Other Brands

The General AltiMAX Arctic 12 is designed for drivers seeking dependable winter traction across diverse conditions. Tailored for a range of vehicles, this tire offers a blend of responsive handling and consistent performance on icy, wet, and snow-covered roads.

Key Takeaway

So overall, the General Altimax Arctic 12 tire exhibits pretty decent performance across varied conditions.

The tire excels in:

• Ice Traction: Its unique tread pattern with multi-directional biters and angled siping offers excellent grip.
• Snow Traction: The aggressive tread pattern ensures superior snow collection, and its V-shaped central lugs provide impressive snow acceleration.
• Wet Traction: Rapid water evacuation is facilitated by its directional tread pattern and expertly designed contact patch, which together boost hydroplaning resistance and overall wet performance.

While its performance can be improved in:

• Fuel Efficiency: Its considerable weight and design contribute to lower fuel economy compared to its peers.
• Tread Noise: While it’s above average, it is still the loudest in its group.
• Tread Longevity: Despite having a commendable tread depth, its more voided design impacts its overall tread life.

Info on Sizes: The General Altimax Arctic 12 comes in 14 to 19 inches with following. They all have speed ratings of T, while load ratings are available in XL only. Moreover, all sizes have tread depth of 12/32″ and weight range of 16 to 35 lbs.

Tread Appearance

The General Altimax Arctic 12 showcases a blocky, directional tread pattern.

In this design, the central (most) lugs are anchored atop a continuous secondary rubber layer.

These lugs offer multifaceted sides and are abundant with linear sipes.

Their arrow-like shape further complements them with potent in-groove notches.

On the adjacent (to the middle most) ribs, you see notches facing shoulders, and slightly different siping pattern (wave-like, unlike linear slits seen on the central rib).

These shoulder blocks come in pairs, flanked by the broadest (of all) lateral tread voids.

These studable lugs are smoother and less pronounced, showcasing fewer edges and devoid of notches, yet they maintain the wave-like siping.

Internally, the tire features a high-turn-up polyester casing, reinforced by two broad steel belts and a spirally wound nylon cap ply.

Overall Winter Performance

The efficacy of a tire during winter is determined by its performance on ice and snow.

Ice Traction

This measures the tire’s grip on icy surfaces. Due to the slippery nature of ice, the effectiveness of the tire’s rubber compound and tread design becomes paramount.

So ideal tires here should have numerous, flexible “biters” that maintain their functionality even in freezing temperatures.

Having said that, it makes sense why the General Altimax Arctic 12 emerges as a front-runner on icy terrains, compared to other tires in its category.

Its exemplary performance on ice is credited to its unique tread pattern, which blends multi-directional biters with ingeniously angled siping.

Specifically, both its shoulder and the central (most) rib feature a distinct siping design, with variations in width and angular orientation.

This intricate and aggressive siping approach ensures grip from every angle.

Consequently, the tire delivers impressive braking distances and sharp handling precision, translating to an overall above-average performance.

Snow Traction

This evaluates how a tire fares on snow-covered roads. The tire must be able to dig into the snow, make effective snow-to-snow contact, and release snow to avoid accumulation. Snowflakes interlock naturally, so a tire’s tread should capture snow, creating friction that surpasses rubber-to-snow contact.

The General Arctic 12 truly stands out in this aspect, thanks to its aggressive tread pattern which isn’t densely packed.

This design allows the tire to effectively gather snow, leading to exceptional snow collection efficiency.

Additionally, its V-shaped central lugs are adept at shoveling the snow rearward, yielding impressive acceleration in snowy conditions.

For perspective, the Altimax only trails by just under half a foot in acceleration tests when compared to the best performer in this category.

Wet Traction

Tire performance in wet conditions hinges on tread design and rubber composition. These attributes shape wet grip and hydroplaning resistance.

Wet Gripping

Wet grip, akin to its dry counterpart, depends on the rubber’s contact with the road. Water, however, can prevent this contact.

And that’s where grooves and sipes come in.

While grooves eliminate most of the water, sipes address residual water particles. These sipes release air, creating a suction effect that removes water, enabling the tire to maintain road contact.

Now, the General Altimax Arctic 12 does a great job here, employing a very aggressive siping pattern that combines dual wave-like and linear patterns (linear on central rib, while wave-like on adjacent ones).

These multi-angled sipes ensure versatile grip, effectively securing traction in all directions.

However, it’s worth noting that a significant portion of its traction can be attributed to its hydroplaning resistance, though let me elaborate it in the following section.

Side Note: When it comes to winter tires, the Continental VikingContact 7 (review) offers one of the best winter traction. Just an FYI.

Resistance to Hydroplaning

Hydroplaning occurs when water disrupts the connection between the tire and the road. But why this happens? Well water is incompressible, so if it isn’t channeled away, it can come in between, causing a loss of traction.

So it has to be dealt with. And tires do that with grooves (for the most part), which direct water away, mitigating the risk of aquaplaning (or floating of the tire).

Now the General Altimax Arctic 12 excels here, as it escapes water out, pretty quickly and efficiently, allowing for decent overall float speeds.

Its directional tread pattern, characterized by squared-off central lugs, creates voids that run in all directions, facilitating rapid water evacuation.

Additionally, the tire comes with an expertly designed contact patch that applies enhanced pressure on the water, ensuring it is forced out with vigor.

This design technically means that most of the water is effectively channeled out through the grooves, leaving the sipes with minimal/less residual work, thereby enhancing overall wet performance.

Comfort Levels

Tire comfort relates to noise reduction and vibration absorption, influenced by construction, materials, tread pattern, and sidewall design.

Tread Noise

Noise often stems from air colliding with tire tread walls. So to put simply, tires with larger tread gaps produce more noise.

Now, General Altimax Arctic 12 delivers okay performance in this area, standard for a winter tire.

Its more open shoulder voids coupled with its multi-angled siping lead to a bit more audible growl.

However, its performance still stands out as above average, largely due to its variable pitch tread design, which effectively minimizes in-groove resonance.

But yes, it’s still the loudest tire in its group (even though its only by a small difference).

Bumps Absorption

Tires function as a vehicle’s secondary suspension, cushioning against road irregularities. This absorption is a product of both the tire’s internal and external construction.

And here, the General Altimax Arctic 12 is one of the best among its competitors, mainly because of two main things.

One, it’s rubber is relatively softer.

And two, it offers relatively greater tread depth, combined with independent lugs.

This basically allows the bumps energy to be transformed in to the bending of the lugs, thereby mitigating road vibrations efficiently.

Fuel Economy

Tire fuel efficiency correlates with weight and traction, which impact rolling resistance. But how these factors matter here?

Well, put simply, heavier tires with broad tread gaps often flex more during maneuvers, consuming energy otherwise used for tire movement.

Now, the General Altimax Arctic 12, while offering acceptable rolling resistance, falls short in terms of fuel economy when compared to its peers.

This is understandable given the tire’s significant weight and the presence of independent lugs lacking foundational supports.

Additionally, the multitude of in-groove notches and multi-angled biting edges intensify the grip, leading to increased fuel consumption.

So in summary, the fuel efficiency of the Altimax Arctic 12 is somewhat below average for top-tier winter tires.

Dry Performance

Even for winter tires, dry traction is vital. It centers on the rubber’s road contact and divides into directional grip and lateral traction.

Longitudinal Grip

This grip pertains to a tire’s straight-line traction and is predominantly about the central tread’s road contact. As this area bears the most weight when moving straight, its performance influences braking efficiency (direct measure of longitudinal grip).

Among its direct competitors, the General Altimax Arctic 12 falls short by just an average of 2 feet in braking distance compared to the top-performing tire in this category.

The tire’s continuous central rib ensures steady road contact, which in turn contributes to shorter braking distances and faster acceleration during testing.

Dry Handling

Dry handling combines lateral traction and steering feedback. The tire’s lateral grip, indicative of its sideways traction, largely rests on its shoulder lugs. As tires turn, these lugs interact with the road, determining traction quality.

Having said that it can be explained why the General Altimax Arctic 12 offers pretty decent overall handling performance, I mean comparing other tires in it’s winter category.

So how come?

Well, this can be attributed to its stiffer internal nylon cap ply.

This feature ensures the tire’s shoulder remains firm during cornering, enhancing steering responsiveness.

However, its performance might have been further improved with a less voided structure.

Tread Longevity

Tread longevity intertwines with rolling resistance and tread depth. Though greater tread depth extends the tire’s life, it also increases the likelihood of lug bending, resulting in more heat and resistance.

Now although the General Altimax Arctic 12 has a good enough tread depth (which technically should allow the tire to take more time reaching down to 2/32″), the tire only offers average tread life here.

And the main issue is its more voided up design.

So even with the relatively lighter weight, the tire still pushes its lugs down more, as that weight is concentrated on a smaller rubber area.

This increases rolling friction, lowering overall tread longevity. That’s why it makes sense why the tire don’t come with any treadwear warranty.

Conclusion

The General Altimax Arctic 12 proves itself as a decent overall winter tire, showcasing strengths in key areas critical for cold conditions.

Its distinctive tread pattern, featuring multi-directional biters and ingeniously angled siping, allows for exceptional grip on icy terrains, while in snowy conditions, its design facilitates effective snow collection and impressive acceleration, outpacing many competitors.

Wet conditions reveal its rapid water evacuation capabilities, enhancing hydroplaning resistance and maintaining traction.

And talking about dry conditions, its solid central rib enhances braking efficiency and acceleration, though its handling has some room for improvement.

Fuel efficiency, however, is a notable drawback, being below average, attributed to its design and weight, and the same factors also let down it’s longevity too.

Moreover, the tire ensures comfort with adept bumps absorption, though it’s slightly noisier.

The battlefield is set as Barum Polaris 5, acclaimed for its innovative ice-grip technology, competes against Nexen Winguard Sport 2, known for its exceptional slush performance. Let’s find out who takes the top spot!

Key Takeaway

The Nexen Winterguard Sport 2 takes the lead when it comes to:

• Dominating icy surface performance with superior braking, acceleration, and handling due to a higher number of biters and varied groove notches.
• Offering better vibration dampening and shock absorption for a smoother ride thanks to its softer tread compound and greater tread depth.
• Outperforming in wet traction, both in terms of grip and hydroplaning resistance, with its aggressive siping pattern, V-shaped lugs, and greater tread depth.

On the other side, the Barum Polaris 5:

• Delivers a superior handling experience in dry conditions, benefiting from its stiffer and lighter rubber.
• Provides a quieter ride due to its pitch-producing tread which neutralizes noise from air particle collisions.
• Excels in soft snow conditions, utilizing open biters, chamfered edges, and interlocking grooves to gather snow effectively for better grip.

Review Polaris 5 in detail.

Sizes Info

Feature	Nexen WinGuard Sport 2	Barum Polaris 5
Sizes (inches)	15 to 20	13 to 19
Total Sizes	Not specified	74
Speed Ratings	H, V	T, H, V
Load Ratings	SL, XL	SL, XL
Tread Depth	10.5/32″	9 to 10/32″
Weight (lbs)	15 to 30	15 to 26
Tread Warranty	None	None

Dry Performance

The proficiency of a tire’s dry grip is measured by the volume of the rubber that comes into contact with the surface. This is primarily determined by two key components: the directional grip and lateral traction.

Allow us to delve into each of these factors individually.

Directional Grip

The central tread area plays a significant role in the effectiveness of directional grip as it dictates the amount of rubber-to-road contact.

Now here both tires have similar results, as seen by their braking effectiveness. That’s because they both have different features contributing to that.

In case of Barum Polaris 5, you although get more voids in the middle, reducing its performance.

The tire still does okay, thanks to its lighter weight.

With that, there’s less momentum force, allowing the tire for easier braking in comparison. And that’s improtant here, because straight-line grip is calculated by the tire’s braking.

Moreover, given that this central area bears the majority of the load when a tire rolls straight, the tire coming with slanted notches further add to that grip.

In contrast, the Winterguard Sport 2, despite showcasing a nearly continuous running layer, and more streamlined design of its counterpart, should technically take the lead, but its overall performance is similar to its counterpart, due to it’s greater structural weight.

So both tires end up getting equal scores here.

Handling

Handling largely depends on the tire’s shoulder regions and overall weight. While the central lugs carry the burden during directional movement, inertia forces the weight towards the shoulders during cornering. The ability of these shoulder lugs to engage with the surface significantly impacts the handling performance.

Here, the Barum Polaris 5, although offers similar shoulder-to-road contact area, in comparison, still delivers a superior handling experience, with it’s stiffer rubber, and lighter rubber.

On the other hand, the Nexen Winterguard Sport 2, featuring wider grooves, greater tread depth, and also has a heavier structure.

This increased weight results in greater lug flex, leading to reduced steering feedback.

I mean, there’s an imbalance between it’s understeering and oversteering.

And winder grooves and tread depth add to that (lug bending).

Basically with more voids, its weight is less distributed among lugs, and greater tread depth means, lugs are thicker, so you get more deformity of its tread.

Moreover, it’s softer compound isn’t helping this process either.

That’s why even though both tires offer similar lateral grip, the Winguard lacks with its lagging steering responsiveness.

Ice Traction

The Nexen Winguard Sport 2 undoubtedly dominates on icy surfaces, significantly outperforming its counterpart in all aspects including braking, acceleration, and handling.

The reason for this superior performance lies in the higher number of biters present on the tire.

Basically both tires offer similar acceleration and braking, but the Winguard takes the lead in ice handling.

On the other hand, the Barum, with its sightly larger tread voids and lesser number of notches, simply can’t grip the slippery ice as efficiently.

It lacks complex features like dual and multi-angled siping, which are indispensable for tackling compacted snow and icy terrains.

Whereas its counterpart offers a higher count of effective biters, per square inch of tread (one way to explain it).

It features a more varied array of groove notches and snow vices, oriented in both lateral directions, along with a generous supply of dual-patterned siping. Together, these provide enhanced overall gripping efficacy on icy surfaces.

So on icy terrains, Nexen has the upper hand.

Comfort Levels

Ride comfort is typically gauged by two key elements: the noise level and the tire’s ability to absorb road shocks.

Let’s begin by analyzing the noise component.

Simply put, noise generation is a consequence of air particles colliding with the tread’s walls. Thus, a larger tread gap generally translates to a noisier ride.

With this in mind, the Barum Polaris 5, although does not feature compact enough tread gaps, it still offers a more superior ride in terms of noise reduction, all thanks to its pitch producing tread. Let me explain.

So with with this, there is a slight geometric variation in the tread blocks and that results in air particles generating a variety of tones that effectively neutralize each other.

However, the Nexen Winguard Sport 2 outperforms in the area of vibration dampening, due to its comparatively softer tread compound. This feature grants it superior shock absorption capabilities, promising a smoother and more comfortable ride.

Moreover, the tire’s greater tread depth is also providing this tire with a lot of help. This is because more tread depth means more rubber between you and the road, effectively dampening road shocks.

So overall, both tires are great when it comes to comfort, though Polaris is better with noise, and WinGuard with bumps.

Snow Traction

In conditions of soft snow, the Barum Polaris 5 stands out as the clear winner.

The tire, showcasing a more open biters, with chamfered edges and interlocking grooves, is able to gather snow effectively, providing better grip.

The importance of snow gathering is grounded in the fact that snow sticks better to snow than it does to rubber.

The Winterguard Sport 2, with its slightly narrower slits, facilitates less snow-to-snow contact, so it’s not allowing its lug voids to trap soft snow particles as effectively, within their interconnected grooves and snow vices.

Whereas the Polaris, with its pronounced directional pattern aids in paddling, scooping the snow backwards, thereby generating superior forward momentum.

So overall, this ones a win for Barum.

Wet Traction

Wet traction is primarily governed by two components: the tread design and the type of rubber compound used in the tire’s construction. These factors essentially determine the tire’s grip on wet surfaces and its resistance to hydroplaning.

Let’s explore each in turn.

Wet Grip

Despite both tires possessing substantial siping, the Winterguard Sport 2 slightly outperforms in this domain. It incorporates a more aggressive siping pattern that combines linear and interlocking slits.

Additionally, the ample number of biters on its tread allows for more effective gripping on wet surfaces.

These characteristics lend the tire a slight edge in terms of grip. Sipes function by expelling air and subsequently creating a vacuum that attracts water particles.

Though most of its traction is coming from its hydroplaning resistance. Let me explain it in a separate section.

Hydroplaning resistance

Hydroplaning is essentially a floating phenomenon that happens when water forms a thin layer between the tire tread and the road surface, due to inefficient water dispersion. Broader grooves help to mitigate this.

Now here, the Nexen Winterguard Sport 2 excels, as it throws out more water, with its more streamlined V shaped lugs, followed by its greater tread depth and weight.

The V shaped lugs channel water out (from middle to shoulders, more effectively), while tread depth allow for more volume of water evacuation at a given time.

In terms of weight, the tire puts more pressure on water, creating a better negative pressure, so water goes out with a greater force/pressure.

So overall, wet performance is better on Nexen in comparison.

Summing Up

So overall, in assessing tire performance across various terrains, both tires have their merits.

For dry grip, both tires are comparably effective in directional grip due to different contributing features, although the Polaris 5 has a lighter weight advantage.

In handling, this tire offers superior performance due to its stiffer and lighter rubber, whereas the Winguard Sport 2 suffers from lagging steering responsiveness.

But the Nexen excels on icy terrains, offering superior traction, particularly in handling. However, its counterpart provides a quieter ride and excels in snow traction due to its effective snow-gathering design.

And yes the tire also stands out, in overall wet performance, with better hydroplaning resistance and grip.

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.