Hercules vs Falken vs Kumho

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

Actually, the super-sticky low-life racing tires are slicks, and tend to do poorly under wet conditions. The best overall wet traction comes from "conventional" (and not especially expensive) three season tires like the Dunlop SP Sport 01, which are excellent in the wet, excellent in the dry, and which have reasonable tread life. Nothing exotic, just not compromised for the specific purpose of making the tire mildly snow-capable.

---

OK racing tires might have been an exaggeration, although most autocross-style tires are grooved and street-legal. The SP Sport 01 seems to come in limited sizes and doesn't seem like a choice that most people would make for a family sedan like a Toyota Camry.

Quote:

---

I think you previously have referred to the tires that are layered, like the Bridgestone Blizzaks, so that as they wear, they transform from winter tires to all season tires. The striped-not-layered treads, such as in the Michelin Pilot A/S and the Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge, are a new phenomenon, but, OTOH, not a new phenomenon in that they are just another point on the spectrum of compromise. One could argue that they are not "really" all season tires, because half of the tread does not have an all season tread compound, but then it becomes a matter of semantics.

Quote:

---

There are some tires that don't make as much a compromise as you imply there has to be (the RE960AS for example) yet seem to perform acceptably in moderate winter conditions. The folks at the tire manufacturers seem to be working hard devloping new technologies that make an all-season tire acceptable.

---

There are a lot of dollars to be made there, as P.T. Barnum proved.

---

First - I was trying to describe a tire with multiple "zones" of different compounds. It not really a gimmick but a creative and effective solution to meet a demand. There are a lot of things that can be done to improve braking, but you don't see family cars with big 'ol cross-drilled and slotted Brembos. People want the offerings now available in all-seasons, and nobody is a sucker for carefully selecting a tire that suits their needs. There are several all-season tires that do outperform comparable 3-seasons in wet traction while also having the longer treadlife and smoother ride that most people are looking for. In most cases, these 3-season tires cost more and the large majority of what's out there doesn't have the longevity of most all-season tires.

In the end why worry about how a tire is labelled/marketed rather than results. I've used 3-season tires before (Dunlop SP Sport 9000, Pirelli P6000, and Yoko AVS ES100). They're OK but frankly my choices for tires meeting my needs (in a particular size) were limited and the 3-seasons were better choices. Right now one particular all-season tire meets my needs for performance, cost, and longevity.

 

[Auto-Union]

The most basic issue is do you want more grippy rubber or more tread depth at a given point in a tire's life. Driving 30k a year, I'd need a new set of tires every year, so I could just do that. What about other people who drive like 15k a year? Winter #2 could be tough with tires that have a treadwear of say 220. All the grippy rubber in the world does ZERO good if there is not any tread. I know a guy who buys one set of snow tires every year for his Porsche! that's it- ONE set!!! Another extreme is my mechanic who drives on bald track tires all winter. Usually, I keep several sets, all are a/s. A nice new set for Dec-Feb, an intermediate set and a set of summer "smokers" that I can abuse. What I don't understand is people who find they need new tires in..March. How does that happen? By the following Jan, they are mostly shot??? Using new tires Dec-Feb I can get 2 good winters out of them, then they become intermediates and smokers. Whatever. Like I said, come obver with your 3-seasons or whatever with 12-15k on them and we'll have at it in light snow, I'll use my all-seasons with 12k on them....but I should get a handicap since all-seasons are so inferior...right?

 

[Auto-Union]

Still waiting for the 3-seasons tires with wear over 500.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

There are a lot of things that can be done to improve braking, but you don't see family cars with big 'ol cross-drilled and slotted Brembos.

---

Interesting example you chose there. Cross-drilling weakens the integrity of a brake rotor as well as reducing its thermal mass so that the rotor heats up faster (not a desired result). It generally is conceded these days that cross-drilling is for cosmetic purposes, not function. (Brembo does differ from most others in that its "cross-drilled" rotors are nor drilled at all, but the holes are cast in the original die, so Brembos (and DBAs from Australia) at least do not have the structural integrity issues that after-drilled rotors have.)

Quote:

---

There are several all-season tires that do outperform comparable 3-seasons in wet traction while also having the longer treadlife and smoother ride that most people are looking for.

---

Here we disagree, and the disagreement centers on the word "comparable." If you take a competent three season tire like the Pirelli P Zero Nero and you change its tread compound to one that has some snow traction, you get an all season tire like the Pirelli P Zero Nero M&S. And you get significantly reduced wet traction. Tires are a set of compromises, and when you add something in one direction, you simply have to subtract something in another; there is no free lunch. In the case of adding snow traction, it is wet traction that has to be subtracted, because the very quality you are adding, the ability to adhere to moisture (snow), is a specific disadvantage to traction on wet surfaces (where the tire should interact with the surface itself and not the water on the surface). A price also is exacted in various aspects of a tire's performance to make it last longer, though in that case, it tends to be a little taken from here (e.g, traction), a little taken from there (e.g., ride harshness), and a little from somewhere else (e.g., noise), rather than mostly all from one place, as in the case of switching from a water-shedding to a hydrophilic tread compound.

Now, if you take a .very good all season tire, it .may be able to outperform a .mediocre three season tire in wet traction, because there are mediocre three season tires just as there are mediocre all season tires. But at the "comparable" level, apples to apples and oranges to oranges, a three season tire always will have better wet traction than a "comparable" all season tire.

Quote:

---

In most cases, these 3-season tires cost more and the large majority of what's out there doesn't have the longevity of most all-season tires.

---

The Pirelli P Zero Nero I referred to above .does cost more than the "comparable" P Zero Nero M&S size for size; that, despite the M&S model having both the "extra" season and longer treadwear. What conclusion do you take from that?

Quote:

---

In the end why worry about how a tire is labelled/marketed rather than results.

---

Agreed. As I noted in an earlier post, there are Wynton Marsalis tires that just as easily be called either three season tires or all season tires. (Wynton Marsalis, in case you are unaware of him, is a musician who is equally at home in the jazz and classical genres.) How the tire is labeled is up to the tire manufacturer. However, the labeling is also a form of communication to the purchaser, and an "all season" label generally is the manufacturer's signal that wet traction has been compromised on the altar of snow traction.

 

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

The Pirelli P Zero Nero I referred to above .does cost more than the "comparable" P Zero Nero M&S size for size; that, despite the M&S model having both the "extra" season and longer treadwear. What conclusion do you take from that?

---

That's it's a matter of marketing and possibly economies of scale. The market for all-seasons is larger and the costs of development can be spread across more product. Why might a larger tire of the same model (for family sedans) cost less than a smaller lower-profile size (for higher performance cars) even though the rubber and materials are likely the same? In business - equating final price with actual production costs is very hard to do.

In addition, the 3-season version is only available starting at 17" sizes. This is a very unique case of a tire that was turned into an "all season" version with the same tread pattern. The vast majority of comparisons aren't going to be of apples to apples. The closest I can think of is the Michelin Pilot Sport and the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S, and even that's limited because the Pilot Sport also starts at 17" sizes.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the end why worry about how a tire is labelled/marketed rather than results.

---

Agreed. As I noted in an earlier post, there are Wynton Marsalis tires that just as easily be called either three season tires or all season tires. (Wynton Marsalis, in case you are unaware of him, is a musician who is equally at home in the jazz and classical genres.) How the tire is labeled is up to the tire manufacturer. However, the labeling is also a form of communication to the purchaser, and an "all season" label generally is the manufacturer's signal that wet traction has been compromised on the altar of snow traction.

---

Again - not every all-season is going to give as poor wet traction as you want to get across. "In general" is a lousy way to think when the consumer is informed and willing to do research that goes beyond mere labels. Most people aren't thinking, "I've got to choose between this all season and this 3-season tire because it's an apples to apples comparison". Most people look for size, cost, and tread life - and compare tires around those parameters. For whatever reason, the US market had very few choices in moderate-high to high treadwear 3-season tires, and fewer choices of 3-season tires in the common family sedan/minivan sizes.

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"conventional" (and not especially expensive) three season tires like the Dunlop SP Sport 01, which are excellent in the wet, excellent in the dry, and which have reasonable tread life.

---

The SP Sport 01 seems to come in limited sizes and doesn't seem like a choice that most people would make for a family sedan like a Toyota Camry.

---

Actually, the SP Sport 01 comes in a wide range of sizes. SP Sport 01 size range. For some reason, Goodyear, the parent of Dunlop, has chosen not to promote the tire, which is made in Germany and was developed in conjunction with Audi and BMW as an OEM tire for the Audi S4 and BMW 745i, in North America as an aftermarket replacement tire; and, without advertising "push," many North American Dunlop retailers have chosen not to stock the tire, or to stock it only in a limited range of sizes.

Quote:

---

There are some tires that don't make as much a compromise as you imply there has to be (the RE960AS for example) yet seem to perform acceptably in moderate winter conditions. The folks at the tire manufacturers seem to be working hard devloping new technologies that make an all-season tire acceptable.

---

There is an interesting article in the December 2006 issue of Road & Track magazine about alternate tires for the Mazda MX-5 (Miata). The Bridgestone RE960AS is one of the alternatives tested, and does respectably well in comparison to the OEM MX-5 tires. But the clear (by a substantial margin) winner in the wet braking category among the tires tested was the Pirelli P Zero Nero, a three season tire.

 

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"conventional" (and not especially expensive) three season tires like the Dunlop SP Sport 01, which are excellent in the wet, excellent in the dry, and which have reasonable tread life.

---

The SP Sport 01 seems to come in limited sizes and doesn't seem like a choice that most people would make for a family sedan like a Toyota Camry.

---

Actually, the SP Sport 01 comes in a wide range of sizes. SP Sport 01 size range. For some reason, Goodyear, the parent of Dunlop, has chosen not to promote the tire, which is made in Germany and was developed in conjunction with Audi and BMW as an OEM tire for the Audi S4 and BMW 745i, in North America as an aftermarket replacement tire; and, without advertising "push," many North American Dunlop retailers have chosen not to stock the tire, or to stock it only in a limited range of sizes.

---

And availability is the key. It looks like the NA distributor only has this tire in 185/60R15 and 11 rather exotic sizes:

http://www.dunloptire.com/dunlop/display_tire.jsp?prodline=SP+Sport+01&mrktarea=Performance

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There are some tires that don't make as much a compromise as you imply there has to be (the RE960AS for example) yet seem to perform acceptably in moderate winter conditions. The folks at the tire manufacturers seem to be working hard devloping new technologies that make an all-season tire acceptable.

---

There is an interesting article in the December 2006 issue of Road & Track magazine about alternate tires for the Mazda MX-5 (Miata). The Bridgestone RE960AS is one of the alternatives tested, and does respectably well in comparison to the OEM MX-5 tires. But the clear (by a substantial margin) winner in the wet braking category among the tires tested was the Pirelli P Zero Nero, a three season tire.

---

Again - the P Zero Nero is only available in 17"+ sizes, has a relatively low tread life. Price may also be an issue depending on the particular size. Life is full of compromises, and some people might be willing to settle for a little less wet traction if they can get lower cost and longer wear. And better wet traction isn't always a given comparing 3-season tires to all-seasons of the same price and longevity.

 

[gedcruise]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You missed a lil something:

The very great majority of highways and city streets are crowned (higher in the center, lower at the sides) so that water will run away from the driving lanes and into the gutters. Except for the time that rain is actually falling, there is no standing water on the pavement, and within seconds after the rain has stopped, the pavement, though remaining wet, is clear of flowing water. (Moreover, even while the rain is falling, the rear tires of a moving vehicle are usually running on merely wet pavement where the front tires already have displaced all of the water that can be displaced.)

As discussed in an earlier post, tread depth is totally irrelevant except in cases where water is free to be displaced; on merely wet surfaces, where there is no standing or flowing water, tread depth gains you nothing whatsoever.

On wet surfaces where there is no standing or flowing water, a typical three-season tire will exhibit a higher coefficient of friction with the pavement surface than an all-season tire will, and this is true regardless one of the tires has great tread depth and the other has little tread depth.

---

I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but it really isn't like that in practice on this one. There is always plenty of standing water after a heavy rain. Also, one might actually have to drive while rain is falling, and it does not always run off as you have postulated. Tread depth determines rain performance. Nothing else. A half worm three season tire will be inferior to a 20% worn four season tire in the rain. End of story.

 

[gedcruise]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You missed a lil something:

The very great majority of highways and city streets are crowned (higher in the center, lower at the sides) so that water will run away from the driving lanes and into the gutters. Except for the time that rain is actually falling, there is no standing water on the pavement, and within seconds after the rain has stopped, the pavement, though remaining wet, is clear of flowing water. (Moreover, even while the rain is falling, the rear tires of a moving vehicle are usually running on merely wet pavement where the front tires already have displaced all of the water that can be displaced.)

As discussed in an earlier post, tread depth is totally irrelevant except in cases where water is free to be displaced; on merely wet surfaces, where there is no standing or flowing water, tread depth gains you nothing whatsoever.

On wet surfaces where there is no standing or flowing water, a typical three-season tire will exhibit a higher coefficient of friction with the pavement surface than an all-season tire will, and this is true regardless one of the tires has great tread depth and the other has little tread depth.

---

I'm not sure what planet you're living on, but it really isn't like that in practice on this one. There is always plenty of standing water after a heavy rain. Also, one might actually have to drive while rain is falling, and it does not always run off as you have postulated. Tread depth determines rain performance. Nothing else. A half worm three season tire will be inferior to a 20% worn four season tire in the rain. End of story.

---

I have been thinking about your posts in this thread, and I have come to realize that you were right.
Now, for standing water, tread depth, not compound, does matter. For snow, tread depth is imporatant.
However, for water coated surfaces, compound matters a great deal. I am reflecting on many exciting drifts, at what I thought were moderate speeds, as well as many locked wheels in what I thought was moderate braking.
So, you are right. A three season tire with a set of winter tires would be the best combination. Cost doesn't really matter, when you consider the financial consequences of even a minor shunt.

 

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

I have been thinking about your posts in this thread, and I have come to realize that you were right.
Now, for standing water, tread depth, not compound, does matter. For snow, tread depth is imporatant.
However, for water coated surfaces, compound matters a great deal. I am reflecting on many exciting drifts, at what I thought were moderate speeds, as well as many locked wheels in what I thought was moderate braking.
So, you are right. A three season tire with a set of winter tires would be the best combination. Cost doesn't really matter, when you consider the financial consequences of even a minor shunt.

---

Sure the compound is extremely important. However - there have been advances in the uses of multiple compounds across the width of all-season tires. Many of the newer all-season tires bite exceptionally well on wet pavement. Siping helps with wet traction, but most 3-season tires don't utilize it because they're optimized for dry conditions. I recall some who used dedicated (and heavily siped) winter tires during wet spring/summer conditions reported that they handle/stop admirably, despite a compound that theoretically reduces pure wet traction.

I don't know where anyone lives where the highways and streets are perfectly crowned. I live in a hilly area, and we can see storm runoff and impromptu streams on our streets hours after the rain has stopped. There's a particular spot on one street that's known for a large puddle of standing water every time it rains. Younger drivers will intentionally veer a couple of feet to the right just to spray water like on the "Dukes of Hazzard". Sometimes the roads are poorly maintained, and water still forms in puddles despite the original road design. I remember hydroplaning at 55 MPH in my '89 Integra on 3-season Dunlop D60M2's. The fast lane on I-880 near between San Jose and Oakland has several locations where puddles would form. The tires had fairly thin logitudinal grooves and chevron-shaped channelling grooves. However - the chevron-shaped grooves ended halfway on the outer tread block, supposedly to help with dry handling. The consequence was that they would hydroplane rather easily because the water wasn't evacuated out the sides like similar directional tires that did have grooves all the way to the edge.

 

[RedDart]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Now you are taking up Auto Union's nonsense. Not all three season tires are "soft" and not all all season tires are hard. Generally, because the target market for an all season tire is the group of people who would rather save money by using one set of tires year round rather than having two sets of tires (each of which sets will have correspondingly lower wear, incidentally), to appeal to those buyers, the tire manufacturers also make the all season tires long-wearing; but there is no necessary correlation between all season tires and hard compound tires.

The distinction between all season tires and three season tires is, rather, in whether the tread compound -- whether hard or soft -- is designed to shed water (so that the contact patch between the tire and the pavement is as dry as possible for maximum friction), as in three season tires, or whether the tire is designed to adhere to water for snow traction, which means, of course, that in in wet pavement conditions water also adheres to the tread, leaving a film of water between the tread and the pavement that impairs braking performance.

---

Much like there's no hard and fast rule that hardness corresponds to all-season/summer tires, I don't think that there's any hard and fast rule that an all-season tire has to have worse wet traction than a corresponding three-season tire in the same size. Technology is a wonderful thing. Tire manufacturers are making tires with multiple tread compounds in the same tire, including ones that increase wet traction as the tread (and grooves) wear. They might have "microtexturing" on the shoulders but not the center of the tread. There are all sorts of things that tire manufacturers are doing these days to improve the wet traction performance of all-season tires.

If you want to talk Europe, automakers are allowed to mandate that only certain replacement parts are used (and specified by brand and model), including tires. My manager (from Europe) tells me that he wouldn't be able to register his car if the tires/wheels don't match a manufacturer's approved list.

---

y_p_w: You state that tire manufacturers are making all season tires with multiple tread compounds (and patterns?) on the same tire including ones that increase traction as the tread wears. Can you tell us what tire(s) you are referring to? Is the Yokohama TRZ an example? Futher info would be appreciated as I will be in the market for such a tire this spring.

 

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

y_p_w: You state that tire manufacturers are making all season tires with multiple tread compounds (and patterns?) on the same tire including ones that increase traction as the tread wears. Can you tell us what tire(s) you are referring to? Is the Yokohama TRZ an example? Futher info would be appreciated as I will be in the market for such a tire this spring.

---

I guess the hottest selling tire on the market now is the Goodyear Assurance TripleTred. This seems to be a similar to the Yoko TRZ (I known the Yoko is asymetric). It wouldn't surprise me if they had different compounds in their three "zones". I also heard something about pumice in the tread to help with ice traction. My older Dunlop SP Sport 9000 was advertised as having a carbon black ring down the center of the tire (to reduce static shock). I don't think it's that difficult to use different rubber compounds on the same tire. A lot of tires have visibly different (almost plasticky) rubber on the sidewalls compared to the treads. I don't know if Goodyear of Yokohama are definitely using separate tread compounds in different zones of their tires, or it's purely tread design, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Several tire makers have incorporated layers of different (softer?) tread compounds that manufacturers claim help traction as it wears and inherently hardens with age. Bridgestone calls their "dual-layer". I've seen some diagrams that suggest that more of the softer layer is exposed as the tire wears. Motorcycles have been using multiple-compound tires for years to provide longer wear down the center and better grip along the shoulders. Several of my Michelin bicycle tires had a separately colored, harder rubber compound in the center of the tire and a softer one along the edge. Here's a bicycle tire company that claims to use three differrent compounds: one as a base layer, and two different ones along the center and shoulders.

http://schwalbetires.com/rubber_compounding_page

I really like the Bridgestone RE960AS on my WRX. It's done pretty well for me, although it doesn't seem to have the steering respone that my Pirelli P Zero Nero M+S used to have.

 

[oilnoob425]

Quote:

---

On wet surfaces where there is no standing or flowing water, a typical three-season tire will exhibit a higher coefficient of friction with the pavement surface than an all-season tire will, and this is true regardless one of the tires has great tread depth and the other has little tread depth.

---

NOT SO FAST ! you totally forgot about compound and temperature relationship. they both depend on one another. if it's wet or dry and cold, all season tire will have a better traction due to it's softer compound than three season tire.

 

[oilnoob425]

Quote:

---

and if you want good "cold and wet" braking, you do not want a high treadlife tire.

---

so I would assume by high treadlife tire you mean all season tire. the main question is what kind of tire do I want for "cold and wet", then???

 

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

On wet surfaces where there is no standing or flowing water, a typical three-season tire will exhibit a higher coefficient of friction with the pavement surface than an all-season tire will, and this is true regardless one of the tires has great tread depth and the other has little tread depth.

---

NOT SO FAST ! you totally forgot about compound and temperature relationship. they both depend on one another. if it's wet or dry and cold, all season tire will have a better traction due to it's softer compound than three season tire.

---

There's also the effect of siping on wet traction at all temperatures. Also - I mentioned the benefits of a second rubber compound that gets exposed as the tire wears. Tires age and the rubber gets harder. A softer (possibly not all-season) compound near the end of treadlife will help with wet weather grip. At that point, there's probably not enough tread depth for the tire to be usable in light snow, so it could be a soft compound designed to shed water.

Bridgestone says they use their "multicell" compound in several of their Blizzak winter tires that eventually wear down into an all-season compound when the tread depth is too low for winter use.

 

[oilnoob425]

Quote:

---

Bridgestone says they use their "multicell" compound in several of their Blizzak winter tires that eventually wear down into an all-season compound when the tread depth is too low for winter use.

---

wrong on both accounts.

1. bridgestone use multicell compound in all kinds of tires not just snows. like potenza. and so does firestone which they own now.

2. when blizzak's special compound wears down it turns into regular winter tire compound, and not to all seson rubber like many people think. it's a common misconception that i heard from many people and here is the prove that it's wrong: NOTE: The first 55% of the Blizzak REVO 1 tread depth features the Tube Multicell Compound while the remaining 45% features a standard winter tire compound.

taken from here:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Blizzak+REVO+1

 

[gedcruise]

Considering some of the above posts, it may simply be a matter of my tires gripping like iron, since that's how they are wearing. They are Cooper Trendsetters, and were brand new when I bought the car at about 64K. At the time, I wondered how suitable they would be.
While they are less than half worn after 38K of use, and they do slice through standing water and snow pretty well, they are not confidence inspiring on wet surfaces.
They are also extremely soft tires, giving the Accord a hint of the classice American boatmobile feeling.

 

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Bridgestone says they use their "multicell" compound in several of their Blizzak winter tires that eventually wear down into an all-season compound when the tread depth is too low for winter use.

---

wrong on both accounts.

1. bridgestone use multicell compound in all kinds of tires not just snows. like potenza. and so does firestone which they own now.

---

I never said they only use it on winter tires. I frankly didn't think about whether or not they did. I only said that it is used on their winter tires.

Quote:

---

2. when blizzak's special compound wears down it turns into regular winter tire compound, and not to all seson rubber like many people think. it's a common misconception that i heard from many people and here is the prove that it's wrong: NOTE: The first 55% of the Blizzak REVO 1 tread depth features the Tube Multicell Compound while the remaining 45% features a standard winter tire compound.

taken from here:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Blizzak+REVO+1

---

Sorry - just a misinterpretation of reading that from memory. That was actually the tire I was thinking of. I've read that same Tire Rack info. But like you said, several people have written that it's turns into an all-season compound and if you say it enough people (like me) start confusing the misconception for real thing. Still - at that level of tread depth, a tire wouldn't qualify as a "snow tire" as a waiver for chain conditions here in California anyways. I thought most people dump their snow tires at that point or ride them out in spring/summer conditions.

 

[tripleM]

For my own edification, this debate is re:
Contrary to popular belief,

All Season tires can be used if there is some snow involved in your driving but wet traction will go down.

Whilst a 3 season tire (ie summer, dry, or non all season ...whichever label you choose) can effectively provide good if not better wet braking & performance when compared to an All Season in most weather conditions except snow because of their inherent pavement adhesion designs. Whereas an all season ia design for adhering to snow not pavement.
These things are not dependent on treadlife or tread design or water evacuation.

Is this a correct summary of the debate?

 

[y_p_w]

Quote:

---

For my own edification, this debate is re:
Contrary to popular belief,

All Season tires can be used if there is some snow involved in your driving but wet traction will go down.

Whilst a 3 season tire (ie summer, dry, or non all season ...whichever label you choose) can effectively provide good if not better wet braking & performance when compared to an All Season in most weather conditions except snow because of their inherent pavement adhesion designs. Whereas an all season ia design for adhering to snow not pavement.
These things are not dependent on treadlife or tread design or water evacuation.

Is this a correct summary of the debate?

---

I wouldn't say tread design or treadlife has zero bearing on adhesion to the road surface in dry/wet/snow/slush/ice conditions. Everything in tire materials/design is a compromise because there is no one condition that every car will always encounter. If one wanted to create the "perfect tire" out of a particular 3-season compound for 60 deg F ambient, rainy conditions, it wouldn't be the "perfect tire" for 75 deg F dry conditions. The majority of 3-season tire customers are looking for better dry pavement performance and they're typically not siped, which would improve wet weather traction.

I think part of the problem is that we're thinking in absolutes, and not accounting for "state of the art" advances. An all-season tire compound of today is probably better at wet traction than a 3-season compound ten years ago. Regardless of whether or not they "shed water", a lot of companies (like Bridgestone) claim that they have produced compounds that provide excellent grip on wet surfaces even though they have good ice/snow adhesion properties.

Saying that a 3-season tire will outperform a all-season tire in wet braking is like claiming that all sports cars will outperform all sedans in 0-60 acceleration. There are very good sedans out there, as well as very good all-season tires.