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: 15 → 5 km/h
Ice Traction: 5 → 15 km/h
Fuel Consumption: 90 km/h

For the 2020 Vi Bilägare Winter studded tire test, the Swedish magazine has tested 8 of the most extreme studded winter tyres in 205/60 R16.

As this is a studded winter tyre test, the testers placed much more emphasis on snow and ice performance, so if you're in a region that sees a lot of compacted snow and ice on the road during normal winters, this is a very useful test.

Scroll down to see the full results.

Dry

The GT Radial IcePro 3 had a significant advantage during dry braking, with the next best Continental IceContact 3 nearly 2 meters behind.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1GT Radial IcePro 3	28.88 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental IceContact 3	30.75 m	+1.87 m	32 km/h
3Pirelli Ice Zero 2	31.02 m	+2.14 m	34 km/h
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	31.11 m	+2.23 m	35 km/h
5Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	31.6 m	+2.72 m	38 km/h
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	31.94 m	+3.06 m	40 km/h
7Michelin X Ice North 4	32.31 m	+3.43 m	42 km/h
8Nokian Nordman 7	33.3 m	+4.42 m	47 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (4.42 m ≈ 1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Nokian Nordman 7 would still be travelling at 47 km/h when the GT Radial IcePro 3 had stopped.

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

The magazine didn't give dry handling lap times, instead just awarding the tyres subjective handling scores.

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	5 Points	Best
2Pirelli Ice Zero 2	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Continental IceContact 3	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	3 Points	-2.00 Points
7Nokian Nordman 7	2 Points	-3.00 Points
7GT Radial IcePro 3	2 Points	-3.00 Points

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

Wet

In the wet the GT Radial held onto its advantage, with the Pirelli Ice Zero 2 a meter behind in second place.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1GT Radial IcePro 3	33.87 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli Ice Zero 2	34.8 m	+0.93 m	21 km/h
3Michelin X Ice North 4	35.06 m	+1.19 m	24 km/h
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	36.15 m	+2.28 m	33 km/h
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	36.92 m	+3.05 m	37 km/h
5Continental IceContact 3	36.92 m	+3.05 m	37 km/h
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	37.18 m	+3.31 m	39 km/h
8Nokian Nordman 7	38.91 m	+5.04 m	47 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 14.9% (5.04 m ≈ 1.1 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Nokian Nordman 7 would still be travelling at 47 km/h when the GT Radial IcePro 3 had stopped.

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

The GT Radial continued its advantage during a wet handling lap.

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1GT Radial IcePro 3	43.11 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	43.77 s	+0.66 s
3Pirelli Ice Zero 2	44.1 s	+0.99 s
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	44.12 s	+1.01 s
5Hankook Winter i pike RS2	44.75 s	+1.64 s
6Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	45.17 s	+2.06 s
7Nokian Nordman 7	45.75 s	+2.64 s
7Michelin X Ice North 4	45.75 s	+2.64 s

The difference between best and worst was 6.1% (2.64 s).

Pirelli and GT again scored well during straight aquaplaning testing.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Ice Zero 2	64.6 km/h	Best
2GT Radial IcePro 3	64.1 km/h	-0.50 km/h
3Continental IceContact 3	63.7 km/h	-0.90 km/h
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	62.9 km/h	-1.70 km/h
5Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	62.4 km/h	-2.20 km/h
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	62.1 km/h	-2.50 km/h
7Nokian Nordman 7	61.7 km/h	-2.90 km/h
8Michelin X Ice North 4	59.4 km/h	-5.20 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 8% (5.2 Km/H).

Snow

GT Radial couldn't continue its wins in the braking test, this time finishing last during snow braking. It's not unusual for a tyre that performs well in the dry and wet to lack grip during snow and ice testing, however the Continental IceContact 3 proved to have a rounded ability.

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin X Ice North 4	10.5 m	Best	0 km/h
1Continental IceContact 3	10.5 m	Best	0 km/h
3Nokian Nordman 7	10.51 m	+0.01 m	4 km/h
4Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	10.58 m	+0.08 m	11 km/h
5Hankook Winter i pike RS2	10.6 m	+0.10 m	13 km/h
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	10.71 m	+0.21 m	18 km/h
6Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	10.71 m	+0.21 m	18 km/h
8GT Radial IcePro 3	10.73 m	+0.23 m	19 km/h

All the tyres in the Snow Braking test finished less than 3% apart. From 130 km/h, the GT Radial IcePro 3 would still be travelling at 19 km/h when the Michelin X Ice North 4 had stopped.

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

Snow traction showed a similar story.

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Ice Zero 2	3.62 s	Best
2Michelin X Ice North 4	3.67 s	+0.05 s
2Continental IceContact 3	3.67 s	+0.05 s
4Nokian Nordman 7	3.72 s	+0.10 s
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	3.75 s	+0.13 s
6Hankook Winter i pike RS2	3.79 s	+0.17 s
7GT Radial IcePro 3	3.83 s	+0.21 s
8Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	3.92 s	+0.30 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.3% (0.3 s).

The winter specialists Nokian took their first win with the Hakkapeliita 9 during the important snow handling test.

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	74.62 s	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	75.04 s	+0.42 s
3Nokian Nordman 7	75.19 s	+0.57 s
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	75.19 s	+0.57 s
5Michelin X Ice North 4	75.69 s	+1.07 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	75.74 s	+1.12 s
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	76.85 s	+2.23 s
8GT Radial IcePro 3	78.81 s	+4.19 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (4.19 s).

Ice

Ice braking had the Nokian and Michelin leading with a significant advantage.

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	3.43 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin X Ice North 4	3.47 m	+0.04 m	14 km/h
3Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	4.07 m	+0.64 m	52 km/h
4Continental IceContact 3	4.2 m	+0.77 m	56 km/h
5Nokian Nordman 7	4.31 m	+0.88 m	59 km/h
6Hankook Winter i pike RS2	4.68 m	+1.25 m	67 km/h
7Pirelli Ice Zero 2	5.2 m	+1.77 m	76 km/h
8GT Radial IcePro 3	5.31 m	+1.88 m	77 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 54.8% (1.88 m ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the GT Radial IcePro 3 would still be travelling at 77 km/h when the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9 had stopped.

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

Michelin and Nokian continued to lead during the ice traction testing.

Ice Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	1.89 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	1.94 s	+0.05 s
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	2.08 s	+0.19 s
4Continental IceContact 3	2.18 s	+0.29 s
5Nokian Nordman 7	2.22 s	+0.33 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	2.42 s	+0.53 s
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	2.8 s	+0.91 s
8GT Radial IcePro 3	3.29 s	+1.40 s

The difference between best and worst was 74.1% (1.4 s).

Rounding off their excellent snow performance, Michelin and Nokian also led in ice handling.

Ice Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	51.23 s	Best
2Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	51.4 s	+0.17 s
3Continental IceContact 3	52.24 s	+1.01 s
4Hankook Winter i pike RS2	53.52 s	+2.29 s
5Nokian Nordman 7	55.11 s	+3.88 s
6Pirelli Ice Zero 2	56.42 s	+5.19 s
7Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	59.02 s	+7.79 s
8GT Radial IcePro 3	61.42 s	+10.19 s

The difference between best and worst was 19.9% (10.19 s).

Environment

Michelin proved to have the lowest rolling resistance on test.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin X Ice North 4	5.66 l/100km	Best	£0
2Hankook Winter i pike RS2	5.67 l/100km	+0.01 l/100km	£3
3Continental IceContact 3	5.69 l/100km	+0.03 l/100km	£8
4Pirelli Ice Zero 2	5.71 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km	£14
5Nokian Nordman 7	5.74 l/100km	+0.08 l/100km	£22
6Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
6Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
8GT Radial IcePro 3	5.78 l/100km	+0.12 l/100km	£33

All the tyres in the Fuel Consumption test finished less than 3% apart. Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the GT Radial IcePro 3 uses about 23 L (£33) more fuel than the Michelin X Ice North 4.

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.

Michelin also had the lowest subjective noise, being the only tyre awarded 5/5.

Subj. Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin X Ice North 4	5 Points	Best
2Continental IceContact 3	4 Points	-1.00 Points
3Hankook Winter i pike RS2	3 Points	-2.00 Points
3Pirelli Ice Zero 2	3 Points	-2.00 Points
5Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	2 Points	-3.00 Points
5Nokian Nordman 7	2 Points	-3.00 Points
5Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	2 Points	-3.00 Points
5GT Radial IcePro 3	2 Points	-3.00 Points

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

Results

Dry91.2%

Wet95.1%

Snow99%

Ice99.6%

Comfort100%

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	7^th / 8	32.31 m	+3.43 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	35.06 m	+1.19 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	45.75 s	+2.64 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 8	59.4 km/h	-5.20 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	10.5 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	3.67 s	+0.05 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	75.69 s	+1.07 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	3.47 m	+0.04 m
Ice TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	1.89 s	Best in this discipline
Ice HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	51.23 s	Best in this discipline
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	1^st / 8	5 Points	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 8	5.66 l/100km	Best in this discipline

Origin: Russia

Dry88.2%

Wet95.5%

Snow99.3%

Ice88.7%

Comfort80%

Fuel Consumption99.5%

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	30.75 m	+1.87 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	36.92 m	+3.05 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	43.77 s	+0.66 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 8	63.7 km/h	-0.90 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	10.5 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	3.67 s	+0.05 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	75.04 s	+0.42 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	4.2 m	+0.77 m
Ice TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	2.18 s	+0.29 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	52.24 s	+1.01 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	2^nd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	3^rd / 8	5.69 l/100km	+0.03 l/100km

Origin: Germany

Dry85.2%

Wet94.8%

Snow98.6%

Ice99%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption98.3%

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	6^th / 8	31.94 m	+3.06 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	36.92 m	+3.05 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	44.12 s	+1.01 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 8	62.1 km/h	-2.50 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	10.58 m	+0.08 m
Snow TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	3.75 s	+0.13 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	74.62 s	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	3.43 m	Best in this discipline
Ice TractionLower is better	2^nd / 8	1.94 s	+0.05 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	2^nd / 8	51.4 s	+0.17 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 8	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km

Origin: Finland

Dry87.2%

Wet95.3%

Snow97.9%

Ice86.5%

Comfort60%

Fuel Consumption99.8%

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	31.11 m	+2.23 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 8	36.15 m	+2.28 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	44.75 s	+1.64 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 8	62.9 km/h	-1.70 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	10.6 m	+0.10 m
Snow TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	3.79 s	+0.17 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	75.19 s	+0.57 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	4.68 m	+1.25 m
Ice TractionLower is better	3^rd / 8	2.08 s	+0.19 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	4^th / 8	53.52 s	+2.29 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 8	5.67 l/100km	+0.01 l/100km

Origin: South Korea

Dry90.9%

Wet97.8%

Snow98.9%

Ice78.2%

Comfort60%

Fuel Consumption99.1%

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	3^rd / 8	31.02 m	+2.14 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	2^nd / 8	4 Points	-1.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 8	34.8 m	+0.93 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	44.1 s	+0.99 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 8	64.6 km/h	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	10.71 m	+0.21 m
Snow TractionLower is better	1^st / 8	3.62 s	Best in this discipline
Snow HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	75.74 s	+1.12 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	5.2 m	+1.77 m
Ice TractionLower is better	6^th / 8	2.42 s	+0.53 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	56.42 s	+5.19 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	4^th / 8	5.71 l/100km	+0.05 l/100km

Origin: Russia

Dry78.8%

Wet91.1%

Snow98.8%

Ice85.8%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption98.6%

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	33.3 m	+4.42 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	38.91 m	+5.04 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	45.75 s	+2.64 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 8	61.7 km/h	-2.90 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	10.51 m	+0.01 m
Snow TractionLower is better	4^th / 8	3.72 s	+0.10 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	3^rd / 8	75.19 s	+0.57 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 8	4.31 m	+0.88 m
Ice TractionLower is better	5^th / 8	2.22 s	+0.33 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	5^th / 8	55.11 s	+3.88 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	5^th / 8	5.74 l/100km	+0.08 l/100km

Origin: Russia

Dry86.1%

Wet93.6%

Snow95.7%

Ice79.6%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption98.3%

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	5^th / 8	31.6 m	+2.72 m
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	3^rd / 8	3 Points	-2.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 8	37.18 m	+3.31 m
Wet HandlingLower is better	6^th / 8	45.17 s	+2.06 s
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 8	62.4 km/h	-2.20 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	6^th / 8	10.71 m	+0.21 m
Snow TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	3.92 s	+0.30 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	76.85 s	+2.23 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 8	4.07 m	+0.64 m
Ice TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	2.8 s	+0.91 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	7^th / 8	59.02 s	+7.79 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 8	5.76 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km

Origin: Malaysia

Dry89.8%

Wet99.9%

Snow95.6%

Ice68.4%

Comfort40%

Fuel Consumption97.9%

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	28.88 m	Best in this discipline
Subj. Dry HandlingHigher is better	7^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 8	33.87 m	Best in this discipline
Wet HandlingLower is better	1^st / 8	43.11 s	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 8	64.1 km/h	-0.50 km/h
Snow BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	10.73 m	+0.23 m
Snow TractionLower is better	7^th / 8	3.83 s	+0.21 s
Snow HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	78.81 s	+4.19 s
Ice BrakingLower is better	8^th / 8	5.31 m	+1.88 m
Ice TractionLower is better	8^th / 8	3.29 s	+1.40 s
Ice HandlingLower is better	8^th / 8	61.42 s	+10.19 s
Subj. NoiseHigher is better	5^th / 8	2 Points	-3.00 Points
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	8^th / 8	5.78 l/100km	+0.12 l/100km

Origin: China

Tyre	Michelin X Ice North 4	Continental IceContact 3	Nokian Hakkapeliitta 9	Hankook Winter i pike RS2	Pirelli Ice Zero 2	Nokian Nordman 7	Toyo Observe Ice Freezer	GT Radial IcePro 3
Position	1^st	Joint 2^nd	Joint 2^nd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	91.2%	88.2%	85.2%	87.2%	90.9%	78.8%	86.1%	89.8%
Wet	95.1%	95.5%	94.8%	95.3%	97.8%	91.1%	93.6%	99.9%
Snow	99%	99.3%	98.6%	97.9%	98.9%	98.8%	95.7%	95.6%
Ice	99.6%	88.7%	99%	86.5%	78.2%	85.8%	79.6%	68.4%
Comfort	100%	80%	40%	60%	60%	40%	40%	40%
Fuel Consumption	100%	99.5%	98.3%	99.8%	99.1%	98.6%	98.3%	97.9%
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

Dry

Wet

Snow

Ice

Environment

Results

Cross-check this test