"All weather" tires in place of winter tires

[bodywhomper]

here's another test of both studded and studdless. https://www.motor.no/tester/dekktester/vinterdekk-2017/

it does not include any "all weather" tires that i'm aware of. some of the tires are not (yet) imported into the US. they don't get into longevity of studs and i didn't notice them testing studdable tires like the general altimax artics.

apologies if this was already posted.

[AweShuksan]

When I started this thread, I was interested more in passenger car "all-weather" tires, because -- IMHO -- you can get pretty much any "all-terrain" tire for a SUV or truck and do fine in snow.

Uh, where there's snow, there's probably ice. And while I've driven a lot of A/T tires, I've never driven an A/T tire that had adequate ice traction.

The only 3PMSF A/T tire I have owned was the Goodyear Wrangler Silent Armor, which was fine in snow, on my old 4Runner. It wasn't as good in snow as the Blizzaks I had for the 4Runner, obviously, but it was perfectly adequate.

I have Goodyear Silent Armor on my F-150. Decent tire at a lot of things. Serviceable in most snow, pretty fucking poor on ice. An A/T tire that is good in a typical range of winter conditions doesn't exist. A/T tires are not a substitute for winter rubber. If you know you're going to be driving in snow and ice, particularly above 35 mph, get some real fucking winter tires. For most applications this will not be studs because they are only good until the studs become worn which will happen soon enough if you drive on bare/wet pavement. Even modern studs wear down relatively quickly unless you drive like grandma on bare/wet pavement. And avoid dual compound winter tires that turn into all seasons when the tread is 1/2 worn. Unless you like buying new sets of tires on a regular basis.

[LightRanger]

Cooper ATWs are designed to be better on ice than other A/T tires FWIW.

And in the Sierra (where El Chup mostly drives) ice traction is significantly less important than overall snow traction. But YMMV.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[El Chupacabra]

Even in real winters (not this year), ice is a rarity around Tahoe. More typical is heavy dump or dry roads, we don't get those packed down roads with an inch of ice all winter.

[auvgeek]

Even modern studs wear down relatively quickly unless you drive like grandma on bare/wet pavement.

Which modern, factory-studded tires have you owned?

[AweShuksan]

Which modern, factory-studded tires have you owned?

In Washington State studded tiress need to be removed by March 31. Because we tend to get a lot of nice snow storms in April and even May, I would need to put on studless winter tires after removing the studs to hit the ski area and/or access backcountry ski routes. Even when it's not snowing winter tires can be necessary to reach trailheads into June. It's simply not practical for me to own ANY studded tires. Additionally, if you want to take a trip through Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin (or a number of other states), you need to remove the studs before crossing the state line.

Why would I want to put up with all that when studless winter tires perform so well in all winter conditions and are not illegal to run regardless of the location or the time of year? I don't like limitations and studded tires have plenty of limitations that disqualify them from consideration.

[mall walker]

Uh, where there's snow, there's probably ice.

not for those of us living in the intermountain west

[2FUNKY]

None

Fify.

[bodywhomper]

It's all relative, but the link I posted two days ago directly compares new studded vs studless in many performance criteria.

[anotherVTskibum]

In Washington State studded tiress need to be removed by March 31. Because we tend to get a lot of nice snow storms in April and even May, I would need to put on studless winter tires after removing the studs to hit the ski area and/or access backcountry ski routes. Even when it's not snowing winter tires can be necessary to reach trailheads into June. It's simply not practical for me to own ANY studded tires. Additionally, if you want to take a trip through Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin (or a number of other states), you need to remove the studs before crossing the state line.

Why would I want to put up with all that when studless winter tires perform so well in all winter conditions and are not illegal to run regardless of the location or the time of year? I don't like limitations and studded tires have plenty of limitations that disqualify them from consideration.

So what are (a) the odds that I'm going to get busted in a Montana-plated, studded-snow-tire-wearing truck in Oregon in April and (b) penalty for getting busted? Montana allows studs through May 31, and last year I'd have pushed that into June given the conditions at 10k feet.

[Telemarketeer]

FYI cops won't bust you for their state's law if your car is licensed in another state. You can't be expected to know all of the rules for every state regarding vehicle requirements. This is coming straight from my brother who is a state patroller. They don't want to fuck with the paperwork either.

[bodywhomper]

I could understand. Fucking paper gives me the worst paper cuts.

[obnomad]

I agree with the lack of ice in Tahoe. I don't think studs are really necessary there. I had good luck running those General Altimax Artics which were CR top testers a couple years ago. They were a decent price.

Now I'm rocking a Vancouver Craigslist special on my Jetta: mismatched blizzaks, a pair of 185/60s and a pair of 190/65s. Classy I know.

[AweShuksan]

I agree with the lack of ice in Tahoe. I don't think studs are really necessary there.

Studless winter tires are designed to handle ice amazingly well. Not as good as new studs, as the published testing shows, but the difference is not as great as many people assume, particularly once the studs have worn. All the tests I've seen are with new studs but vehicles I've driven with partly worn studs offer no improvement in ice traction vs. a good winter tire without studs. This is such a big problem that Nokian has been developing studs that retract with the flip of a switch. I don't think they are available yet and who knows how much cost and weight it will add to each tire but I think it can be safely assumed to be significant and their development would not have been undertaken if stud wear was not a real world issue.

[auvgeek]

The most-recent articles I could find on Nokian's retractable stud concept are 3 years old. Do you have anything to suggest it's still in the works? You'd think if it was a viable concept, it would have been released before the Hakka 9.

and their development would not have been undertaken if stud wear was not a real world issue.

By similarly faulty logic, one could argue their development would not have been undertaken if studs did not provide a serious benefit in winter driving conditions. And there are plenty of other reasons for Nokian to pursue that concept besides stud wear: people who hate the noise, people who live in apartments with parking garages that don't allow studs, the threat of strict studded tire legislation*, etc. Have you heard/read anything to indicate the retractable studs are specifically to improve stud retention, or is that an assumption you've made?

*which I believe has eased up a bit in the past few years, but someone from Europe would be better suited to answer that

[AweShuksan]

The most-recent articles I could find on Nokian's retractable stud concept are 3 years old. Do you have anything to suggest it's still in the works? You'd think if it was a viable concept, it would have been released before the Hakka 9.

Well, they can't release it until it's proven and works. The fact that it's still featured on their website is pretty good evidence that they didn't decide it wasn't viable.

By similarly faulty logic, one could argue their development would not have been undertaken if studs did not provide a serious benefit in winter driving conditions.

Studs do provide more ice traction than studless tires, but only until the studs are rounded off and worn down. Retractable studs solves the wear problem (as long as the driver is not deaf and knows to retract the studs). Because stud wear is primarily a function of driving on bare pavement.

And there are plenty of other reasons for Nokian to pursue that concept besides stud wear: people who hate the noise, people who live in apartments with parking garages that don't allow studs, the threat of strict studded tire legislation*, etc. Have you heard/read anything to indicate the retractable studs are specifically to improve stud retention, or is that an assumption you've made?

My understanding is that stud retention is not an issue with a well made studded tire. The problem is stud wear when driven on bare pavement. But, yes, retractable studs would solve the noise issue on bare pavement as well as the wear issue. I don't mind the noise on snow/ice where they are actually of some benefit but hearing them smashing and clickety-clacking on bare pavement just sounds WRONG! And they always make me drive slower than I do without studs. Because the wear is proportional to speed.

That said, even if Nokian perfects them and makes them available, I probably would still stick with studless tires for cost, weight, simplicity and because modern studless winter tires work just fine on ice. But the "James Bond" quality of retractable studs is pretty cool, just not sure it's needed for 99% of winter drivers. If I had an inexperienced daughter who drove herself in winter conditions I might go hog wild and fork out the cash so I wasn't constantly buying new studs. Or teach her how to drive safely on ice with the excellent studless tires available. Good driving skill solves a lot of problems.

[bodywhomper]

I have no plans to run studded tires on my vehicles where I currently live, but i wanted to point out that the "braking on slippery ice" category illustrates how much better new studs are compared to new studless.

for the top goodyear tires, it's 39.9m vs 54.6m. that's 48 feet furtherwith studless
with the nokian's, it's 60 feet futher with studless

https://www.motor.no/artikler/2017/o...g-pa-glatt-is/

[markcjr]

Are hakka 9's woth the extra $$ over hakka 8's?

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

[AweShuksan]

I have no plans to run studded tires on my vehicles where I currently live, but i wanted to point out that the "braking on slippery ice" category illustrates how much better new studs are compared to new studless.

https://www.motor.no/artikler/2017/o...g-pa-glatt-is/

Thanks for that! That is the most comprehensive and well done winter tire test I've seen. I love the way the pragmatic Norwegians tested the tires! I used Google Translate to review.

Unfortunately, this test suffers from the same glaring fault that inflicts every other winter tire test - it doesn't test tire performance after the stud tips are rounded off to reflect the kind of performance difference you can expect in the real world. I imagine they didn't have the funding to test them through the entire lifecycle. While it's nice to know the relative performance difference you will enjoy on your first weekend with brand spanking new studs, what really matters is how they perform day in and day out. And that's where many studless winter tires really excel. Maybe some people have unlimited funds (not to mention time) to buy new tires as soon as the sharp edges are worn off the studs but regular folks can't be replacing their tires just because the studs have rounded off a bit!

Testing that doesn't include 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 lifecycle testing (and how long it takes to get there) is rather meaningless in the real world. Still, the test results were fun to read.

[plugboots]

Are hakka 9's woth the extra $$ over hakka 8's?

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

These are fun questions. If this was a BMW forum, the first response would be: “What’s your family’s lives worth?” As if you don’t spend the extra cash, everyone in your family dies on Friday when you head over to Walgreens.

All the Hakk’s are great tires, and basically every year they upgrade them with whatever new technology they come up with. So in summary the 9’s are a bit better than the 8’s, etc.

[markcjr]

I'm an idiot this is about studless or studded

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

[auvgeek]

i wanted to point out that the "braking on slippery ice" category illustrates how much better new studs are compared to new studless.

for the top goodyear tires, it's 39.9m vs 54.6m. that's 48 feet furtherwith studless
with the nokian's, it's 60 feet futher with studless

https://www.motor.no/artikler/2017/o...g-pa-glatt-is/

Yes, exactly. I made this same point a few pages back:

If you look at the data from tire tests, the top 2-3 studded tires perform significantly better on ice, marginally better on snow, about the same on wet pavement, and marginally worse on dry pavement compared to the top 2-3 studless tires. Personally, I think the ice performance outweighs the minimal drawbacks on dry pavement because it's SO much better. We're talking about stopping 20m shorter on ice vs <1m longer on dry pavement.

Yes, it really would be great if they re-ran the tests after 20k winter miles on the tires. Some studless tires (Blizzak) run a double rubber compound and thus suffer from the same highly nonlinear wear behavior as (older) studded tires.

FWIW, here are some more recent data. Will be curious to see the 2017 tests with the new Hakka 9.
Studded: http://www.laneks.lv/en/tests/read/TM-2016-win1.html
Studless: http://www.laneks.lv/en/tests/read/TM-2016-win2.html

AweShuksan brings up the great point about stud wear vs stud retention. It would be really interesting to look at how stud depth and sharpness change as a function of miles on the tire. I suspect the rubber on studless tires undergoes some sort of transformation as it wears as well, which is why it would be great to run the tests at various points on the tire's life. Plus, I bet there would be plenty of folks willing to drive the tires around and log the mileage.

[markcjr]

Will Nokian studless Tires have rubber that lasts the entirety of the tire that still grips? Or are they like a Blizzak where halfway through that go to a stiffer not as grippy compound?

Sent from my VS987 using TGR Forums mobile app

[Banh Mi]

I dont like my Nokians as much as Blizzaks, either in gnarly conditions, or regular driving. I can feel some sliding with Nokians, whereas with Blizzaks, I had to “try” to slide, IE give er’ some gas at the exit of a turn. I never, ever once felt blizzaks slide without trying to do so. I was driving more dangerous roads with the Blizzaks as well.

Call me crazy, tell me about all the reviews, IDC. I prefer Bridgestone.

The sidewalls on my Nokians feel much less “stiff” than I prefer as well. When I make a quick turn, they feel like they are buckling.. even though they are not. It robs me of confidence when driving in almost any condition.

The one positive thing though, is they do seem like they last significantly longer than Blizzaks. I have 6000mi on my Nokians and the tread looks great.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[bodywhomper]

It's helpful if you ^^^ describe which nokian (and blizzaks) you were using.

Markcjr, it seems to depend on the nokian tire. Here's an example https://www.nokiantires.com/innovati...kian-wr-suv-3/

Sent from my SPH-L710 using TGR Forums mobile app