Test Charts / Vi Bilagare

2018 Vi Studded Winter Tyre Test

Compare each discipline in the tested size. See the measured result, position and gap to the best tyre, then read the verdict for the trade-offs behind the finishing order.

Tested size: 205/55 R16
Tyres tested: 8
Disciplines: 9

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tyres can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tyres does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 2	51.63 m	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	52.08 m	+0.45 m
3Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	52.14 m	+0.51 m
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	52.38 m	+0.75 m
5Gislaved Nord Frost 200	52.53 m	+0.90 m
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	52.8 m	+1.17 m
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	53.59 m	+1.96 m
8Bridgestone Noranza 001	53.86 m	+2.23 m

The difference between best and worst was 4.3% (2.23 m ≈ 0.5 Car Lengths).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	55.09 m	Best
2Continental IceContact 2	55.67 m	+0.58 m
3Gislaved Nord Frost 200	55.83 m	+0.74 m
4Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	56.47 m	+1.38 m
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	57.88 m	+2.79 m
6Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	58.28 m	+3.19 m
7Bridgestone Noranza 001	59.53 m	+4.44 m
8Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	63.86 m	+8.77 m

The difference between best and worst was 15.9% (8.77 m ≈ 1.9 Car Lengths).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	18.35 m	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	18.38 m	+0.03 m
3Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	18.4 m	+0.05 m
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	18.76 m	+0.41 m
5Continental IceContact 2	18.88 m	+0.53 m
6Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	18.93 m	+0.58 m
7Bridgestone Noranza 001	19.06 m	+0.71 m
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	19.11 m	+0.76 m

The difference between best and worst was 4.1% (0.76 m).

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	5.77 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	5.79 s	+0.02 s
3Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	6.03 s	+0.26 s
4Continental IceContact 2	6.05 s	+0.28 s
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	6.05 s	+0.28 s
4Bridgestone Noranza 001	6.05 s	+0.28 s
7Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	6.09 s	+0.32 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	6.4 s	+0.63 s

The difference between best and worst was 10.9% (0.63 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 2	90.5 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	92 s	+1.50 s
3Gislaved Nord Frost 200	92.1 s	+1.60 s
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	93 s	+2.50 s
5Bridgestone Noranza 001	93.2 s	+2.70 s
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	94.5 s	+4.00 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	94.8 s	+4.30 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	97.5 s	+7.00 s

The difference between best and worst was 7.7% (7 s).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental IceContact 2	10.59 m	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	10.67 m	+0.08 m
3Bridgestone Noranza 001	11.61 m	+1.02 m
4Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	11.66 m	+1.07 m
5Gislaved Nord Frost 200	12.05 m	+1.46 m
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	12.23 m	+1.64 m
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	15.31 m	+4.72 m
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	17.69 m	+7.10 m

The difference between best and worst was 67% (7.1 m ≈ 1.6 Car Lengths).

Ice Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	3.97 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 2	3.99 s	+0.02 s
3Bridgestone Noranza 001	4.12 s	+0.15 s
4Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	4.3 s	+0.33 s
5Gislaved Nord Frost 200	4.71 s	+0.74 s
6Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	5.1 s	+1.13 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	5.74 s	+1.77 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	6.98 s	+3.01 s

The difference between best and worst was 75.8% (3.01 s).

Ice Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	73.5 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 2	74.6 s	+1.10 s
3Bridgestone Noranza 001	76.9 s	+3.40 s
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	80.9 s	+7.40 s
5Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	81.3 s	+7.80 s
6Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	81.5 s	+8.00 s
7Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	83.3 s	+9.80 s
8Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	86.4 s	+12.90 s

The difference between best and worst was 17.6% (12.9 s).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3	4.12 kg/t	Best	£0
2Bridgestone Noranza 001	4.19 kg/t	+0.07 kg/t	£7
2Yokohama iceGUARD iG65	4.19 kg/t	+0.07 kg/t	£7
4Nexen Winguard winSpike WH62	4.3 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t	£19
4Gislaved Nord Frost 200	4.3 kg/t	+0.18 kg/t	£19
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	4.36 kg/t	+0.24 kg/t	£26
7Goodyear UltraGrip Ice Arctic	4.39 kg/t	+0.27 kg/t	£29
8Continental IceContact 2	4.59 kg/t	+0.47 kg/t	£50

The difference between best and worst was 11.4% (0.47 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Continental IceContact 2 uses about 35 L (£50) more fuel than the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R3.

Adjust the assumptions

Calculated estimates, not additional measurements. Use the controls to explore the assumptions. These calculators use the full test field, independently of your tyre selection above.

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.

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests