Test Charts / Tyre Reviews

The 7 BEST All Weather Tyres Tested

Name: The 7 BEST All Weather Tyres Tested
Creator: Tyre Reviews
Published: 2025-02-18

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: 225/65 R17
Tyres tested: 7
Disciplines: 19

Read the measurements, not just the rank

Lower is better for braking distances and lap times; higher is better for subjective scores and aquaplaning speed. Bars start at zero. Read the gap alongside the position: adjacent tyres can be separated by very different margins.

Positions and gaps always refer to the full test field within each group. Selecting tyres does not recalculate rankings or change the best-in-test benchmark.

Dry

Dry Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefReference Summer	34.36 m	-2.97 m	0 km/h
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	37.33 m	Best	0 km/h
2Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	39.5 m	+2.17 m	30 km/h
3Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	40.86 m	+3.53 m	38 km/h
4Nokian Remedy WRG5	40.96 m	+3.63 m	39 km/h
5Toyo Celsius 2	42.41 m	+5.08 m	45 km/h
6Bridgestone WeatherPeak	44.18 m	+6.85 m	51 km/h
7Firestone WeatherGrip	44.32 m	+6.99 m	52 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 29% (9.96 m ≈ 2.2 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Firestone WeatherGrip would still be travelling at 52 km/h when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW 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	72.46 s	-0.66 s
1Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	73.12 s	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	73.29 s	+0.17 s
3Nokian Remedy WRG5	73.63 s	+0.51 s
4Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	73.85 s	+0.73 s
5Firestone WeatherGrip	74.04 s	+0.92 s
6Toyo Celsius 2	74.08 s	+0.96 s
7Bridgestone WeatherPeak	74.76 s	+1.64 s

The difference between best and worst was 3.2% (2.3 s).

Subj. Dry Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	10 Points	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
2Nokian Remedy WRG5	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
2Toyo Celsius 2	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
2Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	9.75 Points	-0.25 Points
6Bridgestone WeatherPeak	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
7Firestone WeatherGrip	9.25 Points	-0.75 Points

The difference between best and worst was 7.5% (0.75 Points).

Wet

Wet Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefReference Summer	29.23 m	-3.62 m	0 km/h
1Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	32.85 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	33.83 m	+0.98 m	22 km/h
3Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	34.41 m	+1.56 m	28 km/h
4Bridgestone WeatherPeak	36.15 m	+3.30 m	39 km/h
5Nokian Remedy WRG5	37.32 m	+4.47 m	45 km/h
6Firestone WeatherGrip	37.64 m	+4.79 m	46 km/h
7Toyo Celsius 2	38.24 m	+5.39 m	49 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 30.8% (9.01 m ≈ 2 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Toyo Celsius 2 would still be travelling at 49 km/h when the Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2 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
RefReference Summer	71.53 s	-2.25 s
1Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	73.78 s	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	74.48 s	+0.70 s
3Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	74.65 s	+0.87 s
4Nokian Remedy WRG5	74.72 s	+0.94 s
5Bridgestone WeatherPeak	75.02 s	+1.24 s
6Firestone WeatherGrip	75.1 s	+1.32 s
7Toyo Celsius 2	75.54 s	+1.76 s

The difference between best and worst was 5.6% (4.01 s).

Subj. Wet Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
RefReference Summer	13 Points	+3.00 Points
1Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	10 Points	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Nokian Remedy WRG5	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Firestone WeatherGrip	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
5Bridgestone WeatherPeak	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
5Toyo Celsius 2	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 34.6% (4.5 Points).

Straight Aqua
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	83.7 km/h	Best
2Nokian Remedy WRG5	82.9 km/h	-0.80 km/h
3Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	80.1 km/h	-3.60 km/h
4Bridgestone WeatherPeak	79.6 km/h	-4.10 km/h
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	79.5 km/h	-4.20 km/h
6Firestone WeatherGrip	78.6 km/h	-5.10 km/h
7Toyo Celsius 2	77.9 km/h	-5.80 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 6.9% (5.8 Km/H).

Curved Aquaplaning
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Nokian Remedy WRG5	9.5 m/sec2	Best
2Bridgestone WeatherPeak	9.2 m/sec2	-0.30 m/sec2
3Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	8.8 m/sec2	-0.70 m/sec2
4Firestone WeatherGrip	8.3 m/sec2	-1.20 m/sec2
5Toyo Celsius 2	7.5 m/sec2	-2.00 m/sec2
6Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	7.3 m/sec2	-2.20 m/sec2
7Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	7.1 m/sec2	-2.40 m/sec2

The difference between best and worst was 25.3% (2.4 m/sec2).

Snow

Snow Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV	15.1 m	-1.22 m	0 km/h
1Bridgestone WeatherPeak	16.32 m	Best	0 km/h
2Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	16.38 m	+0.06 m	8 km/h
3Nokian Remedy WRG5	16.52 m	+0.20 m	14 km/h
4Toyo Celsius 2	16.57 m	+0.25 m	16 km/h
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	16.67 m	+0.35 m	19 km/h
6Firestone WeatherGrip	16.77 m	+0.45 m	21 km/h
6Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	16.77 m	+0.45 m	21 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 11.1% (1.67 m ≈ 0.4 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive would still be travelling at 21 km/h when the Bridgestone WeatherPeak 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
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV	3.08 s	-0.13 s
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	3.21 s	Best
2Firestone WeatherGrip	3.22 s	+0.01 s
3Nokian Remedy WRG5	3.24 s	+0.03 s
3Toyo Celsius 2	3.24 s	+0.03 s
5Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	3.25 s	+0.04 s
6Bridgestone WeatherPeak	3.26 s	+0.05 s
7Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	3.35 s	+0.14 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.8% (0.27 s).

Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV	79.8 s	-4.46 s
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	84.26 s	Best
2Nokian Remedy WRG5	84.28 s	+0.02 s
3Firestone WeatherGrip	85.24 s	+0.98 s
4Bridgestone WeatherPeak	85.3 s	+1.04 s
5Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	85.81 s	+1.55 s
6Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	86.62 s	+2.36 s
7Toyo Celsius 2	86.78 s	+2.52 s

The difference between best and worst was 8.7% (6.98 s).

Subj. Snow Handling
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone WeatherGrip	10 Points	Best
1Bridgestone WeatherPeak	10 Points	Best
1Nokian Remedy WRG5	10 Points	Best
4Toyo Celsius 2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
6Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	9 Points	-1.00 Points
6Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	9 Points	-1.00 Points

The difference between best and worst was 10% (1 Points).

Ice

Ice Braking
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Residual speed
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV	8.9 m	-1.30 m	0 km/h
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	10.2 m	Best	0 km/h
2Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	10.5 m	+0.30 m	22 km/h
3Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	10.96 m	+0.76 m	34 km/h
4Firestone WeatherGrip	11.05 m	+0.85 m	36 km/h
5Bridgestone WeatherPeak	11.1 m	+0.90 m	37 km/h
6Nokian Remedy WRG5	11.25 m	+1.05 m	40 km/h
7Toyo Celsius 2	11.67 m	+1.47 m	46 km/h

The difference between best and worst was 31.1% (2.77 m ≈ 0.6 Car Lengths). From 130 km/h, the Toyo Celsius 2 would still be travelling at 46 km/h when the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW had stopped.

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

Ice Traction
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
RefNokian Hakkapeliitta R5 SUV	6.4 s	-2.99 s
1Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	9.39 s	Best
2Nokian Remedy WRG5	9.61 s	+0.22 s
3Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	9.79 s	+0.40 s
4Bridgestone WeatherPeak	10.1 s	+0.71 s
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	10.42 s	+1.03 s
6Firestone WeatherGrip	11.14 s	+1.75 s
7Toyo Celsius 2	11.5 s	+2.11 s

The difference between best and worst was 79.7% (5.1 s).

Comfort

Subj. Comfort
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Firestone WeatherGrip	10 Points	Best
2Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
4Nokian Remedy WRG5	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Bridgestone WeatherPeak	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
5Toyo Celsius 2	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points
5Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.5 Points).

Subj. Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	10 Points	Best
2Bridgestone WeatherPeak	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Nokian Remedy WRG5	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
2Toyo Celsius 2	9.5 Points	-0.50 Points
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	9 Points	-1.00 Points
5Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	9 Points	-1.00 Points
7Firestone WeatherGrip	8.5 Points	-1.50 Points

The difference between best and worst was 15% (1.5 Points).

Noise
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best
1Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	70.3 dB	Best
2Bridgestone WeatherPeak	71.7 dB	+1.40 dB
3Toyo Celsius 2	71.8 dB	+1.50 dB
4Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	72 dB	+1.70 dB
5Firestone WeatherGrip	72.5 dB	+2.20 dB
6Nokian Remedy WRG5	72.8 dB	+2.50 dB
7Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	72.9 dB	+2.60 dB

The difference between best and worst was 3.7% (2.6 dB).

Value

Value
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	cost per 1,000 miles
1Toyo Celsius 2	10.33 Price/1000	Best	$16.87
2Firestone WeatherGrip	11.08 Price/1000	+0.75 Price/1000	$14.39
3Bridgestone WeatherPeak	12.06 Price/1000	+1.73 Price/1000	$13.51
4Nokian Remedy WRG5	13 Price/1000	+2.67 Price/1000	$15.24
5Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	13.2 Price/1000	+2.87 Price/1000	$22.13
6Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	14.2 Price/1000	+3.87 Price/1000	$18.07
7Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	14.67 Price/1000	+4.34 Price/1000	$16.00

The difference between best and worst was 42% (4.34 Price/1000). Over 25,000 miles the cheapest tyre to own (Bridgestone WeatherPeak) works out $215 cheaper than the most expensive (Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2).

How this is calculated

Tyre life here is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, NOT measured wear - treat it as the maker's promise, not a test result.

Tyre life is the manufacturer's treadwear warranty, not measured wear. Assumes a typical car using 8 l/100km (rolling resistance causing 20% of fuel use), fuel at $0.95 per litre and $80 fitting per set of four. US prices are from the time of the 2025 test; financing costs are excluded.

Rolling Resistance
Position / Tyre	Result	Gap to best	Extra fuel / year
1Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW	7.05 kg/t	Best	£0
2Bridgestone WeatherPeak	7.14 kg/t	+0.09 kg/t	£6
3Nokian Remedy WRG5	7.31 kg/t	+0.26 kg/t	£16
4Firestone WeatherGrip	7.65 kg/t	+0.60 kg/t	£38
5Pirelli Scorpion WeatherActive	7.78 kg/t	+0.73 kg/t	£46
6Toyo Celsius 2	8.55 kg/t	+1.50 kg/t	£94
7Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2	9.24 kg/t	+2.19 kg/t	£137

The difference between best and worst was 31.1% (2.19 kg / t). Over 19,000 km a year at £1.45/L, the Goodyear Assurance WeatherReady 2 uses about 94 L (£137) more fuel than the Michelin CrossClimate 2 AW.

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 · 14–15 °C
Dry Handling: 8–10 °C
Wet Braking: 80 → 5 km/h · 14–15 °C
Wet Handling: 8–10 °C
Snow Braking: 40 → 5 km/h · -8–-9 °C
Snow Traction: 5 → 40 km/h · -8–-9 °C
Snow Handling: -5–-6 °C
Ice Braking: 20 → 5 km/h · -11–-10 °C
Ice Traction: 5 → 20 km/h · -11–-10 °C

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 · 30%
Dry Braking	50%	15%
Dry Handling	40%	12%
Subj. Dry Handling	10%	3%
Wet · 35%
Wet Braking	40%	14%
Wet Handling	35%	12.25%
Subj. Wet Handling	10%	3.5%
Straight Aqua	10%	3.5%
Curved Aquaplaning	5%	1.75%
Snow · 20%
Snow Braking	30%	6%
Snow Traction	30%	6%
Snow Handling	30%	6%
Subj. Snow Handling	10%	2%
Ice · 5%
Ice Braking	50%	2.5%
Ice Traction	50%	2.5%
Comfort · 5%
Subj. Comfort	25%	1.25%
Subj. Noise	25%	1.25%
Noise	50%	2.5%
Value · 5%
Value	50%	2.5%
Rolling Resistance	50%	2.5%

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.

Ice Braking

For ice braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 35 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a prepared ice surface. Surface temperature is continuously monitored as ice friction properties vary substantially with temperature. My standard programme is twelve runs per tyre set but with ice testing, you often do many more. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing surface conditions.

Ice Traction

For ice traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a prepared ice 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. 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 ice twice. Surface temperature is continuously monitored. I complete multiple runs per tyre set and average the valid results, with reference tyres run typically every two candidate test sets.

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.

Subj. Noise

For subjective noise assessment, I drive at constant speeds across multiple surface types with the windows closed, ventilation off, and audio system off. I assess overall noise level, tonal quality, cavity boom, pattern noise, broadband roar, and sensitivity to both speed and road texture. Each tyre is rated on a 1–10 scale and supported by written observations on noise character and annoyance.

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