Winter tires and driving

[coleAK]

Yet tests show they outperform studded tires. Studs only provide a very small advantage on clear ice between zero and 32 degrees. They cannot help in snow, compromise grip in slushy, wet, or dry conditions, and if you drive with them at all on bare pavement, you wear the studs down to the point of ineffectiveness in 1,000 miles or less.

Studs are only designed for drivers who never encounter bare pavement. And even for that very small group, the latest studless tires offer a broader spread of capabilities.

I got 8 winters ~40k miles out of my studded Hakka 4’s on our e 4matic, studs were still in good shape, and still had ~30% tread. Going into 7th winter on Hakka 7 on my LX, And we had a few low snow/ice ones in there with many miles on bare roads, probably will get new ones but 50/50.

 

[WesSiler]

You may want to look at the writer's name, and maybe even Google it. I've been professionally doing this stuff for close to 20 years.

Anecdotal experience and evidence do not add up to studied research and expert analysis. Since the studs on 25k miles will be worn to the point that all they do is make noise, you're driving on nice, useful, winter compound rubber. The same as you'd get on a more modern studless tire like the most recent Blizzaks.

I am very familiar with winter road conditions in Scandinavia. Unlike everywhere in familiar with in north America, roads in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden and Norway are not plowed in winter. In fact they have more miles of "road" in winter then they do summer. Use a tire designed for the conditions we experience on our roads.

 

[coleAK]

You may want to look at the writer's name, and maybe even Google it. I've been professionally doing this stuff for close to 20 years.

Anecdotal experience and evidence do not add up to studied research and expert analysis. Since the studs on 25k miles will be worn to the point that all they do is make noise, you're driving on nice, useful, winter compound rubber. The same as you'd get on a more modern studless tire like the most recent Blizzaks.

I am very familiar with winter road conditions in Scandinavia. Unlike everywhere in familiar with in north America, roads in the northern parts of Finland, Sweden and Norway are not plowed in winter. In fact they have more miles of "road" in winter then they do summer. Use a tire designed for the conditions we experience on our roads.

Read the NAF report, they buy the tires and do extensive objective testing. Also in Alaska we have more roads in the winter and some of the roads are better when snow/ice covered, Also don’t salt roads At all, on a typical winter 6-7 months a year my tires rarely touch pavement, I typically have 2-6” of solid packed snow/ice on my driveway by the end of winter some time in May.

 

[04UZJ100]

While “data” may suggest studded tires are best under x conditions - you try and find me a location in the world where the road conditions are consistent enough to mimic those done on a test track somewhere.

You can then tell the people that I see sliding all over the road and through stop signs and lights that data shows Blizzaks are the best for NA while @coleAK and I cruise around on Hakka studded tires just fine.

 

[stonepa]

Yet tests show they outperform studded tires. Studs only provide a very small advantage on clear ice between zero and 32 degrees. They cannot help in snow, compromise grip in slushy, wet, or dry conditions, and if you drive with them at all on bare pavement, you wear the studs down to the point of ineffectiveness in 1,000 miles or less.

Studs are only designed for drivers who never encounter bare pavement. And even for that very small group, the latest studless tires offer a broader spread of capabilities.

Having driven for many decades of Alaskan, Iceland, and Minnesota winters, i absolutely hate studded tires. I run Blizzaks In the US and Hakkas in Iceland. All non studded. The new tire compounds grip ice better than studs, last longer, are much quieter of pavement, and don’t get you into trouble with the police.

 

[TheIcemanCometh]

I grew up driving winter retreads with sawdust and walnut shells in them. Today, that combined with some of the other technologies for winter tires the performance all round is a much better alternative than studded tires. Toyo is making such winter tires. Studs still have their place just it is a much smaller place.

 

[edwardg]

At some point, it was asked if one can get the LT3 nonstudded. The answer is “yes” and that’s what I’m running on the 200 in 275/65-20. They were great last winter in bad on road conditions in the Cascades. I would have to chain up the old Toyo AT2 in conditions where these are totally sure footed.

 

[snowfiend131]

edwardg - thanks for the feedback. Nokian's winter tire brochure indicates that any LT3 size can be had either studded or non-studded. Discount Tire (seemingly the only big distributor in my area) seems to only show one size of non-studded on their website, so its unclear how available the non-studded tires are in the real world.

I do wonder if the compound on the LT3 is as good as the R3 SUV, given that many folks may be running them with studs and may not need the best compound. I've sent Nokian an email to ask about this, I'll let the group know if I hear back.

Any opinions on sizing of winter tires, specifically width? I'm running 285/55R20 Yokohama Geolandars outside of winter, which have a diameter of 32.6 inches and a width of 11.2 inches. I'd like my winter tires to have a similar diameter, so if I need to put on my spare tire, it will be approximately the same size. Nokian LT3 comes in a 265/60R20, which has a 32.5 inch diameter, so about perfect. However, its a good bit narrower at 10.4 inches. I've read that narrower tires can be better in snow, but don't know if the jump from 285 to 265 is too much? My spare set of rims are 20's.

Thanks!

 

[WesSiler]

Any opinions on sizing of winter tires, specifically width? I'm running 285/55R20 Yokohama Geolandars outside of winter, which have a diameter of 32.6 inches and a width of 11.2 inches. I'd like my winter tires to have a similar diameter, so if I need to put on my spare tire, it will be approximately the same size. Nokian LT3 comes in a 265/60R20, which has a 32.5 inch diameter, so about perfect. However, its a good bit narrower at 10.4 inches. I've read that narrower tires can be better in snow, but don't know if the jump from 285 to 265 is too much? My spare set of rims are 20's.

Thanks!

Go as narrow as possible, more pressure per square inch of contact area equals more traction on slippery surfaces. 10.4 is ideal.

 

[WesSiler]

While “data” may suggest studded tires are best under x conditions - you try and find me a location in the world where the road conditions are consistent enough to mimic those done on a test track somewhere..

This is exactly my point. Winter brings a variety of challenges that aren't just sheet ice (again, the ONLY condition where studs actually work for you). Across rain, slush, bare pavement, the million different types of snow, and ice, the only tire able to handle all those conditions safely is a modern studless winter tire. And there's increasingly very little air between the performance of studs and studless on ice, too. Studless tires provide grip on ice not only with a very flexible compound, but also a porous structure that wicks the water melted by the weight of the vehicle in the split second the tire acts on that surface. That melt water is what makes ice slippery. By removing it, and allowing the tread pattern and compound to then key with ice's rock-like surface, grip is facilitated. And to repeat a conclusion from my article above, that grip is provided in a communicative way that enters slides progressively. When studs start to spin, they lose grip instantaneously, with no communication ahead of time. No one prefers that kind of behavior.

And that NAF test says the same thing in its conclusion. To paraphrase it: studs are good on ice. If you don't just drive on ice, the studless options are the better choice.

 

[edwardg]

edwardg - thanks for the feedback. Nokian's winter tire brochure indicates that any LT3 size can be had either studded or non-studded. Discount Tire (seemingly the only big distributor in my area) seems to only show one size of non-studded on their website, so its unclear how available the non-studded tires are in the real world.

I got mine from Discount Tire. They can call their Nokian rep/whomever and confirm availability even if it’s not in DT’s public-facing computer system. Good luck with the decision.

 

[coleAK]

This is exactly my point. Winter brings a variety of challenges that aren't just sheet ice (again, the ONLY condition where studs actually work for you). Across rain, slush, bare pavement, the million different types of snow, and ice, the only tire able to handle all those conditions safely is a modern studless winter tire. And there's increasingly very little air between the performance of studs and studless on ice, too. Studless tires provide grip on ice not only with a very flexible compound, but also a porous structure that wicks the water melted by the weight of the vehicle in the split second the tire acts on that surface. That melt water is what makes ice slippery. By removing it, and allowing the tread pattern and compound to then key with ice's rock-like surface, grip is facilitated. And to repeat a conclusion from my article above, that grip is provided in a communicative way that enters slides progressively. When studs start to spin, they lose grip instantaneously, with no communication ahead of time. No one prefers that kind of behavior.

And that NAF test says the same thing in its conclusion. To paraphrase it: studs are good on ice. If you don't just drive on ice, the studless options are the better choice.

Top level studded tires like the Hakka 9 combines everything you mentioned with studs.

I have a Tesla model 3 on Hakka 9, a buddy has the same model 3 on Hakka R3. My hakka 9’s had ~7k miles on them on their 2nd winter, his R3 were on their first winter and <1k miles. We drove them back to back and did a back yard parking lot winter auto cross last winter, mixed winter surface, Mostly ice and packed snow, some gravel on top. Both of us agreed that the Hakka 9 is better on Alaska winter roads, both he and I drove my car faster on our auto cross and had a shorter stopping distance from 30mph. Again totally observational But it was fun.

 

[pwag]

My goal is to locate Hakka LT3 275/70 R18 (33.2") "studless" for this season. Has anyone actually put eyes on a set in US? All I've seen is studded. If you run them, they air down and still drive well for you (forest rds/winter trailheads etc)?

Second choice is Blizzak LT in same size. Used to run blizzak dm-v2, pretty solid when they were fresh, but want to try some Nokians as its been a while.

I run KO2 snowflakes apr-nov, they are not good enough for amount of miles we do on double-yellow mt roads while storm chasing (ski) around CO/WY. Don't trust our drivers here, want every advantage possible, esp with the family on board.

 

[Eyedaho]

It's worth remembering (or learning) that studs are not designed to suit winter conditions in North America. You're paying for a feature that provides no benefit to your driving, and may even compromise safety in some conditions. Just fit a set of Blizzak DM-V2s (the 32.6x10.4-18s are perfect for the 200) and call it a day.

Don't Put Studs on Your Tires This Winter

An important PSA about driving safely in bad weather

www.outsideonline.com

In the interest of full disclosure, who has compensated you for that article? Just Outside magazine, or Bridgestone directly? Did Outside receive money from Tire Rack and/or Bridgestone?

 

[PDoyle]

Hello, guys! Where i can buy a good budget winter tires on nissan maxima 2004? Thank you!

If you ask any Toyota Land Cruiser owner, they would probably say.......Costco baby. Costco.

 

[stonepa]

In the interest of full disclosure, who has compensated you for that article? Just Outside magazine, or Bridgestone directly? Did Outside receive money from Tire Rack and/or Bridgestone?

Huh? Wes’s observations definitely align with mine.

 

[WesSiler]

Huh? Wes’s observations definitely align with mine.

Right. That's a pretty inappropriate insinuation.

 

[Leelanau]

Right. That's a pretty inappropriate insinuation.

How is that possibly inappropriate? It’s a fair question that you still haven’t answered. Writers and product reviewers often get free products, early access, paid travel, or other perks. The ethical ones fully disclose perks or payments openly.

*Edited to add; it’s also why independent testing organizations like Consumer Reports are viewed as more credible sources of reviews and information, rather than your opinion piece for Outside mag that heavily relied on an outdated “study” and “expert” opinions of employees of tire retailers.

And not mention, to have the nerve to tell guys from Alaska (that is very different from Montana) that their opinions, derived from first-hand experience, are not valid and must take a back seat to experts who surely know better, is the height of douchebaggery. It’s why so many people are sick and tired of self anointed elites and politicians who know better than the rest of us.

 

[WesSiler]

How is that possibly inappropriate? It’s a fair question that you still haven’t answered. Writers and product reviewers often get free products, early access, paid travel, or other perks. The ethical ones fully disclose perks or payments openly.

I'm a journalist writing for major national and international publications. I have never been offered, or heard of any of my colleagues being offered, any sort of pay-for-play scheme. I participate in this forum using my real name, and enjoy interacting with my readers wherever they may be.

Suggesting that information that threatens your world view or scares you must be the product of some hidden financial arrangement is emblematic of a problematically under informed ability to consume media. Do better.

 

[Leelanau]

I'm a journalist writing for major national and international publications. I have never been offered, or heard of any of my colleagues being offered, any sort of pay-for-play scheme. I participate in this forum using my real name, and enjoy interacting with my readers wherever they may be.

Suggesting that information that threatens your world view or scares you must be the product of some hidden financial arrangement is emblematic of a problematically under informed ability to consume media. Do better.

You could not have illustrated my point any better. I’m doing fine. You need to look in the mirror. Complete and total arrogance.