David Samuel

Both Sava Eskimo HP2 and Barum Polaris 5 are heavyweights in the winter tire division, each bringing a unique set of skills to tackle icy and snowy conditions. In this frosty face-off, let’s find out who packs the hardest punch!

Key Takeaway:

So overall, it all comes down to this.

Sava Eskimo HP2 excels in:

• Ice Performance: Complex tread design with various angled slits and aggressive siping for shorter braking distances and better maneuverability on ice.
• Tread Life: Lighter structure resulting in extended tread wear.
• Dry Traction: Superior directional grip and handling due to streamlined lugs and closely-spaced lateral voids.
• Wet Gripping: Enhanced siping design with multi-angled orientations.
• Fuel Efficiency: Streamlined, longitudinally aligned ribs reducing rolling resistance.
• Ride Comfort: Less-voided tread design for reduced road noise and improved response times.

Barum Polaris 5 (review) stands out for:

• Snow Performance: Bold directional tread pattern adept at capturing loose snow particles, and abundant snow vices and interlocking grooves for better snow traction.
• Resistance to Hydroplaning: Demonstrates high hydroplaning resistance with interconnected tread voids and higher float speeds in aquaplaning tests.
• Ride Comfort: Softer rubber compound for superior vibration dampening.

Moreover, both tires have similar wet performance values, (I mean, both have equal scores here), as the Sava Eskimo HP2 excels in wet grip performance, Barum Polaris 5 is superior in hydroplaning or aquaplaning resistance.

Ice Performance

The Sava Eskimo HP2 stands out in icy conditions, coming with a distinctive and complex tread design comprised of variously-sized angled slits and snow vices, thus setting a new industry benchmark.

The tire’s performance is further bolstered by its aggressive siping pattern, which shortens braking distances and enhances vehicle maneuverability by supplying additional biting edges.

This design feature consequently elevates the grip on icy surfaces.

However, the Barum Polaris 5 encounters difficulties on icy surfaces owing to its larger tread voids and fewer notches.

Its main tread area struggles to secure a strong grip on compacted ice, and its lack of multi-directional sipes diminishes its overall performance on ice.

But the main reason the Barum lacks here, is it’s greater construction weight relatively.

With greater weight, the tire basically gains more momentum, and so despite having a mix of both linear and wave-like siping, it can’t offer similar results.

Moreover, the Sava has the edge here of it’s central most W shaped blocks, which create more bite.

So it’s that combined effect which puts the Eskimo HP2 over its counterpart.

Tread Life

Tread longevity is heavily influenced by the tire’s weight and tread design.

That’s why the Sava Eskimo HP2, known for its impressive tread life, where it benefits from its lighter structure, is not only helping its ice traction only.

This feature minimizes the force exerted on the rubber during road contact, thereby extending tread wear.

In contrast, the Barum, with its heavier weight and larger voids, has its increased weight distributed over a smaller rubber surface area.

This results in each lug bearing higher pressure and experiencing greater friction, accelerating tread wear.

Consequently, the Polaris 5 tends to wear out faster in comparison.

Dry Traction

In dry conditions, the Sava Eskimo HP2 excels in both directional grip and handling, the two vital facets of dry performance.

The tire’s directional grip primarily hinges on the central tread area, where the Sava showcases more streamlined lugs for consistent road contact, thereby improving both braking and acceleration.

If you check out their tread pattern again, you’d note that the Barum has longitudinal voids in the middle most, whereas Save has unique W shaped lugs, which not only offers greater rubber/road meet-up but also add to the tire’s bite, enhancing its overall longitudinal grip.

Moreover, the Sava’s handling, largely dependent on the tire’s shoulder design, is enhanced by closely-spaced lateral voids that increase rubber-to-road contact during cornering, whereas its competitor, with wider grooves, and more weight, induces lug bending.

This causes the tire to have slower steering response in comparison.

So overall, in the realm of dry performance the Sava Eskimo HP2 is taking the lead.

Snow Performance

Both tires exhibit excellent performance in snowy conditions, each equipped to navigate various types of snow.

However, the Polaris 5 has an edge due to its bold directional tread pattern, enriched by lugs with spacious structures adept at capturing loose, fluffy snow particles.

The tire’s abundant snow vices and interlocking grooves also help trap snow, facilitating better ground contact as snow tends to stick better to itself than to rubber.

In contrast, the Sava Eskimo HP2’s more compact design lacks an interlocking groove structure, inhibiting its ability to accumulate as much snow as its competitor and thereby slightly compromising its snow performance.

Therefore, the Barum Polaris 5 maintains an advantage in snow handling.

Wet Traction

Wet traction is dependent on the tire’s tread design and rubber composition, affecting two critical aspects of overall wet performance: wet grip and hydroplaning resistance.

Let’s start with grip.

Wet Gripping

Wet grip, similar to dry grip, relies on the amount of rubber in contact with the road. However, the presence of water creates a barrier, preventing full tread-to-surface contact and necessitating water displacement.

This task is performed by grooves and sipes.

While grooves expel the majority of water, providing hydroplaning resistance (discussed later), sipes handle the remaining water particles at a micro level.

With that understanding, it makes sense why the Sava Eskimo HP2 demonstrates superior performance in this respect due to its effective siping.

Its dual siping design features better multi-angled orientations, enhancing grip from all sides, whereas in contrast, the Barum Polaris 5, although less effective in gripping, performs better in hydroplaning resistance.

Resistance to Hydroplaning

Hydroplaning resistance, is a phenomenon which happens when water comes in between the tire and the road. And this happens because water has to go somewhere (as it’s not compressible). So if it’s not going out, it would cause the complete loss of traction.

This is why tires have grooves, which channel out the water, preventing hydro or aquaplaning.

Now having said that, the Polaris 5 exhibits remarkable hydroplaning resistance, attaining higher float speeds in both curved and straight aquaplaning tests.

Float speed measures the tire’s speed over standing water, and the Barum excels due to its wider and interconnected tread voids.

Moreover, it also creates a better negative pressure against water, throwing it out in all direction with greater efficacy.

So overall, the in both curved and straight hydroplaning tests, the Polaris 5 is superior.

Fuel Efficiency

A tire’s fuel efficiency is intrinsically linked to its traction and weight, which contribute to the tire’s rolling resistance.

More specifically, a heavier tire with larger tread voids induces more lug flexing or deformation during cornering, braking, or acceleration.

This flexing process requires more energy, a characteristic notably present in the Barum Polaris 5.

With flexing of the lugs, the energy is wasted in to heat, for the most part, and that not only affects tread life, but also greater enhance the rolling resistance value for the tire.

And this explanation is in sync with our testing with these tires.

Conversely, the Sava Eskimo HP2, featuring streamlined and longitudinally aligned ribs, significantly reduces rolling resistance, providing superior fuel efficiency. So needless to say, you get a greater distance traveled per gallon of fuel, with this tire.

Ride Comfort

Ride comfort encompasses several elements, including road noise, vibration dampening, tread pattern, and sidewall design.

The Sava Eskimo HP2 has a minor edge in terms of road noise due to its less-voided tread design, reducing the amount of air that can circulate, thereby minimizing noise generation.

Moreover, its lighter structure enhances response times, ensuring a smoother, more refined ride.

However, the Barum Polaris 5, although lagging in noise reduction and smoothness, excels in vibration dampening due to its softer rubber compound.

This feature enables it to absorb road irregularities, providing a perceivable improvement in ride comfort compared to the Sava’s tire.

Basically, the Eskimo has a more stiffer internal construction ,where its cap ply is the main culprit, which decreases its overall bump absorption efficacy.

Summing Up

Now, overall, the choice between these two tires depends on the specific driving conditions and the individual preferences of the driver.

The Eskimo HP2 consistently outperforms in icy conditions, tread life, dry traction, and fuel efficiency, primarily due to its intricate tread design, lighter structure, and optimized siping.

Moreover, the tire’s unique W-shaped blocks and aggressive siping patterns ensure superior grip on icy surfaces and longer tread longevity.

Moreover, in dry and wet conditions, the Sava showcases superior directional grip and wet grip, respectively, while the Polaris 5 stands out in terms of hydroplaning resistance and snow performance.

The Barum’s bold tread design excels in capturing and navigating through snow, and its wider tread voids efficiently dispel water, granting it an advantage in hydroplaning tests.

In terms of fuel efficiency, the Sava’s design leads to reduced rolling resistance, ensuring better mileage. However, when it comes to ride comfort, the Polaris 5’s softer rubber compound offers better vibration dampening, though its not quieter in comparison.

Winter tire giants Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra and Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT, both famed for their unique strengths, are set to face off. Let’s see, which tire is a better fit for your needs.

Key Takeaway

The Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra (review) takes the lead when it comes to:

• Wet Traction: Enhanced groove design and sipes, superior hydroplaning resistance.
• Ice Performance: Unique tread design with angular cuts; lighter weight offers better handling.
• Directional Grip: Streamlined central rib and angular biters for superior straight-line stability.
• Handling: Better road connectivity during cornering and improved handling due to weight.
• Fuel Economy: Lower rolling resistance leading to better mpg.
• Vibration Absorption: Advanced compound for superior cushioning against road inconsistencies.

On the other side, Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT excels in:

• Snow Performance: Spacious tread pattern and in-groove notches for enhanced snow traction.
• Tread Life: Deeper tread depth and stiffer rubber, giving more mileage before wear limit.
• Noise Generation: Advanced pitch sequencing technology reduces resonance noise.

Wet Traction

In the tire performance world, a key feature is wet traction, primarily determined by tread patterns and rubber composition. Both contenders here, specifically designed for winter conditions, display commendable performance, where they offer numerous tread voids that efficiently drain water, reducing the risk of hydroplaning and improving grip on wet roads.

However, the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra slightly outperforms its competitor.

It uses a smart blend of interlocking and straight sipes with aggressive edges for better traction.

Additionally, its flexible tread enables the sipes to effectively absorb water particles under the tire, enhancing its grip.

Though the main reason, why this tire excels here, is it’s grooves.

You see grooves take out majority of water, and they are more efficient on this tire, relatively speaking.

Not only the tire offers greater tread depth on average, in comparison, the better interconnection of the grooves allow for more water going out at a given time, (and tire gets to be more resistant to hydro or aquaplaning).

And more water that goes out through the grooves, the less gets left behind.

And so sipes don’t have to work so much. Meaning, the overall wet performance gets enhanced.

(Just adding a note here, for folks who don’t know, hydroplaning happens when a tire floats, when water comes between the tire and the road).

Overall in essence, the WinterCommand Ultra offers superior resistance to hydroplaning and wet grip.

Snow Performance

In soft snow conditions, both tires perform excellently, being designed to handle challenging winter scenarios. Yet, the Ultra Grip Ice WRT takes the lead with its unique, spacious tread pattern and lugs that enable effective snow-to-snow contact.

Its tread voids act like snow traps, collecting snow particles to create a snow layer that increases traction since snow sticks better to snow than rubber.

Moreover, although both tires offers directional patterns, the Ultra Grip WRT also features curved in-groove notches, connecting the lateral grooves made by swooping arms.

These basically add to the shovelling effect of the tire. Meaning this tire offers better throwing of snow backwards, creating forward momentum.

And this enhanced acceleration force also helps the tire with overall handling. That’s because once the corner is over, tires need to re-accelerate.

On the other hand, the WinterCommand Ultra, while decent, uses a less aggressive tread pattern and fails to gather snow as efficiently.

So this ones a win for Ultra Grip Ice WRT.

Ice Performance

On icy surfaces, the WinterCommand Ultra outshines its counterpart, with its unique tread design featuring a combination of angular cuts and V-shaped notches of different sizes and orientations.

And these, coupled with an intensely siped pattern, this design ensures faster braking and improved handling on ice.

Though besides biters, the tire also takes the lead due to its lighter construction overall.

With lighter weight, there’s basically a smaller momentum force created on the tire, and that leads to faster overall handling and steering responsiveness.

(Momentum is inversely proportional to tire’s steering response).

So in terms of ice traction, the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra offers better overall results.

Directional Grip

The performance of straight-line stability primarily relies on the central tread area, which carries most of the tire’s load during straight-line driving. And here, the WinterCommand Ultra excels, with a more streamlined central rib that increases ground contact.

Not only the tire offers greater rubber to road contact, but its angular biters provide grip in all directions as well, and not just in the longitudinal way.

Moreover, with the tire’s lighter weight, there’s also a smaller momentum force created, as the tire speeds up. This means, its easier to slow down the tire, compared to its counterpart.

That’s why you see this tire braking 5 feet shorter in comparison (it’s important, because directional grip is directly measured by braking).

In contrast, the Ultra Grip Ice WRT’s in-groove notches reduce the amount of rubber contacting the ground, negatively impacting straight-line stability.

So overall, Goodyear WinterCommand is leading here, literally, as it offers better acceleration too (another way to determine directional grip, besides braking).

Handling

Handling ability, or lateral traction, hinges on shoulder lug performance. When a tire turns corners, the weight shifts to the tread edges or shoulders, affecting handling. Here, the Ultra Grip Ice WRT lacks, due to its less compact shoulder design and heavier weight.

The tire’s design basically offers less road connectivity (from shoulders), during cornering, providing less balanced steering feedback and improved handling. That’s why it’s seen trailing by about a second on average in lap times (tests).

Though besides connectivity, its greater weight is causing the main problem, in my opinion. Being heavier, as it turns, it pushes down on its lugs more, causing them to bend.

And that then results in lagging steering.

So overall, this ones a win for WinterCommand.

Fuel Economy

The efficiency of fuel utilization in a vehicle is largely determined by the tire’s rolling resistance, which is fundamentally the interaction, or ‘stickiness,’ of the tread with the road surface.

In this context, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT lacks with it’s greater tread depth and heavier weight, causing lugs to bend more, even though it comes with a relatively harder compound.

On the other hand, Wintercommand keeps its lugs more composed, so they exhibit reduced flexibility, minimizing deformation during cornering, braking, or acceleration.

This decreased flexibility results in diminished heat generation and total energy consumption, consequently augmenting fuel efficiency.

So WinterCommand offers better mpg in comparison.

Tread Life

In the domain of tread longevity, winter tires typically face challenges due to the softer rubber composition that is subject to faster wear. Consequently, it’s anticipated that both tires exhibit comparable, albeit not particularly exceptional, performance in this regard.

The Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra, featuring thermally adaptive rubber designed to withstand harsh winter temperatures, suffers from expedited wear.

Whereas the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT with deeper tread depth, and a stiffer rubber lasts longer.

So its rubber (being more durable), doesn’t wear down quicker, and extra tread depth provides additional mileage before reaching the legally permissible limit of 2/32″ tread depth.

Thus, despite the quicker wearing of rubber, the WRT maintains tread longevity comparable to its rival.

Vibration Absorption

Tires function as the secondary suspension system in a vehicle, absorbing road imperfections and providing a smooth ride. In this aspect, the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra takes the lead, given its advanced compound offering superior thermal adaptability and excellent cushioning against road inconsistencies.

When the tire encounters uneven surfaces, it effectively dissipates these disturbances, facilitating a notably smoother ride.

On the flip side, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT, does the opposite, where with its stiffer tread compound, doesn’t quite reach this level of comfort.

Though it does take the lead, when it comes to noise.

Noise Generation

The primary source of tire noise is the air entering the tire’s shoulder voids and generating unwanted sound waves through collisions with the tire walls.

This noise is further intensified by in-groove resonance, a phenomenon where sound waves echo within the tire.

That’s why while the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra initially produces similar noise levels, its softer compound tends to amplify the resonance, leading to louder noise.

Conversely, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT pulls ahead due to its advanced pitch sequencing technology. This innovative design approach alters the geometry of the tread blocks to generate varying sound frequencies, which effectively neutralize each other, reducing resonance noise.

To Sum It All Up

So overall, both tires have their pros and cons, and they offer unique attributes in different performance areas.

The Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra excels in wet and icy conditions, providing superior hydroplaning resistance, handling, and braking.

Moreover, it’s streamlined design also ensures optimal directional grip and vibration absorption.

Meanwhile, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice WRT stands out on snowy terrains with its unique tread pattern.

It also offers a longer tread life and a quieter ride due to advanced pitch sequencing technology.

However, the WinterCommand leads in fuel economy, thanks to its minimized rolling resistance.

Both Nokian Nordman 7 and Hankook Hakkapeliitta 9 are champions of the winter tires, each offering a unique blend of stability and traction in the harshest weather conditions. Let’s find out who reigns supreme when the temperature dips!

Key Takeaway

The Hakkapeliitta 9 takes the lead when it comes to:

• Dry Traction: Offers faster braking due to its lighter structure.
• Ice Performance: Features shorter braking distances with its complex biters, slanted incisions, and extensive siping.
• Wet Traction: Superior water dispersion with its dual siping structures and multi-angled sipes.
• Comfort Levels: Exhibits reduced road noise due to a less-voided tread design and boasts quicker response times for a smoother ride.
• Fuel Economy: Offers improved fuel efficiency with its lighter structure and longitudinally aligned ribs.
• Tread Life: Benefits from a lighter structure leading to reduced friction and slower wear, coupled with a greater average tread depth.

On the other hand, the Nokian Nordman 7 (review) excels in:

• Snow Performance: Demonstrates enhanced snow traction due to aggressive directional tread pattern and better snow-to-snow contact.
• Wet Traction: Offers superior resistance to hydroplaning with its interconnected web of grooves.
• Comfort Levels: Absorbs road vibrations more effectively with its softer rubber compound, though the difference with the Hakkapeliitta 9 is minimal.

Dry Traction

When considering dry traction, the focus falls on directional grip and lateral traction.

In this regard, the Hakkapeliitta 9 outperforms, thanks to its better continuous running rib, providing constant contact with the surface.

Though that’s not the main reason here.

The main reason comes from its lighter structure, which creates less momentum inertia, so its able to slow down faster. This leads to shorter braking distances, which is of course a direct way of measuring directional grip.

On the flip side, the Nordman 7 lacks with wider grooves and greater weight, doing the opposite. These features basically cause reduced steering feedback for this tire.

Thus, the Hakkapeliitta 9 provides better handling and directional grip in dry conditions.

Snow Performance

In the face of snowy conditions, both boys exhibited an extraordinary performance, even when encountering different types of snow. However, the Nokian Nordman 7 proved itself as a robust contender in terms of traction, particularly on slightly fluffy snow terrains.

This exceptional performance is largely attributed to its meticulously engineered treads.

Offering an aggressive directional tread pattern with open-design lugs, the Nordman 7 tire gains an advantage, ensuring better snow-to-snow contact.

To explain, fluffy snow particles are effortlessly captured by the tire’s interlocking grooves and snow-vices. Once entrapped, these particles enhance the tire’s ground grip, resulting in superior traction due to the inherent adhesive nature of snow to itself rather than to rubber.

That’s why the Hakkapeliitta 9 lacks here, as it’s design is more sealed, even though both tires come with almost similarly voided up structures.

Moreover, the absence of an interlocking groove structure in Hakka doesn’t enable the tire to accumulate as much snow as its competitor, leading to slightly reduced performance in snowy conditions.

Therefore, the Nokian Nordman 7 reigns superior in snowy conditions.

Ice Performance

When encountering icy conditions, the Hakkapeliitta 9 demonstrates superior capabilities, most notably reflected in its shorter average braking distance compared to the Nordman 7.

Upon comparison, the Hakkapeliitta 9 consistently stopped a staggering 5 feet sooner.

The reason behind this superiority lies in the tire’s complex biters of various widths, slanted incisions, V-shaped notches facing both lateral directions, and plentiful siping.

These design elements significantly enhance the tire’s grip on ice and, when combined with dual-angled biters, result in a shorter braking distance.

In contrast, the Nokian Nordman 7 struggles due to its larger tread voids and fewer notches.

This tire particularly lacks in effective braking where central tread is critical.

The wider lateral tread voids and lack of multi-angled siping exacerbate the tire’s deficiencies, leading to longer handling time compared to its rival.

Wet Traction

A tire’s ability to handle wet conditions is primarily determined by its tread design and rubber compound.

While both tires feature ample siping and soft, thermally adaptive rubbers, the Hakkapeliitta 9 takes the lead in this category.

This is primarily due to the tire’s dual siping structures with more aggressive interlocking and rectilinear designs, resulting in improved biting abilities on icy surfaces.

Moreover, the multi-angled sipes of the Hakkapeliitta 9 enhance water dispersion in all directions as the tire corners, brakes, or accelerates.

Conversely, the Nokian Nordman 7’s siping, which is only laterally oriented, doesn’t deliver similar results.

However, the tire does offer better results, when it comes to resistance to hydroplaning.

In both curved and straight aquaplaning tests, the Nordman 7 managed higher speeds, attributed to its interconnected web of grooves effectively dispersing water, surpassing its counterpart’s continuous central rib.

Comfort Levels

Comfort in a tire encompasses a myriad of factors including road noise and vibration absorption, which are influenced by the tire’s tread pattern and sidewall design.

The Hakkapeliitta 9 performs slightly better in terms of tread noise due to its less-voided tread design, which restricts air flow and hence reduces noise generation.

With a lighter weight, the Hakkapeliitta 9 also comes with quicker response times, ensuring stability with that smoother ride, compared to its counterpart.

However, the Nordman 7 does enjoy an advantage with its softer rubber compound, which absorbs road bumps more effectively than the Hakkapeliitta 9.

So overall, although the Hakka is leading here, its only by a small margin.

Fuel Economy

A tire’s fuel consumption is significantly influenced by its grip on the surface and its overall weight.

The Nokian Nordman 7 falls short in both these aspects due to its considerable weight and broader tread voids, leading to increased friction as the tire rolls.

So despite enhanced performance in extreme winter temperatures, it’s evident that the tire’s shortcomings in fuel economy cannot be overlooked.

In contrast, the Hakkapeliitta 9, with its lighter structure and longitudinally aligned ribs, provides a smoother travel experience, particularly on straight-line journeys like highway drives. This design results in more efficient fuel consumption by minimizing energy expenditure.

So, the Hakkapeliitta 9 offers better fuel economy overall.

Tread Life

Tread longevity is influenced by rolling resistance.

In this aspect, the Hakkapeliitta 9 takes the lead, due to its lighter structure, which exerts less force on its tread blocks, thereby generating less friction and slower wear.

Moreover, the tire also features more tread depth on average, meaning, it takes longer to wear down to the tire-replacement tread depth.

Conversely, the Nordman 7’s greater average weight and smaller overall rubber area leads to each lug bearing more weight pressure and rubbing against the road with increased friction.

This results in quicker wear of the tire’s rubber and generates heat, the archenemy of winter tires.

It’s important to note that the performance difference between the two is marginal, perhaps explaining why neither tire offers any warranties.

Nonetheless, the Hakkapeliitta 9 tire offers a longer tread life comparatively.

Conclusion

Both tires have their distinct advantages, but the Hakkapeliitta 9 exhibits a slight edge in multiple categories. Let me explain what I mean.

So, in my evaluations between both these tires, the Hakkapeliitta 9 consistently excels in areas like dry traction due to its lightweight structure and shorter braking distances.

And here its advanced design also grants it superior grip in icy conditions, making it more efficient in wet situations.

Additionally, it offers a better fuel economy and a slightly longer tread life, largely because of its design and reduced weight.

On the other hand, the Nokian Nordman 7 distinctly shines in snow performance, especially in fluffy snow conditions, attributed to its aggressive directional tread pattern and the ability to maintain snow-to-snow contact.

While both tires present their respective strengths, the Hakkapeliitta 9 emerges with a modest advantage in several key domains.