Menu

2021 Nordic Studded Winter Tyre Test

Jonathan Benson
Data analyzed and reviewed by Jonathan Benson
4 min read Updated
Below are all the data points for the 2021 Nordic Studded Winter Tyre Test, displaying how each tyre performed across all test categories. The spider chart below provides a complete overview of performance, where one hundred percent represents the best performance in each category. The larger the area covered by each tyre's plot, the better its overall performance.
How to read these charts: For each test category, data is presented relative to the best performing tire. The direction indicates whether lower or higher values are better - pay close attention to this when interpreting results.

Performance Overview

This radar chart shows relative performance across all test categories, with 100% representing the best performance in each category. Reference tires may have gaps where data is not available.

Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
Michelin X Ice North 4
Nokian Nordman 8
Gislaved Nord Frost 200
Sava Eskimo Stud
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
BFGoodrich G Force Stud
Continental IceContact 3

Quick Navigation

Dry Performance Overview

Dry Braking (M)

Spread: 2.88 M (9.4%) | Avg: 32.34 M

Dry braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was BFGoodrich G Force Stud with a result of 30.77 M. The difference between best and worst was 8.6%.
  1. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    30.77 M
  2. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    31.3 M
  3. Sava Eskimo Stud
    31.86 M
  4. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    32.57 M
  5. Michelin X Ice North 4
    32.79 M
  6. Nokian Nordman 8
    32.86 M
  7. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    32.91 M
  8. Continental IceContact 3
    33.65 M

Wet Performance Overview

Wet Braking (M)

Spread: 2.95 M (8.2%) | Avg: 37.30 M

Wet braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 with a result of 35.86 M. The difference between best and worst was 7.6%.
  1. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    35.86 M
  2. Sava Eskimo Stud
    36.31 M
  3. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    36.77 M
  4. Continental IceContact 3
    37.1 M
  5. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    37.21 M
  6. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    37.76 M
  7. Michelin X Ice North 4
    38.54 M
  8. Nokian Nordman 8
    38.81 M

Wet Handling (s)

Spread: 1.24 s (3%) | Avg: 42.41 s

Wet handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: All the tyres in the wet handling test finished less than 3% apart.
  1. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    41.87 s
  2. Continental IceContact 3
    41.89 s
  3. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    42.12 s
  4. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    42.47 s
  5. Nokian Nordman 8
    42.57 s
  6. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    42.57 s
  7. Sava Eskimo Stud
    42.66 s
  8. Michelin X Ice North 4
    43.11 s

Snow Performance Overview

Snow Braking (M)

Spread: 0.76 M (5.1%) | Avg: 15.21 M

Snow braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was BFGoodrich G Force Stud with a result of 14.89 M. The difference between best and worst was 4.9%.
  1. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    14.89 M
  2. Michelin X Ice North 4
    15.11 M
  3. Continental IceContact 3
    15.12 M
  4. Nokian Nordman 8
    15.18 M
  5. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    15.23 M
  6. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    15.26 M
  7. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    15.26 M
  8. Sava Eskimo Stud
    15.65 M

Snow Traction (s)

Spread: 0.43 s (9.2%) | Avg: 4.86 s

Snow acceleration time (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 4.65 s. The difference between best and worst was 8.5%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    4.65 s
  2. Michelin X Ice North 4
    4.77 s
  3. Nokian Nordman 8
    4.8 s
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    4.83 s
  5. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    4.88 s
  6. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    4.94 s
  7. Continental IceContact 3
    4.96 s
  8. Sava Eskimo Stud
    5.08 s

Snow Handling (s)

Spread: 2.76 s (3.3%) | Avg: 85.67 s

Snow handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 84.6 s. The difference between best and worst was 3.2%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    84.6 s
  2. Michelin X Ice North 4
    84.73 s
  3. Continental IceContact 3
    85.23 s
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    85.38 s
  5. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    85.83 s
  6. Nokian Nordman 8
    85.86 s
  7. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    86.37 s
  8. Sava Eskimo Stud
    87.36 s

Ice Performance Overview

Ice Braking (M)

Spread: 6.15 M (50.3%) | Avg: 14.90 M

Ice braking in meters (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 with a result of 12.22 M. The difference between best and worst was 33.5%.
  1. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    12.22 M
  2. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    12.51 M
  3. Michelin X Ice North 4
    12.82 M
  4. Nokian Nordman 8
    13.16 M
  5. Continental IceContact 3
    15.42 M
  6. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    16.56 M
  7. Sava Eskimo Stud
    18.13 M
  8. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    18.37 M

Ice Traction (s)

Spread: 3.43 s (82.3%) | Avg: 5.59 s

Ice acceleration time (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 4.17 s. The difference between best and worst was 45.1%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    4.17 s
  2. Michelin X Ice North 4
    4.39 s
  3. Nokian Nordman 8
    4.78 s
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    5 s
  5. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    5.86 s
  6. Continental IceContact 3
    5.89 s
  7. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    7.02 s
  8. Sava Eskimo Stud
    7.6 s

Ice Handling (s)

Spread: 10.27 s (16.7%) | Avg: 66.10 s

Ice handling time in seconds (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 with a result of 61.54 s. The difference between best and worst was 14.3%.
  1. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    61.54 s
  2. Michelin X Ice North 4
    62.7 s
  3. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    63.73 s
  4. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    66.54 s
  5. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    66.88 s
  6. Nokian Nordman 8
    67.51 s
  7. Continental IceContact 3
    68.12 s
  8. Sava Eskimo Stud
    71.81 s

Comfort Performance Overview

Noise (dB)

Spread: 2.80 dB (4.1%) | Avg: 69.39 dB

External noise in dB (Lower is better)

Key Insight: The best performer was BFGoodrich G Force Stud with a result of 67.5 dB. The difference between best and worst was 4%.
  1. BFGoodrich G Force Stud
    67.5 dB
  2. Continental IceContact 3
    68.6 dB
  3. Gislaved Nord Frost 200
    68.7 dB
  4. Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2
    69.6 dB
  5. Sava Eskimo Stud
    70.1 dB
  6. Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10
    70.1 dB
  7. Nokian Nordman 8
    70.2 dB
  8. Michelin X Ice North 4
    70.3 dB

Overall Findings

Based on the weighted scoring from all tests, here are the overall results:

Position Tyre Score
Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 0%
2 Michelin X Ice North 4 0%
3 Goodyear UltraGrip Arctic 2 0%
4 Nokian Nordman 8 0%
5 Continental IceContact 3 0%
6 Gislaved Nord Frost 200 0%
7 BFGoodrich G Force Stud 0%
8 Sava Eskimo Stud 0%

Similar Tyre Tests

Show All winter tyre tests
2025 High Performance Winter Tyre Test
January 2026 275/35 R19 Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 7 tyres
2025 TUV Test of Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 vs Rivals
October 2025 Pirelli Cinturato Winter 3 5 tyres
2025 Studded, Friction and European Winter Tyre Test
October 2025 235/45 R18 Continental VikingContact 8 20 tyres
2025 AZ Performance Winter Tyre Test
October 2025 245/45 R19 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance 3 10 tyres
2025 Autobild Winter Tyre Test
October 2025 225/40 R18 Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 22 tyres
2025 Winter Tyre Braking Test - 52 Sets!
October 2025 225/40 R18 Dunlop Winter Response 2 52 tyres
comments powered by Disqus