The extreme winter specialists at Vi Bilagare are back at it testing the latest and greatest studless friction winter tyres. This year they not only tested seven of the most popular studless friction nordic compounds in the popular 225/45 R17 tyre size, they also included an older tyre to see the effects of aging. The older tyre is an 8 year old, lightly used (6mm remaining) Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2, which has its work cut out as its "two-generation-newer" brother, the Hakkapeliitta R5 is also included in this test!

Due to time constraints we will just present the data, heavy over to the Vi Vilagare website to check out the full article.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 80 → 5 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 5 km/h
Snow Braking: 35 → 5 km/h
Snow Traction: 5 → 35 km/h
Ice Braking: 25 → 5 km/h
Ice Traction: 5 → 25 km/h

Ice

Ice Braking

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin X Ice Snow	12.09 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental VikingContact 7	12.32 m	+0.23 m	18 km/h
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	12.49 m	+0.40 m	23 km/h
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	13 m	+0.91 m	34 km/h
5Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	13.23 m	+1.14 m	38 km/h
6Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	13.3 m	+1.21 m	39 km/h
7Triangle Snowlink PL01	13.93 m	+1.84 m	47 km/h
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	14.04 m	+1.95 m	48 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 16.1% (1.95 m ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 would still be travelling at 48 km/h when the Michelin X Ice Snow had stopped.

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

Ice Traction

Ice Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice Snow	7.32 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	7.52 s	+0.20 s
3Continental VikingContact 7	7.82 s	+0.50 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	8.05 s	+0.73 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	8.43 s	+1.11 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	8.97 s	+1.65 s
7Triangle Snowlink PL01	9.17 s	+1.85 s
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	10.7 s	+3.38 s

The difference between best and worst was 46.2% (3.38 s).

Ice Handling

Ice Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental VikingContact 7	44.5 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	44.7 s	+0.20 s
3Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	44.9 s	+0.40 s
4Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	46 s	+1.50 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	46.7 s	+2.20 s
6Michelin X Ice Snow	47.1 s	+2.60 s
7Triangle Snowlink PL01	48.6 s	+4.10 s
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	49 s	+4.50 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (4.5 s).

Snow

Snow Braking

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	12.19 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin X Ice Snow	12.21 m	+0.02 m	5 km/h
3Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	12.27 m	+0.08 m	10 km/h
4Continental VikingContact 7	12.34 m	+0.15 m	14 km/h
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	12.52 m	+0.33 m	21 km/h
5Triangle Snowlink PL01	12.52 m	+0.33 m	21 km/h
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	12.73 m	+0.54 m	27 km/h
8Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	12.77 m	+0.58 m	28 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 4.8% (0.58 m). From 130 km/h, the Bridgestone Blizzak Ice would still be travelling at 28 km/h when the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 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
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	4.44 s	Best
2Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	4.49 s	+0.05 s
3Continental VikingContact 7	4.55 s	+0.11 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	4.57 s	+0.13 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	4.57 s	+0.13 s
6Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	4.59 s	+0.15 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	4.6 s	+0.16 s
8Triangle Snowlink PL01	4.68 s	+0.24 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.4% (0.24 s).

Snow Handling

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	75.5 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 7	75.7 s	+0.20 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	75.9 s	+0.40 s
4Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	76.4 s	+0.90 s
5Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	76.6 s	+1.10 s
6Michelin X Ice Snow	76.7 s	+1.20 s
7Triangle Snowlink PL01	79.9 s	+4.40 s
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	80.7 s	+5.20 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.9% (5.2 s).

Wet

Wet Braking

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	37.55 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin X Ice Snow	38.4 m	+0.85 m	19 km/h
3Continental VikingContact 7	39.31 m	+1.76 m	28 km/h
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	40.28 m	+2.73 m	34 km/h
5Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	40.74 m	+3.19 m	36 km/h
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	40.88 m	+3.33 m	37 km/h
7Triangle Snowlink PL01	42.19 m	+4.64 m	43 km/h
8Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	43.34 m	+5.79 m	48 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 15.4% (5.79 m ≈ 1.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico would still be travelling at 48 km/h when the Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	41 s	Best
2Continental VikingContact 7	41.4 s	+0.40 s
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	42 s	+1.00 s
4Michelin X Ice Snow	42.1 s	+1.10 s
5Triangle Snowlink PL01	42.4 s	+1.40 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	42.8 s	+1.80 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	43.7 s	+2.70 s
8Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	43.9 s	+2.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.1% (2.9 s).

Straight Aqua

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	66 km/h	Best
2Michelin X Ice Snow	65 km/h	-1.00 km/h
3Continental VikingContact 7	62.7 km/h	-3.30 km/h
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	61.4 km/h	-4.60 km/h
5Triangle Snowlink PL01	61 km/h	-5.00 km/h
6Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	60.5 km/h	-5.50 km/h
7Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	59.8 km/h	-6.20 km/h
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	56.6 km/h	-9.40 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 14.2% (9.4 Km/H).

Dry

Dry Braking

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	29.23 m	Best	0 km/h
2Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	30.03 m	+0.80 m	21 km/h
3Continental VikingContact 7	30.32 m	+1.09 m	25 km/h
4Triangle Snowlink PL01	30.37 m	+1.14 m	25 km/h
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	30.65 m	+1.42 m	28 km/h
6Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	30.9 m	+1.67 m	30 km/h
7Michelin X Ice Snow	30.96 m	+1.73 m	31 km/h
8Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	31.46 m	+2.23 m	35 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.6% (2.23 m ≈ 0.5 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico would still be travelling at 35 km/h when the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 had stopped.

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

Subj. Dry Handling

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	5 Points	Best
1Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	5 Points	Best
3Continental VikingContact 7	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Michelin X Ice Snow	4 Points	-1.00 Points
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	3 Points	-2.00 Points
5Triangle Snowlink PL01	3 Points	-2.00 Points
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	2 Points	-3.00 Points
7Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	2 Points	-3.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 60% (3 Points).

Comfort

Noise

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	73.7 dB	Best
2Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	73.9 dB	+0.20 dB
3Continental VikingContact 7	74 dB	+0.30 dB
3Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	74 dB	+0.30 dB
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	74.3 dB	+0.60 dB
5Triangle Snowlink PL01	74.3 dB	+0.60 dB
7Michelin X Ice Snow	74.5 dB	+0.80 dB
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	75.5 dB	+1.80 dB

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

Value

Fuel Consumption

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	4.8 l/100km	Best	£0
2Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	4.85 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km	£14
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	4.9 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
4Continental VikingContact 7	5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
5Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	5.05 l/100km	+0.25 l/100km	£69
6Triangle Snowlink PL01	5.1 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	£83
7Michelin X Ice Snow	5.15 l/100km	+0.35 l/100km	£96
8Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	5.2 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km	£110

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (0.4 l/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Bridgestone Blizzak Ice uses about 76 L (£110) more fuel than the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2.

Adjust the assumptions

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

Petrol/Diesel Electric

Annual Mileage

19,000 km

km (L)

miles (US gal)

Fuel Price

£1.45/L

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 tyre age. For comparative purposes only. Lifetime savings based on a 40,000km / 25,000 mile tread life.

Results

The VikingContact7, despite being one of the oldest tires on the market, still performs at the top. Following a third-place finish in last year's test of SUV sizes, Continental is once again number one. The tire manages to maintain steering grip even in really tight curves on ice. It also remains easy to control on snow with a stable rear without sliding tendencies under pressure. Despite its excellent characteristics on winter roads, Continental continues to convince in dry road conditions. The steering feel on asphalt is good; it handles understeering tests well and shows reasonable stopping distances on both wet and dry asphalt. Almost always being top three in every subtest earns it a well-deserved overall victory. The Continental is suitable for all types of winter needs.

To summarize, the VikingContact7 tire by Continental is praised for its exceptional performance across various conditions, from ice and snow to dry asphalt, showcasing its suitability for diverse winter requirements.

Dry93.6%

Wet97%

Snow98.7%

Ice97.3%

Comfort99.6%

Fuel Consumption96%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	30.32 m	+1.09 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	39.31 m	+1.76 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	41.4 s	+0.40 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	62.7 km/h	-3.30 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	12.34 m	+0.15 m
Snow TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	4.55 s	+0.11 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	75.7 s	+0.20 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	12.32 m	+0.23 m
Ice TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	7.82 s	+0.50 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	44.5 s	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 8	74 dB	+0.30 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 8	5 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes

This season's big news is the third generation of UltraGrip Ice from Goodyear. The predecessors have distinguished themselves as Nordic friction tires that perform well on wet roads. The new model retains this market position but has also strengthened its winter grip. It performs at the top in terms of starting and braking on snow and shows good cornering ability. The ice grip is also at a high level, though slightly behind the very best.

The tire is most impressive on asphalt rounds, especially in wet conditions. The steering sensitivity and stability in evasive maneuvers are the best in the group. The same goes for aquaplaning resistance and the stopping distance on wet roads.

Goodyear is the best choice if you drive mostly on bare ground but still want good ice and snow grip.

Dry95.5%

Wet100%

Snow99.8%

Ice91.7%

Comfort99.6%

Fuel Consumption99%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	30.9 m	+1.67 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	37.55 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	41 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	66 km/h	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	12.19 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	4.44 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	75.9 s	+0.40 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	13 m	+0.91 m
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	8.43 s	+1.11 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	46.7 s	+2.20 s
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 8	74 dB	+0.30 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	4.85 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes

Nokian's latest friction tire scores the most points of all in the snow and ice rounds. It has lively reactions and steers quickly into curves. For a soft friction tire, it is a joy to drive with a cooperative rear that suits the active driver. Conversely, those who prefer a calm and undramatic tire may find the Nokian somewhat too prone to sliding.

On asphalt, it handles evasive maneuvers well, but has a somewhat nonlinear steering feel. Its wet grip properties are just behind the best competitors, as is the road noise. However, the Hakkapeliitta R5 has low rolling resistance.

The Nokian tire is suitable for those who prioritize winter road properties above all and appreciate its quick cornering characteristics.

Dry89.4%

Wet95.1%

Snow98.2%

Ice97.9%

Comfort99.2%

Fuel Consumption98%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	30.65 m	+1.42 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	40.28 m	+2.73 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	42 s	+1.00 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	61.4 km/h	-4.60 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	12.52 m	+0.33 m
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	4.57 s	+0.13 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	75.5 s	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	12.49 m	+0.40 m
Ice TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	7.52 s	+0.20 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	44.7 s	+0.20 s
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 8	74.3 dB	+0.60 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	4.9 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes

The French friction tire has impressive longitudinal winter grip – that is, acceleration and braking. It has the best stopping distance on ice in the test, and the braking performance on snow also receives the highest rating.

However, Michelin struggles in the curves where it does not like to be stressed with sudden steering movements or in tighter curves, responding with clear understeering.

Instead, the tire exhibits good stability on bare ground, where the natural steering feel is also appreciated. However, the understeering balance persists under pressure, especially on wet asphalt.

Michelin is for those who prioritize short stopping distances and a good driving experience in everyday situations over maximum cornering ability.

Dry92%

Wet97.7%

Snow98.4%

Ice98.2%

Comfort98.9%

Fuel Consumption93.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	30.96 m	+1.73 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	38.4 m	+0.85 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	42.1 s	+1.10 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	65 km/h	-1.00 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	12.21 m	+0.02 m
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	4.57 s	+0.13 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	76.7 s	+1.20 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	12.09 m	Best in this discipline
Ice TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	7.32 s	Best in this discipline
Ice HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	47.1 s	+2.60 s
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 8	74.5 dB	+0.80 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	7^th / 8	5.15 l/100km	+0.35 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes

The Japanese Bridgestone is one of the few winter tires with an asymmetric pattern, marked with an inside/outside instead of rolling direction. This favors cornering but results in poorer water properties.

The Blizzak Ice is also one of the softest tires (the rubber's "Shore value" is a low 49). This provides good cornering grip on snow and ice, but it is not as easily controlled at the grip limit on snow as the best ones. Its braking performance on winter surfaces is average.

The soft rubber bites well when braking on dry asphalt and has low road noise. However, it lacks stability in evasive maneuvers on dry roads, and its wet grip is one of the worst in the group.

Without a clear area of expertise, Bridgestone places a bit behind the top contenders.

Dry87.6%

Wet92.5%

Snow97%

Ice93.6%

Comfort100%

Fuel Consumption92.3%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	30.03 m	+0.80 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	40.74 m	+3.19 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	43.9 s	+2.90 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 8	59.8 km/h	-6.20 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	12.77 m	+0.58 m
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	4.59 s	+0.15 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	76.6 s	+1.10 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	13.3 m	+1.21 m
Ice TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	8.05 s	+0.73 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	44.9 s	+0.40 s
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 8	73.7 dB	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 8	5.2 l/100km	+0.40 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes

When Pirelli was unable to produce its Nordic friction tire IceZero FR in Russia, they brought over their Asian friction tire Asimmetrico instead. As the name suggests, the tire has an asymmetric pattern (with a dedicated inside/outside instead of rolling direction). It also has a somewhat stiffer carcass and harder rubber than the others, and a higher speed rating.

Braking distances on snow and ice are average. In the corners, Pirelli exhibits quick steering reactions but can lose grip suddenly with a long sliding phase when the grip is lost.

The best performance is on dry asphalt. Unfortunately, the braking distances on bare ground and wet grip are the worst in the group, resulting in a modest overall score.

Dry94.1%

Wet91.2%

Snow99%

Ice89.9%

Comfort99.7%

Fuel Consumption95.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	31.46 m	+2.23 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	43.34 m	+5.79 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	42.8 s	+1.80 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	60.5 km/h	-5.50 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	12.27 m	+0.08 m
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	4.49 s	+0.05 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	76.4 s	+0.90 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	13.23 m	+1.14 m
Ice TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	8.97 s	+1.65 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	46 s	+1.50 s
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 8	73.9 dB	+0.20 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	5.05 l/100km	+0.25 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes

The Chinese Triangle tire boasts in its marketing that it was developed in Finland. Despite this, it has an unusually hard rubber compound with poor winter grip. On icy curves, it loses grip at the front without warning, causing the car to understeer heavily without the driver being able to do anything.

Across the ice and snow subtests, the grip level is on par with the used tire in this comparison. In the tests on bare ground, Triangle performs somewhat better compared to the competition, but it never manages to leave the lower half of the results. Disturbing road noise solidifies an already certain last place among the new tires. In fact, the points are not even enough to beat the eight-year-old wildcard entry. It ends up in a shared last place.

Dry90.1%

Wet92.8%

Snow95.5%

Ice86.1%

Comfort99.2%

Fuel Consumption94.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	30.37 m	+1.14 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	5^th / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	42.19 m	+4.64 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	42.4 s	+1.40 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	61 km/h	-5.00 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	12.52 m	+0.33 m
Snow TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	4.68 s	+0.24 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	79.9 s	+4.40 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	13.93 m	+1.84 m
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	9.17 s	+1.85 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	48.6 s	+4.10 s
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 8	74.3 dB	+0.60 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 8	5.1 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km

3PMSF: Yes

The used tire, a Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2, was a test winner when it was new in 2015. Now, it is eight years old with about six millimeters of tread depth and harder rubber. There is a noticeable deterioration on ice and snow compared to the new top tires, but it still keeps pace with the brand-new Triangle tire in the winter rounds. The R2 is actually more manageable in curves as it is well-balanced and warns early when the grip limit is approaching.

On asphalt, the lower tread depth provides an advantage in terms of braking and consumption, but it causes problems with aquaplaning instead. High wear on the outer part of the front tires results in poor cornering grip.

It is concluded that new tires offer a clear increase in safety – but only if you purchase the best ones.

Dry89.8%

Wet92%

Snow95.3%

Ice81.8%

Comfort97.6%

Fuel Consumption100%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (13)

Discipline positions compare the ranked tyres 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 / 8	29.23 m	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	40.88 m	+3.33 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	43.7 s	+2.70 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	56.6 km/h	-9.40 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	12.73 m	+0.54 m
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	4.6 s	+0.16 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	80.7 s	+5.20 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	14.04 m	+1.95 m
Ice TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	10.7 s	+3.38 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	49 s	+4.50 s
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 8	75.5 dB	+1.80 dB
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 8	4.8 l/100km	Best in this discipline

3PMSF: Yes

Discussion

2 comments

borisdime Jan 25, 2024 archived

How this kind of tires compares to standard winter tires? I would love to see single winter tire in this test to see the difference.

#9326
1. TyreReviews borisdime Jan 25, 2024 archived
  
  Check out the tyre reviews test in this category, it has the TS870 in.
  
  #9327

Tyre	Continental VikingContact 7	Goodyear UltraGrip Ice 3	Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5	Michelin X Ice Snow	Bridgestone Blizzak Ice	Pirelli Ice Zero Asimmetrico	Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2	Triangle Snowlink PL01
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	Joint 7^th	Joint 7^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	93.6%	95.5%	89.4%	92%	87.6%	94.1%	89.8%	90.1%
Wet	97%	100%	95.1%	97.7%	92.5%	91.2%	92%	92.8%
Snow	98.7%	99.8%	98.2%	98.4%	97%	99%	95.3%	95.5%
Ice	97.3%	91.7%	97.9%	98.2%	93.6%	89.9%	81.8%	86.1%
Comfort	99.6%	99.6%	99.2%	98.9%	100%	99.7%	97.6%	99.2%
Fuel Consumption	96%	99%	98%	93.2%	92.3%	95.1%	100%	94.1%
Keep researching	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results	Read owner reviews Test Results

Menu

Tyre shortlist

The evidence behind the verdict

Test setup & methodology

Recorded test conditions

Ice

Snow

Wet

Dry

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test