Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

2021 Tyre Reviews Winter Tyre Test

Name: 2021 Tyre Reviews Winter Tyre Test
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2021-09-27

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: 225/40 R18
Tyres tested: 9
Disciplines: 13

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefReference Summer	35 m	-2.95 m	0 km/h
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	37.95 m	Best	0 km/h
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	39.11 m	+1.16 m	22 km/h
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	39.25 m	+1.30 m	24 km/h
4Nokian Snowproof P	39.81 m	+1.86 m	28 km/h
5GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	40.27 m	+2.32 m	31 km/h
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	40.39 m	+2.44 m	32 km/h
7Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	40.87 m	+2.92 m	35 km/h
8Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	41.11 m	+3.16 m	36 km/h
9Imperial Snowdragon UHP	41.3 m	+3.35 m	37 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 18% (6.3 m ≈ 1.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Imperial Snowdragon UHP would still be travelling at 37 km/h when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.

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

Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
RefReference Summer	44.7 s	-0.10 s
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	44.8 s	Best
2Imperial Snowdragon UHP	45.1 s	+0.30 s
3Nokian Snowproof P	45.31 s	+0.51 s
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	45.51 s	+0.71 s
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	45.61 s	+0.81 s
6GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	45.71 s	+0.91 s
7Hankook Winter i cept evo3	45.81 s	+1.01 s
8Dunlop Winter Sport 5	46.01 s	+1.21 s
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	46.01 s	+1.21 s

All the tyres in the Dry Handling test finished less than 3% apart.

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	27.92 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	29.41 m	+1.49 m	29 km/h
RefReference Summer	29.52 m	+1.60 m	30 km/h
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	29.61 m	+1.69 m	31 km/h
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	30.36 m	+2.44 m	37 km/h
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	30.39 m	+2.47 m	37 km/h
6Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	30.99 m	+3.07 m	41 km/h
7Nokian Snowproof P	31.42 m	+3.50 m	43 km/h
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	31.94 m	+4.02 m	46 km/h
9Imperial Snowdragon UHP	38.03 m	+10.11 m	67 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 36.2% (10.11 m ≈ 2.2 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Imperial Snowdragon UHP would still be travelling at 67 km/h when the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 had stopped.

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

Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	49.09 s	Best
2Hankook Winter i cept evo3	49.7 s	+0.61 s
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	49.76 s	+0.67 s
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	49.8 s	+0.71 s
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	49.94 s	+0.85 s
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	50.72 s	+1.63 s
7Nokian Snowproof P	51.31 s	+2.22 s
7GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	51.31 s	+2.22 s
RefReference Summer	51.39 s	+2.30 s
9Imperial Snowdragon UHP	54.6 s	+5.51 s

The difference between best and worst was 11.2% (5.51 s).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	83.1 km/h	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	80.8 km/h	-2.30 km/h
3Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	80.3 km/h	-2.80 km/h
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	79.7 km/h	-3.40 km/h
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	79.7 km/h	-3.40 km/h
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	79.4 km/h	-3.70 km/h
7Imperial Snowdragon UHP	76.2 km/h	-6.90 km/h
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	76.1 km/h	-7.00 km/h
9Nokian Snowproof P	75.4 km/h	-7.70 km/h
RefReference Summer	72.9 km/h	-10.20 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 12.3% (10.2 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	85.1 m/sec2	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	84.5 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	84.4 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2
RefReference Summer	84.3 m/sec2	-0.80 m/sec2
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	83.9 m/sec2	-1.20 m/sec2
5Dunlop Winter Sport 5	83.4 m/sec2	-1.70 m/sec2
6GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	81.2 m/sec2	-3.90 m/sec2
7Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	80.8 m/sec2	-4.30 m/sec2
8Imperial Snowdragon UHP	78 m/sec2	-7.10 m/sec2
9Nokian Snowproof P	76.5 m/sec2	-8.60 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (8.6 m/sec2).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	15.67 m	Best	0 km/h
2Nokian Snowproof P	16.01 m	+0.34 m	19 km/h
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	16.24 m	+0.57 m	24 km/h
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	16.27 m	+0.60 m	25 km/h
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	16.28 m	+0.61 m	25 km/h
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	16.28 m	+0.61 m	25 km/h
7Dunlop Winter Sport 5	16.4 m	+0.73 m	27 km/h
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	16.49 m	+0.82 m	29 km/h
9Imperial Snowdragon UHP	16.99 m	+1.32 m	36 km/h
RefReference Summer	48.36 m	+32.69 m	107 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 208.6% (32.69 m ≈ 7.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Imperial Snowdragon UHP would still be travelling at 36 km/h when the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 had stopped.

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

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	5.26 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	5.3 s	+0.04 s
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	5.38 s	+0.12 s
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	5.39 s	+0.13 s
5Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.48 s	+0.22 s
6GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	5.52 s	+0.26 s
7Nokian Snowproof P	5.55 s	+0.29 s
8Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	5.59 s	+0.33 s
9Imperial Snowdragon UHP	5.65 s	+0.39 s
RefReference Summer	24.13 s	+18.87 s

The difference between best and worst was 358.7% (18.87 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	86.2 s	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	87.54 s	+1.34 s
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	87.95 s	+1.75 s
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	88.22 s	+2.02 s
5Dunlop Winter Sport 5	89.18 s	+2.98 s
6Nokian Snowproof P	90.1 s	+3.90 s
7Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	90.56 s	+4.36 s
8Imperial Snowdragon UHP	92.65 s	+6.45 s
9GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	92.81 s	+6.61 s
RefReference Summer	175.3 s	+89.10 s

The difference between best and worst was 103.4% (89.1 s).

Snow Circle
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	33.99 S	Best
2Nokian Snowproof P	34.4 S	+0.41 S
3Hankook Winter i cept evo3	34.69 S	+0.70 S
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	34.76 S	+0.77 S
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	34.78 S	+0.79 S
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	35.88 S	+1.89 S
7Dunlop Winter Sport 5	35.92 S	+1.93 S
8Imperial Snowdragon UHP	36.06 S	+2.07 S
9GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	36.3 S	+2.31 S
RefReference Summer	53.75 S	+19.76 S

The difference between best and worst was 58.1% (19.76 S).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Dunlop Winter Sport 5	10 Points	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	9.8 Points	-0.20 Points
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Nokian Snowproof P	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Hankook Winter i cept evo3	9 Points	-1.00 Points
4Imperial Snowdragon UHP	9 Points	-1.00 Points
8GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
9Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	8 Points	-2.00 Points
RefReference Summer	7.5 Points	-2.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 25% (2.5 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Snowproof P	68.6 dB	Best
2Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	69.4 dB	+0.80 dB
3Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	69.8 dB	+1.20 dB
4Imperial Snowdragon UHP	70.2 dB	+1.60 dB
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	70.5 dB	+1.90 dB
6GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	70.6 dB	+2.00 dB
7Dunlop Winter Sport 5	71.2 dB	+2.60 dB
RefReference Summer	71.5 dB	+2.90 dB
8Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	72.1 dB	+3.50 dB
9Hankook Winter i cept evo3	73.2 dB	+4.60 dB

The difference between best and worst was 6.7% (4.6 dB).

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	8.57 kg/t	Best	£0
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	8.76 kg/t	+0.19 kg/t	£10
3Nokian Snowproof P	9 kg/t	+0.43 kg/t	£22
RefReference Summer	9.12 kg/t	+0.55 kg/t	£28
4Michelin Pilot Alpin 5	9.14 kg/t	+0.57 kg/t	£29
5Goodyear UltraGrip Performance+	9.43 kg/t	+0.86 kg/t	£44
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	9.62 kg/t	+1.05 kg/t	£54
7Imperial Snowdragon UHP	9.81 kg/t	+1.24 kg/t	£64
8Hankook Winter i cept evo3	10.13 kg/t	+1.56 kg/t	£80
9GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport	10.61 kg/t	+2.04 kg/t	£105

The difference between best and worst was 23.8% (2.04 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the GT Radial WinterPro2 Sport uses about 72 L (£105) more fuel than the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005.

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.

Test setup & methodology

The test setting, the conditions recorded and how the results contribute to the score.

Show full testing methodology

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 5 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 5 km/h
Snow Braking: 40 → 5 km/h
Snow Traction: 5 → 40 km/h

Score Weighting

Weights express the scoring priorities, not how much each discipline actually changed the finishing order. The size of the performance gaps matters too. Category weights contribute to the overall score. Within each category, discipline weights divide that category’s share. Published finishing positions also need to be read alongside the editorial verdict.

Test	Within category	Share of overall score
Dry · 20%
Dry Braking	55%	11%
Dry Handling	40%	8%
Subj. Dry Handling	5%	1%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	50%	17.5%
Wet Handling	25%	8.75%
Subj. Wet Handling	5%	1.75%
Straight Aqua	10%	3.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	10%	3.5%
Snow · 30%
Snow Braking	47.4%	14.21%
Snow Traction	10.5%	3.16%
Snow Handling	31.6%	9.47%
Snow Circle	10.5%	3.16%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
Subj. Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 10%
Rolling Resistance	100%	10%

Our standard methods

The conditions above are recorded for this test. The descriptions below explain our standard procedures; measurement windows and run counts can vary by test.

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.

Straight Aqua

To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.

Curved Aquaplaning

For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.

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 Traction

For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tyre set and average the valid results. Reference tyres are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.

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.

Snow Circle

For snow lateral grip testing, I use a circular snow track of fixed radius, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of surface bias. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly, the control tyre is retested at regular intervals and I often use multiple sets of control tyres.

Subj. Comfort

To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.

Noise

I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.

Rolling Resistance

Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.

Read our complete testing methodology →

Tyre shortlist →Read the test →

More tyre tests