or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › Winter Tire Sales Are Losing Traction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Winter Tire Sales Are Losing Traction - Page 16

post #451 of 470

Those "ice rink conditions" seem to be happening more and more in formerly solidly snow regions such as Minnesota and Colorado thanks to the wild freeze-thaw-freeze cycles that now seem to be the norm.  Even when solid cold and snow arrives it leaves a layer of ice  as the base coat when the ground it falls on isn't below 32 degrees when the snow starts falling.  This is contributing to the increased traffic jams and rising number of wrecks over previous years as much as more people driving with all season tires is..  It's just my theory, but it makes some sense to me..

post #452 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

A torsen would shift torque away from a spinning tire, not to it. The gearing setup works as torque multiplication, so the tire that is spinning slower/not spinning would get a 2x 3x, etc (depending on the torque bias ratio designed into the diff) of the torque.

The key problem is that zero multiplied by anything is still zero. If one wheel is on glare ice and one wheel is on dry pavement, you still only get a multiple of the very small amount of traction available on ice, where a locked diff would get all of the traction available by the tire on dry pavement.

Still, not a lot of vehicles are equipped with locking diffs (and driving at highway speeds on ice with a locked diff is asking for serious control problems) and given the choice of a torsen or clutch based limited slip, I will choose the Torsen each time.

Much better said than I did, and thanks for the correction on not sending torque to the spinning tire smile.gif. Agree with this, except that a rear locker (the automatic type) is awesome...if you have a longer wheelbase, an auto transmission, and preferably AWD. In that setup, the drivetrain absorbs the tendency for sudden unlocking and you get max predictability and control.
Quote:
Finally, is there anyone that is really terribly pleased with the traction control system on their vehicle? I haven't found a system that I found worth a damn. The stability control stuff can be useful, but traction control, especially in the Turbo Subaru implementation (hey, a wheel slipped a tiny bit! Lets dump open the wastegate and unspool the turbo while slamming on the brakes to make sure the vehicle stops!) just seems terrible.

I think it is a double edged sword. Use of four wheel independent braking to control differential torque bias based on slip and dynamics sensors cannot be matched with mechanical systems, IMO. However, there is no way to overcome the reality that all if this occurs by dumping torque, either at the brakes or engine. Best possible application (for average drivers in traffic) at speed, but extremely limited at best in conditions where torque is needed (very low traction, deeper snow, slow speed up steep hills, etc.)

If I never went offroad in a meaningful way, I'd buy something with true 4x4, low range transfer case, and therefore locking center diff, and bias everything else to be car-like such as a fully independent suspension, and then I would have the vehicle dynamic control at speed along with the torque multiplication and locking center diff at slow speed in low range. Based on having heavier duty wheel hubs, bearings, and such run a good heavier duty all terrain tire that is well known in the 4x4 community for superior winter traction and call it a day.

It's the best of both worlds for typical use, if one can accept that having low range torque multiplication necessitates heavier duty driveline gear and costs some amount of interior space by raising the cabin floor, plus a little bit of fuel economy due to the extra weight. A Jeep Grand Cherokee and a Subaru Outback have about the same perimeter size, but the GC weighs close to a half ton more. With the GC in exchange for the weight, you get all of that extra slow speed capability that I am always a little surprised that people who drive in the mountains rather than driving to the mountains don't value more highly, especially given the huge advantage in the summer months getting to trailheads off the beaten path, etc.
post #453 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post
 
Quote:
Finally, is there anyone that is really terribly pleased with the traction control system on their vehicle? I haven't found a system that I found worth a damn. The stability control stuff can be useful, but traction control, especially in the Turbo Subaru implementation (hey, a wheel slipped a tiny bit! Lets dump open the wastegate and unspool the turbo while slamming on the brakes to make sure the vehicle stops!) just seems terrible.

I think it is a double edged sword. Use of four wheel independent braking to control differential torque bias based on slip and dynamics sensors cannot be matched with mechanical systems, IMO. However, there is no way to overcome the reality that all if this occurs by dumping torque, either at the brakes or engine. Best possible application (for average drivers in traffic) at speed, but extremely limited at best in conditions where torque is needed (very low traction, deeper snow, slow speed up steep hills, etc.)
 

 

I'm very happy with the traction control in my RWD car for exactly that reason.   It's great at speed, under power, climbing a steep hill, like on the tunnel approaches or passes.  It's pretty easy to lose the rear end of a RWD car in that situation, and the traction control prevents that long before the stability control needs to kick in.  

 

My truck doesn't have traction control and I wish it did.  I'll switch from RWD to 4WD much sooner than I think I would if it had traction control.  The traction control light is a nice indicator it's slick (can't always tell if that's ice, water, grippy snow, slick snow, etc).  I'll use the throttle in my car to test how slick the road is and adjust my speed accordingly if the traction control lights up.   Doing that in my truck would be too high risk, so I just switch it into 4WD when in doubt and pay the mpg penalty.  My next truck will have traction control for sure.

post #454 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Those "ice rink conditions" seem to be happening more and more in formerly solidly snow regions such as Minnesota and Colorado thanks to the wild freeze-thaw-freeze cycles that now seem to be the norm.  Even when solid cold and snow arrives it leaves a layer of ice  as the base coat when the ground it falls on isn't below 32 degrees when the snow starts falling.  This is contributing to the increased traffic jams and rising number of wrecks over previous years as much as more people driving with all season tires is..  It's just my theory, but it makes some sense to me..

I don't really see it here. Frankly, CDOT using MagChloride to turn perfectly good snow into liquid during a storm is the biggest risk I see because it creates unpredictable conditions. We've had some freezing rain cycles over the last week or so, but it's really freezing drizzle and you just don't get coastal black ice out of that.

Ice rinks are a manufactured environment that heavily favor the condition where using microscopic pores to suck a water layer off the ice will perform the best. In those same tests, Tire Rack claims that studs aren't that good because they just tend to cut through the ice and slide. Which one might expect on an ice rink, because that is exactly the condition an ice rink is designed for so that ice skates can cut into the surface and slide.

To win that test, you want compounds that pull surface water and provide some abrasive slide resistance, something that is meaningless in typical continental low humidity conditions where some fresh over icy (not ice, big difference) causes a lot of problems because the tire is trying to work on snow to icy contact, and that will slide compared to an open tread that can bite through the snow down to the hardpack layer. All of this ice focus costs slush and deep conditions performance.

Here is my tread at about 50% remaining tread depth dealing with one if those weird warm cycles we gave been having. This was the refreeze after a hardpack thaw coming home from skiing. The existing pack had softened to slush - about 45 degrees still in the evening and then frozen overnight to preserve a good picture.



And pure slush:



Note the solid center tread pack line in both pics - somebody please take a picture of a car tire generating that kind of lateral traction capability. Ice tires will plow in heavier slush due to lack of tread spacing. My tires, however, will pack it into the tread pattern, creating grip like this at slow speed and cleaning efficiently at higher speed. People regularly report that they don't like driving their car winter tires in slush, and while this makes sense based on the tire design it is a dubious tradeoff for an ice rink.

I think slush is fun, but it really isn't a meaningful winter driving condition when you seek more versatilty in your tire performance.
post #455 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I don't really see it here. Frankly, CDOT using MagChloride to turn perfectly good snow into liquid during a storm is the biggest risk I see because it creates unpredictable conditions. We've had some freezing rain cycles over the last week or so, but it's really freezing drizzle and you just don't get coastal black ice out of that.
 

Not to mention what that crap does splattering all over your windshield, then when the sun hits it total blindness!   Better have tons of good windshield washer solution on board, and if the sand comes up with it you'll ruin a set of wipers in an hour. 

post #456 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

Not to mention what that crap does splattering all over your windshield, then when the sun hits it total blindness!   Better have tons of good windshield washer solution on board, and if the sand comes up with it you'll ruin a set of wipers in an hour. 


I always say Canada's REAL national game is Conserve The Windshield Washer Fluid...  :D

post #457 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Mudder set ups sure look cooler.  But, you're not going to convince me or many here that they are better on snow and ice for anything but superior ground clearance.  

I always find video rather compelling 😈. I sure wish somebody had posted video like this 12 years ago when I was listening to all the online gibberish about what works well and what doesn't. Would have saved me a small fortune.

I agonized for years about finding a balance of slick 2D and variable 3D conditions believing as I had heard that there were huge tradeoffs. In many cases, there are, but they often aren't what they seem and hard rules apply more in trying to take a 2D tire into 3D conditions than a 3D tire into 2D conditions. In this regard, tires are remarkably like skis.

The next thing here that we need to address is "mudder" biggrin.gif. I don't have a mudder, that thing is three tons and has nowhere near the engine, clearance, or tire to be good in mud, not to mention we don't have any mud. However, I have turned this pig into a remarkable rock crawler and the springs it wears contain my design inputs. I'd agree that I would not want a mudder for a winter vehicle, but what makes a good winter vehicle in terms of suspension dynamics and other factors is a topic for a different thread. I'll give a bit more perspective on why my tires are so good in winter in a don't judge a book by its cover light.

Take a look at these pictures - they all tell a story:



Here is my tire on the left, the Interco Trxus MT in a 35x12.5x16 size with the Interco SSR on the right in a 35x10.5.x16 size (I had the SSR as a spare). You wouldn't catch me dead using SSR's for winter onroad, but to the unassuming eye, these are just "mudders", right?

Two things to note here. First look at how each tire contacts the snow. The SSR is a flatter tread, and it is going to create more contact on the outer lugs. So despite the Trxus having a 13.1" center section, its OEM stated tread width is only 9.2". That's the equivalent of a 235 metric car size, or something you might find on a perfomance wagon or sedan. However, that tread width is on a recommended 10" wide rim. Keeping the tire narrower on an 8" rim (common to do on tall tires for rock crawling for extra bead strength as well as wheel well clearance) pulls it up a little bit more, further focusing tread contact on the center lugs. Not surprisingly, this tire tracks remarkably straight in 2D conditions...it's quite easy to drive and reasonably quiet for a more aggressive tire.

That center lug section is 5" wide with a 3/4" continuous zig-zag gap for lateral traction, and are grooved for foward traction (stop and start). A 5" tread width as a primary contact section is like having a 125mm wide tire. With the gap in the middle, it's basically two rails 55mm wide working together. The amount of bite that this creates in even very icy hardpack is incredible, and the lateral control, which is the most difficult condition in winter driving, should be evident as long as any bite can be generated (everything but glare ice, which we don't get).



Here you can see the profile of the tread - when brand new the center section is raised by 1/8" further focusing tread contact on 2D surfaces to a very narrow section of tire. If I had unlimited tire funds, I would run this tire for about the 8K miles it takes to wear down this section, sell them, and buy new ones. The beauty here is that full tread is available for any 3D snow, you just have to be careful to lock the center diff if dealing with 2D to 3D conditions, such as lane changes during a storm, or those outer lugs will grab and pull in the 3D. It's a case of too much traction, and you have to slow down and not push max speed in winter conditions like many car drivers now do.



And to the additional compromises. This pic just shows driveway dust on the tread. Note the uneven coating on the outer lugs. That is some degree of future tire cupping even with religious rotations, and there is probably no way around it. At nearly 30K miles, my tires are a NVH delight - a heavy body on frame truck and seriously upgraded shocks help tame this, but I would not recommend this tire to anybody for just road use unless you don't mind replacing tires at 15K miles. It is also still made in a clamshell mold, which makes lateral balance a lifetime exercise, and even in smaller OEM sizes a 10 ply tire is seriously heavy and will not be kind to hubs and bearings not up to the task. Those are huge compromises - just not in the traction department, although I have siped the center lugs with a heated knife and grooved the outer lugs now that the factory siping has worn through.



And of course, the ability to air down. There is little you can do to increase traction once you have hit the limit of forward traction with whatever setup you have available besides airing down so that the tire increases contact patch and conforms to any available terrain. While I understand that people have been told to run high PSI on skinny tires to cut through the snow, that's just a hot mess when real traction is required and you want a tire that has been designed to run at low PSI if needed. Airing down radically increases traction at slow speeds, and while you wouldn't want to do this on the side of the highway anymore than you'd want to have to stop and put on chains, my tires are rated at over 3,600 lbs each at can be run at 20 PSI in the winter just fine, although I tend to run around 27 PSI to avoid excessive wear, relatively speaking.

That soft flexible compound also addresses very cold temps - it doesn't freeze up, at least not down to -30F where in my testing they had might as well be glue, and hitting all that road damage you can't see on I-70 in the dark is a non issue.

So when people say "I haven't found a reason to run more", and they are referring to car tires, I only see it the other way around: I haven't been willing to run less because I love winter driving and like to seek out the worst conditions possible (I also don't like having to snowblow a 150' long driveway before going anywhere) - I put up with some major compromises as a result. But I can name a number of really good winter all terrains that serve very, very well here and can and should be run year round, because truck tires are about terrain, and not seasons, once you get past OEM car type tire crap.

Now I get that car drivers believe that they have found the secret sauce to traction, and I think that's funny and worth making hay with on a gear forum, but teenage boys get laid and think they have found some secret, too, and that's even funnier so let's carry on. biggrin.gif
Edited by NayBreak - 1/13/15 at 3:54pm
post #458 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

I'm very happy with the traction control in my RWD car for exactly that reason.   It's great at speed, under power, climbing a steep hill, like on the tunnel approaches or passes.  It's pretty easy to lose the rear end of a RWD car in that situation, and the traction control prevents that long before the stability control needs to kick in.  

My truck doesn't have traction control and I wish it did.  I'll switch from RWD to 4WD much sooner than I think I would if it had traction control.  The traction control light is a nice indicator it's slick (can't always tell if that's ice, water, grippy snow, slick snow, etc).  I'll use the throttle in my car to test how slick the road is and adjust my speed accordingly if the traction control lights up.   Doing that in my truck would be too high risk, so I just switch it into 4WD when in doubt and pay the mpg penalty.  My next truck will have traction control for sure.

Totally agree. I want my kids and my wife driving a great VDC system on an AWD platform. People talk a lot of braking, but unless you are just being dumb, lateral traction is the most difficult area to "learn to drive" and while I don't like the fact that so many tires are punting lateral traction to the VDC system, I will grudgingly admit that it is more than up to the task. It's not as fun as 4WD, and it's not as don't get stuck as 4WD, and I sure as hell would not point it into any condition with the expectation of retaining forward capability, but it is a completely passive system that makes most people far safer drivers than they actually are.

Having an AWD truck mitigates the need quite a bit in terms of when to go 4WD vs. a RWD base platform, but all of us will have traction control on our next truck just like we'll have seatbelts and airbags...I just bemoan the neutering that unnecessarily comes with this on all but a few models. I'm sure that the next time I MTB I'll be just fine with my great balance and won't miss, for example, having low range gears just so I can have more cup holders and folding rows of seats because balance sure makes up for that. smile.gif
post #459 of 470
Cooper seems to be on a roll these days with its all terrain line. The A/T3 keeps winning tire tests despite its relatively plain appearance, and Cooper decided to basically create a winter biased version of that tire with the A/TW, meaning they siped the hell out of an all terrain and kept it targeted for year round use.

http://www.fourwheeler.com/product-reviews/1501-cooper-discoverer-atw-tire-test/

The highlight of this article, which admits little opportunity to do rigorous testing, is this quote:
Quote:
Cooper says that the A/TW far exceeds the standards set to achieve the severe winter rating for superior snow capability.

Which is interesting considering this:
Quote:
Was the A/TW only designed as a winter tire? Nope. Its heart is an all-terrain tire, and Cooper says it has the same overall sidewall and tread construction as the durable Discoverer A/T3 all-terrain tire.

Very smart on Cooper's part given the accolades for the advanced compound design of the A/T3 - you take a high traction tread design/compound and simply increase the winter focus. And that's the direction over time - advances in tread compounds that enable durability, stability, and traction across a wide temp range so you don't need a quiver of tires for basic road use.

Here is what Expedition a Portal had to say about the A/T3 in awarding it the test winner among 7 all terrain tires (the entire review article is excellent in explaining facets of tire traction):



This isn't a snow test, but it offers insights into how far compounds and tread designs have come where a tire this generic looking can provide such a wide range of performance. If the A/TW offers reasonable light summer season use for trailheads, etc. as well as relatively good tread life, then it is a tire quiver killer for sure.
post #460 of 470

@NayBreak I'm not buying that A/T tires are great winter tires.  They are OK, but far from great.  They just don't do well enough braking on ice.   Yeah, they can be good in 3d conditions, but they don't excel in 2d conditions.   It's the 2D conditions where I can be going upwards of 50-60 mph on slick roads.  That's where the consequences are the greatest, not getting stuck in deep snow.

 

Consumer Reports tested the Cooper Discover A/TW.  It's one of their five recommended A/T tires.  It doesn't perform any better in their winter tests than two of their other recommended tires, the Michelin LTX A/T 2 and the Hankook Dynapro AT-M.  Seems those probably could have the mountain snowflake symbol if they went through the testing too.

 

More importantly, none of the A/T tires, including the Cooper A/TW, come anywhere near the winter performance of the dedicated winter truck tires CR tested.  And... CR doesn't even test studded tires!  

 

All that just confirms what I've been thinking... My next winter truck tires will be four of these bad a$$ winter beasts:

 

http://www.nokiantires.com/winter-tires/nokian-hakkapeliitta-8-suv/

post #461 of 470

^^^There is something I agree with tball on.  I'll go further to say I don't believe that gnarly tread does well HOLDING on snow even though it leaves neat designs in it after rolling across it.  The snow is dust and breaks loose under the gnarly tread WAY more than mud and dirt do.  Snow and slush are a lot more like water than mud and dirt are.  The A/T tread doesn't do much better in snow than it does in deep water.  It will keep you from hydroplaning as long as there are some clear channels/grooves and not all Zs though.  I used to love the A/T option on my bigger SUV mostly because they look so damned cool.  However, I learned that a softer compound tire with more tiny cuts/siping creates better suction for snow and ice than super cool gnarly tread does because those impressions under the gnarly tread just crumble away to nothing between the tire and snow/ice surface on pavement when lateral or fore /aft force comes in to play.  They do awesome in dirt and mud though. 

post #462 of 470

Smallest rim size is 16" which doesn't comply with many older vehicles with stock wheels.

 

 

 

This is also false marketing, no SUV's to be seen in this video. :p

 

 

post #463 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

@NayBreak
 I'm not buying that A/T tires are great winter tires.  They are OK, but far from great.  They just don't do well enough braking on ice.   Yeah, they can be good in 3d conditions, but they don't excel in 2d conditions.   It's the 2D conditions where I can be going upwards of 50-60 mph on slick roads.  That's where the consequences are the greatest, not getting stuck in deep snow.

Consumer Reports tested the Cooper Discover A/TW.  It's one of their five recommended A/T tires.  It doesn't perform any better in their winter tests than two of their other recommended tires, the Michelin LTX A/T 2 and the Hankook Dynapro AT-M.  Seems those probably could have the mountain snowflake symbol if they went through the testing too.

More importantly, none of the A/T tires, including the Cooper A/TW, come anywhere near the winter performance of the dedicated winter truck tires CR tested.  And... CR doesn't even test studded tires!  

All that just confirms what I've been thinking... My next winter truck tires will be four of these bad a$$ winter beasts:



http://www.nokiantires.com/winter-tires/nokian-hakkapeliitta-8-suv/

So did you watch the vid I posted in our icy conditions? My Contour can't film CGI biggrin.gif.

I'm not pimping all terrains...and I don't run them. A good rock tire is much softer...softer than car winter tires (durometer). That's why you can wear out 21/32 tread depth in 30K miles. The tires I run can be purchased with a compound so soft that they aren't even DOT approved for road use.

If I was truly worried about ice, I would run a studded Duratrac. They need to make that tire in a 37. But I can count on one hand the number of times my tires have slid in 12 years outside of hammering the brakes to test conditions. Studless snows? I almost got t-boned by a pickup sailing through an intersection while driving carefully (Hakkas). Studded snows? I'd love to run them on the Cruiser as part of a quiver so I could swap out for a deep snow tire when needed, but that's a lot of money to throw at a solution looking for a problem.

I am not against snow tires. I just find their compromises unfavorable. I'd much rather stud something with true 3D capability than have 2D on steroids.
post #464 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

^^^There is something I agree with tball on.  I'll go further to say I don't believe that gnarly tread does well HOLDING on snow even though it leaves neat designs in it after rolling across it. 

That's the point. Holding on snow provides far less traction than being able to bite down into it. You only want to be able to on hold a surface that will not deflect.
Quote:
The snow is dust and breaks loose under the gnarly tread WAY more than mud and dirt do.  Snow and slush are a lot more like water than mud and dirt are.  The A/T tread doesn't do much better in snow than it does in deep water.  It will keep you from hydroplaning as long as there are some clear channels/grooves and not all Zs though.

Objection. Speculation.
Quote:
I used to love the A/T option on my bigger SUV mostly because they look so damned cool.  However, I learned that a softer compound tire with more tiny cuts/siping creates better suction for snow and ice than super cool gnarly tread does because those impressions under the gnarly tread just crumble away to nothing between the tire and snow/ice surface on pavement when lateral or fore /aft force comes in to play.  They do awesome in dirt and mud though. 

I have posted plenty of vid in this thread with a camera that is pointed directly at the tire that contradicts everything you just said. wink.gif

I wonder where exactly you guys get this perspective when you've never tested this kind of tire, nor have any of your reference sources?
post #465 of 470
Bad time to dredge up old fights with a big storm looming and ski planning after tax prepping as priorities, but then, I'm tire shopping biggrin.gif. I thought you guys might find this interesting. Canadian tire had independent tire tests done in Sweden on car, performance SUV, and light truck tires, the latter being those "all terrains" you guys are sure can't perform in winter.

The tire I am looking at is the BFG AT KO2, which is a tire I hated in its previous iteration. The ice tests were done on an ice lake. This tire scored a perfect 100 in the ice test and will retain very good deep snow/slush performance. Off this link, you can watch "how we test" and then watch the light truck video. Then watch the SUV/car video to see these are winter tires being tested for all around performance - it's not just comparing all terrain tires to each other in the light truck test.

It's very advertisement oriented, but on the site if you look up a tire you can see the numerical test scores. This is exactly why dedicated winter tires are losing sales traction. In EpicSkiTireFight terms, an "all season" offroad tire hit a perfect score on ice. Go figure that there is more to tires than the seasonal designation.

http://tires.canadiantire.ca/en/resources/tire-testing/?cid=VU_Tires_TireTesting_en
post #466 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

Bad time to dredge up old fights with a big storm looming and ski planning after tax prepping as priorities, but then, I'm tire shopping biggrin.gif. I thought you guys might find this interesting. Canadian tire had independent tire tests done in Sweden on car, performance SUV, and light truck tires, the latter being those "all terrains" you guys are sure can't perform in winter.

The tire I am looking at is the BFG AT KO2, which is a tire I hated in its previous iteration. The ice tests were done on an ice lake. This tire scored a perfect 100 in the ice test and will retain very good deep snow/slush performance. Off this link, you can watch "how we test" and then watch the light truck video. Then watch the SUV/car video to see these are winter tires being tested for all around performance - it's not just comparing all terrain tires to each other in the light truck test.

It's very advertisement oriented, but on the site if you look up a tire you can see the numerical test scores. This is exactly why dedicated winter tires are losing sales traction. In EpicSkiTireFight terms, an "all season" offroad tire hit a perfect score on ice. Go figure that there is more to tires than the seasonal designation.

http://tires.canadiantire.ca/en/resources/tire-testing/?cid=VU_Tires_TireTesting_en


Ah, but the Micheline Latitude X-ice I2 scored a 100, "Best in this category".  Someone please provide a link to the data.

post #467 of 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post


Ah, but the Micheline Latitude X-ice I2 scored a 100, "Best in this category".  Someone please provide a link to the data.

Yea, you'd expect that, especially since BFG is a Michelin brand. The point here is that the this tire will be monstrously better in deep stuff than car winter tires, yet still is best in class on ice. That is ideal for a truck - what you give up is some fuel economy and comfort, which trucks do anyway, and was my whole point here that light truck tires are not car all season tires. They can be as good or better than so called dedicated winter tires while running them four seasons with a good tread life warranty, including severe duty offroad use.

Anyway, if you search on a tested product on the Canadian Tires website...which is a weird website...you can see test result scores: For the BFG AT KO2:



I'd like to see more varied snow testing - a tire like this doesn't get super high marks because they are testing higher speed cornering, cones, etc. I could care less about that. If I wanted to race in the snow, I'd buy an Audi and move to Steamboat. I want to know how it handles 24"+, heavy slush, and icy hardpack. I'm good on the deep stuff and a bit shocked at how good the ice score is, but the deep performance doesn't get scored.

I couldn't find a comparative chart, which would be nice, but presumably there is one out there for what looks like a comprehensive third party executed test.
post #468 of 470
Here is the Latitude X-Ice I2. Now this is in the SUV class of this test, so basically a car type tire for lighter duty 4x4/AWD at least as I see it. Note that wet traction is worse than the BFG. That's what you get by closing up the lugs, and it will cross over to slush etc. Driving fast in the snow on a groomed trail will be better, though. I'm going to be on 37's, so that isn't going to happen on any tire biggrin.gif

post #469 of 470

Yes it is a very frustrating site.  As the BFG is a "light truck tire" and the other Micheline is an "SUV" tire, one wonders if they are being awarded points on the same standard. In other words, does the best light truck tire in any category get a 100 score, and the others rated according to it.  Does a 100 in the SUV category have the same stopping distance as a 100 in the light truck category ? 

Inquiring minds want to know.  Why can't they just give us the data?


Edited by Ghost - 5/1/15 at 6:44am
post #470 of 470
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Yes it is a very frustrating sight.  As the BFG is a "light truck tire" and the other Micheline is an "SUV" tire, one wonders if they are being awarded points on the same standard. In other words, does the best light truck tire in any category get a 100 score, and the others rated according to it.  Does a 100 in the SUV category have the same stopping distance as a 100 in the light truck category ? 

Inquiring minds want to know.  Why can't they just give us the data?

One thing I just found out is that tread wear ratings are like ski boot flex ratings, there is no standard and the numbers are designated by the individual manufacturers. I was just told that one "performance" tire had a TWR of 160 then it was changed to 200 so it was legal in some SCCA2 classes. Same tire, just a different number on it. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Automotive/Car Talk
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › Winter Tire Sales Are Losing Traction