David Samuel - SnowyTires

Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 vs EVO3

The Hankook Winter Icept EVO2, celebrated for its impressive winter handling, and the Hankook Winter Icept Evo3, acclaimed for its excellent traction, are set to go head-to-head. So it’s time to find a better pick, out of them, for you!

Sizes Takeaway

The Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 comes in 14 to 18 inches with following.

Speed ratings: V only.
Load ratings: SL and XL.
Tread depth: 10.5/32″.
Weight: 15 to 30 lbs.

On the other side, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 comes in 18 and 21 inches only, with following.

Speed ratings: V on all.
Load range: SL/XL only.
Tread depth: 10.5/32″ on all.
Weight: 14 to 33 lbs.

Tread Pattern

Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 features an asymmetrical tread pattern. Let’s look at its design features in details, (it really helps with the tire selection, trust me).

So to understand the tread of this tire, its best you consider the 4 ribs on it.

The one on the right (most), is seen with elongated, very laterally oriented lugs, with wave-like siping on them.

These lugs provide amazing handling, as they are kept firm, by reinforced foundations underneath them.

Moreover, helping to that are the connectors in between these lugs, and the ones on the following rib.

Speaking of which, this rib is the most aggressive with sharp in-groove biters/notches, and multi-angled interlocking sipes.

Though the other two ribs are very less aggressive, and more streamlined.

The middle (almost) rib features lugs with squared-shaped designs. And here you can see in-groove notches and of course similar siping, like seen elsewhere.

And yes, sames the case with the shoulder rib, though lugs are elongated there.

Moving on towards the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3…

This tire features a very aggressive directional tread pattern, with sharp lugs having tons of features.

In the middle most, the lugs have very edgy in-groove notches, and (almost) rectilinear full depth siping.

And the surrounding lugs are elongated and have interlocking (wave-like) siping, besides having chamfered edges towards their outer area.

Moreover, all these lugs are separated form the shoulders with the help of wide, and prominent, longitudinal grooves.

Speaking of which, the shoulders are the most elongated, and have a mixture of interlocking and rectilinear siping pattern.

But other than that, they don’t carry any other features.

Tread Longevity

When it comes to tread longevity, both tires exhibit commendable effectiveness. However, they achieve this in different ways.

The Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 gains an advantage in weight. Its lighter structure exerts less pressure on the lugs as the tire rolls, resulting in an extended lifespan.

But its overall tread life (on average), is very similar to its counterpart, the Evo 3, which benefits from having larger tread depth, allowing it to take a longer time to wear down to the legal limit of 2/32″.

So you can say, both tires are winners in this section.

Ice Performance

In icy conditions, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 clearly outshines its competitor. It incorporates advanced design features such as unique biters scattered across the tread and enhanced with snow vices. These innovations enable the tire to deliver slightly better overall traction on icy surfaces.

The EVO3’s innovative design, complemented by multi-angle siping and snow vices, facilitates faster braking and improved handling efficacy on various types of snowy terrain. On the other hand, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2, despite having multi-angle biters, falls short in comparison. Its wider biters hinder their efficiency on compacted ice, where narrower and more aggressive siping is required.

Consequently, the design of the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 is better suited for heavier vehicles like SUVs due to its broader tread voids.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 exhibits superior ice performance.

Wet Traction

Wet traction is primarily influenced by two key components: tread design and rubber compound. These factors play a crucial role in determining a tire’s ability to clear water away from the sipes and grooves.

The grooves in the tire design are primarily responsible for water clearance, providing resistance to hydroplaning. On the other hand, the sipes contribute to wet grip by clearing water at a micro level. They effectively draw water particles into their slits.

Let’s delve into these dimensions in more detail.

Wet Grip

Both tires feature ample siping and flexible tread rubber, but the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 gains an edge in terms of wet handling. However, both tires perform equally well in terms of wet directional grip.

The Hankook Winter Icept EVO3’s superiority in wet handling can be attributed to its superior water expulsion capabilities from the shoulders. This is made possible by the presence of multi-angle sipes and snow vices facing in both lateral and longitudinal directions on the tire’s tread. These design elements ensure a relatively more effective grip during cornering, reducing overall slippage.

In contrast, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2’s shoulder sipes are oriented only laterally, resulting in somewhat underwhelming handling performance during testing.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 demonstrates better wet grip.

Hydroplaning

Hydroplaning, a condition where water prevents the tread from making proper contact with the road, poses a significant safety concern. In this regard, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 outperforms its competitor. Its wider grooves effectively disperse water in all directions, minimizing the risk of hydroplaning.

On the other hand, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3, lacking interconnected lugs and featuring more closed-up lugs positioned longitudinally, restricts water movement, particularly laterally.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 excels in hydroplaning resistance.

Snow Performance

When it comes to snow-covered terrains, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 outperforms nearly all other winter tires, including the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3. This superiority stems from the tire’s broader grooves, which enhance its ability to make better contact with the snow.

The Hankook Winter Icept EVO2’s multiple triangular lugs spread across the tread provide excellent snow-clinging grooves, resulting in superior traction in fluffy snow conditions. Snow sticks better to snow, and the tire’s design facilitates this interaction, providing enhanced snow-holding abilities.

In contrast, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3’s relatively closed pattern struggles to accumulate as much snow, hampering its traction.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 exhibits superior snow performance.

Dry Traction

Dry traction, a vital performance measure for any tire, depends on the extent of rubber in contact with the road surface. Two key factors play a role in achieving this: directional grip and lateral traction.

Let’s discuss them individually.

Directional Grip

Efficiency in directional grip primarily depends on the central region of the tread. This is because, while cruising on straight highways, the majority of the tire’s load is concentrated in this area.

The Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 excels in this aspect due to its interlocking central lugs, maximizing contact with the road surface. This design enables shorter braking distances when compared to the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2, which falls short due to its wider grooves and less streamlined structure.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 demonstrates better directional grip.

Handling

The quality of tire handling is significantly influenced by the tire’s shoulder design and overall weight. When cornering, the weight load shifts towards the edges of the tread due to inertia.

The Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 emerges as the winner in this aspect, thanks to two primary factors. Firstly, its more compact shoulder blocks enhance rubber-to-road contact during cornering.

Secondly, the tire’s lighter structure, combined with a shallower tread depth, minimizes lug movement or block bending, providing balanced understeering and oversteering capabilities.

In contrast, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2, with its wider grooves and larger tread depth, experiences more lug movement during cornering, diminishing steering feedback.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 exhibits superior handling.

Comfort Levels

The degree of comfort provided by a tire largely depends on its noise generation and its ability to dampen vibrations. These characteristics are primarily governed by the tire’s construction. Let’s examine each of these elements.

Tread Noise

Tread noise occurs when air particles collide with the tread walls of the tire. In general, larger tread voids tend to generate more noise.

When comparing the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 and its counterpart, the former emerges as the quieter option.

This can be attributed to its densely packed shoulder lugs, serving as the primary entry point for air.

Additionally, its crowded central lug design allows less room for air particles to move around. These design attributes not only reduce noise generation at the source but also work in conjunction with the tire’s superior pitch sequencing to further dampen any residual noise.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 offers a quieter ride.

On-Road Vibration

While the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 may generate more noise, it excels in mitigating road vibrations, providing superior impact comfort.

This is due to its more absorbent tread rubber and greater tread depth, which provide a thicker buffer layer between the tire and any road irregularities.

Winner: Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 offers better on-road vibration dampening.

Summing Up

In snow-covered conditions, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 stands out due to its unique tread design and a greater number of tread voids, ensuring superior snow grip and clearance.

On the other hand, when traversing icy terrains, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 takes the lead. It utilizes intricate biting edges, angled slits, and multi-angled sipes to enhance overall traction and handling capabilities.

Both tires demonstrate excellent grip on wet and dry surfaces, with the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 excelling in hydroplaning resistance.

Considering all factors, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO3 slightly edges ahead due to its enhanced fuel economy, extended tread life, and quieter operation.

Gislaved Nordfrost 200 vs General Altimax Arctic 12

The Gislaved Nordfrost 200 and the General Altimax Arctic 12, are both acclaimed for their exceptional winter performance, but which tire is a better pick for your driving style? Well, let’s find out, but first, some info on their sizes.

Available Sizes

The General Altimax Arctic 12 (review) comes in 14 to 19 inches with following.

Speed ratings: T only.
Load ratings: XL only.
Tread depth: 12/32″ on all.
Weight: 16 to 35 lbs.

On the other side, the Gislaved Nordfrost 200 comes in 14 to 19 inches wheels with following.

Speed ratings: T only.
Load ratings: SL and XL.
Tread depth: 10/32″ on all.
Weight: 15 to 35 lbs.
Tread warranty: None.

Wet Traction

Wet traction depends primarily on two factors: tread design and rubber composition. Now although both tires showcase excellent designs with abundant siping and soft tread rubbers, the General Altimax Arctic 12 still outperforms its counterpart in this aspect, (by a small margin, though).

The advantage of the Altimax tire lies in its extensive network of straight and interlocking sipes, which possess supeiror water absorption capabilities, resulting in superior grip on wet surfaces.

The multi-angled structure of these sipes further contributes to excellent cornering and braking abilities.

In contrast, the Gislaved Nordfrost 200, with its single siping design that is also less angled, fails to provide equivalent overall traction, leading to longer wet braking distances and handling times.

However, when it comes to hydroplaning resistance, the Nordfrost 200 performs notably better due to its wider grooves and sweeping arms. These design elements facilitate higher float speeds in both curved and straight aqua tests.

Verdict: The General Altimax Arctic 12 excels in wet grip, while the Gislaved Nordfrost 200’s tire exhibits superior hydroplaning resistance.

Snow Performance

When it comes to traversing fluffy snow conditions, both tires exhibit impressive performance, but it is the Gislaved Nordfrost 200 that slightly surpasses its competitor.

The tire basically offers a distinguishing feature in the form of a greater number of tread voids, particularly in the shape of in-groove notches. These notches skillfully capture snowflakes, leading to improved contact between the tire and snow particles. This phenomenon allows the trapped snow to interact with the ground as the tire rolls, thereby enhancing grip since snow adheres better to itself than to rubber.

Furthermore, due to its relatively higher weight, the Gislaved facilitates deeper penetration of snow, making it easier for the snow to be pushed aside and lodged within the tire’s treads.

Additionally, the tire is equipped with expansive V-shaped lugs that excel at displacing heavy snow. As a result, the thrown snow clears the path for the tire’s roll, leading to forward propulsion. This exclusive characteristic marginally improves the tire’s acceleration times.

On the contrary, the General Altimax Arctic 12 demonstrates slightly less efficacy in terms of braking and handling on snowy surfaces. Its design is more enclosed, featuring a continuous central rib and smaller in-groove notches.

Despite having a directional tread pattern that somewhat resembles its rival, the Altimax lacks the extensive sweeping arms found on the Nordfrost 200, resulting in reduced snow plowing capability.

Verdict: Overall, in terms of snow performance, the Gislaved Nordfrost 200 takes the lead with its superior design elements and ability to tackle snowy conditions with greater efficiency.

Ice Performance

On icy terrains, the General Altimax Arctic 12 takes the lead, where the tire showed us with significantly shorter braking distances, surpassing its counterpart by 9 feet.

Note, that this was calculated on average.

What makes this tire better is its intricate biters spread across the tread, where you can see incisions of varying widths, combined with more aggressive siping in comparison.

On the other hand, the Gislaved Nordfrost 200’s wider tread voids fail to grip ice as effectively. The absence of notches and multi-angled siping on both the central and shoulder lugs contributes to longer average braking distances and handling times on icy surfaces.

Verdict: Overall, the General Altimax Arctic 12 WS90 exhibits superior ice performance compared to its counterpart.

Comfort Levels

The comfort of a tire is largely influenced by factors such as road noise and vibration dampening. These characteristics are dictated by the tire’s construction, materials used, tread pattern, and sidewall design, which primarily determine the smoothness of cornering.

When it comes to noise generation caused by air particles hitting the tread, the General Altimax Arctic 12 takes the lead with its less voided tread design. With less space for air particles to collide with the tread walls, noise is reduced. It is important to note that the overall difference in noise levels between the two tires is not substantial.

On the other hand, the Gislaved Nordfrost 200 provides a slightly smoother ride due to its superior shock absorption over bumps.

Verdict: Considering all factors, both tires offer similar comfort levels.

Dry Traction

Efficiency in dry grip largely depends on the tire’s contact area with the ground, with directional grip and lateral traction playing significant roles, and here, the General’s tire takes the lead.

The “narrower” central grooves of the Altimax Arctic 12 allows for better and more consistent ground contact, particularly on highways, which leads to shorter braking distances and quicker acceleration times.

Additionally, where the above factor provide superior directional grip, the lighter weight of the tire contributes to its superior handling.

As with a lighter structure, it produces faster steering response.

Verdict: The General Altimax Arctic 12 exhibits better dry traction performance.

Tread Life

Tread life is heavily influenced by rolling resistance, particularly for these two tires. In this aspect, the General Altimax Arctic 12 holds the upper hand.

Its lighter weight places less strain on the tread blocks as they make contact with the road, resulting in reduced friction and slower rubber wear.

In contrast, the heavier Gislaved Nordfrost 200 concentrates its additional weight onto a smaller rubber surface due to its wider tread voids. This puts more strain on each lug, accelerating tread wear and reducing its overall lifespan. However, it’s worth noting that the performance difference between the two tires in terms of tread life is relatively small, which is why there are no significant warranty variations.

Verdict: Altimax provides longer tread life.

Take Home Points

Let me end up, with easy to understand following points.

Gislaved Nordfrost 200 excels in:

Snow Performance: The Nordfrost 200’s superior design elements, including a greater number of tread voids and expansive V-shaped lugs, improve snow handling and acceleration times.
Hydroplaning Resistance: The tire’s wider grooves and sweeping arms provide superior hydroplaning resistance in wet conditions.
Ride Smoothness: The Nordfrost 200 offers a smoother ride, owing to superior shock absorption over bumps.

General Altimax Arctic 12 excels in:

Wet Traction: The Arctic 12’s network of straight and interlocking sipes provide superior water absorption capabilities, resulting in better grip on wet surfaces.
Ice Performance: The Arctic 12’s intricate tread biters and more aggressive siping contribute to shorter braking distances and better handling on icy surfaces.
Dry Traction: The Arctic 12’s “narrower” central grooves and lighter weight contribute to superior directional grip, quicker acceleration times, and better handling.
Road Noise: The Arctic 12, with its less voided tread design, generates less road noise.

Tread Life: The Arctic 12’s lighter weight results in less strain on the tread blocks, thereby reducing friction and slowing rubber wear.

Areas for Improvement:

Gislaved Nordfrost 200 could improve in terms of wet and ice traction, dry grip, and tread life, given its single siping design, wider tread voids, and heavier weight.
General Altimax Arctic 12 could perform better in terms of snow performance and hydroplaning resistance. Its more enclosed design and lack of extensive sweeping arms reduce snow plowing capability.

Note: The overall comfort levels offered by both tires are similar, and differences in tread life between the two are relatively small.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 vs Barum Polaris 5

In the books of winter tires, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 and the Barum Polaris 5, are each respected for their unique prowess in handling, tread life, and comfort, offer a range of options for various driving preferences. So let’s dig a little deep to find a better tire for you.

Sizes Specs

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 (review) comes in 14 to 20 inches, (99 total sizes), in following specs.

Speed ratings: T and H.
Load ratings: SL and XL.
Tread depth: 10/32″.
Weight: 16 to 32 lbs.
Tread warranty: None.

On the other side, the Barum Polaris 5 (review) comes in 74 total sizes, in 13 to 19 inches wheels, with following specs.

Speed ratings: T, H and V.
Load ratings: SL and XL.
Tread depth: 9 to 10/32″.
Weight: 15 to 26 lbs.
Tread warranty: None.

Performance on Snow

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 seems to emerge as the marginally superior contender when considering performance in soft snow, due largely to the presence of numerous gaps and biters. These features act as effective snow traps, holding snow particles and promoting an improved snow-to-snow contact.

With each rotation of the tire, the trapped snow establishes the contact patch with the ground, resulting in enhanced traction.

But why its important?

Well, it’s the nature of snow to adhere more efficiently to itself than to rubber, facilitating this snow-to-snow connection.

The directional tread pattern of the Kleber Krisalp HP3 also creates a scooping effect, actively displacing snow and generating forward momentum.

Contrastingly, the Barum Polaris 5 doesn’t quite match up in these aspects.

With tread more on a symmetric side, it lacks the snow-trapping and scooping features found in the Kleber Krisalp HP3, leading to a slightly underwhelming snow performance.

A Look at Tread Life

Tread life is significantly affected by rolling resistance, which is determined by the tire’s weight and the rubber composition.

And here, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 is taking the back seat with its heavier structure, which imposes greater stress on the tread, as it rubs against the road.

Moreover, the tire’s softer compund isn’t helping that etither, allowing for the rubber to burn down more quckly in comparison.

Conversely, the Barum Polaris 5 enjoys the advantages of a lighter structure and more closely packed lugs, which results in reduced friction and slower wear when the tire meets the road.

Wet Traction

Wet traction is largely dictated by two crucial factors: the tread design and the rubber formulation. Both these components determine the tire’s grip on the road and resistance to hydroplaning—key aspects of wet performance.

Wet Grip

The Kleber Krisalp HP3’s triumphs in this arena, as the tire features more abundant biters and a more intricate siping design.

It’s tread gives out a more aggressive siping, having interlocking design, and those work alongside the notches to provide superior wet traction.

Actually, the whole game here is about having ample biting edges, that could grip in the relatively dried up surface, as the sipes suck up the water particles.

And yes, that is also helped by the tire’s grooves, though that has to do with hydorplaning.

Hydroplaning Resistance

Hydroplaning happens, when water forms a barrier between the tire tread and the road surface, causing the tire to get lifted up slightly, leading to a complete loss of traction.

This is a significant safety hazard, where the Kleber Krisalp HP3 seems to take the spotlight with its exceptional water (groove) channeling abilities.

It’s sweeping arms basically allow for better flaot speeds especially in curved aqua tests (meaning, out of both tires, it evacuates water out laterally, with more ease).

Though directionally, both tires are similar.

Dry Traction: Maintaining Grip on Dry Surfaces

Dry traction performance can be split into two categories: directional grip and handling. Let me start with the handling first.

Handling

The handling of a tire, which reflects its overall sideways traction, largely depends on its shoulder lugs.

But why is that?

Well, these shoulders/sidewalls get to meet up with the road better, as the tire turns, so “how well” they meet with the road is signficiant.

That’s why it makes sense why the Barum is taking the lead here, with a frimer rubber to road connection, allowing for faster handling times, and steering response.

Directional Grip

The Barum Polaris 5 pulls ahead in terms of directional grip, as well, and that is attributed to its wider, continuous-running central rubber area.

This basically allow for a better, and more uninterrupted contact between the rubber and the road results in shorter braking distances, (which is how this grip gets measured).

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its broader tread voids, naturally lacks here.

Evaluating Ride Comfort

The comfort provided by a tire is largely influenced by factors such as road noise and the capacity to absorb vibrations.

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 struggles with road noise, which originates from the collision of air particles against the walls of the tread voids, as its wider tread voids, allow air particles to hit around more freely, generating nosie.

Though the tire does okay in the secondar area of overall comfort, the shock absorption capabilities.

Thanks to its softer tread compound, this tire excels at cushioning shocks, ensuring a smoother ride overall. So pick your tire wisely here.

Fuel Economy

Tire fuel efficiency is fundamentally tied to tread design and tire weight, both of which affect rolling resistance.

And here, simply put, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its greater weight and larger tread voids, incurs increased lug flexing during cornering, braking, and acceleration, resulting in higher energy consumption.

In contrast, the Barum Polaris 5, designed with more streamlined, longitudinally aligned ribs, which don’t generate as much of the rolling resistance, relatively, leading to superior fuel efficiency.

Summing Up

In summary, both of these are premium winter tires, each excelling in their respective domains.

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 offers superior wet traction and soft snow performance, with its abundant sipes and tread voids.

However, the increased road noise due to wider grooves may compromise comfort levels.

Conversely, the Barum Polaris 5 outperforms in dry traction and fuel economy due to its continuous central rib and lighter weight, but lacks hydroplaning resistance.

Despite their respective strengths, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 suffers faster tread wear, while the Barum Polaris 5 ensures a smoother ride, illustrating that each tire is designed to meet specific driving conditions.

Barum Polaris 5 vs Matador MP93

It’s a clash of the titans, as Barum Polaris 5, lauded for its exceptional snow handling, battles Matador MP93, commended for its excellent grip on ice. Let’s see which out of them, comes on top, starting with the snow performance of both tires.

Snow Performance

In the realm of snowy conditions, both tires exhibit impressive capabilities. However, it is the Matador MP93 that stands out as the more proficient option, particularly on fluffy snow. And a closer examination of its tread design sheds light on the reason behind its superiority.

The Matador MP93, basically, showcases a larger number of tread voids, predominantly in the form of in-groove notches. These intricacies enable the tire to adeptly trap snow particles, thereby improving snow-to-snow contact.

And as snow has a stronger affinity for itself than it does for rubber, this characteristic results in enhanced gripping efficiency.

Furthermore, the sweeping lugs of the Matador MP93 excel in clearing away heavy snow. As the tire rolls, it casts the snow backward, enabling forward momentum. This unique attribute contributes to slightly superior acceleration times.

On the other hand, the Barum Polaris 5 (review) displays somewhat diminished efficiency in braking and handling under snowy conditions. Its design is relatively enclosed, featuring a continuous central rib and narrower in-groove notches. Although it possesses a directional tread pattern, it lacks the comprehensive swooping arms of its counterpart, limiting its effectiveness in traversing through snow.

Verdict: In the battle for snow performance, the Matador MP93 emerges as the winner.

Ice Performance

The dynamics shift when confronting icy terrains, as the Barum Polaris 5 showcases its prowess by offering significantly shorter braking distances and faster acceleration times compared to the Matador MP93.

This superiority can be attributed to the numerous intricate biters spread across the tire’s tread. The central area of the Barum Polaris 5 features slanted incisions of varying width. When combined with snow vices, this design ensures superior longitudinal ice traction.

The Barum Polaris 5 further enhances its performance with multi-angled sipes that provide extra gripping on almost all types of icy surfaces.

On the other hand, the Matador MP93, with its wider tread voids, does not grip the ice as efficiently as its counterpart. Moreover, it lacks notches and multi-angled siping on both the central and shoulder lugs, leading to longer average braking distances and handling times. However, subjectively, its steering feedback is nearly on par with the Barum Polaris 5.

In terms of ice performance, the Barum Polaris 5 emerges as the winner.

Dry Traction

Dry grip efficiency largely depends on the tire’s contact with the ground, with directional grip and lateral traction playing pivotal roles.

In this aspect, the Barum Polaris 5 holds the upper hand. Its continuous central rib ensures superior and consistent surface contact as it moves in a straight line, particularly on highways. This, in turn, translates into shorter braking distances and quicker acceleration times in tests.

The continuous running rib of the Barum Polaris 5, combined with its surrounding closed-up lugs, significantly contributes to this aspect. Additionally, its lighter weight plays a considerable role in improving handling.

On the other hand, the heavier structure of the Matador MP93 offers limited performance. The added weight induces greater lug movement when the tire corners, reducing steering feedback and resulting in longer handling times compared to its counterpart.

In terms of dry traction, the Barum Polaris 5 emerges as the winner.

Wet Traction

Wet traction hinges primarily on two factors: tread design and rubber composition, which determine grip and hydroplaning resistance, respectively.

In terms of grip, despite both tires boasting ample siping and soft tread rubbers, the Barum Polaris 5 takes the lead. This advantage stems from the tire’s extensive collection of straight and interlocking sipes, which offer superior water absorption capabilities, leading to enhanced wet grip.

On the other hand, the Matador MP93 features less aggressive sipes which do not provide as much overall traction. Consequently, it exhibits longer wet braking distances and handling times on average.

However, when it comes to hydroplaning resistance, the Matador MP93 is taking the lead. Its wider grooves and sweeping arms allow for higher float speeds in both curved and straight aqua tests. The interconnected network of grooves efficiently disperses water in all directions, offering better resistance to hydroplaning overall.

In terms of wet traction, both tires emerge as winners, each excelling in different aspects.

Comfort Levels

Comfort in a tire primarily depends on factors such as road noise and vibration absorption. These aspects are heavily influenced by the tire’s construction, materials used, tread pattern, and overall sidewall design, which primarily dictate cornering smoothness.

When it comes to road noise and vibration absorption, the Barum Polaris 5 exhibits superior performance in terms of quietness. This advantage can be attributed to the tire’s less voided tread, as noise typically arises from air particles colliding with the tread walls.

However, the Matador MP93 compensates for its noisier operation by providing better vibration absorption, resulting in a smoother ride over bumps and ultimately enhancing overall comfort. Considering all these factors, both tires offer comparable comfort levels.

In terms of comfort levels, both tires emerge as winners.

Tread Life

The longevity of tire tread is significantly influenced by rolling resistance, particularly in the case of these two tire models. In this regard, the Barum Polaris 5 takes the lead.

Due to its lighter weight, the Barum Polaris 5 exerts less pressure on the tread blocks as they interact with the road. This reduces friction and slows down the rate of rubber degradation, ultimately prolonging the tire’s lifespan.

Conversely, the Matador MP93, with its heavier weight, concentrates more load on a smaller rubber surface due to its larger tread voids. As a result, each lug bears more weight, accelerating tread wear and reducing the tire’s overall lifespan.

It is worth noting, however, that the performance gap between the two tires is relatively small, which likely explains why neither model comes with any tread life warranties.

In terms of tread life, the Barum Polaris 5 emerges as the winner.

Fuel Economy

Fuel consumption in tires is closely linked to their road surface adhesion and overall structural weight. These are areas where the Matador MP93 could use some improvement.

The Matador MP93’s significant weight increases its rolling resistance, while its wider tread voids lead to increased friction as the tire rolls over asphalt surfaces.

Conversely, the Barum Polaris 5, being lighter, exerts less pressure on the surface, thereby reducing overall friction. Furthermore, its tread features longitudinally aligned ribs that streamline the tire’s movement when rolling straight, minimizing obstacles and conserving energy. This, in turn, improves fuel economy.

In terms of fuel economy, the Barum Polaris 5 emerges as the winner.

In Conclusion

When it comes to snow performance, the Matador MP93 shines with its unique tread design and higher number of tread voids, delivering superior snow gripping and clearing capabilities.

However, in icy conditions, the Barum Polaris 5 outperforms its counterpart, thanks to its intricate biters, slanted incisions, and multi-angled sipes that provide enhanced traction and handling.

On dry asphalt, the Barum Polaris 5 leads in terms of grip, although the Matador MP93 shows superior resistance to hydroplaning.

Considering overall performance, the Barum Polaris 5 appears to be the more desirable choice. It offers slightly better fuel efficiency and tread life, along with quieter operation, providing a balanced blend of performance, comfort, and durability.

Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 vs RS2

Hankook Winter Icept EVO2, with its stellar performance on snowy roads, and Hankook RS2, known for its superior handling on icy paths, are ready for the winter tire showdown. But who will be crowned the king of winter tires? Let’s find out!

Quick Takeaway

Hankook Winter Icept RS2 excels in:

Fuel Economy: With its longitudinally aligned ribs and a streamlined design, it exhibits lower rolling resistance and improved energy efficiency. Plus, it has better overall tread life.
Fluffy Snow Performance: Thanks to its unique tread design, the tire efficiently scoops snow and maintains good snow-to-snow contact, creating amplified friction and traction for better grip.
Hydroplaning Resistance: Its tread design allows for much easier flow of water out of the tread, offering better resistance to hydroplaning.

Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 excels in:

Ice Performance: Outpaces its counterpart with a shorter average braking distance and subtly faster acceleration on icy terrains, thanks to a tread design with detailed biters and abundant siping.
Dry Traction: Its central longitudinal rib ensures superior connectivity and shorter braking distances, thus providing more steadfast road contact.
Wet Traction: Its dual siping design reduces slippage, providing better grip on wet surfaces.

Areas for Improvement:

Hankook Winter Icept RS2 could improve its performance on icy surfaces and dry traction, given its design of larger tread voids, scarce notches, and less aggressive sipes.
Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 could benefit from an enhanced design for better performance on fluffy snow and improved hydroplaning resistance.

Fuel Economy

The fuel economy of a tire is intricately tied to its ability to provide traction and its overall weight. These are areas where the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 could benefit from some refinement.

Due to its increased weight and wider tread voids, the tire experiences more flexing of its lugs during maneuvers such as cornering, braking, and accelerating.

As a result, the weight distribution is spread over a smaller surface area, causing each lug to bear more pressure. This additional pressure leads to a higher expenditure of energy.

The flexing or bending of the lugs ends up consuming extra energy, which adversely affects the fuel efficiency of the tire.

On the other hand, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2, equipped with longitudinally aligned ribs and a streamlined design, exhibits lower rolling resistance values.

In simpler terms, the lugs of this tire do not exert as much force against the road. The compact tread structure efficiently channels energy towards propelling the entire tire forward instead of bending individual blocks. This results in improved energy efficiency.

Furthermore, this design attribute contributes to the tire’s better overall tread life.

Verdict: The Hankook Winter Icept RS2 wears down at a slower rate while providing greater miles per gallon, making it a favorable choice in terms of fuel economy.

Ice Performance

In the harsh reality of icy terrains, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 emerges victorious, confidently outpacing its counterpart with an impressive 7-feet shorter average braking distance and demonstrating subtly faster acceleration.

Moreover, the tire also offered faster handling times on laps (it was a whole second faster on average).

The Hankook Winter Icept RS2’s weaker performance on icy surfaces is anchored in its design. The tire, with its larger tread voids and scarce notches, is ill-prepared to grapple with the challenges of icy roads.

A lack of multi-angled siping cripples its performance further, especially during handling, with fewer notches translating to slower response times.

By contrast, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 displays pretty commendable traction in icy conditions, not only here, but compared to other famous snow tires out there as well, thanks to a tread design that artfully incorporates detailed biters and an abundance of siping.

These design elements, paired with a unique dual-angle design, significantly enhance grip and enable more effective braking and handling on icy surfaces.

Verdict: Hankook Evo 2 takes the lead, in both handling and directional icy grip.

Dry Traction

Dry traction is a critical component of tire performance, even when it comes to winter tires. And it hinges largely on the extent of rubber contact with the road, and is further divided in to two, the directional grip and the lateral traction.

Now when it comes to directional grip, which has to do with rolling straight, the Hankook Icept evo2 provides you with a more steadfast connection with the road, where its central longitudinal rib, ensures superior connectivity and shorter braking distances.

Meanwhile, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2’s design, featuring wider lateral tread voids, hinders the longitudinal movement of the blocks, thereby elongating braking times.

Furthermore, as for handling, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2’s additional weight and wider grooves prove to be a disadvantage, impeding its performance yet again.

As the tire corners, the weight shifts towards edges of the tread, and the RS2 with wider voids, and weight, pushes lugs to bend relatively more with the road, resulting in limited steering feedback, and with it, a compromised handling.

Verdict: Overall, in terms of both directional grip and handling, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 stands as the superior performer.

Wet Traction

The efficacy of wet traction is predominantly guided by the tread design and the rubber compound utilized in the tire. These elements greatly influence the tire’s capacity to cling to wet surfaces and defy hydroplaning.

In terms of grip on wet surfaces, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 has an edge, thanks to its dual siping design offering grip from multiple directions and thereby reducing slippage.

The Hankook Winter Icept RS2, equipped with less aggressive sipes, on the other hand, can’t quite match up, resulting in extended braking distances and handling times.

By less aggressive, I mean, that its sipes aren’t as interlocking internally, as its competitor.

Though the tire still offer better resistance to hydroplaning, nonetheless, where its swooping arms allow for much easier flow of water out of the tread.

Verdict: The RS2 offers better aquaplaning resistance, while the EVO2 offers better wet grip.

Fluffy Snow Performance

When it comes to snowy conditions, both tires put up a commendable performance. However, as we sift through just the fluffier snow, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 starts to outshine its counterpart.

And its superior traction can be attributed to the tire’s unique tread design, where it’s directional pattern, allow for efficient snow scooping abilities.

This provides paddling on the snow, where snow is thrown backwards and a more powerful forward momentum is created.

Moreover, the tire also offers a better snow to snow contact with that too, effectively trapping and holding the fluffy particles within their interlocking grooves.

This generates a snowy buffer layer between the tire and the ground, playing on snow’s propensity to bond better with itself than with rubber. The end result is an amplified friction and traction, allowing for better grip on snowy surfaces.

In contrast, the Hankook Winter Icept EVO2 exhibits a more minimalist approach, sporting a continuous central rib and lacking the interlocking groove structure. Consequently, it falls short in gathering snow, granting its competitor the upper hand in fluffy snow performance.

Verdict: The Hankook RS2 offers better fluffy snow traction.

To Sum Up

In conclusion, both tires display strengths in different areas. So the ideal choice would depend on the driver’s predominant driving conditions and specific needs.

The RS2 excels in fuel efficiency and resisting hydroplaning, while the EVO2 performs better on icy surfaces, dry traction, and wet grip.

In fluffy snow conditions, the RS2 demonstrates superior traction.