Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

2022/23 Tyre Reviews Winter Tyre Test

Name: 2022/23 Tyre Reviews Winter Tyre Test
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2022-10-04

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: 225/45 R17
Tyres tested: 9
Disciplines: 15

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Michelin Alpin 6	36.6 m	Best	0 km/h
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	36.9 m	+0.30 m	12 km/h
3Semperit Speed Grip 5	37.5 m	+0.90 m	20 km/h
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	37.6 m	+1.00 m	21 km/h
5Hankook Winter I cept RS3	37.8 m	+1.20 m	23 km/h
6Kleber Krisalp HP3	38.4 m	+1.80 m	28 km/h
7Continental WinterContact TS 870	39.2 m	+2.60 m	33 km/h
8Petlas Snow Master W651	39.4 m	+2.80 m	35 km/h
8Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	39.4 m	+2.80 m	35 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 7.7% (2.8 m ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 would still be travelling at 35 km/h when the Michelin Alpin 6 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
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	79.8 s	Best
2Vredestein Wintrac Pro	79.9 s	+0.10 s
2Semperit Speed Grip 5	79.9 s	+0.10 s
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	80.2 s	+0.40 s
5Hankook Winter I cept RS3	80.3 s	+0.50 s
6Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	80.4 s	+0.60 s
7Kleber Krisalp HP3	80.7 s	+0.90 s
7Michelin Alpin 6	80.7 s	+0.90 s
9Petlas Snow Master W651	81.9 s	+2.10 s

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

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	100 Points	Best
2Semperit Speed Grip 5	95 Points	-5.00 Points
3Michelin Alpin 6	90 Points	-10.00 Points
3Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	90 Points	-10.00 Points
3Continental WinterContact TS 870	90 Points	-10.00 Points
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	85 Points	-15.00 Points
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	85 Points	-15.00 Points
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	80 Points	-20.00 Points
9Petlas Snow Master W651	70 Points	-30.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 30% (30 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	27.3 m	Best	0 km/h
2Continental WinterContact TS 870	27.6 m	+0.30 m	14 km/h
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	28.2 m	+0.90 m	23 km/h
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	29.5 m	+2.20 m	36 km/h
5Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	30.4 m	+3.10 m	42 km/h
6Michelin Alpin 6	31.8 m	+4.50 m	49 km/h
7Semperit Speed Grip 5	32.3 m	+5.00 m	51 km/h
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	34.8 m	+7.50 m	60 km/h
9Petlas Snow Master W651	39.5 m	+12.20 m	72 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 44.7% (12.2 m ≈ 2.7 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Petlas Snow Master W651 would still be travelling at 72 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	97 s	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870	97.7 s	+0.70 s
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	98.8 s	+1.80 s
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	99 s	+2.00 s
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	99 s	+2.00 s
6Michelin Alpin 6	100.6 s	+3.60 s
7Semperit Speed Grip 5	102.2 s	+5.20 s
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	102.8 s	+5.80 s
9Petlas Snow Master W651	111.8 s	+14.80 s

The difference between best and worst was 15.3% (14.8 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	100 Points	Best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	100 Points	Best
3Vredestein Wintrac Pro	95 Points	-5.00 Points
4Michelin Alpin 6	90 Points	-10.00 Points
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	90 Points	-10.00 Points
6Kleber Krisalp HP3	85 Points	-15.00 Points
6Semperit Speed Grip 5	85 Points	-15.00 Points
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	85 Points	-15.00 Points
9Petlas Snow Master W651	10 Points	-90.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 90% (90 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Kleber Krisalp HP3	83.5 km/h	Best
2Continental WinterContact TS 870	82.4 km/h	-1.10 km/h
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	81.8 km/h	-1.70 km/h
4Semperit Speed Grip 5	81.3 km/h	-2.20 km/h
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	80 km/h	-3.50 km/h
6Michelin Alpin 6	79.9 km/h	-3.60 km/h
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	78.9 km/h	-4.60 km/h
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	76.9 km/h	-6.60 km/h
9Petlas Snow Master W651	71.2 km/h	-12.30 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 14.7% (12.3 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Continental WinterContact TS 870	8.1 m/sec2	Best
2Semperit Speed Grip 5	8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
3Michelin Alpin 6	7.6 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	7.3 m/sec2	-0.80 m/sec2
5Kleber Krisalp HP3	7.1 m/sec2	-1.00 m/sec2
5Hankook Winter I cept RS3	7.1 m/sec2	-1.00 m/sec2
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	6.8 m/sec2	-1.30 m/sec2
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	6.5 m/sec2	-1.60 m/sec2
9Petlas Snow Master W651	4.8 m/sec2	-3.30 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 40.7% (3.3 m/sec2).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Kleber Krisalp HP3	27.2 m	Best	0 km/h
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	27.2 m	Best	0 km/h
3Petlas Snow Master W651	27.8 m	+0.60 m	19 km/h
3Continental WinterContact TS 870	27.8 m	+0.60 m	19 km/h
5Semperit Speed Grip 5	28.9 m	+1.70 m	32 km/h
6Vredestein Wintrac Pro	29.1 m	+1.90 m	33 km/h
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	29.3 m	+2.10 m	35 km/h
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	29.4 m	+2.20 m	36 km/h
9Michelin Alpin 6	29.6 m	+2.40 m	37 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 8.8% (2.4 m ≈ 0.5 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Michelin Alpin 6 would still be travelling at 37 km/h when the Kleber Krisalp HP3 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
1Petlas Snow Master W651	4.7 s	Best
1Kleber Krisalp HP3	4.7 s	Best
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	4.9 s	+0.20 s
4Michelin Alpin 6	5.1 s	+0.40 s
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	5.1 s	+0.40 s
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	5.1 s	+0.40 s
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	5.1 s	+0.40 s
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	5.4 s	+0.70 s
8Semperit Speed Grip 5	5.4 s	+0.70 s

The difference between best and worst was 14.9% (0.7 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Petlas Snow Master W651	112.2 s	Best
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	113.3 s	+1.10 s
3Hankook Winter I cept RS3	113.6 s	+1.40 s
4Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	114.9 s	+2.70 s
5Michelin Alpin 6	115.6 s	+3.40 s
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	116.2 s	+4.00 s
7Continental WinterContact TS 870	116.5 s	+4.30 s
7Semperit Speed Grip 5	116.5 s	+4.30 s
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	118.5 s	+6.30 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (6.3 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Petlas Snow Master W651	100 Points	Best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	100 Points	Best
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	100 Points	Best
4Kleber Krisalp HP3	95 Points	-5.00 Points
5Michelin Alpin 6	90 Points	-10.00 Points
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	90 Points	-10.00 Points
5Semperit Speed Grip 5	90 Points	-10.00 Points
8Vredestein Wintrac Pro	85 Points	-15.00 Points
8Continental WinterContact TS 870	85 Points	-15.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (15 Points).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 6	100 Points	Best
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	100 Points	Best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	100 Points	Best
4Kleber Krisalp HP3	90 Points	-10.00 Points
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	90 Points	-10.00 Points
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	90 Points	-10.00 Points
4Semperit Speed Grip 5	90 Points	-10.00 Points
4Hankook Winter I cept RS3	90 Points	-10.00 Points
9Petlas Snow Master W651	85 Points	-15.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (15 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	68.5 dB	Best
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	68.9 dB	+0.40 dB
3Kleber Krisalp HP3	69.1 dB	+0.60 dB
4Vredestein Wintrac Pro	69.2 dB	+0.70 dB
5Semperit Speed Grip 5	69.3 dB	+0.80 dB
6Continental WinterContact TS 870	69.5 dB	+1.00 dB
7Hankook Winter I cept RS3	69.6 dB	+1.10 dB
8Petlas Snow Master W651	69.8 dB	+1.30 dB
8Michelin Alpin 6	69.8 dB	+1.30 dB

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

Value

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Petlas Snow Master W651	6.7 kg/t	Best	£0
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	8 kg/t	+1.30 kg/t	£86
3Semperit Speed Grip 5	8.2 kg/t	+1.50 kg/t	£99
4Continental WinterContact TS 870	8.4 kg/t	+1.70 kg/t	£112
5Kleber Krisalp HP3	8.8 kg/t	+2.10 kg/t	£138
5Hankook Winter I cept RS3	8.8 kg/t	+2.10 kg/t	£138
7Pirelli Cinturato Winter 2	8.9 kg/t	+2.20 kg/t	£145
8Michelin Alpin 6	9.1 kg/t	+2.40 kg/t	£158
9Vredestein Wintrac Pro	9.2 kg/t	+2.50 kg/t	£164

The difference between best and worst was 37.3% (2.5 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro uses about 113 L (£164) more fuel than the Petlas Snow Master W651.

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: 45 → 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	44.4%	13.33%
Snow Traction	11.1%	3.33%
Snow Handling	33.3%	10%
Subj. Snow Handling	11.1%	3.33%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	50%	2.5%
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.

Subj. Dry Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

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.

Subj. Wet Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

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.

Subj. Snow Handling

I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.

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

For cabin noise assessment, I drive at controlled speeds, typically 50, 80, 100, and 120 km/h, on NVH test surfaces with defined texture characteristics. Calibrated microphones are positioned at ear height within the cabin. Measurements are taken using A-weighting, with one-third octave analysis where required to identify tonal features such as cavity resonance. Windows remain closed, ventilation is off, and ambient conditions are controlled so the data reflects the tyre rather than external interference.

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