Studs on winter tires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
1,528
Location
Bohica
Just curious as to how much studs can lower braking performance and traction on dry roads. Most places where you live in the winter there is going to be some dry conditions encountered. What does everyone think?
 
I don't think it affects dry or wet performance significantly. I normally baby my studded tires on dry roads, but if I'm in the wrong mood or if a couple of kids in an SVT Lightning pull up beside me on the right at a red light with only a half-block of lane ahead to get around me (true story
smile.gif
), I've found that my car seems launch just as well with my studded tires as with my summer tires. The only difference I can notice is the gouges in the road and the concrete debris on the studs after. There probably is a small difference but it's not anywhere near the difference in braking distance between my car and most trucks/SUVs/older vehicles.
 
No effect that I noticed except sounding like a Sherman tank on roller skates. Biggest problem with studded tires they go like crazy, and handle great on snow and ice, but you sometimes get the ice skating effect when you attempt to stop, and DONT.
 
Quote:


No effect that I noticed except sounding like a Sherman tank on roller skates. Biggest problem with studded tires they go like crazy, and handle great on snow and ice, but you sometimes get the ice skating effect when you attempt to stop, and DONT.




Is that due to overdriving for the conditions, or directly related to the studs?
 
OVERDRIVING!

In areas where there's ice frequently, you'll be MUCH better off with the studs when needed and slow down!!!! a couple miles per hr when they're not.

Bob
 
Good replies- thanks. I just picked them up today- but I decided to go without the studs.
 
D-Roc, it's too bad you couldn't try a season with studded tires. You would never go back, especially in your neck of the woods! I'll be putting the studded snows on everything I own in the next week or two, it is an amazing difference in winter. I tried the Blizzaks one season and it wasn't even close.
 
Quote:


D-Roc, it's too bad you couldn't try a season with studded tires. You would never go back, especially in your neck of the woods! I'll be putting the studded snows on everything I own in the next week or two, it is an amazing difference in winter. I tried the Blizzaks one season and it wasn't even close.




When I arrived at the store to pick up the tires I saw that they studded the wrong tires- they studded a set of P metric same size. I need LT. I looked at the studs and from my point of view felt they would not last or be as durable on my Dodge Cummins. Also we get quite a few days of dry roads here in Edmonton during the winter, and also sometimes wet road- I was told that studs would not do as well in those conditions. Also with the technology Nokian uses it would be good enough without studs. SO that is the basis for my decision- I am actually happier that I did not go with the studs. Maybe one day.
Thanks
 
You and I have a lot of the same winter climate. I run studded snows on both my one ton Chevy trucks. Sure there are pros and cons to both, no disagreement there. I just drank the studded tire kool aid years ago! Even on my old Ford Escort, I run Nokians, but they are studded up too. They put those stud holes in 'em for a reason!
 
I have the ice tires in my wife's acura studded. The blizzacks on my BMW are not studded. The Acura blows the BMW out of the water in every measure of performance in the winter....there is just no comparison. I find myself almost giggling like a school girl when I drive the car with the studded tires in the winter. Usually people in subarus and 4x4's try to show stop-light boy-racer winter traction dominance when it gets really ugly outside. I can usually win the drag-race to the next light with the studded winters and only FWD against these AWD's.....with my wife in the passenger seat rolling her eyes and thinking I'm an idiot.

The difference in dry performance is impossible to determine, and if you were pushing ice tires that hard on dry pavement, they wouldn't last very long.

However, the road noise difference is massive. The Acura sounds like you're cruising at 30,000 ft in a 737 on dry pavement with the studs, and the un-studded blizzaks sound pretty much like a normal tire.
 
Jim, are you sure it's the studs making the noise? What tires are on the Acura? Did you end up getting those Can Tire Nordics? Those tires look like they'll dig, but they also look like they'd make a lot of noise. None of the studs on the tires I've used have been audible unless the window is open. The aggressive tread is sometimes noisy though. Perhaps a more aggressive tread is responsible for the noise as well as some of the extra traction? I rode in a friend's Toyota Celica once with the studded tires they sell at Walmart (Snowmark? Wintermark?) and I wanted earplugs; I was in disbelief at how loud they were. I had to take him for a ride in my car (with Cooper Weathermasters) to show him that it wasn't the studs making all that noise. Those cheap Walmart tires had good traction, but I wouldn't be able to stand the noise. On the other end of the spectrum, I think a lot of "high-end" winter tires seriously compromise snow performance for a quieter ride and better dry handling.

"From my experience with my testing I have come to the conclusion that I should drive with studded winter tires. And so I do." - Olle Nordstrom, specialist in winter tire performance at the Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute in Linkoping, Sweden.

Testing Winter Tires

Studded Tires
 
Quote:


They are the CT winter Nordics. I have never heard them without the studs.




I'd guess that the tread design is responsible for most of the noise then. Those small center blocks look like they'd make for a lot of noise and a lot of snow traction. I guess we'd need a non-studded Nordic owner to verify. Of course, it's also possible they're no worse than the studded tires I use (we've been running Cooper Weathermasters and BFG Winter Slaloms), if you're just accustomed to a quieter ride. Every tire has to compromise something!

My buddy has some Hankook studded iPikes that you can even feel through the steering wheel of his Tribute. I can't blame the studs for that. Three of my friends have studded Hankooks for winter tires (W404s and W409s). They have very good traction but they definitely seem louder than the BFGs and Coopers too. The only tires that have been loud beyond my acceptable level are those Walmart ones though. It's possible that '03 Celica they were on didn't have much sound insulation either. That Celica was much louder than being in a 737 at cruising altitude!
 
In my 48 years of driving in Minn., Vt., and Mont.,I've used numerous snow tires, studded and unstudded. I'm convinced that studs dramatically increase traction on snow and ice. For about 14 years I've used nothing but studded tires. Numerous tests, especially in Canada and Scandinavian contries, show that studds considerably increase traction. As to decreased traction on dry pavemnt, in my opinion and experience, its a myth. Think about it and look at a studded tire where it touches the pavement. The studs do NOT keep the rubber from touching the pavement. The rubber touches the pavement just as much as with an unstudded tire, so you get just as much traction from the rubber with a studded tire as with an unstudded tire. If you don't believe me, stomp on the brakes on dry pavement with studded tires, or floor the accelerator from a dead stop and lay a patch of rubber. In addition to the scrapes from the studs you'll see just as much black rubber marking on the pavement as you would if the tires were not studded.

There's a difference, by the way, between a true snow tire and an M+S tire. The following is from the Tire Rack website at tirerack.com, which has a wealth of info on tires:

"What's the difference in snow traction between an M+S (Mud and Snow) branded tire, an All-Season tire and a purpose-built winter tire? While many drivers probably aren't absolutely sure, it can be the difference between getting to work, getting home or getting stuck.

The original definition of M+S tires is based on the geometry of the tread design. The M+S designation was first used to differentiate the knobby bias ply tires intended for use on muddy, and/or snow-covered roads from the straight rib tires used on early cars or trucks. Tires with tread designs that meet the definition may be branded with the letters "M" and "S" in several different ways (e.g., M&S, M+S, M/S, MS, etc.) at the discretion of the tire manufacturer.

When early radial ply tires were also found to deliver more snow traction than the straight rib, bias ply tires, the tire companies introduced "All-Season tires." Supported by advertising, All-Season tires have presented an unspoken promise that they, throughout their life, can provide traction for all seasons...through spring's rain, summer's heat, fall's cooling and winter's snow. While this combined offering has made All-Season tires popular, many drivers have learned that a geometric definition doesn't guarantee winter snow and ice traction.

In 1999, The U.S. Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) and the Rubber Association of Canada (RAC) agreed on a performance based standard to identify passenger and light truck tires that attain a traction index equal to, or greater than 110 (compared to a reference tire which is rated 100) during the specified American Society for Testing and Materials traction tests on packed snow. The new standard helps ensure that drivers can easily identify tires that provide a higher level of snow traction.

A mountain / snowflake symbol branded on the tire's sidewall identifies tires that met the required performance in snow testing. The mountain / snowflake symbol was expected to be fully implemented on new tires by now. There are still some winter tires in the marketplace that meet the requirements to display the mountain / snowflake symbol but the molds used to make the tires were produced before the symbol was developed."
 
Just so we have the most accurate picture:

Studded tires do indeed have decreased dry traction, less of a decrease in wet, non-hydroplaning traction(but a decrease nevertheless), no change for hydroplaning, a tiny improvment for pure snow traction, but a tremedous improvment in pure ice traction.

All this was documented decades ago when studs were first introduced. I doubt if I can find the source documents, but the easy way to remember how this works (.....well, it's easy for me, anyway!) is that the studs partially support the tire and do not allow the rubber to penetrate into the pavement as far (and, of course with less force). So any property that depends on the rubber penetrating into the macrotexture of the pavement is going to be adversely affected - and that's dry traction, and non-hydroplaning wet traction.

But since most folks don't use most of the capablility of a tire's traction - especially dry - most of the time the decrease in traction is undetected. The only time it would be detected would be in an emergency situation - and at the end of the situation the vehicle operator would be wondering if better traction would have avoided the situation or not - and of course, it would be almost impossible to tell.

Just for the record, I am not saying don't use studs. But I am saying, be aware there is a compromise that is made when studs are installed, and dry and wet traction are among the performance parameters compromised.
 
Just so we have the most accurate picture:

Studded tires do indeed have decreased dry traction, less of a decrease in wet, non-hydroplaning traction(but a decrease nevertheless), no change for hydroplaning, a tiny improvment for pure snow traction, but a tremedous improvment in pure ice traction.

All this was documented decades ago when studs were first introduced. I doubt if I can find the source documents, but the easy way to remember how this works (.....well, it's easy for me, anyway!) is that the studs partially support the tire and do not allow the rubber to penetrate into the pavement as far (and, of course with less force). So any property that depends on the rubber penetrating into the macrotexture of the pavement is going to be adversely affected - and that's dry traction, and non-hydroplaning wet traction.

But since most folks don't use most of the capablility of a tire's traction - especially dry - most of the time the decrease in traction is undetected. The only time it would be detected would be in an emergency situation - and at the end of the situation the vehicle operator would be wondering if better traction would have avoided the situation or not - and of course, it would be almost impossible to tell.

Just for the record, I am not saying don't use studs. But I am saying, be aware there is a compromise that is made when studs are installed, and dry and wet traction are among the performance parameters compromised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top