What stops better on ice, wide or narrow tires?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
434
Location
Canada,North America,Western Hemisphere,Earth,Milk
I really don't buy the idea that narrower tires will bite down underneath the snow, especially in my climate. In the dead of winter on hard pack or ice there is absolutely no chance of tires meeting concrete.

Will a wider tire stop faster on ice as it has more tread on the ground working to slow a vehicle?

Which one has more lateral grip on ice?

Deep snow, slush, hard pack, not really of any concern to me. Its ice that scares me.

Lets keep this discussion width related and keep tire pressures out of this one.
 
Last edited:
I don't think either matters, if you are on ice the only thing that's going to help you is studs...which are legal year round, so if you have a set of pure winter tires, get them studded.
 
I was planning on that, I have studdable winter tires currently, is it possible to stud a used tire?

Narrower - Snow
Wider - Concrete
Studs - Ice

So now lets say two types of tires are studded, one wide, one skinny, which will stop quicker on ice?
 
I don't think so (more so for liability). If the stud sticks out to far, it may wiggle coming loose and be ejected. Think it would be also be labor intense since the stud hole would be filled with small debris I read an article that a retractable stud tire is being developed think it was called the Q Celsius. Don't know if it every cam to market.
 
Ok, here it goes:
1. Narrower tires bite better on ice because of the higher pressure due to smaller area. Ask any ice racing professional or look at the winter rally cars. No low profile, tarmac tires there.
2. Studs make a huge difference on clean ice.
3. Without a well siped, fresh winter specific rubber (
Fact:
On ice, what makes you slip is the fact that a thin film of water will form instantly between tire and ice. That is very slippery, and the only way to break through that is by having studs and sipings that will wipe the film away and grab a little with the edge of the rubber at the same time.

On snow, you will also need a larger pattern that will grab and move snow away without making the snow hard and smooth, a little bit like muddy conditions.

On slush, you will need a larger pattern that will transport slush and water away so you wont plane on the slush.

Studs wont help much in soft snow, but will help on hard snow.

These are counterbalancing reqs.
1. Too large pattern gives you less area for sipings and stud areas will also reduce sipings.
2. You want soft rubber to grab the ice, but you also want it to be firm enough to allow narrower tires without sacrificing stability on dry roads.
3. Rubber has short life span and you won't finish off the winter tires before they are too hard to be safe...
4. You cannot, cannot tell by looking at the tire if it is a good winter tire. You will have to read tests.

Advice: Look at Nokian Hakkapelitta. Always a winner or second in the tests here in Scandinavia.
 
My dad put a set of 205/60R16 Hakkas on my mom's car to replace the 225/50R17 summer Michelin Pilots, and in 3" of slush I managed to go 0-150 km/h without activating traction control except on the 2-3 upshift. I just wanted to see how well they would hook up, and do they ever.
 
Yep, told you so :) There are other scandinavian winter tires that compete but Nokian is the only global brand. Hakkapelitta means something like "Always forward" in finnish.
 
Hakkas are good tires. A popular local discount tire dealer, Les Schwab, had some Hakka 2s when we needed new winter tires, and we put some studded ones on both Taurii. I think they were considered decent ice racing tires a few years back. Anyway, during the snow and ice that we had in 2006/2007, when Portland became famous for the pinball SUV footage, I took both older kids out to practice driving in the snow. We watched lots of 4wd vehicles sliding sideways, backways, roundways, everywhichways, and we didn't have problems while driving sanely. I saw more vehicles with chains than I had seen in awhile.
 
If a one tire has enough pressure to melt an ice film with ambient air temp of, say, 29'F and another at 30'F, either will be unsafe during a margin of wintertime. IOW you will have some variation in melt temp, but it'll get you sometime. :) Agree on the hakkas & /or studs advice.
 
There are some modern friction winter tires with siping that perform as good or even better than studded tires. I've seen some tests that confirm it; so you can get away without studs. In some places studs are unnecessary and actualy illegal.

To answer original question I think that wider tires are better on ice due to bigger contact patch.
 
Originally Posted By: lars11
Yep, told you so :) There are other scandinavian winter tires that compete but Nokian is the only global brand. Hakkapelitta means something like "Always forward" in finnish.


Nokian is good but I seen Continental ContiVikingContact 3 (beats Nokians every time), Michelin and Gislaved beating it to second, third or even fourth places on many occasions in studded and non studded categories. So Nokians are not the only ones.

The only thing is that Nokians are the only ones available in US. Those good winter Gislaved, Contis and Michelin models are not available in US so it only leaves Nokians.
 
The link below is a good sized test, and the conclusions ate pretty obvious..... well, ok, maybe it's not. See the next link for some translations :^)


http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/bil/0310/18/dacktest.pdf

Hakkapeliitta 4
Pris: 1 300 kr.
Hastighetskod: T.
Poäng: 8,8.
Det nya Hakka-däcket
har en stabil stomme,
utmärkt mönster för
alla underlag och den
nya unika fyrkantiga
dubben ger överlägset
bett på is. På
vinterväg är däcket
tryggt. Det är dessutom
utmärkt i slask
och stabilt på asfalt.
▲Nytänkande och
bäst på alla vinterväglag.



http://legacygt.com/forums/printthread.php?t=3043

Subaru Legacy Forums

Complete Winter Tire Test Review

:clap: Nice guy as I am, I translated the latest, yearly mega-comparision of winter tires from Swedish into English. I take it you don't get all that many good reviews over in USA and Canada. You can see some graphs in the review that compare the tires, braking distance, time around a track, driving in circle, all sorts of surfaces. Blue is studded, and red is studless. You better be able to read Swedish for that though.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/bil/0310/18/dacktest.pdf



Nokian "Hakkapeliitta 4" (studded)
5/5 Stars

The new Hakka-tire has a stable foundation, excellent thread pattern for all surfaces, and the new unique, squared studs give a superior bite on ice. On the winter road the tire is secure. It is also excellent in slush and stable on pavement.

+ Innovative and best on all winter roads.
- Nothing


Bridgestone "Blizzak WS-50" (non-studded)
Disqualified

Dangerous! Blizzak is so dangerous on pavement that it is disqualified from the test. The skids during an avoidance manuever are so difficult to stop that it is an outright traffic danger. Blizzak has been one of the big sellers for many years. The winter-abilities (snow, ice and slush) are mediocre at best.

+ Grip on Snow and Ice (for a studless tire)
- Pavement




http://home.cogeco.ca/~bman/perform.html
 
Thanks for that link, 1sttruck. Those Goodyears that Canadian Tire sells up here for quite cheap did well. Might have to try them next time.

They have a couple of Tirerack tests where they compare some studless tires to a cheap no-name studded tire on a hockey rink, but the ice was very hard (the studs just chipped the ice). I'd like to see them run it on some warmer, wet ice with some decent brand name studded tires involved. The Blizzak got 1st place in their half-assed testing.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=24

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tests/testDisplay.jsp?ttid=94
 
To answer the OP's question, narrower tires and taller sidewalls are considered to be better for ice and snow driving. This increases contact pressure, which is useful on these surfaces, and also allows the tire to "give" laterally to a slightly larger degree before sliding, which is beneficial because on ice and snow, static friction is much higher than sliding friction.

You will always have your worst traction problems on ice and snow in relatively warm temperatures. In very cold temperatures traction will be much better.
 
I always accepted the explanation the the area of the tire contact patch remained constant [ Archimede's Principle ]

I like skinny tires in winter since the contact patch is longer front to back which I think means better tractuion for starting and stopping.

If this theory is correct, then wide tires should handle better since the patch is wider left to right.

The next question is if wider tires apparently make a difference in drag racing...why?
 
Wide, smooth tires of the proper compound for the conditions work better on common hard, dry road surfaces because with a relatively constant amount of friction per unit area you'll end up with more friction with a larger area. With wet surfaces or with snow and ice that has the potential for creating wet surfaces you need adequate load to break the water film between tire and road. With a large enough contact patch for the load you can glide easily on water, which is what some people like to do at the beach with 'skim boards'.

So, wide smooth tires don't 'fail gracefully' when confronting water. Grooves and lugs in tires create tread blocks to displace water and create higher loads per unit area, and siping is often needed when the tread block contacts the road. An example is with mud tires with large smooth tread blocks as it can do well in snow but on ice they can be just slightly better than slicks. As it gets colder traction on ice increases, but since you know that eventually water will form on the surface you want to be careful about too large of a contact patch.
 
http://www.physics.sc.edu/~rjones/phys101/tirefriction.html

Physics 101
How Things Work
The Friction of Automobile Tires
from Jones & Childers, Contemporary College Physics, 3rd ed., 2001

How do tires affect your safety when you drive your car along the highway? What factors help to prevent skidding and allow you to control your car when turning and stopping? What does friction have to do with this?

The tread pattern of rubber tires plays a major role in determining their friction, or skid resistance. Under dry conditions on paved roads, a smooth tire gives better traction than a grooved or patterned tread because a larger area of contact is available to develop the frictional forces. For this reason, the tires used for auto racing on the tracks at Darlington, Indianapolis, Talladega, and elsewhere have a smooth surface with no tread design. Unfortunately, a smooth tire develops very little traction under wet conditions because the frictional mechanism is reduced by a lubricating film of water between the tire and the road. A patterned tire provides grooves or channels into which the water can squeeze as the tire rolls along the road, thus again providing a region of direct contact between tire and road. A patterned tire gives typical dry and wet frictional coefficients of about 0.7 and 0.4, respectively. These values represent a compromise between the extreme values of about 0.9 (dry) and 0.1 (wet) obtained with a smooth tire.

Classical friction theory must be modified for tires because of their structural flexibility and the stretch of the tread rubber. Instead of depending solely on the coefficient of friction at the tire-road interface (which is determined by the nature of the road surface and the tread rubber compound), maximum stopping ability also depends on the resistance of the tread to tearing under the forces that occur during braking.

When a car is braked to a hard stop on a dry road, the maximum frictional force developed can be greater than the strength of the tread. The result is that instead of the tire merely sliding along the road, rubber is torn off the tread at the tire-road interface. Undoubtedly the tread resistance to this tearing is a combination of the rubber strength and the grooves and slots that make up the tread design.

The weight of the car is unevenly distributed over the tire-road contact area, creating areas of high and low pressure. (This is much like what you feel when you step on a pebble while walking in thin-soled shoes.) The resistance of the tread to tearing increases in the areas of higher pressure, where the tread is more compressed, causing an effective increase in traction.

Further, the size of the contact area is very important in car tires because the traction is dynamic rather than static; that is, it changes as the tire rolls along. The maximum coefficient of friction can occur anywhere in the contact area, so that the greater the area, the greater the likelihood of maximum traction. Thus, under identical load and on the same dry surface, the wider tire has a greater contact area and develops higher traction, resulting in greater stopping ability.

Next time you need to buy tires, think about what kind of climate you live in, what kind of roads you drive on, and what speeds you drive. If you live in a region with good paved roads, you may not need tires with extra tread. If you drive in areas with mud or snow, you need a tread designed for those conditions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top