Menu

Premium VS Budget Winter Tyres

Jonathan Benson
Tested and written by Jonathan Benson
2 min read Updated
Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Testing Methodology
    1. Categories Tested
  3. Dry
  4. Wet
  5. Snow
  6. Results
  7. Nokian WR Snowproof
  8. Tristar SnowPower 2

Testing Methodology

Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tyre Size
205/55 R16
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2019
Tyres Tested
2
Show full testing methodology Hide methodology

Every tyre is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tyres are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tyre wear does not affect accuracy.

We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tyres are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.

Categories Tested

Dry Braking

For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.

Dry Handling

For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.

Wet Braking

For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.

Wet Handling

For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.

Snow Braking

For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tyre set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.

Snow Handling

For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.

Are cheap winter tyres safe? To find out, we travelled to Finland, twice, to do snow, ice, wet and dry testing.

All tests were done using two cars, a VW Golf wearing 205/55 R16 tyres, and a heavier, larger Volvo S90 fitted with 245/45 R18 tyres.

To see how the testing went, watch the video below!

Dry

Dry Braking

Spread: 0.13 M (0.5%)|Avg: 28.81 M
Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)
  1. Tristar SnowPower 2
    28.74 M
  2. Nokian WR Snowproof
    28.87 M

Dry Handling

Spread: 0.30 s (0.6%)|Avg: 51.42 s
Dry handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian WR Snowproof
    51.27 s
  2. Tristar SnowPower 2
    51.57 s

Wet

Wet Braking

Spread: 3.51 M (11.1%)|Avg: 33.52 M
Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian WR Snowproof
    31.76 M
  2. Tristar SnowPower 2
    35.27 M

Wet Handling

Spread: 0.60 s (1.6%)|Avg: 37.90 s
Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian WR Snowproof
    37.60 s
  2. Tristar SnowPower 2
    38.20 s

Snow

Snow Braking

Spread: 7.90 M (21.9%)|Avg: 39.95 M
Snow braking in meters (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian WR Snowproof
    36.00 M
  2. Tristar SnowPower 2
    43.90 M

Snow Handling

Spread: 7.30 s (7.5%)|Avg: 100.85 s
Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)
  1. Nokian WR Snowproof
    97.20 s
  2. Tristar SnowPower 2
    104.50 s

Results

1st

Nokian WR Snowproof

205/55 R16
Nokian WR Snowproof
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 2nd 28.87 M 28.74 M +0.13 M 99.55%
Dry Handling 1st 51.27 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 1st 31.76 M 100%
Wet Handling 1st 37.6 s 100%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 1st 36 M 100%
Snow Handling 1st 97.2 s 100%
2nd

Tristar SnowPower 2

205/55 R16
Tristar SnowPower 2
Test # Result Best Diff %
Dry Braking 1st 28.74 M 100%
Dry Handling 2nd 51.57 s 51.27 s +0.3 s 99.42%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Wet Braking 2nd 35.27 M 31.76 M +3.51 M 90.05%
Wet Handling 2nd 38.2 s 37.6 s +0.6 s 98.43%
Test # Result Best Diff %
Snow Braking 2nd 43.9 M 36 M +7.9 M 82%
Snow Handling 2nd 104.5 s 97.2 s +7.3 s 93.01%

comments powered by Disqus