Below is the data from the 2023 16" ADAC winter tyre test.

Noteworthy performers included the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 with good dry braking, Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showcasing remarkable wet braking, and the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelling in snow and ice braking. On the flip side, the Austone SP 901 displayed weaknesses in wet conditions and aquaplaning scenarios. The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 emerged as a durable option with the longest wear, while the Barum Polaris 5 stood out for fuel efficiency.

The biggest surprise is probably the winner. The now aging Dunlop Winter Sport 5 emerged as the overall victor in the 2023 ADAC 16 Inch Tyre Test, exhibiting a balanced performance across various testing categories. Its well-rounded performance underscores its reliability and suitability for diverse road conditions, making it a commendable choice for motorists seeking a harmonized blend of safety, comfort, and efficiency

Test setup & methodology

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

Recorded test conditions

Dry Braking: 100 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking: 80 → 0 km/h
Wet Braking - Concrete: 80 → 0 km/h
Snow Braking: 30 → 0 km/h

Dry

In the dry braking test, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 stood out with a shortest braking distance of 41.4 M, showcasing its superior stopping power on dry surfaces. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert lagged with a longer braking distance of 45.6 M, indicating room for improvement in dry braking performance.

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Falken EUROWINTER HS02	41.4 m	Best	0 km/h
2Vredestein Wintrac	42.9 m	+1.50 m	24 km/h
2Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	42.9 m	+1.50 m	24 km/h
4Michelin Alpin 6	43 m	+1.60 m	25 km/h
5Austone SP 901	43.2 m	+1.80 m	27 km/h
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	43.7 m	+2.30 m	30 km/h
7BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	44.2 m	+2.80 m	33 km/h
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	44.3 m	+2.90 m	33 km/h
9Dunlop Winter Sport 5	44.4 m	+3.00 m	34 km/h
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	44.5 m	+3.10 m	34 km/h
11Barum Polaris 5	44.6 m	+3.20 m	35 km/h
12Hankook Winter I cept RS3	44.8 m	+3.40 m	36 km/h
13Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	44.9 m	+3.50 m	36 km/h
13Lassa Snoways 4	44.9 m	+3.50 m	36 km/h
15Firestone Winterhawk 4	45 m	+3.60 m	37 km/h
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	45.6 m	+4.20 m	39 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 10.1% (4.2 m ≈ 0.9 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Uniroyal WinterExpert would still be travelling at 39 km/h when the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 had stopped.

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

Wet

For wet braking the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 demonstrated excellent braking performance, stopping at a distance of 35.2 M. Conversely, the Austone SP 901 had a less desirable outcome with a braking distance of 45.6 M, showing its limitations in wet conditions.

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	35.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Firestone Winterhawk 4	35.9 m	+0.70 m	18 km/h
3Michelin Alpin 6	36.4 m	+1.20 m	24 km/h
4Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	36.9 m	+1.70 m	28 km/h
4Hankook Winter I cept RS3	36.9 m	+1.70 m	28 km/h
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	37.2 m	+2.00 m	30 km/h
7Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	38.2 m	+3.00 m	36 km/h
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	38.5 m	+3.30 m	38 km/h
8Falken EUROWINTER HS02	38.5 m	+3.30 m	38 km/h
10Barum Polaris 5	38.7 m	+3.50 m	39 km/h
11Vredestein Wintrac	39.1 m	+3.90 m	41 km/h
11Uniroyal WinterExpert	39.1 m	+3.90 m	41 km/h
13BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	39.5 m	+4.30 m	43 km/h
14Lassa Snoways 4	40 m	+4.80 m	45 km/h
15Fulda Kristall Control HP2	41.2 m	+6.00 m	50 km/h
16Austone SP 901	45.6 m	+10.40 m	62 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 29.5% (10.4 m ≈ 2.3 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Austone SP 901 would still be travelling at 62 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.

Again, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 showed strong performance on concrete wet surfaces with a braking distance of 36.4 M, indicating its reliable wet grip. The Austone SP 901 again struggled with a distance of 45.1 M, reflecting its weaker performance in these conditions.

Wet Braking - Concrete
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	36.4 m	Best	0 km/h
2Firestone Winterhawk 4	38.3 m	+1.90 m	29 km/h
3Falken EUROWINTER HS02	38.6 m	+2.20 m	31 km/h
4Hankook Winter I cept RS3	38.7 m	+2.30 m	32 km/h
5Michelin Alpin 6	38.9 m	+2.50 m	33 km/h
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	39.4 m	+3.00 m	36 km/h
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	39.4 m	+3.00 m	36 km/h
8Vredestein Wintrac	39.8 m	+3.40 m	38 km/h
9Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	40.2 m	+3.80 m	40 km/h
10Lassa Snoways 4	40.3 m	+3.90 m	40 km/h
11Kleber Krisalp HP3	40.5 m	+4.10 m	41 km/h
12BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	41 m	+4.60 m	44 km/h
13Barum Polaris 5	41.9 m	+5.50 m	47 km/h
14Fulda Kristall Control HP2	42.1 m	+5.70 m	48 km/h
15Uniroyal WinterExpert	42.5 m	+6.10 m	49 km/h
16Austone SP 901	45.1 m	+8.70 m	57 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 23.9% (8.7 m ≈ 1.9 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Austone SP 901 would still be travelling at 57 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.

In the straight aquaplaning test, the Firestone Winterhawk 4 exhibited impressive control, maintaining a speed of 90.6 Km/H. The Austone SP 901, on the other hand, was significantly slower with a speed of 69.1 Km/H, showing susceptibility to aquaplaning.

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Winterhawk 4	90.6 km/h	Best
2Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	88.8 km/h	-1.80 km/h
3Lassa Snoways 4	87.3 km/h	-3.30 km/h
4Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	86.4 km/h	-4.20 km/h
5Kleber Krisalp HP3	86.2 km/h	-4.40 km/h
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	85.5 km/h	-5.10 km/h
7BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	85.4 km/h	-5.20 km/h
8Vredestein Wintrac	85 km/h	-5.60 km/h
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	84.5 km/h	-6.10 km/h
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	84.4 km/h	-6.20 km/h
11Falken EUROWINTER HS02	83.2 km/h	-7.40 km/h
12Uniroyal WinterExpert	82.6 km/h	-8.00 km/h
13Dunlop Winter Sport 5	82.3 km/h	-8.30 km/h
14Michelin Alpin 6	81.5 km/h	-9.10 km/h
15Barum Polaris 5	80.1 km/h	-10.50 km/h
16Austone SP 901	69.1 km/h	-21.50 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 23.7% (21.5 Km/H).

The Firestone Winterhawk 4 again showcased superior control in curved aquaplaning scenarios with a speed of 3.9 m/sec², indicating its strong aquaplaning resistance. The Austone SP 901 struggled with a speed of 2.1 m/sec², displaying a higher tendency to lose control.

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone Winterhawk 4	3.9 m/sec2	Best
2Fulda Kristall Control HP2	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
2Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
2Lassa Snoways 4	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	3.6 m/sec2	-0.30 m/sec2
6Uniroyal WinterExpert	3.6 m/sec2	-0.30 m/sec2
8BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	3.5 m/sec2	-0.40 m/sec2
8Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	3.5 m/sec2	-0.40 m/sec2
10Kleber Krisalp HP3	3.4 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
10Hankook Winter I cept RS3	3.4 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
12Barum Polaris 5	3.3 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
12Vredestein Wintrac	3.3 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
12Falken EUROWINTER HS02	3.3 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
15Michelin Alpin 6	3.2 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2
16Austone SP 901	2.1 m/sec2	-1.80 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 46.2% (1.8 m/sec2).

Snow

In snowy conditions, the Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus excelled with a short braking distance of 9.5 M, demonstrating reliable stopping power. In contrast, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 required a longer distance of 11.4 M to halt, suggesting less effectiveness in snow braking.

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Kleber Krisalp HP3	9.5 m	Best	0 km/h
1Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	9.5 m	Best	0 km/h
1Austone SP 901	9.5 m	Best	0 km/h
1Hankook Winter I cept RS3	9.5 m	Best	0 km/h
5Dunlop Winter Sport 5	9.6 m	+0.10 m	13 km/h
5BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	9.6 m	+0.10 m	13 km/h
5Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	9.6 m	+0.10 m	13 km/h
5Uniroyal WinterExpert	9.6 m	+0.10 m	13 km/h
9Fulda Kristall Control HP2	9.7 m	+0.20 m	19 km/h
10Barum Polaris 5	9.9 m	+0.40 m	26 km/h
10Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	9.9 m	+0.40 m	26 km/h
12Firestone Winterhawk 4	10 m	+0.50 m	29 km/h
13Vredestein Wintrac	10.2 m	+0.70 m	34 km/h
14Michelin Alpin 6	10.5 m	+1.00 m	40 km/h
15Lassa Snoways 4	11.3 m	+1.80 m	52 km/h
16Falken EUROWINTER HS02	11.4 m	+1.90 m	53 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 20% (1.9 m ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Falken EUROWINTER HS02 would still be travelling at 53 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.

The BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2 led in snow traction with a force of 265.3 N, indicating strong grip on snowy surfaces. The Lassa Snoways 4, however, showed weaker traction with a force of 223.6 N, hinting at its limitations in snow traction.

Snow Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	265.3 N	Best
2Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	261.4 N	-3.90 N
3Michelin Alpin 6	260.9 N	-4.40 N
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	260.1 N	-5.20 N
4Austone SP 901	260.1 N	-5.20 N
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	258.1 N	-7.20 N
7Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	257.3 N	-8.00 N
8Kleber Krisalp HP3	257 N	-8.30 N
9Uniroyal WinterExpert	251.1 N	-14.20 N
10Fulda Kristall Control HP2	248.6 N	-16.70 N
10Vredestein Wintrac	248.6 N	-16.70 N
12Firestone Winterhawk 4	245.7 N	-19.60 N
12Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	245.7 N	-19.60 N
14Barum Polaris 5	236.7 N	-28.60 N
15Falken EUROWINTER HS02	228 N	-37.30 N
16Lassa Snoways 4	223.6 N	-41.70 N

The difference between best and worst was 15.7% (41.7 N).

Ice

The Goodyear UltraGrip 9 Plus performed exceptionally in ice braking, stopping at 18.6 M, showcasing its capability on icy surfaces. The Kleber Krisalp HP3 had a longer braking distance of 21.8 M, reflecting a lesser performance on ice.

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
1Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	18.6 m	Best	0 km/h
2Vredestein Wintrac	19.1 m	+0.50 m	21 km/h
3Michelin Alpin 6	19.5 m	+0.90 m	28 km/h
4Dunlop Winter Sport 5	19.6 m	+1.00 m	29 km/h
5Hankook Winter I cept RS3	19.7 m	+1.10 m	31 km/h
6Fulda Kristall Control HP2	20 m	+1.40 m	34 km/h
7Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	20.3 m	+1.70 m	38 km/h
7Falken EUROWINTER HS02	20.3 m	+1.70 m	38 km/h
9Firestone Winterhawk 4	20.4 m	+1.80 m	39 km/h
10Barum Polaris 5	20.8 m	+2.20 m	42 km/h
11BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	21 m	+2.40 m	44 km/h
11Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	21 m	+2.40 m	44 km/h
11Uniroyal WinterExpert	21 m	+2.40 m	44 km/h
14Lassa Snoways 4	21.2 m	+2.60 m	46 km/h
15Austone SP 901	21.4 m	+2.80 m	47 km/h
16Kleber Krisalp HP3	21.8 m	+3.20 m	50 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 17.2% (3.2 m ≈ 0.7 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 would still be travelling at 50 km/h when the Goodyear UltraGrip 9+ had stopped.

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

Comfort

Noise test results indicated a quieter ride with Austone SP 901 registering 70.4 dB, thus offering a more comfortable driving experience. In contrast, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 was louder with 74.1 dB, which might be perceived as less comfortable.

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Austone SP 901	70.4 dB	Best
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	70.6 dB	+0.20 dB
3Firestone Winterhawk 4	70.8 dB	+0.40 dB
4Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	70.9 dB	+0.50 dB
5Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
5Falken EUROWINTER HS02	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
7Michelin Alpin 6	71.2 dB	+0.80 dB
8BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
8Vredestein Wintrac	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
10Lassa Snoways 4	71.4 dB	+1.00 dB
11Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
11Hankook Winter I cept RS3	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
13Uniroyal WinterExpert	72.1 dB	+1.70 dB
14Dunlop Winter Sport 5	72.4 dB	+2.00 dB
15Barum Polaris 5	72.8 dB	+2.40 dB
16Fulda Kristall Control HP2	74.1 dB	+3.70 dB

The difference between best and worst was 5.3% (3.7 dB).

Value

In the wear test, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 showcased outstanding durability with 56300 KM, promising a longer tyre lifespan. The Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, however, showed quicker wear with 34800 KM, indicating a shorter tyre lifespan.

Wear
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Fulda Kristall Control HP2	56,300 KM	Best
2Michelin Alpin 6	53,300 KM	-3,000 KM
3Dunlop Winter Sport 5	47,700 KM	-8,600 KM
4Barum Polaris 5	46,900 KM	-9,400 KM
5Vredestein Wintrac	44,700 KM	-11,600 KM
6Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	43,900 KM	-12,400 KM
7Lassa Snoways 4	42,100 KM	-14,200 KM
7Falken EUROWINTER HS02	42,100 KM	-14,200 KM
9BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	41,700 KM	-14,600 KM
9Kleber Krisalp HP3	41,700 KM	-14,600 KM
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	41,700 KM	-14,600 KM
12Austone SP 901	40,000 KM	-16,300 KM
13Hankook Winter I cept RS3	38,700 KM	-17,600 KM
14Uniroyal WinterExpert	37,000 KM	-19,300 KM
15Firestone Winterhawk 4	35,700 KM	-20,600 KM
16Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	34,800 KM	-21,500 KM

The difference between best and worst was 38.2% (21,500 KM).

The Barum Polaris 5 proved to be fuel-efficient with a consumption of 5.5 l/100km, making it a more economical choice. The Austone SP 901 consumed more fuel at 5.8 l/100km, making it less economical in comparison.

Fuel Consumption
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Barum Polaris 5	5.5 l/100km	Best	£0
2Fulda Kristall Control HP2	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
2Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
2Vredestein Wintrac	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
2Uniroyal WinterExpert	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km	£28
6Dunlop Winter Sport 5	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Kleber Krisalp HP3	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Michelin Alpin 6	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Firestone Winterhawk 4	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Lassa Snoways 4	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Falken EUROWINTER HS02	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
6Hankook Winter I cept RS3	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km	£55
16Austone SP 901	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km	£83

The difference between best and worst was 5.5% (0.3 l/100km). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Austone SP 901 uses about 57 L (£83) more fuel than the Barum Polaris 5.

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.

The Michelin Alpin 6 exhibited the lowest abrasion with 51 mg/km/t, suggesting better material endurance. On the other hand, the Uniroyal WinterExpert had higher abrasion at 90 mg/km/t, indicating a propensity for quicker material degradation1.

Abrasion
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin Alpin 6	51 mg/km/t	Best
2BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t
2Kleber Krisalp HP3	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t
4Vredestein Wintrac	62 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t
5Fulda Kristall Control HP2	65 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t
6Austone SP 901	67 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t
7Dunlop Winter Sport 5	69 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t
8Hankook Winter I cept RS3	70 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t
9Barum Polaris 5	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t
9Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t
11Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	74 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t
12Falken EUROWINTER HS02	76 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t
13Lassa Snoways 4	78 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t
14Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	83 mg/km/t	+32.00 mg/km/t
15Firestone Winterhawk 4	89 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t
16Uniroyal WinterExpert	90 mg/km/t	+39.00 mg/km/t

The difference between best and worst was 76.5% (39 mg/km/t).

Results

The DUNLOP Winter Sport 5 demonstrates precise steering and good safety margins on dry roads, including quick stabilization after evasive maneuvers. Braking performance from 100 km/h is rated as good within the test field. On wet roads, the WINTER SPORT 5 tyre performs well in all sub-criteria, including above-average scores in braking and handling. However, its performance in longitudinal aquaplaning is below the average of competitors. On snowy and icy roads, the tyre scores above average in braking, acceleration, and handling. Regarding environmental impact, the WINTER SPORT 5 also receives good ratings, offering high projected mileage, low wear, low weight, and decent fuel efficiency.

Dry93.2%

Wet93.6%

Snow98.5%

Ice94.9%

Comfort97.2%

Value86%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	9^th / 16	44.4 m	+3.00 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	6^th / 16	37.2 m	+2.00 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	6^th / 16	39.4 m	+3.00 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	13^th / 16	82.3 km/h	-8.30 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 16	3.6 m/sec2	-0.30 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	9.6 m	+0.10 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	4^th / 16	260.1 N	-5.20 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	4^th / 16	19.6 m	+1.00 m
NoiseLower is better	14^th / 16	72.4 dB	+2.00 dB
WearHigher is better	3^rd / 16	47700 KM	-8,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	7^th / 16	69 mg/km/t	+18.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The MICHELIN ALPIN 6 performs well on dry roads, offering precise steering and sufficient safety margins, even at the limit. Its braking from 100 km/h is slightly above average. On wet surfaces, the tyre excels in braking distance measurements but receives only satisfactory ratings in lateral aquaplaning. Handling is nearly rated as good; for better precision, the tyre needs to better integrate longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the ALPIN 6 scores well, with slightly below-average braking and above-average traction measurements. Its handling and ice braking are rated as good. Environmentally, the ALPIN 6 stands out for its above-average wear resistance and low fuel consumption, attributed to its low weight and low rolling resistance. Noise levels are average.

Dry96.3%

Wet93.1%

Snow94.7%

Ice95.4%

Comfort98.9%

Value96.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	43 m	+1.60 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 16	36.4 m	+1.20 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	5^th / 16	38.9 m	+2.50 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	14^th / 16	81.5 km/h	-9.10 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	15^th / 16	3.2 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	14^th / 16	10.5 m	+1.00 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	3^rd / 16	260.9 N	-4.40 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	3^rd / 16	19.5 m	+0.90 m
NoiseLower is better	7^th / 16	71.2 dB	+0.80 dB
WearHigher is better	2^nd / 16	53300 KM	-3,000.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	1^st / 16	51 mg/km/t	Best in this discipline

3PMSF: Yes

The GOODYEAR UltraGrip 9+ shows minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety margins during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it performs clearly above average, offering short braking distances and secure, easily controllable handling. In lateral aquaplaning, its performance is rated as good, and it narrowly misses an excellent rating in longitudinal aquaplaning. On winter roads, the UltraGrip 9+ scores above average in braking and slightly above average in traction. While it offers good safety reserves in snow handling, steering could be more precise. In ice braking tests, the UltraGrip 9+ excels with the shortest braking distances. Environmentally, the tyre achieves a good rating for its projected lifespan and wear, and it receives the best rating in the test for efficiency.

Dry92.2%

Wet96.1%

Snow98.4%

Ice100%

Comfort99%

Value82.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	13^th / 16	44.9 m	+3.50 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 16	36.9 m	+1.70 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	9^th / 16	40.2 m	+3.80 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	2^nd / 16	88.8 km/h	-1.80 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	9.5 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	7^th / 16	257.3 N	-8.00 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	18.6 m	Best in this discipline
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 16	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
WearHigher is better	6^th / 16	43900 KM	-12,400.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	11^th / 16	74 mg/km/t	+23.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Continental WinterContact TS 870 P exhibits minor weaknesses in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but compensates with good safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and clearly above-average braking distances. On wet roads, the tyre performs consistently well across all sub-criteria, including slightly above-average results in braking and aquaplaning. It also offers easy and secure handling. On winter roads, the tyre achieves average scores in braking and traction but excels in handling due to its large safety reserves and precise steering. Ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tyre receives a barely good rating; its wear is average, and its projected lifespan is slightly below average but still rated as good. Efficiency metrics are average.

Dry96.5%

Wet91.9%

Snow94.2%

Ice91.6%

Comfort99.3%

Value81.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	42.9 m	+1.50 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	7^th / 16	38.2 m	+3.00 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	6^th / 16	39.4 m	+3.00 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	9^th / 16	84.5 km/h	-6.10 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 16	3.5 m/sec2	-0.40 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	9.9 m	+0.40 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	12^th / 16	245.7 N	-19.60 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 16	20.3 m	+1.70 m
NoiseLower is better	4^th / 16	70.9 dB	+0.50 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 16	41700 KM	-14,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 16	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Hankook Winter i*cept RS3 shows minor deficiencies in steering precision and feedback on dry roads but earns a good overall rating due to its safety reserves in sudden evasive maneuvers and braking performance rated as "still good." On wet roads, the tyre performs well in braking, longitudinal aquaplaning, and handling, but falls short in lateral aquaplaning with a satisfactory rating. On winter roads, it ranks second-best in the test, excelling in braking and acceleration, and offering secure and precise handling on snow. Its ice braking performance is also above average. Environmentally, the tyre misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan, although its wear and efficiency are rated as good.

Dry92.4%

Wet93.8%

Snow98.5%

Ice94.4%

Comfort98.1%

Value79.8%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	12^th / 16	44.8 m	+3.40 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	4^th / 16	36.9 m	+1.70 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	4^th / 16	38.7 m	+2.30 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	6^th / 16	85.5 km/h	-5.10 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 16	3.4 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	9.5 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	6^th / 16	258.1 N	-7.20 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	19.7 m	+1.10 m
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 16	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
WearHigher is better	13^th / 16	38700 KM	-17,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	8^th / 16	70 mg/km/t	+19.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The BRIDGESTONE BLIZZAK LM 005 has minor issues with steering precision and feedback on dry roads but maintains a good overall rating due to its safety reserves during sudden evasive maneuvers and average braking distances. On wet roads, it sets the standard, achieving the shortest braking distances in the test and excelling in aquaplaning and handling. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances, good handling, and safety reserves, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tyre falls short of a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear rating. While it scores well in fuel efficiency, its weight is rated as satisfactory.

Dry94.7%

Wet98.8%

Snow98.7%

Ice88.6%

Comfort98.1%

Value74.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	43.7 m	+2.30 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	35.2 m	Best in this discipline
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	1^st / 16	36.4 m	Best in this discipline
Straight AquaHigher is better	4^th / 16	86.4 km/h	-4.20 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	9.6 m	+0.10 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	2^nd / 16	261.4 N	-3.90 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	21 m	+2.40 m
NoiseLower is better	11^th / 16	71.8 dB	+1.40 dB
WearHigher is better	16^th / 16	34800 KM	-21,500.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	14^th / 16	83 mg/km/t	+32.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Firestone WINTERHAWK 4 provides satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads and remains stable at the limit, earning a good overall rating for dry conditions due to its good braking performance. On wet roads, the tyre performs well in braking and handling, with very good ratings in longitudinal aquaplaning and above-average results in lateral aquaplaning. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in traction and ice braking, receiving only a satisfactory rating for these criteria. Environmentally, the tyre misses a good rating due to its below-average projected lifespan and satisfactory wear. However, it scores well in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry92%

Wet98.7%

Snow93.7%

Ice91.2%

Comfort99.4%

Value73.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	15^th / 16	45 m	+3.60 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 16	35.9 m	+0.70 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	2^nd / 16	38.3 m	+1.90 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	1^st / 16	90.6 km/h	Best in this discipline
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	1^st / 16	3.9 m/sec2	Best in this discipline
Snow BrakingLower is better	12^th / 16	10 m	+0.50 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	12^th / 16	245.7 N	-19.60 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	9^th / 16	20.4 m	+1.80 m
NoiseLower is better	3^rd / 16	70.8 dB	+0.40 dB
WearHigher is better	15^th / 16	35700 KM	-20,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	15^th / 16	89 mg/km/t	+38.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The BFGoodrich G-FORCE WINTER 2 provides only satisfactory steering feedback on dry roads but remains stable at the limit. Its braking is rated as "still good," earning it an overall good rating for dry conditions. On wet roads, the tyre receives a satisfactory overall rating; while its braking and aquaplaning are rated as good, it struggles in wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it scores well for braking and handling but falls short in ice braking, receiving a satisfactory rating. Environmentally, the tyre achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is only rated as satisfactory.

Dry93.7%

Wet90.1%

Snow99.5%

Ice88.6%

Comfort98.7%

Value86.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	44.2 m	+2.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	13^th / 16	39.5 m	+4.30 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	12^th / 16	41 m	+4.60 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	7^th / 16	85.4 km/h	-5.20 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	8^th / 16	3.5 m/sec2	-0.40 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	9.6 m	+0.10 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	1^st / 16	265.3 N	Best in this discipline
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	21 m	+2.40 m
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 16	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 16	41700 KM	-14,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	2^nd / 16	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The KRISTALL CONTROL HP 2 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, along with good safety margins at the limit. Its braking is also rated as good. On wet roads, the tyre receives an overall satisfactory rating; it scores well in aquaplaning but only satisfactory in braking and inadequate in handling due to low grip levels and imprecise steering. On winter roads, it earns a good overall rating due to its strong braking performance on snow and ice, although it falls short in traction and handling. Environmentally, the tyre excels across the board, offering the highest projected lifespan in the test, low wear, and above-average performance in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry93%

Wet88.8%

Snow95.7%

Ice93%

Comfort95%

Value93.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	10^th / 16	44.5 m	+3.10 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	15^th / 16	41.2 m	+6.00 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	14^th / 16	42.1 m	+5.70 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	10^th / 16	84.4 km/h	-6.20 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	9^th / 16	9.7 m	+0.20 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 16	248.6 N	-16.70 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	6^th / 16	20 m	+1.40 m
NoiseLower is better	16^th / 16	74.1 dB	+3.70 dB
WearHigher is better	1^st / 16	56300 KM	Best in this discipline
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	5^th / 16	65 mg/km/t	+14.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Kleber KRISALP HP3 provides only average steering feedback and lacks precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections during steering and cornering. Its braking distance is average within the test field and rated as good. On wet roads, the tyre achieves a satisfactory overall rating; it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and wet handling due to excessive understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its ice braking performance is below average. Environmentally, the tyre achieves a barely good rating; its projected lifespan is rated as just good, its wear is clearly good, and while it performs well in fuel efficiency, its weight is slightly above average and rated as satisfactory.

Dry93.5%

Wet91.3%

Snow98.3%

Ice85.3%

Comfort99.7%

Value86.7%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	44.3 m	+2.90 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 16	38.5 m	+3.30 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	11^th / 16	40.5 m	+4.10 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	5^th / 16	86.2 km/h	-4.40 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	10^th / 16	3.4 m/sec2	-0.50 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	9.5 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	8^th / 16	257 N	-8.30 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	16^th / 16	21.8 m	+3.20 m
NoiseLower is better	2^nd / 16	70.6 dB	+0.20 dB
WearHigher is better	9^th / 16	41700 KM	-14,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	2^nd / 16	56 mg/km/t	+5.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The FALKEN EUROWINTER HS02 provides good steering feedback and safety margins on dry roads, along with above-average braking performance. On wet roads, it excels in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but receives only a satisfactory rating in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tyre offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, the tyre achieves a satisfactory overall rating, missing good scores in braking, traction, and handling. The vehicle tends to understeer or oversteer early, limiting the handling precision. However, its ice braking performance is average and rated as good. Environmentally, the tyre receives a satisfactory overall rating; its projected lifespan and wear are rated as just good, but its higher weight impacts its efficiency rating negatively. Its sustainability, given its production in Turkey, is rated as inadequate.

Dry100%

Wet90.4%

Snow84.7%

Ice91.6%

Comfort99%

Value80.5%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	41.4 m	Best in this discipline
Wet BrakingLower is better	8^th / 16	38.5 m	+3.30 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	3^rd / 16	38.6 m	+2.20 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	11^th / 16	83.2 km/h	-7.40 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 16	3.3 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	16^th / 16	11.4 m	+1.90 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	15^th / 16	228 N	-37.30 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	7^th / 16	20.3 m	+1.70 m
NoiseLower is better	5^th / 16	71.1 dB	+0.70 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 16	42100 KM	-14,200.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	12^th / 16	76 mg/km/t	+25.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The Barum POLARIS 5 provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic evasive maneuvers, earning the tyre a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, the tyre achieves a satisfactory overall rating, excelling only in longitudinal aquaplaning. It falls short in braking, lateral aquaplaning, and handling due to early understeer or oversteer. On winter roads, it also receives a satisfactory rating, narrowly missing good scores in traction and handling. Its ice braking performance is average. Environmentally, the tyre performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in weight and achieves the best fuel efficiency in the test.

Dry92.8%

Wet89.4%

Snow92.3%

Ice89.4%

Comfort96.7%

Value86.2%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	11^th / 16	44.6 m	+3.20 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	38.7 m	+3.50 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	13^th / 16	41.9 m	+5.50 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	15^th / 16	80.1 km/h	-10.50 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 16	3.3 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	9.9 m	+0.40 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	14^th / 16	236.7 N	-28.60 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	10^th / 16	20.8 m	+2.20 m
NoiseLower is better	15^th / 16	72.8 dB	+2.40 dB
WearHigher is better	4^th / 16	46900 KM	-9,400.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	1^st / 16	5.5 l/100km	Best in this discipline
AbrasionLower is better	9^th / 16	71 mg/km/t	+20.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The VREDESTEIN WINTRAC provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer during dynamic maneuvers, earning the tyre a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is average and rated as good. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and longitudinal aquaplaning but falls short in lateral aquaplaning and handling. While the tyre offers sufficient safety reserves, it lacks precision due to inadequate integration of longitudinal and lateral forces. On winter roads, it earns a good rating for its decent braking distances and good handling, although its traction performance is only satisfactory. It secures the second-best result in the test for ice braking. Environmentally, the tyre performs well, with good projected lifespan and wear. It also scores well in fuel efficiency and weight.

Dry96.5%

Wet89.8%

Snow93.4%

Ice97.4%

Comfort98.7%

Value86.9%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	42.9 m	+1.50 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	39.1 m	+3.90 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	8^th / 16	39.8 m	+3.40 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	8^th / 16	85 km/h	-5.60 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	12^th / 16	3.3 m/sec2	-0.60 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	13^th / 16	10.2 m	+0.70 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	10^th / 16	248.6 N	-16.70 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	2^nd / 16	19.1 m	+0.50 m
NoiseLower is better	8^th / 16	71.3 dB	+0.90 dB
WearHigher is better	5^th / 16	44700 KM	-11,600.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	4^th / 16	62 mg/km/t	+11.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The UNIROYAL WinterExpert provides inadequate steering feedback and precision on dry roads, requiring frequent corrections. The vehicle tends to oversteer in dynamic maneuvers but earns a barely satisfactory rating in limit behavior. Its braking distance is below average but still rated as good. On wet roads, it narrowly misses a good rating, performing satisfactorily in braking and handling due to imprecise steering. It excels only in aquaplaning tests. On winter roads, it earns a nearly good rating for its snow braking and handling but falls short in snow traction and ice braking. Environmentally, the tyre achieves a satisfactory rating, with both its projected lifespan and wear rated as satisfactory. Despite good ratings in weight and fuel efficiency, the overall environmental performance is only satisfactory.

Dry90.8%

Wet90.6%

Snow96.6%

Ice88.6%

Comfort97.6%

Value75%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	16^th / 16	45.6 m	+4.20 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	39.1 m	+3.90 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	15^th / 16	42.5 m	+6.10 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	12^th / 16	82.6 km/h	-8.00 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	6^th / 16	3.6 m/sec2	-0.30 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	5^th / 16	9.6 m	+0.10 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	9^th / 16	251.1 N	-14.20 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	11^th / 16	21 m	+2.40 m
NoiseLower is better	13^th / 16	72.1 dB	+1.70 dB
WearHigher is better	14^th / 16	37000 KM	-19,300.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	2^nd / 16	5.6 l/100km	+0.10 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	16^th / 16	90 mg/km/t	+39.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The LASSA SNOWAYS 4 provides good steering feedback and precision on dry roads, with satisfactory limit behavior and good braking performance. On wet roads, it performs well in braking and aquaplaning tests but lacks the precision needed for a good handling rating. On winter roads, the tyre struggles, earning only satisfactory ratings in braking and traction tests and a poor rating in handling. It loses traction early and has a narrow limit of safety, making precise maneuvering difficult. Ice braking performance is also only satisfactory. Environmentally, the tyre narrowly misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan and wear are rated as good, but its high weight results in only a satisfactory efficiency rating.

Dry92.2%

Wet91%

Snow84.2%

Ice87.7%

Comfort98.6%

Value80.1%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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	13^th / 16	44.9 m	+3.50 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	14^th / 16	40 m	+4.80 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	10^th / 16	40.3 m	+3.90 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	3^rd / 16	87.3 km/h	-3.30 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	2^nd / 16	3.8 m/sec2	-0.10 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	15^th / 16	11.3 m	+1.80 m
Snow TractionHigher is better	16^th / 16	223.6 N	-41.70 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	14^th / 16	21.2 m	+2.60 m
NoiseLower is better	10^th / 16	71.4 dB	+1.00 dB
WearHigher is better	7^th / 16	42100 KM	-14,200.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	6^th / 16	5.7 l/100km	+0.20 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	13^th / 16	78 mg/km/t	+27.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

The AUSTONE ATHENA SP-901 provides barely adequate steering feedback and is imprecise on dry roads, requiring constant corrections. It tends to oversteer early in dynamic maneuvers, earning it a barely adequate rating for limit behavior. Its braking performance on dry roads is average but rated as good. On wet roads, the tyre struggles significantly. Its braking distance is rated as barely adequate, and while it earns a satisfactory rating for longitudinal aquaplaning, it performs poorly in lateral aquaplaning and handling due to low grip levels and early understeer/oversteer tendencies. On winter roads, however, the tyre excels, showing the best behavior in the test. It handles securely and precisely on snow, with good results in braking and traction tests. Its ice braking performance is rated as satisfactory. Environmentally, the tyre misses a good rating. Its projected lifespan is rated as satisfactory, and although its wear is rated as good, its high weight results in an adequate efficiency rating.

Dry95.8%

Wet73.1%

Snow98.9%

Ice86.9%

Comfort100%

Value81%

Category scores (% of best)

All discipline results (12)

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 / 16	43.2 m	+1.80 m
Wet BrakingLower is better	16^th / 16	45.6 m	+10.40 m
Wet Braking - ConcreteLower is better	16^th / 16	45.1 m	+8.70 m
Straight AquaHigher is better	16^th / 16	69.1 km/h	-21.50 km/h
Curved AquaplaningHigher is better	16^th / 16	2.1 m/sec2	-1.80 m/sec2
Snow BrakingLower is better	1^st / 16	9.5 m	Best in this discipline
Snow TractionHigher is better	4^th / 16	260.1 N	-5.20 N
Ice BrakingLower is better	15^th / 16	21.4 m	+2.80 m
NoiseLower is better	1^st / 16	70.4 dB	Best in this discipline
WearHigher is better	12^th / 16	40000 KM	-16,300.00 KM
Fuel ConsumptionLower is better	16^th / 16	5.8 l/100km	+0.30 l/100km
AbrasionLower is better	6^th / 16	67 mg/km/t	+16.00 mg/km/t

3PMSF: Yes

Tyre	Dunlop Winter Sport 5	Michelin Alpin 6	Goodyear UltraGrip 9+	Continental WinterContact TS 870 P	Hankook Winter I cept RS3	Bridgestone Blizzak LM005	Firestone Winterhawk 4	BFGoodrich gForce Winter 2	Fulda Kristall Control HP2	Kleber Krisalp HP3	Falken EUROWINTER HS02	Barum Polaris 5	Vredestein Wintrac	Uniroyal WinterExpert	Lassa Snoways 4	Austone SP 901
Position	1^st	2^nd	3^rd	4^th	5^th	6^th	7^th	8^th	9^th	10^th	11^th	12^th	13^th	14^th	15^th	16^th
Category scores (% of best)
Dry	93.2%	96.3%	92.2%	96.5%	92.4%	94.7%	92%	93.7%	93%	93.5%	100%	92.8%	96.5%	90.8%	92.2%	95.8%
Wet	93.6%	93.1%	96.1%	91.9%	93.8%	98.8%	98.7%	90.1%	88.8%	91.3%	90.4%	89.4%	89.8%	90.6%	91%	73.1%
Snow	98.5%	94.7%	98.4%	94.2%	98.5%	98.7%	93.7%	99.5%	95.7%	98.3%	84.7%	92.3%	93.4%	96.6%	84.2%	98.9%
Ice	94.9%	95.4%	100%	91.6%	94.4%	88.6%	91.2%	88.6%	93%	85.3%	91.6%	89.4%	97.4%	88.6%	87.7%	86.9%
Comfort	97.2%	98.9%	99%	99.3%	98.1%	98.1%	99.4%	98.7%	95%	99.7%	99%	96.7%	98.7%	97.6%	98.6%	100%
Value	86%	96.8%	82.8%	81.5%	79.8%	74.2%	73.7%	86.7%	93.5%	86.7%	80.5%	86.2%	86.9%	75%	80.1%	81%
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	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

Comfort

Value

Results

Cross-check this test