Nokian Hakka R2 winter tires

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Nebroch
…………...There are also results from Tuulilasi's studless winter tyre test at the end of that btcf-topic……………...


The Tuulilasi test has some interesting comparisons in it, such as a 205/55R16 vs a 225/45R17, both sizes in a Nokian R2. The extra 20mm of section width does translate into better ice traction.

And their overall ranking of winter tire performance is a lot different than that from Test World (who does the testing for Tekniikan Maailma, NAF, Aftonbladet, etc):
1. Continental ContiViking Contact 6
1. Nokian HKPL R2
3. Nokian HKPL R2 225/45/17
3. Michelin X-ice Xi3
5. Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice 2
6. Vredestein Nordtrac 2
7. Pirelli Ice Control Winter

Nebroch, what is the Finnish phrase for "slush planing test" ?
 
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
…….Nebroch, what is the Finnish phrase for "slush planing test" ?
…………….


Does "loskaliirto" refer to slush planing resistance? Google Translate was no help with that word.
 
Originally Posted By: krzyss
Per Russian tests studded tires work the best on warm ice (close to 0C - 32F), the colder the ice the better studless work as studs cannot bit into really cold ice and chemical magic still works at low temperatures.


True, but most of the time we have dangerous amounts of ice on the roads it's because snow melted and refroze, which means the temperature is probably -10C or above.
 
Originally Posted By: Nebroch
………………….Test results for the people:

http://www.btcf.fi/forum/showpost.php?p=3407901&postcount=32

Translations:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3139085/Re:_Nokian_Hakka_R2_winter_tir#Post3139085

There are also results from Tuulilasi's studless winter tyre test at the end of that btcf-topic.


The Tuulilasi testing has an interesting comparison. They tested two different sizes of the studless Nokian R2: 205/55R16 and 225/45R17. It's been 6 or 7 years since I have last seen a test of this type.

The advice you often read and hear about winter tires is to choose a size that is skinnier and taller. The data from Tuulilasi helps us see what we gain, or lose, by going to a skinnier, taller winter tire.

The results:

A. In acceleration on ice, the 205 tire was 1.2 sec slower to 20 km/hr than the 225 tire (15.5% slower).

B. In ice braking (20 km/hr down to 5 km/hr) the 205 tire required an additional distance of 2.1 meters (9.9% longer) compared to the 225 tire.

C. On the ice handling course, the lap time for the 205 tire was 3.7 sec longer than for the 225 tire (3.6% longer lap time).

D. In acceleration on snow, the 205 tire was 0.03 sec faster to 20 km/hr than the 225 tire (2.9% faster).

E. In snow braking (20 km/hr down to 5 km/hr) the 205 tire stopped 0.24 meters shorter than the 225 tire (6% shorter).

F. On the snow handling course, the lap time for the 205 tire was 0.9 sec shorter than for the 225 tire (2% shorter lap time).

G. In the slush planing test ( 2 tires on slush), the 205 tire can go 1.1 km/hr faster than the 225 tire before the onset of slush-planing (3.5% faster).

H. In wet braking (from 100 km/hr to 0 km/hr) the 205 tire stops 2.7m shorter than the 225 tire (3.8% shorter).

Conclusions: In terms of percentage, you can lose more in ice traction than you gain in snow traction, by going to a skinnier, taller tire. A difference in tread width of only 20mm had a bigger effect on ice traction than I was expecting to see. As expected, the skinnier tire is better at resisting slush-planing. The skinner tire is substantially better at wet braking (I assume the test track was wet with standing water, and not just damp).

Other observations: Among the 10 tires tested, the single performance winter (Conti TS850) scored #1 in resistance to slush planing, consistent with what I have seen on other tests over the last 5 years: performance winters are better performers in slush than studded or studless winter tires. Unsurprisingly, the XIce Xi3 scored near the bottom in the slush test, coming in ninth place.
 
I'm just going to stick with OEM width of 235 when I order the Hakka R2 for the wife's SUV. Not sure anything narrower would be allowed anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Other observations: Among the 10 tires tested, the single performance winter (Conti TS850) scored #1 in resistance to slush planing, consistent with what I have seen on other tests over the last 5 years: performance winters are better performers in slush than studded or studless winter tires. Unsurprisingly, the XIce Xi3 scored near the bottom in the slush test, coming in ninth place.


What might cause that? Is the thread pattern just more "open" in performance winter tires?
 
I think performance winter tires handle water/wet road better.
Apparently slush is more like water than snow.

Krzys
 
Well, got the r2's installed on my wife's Pilot . Obviously not much to report on winter performance over the mxv4 Michelins . About the only thing that I have noticed is a slightly rougher ride . Otherwise ,,I haven't noticed any significant change in the way the vehicles drives .
 
Originally Posted By: nixon
Well, got the r2's installed on my wife's Pilot .

What tire size did you go with?

And what tire size do you use for the other three seasons?
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: nixon
Well, got the r2's installed on my wife's Pilot .

What tire size did you go with?

And what tire size do you use for the other three seasons?

235 60 18 R2 suv ) , same as the OEM tires .
 
Originally Posted By: Nebroch
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Other observations: Among the 10 tires tested, the single performance winter (Conti TS850) scored #1 in resistance to slush planing, consistent with what I have seen on other tests over the last 5 years: performance winters are better performers in slush than studded or studless winter tires. Unsurprisingly, the XIce Xi3 scored near the bottom in the slush test, coming in ninth place.


What might cause that? Is the thread pattern just more "open" in performance winter tires?


As Krzys already wrote, it probably has to do with the inherent, by design, superiority of performance winters in wet conditions (but at the price of sacrificing some ice traction). And apparently, good hydroplaning resistance translates into good slush-planing resistance. In last years Vi Bilagare winter slush tests, the Nokian Hakka8 came in second, the Nokian R2 came in third. What came in first? A performance winter, the Nokian WR D3.
 
Recently got a set of these Nokian Hakka R2 SUV tires for my 04 Honda CRV. Totally impressed so far. Waiting for some glare ice to test them on. In snow both dry and wet they have been flawless. NO spinning, sliding or fish tailing even when I stomp on the brakes in conditions that would have all seasons loosing grip. They are not cheap, but if you want a tire in the running for the best, this is it.
 
Finally got them installed. They felt somewhat harsh riding on the way back home from the shop. Alas, the shop overinflated them, which I corrected when I got home.

DSC_6770.jpg
 
My understanding is that having biting particles integrated into the tread isn't a novel concept.

There was a company called Green Diamond that embeds carbide bits into their tire treads. The history was kind of odd - originally from Iceland but the company went bankrupt and the concept was taken over by their American distributor, who also went belly up until another regional distributor took over. Also - they seem to be big on "remolding" rather than building their own carcasses or perhaps buying new ones. It seems kind of odd though, since I'm not sure what would be the basis for a tire or if a set of four could be from different original tire models.

http://www.greendiamondtire.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top