^th / 9	5.44 s	+0.29 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	9^th / 9	78.69 s	+2.54 s
Subj. Snow HandlingHigher is better	9^th / 9	7.9 Points	-0.70 Points
Subj. ComfortHigher is better	2^nd / 9	8.3 Points	-0.30 Points
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 9	8.5 Points	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 9	56.84 dB	+2.63 dB
Rolling ResistanceLower is better	9^th / 9	9 kg/t	+1.60 kg/t

EU Label: D/C/72
Production: 2025
3PMSF: Yes
Weight: 9.98 kgs
Price: 61.71

Menu

Tire shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Score Weighting

Our standard methods

Dry Braking

Subj. Dry Handling

Wet Braking

Wet Handling

Straight Aqua

Snow Braking

Snow Traction

Snow Handling

Subj. Snow Handling

Subj. Comfort

Subj. Noise

Noise

Rolling Resistance

Dry Braking

Dry Handling

Wet Braking

Wet Handling

Straight Aquaplaning

Snow Braking

Snow Traction

Snow Handling

Subjective Comfort

Subjective Noise

Noise

Rolling Resistance

Results

Cross-check this test