Tire Reviews: Wide vs Narrow Winter Tires Tested

[Traction]

I started using the Blizzak WS-50 back in 1996 on an 95 Impala SS which was worthless with 255/50-17's. Put narrow 215/70-15 wheels/tires on it and have NEVER had a vehicle that could dig into deep snow better than that one did! I never had so much fun driving in the snow than that car was. I am currently using the WS-90 with a 205 65-16 on a late model Camry and it doesn't come close to those old tires and they are narrower than the spec 215/55-17.
Narrow is definitely better in snow/slush and probably ice IMO. Look at the tires they run on rally car races in the snow, which are not wide at all.

 

[edyvw]

This is what I was entertaining as a possibility - I just haven't seen the data to support it. It makes sense that pumping matter through some system gets harder over distance. What I don't know is what that means in terms of measurable performance differences. At the extremes, the effect is intuitively obvious. Not so much when we're talking about +/- 30mm of tread width.

It is hard to do slush testing. You would have to create an exact slush amount for two tests. With water, it is easier to replicate it and there are numerous tests.
This is one of those things where "field practice" matters a lot and is accepted as good practice.

 

[edyvw]

Agreed.

Again, basic physics.

A narrower tire has to move/displace less material along the vehicle path. A 10% increase in width is a 10% increase in the amount of snow/rain/slush that must be displaced to get the tire down to the pavement.

Very little traction from loose snow or slush. Zero traction from liquid water, which is why hydroplaning should be avoided.

You want the tire to get down as far as it can in most winter conditions, so that it maximizes traction. Narrower tires make that easier because the tire has to displace less material.

That said, the design and tread compound make a big difference. So, all of those things being equal, narrower should yield better grip because it gets down to pavement more easily.

That is why the original post is so interesting.

I would say that they did not want to go into detail about it bcs. Hankook was never some winter benchmark, on the contrary. I would rather take 255 VC7 than 205 Hankook. No debate there from my side.

 

[mdocod]

Tire Reviews: Wide vs Narrow Winter Tires Tested

The conclusion? It doesn't matter as much as choosing the actual make/model.

I found this very interesting. I may use this as a basis for an article on my website - properly crediting Tyre Reviews, of course!

If I have a criticism, it's that part of what is supposed to make narrow tires better is the ability of narrow tires to push through the snow down to the pavement. Even a bit of pavement is soooo much better than snow for traction. But that would be extremely difficult to test. I mean how the heck do you set up a course where you can consistently ensure that the tire is penetrating the snow down to the pavement?

I watched this video yesterday and was absolutely steaming frustrated by the end of it. This video seems to me like a ploy to sell more expensive winter tires in cool looking sizes to owners of sport crossovers and sport sedans by creating a test that will make them all appear comparable. There are several flaws with the test that need to be considered before drawing conclusions...

The narrow tire in this test, is both not the same tread pattern and is a smaller diameter than the other tires tested. Since the tire is a smaller diameter, it comes to the table with no additional load capacity per inflation pressure compared to the larger diameter, wider tires it is competing with, so it must be inflated to the same pressure as the other tires (the 205 and 255 in this test both have the same load index ratings). Furthermore, the prepared surface conditions both of their track and ice do not reveal any of the effects of changing the size or shape of the contact patch, as those conditions are designed to compare tread patterns and rubber compounds, not contact patch shape. The real world does not have a groomed track with a very consistent amount of snow over a hard surface or a very specific type of ice on it.

The "skinny is better" is not a good way to conceptualize it as that's not the primary focus of changing to the "skinny" tire. In reality, it is wide low profile tires on reinforced sidewalls and high inflation pressures whose contact patches are very skinny and rectangular in the wrong direction. The goal is to get to a 60-75+ series with more load capacity so it can safely be used at lower pressures. 60-75 series passenger car tires operated at appropriate pressures for the load produce uniform contact patches that are roughly as long as they are wide (close to square). This provides the MAXIMUM floatation effect. I'm sick of all this nonsense about skinny tires "cutting" though. That's not the effect that makes them superior. The skinny tire has to be taller profile and operating at lower pressure to actually gain a meaningful advantage. A 60-75 series tire operated at appropriate pressures gradually compacts and climbs on top of the snow/slush in front of it. The deformation and larger contact patch of the "skinny" (SQUARE!) tire paves its way OVER unplowed or heavy/loose snow/slush situation, while the rigid, nonflexible low profile reinforced sidewall XL tires at high inflation pressure have almost no useful contact patch longitudinally. The wide rigid tires act like a wedge driving down into the snow digging their own grave. Watching an AWD crossover on low profile tires with the traction control unable to figure out how to lift its tires out of all the silly little crescent shaped holes it has dug itself into is hilarious.. I've seen crossovers with low profile tires totally stuck on a mild incline with a few inches of wet snow. Happens all the time because the tire is not paving/packing/climbing and the traction control is only reactionary, so it not only ALLOWS every tire to dig itself a grave before reacting, it has no other way to work. (Hey, if you've read this far remember that next time you're trying to drive a car with traction control or ABS... Proactive traction is always better than trying to find traction reactively that has already been lost!).

If you always drive on prepared track like winter conditions (frequent plowing is common in some areas, not here!), then low profile tires will work fine as long as they have a good winter rubber compound and tread pattern. If you deal with unplowed roads on a regular basis (common for residencial and rural roads, and even roads in major cities during a snow event), a larger SQUARE contact patch is what you want, and the way to get that is a narrower tire on a smaller wheel and a taller profile, operating at lower pressure if it can be done safely.

-------------

I run 315/75R16's on ice and snow all the time. I can "pave" a path through snow significantly deeper than the available clearance of my SUV using this tire setup at ultra-low pressures. I will go as low as 8PSI to get the contact patch length maximized for busting through 2-3' of snow. For more "normal" conditions when its icey/snowy I'll run 15-25PSI and keep speeds appropriate for the inflation pressure, but this is still coming up short of an ideal square contact patch...

Best tire size I have ever run for driving mountain passes in heavy snow of 6-12" was a 235/85R16. This is not because they are "cutting through" anything. This is because at this size, under the weight of a typical SUV or light truck, this size will produce a very near square contact patch at around 30PSI, which is the sort of pressure that a tire inflated to 35PSI at more normal temps, will drop to during a winter weather situation.. There's no need to air down to get a uniform contact patch that maximizes floatation with this size tire. It's already operating at an ideal contact patch shape for winter weather at normal inflation pressures.

 

[mdocod]

I always lean towards a narrower winter tire for more pounds per square inch on the ice/slush/snow to cut through or grip better. Same/similar overall diameter but go up a series like 265/70 to 245/75 or 235/80 in a light truck tire.

If you want the most pressure per square inch, then you should run the largest narrowest rim size available, with the narrowest, lowest profile tire available for that size, with the most sidewall rigidity you can get (XL runflats) at 50PSI.

70-80 series tires produce nice square shaped contact patches and need less air pressure (and thus, have less ground pressure) than lower profile alternatives on larger rims.

You've been benefiting from the "narrower" tire for a long time, but for reasons that are not what you have been thinking all along. They have MORE floatation at normal inflation pressures because their contact patch is closer to square, so you're less likely to sink in and more likely to maintain traction on your packed track.

In the absence of empirical testing, I'm not convinced of the theory that a slightly narrower tire (such as going from 235/XXRXX OEM to 205/XXRXX, for instance) results in appreciably deeper "cutting". Conceptually, the loose material has to travel a greater lateral distance before being ejected from the tread voids (as opposed to rearward spray) and is of a greater total volume in the case of a wider tire, but what real-world effect does a ~10-15% difference make?

I would argue it does the opposite. If I go from 235/40R18XL@33-38PSI to 215/60R16SL@28-33PSI, I am actually creating a much more unform shaped contact patch (near-square vs very short rectangle) with a much more gradual onset that packs the snow down rather than tries to pinch and squeeze it out. The contact patch is still wider than it is long in this example, but much CLOSER to square. This idea that "narrower tires" are producing some sort of piercing effect down to traction is wrong. They pave/pack/climb through snow/slush using deformation and a more gradual onset of engagement.

Narrower rims/tires may offer some advantage in terms of "piercing" with regards to how they track through soft slushy ruts and standing water, as they are going to get less bump steer and hydroplane type effect, but that's a separate matter from what most people are arguing when talking about snow/ice traction.

If you were racing, 10% more grip at times would be quite an advantage! I think the small advantages of narrower higher profile snow tires add up to a very noticeable difference in deeper snow and slush situations in terms of ease of driving and confidence.

Going way back in time, a bunch of us were at a buddies cottage in the winter, and my car was last in the driveway, so a friend borrowed my 92 sentra to for a bacon and beer run. I had that car on 155/80R13 snows and he couldn't believe how much better they worked than the 195 or 205 width snow tires he had on his Jetta at the time. This was about 6" of snow run over dozens of times, so not hardpacked but loose and rutted, and the narrow tires tracked straight through most of it with way less wheelspin and sliding compared to the much wider tires on his car.

The 92 sentra called for 29PSI front and 26PSI rear. If it had been awhile since the pressures were checked, on a cold snowy day, that could easily have fallen to ~20-25PSI.

The front tires on a 92 sentra with some random junk and a driver in the car would have about 750lb on each of them. 155/80R13 has about a 5" treadwidth. Napkin math time: 750lb/25lb/5"=6" --- Your sentra was cruising on TRACKS, ~5"(wide) X ~6" (long). It's rare to have a tire setup on a car that produces contact patches that are longer than they are wide, but for packing your way through snow/slush this is ideal, as the gentle deformation of the tire packs, paves, and climbs the snow, providing a predictable driving characteristic.

The front tires on a jetta GLX around that era, would have about 800lb on each of them. 205/50R15 has about a 7" wide tread. Napkins... 800/wait... This is a Jetta owner so he probably inflated his tires to their sidewall max pressure, because, jetta owner... 800lb/44lb/7"=2.5" ... Yea, a 7" wide by 2.5" long contact patch would be very squirely on snow/slush. Okay lets assume the tire shop was the last to inflate the tires because he just had the winter set put on recently, and they chose 35PSI because that's what every tire shop filled every passenger car tire to in the 90's, and this cold day it looses a few PSI from that.... 800lb/32lb/7"= 3.5" .. 7" wide by 3.5" long contact patch is still terrible for snow/slush regardless of the rubber/tread.

 

[IndyIan]

I watched this video yesterday and was absolutely steaming frustrated by the end of it. This video seems to me like a ploy to sell more expensive winter tires in cool looking sizes to owners of sport crossovers and sport sedans by creating a test that will make them all appear comparable. There are several flaws with the test that need to be considered before drawing conclusions...

The narrow tire in this test, is both not the same tread pattern and is a smaller diameter than the other tires tested. Since the tire is a smaller diameter, it comes to the table with no additional load capacity per inflation pressure compared to the larger diameter, wider tires it is competing with, so it must be inflated to the same pressure as the other tires (the 205 and 255 in this test both have the same load index ratings). Furthermore, the prepared surface conditions both of their track and ice do not reveal any of the effects of changing the size or shape of the contact patch, as those conditions are designed to compare tread patterns and rubber compounds, not contact patch shape. The real world does not have a groomed track with a very consistent amount of snow over a hard surface or a very specific type of ice on it.

The "skinny is better" is not a good way to conceptualize it as that's not the primary focus of changing to the "skinny" tire. In reality, it is wide low profile tires on reinforced sidewalls and high inflation pressures whose contact patches are very skinny and rectangular in the wrong direction. The goal is to get to a 60-75+ series with more load capacity so it can safely be used at lower pressures. 60-75 series passenger car tires operated at appropriate pressures for the load produce uniform contact patches that are roughly as long as they are wide (close to square). This provides the MAXIMUM floatation effect. I'm sick of all this nonsense about skinny tires "cutting" though. That's not the effect that makes them superior. The skinny tire has to be taller profile and operating at lower pressure to actually gain a meaningful advantage. A 60-75 series tire operated at appropriate pressures gradually compacts and climbs on top of the snow/slush in front of it. The deformation and larger contact patch of the "skinny" (SQUARE!) tire paves its way OVER unplowed or heavy/loose snow/slush situation, while the rigid, nonflexible low profile reinforced sidewall XL tires at high inflation pressure have almost no useful contact patch longitudinally. The wide rigid tires act like a wedge driving down into the snow digging their own grave. Watching an AWD crossover on low profile tires with the traction control unable to figure out how to lift its tires out of all the silly little crescent shaped holes it has dug itself into is hilarious.. I've seen crossovers with low profile tires totally stuck on a mild incline with a few inches of wet snow. Happens all the time because the tire is not paving/packing/climbing and the traction control is only reactionary, so it not only ALLOWS every tire to dig itself a grave before reacting, it has no other way to work. (Hey, if you've read this far remember that next time you're trying to drive a car with traction control or ABS... Proactive traction is always better than trying to find traction reactively that has already been lost!).

If you always drive on prepared track like winter conditions (frequent plowing is common in some areas, not here!), then low profile tires will work fine as long as they have a good winter rubber compound and tread pattern. If you deal with unplowed roads on a regular basis (common for residencial and rural roads, and even roads in major cities during a snow event), a larger SQUARE contact patch is what you want, and the way to get that is a narrower tire on a smaller wheel and a taller profile, operating at lower pressure if it can be done safely.

-------------

I run 315/75R16's on ice and snow all the time. I can "pave" a path through snow significantly deeper than the available clearance of my SUV using this tire setup at ultra-low pressures. I will go as low as 8PSI to get the contact patch length maximized for busting through 2-3' of snow. For more "normal" conditions when its icey/snowy I'll run 15-25PSI and keep speeds appropriate for the inflation pressure, but this is still coming up short of an ideal square contact patch...

Best tire size I have ever run for driving mountain passes in heavy snow of 6-12" was a 235/85R16. This is not because they are "cutting through" anything. This is because at this size, under the weight of a typical SUV or light truck, this size will produce a very near square contact patch at around 30PSI, which is the sort of pressure that a tire inflated to 35PSI at more normal temps, will drop to during a winter weather situation.. There's no need to air down to get a uniform contact patch that maximizes floatation with this size tire. It's already operating at an ideal contact patch shape for winter weather at normal inflation pressures.

Hmmm... interesting concept for how snow tires work in loose snow, where compacting the snow under the tire does give decent grip. But in water or slush, where floatation give you no grip, I still find skinny tires do better because of less flotation? Or in 5" of untracked fresh snow on my gravel driveway, I find skinny tires still seem to get down into the gravel more easily especially with a little bit of slip angle.
For sure winter road conditions have many many variables which is hard to model or test in to determine what tires are "best".

 

[edyvw]

If you want the most pressure per square inch, then you should run the largest narrowest rim size available, with the narrowest, lowest profile tire available for that size, with the most sidewall rigidity you can get (XL runflats) at 50PSI.

70-80 series tires produce nice square shaped contact patches and need less air pressure (and thus, have less ground pressure) than lower profile alternatives on larger rims.

You've been benefiting from the "narrower" tire for a long time, but for reasons that are not what you have been thinking all along. They have MORE floatation at normal inflation pressures because their contact patch is closer to square, so you're less likely to sink in and more likely to maintain traction on your packed track.




I would argue it does the opposite. If I go from 235/40R18XL@33-38PSI to 215/60R16SL@28-33PSI, I am actually creating a much more unform shaped contact patch (near-square vs very short rectangle) with a much more gradual onset that packs the snow down rather than tries to pinch and squeeze it out. The contact patch is still wider than it is long in this example, but much CLOSER to square. This idea that "narrower tires" are producing some sort of piercing effect down to traction is wrong. They pave/pack/climb through snow/slush using deformation and a more gradual onset of engagement.

Narrower rims/tires may offer some advantage in terms of "piercing" with regards to how they track through soft slushy ruts and standing water, as they are going to get less bump steer and hydroplane type effect, but that's a separate matter from what most people are arguing when talking about snow/ice traction.





The 92 sentra called for 29PSI front and 26PSI rear. If it had been awhile since the pressures were checked, on a cold snowy day, that could easily have fallen to ~20-25PSI.

The front tires on a 92 sentra with some random junk and a driver in the car would have about 750lb on each of them. 155/80R13 has about a 5" treadwidth. Napkin math time: 750lb/25lb/5"=6" --- Your sentra was cruising on TRACKS, ~5"(wide) X ~6" (long). It's rare to have a tire setup on a car that produces contact patches that are longer than they are wide, but for packing your way through snow/slush this is ideal, as the gentle deformation of the tire packs, paves, and climbs the snow, providing a predictable driving characteristic.

The front tires on a jetta GLX around that era, would have about 800lb on each of them. 205/50R15 has about a 7" wide tread. Napkins... 800/wait... This is a Jetta owner so he probably inflated his tires to their sidewall max pressure, because, jetta owner... 800lb/44lb/7"=2.5" ... Yea, a 7" wide by 2.5" long contact patch would be very squirely on snow/slush. Okay lets assume the tire shop was the last to inflate the tires because he just had the winter set put on recently, and they chose 35PSI because that's what every tire shop filled every passenger car tire to in the 90's, and this cold day it looses a few PSI from that.... 800lb/32lb/7"= 3.5" .. 7" wide by 3.5" long contact patch is still terrible for snow/slush regardless of the rubber/tread.

As we discussed, the true advantage of narrower tire is in slush, loose stuff (snow mixed with salt) and water.
Also, Jetta this or that, those are all assumptions. Each size has its appropriate pressure or in case of BMW’s there are two appropriate pressures for each size. What some owner does is irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[mdocod]

Hmmm... interesting concept for how snow tires work in loose snow, where compacting the snow under the tire does give decent grip. But in water or slush, where floatation give you no grip, I still find skinny tires do better because of less flotation? Or in 5" of untracked fresh snow on my gravel driveway, I find skinny tires still seem to get down into the gravel more easily especially with a little bit of slip angle.
For sure winter road conditions have many many variables which is hard to model or test in to determine what tires are "best".

On water and loose slush at speed, we're not talking about floatation, we're talking about hydroplaning. Resisting hydroplaning is a separate issue from floatation. A narrower tire with a more uniform (square) contact patch BOTH resists hydroplaning AND produces better floatation on compacting snow.

The only time you're going to find gravel in 5" of snow is if it's that ultra-fluffy stuff that's almost dry and doesn't stick to itself. In that case, you're working with something that isn't the problem that you should be selecting tires for. It's the 5" (or more) of heavy wet stuff, that will lock you in place and never even let you consider making contact with the gravel below with any amount of slip that you select tire size/type/inflation for. The narrow tire with taller sidewalls and longer (more square) contact patch can gently pack and climb the stuff that's actually hard to drive in. That is the effects of floatation working for you.

 

[mdocod]

As we discussed, the true advantage of narrower tire is in slush, loose stuff (snow mixed with salt) and water.
Also, Jetta this or that, those are all assumptions. Each size has its appropriate pressure or in case of BMW’s there are two appropriate pressures for each size. What some owner does is irrelevant in this discussion.

Way to miss the joke...

Run the math with the recommended pressures and the contact patch is still a terrible shape on the jetta. Assume the pressures on the sentra are dialed in to the door panel and it makes a SQUARE contact patch... where have we heard that this square contact patch is an ideal target for driving in snow... ? Oh I think that was me who said that...

 

[Astro14]

Not part of my question. It's a given that the amount is greater - the question is why can't it be displaced as effectively. ml/mm where mm is tread width and ml is displaced volume.

Just because I don't quite follow this doesn't mean I think you're wrong. I wonder whether it's a question of downward force (weight) or longitudinal energy, or some relationship between the two. Interesting.

I also like this. Something like how a longer barrel gives propellant more time to act on a projectile.

Yeah - it takes effort to move stuff out of the way. The mechanics are complex in the details, but the principle is easy - water, slush, snow, whatever - take effort to move.

When they have to be moved father, it takes more force (weight) or more time. The weight of the car is the same, since we are talking about wide vs. narrow tires - so with wider tires, the inability to move the stuff (hydroplaning) happens at a lower speed That’s with narrow tires. The stuff has to be moved farther to get tread contact with the pavement.

This isn’t like sand, where traction exists in the material Itself - for most snow, and for slush and water, you have to get through the material down to the pavement. In deep snow, there is some traction from the snow itself as it is compacted. Most of us don’t drive in those kind of conditions.

 

[edyvw]

Way to miss the joke...

Run the math with the recommended pressures and the contact patch is still a terrible shape on the jetta. Assume the pressures on the sentra are dialed in to the door panel and it makes a SQUARE contact patch... where have we heard that this square contact patch is an ideal target for driving in snow... ? Oh I think that was me who said that...

Man….
I missed Sentra. You lost me with 315’s. Most 315’s I see in winter are ones in the ditch.

 

[edyvw]

Yeah - it takes effort to move stuff out of the way. The mechanics are complex in the details, but the principle is easy - water, slush, snow, whatever - take effort to move.

When they have to be moved father, it takes more force (weight) or more time. The weight of the car is the same, since we are talking about wide vs. narrow tires - so with wider tires, the inability to move the stuff (hydroplaning) happens at a lower speed That’s with narrow tires. The stuff has to be moved farther to get tread contact with the pavement.

This isn’t like sand, where traction exists in the material Itself - for most snow, and for slush and water, you have to get through the material down to the pavement. In deep snow, there is some traction from the snow itself as it is compacted. Most of us don’t drive in those kind of conditions.

^ This!
Small zig-zag openings are there to capture snow. Then snow creates traction on snow, on compacted snow surfaces. In slush, water, they are irrelevant. Wider tire on compacted surfaces will provide more traction bcs. more zig zag openings. But, as you said, we don’t drive often on that surface.

 

[CapriRacer]

Wow!! What a lively discussion!!

Here's the problem as I see it: There isn't an agreement on what criteria should be used to determine what is best. Is it footprint pressure? Size of the footprint? Footprint shape?

Further, there is no agreement on what surface we are discussing: slush, ice, groomed snow, dry powdery snow, wet sticky snow, etc.

I remember the days when tire testers were trying to develop a test that was consistent and reproduceable. That's why they developed groomed snow.

Lots of variables!! How does anyone sort all this out? Especially given the different surfaces and what is available for a given vehicle.

Personally, I disagree with the video that the tread compound makes a difference - or should I say "makes a significant difference". That statement, of course, doesn't say what condition the tire is operating in!

Nevertheless, I am grateful that this video at least gives us a datapoint.

 

[edyvw]

Wow!! What a lively discussion!!

Here's the problem as I see it: There isn't an agreement on what criteria should be used to determine what is best. Is it footprint pressure? Size of the footprint? Footprint shape?

Further, there is no agreement on what surface we are discussing: slush, ice, groomed snow, dry powdery snow, wet sticky snow, etc.

I remember the days when tire testers were trying to develop a test that was consistent and reproduceable. That's why they developed groomed snow.

Lots of variables!! How does anyone sort all this out? Especially given the different surfaces and what is available for a given vehicle.

Personally, I disagree with the video that the tread compound makes a difference - or should I say "makes a significant difference". That statement, of course, doesn't say what condition the tire is operating in!

Nevertheless, I am grateful that this video at least gives us a datapoint.

I said in one post that we have to take into consideration “good ole field practice.”

As for compound, I would say what really matters is manufacturer. Hankook makes some seriously sketchy winter tires. After several experiences I just gave up on them. And among winter tires difference between top tier snow tires and “something “ else is IMO dramatic.

 

[SubLGT]

What is the best way to test winter tires? Doing it correctly is a lot of work!

Relative winter performance of tires with ASTM F1572 | Tire Technology International

This article is the first in a two-part series on two testing standards that can improve the data gathering and evaluation process for tire performance testing in winter conditions When

www.tiretechnologyinternational.com

Evaluating winter performance tire data with ASTM F1650 | Tire Technology International

This article is the second in a two-part series on two testing standards that can improve the data gathering and evaluation process for tire performance testing in winter conditions. Part

www.tiretechnologyinternational.com

...On-vehicle performance testing for tires presents unique challenges when it comes to consistency. Much of this testing occurs outside of a controlled laboratory environment. Test programs can extend over days or weeks, during which time environmental and test conditions can vary significantly. For tire performance comparisons to be successful, it is paramount to investigate and adjust for systemic or bias variations. This is especially important when testing tires in winter conditions such as snow and ice. Ambient air temperature, snow temperature, solar load, snow compaction and other factors can change dramatically from hour to hour...

 

[wag123]

Even though edy and I have not seen eye-to-eye on a few things, I have to agree with him 100% on his assessment of this.

 

[Astro14]

Buying a set of tires, driving on them for a winter, in varying conditions of ice, freezing rain, snow, slush and deep snow seems subjective, but gives you a good idea of performance. I’ve bought over a dozen sets of 4 winter tires and done just that.

Hakkapelliitta are among my favorite, but the Blizzak WS90 are fine tires, for example, and my daughter in Utah has a set, and I’ve got a set on the V70R in Colorado.

Just put the Continental Viking Contact7 on the XC90 in Boston - so I only have dry experience with them, but they are quite pleasant in the dry, better than the WS90 or Hakapelliittas, so, I’m quite curious how they will do in real winter. The tire tester in question is an avid skier, so as she transitions from Boston roads to winter conditions across New England, I will be curious to see how they perform.

 

[mdocod]

Man….
I missed Sentra. You lost me with 315’s. Most 315’s I see in winter are ones in the ditch.

Yea, there are lots of 315 size tires in the ditch. Usually a 315/35R20 on a BMW X5 or similar. These will be inflated to 35-40PSI depending on application and produce a contact patch approximately 11" wide by 3.5" long, and that has ditch written all over it because the "skis" are pointed the wrong way!!

That's not what I'm running and not how I'm running it. A 315/75R16 @ ~15PSI produces a contact patch that is very square, ~10" wide by ~10" long under the weight of the SUV. I run pressures from 8-25PSI in winter weather depending on how bad the conditions are. When conditions are really poor there's no need for "safe on hot highway" pressure in the tire. At these reduced pressures and under the weight of the loaded SUV, this tire size produces a more-square and/or more elongated track-like contact patch than most "skinny" 60 series tires that people run on sedans and crossovers as their winter tires. It's like being on tracks.

On that note.... pay close attention to the shape of the rubbers on a snow cat or snowmobile next time you have the chance.

 

[edyvw]

Yea, there are lots of 315 size tires in the ditch. Usually a 315/35R20 on a BMW X5 or similar. These will be inflated to 35-40PSI depending on application and produce a contact patch approximately 11" wide by 3.5" long, and that has ditch written all over it because the "skis" are pointed the wrong way!!

That's not what I'm running and not how I'm running it. A 315/75R16 @ ~15PSI produces a contact patch that is very square, ~10" wide by ~10" long under the weight of the SUV. I run pressures from 8-25PSI in winter weather depending on how bad the conditions are. When conditions are really poor there's no need for "safe on hot highway" pressure in the tire. At these reduced pressures and under the weight of the loaded SUV, this tire size produces a more-square and/or more elongated track-like contact patch than most "skinny" 60 series tires that people run on sedans and crossovers as their winter tires.

Nah, I was precisely thinking of vehicles running tires like that, not an X5. I had an X5.

 

[mdocod]

Nah, I was precisely thinking of vehicles running tires like that, not an X5. I had an X5.

Then you mean you've seen a lot of people running mud tires inflated to 35PSI on ice wind up in ditches.

You're conflating.