The excellent magazine Vi Bilagare tested seven studded tyres and one friction (non-studded) winter tyre - the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5. Testing was conducted in various locations across Finland and Sweden, using a Volkswagen Golf for most tests.
Test Publication:
225/45 R17
8 tyres
6 categories
Images courtesy of Vi Bilagare
Test Publication:
Images courtesy of Vi Bilagare
Test Size:
225/45 R17
Tyres Tested:
8 tyres
The Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 friction tyre showed some interesting characteristics. On rough ice and snow, it matched or exceeded the studded tyres for cornering grip. However, on polished ice, it struggled significantly with braking and acceleration, performing similarly to the budget Mazzini studded tyre. The friction tyre excelled in comfort aspects, with the lowest noise levels and best fuel economy, but showed clear weaknesses in wet grip and early aquaplaning.
The Chinese-made Mazzini Ice Leopard highlighted the performance gap between premium and budget tyres. While it showed decent performance on dry and wet asphalt, it struggled in winter conditions. Its ice grip was poor, with sudden loss of cornering grip occurring without warning. Even with studs, it couldn't outperform the friction tyre on polished ice.
Other Points
The magazine noted that production changes due to leaving Russia have affected quality control, with both Michelin and Bridgestone showing inconsistent stud mounting, the Bridgestone had significant stud retention issues during testing, losing 26 studs from the front tyres, and that the Continental showed unusual characteristics for a studded tyre, with ice performance being its weakest point but excellent wet and dry road handling.
Dry
Dry Braking
Subj. Dry Handling
- Michelin X Ice North 4
- Continental IceContact 3
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Nordman North 9
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
Wet
Wet Braking
Wet Handling
- Continental IceContact 3
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
- Nordman North 9
- Michelin X Ice North 4
Straight Aqua
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Michelin X Ice North 4
- Continental IceContact 3
- Nordman North 9
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
Snow
Snow Braking
Snow Traction
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
- Michelin X Ice North 4
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Continental IceContact 3
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Nordman North 9
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
Snow Handling
- Continental IceContact 3
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Michelin X Ice North 4
- Nordman North 9
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
Ice
Ice Braking
Ice Traction
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Nordman North 9
- Michelin X Ice North 4
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Continental IceContact 3
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
Ice Handling
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
- Michelin X Ice North 4
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Continental IceContact 3
- Nordman North 9
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
Comfort
Noise
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5
- Continental IceContact 3
- Michelin X Ice North 4
- Mazzini Ice Leopard
- Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
- Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
- Nordman North 9
- Bridgestone Blizzak Spike 3
Value
Fuel Consumption
Results
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 dominated winter performance, particularly strong in corners on both ice and snow. The steering is responsive with an active rear end that helps turning, though this might not suit drivers wanting ultimate stability. Its weaknesses showed on wet roads with longer braking distances and early aquaplaning, plus reduced straight-line stability on dry roads.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
5th |
33.14 M |
31.52 M |
+1.62 M |
95.11% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
4th |
3 Points |
5 Points |
-2 Points |
60% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
6th |
37.22 M |
34.3 M |
+2.92 M |
92.15% |
| Wet Handling |
5th |
41.9 s |
40.7 s |
+1.2 s |
97.14% |
| Straight Aqua |
7th |
63 Km/H |
74 Km/H |
-11 Km/H |
85.14% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
3rd |
12.41 M |
12.31 M |
+0.1 M |
99.19% |
| Snow Traction |
4th |
4.32 s |
4.1 s |
+0.22 s |
94.91% |
| Snow Handling |
2nd |
75.2 s |
75.1 s |
+0.1 s |
99.87% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
2nd |
11.73 M |
11.03 M |
+0.7 M |
94.03% |
| Ice Traction |
2nd |
5.38 s |
4.61 s |
+0.77 s |
85.69% |
| Ice Handling |
1st |
47.8 s |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
6th |
75.5 dB |
71.5 dB |
+4 dB |
94.7% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
4th |
5.55 l/100km |
5.25 l/100km |
+0.3 l/100km |
94.59% |
Bridgestone Spike 3 is a new model excelling in water displacement and ice grip, but suffered quality control issues with poorly mounted studs, losing 26 during testing. While showing good wet grip and stability on asphalt, it tends to lose grip more suddenly than rivals in corners. Road noise is higher than most competitors.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
8th |
34.13 M |
31.52 M |
+2.61 M |
92.35% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
3rd |
4 Points |
5 Points |
-1 Points |
80% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
4th |
35.42 M |
34.3 M |
+1.12 M |
96.84% |
| Wet Handling |
4th |
41.7 s |
40.7 s |
+1 s |
97.6% |
| Straight Aqua |
1st |
74 Km/H |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
7th |
12.68 M |
12.31 M |
+0.37 M |
97.08% |
| Snow Traction |
7th |
4.4 s |
4.1 s |
+0.3 s |
93.18% |
| Snow Handling |
7th |
77.1 s |
75.1 s |
+2 s |
97.41% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
1st |
11.03 M |
|
|
100% |
| Ice Traction |
1st |
4.61 s |
|
|
100% |
| Ice Handling |
4th |
48.4 s |
47.8 s |
+0.6 s |
98.76% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
8th |
76.4 dB |
71.5 dB |
+4.9 dB |
93.59% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
4th |
5.55 l/100km |
5.25 l/100km |
+0.3 l/100km |
94.59% |
Michelin X-Ice North 4, despite being an older design from 2018, remains highly competitive with a well-balanced performance. It combines good ice grip with relatively low noise and fuel consumption. The tyre understeers predictably in all conditions, making it user-friendly, though wet grip is its main weakness.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
6th |
33.26 M |
31.52 M |
+1.74 M |
94.77% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
1st |
5 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
7th |
37.27 M |
34.3 M |
+2.97 M |
92.03% |
| Wet Handling |
8th |
42.1 s |
40.7 s |
+1.4 s |
96.67% |
| Straight Aqua |
4th |
69.2 Km/H |
74 Km/H |
-4.8 Km/H |
93.51% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
5th |
12.42 M |
12.31 M |
+0.11 M |
99.11% |
| Snow Traction |
2nd |
4.21 s |
4.1 s |
+0.11 s |
97.39% |
| Snow Handling |
5th |
76.2 s |
75.1 s |
+1.1 s |
98.56% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
4th |
13.38 M |
11.03 M |
+2.35 M |
82.44% |
| Ice Traction |
4th |
5.66 s |
4.61 s |
+1.05 s |
81.45% |
| Ice Handling |
3rd |
48.2 s |
47.8 s |
+0.4 s |
99.17% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
3rd |
74.6 dB |
71.5 dB |
+3.1 dB |
95.84% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
3rd |
5.5 l/100km |
5.25 l/100km |
+0.25 l/100km |
95.45% |
Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 delivers consistent performance and excellent braking across all conditions. It has the deepest tread pattern in the test, which may contribute to its somewhat vague steering feel. While safe and secure, it offers less precise handling for enthusiast drivers.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
4th |
32.66 M |
31.52 M |
+1.14 M |
96.51% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
4th |
3 Points |
5 Points |
-2 Points |
60% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
3rd |
35.34 M |
34.3 M |
+1.04 M |
97.06% |
| Wet Handling |
3rd |
41.5 s |
40.7 s |
+0.8 s |
98.07% |
| Straight Aqua |
3rd |
70.7 Km/H |
74 Km/H |
-3.3 Km/H |
95.54% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
3rd |
12.41 M |
12.31 M |
+0.1 M |
99.19% |
| Snow Traction |
3rd |
4.24 s |
4.1 s |
+0.14 s |
96.7% |
| Snow Handling |
4th |
75.8 s |
75.1 s |
+0.7 s |
99.08% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
3rd |
12.64 M |
11.03 M |
+1.61 M |
87.26% |
| Ice Traction |
5th |
6.19 s |
4.61 s |
+1.58 s |
74.47% |
| Ice Handling |
5th |
48.5 s |
47.8 s |
+0.7 s |
98.56% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
5th |
75.2 dB |
71.5 dB |
+3.7 dB |
95.08% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
7th |
5.7 l/100km |
5.25 l/100km |
+0.45 l/100km |
92.11% |
Continental IceContact 3 showed unusually poor ice performance for a studded tyre, with braking distances a full car length longer than the best at just 25 km/h. However, it excelled on asphalt with the best dry and wet handling characteristics and low noise levels. Strong on snow with predictable behavior.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
3rd |
32.47 M |
31.52 M |
+0.95 M |
97.07% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
1st |
5 Points |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
2nd |
34.74 M |
34.3 M |
+0.44 M |
98.73% |
| Wet Handling |
1st |
40.7 s |
|
|
100% |
| Straight Aqua |
5th |
68.3 Km/H |
74 Km/H |
-5.7 Km/H |
92.3% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
2nd |
12.34 M |
12.31 M |
+0.03 M |
99.76% |
| Snow Traction |
4th |
4.32 s |
4.1 s |
+0.22 s |
94.91% |
| Snow Handling |
1st |
75.1 s |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
6th |
15.87 M |
11.03 M |
+4.84 M |
69.5% |
| Ice Traction |
6th |
6.81 s |
4.61 s |
+2.2 s |
67.69% |
| Ice Handling |
6th |
50.2 s |
47.8 s |
+2.4 s |
95.22% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
2nd |
73.6 dB |
71.5 dB |
+2.1 dB |
97.15% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
8th |
5.75 l/100km |
5.25 l/100km |
+0.5 l/100km |
91.3% |
Nordman North 9, Nokian's budget brand, uses the previous generation Hakkapeliitta 9 tread pattern with harder rubber. It matches or beats the premium Nokian on asphalt but has reduced winter grip. The tyre was notably loud, recording the worst noise comfort in the test.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
7th |
33.59 M |
31.52 M |
+2.07 M |
93.84% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
4th |
3 Points |
5 Points |
-2 Points |
60% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
5th |
36.34 M |
34.3 M |
+2.04 M |
94.39% |
| Wet Handling |
5th |
41.9 s |
40.7 s |
+1.2 s |
97.14% |
| Straight Aqua |
6th |
68.2 Km/H |
74 Km/H |
-5.8 Km/H |
92.16% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
1st |
12.31 M |
|
|
100% |
| Snow Traction |
6th |
4.35 s |
4.1 s |
+0.25 s |
94.25% |
| Snow Handling |
6th |
76.4 s |
75.1 s |
+1.3 s |
98.3% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
5th |
13.77 M |
11.03 M |
+2.74 M |
80.1% |
| Ice Traction |
3rd |
5.55 s |
4.61 s |
+0.94 s |
83.06% |
| Ice Handling |
7th |
50.7 s |
47.8 s |
+2.9 s |
94.28% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
7th |
75.6 dB |
71.5 dB |
+4.1 dB |
94.58% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
2nd |
5.45 l/100km |
5.25 l/100km |
+0.2 l/100km |
96.33% |
The Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5 friction tyre proved that non-studded tyres can match studded ones in many winter conditions, particularly on rough ice and snow. Its soft compound gives understeery handling and excels in comfort with low noise and rolling resistance. Main weaknesses are wet grip and early aquaplaning.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
1st |
31.52 M |
|
|
100% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
8th |
2 Points |
5 Points |
-3 Points |
40% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
8th |
38.39 M |
34.3 M |
+4.09 M |
89.35% |
| Wet Handling |
5th |
41.9 s |
40.7 s |
+1.2 s |
97.14% |
| Straight Aqua |
8th |
58.6 Km/H |
74 Km/H |
-15.4 Km/H |
79.19% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
6th |
12.5 M |
12.31 M |
+0.19 M |
98.48% |
| Snow Traction |
1st |
4.1 s |
|
|
100% |
| Snow Handling |
3rd |
75.6 s |
75.1 s |
+0.5 s |
99.34% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
8th |
17.87 M |
11.03 M |
+6.84 M |
61.72% |
| Ice Traction |
8th |
9.42 s |
4.61 s |
+4.81 s |
48.94% |
| Ice Handling |
2nd |
48 s |
47.8 s |
+0.2 s |
99.58% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
1st |
71.5 dB |
|
|
100% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
1st |
5.25 l/100km |
|
|
100% |
Mazzini Ice Leopard, the Chinese budget option, struggled in demanding conditions with significantly worse ice grip than established brands. Grip disappears suddenly without warning in corners. While showing decent braking on asphalt, the stability and steering feel are mediocre. Even with studs, it couldn't outperform the friction tyre on polished ice.
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Dry Braking |
2nd |
32.29 M |
31.52 M |
+0.77 M |
97.62% |
| Subj. Dry Handling |
4th |
3 Points |
5 Points |
-2 Points |
60% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Wet Braking |
1st |
34.3 M |
|
|
100% |
| Wet Handling |
2nd |
41.4 s |
40.7 s |
+0.7 s |
98.31% |
| Straight Aqua |
2nd |
71.1 Km/H |
74 Km/H |
-2.9 Km/H |
96.08% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Snow Braking |
8th |
12.94 M |
12.31 M |
+0.63 M |
95.13% |
| Snow Traction |
8th |
4.45 s |
4.1 s |
+0.35 s |
92.13% |
| Snow Handling |
8th |
78 s |
75.1 s |
+2.9 s |
96.28% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Ice Braking |
7th |
17.54 M |
11.03 M |
+6.51 M |
62.88% |
| Ice Traction |
7th |
7.99 s |
4.61 s |
+3.38 s |
57.7% |
| Ice Handling |
8th |
52.2 s |
47.8 s |
+4.4 s |
91.57% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Noise |
4th |
74.8 dB |
71.5 dB |
+3.3 dB |
95.59% |
| Test |
# |
Result |
Best |
Diff |
% |
| Fuel Consumption |
6th |
5.65 l/100km |
5.25 l/100km |
+0.4 l/100km |
92.92% |
Discussion