Winter Tire Review Thread (Please contribute)

[TRev]

Originally Posted by FRyeS

In your opinion is the snow/ice capabilities of the other two comparable? which models in the generals / continentals?

They are very close (I ice raced them and the track is a combination of snow/ice) though the Generals seem to wear better and are less expensive. The models are Continental ExtremeWinterContact and General Altimax Arctic.

None of these snow tires including the Blizzak will be quite as good in the dry as the stock tires but they aren't too bad. You would need to get into more of a performance/winter snow but then you will lose some ice/snow capability.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Pavel

Size: 225/40/18
Price: $180 each shipped
Type of a tire: Winter Performance


Excellent winter tire for places that don't get a lot of snow, but get cold and get a lot of rain (e.g. Pennsylvania, New York). It is a winter performance, not a snow tire. It provides really good traction in cold dry and wet conditions, but is only acceptable in snowy conditions.


Dry warm conditions: Better handling than stock tires. A bit more road noise. But less fun to drive than stock.

Dry cold conditions: Much better handling than stock. Maintain traction in situations where stock tires were spinning (e.g. merging into a busy road from a complete stand still)

Wet conditions: Much, much better than stock in starting, handling, and breaking. Provide much more confidence in driving.

Snow: Breaking and driving was fine. Starting was an issue. You really had to be very careful not to spin wheels when starting. I drove around the town in the middle of the snow storm and i didn't have any major problems, but it was not an easy ride. Once you got going, you were fine, but starting from a traffic light, especially up hill, was difficult, but doable.

For bare road winter handling with acceptable snow and ice grip these tires cannot be beat. My Jaguar XF did a round trip to California last September with worn out Sottozeros and they performed like high performance all seasons regardless of how warm it got. A set of these is going on my BRZ but bear in mind I am an expert winter driver.

For less than expert winter drivers the Continental Extremewintercontacts cannot be surpassed as the best all round winter tire currently available.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....eWinterContact

Nokian makes good winter tires as do Michelin and Dunlop. Bridgestone makes total cr@p winter tires. They now own a big chunk of Nokian and those tires are not as good as they used to be.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by TRev

They are very close (I ice raced them and the track is a combination of snow/ice) though the Generals seem to wear better and are less expensive. The models are Continental ExtremeWinterContact and General Altimax Arctic.

None of these snow tires including the Blizzak will be quite as good in the dry as the stock tires but they aren't too bad. You would need to get into more of a performance/winter snow but then you will lose some ice/snow capability.

General is owned 100% by Continental. These are very probably the exact same tire except for the tread pattern which is out of date. This tread pattern is from the 80's Pirelli P210 which has been superceded by just about every manufacturer using a variation of the Pirelli 210A Asimmetrico tread design. Nokian and Goodyear use this my metrical design but everybody else has gone symmetric like Pirelli and Continental. Better snow grip with Asimmetrico, better slush grip with directional.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by TRev

Hopefully I can help you with the difference between oversteer (break traction in the rear first...typical of RWD) and understeer (break traction in the front first...typical of FWD). Pickup trucks (RWD) oversteer and adding weight helps reduce the oversteer. The same is true for the twins. They oversteer from the factory and this is magnified in slippery conditions. Adding weight in the rear increases traction and helps to reduce oversteer. The additional traction is not only good for acceleration. Another example would be lane changes on the freeway in slushy conditions. With the weight, the car is less prone to fish tail when making a lane change.

150lbs will not shift the amount of weight from the front of the twins significantly enough to cause issues with turning or braking. The springs are stout enough to prevent that. With excessive weight or soft springs, yes, this could be an issue.

I didn't melt the lead out of the crash beam. I just swapped crash beams to a factory one for the summer.

AWD is only less safe because it inspires driver over confidence.

Your generalizations of Americans makes me

Oh thanks. Your grasp of chassis dynamics is so excellent I learned so much.

[TRev]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Oh thanks. Your grasp of chassis dynamics is so excellent I learned so much.

I am sure you did considering you don't even know the correct meaning of oversteer and understeer Mr self proclaimed winter driving expert

[dem00n]

People are adding weight to the back and think it helps? My god i feel like were trying to dyno the differences between stock and aftermarket flywheels.



The Continentals were alright, they wear down really fast, i used them for 5 months and they MIGHT last this winter again. Will see.

[TRev]

Originally Posted by dem00n

People are adding weight to the back and think it helps? My god i feel like were trying to dyno the differences between stock and aftermarket flywheels.

Does an SUV have more weight on the rear axle than a pickup? Which one gets around better in the winter?

While our weight distribution is not to the extreme of a pickup, 150lbs certainly makes a noticeable difference in acceleration with very negligible effects on braking and handling.

[dem00n]

Originally Posted by TRev

Does an SUV have more weight on the rear axle than a pickup? Which one gets around better in the winter?

While our weight distribution is not to the extreme of a pickup, 150lbs certainly makes a noticeable difference in acceleration with very negligible effects on braking and handling.

Depends who's driving.

When it comes to snow its the slippage that causes us to lose control, thus the tire. The added weight wont' make any difference. I take this from experience, and trial and error. Not myths on the internet.

[TRev]

Originally Posted by dem00n

Depends who's driving.

When it comes to snow its the slippage that causes us to lose control, thus the tire. The added weight wont' make any difference. I take this from experience, and trial and error. Not myths on the internet.

Weight over the axle makes all the difference in acceleration which is why a FWD car will smoke a RWD car taking off from a stop with comparable drivers in slippery conditions whether it is snow or rain. If what you are saying is true, RWD drag cars wouldn't have suspensions that shift their weight to the rear axle and race cars wouldn't have aero to increase down force.

[The359]

I'm looking at winter tires, and I notice Bridgestone has come out with a new Blizzak, the LM-32, it looks like a replacement for the LM-60. It has a higher speed rating than the LM-60s (V vs H), so I imagine they're even grippier in the dry.

Anyone have any information on these new Blizzaks yet?

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by TRev

I am sure you did considering you don't even know the correct meaning of oversteer and understeer Mr self proclaimed winter driving expert

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer_and_oversteer"]Understeer and oversteer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[TRev]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Understeer and oversteer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Suberman

Yes, pick up trucks are understeering pigs which is why loading them up never gets them to oversteer.

Pickup trucks typically oversteer in the snow or wet which is what this thread is about. Front tires get loaded...rear tires break loose.

[Soulman03]

@TRev @Suberman

Where µ is the coefficient of friction (irrelevant if we’re comparing identical cars with the exception of added weight in the rear), a is the longitudinal distance from the center of gravity (CG) to the front axle, b is the longitudinal distance from the CG to the rear axle, m is the mass of the car, g is the acceleration due to gravity, h is the vertical distance from the ground to the CG, l is the distance from the front axle to the rear, Rr is the rolling resistance of the tires. In our discussion, the only difference will be the weight distribution as well as the overall mass of the car.

Acceleration: http://cars.about.com/od/scion/fr/20...r-S-Review.htm 53% front (a/l = 0.53), 47% rear (b/l = 0.47) weight distribution, m*g (stock) = 2800 lbs, m*g (added) = 2950 lbs, I’ll assume the CG remains at the same height although that’s probably not entirely true it shouldn’t be affected too much. The equation gets much simpler, as shown. Stock: Wf = 2800*0.53 = 1484, Wr = 2800*0.47 = 1316. New: Wf = 1484, Wr = 1466 (not perfect, I know, but close enough for argument’s sake) > a/l = 50.3%, b/l = 49.7%. So the weight in the front hasn’t changed (a/l) so your maximum tractive effort (maximum acceleration) hasn’t changed.

Steering: The equation that matters is the understeer gradient. The cornering stiffness will not change, nor will the weight in the front. More weight in the rear will cause this gradient to become more negative, meaning the car will oversteer more.

Note: This is not perfect and the assumptions for maximum tractive effort can be disputed; however, the math for the understeer gradient is simple and a car with more weight in the rear than previous will oversteer more heavily than previous.

Thought I'd sum up the engineering behind your discussion.

[WRB-DZA-BRZ]

My winter setup:
205/60-16 Firestone Winterforce (non-studded) on WRX wheels.



This setup got me through a week of very icy weather last year that I would have had zero chance of getting through with the stock tires. I have yet to take this setup through very thick snow however, and since the tires are taller than stock, it leaves no room for cables/chains.