Your ignorance regarding the use of studs is comical.
Winter tires and driving
- Thread starter coleAK
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I'll ignore the uninformed comment about studs for now, but the Finns have been leading the way with winter tires for quite some time. Nokian Hakka R3s are unmatched, I love mine.
BAY2MTN
SILVER Star
I think he's referring to those who run studded tires in the San Francisco Bay Area (Northern California) who drive 200 miles to ski in the Sierras on the weekends.
200 miles of highway, of which 30 might be under chain control. California shuts down the highway fairly quickly in snow storms. Red Audis with heated seats are waved through. fact.
Unless you live up there, studded tires are overkill for SF Bay dwellers. Though I do know some who drive them in Silicon Valley under their daily driver GLS Mercedes. I'd call that a poseur.
200 miles of highway, of which 30 might be under chain control. California shuts down the highway fairly quickly in snow storms. Red Audis with heated seats are waved through. fact.
Unless you live up there, studded tires are overkill for SF Bay dwellers. Though I do know some who drive them in Silicon Valley under their daily driver GLS Mercedes. I'd call that a poseur.
Last edited:
TLC2013
SILVER Star
Shame on me for resurrecting this thread lol, read through the pages before posting and should have known it would be a contentious one. I am basically set on the studdless winter tire brand/model but am deciding on the size 275 or 265 70R18...because you know we need another thread on which tire size Is better on here
Contact patches aired down off road aren't really relevant to driving on road, across mixed winter conditions. I think you found your way to the correct answer here though.
For everyone else, American roads are not Finnish roads. Run an appropriate tire designed for our road conditions. We plow in this country, they drive on packed snow there. Studs can only help on ice, get in the way of traction on wet and slushy pavement, are worn out by driving on pavement in just 1k miles, and are now outperformed on ice by the studless alternative anyways. But hey, gotta love people who fall for low dollar marketing while deeming actual journalists to be frauds.
1k miles? Dude....that’s as crazy as some of your carbon footprint claims and response.
- Thread starter
- #167
First off You can’t run studs in CA... They have been illegal there for at least 20 years. Studs would also be pointless for someone who lives in CA and drives up the hill from time to time.
Honestly even blizzaks could be overkill if you don’t go up all that often and don’t go when the roads are terrible. And fair warning if you drive on warm dry roads often, You could go through a set a winter. Sierras get a lot of snow but don’t get cold and rarely ever get ice.
as for size, my winter tires are 265/60-18. In summer I run 285/65-20
We run the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3 SUV non-studded on our 200. In stock size (285/60/18). They were fantastic last winter. We’re in Idaho. I have the non-studded Blizzaks on another vehicle. They’re both great. Totally different vehicles so hard to compare apples to apples. The Nokians are a great option. Great in fresh powder. They also did great in packed snow/ice. They don’t always keep up with our roads outside of town (Idaho Falls) and so we get lots of packed snow and ice build-up. Anyway I highly recommend the Nokians.
Eyedaho
SILVER Star
No offense, but I will look elsewhere for "real journalism". If I'm reading a review of a product and the person writing the review has a financial interest, I expect that to be disclosed from a "real journalist", whether it's free or discounted merchandise, cash payments, or your employer getting kickbacks for affiliate links from articles. Nothing wrong with making money, but real journalists disclose those financial interests.
Gotta love someone with zero experience in your industry telling you how to do your job...
Everything is disclosed. There is a strict firewall between sales and editorial at every serious publication I've ever written for, including the ones I've owned. Again, I've never even heard of pay for play, much less been approached to participate in such a scheme.
Panning studded tires is stupid and just reeks of ignorance.
Studded tire is a tool and has its place and application and really depends on driving conditions. Generally I see no downsides except noise and perhaps wear to the driveway (asphalt - skids marks if you spin - not an issue on AWD Cruiser) and garage floor (I have PVC tiles). I drive around Boston and run Nokian 8 studded on Tacoma and Nokian 9 on the Cruiser. For a pickup with the lightweight ass, there is no question to me the studded tire was a good choice even around Boston where even though they plow and salt like crazy black ice can be encountered. To be honest, I've been on the fence with the Cruiser, and were close to buying R3s instead. There is some added noise that one could wish wasn't there on extended trips on bare asphalt. But the tires have excellent traction in all conditions.
My recent experience with non-studded tires is Blizzard LM on the i3. Good in snow/slush, but poor on ice. i3 is rear wheel drive, which does not help, but these tires were completely defeated by a moderately steep iced hill.
Studded tire is a tool and has its place and application and really depends on driving conditions. Generally I see no downsides except noise and perhaps wear to the driveway (asphalt - skids marks if you spin - not an issue on AWD Cruiser) and garage floor (I have PVC tiles). I drive around Boston and run Nokian 8 studded on Tacoma and Nokian 9 on the Cruiser. For a pickup with the lightweight ass, there is no question to me the studded tire was a good choice even around Boston where even though they plow and salt like crazy black ice can be encountered. To be honest, I've been on the fence with the Cruiser, and were close to buying R3s instead. There is some added noise that one could wish wasn't there on extended trips on bare asphalt. But the tires have excellent traction in all conditions.
My recent experience with non-studded tires is Blizzard LM on the i3. Good in snow/slush, but poor on ice. i3 is rear wheel drive, which does not help, but these tires were completely defeated by a moderately steep iced hill.
Last edited:
Boston is a great example of an environment where studs actually work against you. You drive in mixed conditions all winter, that can include fresh snow, packed snow, slush, rain, dry pavement, and yes, some ice around intersections, or after a freeze/thaw cycle. It does not look like a race track made from perfectly flat, consistent, polished ice.
Given that studs only help on bare ice between zero and 32 degrees, do nothing in snow, get in the way in slush, and on wet or dry pavement, I'm sure you can see why using them there, instead of a tire literally designed for your exact situation, would be a bad idea. Particularly given that studs damage roadways, resulting in increased air pollution and a greater burden on taxpayers whose money funds road maintenance.
Studded tires sold today tend to apply studs to the same kinds of winter compounds you'll find on studless tires. So why not use such a tire (studded + winter compound) and gain the best of both features? Three reasons: noise, road damage, and value. In today's world, studded tires are designed for Scandanavian roads. It's not that their winters are that much more daunting than ours, it's that in the northern parts of Sweden/Norway/Finland/Russia, they don't plow roads. In the winter there, you mostly drive on compacted snow, and probably across some frozen lakes too. You'll only really encounter bare pavement in a town center. In contrast, roads in North America are plowed. Even up by our cabin in northern Montana, on the Canadian border, the state plows the main roads. Even when we drive there in the depths of winter, we mostly drive on bare pavement, then encounter only a few miles of challenging, snowed-in dirt roads, or encounter a storm for a portion of the trip. Running a tire that isn't designed to handle bare pavement is a bad idea in a country that's mostly bare pavement.
Even if your'e the kind of rugged individualist who gets mad about participating in civil society, and so doesn't care about population-level health or budget concerns, then you still have to accept that running studs in an environment they weren't designed for represents poor value. Studies show that driving on pavement with studs for just 1,000 miles wears them down so much that their braking distances on bare ice (again, the only condition where they do anything useful) increases 12 percent. Everyone in North America is driving on bare pavement for at least 1,000 miles a winter. If your studs are more than a season old, they are likely so worn that all they're doing is making noise. You paid for tire that may still help in cold weather thanks to its compound, but all it's giving you over a modern studless winter tire is a headache.
All that, and studs can no longer be demonstrated to reliably outperform modern studless tires on bare ice. Obviously there's a lot of different tires out there, and one might grip better than another in a certain test, but as a category, studs are now obsolete.
Last edited:
What you wrote does not match my experience re stud wear. They look and grip perfectly fine and yes they have thousands of miles of bare pavement on them by now. The studded Nokians remain superior to non-studded tires. Different vehicles and different tire compounds so not exactly perfect comparison. I mentioned the Blizzaks on the i3, I also ran Michelin X-Ice Xi3 on the Subaru. Decent on ice, good in snow and poor in slush. Still not as sure footed as the Nokians.
The commuter car is the i3 (not quite anymore, because pandemic) and indeed I would not think about putting studded tires on it (even if they were available). For the use patterns of the trucks, it's a different story. These are not daily drivers. I admit the 200 use case is borderline and I think I'd be okay - and perhaps even happier - with studdless tires - mostly due to the noise factor.
The commuter car is the i3 (not quite anymore, because pandemic) and indeed I would not think about putting studded tires on it (even if they were available). For the use patterns of the trucks, it's a different story. These are not daily drivers. I admit the 200 use case is borderline and I think I'd be okay - and perhaps even happier - with studdless tires - mostly due to the noise factor.
Last edited:
Wear is happening regardless. Often the slow degradation of vehicle components can't be felt since you're experiencing them slowly over time. Compare this to the way in which a fully-built truck performs on the road. If you've spent three years slowly bolting weight to the roof of your truck, you probably still think it drives great. But, if you were to hop out of a brand new, unmodified vehicle, into that heavily modified one, you'd probably be shocked by how poorly it drives. And remember, studs only do anything on bare ice, between zero and 32 degrees, you won't feel them working or not working anywhere else, since they are superfluous at best in any other condition. If you're driving around all happy in snow, for instance, that's the compound and tread, not the studs.
There remains a great variance in capabilities across tires within a category. I wish there was better service journalism around this, but I just don't think that the largely ignorant driving population in America cares enough to make tires reviews much of a business. And that same problem means user reviews on retailer sites are worthless. If you have a tire that works for you, then that's great. All I ask is that you remain open minded to better options when it comes time to replace them. Nokian makes a good tire. I just put a set of non-studded LT3s on our 4Runner.
Why non-studded LT3 over R3? Load rating? Stronger sidewall for offroading? Available size?
I agree about modded vehicles vs. stock and boiling the frog phenomenon but I still think you were panning studded tires too much. Do you have experience with modern studded Nokians? I hear (and believe that) that they are bounds and leaps better than field studded tires of yore. Never experienced those, however.
I think I am open minded enough given I run a mix of studded and non-studded tires in my fleet... peace
I’ve lived near Boston for almost 30 years. I can’t say that I see the need for studded snow tires around here. I suppose if I regularly drove in northern VT, NH, or ME I might feel differently. YMMV.
- Thread starter
- #178
Will you just drop it. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Yes cheep Studded tires suck and the studs wear out fast. But, My studded Hakka 5 lasted 9 winters on our old 4matic my son drives now. 4 of those winters were warm (for AK) with much time on pavement. I’m on my 7th winter (and 35-40k miles so far) on the Hakka 7 on my LX and the studs are all fine. Blizzak, xIce,... are known up here to be 2 winter tires. So you are telling me that the environmental concerns of my studs breaking asphalt vs the life of at least 3 sets of studless tires (manufacturing through disposal) to 1 Set of studded, I’d say the studless are probably worse for the environment.
I’ve lived all but 4 years of my life in areas with long winters. Grew up in Tahoe lived there 25 years total, spent 2 years in BC, 2 years in CO, been in AK almost 12 years. Only 4 years for professional school in NE TN was not a lowinter area. There are limitations for studs and limitations for studless winter tires. Also I’ve traveled the circumpolar north quite widely and regularly, yearly for the Arctic winter games and often for mission work. They do plow roads commonly across all the countries/regions you mentioned, what they don’t do is salt.
lastly you claim to be a journalist, you write articles, the piece you wrote on winter tires for outside was a story, nothing more. You do not do scientific research, I do. As for scientific research like you are implying that was... First off, selection bias, you chose one of the worst studded winter tires for your comparison and didn’t include anything from the “gold standard” Nokian. Second publication/funding bias, you received funding from Bridgestone. Third, you didn’t do any hypothesis testing or quantitative analysis and it wasn’t peer reviewed.
And don’t even get me started on discussing population health.
Load rating and size. It's a '98 4Runner with 234,000 miles--it's our beater--and we ask it to carry dogs out for muddy hikes, loan it to guests, and take it out any time damage is likely, be that a blizzard or just gnarly off road stuff.
There's a lot of conditions around winter that aren't driving through snow and ice on a road. An LT tire may not be quite as good as the R3 in those conditions, but should more strongly resist damage from rocks, branches, etc etc.
I agree - for someone who stays around Mass for sure. My exception was the pickup truck that used to be driven more by my wife so I wanted to extra safety factor. Got studs for 200 with trips up north in mind.
