Firestone Winterforce 2 vs 1

Firestone Winterforce 2, with its outstanding snow performance, and Firestone Winterforce 1, known for its excellent handling on icy roads, are ready to compete. Who will emerge as the winner of this frosty showdown? Let’s unravel the mystery!

Hyundai

Wet Traction

Tire performance on wet surface is largely influenced by the tread pattern and rubber texture.

And both Firestone Winterforce 1 and 2, contenders in the winter terrain category, exhibit exemplary performance due to their abundant tread voids and siping.

These voids proficiently disperse water, reducing the risk of hydroplaning and improving wet grip.

But still, if you have to pick one here, go with the Firestone Winterforce 2, as the tire offers slightly sophisticated design of interlocking and straight sipes allows for a more aggressive grip and heightened traction.

Its tread also showcases superior flexibility, enabling the sipes to absorb water particles effectively and create an outstanding suction force.

Although the Firestone Winterforce 1 displays commendable hydroplaning resistance due to its broad grooves and adeptly designed lateral sipes, it doesn’t quite match the prowess of the Winterforce 2 on wet surfaces.

Verdict: The newer Winterforce tire is better overall, though it still lacks in terms of hydroplaning resistance.

Don’t miss on the detailed review of WinterForce 2 here: https://snowytires.com/firestone-winterforce-2-review/

Powdery Snow Performance

Both tires excel in delivering exceptional performance on soft snow, even in harsh wintry conditions.

However, the Firestone Winterforce 1 takes the lead in this category. Its success lies in its unique tread pattern, which features spacious lugs that enable snow-to-snow contact.

The tread voids of the Firestone Winterforce 1 act as snow trappers, effectively capturing snow particles and creating a layer of snow that interacts with the ground as the tire rolls. This results in superior traction since snow adheres better to snow than to rubber.

On the other hand, the Firestone Winterforce 2 adopts a less aggressive approach, especially with heavier snow. Its compact and less assertive tread pattern doesn’t gather snow as efficiently, leading to slightly inferior performance on snowy terrains compared to its predecessor.

Ice Performance

When it comes to icy terrains, the Firestone Winterforce 2 shines as a top performer, as its distinct tread design incorporates angular cuts and V-shaped notches of various sizes and directions.

These features, combined with the tire’s highly siped pattern, ensure quicker braking and superior handling responsiveness on ice.

In contrast, the Firestone Winterforce 1 falls short in this category due to its larger tread voids and fewer notches. These design elements make it less effective at gripping ice compared to its update.

Verdict: The Winterforce 2 offers better directional grip and handling on icy terrains.

Directional Grip

The performance of directional grip is largely dependent on the central area of the tread, which carries the majority of the tire’s load during straight-line driving.

The Firestone Winterforce 2 excels in this aspect, thanks to its more streamlined continuous running central rib. This rib provides a larger contact patch with the ground, enhancing directional grip.

On the other hand, the Firestone Winterforce 1 features in-groove biters or notches in place of a continuous central rib.

While these notches contribute to traction, they also consume rubber that could have contacted the ground and provided better directional grip.

Verdict: The Firestone Winterforce 2 demonstrates shorter braking distances, a direct measure of superior directional grip.

Handling

The handling capabilities of a tire, particularly lateral traction, heavily rely on the performance of its shoulder lugs. These lugs play a crucial role in adhering to the road surface as the tire navigates corners.

In this regard, the Firestone Winterforce 1 holds an advantage due to its less deep tread and denser shoulder lugs. The compact shoulder design of this tire ensures superior road contact during cornering, as more shoulder lugs engage with the road surface.

The shallower tread depth of the Firestone Winterforce 1 also reduces the likelihood of the lugs flexing or bending during cornering, resulting in a more balanced steering feedback and superior handling.

On average, tests show that the Firestone Winterforce 2 lags behind by approximately one second in lap times, indicating its slightly inferior handling performance.

Fuel Economy

Fuel efficiency is closely tied to a tire’s rolling resistance, which refers to the “stickiness” of the tread against the road.

In this aspect, the Firestone Winterforce 2 takes the lead, despite its similar weight and tread design.

The shallower tread depth and slightly harder rubber compound of the Firestone Winterforce 2 contribute to reduced flexibility and bending of the lugs during cornering, braking, or acceleration. This leads to less heat generation and overall energy expenditure, enhancing fuel efficiency.

On the other hand, the predecessor falls short in the fuel economy department due to its design and rubber composition.

Tread Life

Winter tires often face challenges in terms of tread life due to their softer rubber composition, which tends to wear more quickly. Consequently, both Firestone tires exhibit similar performance in this area, which can be considered average.

The Firestone Winterforce 1’s thermally adaptive rubber, designed to handle harsh winter temperatures, is more prone to faster wear. However, the tire’s deeper tread depth provides similar mileage before reaching the legal limit of 2/32″ tread depth.

Therefore, despite its rubber wearing down more quickly, the Firestone Winterforce 1 manages to keep pace with its update, in terms of tread life.

Vibration Absorption

Tires can be seen as the secondary suspension system of a vehicle, playing a role in absorbing road imperfections, where both the internal and external build come in to play.

In this aspect, the Firestone Winterforce 2 excels, thanks to its advanced compound.

The tire’s new gen compound offers better thermal adaptability on snowy terrains and provides superior cushioning against road disturbances. As a result, the tire delivers a remarkably smoother ride.

On the other hand, the Firestone Winterforce 1 doesn’t quite match up in terms of vibration absorption due to its stiffer tread compound.

Verdict: The newer model is better.

Noise Generation

Tire noise is predominantly generated by air entering through the sides or shoulder voids and hitting the walls, resulting in unwanted sound waves. This noise is further amplified by in-groove resonance, where echoing occurs.

Having said that, the softer compound of the Winterforce 2 makes it more susceptible to generating larger resonance values.

So does that mean, its a louder tire?

Well, not really.

The thing is, Winterforce 2 utilizes advanced pitch sequencing technology, which involves variations in tread block geometry, generating different sound frequencies that effectively cancel each other out, reducing “resonance” noise.

To Conclude

In summary, both tires perform admirably across a range of conditions, with each showcasing specific strengths.

The Winterforce 2 excels in wet traction, ice performance, directional grip, and vibration absorption, largely due to its advanced tread design and rubber composition.

On the other hand, Winterforce 1 leads in powdery snow performance, handling, and noise reduction, courtesy of its unique tread pattern, dense shoulder lugs, and advanced noise reduction technology.

And yes, in terms of tread life and fuel efficiency, both tires offer similar performances.

Firestone Winterforce 2 vs UV

Firestone Winterforce 2 and its UV variant, both are considered champions in the winter tire scene, in my books, each with distinct fortes in handling, durability, and comfort. But the question is, which one is a better pick for your needs. Let’s find out!

Chevy

Ice Performance

On the icy terrain, the Firestone Winterforce 2 (review), exhibits a confident performance that sets it apart, which is seen by its impressive ability to stop in a significantly shorter distance, around 10 feet less, compared to its counterpart.

The tire basically offers more biters, in the form of slanted incisions in various sizes. And these combined with its more aggressive siping, you get a pretty commendable ice performance.

Though, when it comes to handling, where the tire’s shoulder lugs play a vital role, the difference is marginal.

This is because the tire does not offer as many biting edges there, as it offers in the middle. But as it still offers a more aggressive siping pattern, its overall handling is better (measured with lateral g forces).

Verdict: Firestone Winterforce 2 offers better handling and directional grip.

Snow Performance

In the realm of snowy conditions, both tires leave a lasting impression, showcasing their prowess with exceptional performances. However, the Winterforce 2 UV still exhibits a certain flair, particularly when navigating through fluffy snow terrains, and it owes its superior traction to its unique tread design.

This tire boasts a tread pattern with lugs that spread open like welcoming arms, establishing intimate contact with the snowy surface. These lugs efficiently scoop up and retain the fluffy snow particles within their interlocking grooves, forming a layer of captured snow. This snow layer acts as a buffer, allowing the tread to maintain contact with the ground, and as snow adheres better to its kindred flakes than to rubber, resulting in enhanced traction.

In contrast, the Firestone Winterforce 2 adopts a more closed tread design with a continuous running rib at the center, lacking the interlocking groove structure.

As a result, its tread is less effective at collecting and retaining snow, giving its competitor the upper hand in snowy conditions.

Dry Traction

Dry traction relies on two crucial components: directional grip and lateral traction.

Directional grip is primarily influenced by the central area of the tread, where its seen, how much rubber to road contact is made.

In this regard, the Firestone Winterforce 2 excels with its more compacted up running central rib, takes the lead.

Handling, on the other hand, depends on the shoulders of the tire and its overall weight.

This is because, when the tire corners, its weight shifts towards the edges of the tread, known as the shoulders, and the quality of contact between the shoulders and the ground becomes crucial.

The Winterforce 2 UV falls short in this aspect due to its wider grooves, which compromise its handling performance.

Moreover, its greater weight also impacts its handling, leading to increased lug movement during cornering, weakening steering feedback.

Verdict: Firestone Winterforce 2 has the upper hand in overall dry traction.

Wet Traction

Wet traction is primarily influenced by the tread design and rubber compound of the tire. And both the Firestone Winterforce 2 and the Winterforce 2 UV do great here, as they come equipped with abundant siping and thermally adaptive, soft rubber compounds.

Their mixture of rectilinear and interlocking sipes allows it to soak up water particles encountered on wet surfaces very effectively. Moreover, their multiple angles present in the sipes enhance the tire’s grip during cornering.

Water is absorbed into the slits, and the sipes oriented parallel to the tire’s motion ensure the necessary grip.

Though still the Winterforce 2 UV exhibits commendable hydroplaning resistance, as demonstrated in aquaplaning tests where it achieves slightly superior “float speeds” on both curved and straight surfaces.

So you can say, this tire still has a slight edge over its counterpart.

Verdict: Winterforce 2 UV edges out (is better), just a little bit here.

Fuel Economy

The adhesion of the tire to the road surface and its structural weight significantly impact fuel consumption. In this aspect, the Winterforce 2 UV takes a back seat due to its considerable weight, which increases rolling resistance.

The tire’s wider tread voids basically puts more pressure on the lugs, and its greater weight isn’t helping. So you end up with more fuel usage.

However, it is worth noting that the Winterforce 2 UV’s performance improves significantly in extreme winter temperatures.

On the other hand, the Firestone Winterforce 2, with its lighter weight and longitudinally aligned ribs, promotes smoother straight-line travel, resulting in more efficient fuel consumption and reduced energy wastage, especially on highways.

Verdict: The Winterforce 2 shows better MPG.

Comfort Levels

Tire comfort is influenced by various factors, including road noise, vibration absorption, tire construction, material composition, and the tread pattern. When considering all these factors, a mixed comparison emerges between the two tires.

In terms of noise generation, which occurs when air particles collide with the tread walls, the Firestone Winterforce 2 slightly outperforms its competitor. Its less voided structure provides less space for air to reverberate compared to the Winterforce 2 UV.

However, the Winterforce 2 UV exhibits superior vibration absorption, offering slightly better cushioning when encountering bumps on the road.

Verdict: The UV variant is quieter out of both tires.

Tread Life

Tread durability is significantly influenced by rolling resistance, and the overall tread structure.

And looking at both it can be seen why the UV variant is lacking here, with heavier weight, and a relatively softer compound.

The weight translates into a greater force exerted by the tread blocks on the road surface, and this leads to a relatively excessive lug bending.

This lug bending then leads to heat, and that wears down the tread faster, as heat is the worst enemy of winter tires.

Summing Up

Ultimately, the comparison between the two tires yields the following.

When maneuvering on fluffy snow, the Winterforce 2 UV holds an edge. However, when it comes to packed snow and ice, the Firestone Winterforce 2 reigns supreme, showcasing superior braking distances and handling times.

On tarmac, the Winterforce 2 excels in both wet and dry conditions. However, the UV variant outshines its counterpart in terms of hydroplaning resistance.

Both tires deliver commendable ride comfort, with the Firestone 2 providing a quieter journey and the UV offering better bump absorption.

In terms of tread life, the Winterforce 2 proves to be more durable due to its lighter weight and reduced friction.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 vs Fulda Kristall Control HP2

In the realm of winter tires, both the Kleber Krisalp HP3 and Fulda Kristall Control HP2, are pretty underrated, and go go head-to-head in terms of their performance values. But still there are a few things you should know about them.

Winter Tire on Benz

Tread and Fuel Usage

The relationship between tread life and fuel economy is primarily linked by rolling resistance, which is significantly affected by factors such as tire weight, tread composition, and design.

In terms of fuel efficiency, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 emerges as the superior choice, as its more streamlined lugs and less aggressive tread voids, particularly in the central area, allow for a smoother and uninterrupted central rib.

This design minimizes obstacles during linear rolling, thus enhancing fuel economy.

However, when considering tread life, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 excels. It benefits from a harder tread compound and deeper tread, which contribute to its ability to resist wear more effectively.

The deeper tread also implies a longer duration before reaching the legally required 2/32″ tread depth, extending the tire’s lifespan.

Review Krisalp Hp3 in detail: https://snowytires.com/kleber-krisalp-hp3-review/

Wet Performance

A crucial factor in determining wet grip is the presence of grooves and sipes on the tire.

This is because both of these are the main dimensions that tell the tire’s ability to effectively displace water.

Having said that, although both tires aren’t going to disappoint you at all, it would still be wise to go with Kleber Krisalp HP3 here, as the tire features slightly faster handling (as seen on laps), and better directional grip (showcased by it’s shorter stopping abilities).

Kleber Krisalp HP3
Kleber Krisalp HP3

So why is that?

Well, because the tire incorporates a variety of sipes, which are more adept at absorbing and channeling water, thereby enhancing its grip on damp roads.

In addition, the tire features numerous tightly-packed, sturdy yet flexible sipes that provide added performance when navigating corners.

On the other hand, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2, (while not significantly behind), exhibits less aggressive siping and a stiffer rubber compound, which affects its performance on wet surfaces.

With stiffer rubber compound, basically, the tire’s tread isn’t able to as efficiently breath in water particles, as seen on its counterpart.

Snow Grip

When it comes to snowy conditions, the Fulda Kristall Control HP2 takes the lead, especially when dealing with light and fluffy snow. (Though it does fall short when it comes to icy or compacted snow, so I’ll be talking about in a separate topic).

Fulda Kristall Control HP2
Fulda Kristall Control HP2

So the thing is, this tire features a tread design which is able to offer better snow grabbing abilities.

It’s tread is laced with a significant number of in-groove notches and voids, and both of these key elements act as snow trappers in a better way, providing greater friction, as snow has a better adherence to itself than to rubber.

On the other side, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its less spacious and simpler tread design, does not offer the same level of effective snow-to-snow contact, especially in heavy snow conditions.

Vibration Dampening

Tires play a crucial role in absorbing road irregularities and providing a smoother ride. In a way, they act as the initial barrier between the vehicle and the road, effectively functioning as supplementary suspension systems.

But which out of these boys here is better at it and why?

Well, in terms of vibration dampening, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 takes the lead with its innovative tread compound. This compound is designed to effectively manage uneven surfaces, absorbing road disturbances and delivering a remarkably smooth and comfortable ride.

Whereas the Fulda Kristall Control HP2, with its stiffer rubber compound, falls short, providing a relatively more jittery ride.

Ice Traction

On surfaces covered in ice, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 shines due to its design features such as angled slits and multi-directional snow vices.

These elements, along with the tire’s robust siping, facilitate faster braking and enhanced handling on icy surfaces.

On braking tests, it showed a remarkable 2 feet shorter distance on average, and in case of handling, it showcased an average of 1.5 seconds quicker lap times.

The Fulda Kristall HP2 on the other hand, lacks with it’s missing aggressive enough biters. I mean, sure, there’s a ton of siping on this tire too, along with in-groove resonance, if you look closely, you’d note that those biters, aren’t as interlocking as you see on its counterpart.

Noise Generation

Tire noise primarily originates from two sources. First, air colliding with the tread walls, mainly entering through shoulder voids. Second, in-groove resonance caused by echoing noise within the tread.

And in both the Kleber HP3 gets to be quieter.

The tire offers a relatively more closed up shoulder voids, restricting the entry of air (which is the main source by the way).

Moreover, it’s rubber compound is also built in a way, so as to minimize the echoing effect too.

Fulda tire, in comparison, allows more air particles to collide around, on the other hand, and it’s rubber geometry also allows greater in-groove resonance production too, because its variable pitch technology is not as sophisticated, as seen on its counterpart.

Dry Gripping

The effectiveness of a tire’s (directional/longitudinal) grip on dry surfaces depends largely on the central tread area, where the majority of the tire’s load is concentrated during linear cruising.

In this aspect, the Kelber HP3 offers superior performance, as it features a more continuous central ribs that ensure constant road contact.

This design results in a significant reduction in braking distance, with tests showing an average improvement of 4 feet compared to its counterpart.

Dry Handling

The ability of a tire to handle or maintain lateral grip is largely dependent on the shoulder lug design and overall tread flexibility.

And here the opposite happens. Where the Kleber showcased better directional grip, the Fulda offers superior lateral g forces, and dry lap times.

And this is majorly because of the tire’s stiffer rubber compound, and lugs having more powerful reinforced foundational supports underneath.

Simply put, these allow for better steering response values, as the tire is not prone to oversteering and understeering.

To Sum Up

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 outperforms in the following aspects:

  • Wet Performance: Thanks to its variety of sipes and numerous tightly-packed, sturdy yet flexible sipes, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 provides superior handling and grip on wet surfaces.
  • Vibration Dampening: The Kleber Krisalp HP3’s innovative tread compound effectively manages uneven surfaces, absorbing road disturbances and delivering a remarkably smooth and comfortable ride.
  • Noise Generation: The Kleber Krisalp HP3’s more closed up shoulder voids restrict the entry of air and reduce in-groove resonance, making it a quieter tire.
  • Ice Traction: The Kleber Krisalp HP3’s design features, such as angled slits and multi-directional snow vices, facilitate faster braking and enhanced handling on icy surfaces.
  • Dry Gripping: The Kleber Krisalp HP3 features more continuous central ribs that ensure constant road contact, leading to improved performance on dry surfaces.
  • Fuel Efficiency: The Kleber Krisalp HP3’s streamlined lugs and less aggressive tread voids allow for a smoother and uninterrupted central rib, enhancing fuel economy.

The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 excels in:

  • Snow Grip: The Fulda Kristall Control HP2’s tread design offers better snow grabbing abilities, performing well in light and fluffy snow conditions.
  • Dry Handling: The Fulda Kristall Control HP2’s stiffer rubber compound and lugs with reinforced foundational supports underneath allow for better steering response values, thus enhancing lateral grip and dry lap times.
  • Tread Life: The Fulda Kristall Control HP2 benefits from a harder tread compound and deeper tread, which resist wear more effectively, thus extending its lifespan.

Sumitomo Ice Edge vs Nokian Nordman 7

Both Sumitomo Ice Edge and Nokian Nordman 7 are worth mentioning in the winter tire spectrum, each with unique attributes to tackle the toughest winter conditions. But which tire is better for your needs? Well, let’s find out.

Winter Tire
Sumitomo Ice Edge is a popular choice among SUV owners.

Key Takeaway

The Nokian Nordman 7 (review) stands out when it comes to:

  • Ice Traction: With multiple smaller biters, variable-width inclined cuts, dual siping patterns, and highly angled biters, the Nokian Nordman 7 delivers superior traction on icy terrains.
  • Wet Performance: The tire has various types of sipes and a relatively softer compound, which allows for better absorption and redirection of water, hence enhancing grip on wet roads.
  • Dry Gripping: The Nokian Nordman 7, with a denser central rib, ensures continuous surface contact during linear motion, leading to improved performance in dry conditions.
  • Fuel Efficiency: The tire’s streamlined lugs and less aggressive central tread voids contribute to smoother, uninterrupted central rib motion, leading to better fuel economy.
  • Vibration Dampening: The tire, with a softer rubber compound, enhances the flexibility of its lugs, effectively absorbing impacts and mitigating surface vibrations.

On the other hand, the Sumitomo Ice Edge excels in:

  • Snow Grip: The Sumitomo performs better in fluffy or powdery snow conditions due to its abundant notches and voids in the tread that act as snow catchers, improving ground contact by holding onto the snow.
  • Tread Life: Despite carrying a smaller tread depth, the tire delivers superior tread life due to its stiffer rubber compound, which wears at a slower rate.

Available Sizes

The Sumitomo Ice Edge comes in 14 to 20 inches with following.

  • Speed ratings: T only.
  • Load ratings: SL and XL.
  • Tread depth: 12/32″ on all.
  • Weight: 16 to 33 lbs.

On the other side, the Nokian Nordman 7 comes in 34 sizes in 13 to 17 inches rims, with following specs.

  • Speed ratings: T only.
  • Load ratings: SL and XL.
  • Tread depth: 13/32″ on all.
  • Weight: 15 to 27 lbs.
  • Tread warranty: None.

Dry Gripping

The efficacy of the directional grip is largely dependent on the central tread area, as it defines the extent of contact between the tire and the road.

When the tire travels in a straight line, this central area bears the most pressure. And yes, that’s the reasons why its measured through braking distances (and also acceleration times, in some cases).

And so considering that, it can be understood, why out of both tires, the Nokian Nordman, armed with a denser central rib, ensures continuous surface contact during linear motion, leading to superior performance.

Whereas the Sumitomo with wider laterally oriented voids isn’t able to keep up, exhibiting on average, a braking distance seven feet longer in tests.

Dry Handling

The handling attributes of a tire are largely influenced by the shoulder regions. During cornering, the tire’s weight shifts towards the tread edges.

This is why the Nokian, equipped with more condensed shoulder blocks, delivers better performance.

Though the tire can still improve its steering feedback a little bit, as it’s softer compound, despite having lighter structure weight causes lug bending, a phenomenon, which disturbs the balance between understeer and oversteer, causing the tire’s relative handling performance to get limited slightly.

Ice Traction

When traversing icy terrains, numerous smaller biters distributed across the tread are crucial, which elucidates why the Nokian tire here, exhibits superior ice gripping efficacy.

Nokian Nordman 7
Nokian Nordman 7

The tire’s complex features, including variable-width inclined cuts, paired with dual siping patterns, and highly angled biters, all converge to deliver comparatively outstanding performance.

Conversely, the Sumitomo, with its broader tread voids, struggles to achieve the same efficacy in gripping ice.

The absence of notches and multi-angled siping on both central and shoulder lugs contributes to extended average braking distances and handling times.

Though if you consider using studs on the tire, it’s overall traction almost becomes equal to that seen on its counterpart.

Snow Grip

Under snowy conditions, the Sumitomo Ice Edge is superior tire to have, comparatively.

Sumitomo Ice Edge
Sumitomo Ice Edge

The tire simply deals with less packed up, you can say, fluffy, or powdery snow much better (than it does with ice). This is because it’s tread contains abundant notches and voids acting as snow catchers, enhancing ground contact by holding onto the snow.

This phenomenon is due to snow’s stronger tendency to stick to itself rather than rubber.

On the flip side, the Nokian Nordman 7, with its less spacious and simplistic tread design, can’t facilitate as effective snow-to-snow contact, particularly in heavy snow. So overall handling and braking efficacy on this terrain is limited for this tire.

Wet Performance

Tire’s gripping efficacy on damp surfaces primarily depends on the number of voids, a tread has.

The major grooves, like the block voids provide resistance to hydroplaning, while the sipes, and other tread features, help in clearing of water at a micro level.

Now of course, being winter tires, both tires have plenty of such biters, but still overall, the Nokian Nordman 7 takes the lead by a tiny margin.

This tire basically incorporates varied types of sipes which are more proficient at soaking up and redirecting water, enhancing grip on wet roads.

Moreover, the tire also features a relatively softer compound, so sipes are better able to breath water in and out.

The Sumitomo on the other side, displays less assertive siping and a stiffer rubber compound, lacking to its counterpart.

Tread and Fuel Usage

The correlation between tread life and fuel economy is largely determined by rolling resistance, significantly influenced by the tire’s weight, tread composition, and design.

Regarding fuel efficiency, the Nokian Nordman 7 outperforms, owing to its more streamlined lugs and less aggressive central tread voids.

This design allows for a smoother, uninterrupted central rib, minimizing hindrances during linear rolling, and thereby enhancing fuel economy.

However, in terms of tread life, the Sumitomo Ice Edge prevails. This is because, the tread life is shaped by two factors: the rate of rubber wear and the time taken to reach a critical wear level.

Now, although the Sumitomo isn’t lighter, and the tire carries smaller tread depth, the tire still does better, thanks to its relatively stiffer rubber compound.

(Deeper tread means a longer time to reach the legal 2/32″, though in this tire’s case, its not getting too affected by it).

Vibration Dampening

Tires act as auxiliary suspension systems for vehicles, cushioning the immediate impacts derived from road inconsistencies.

In this context, the Nordman 7 stands out with its unique design, as it features a softer rubber compound that enhances the flexibility of its lugs.

This means any impact on the tread is effortlessly absorbed, transforming into the deformation of the lugs, which helps avoid a shaky ride.

The Sumitomo Ice Edge, in contrast, offers a commendable steering response due to its firmer rubber. However, it falls short when it comes to absorbing surface vibrations, owing to its relatively limited capabilities in this area.

Though, its rigid tread significantly contributes to its exceptional performance in terms of overall tread life.

To Sum Up

This thorough comparison highlights each tire’s strengths, with each excelling in different categories. The Nokian Nordman 7 shines in terms of superior wet traction, vibration reduction, and ice performance, while the Sumitomo Ice Edge reigns supreme in snow performance, noise reduction, and dry traction (considerign its superior steering resposne).

Moreover, while the Nokian Nordman 7 excels in fuel economy, the Sumitomo Ice Edge is the champ in tread life.

Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter vs Michelin X Ice Snow

Both Michelin X Ice Snow and Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter are esteemed performers in the winter tire segment, each bringing unique attributes in traction, tire life, and comfort, offering a spectrum of options to match varying driver preferences and road conditions. Though, still, let’s see which out of them, is a more suitable pick for you.

Winter Tire Comparison

Key Takeaway

  • Noise Generation: The Michelin X Ice Snow produces less noise due to fewer air cavities and variable pitch technology that helps cancel out noise frequencies.
  • Wet Traction: The X-Ice Snow has better traction on wet surfaces, offering superior grip and hydroplaning resistance, thanks to its advanced rubber compound and multi-angled sipe design.
  • Vibration Absorption: The Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter leads here, due to a more pliable rubber compound, offering a smoother ride.
  • Ice Performance: The X-Ice provides superior performance on icy surfaces due to its unique tread design, aggressive siping pattern, and angled incisions.
  • Dry Traction: Michelin’s tire has better dry performance, offering superior directional grip and handling due to its central tread region and closely packed voids.
  • Tread Life: The Michelin X-Ice Snow offers a longer tread life due to lower weight and reduced rolling resistance.
  • Snow Performance: The Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter is slightly more efficient in fluffy snow due to its tread design which encourages snow-to-snow contact. The Michelin X-Ice Snow, with a less aggressive design, falls behind in heavier snow conditions.
  • Fuel Usage: The Michelin’s tire is more fuel-efficient due to a stable lug design and stiffer rubber composition that reduces rolling resistance.

Noise Generation

The overall quality of a driving experience can be significantly affected by tire noise, which mainly stems from air particles colliding with the tire tread.

Michelin X-Ice Snow
Michelin X Ice Snow

As the tire rolls, air basically gets pumped if you will, in and out of the tread, and so how voided up the tread design is, tells you about the noise levels.

That’s why in this regard, the Michelin X Ice Snow takes the show, with a reduced number of air cavities for noise to travel through.

Where its tread structure don’t allow too much noise production in the first place, it further gets quieter with its superior variable pitch technology, (which generates tones in a way, so that they could cancel out each other frequencies).

The Goodyear Ultra Grip on the other side, is missing with that, and the tire’s softer compound produces greater in-groove resonance values as well.

Review X-Ice Snow in greater details: https://snowytires.com/michelin-x-ice-snow-review/

Wet Traction

A tire’s efficiency on wet surfaces is largely determined by its tread design and rubber composition. And the Michelin X-Ice Snow leads the pack in this category, yielding superior grip, handling, and resistance to hydroplaning.

Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter
Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter

Its advanced rubber compound disperses water remarkably well, significantly enhancing traction on wet surfaces, and its multi-angled sipe design further adds to that.

So in comparison, you get 5 feet shorter braking distances and 2 seconds shorter handling lap times (on average).

Moreover, its curving arms results in better float speeds on both curved and straight aqua tests too.

Vibration Absorption

Tires effectively serve as secondary suspension systems for vehicles, absorbing the initial impacts, coming form the road irregularities.

And in this regard, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter takes the cake, as it features a more pliable rubber compound, where lugs are also made flexible.

So any impact the tread faces, easily gets translated in to the molding of the lugs, instead of creating a jittery ride.

The Michelin X Ice Snow on the other hand, although provides decent steering response with its firmer rubber, it lacks here, due to its reduced abilities to settle down the vibrations of the surface.

Though its stiffer tread really helps when it comes to overall tread life performance.

Ice Performance

Among tires specifically engineered for icy conditions, the Michelin X-Ice Snow shines remarkably.

Its superior performance stems mainly from a unique tread design incorporating multi-directional snow vices and angled incisions.

This design, coupled with an aggressive siping pattern, significantly reduces braking distances and improves handling responsiveness.

In contrast, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter struggles with its less pronounced overall siping, and biting abilities.

However, it partially compensates with studdable lugs that improve traction in extreme icy conditions.

Dry Traction

In dry conditions, the Michelin X-Ice Snow excels in both directional grip and handling, the primary constituents of overall dry performance.

The tire’s grip is mainly driven by the central tread region where it showcases a continuous, streamlined rib that maintains consistent contact with the road, enabling more efficient braking and acceleration.

And regarding handling, which depends largely on the tire’s shoulders, the X-Ice Snow employs closely packed voids to maximize rubber-to-road contact during cornering maneuvers.

In contrast, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter under performs with broader grooves and softer tread compound that cause greater lug movement during cornering, thereby compromising steering feedback and overall handling.

Tread Life

The lifespan of a tire’s tread largely depends on its rolling resistance, a factor heavily influenced by the tire’s weight and tread design. In this respect, the lighter Michelin X-Ice Snow outperforms its competition, boasting greater tread life. Its reduced weight alleviates pressure on the road, minimizing friction and slowing down tread wear.

The Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter, however, bears more weight over a smaller area due to larger tread gaps, which can accelerate wear and potentially shorten the tire’s lifespan. Therefore, the Michelin X-Ice Snow delivers a more enduring tread life.

Snow Performance

The Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter shows a slight edge in navigating through lighter, more fluffy snow, even though the tire can’t offer ample grip on packed up terrains, like ice.

This improved snow performance can be attributed to its uniquely structured tread pattern, featuring wider lugs that encourage snow-to-snow contact.

The broader voids within the tire’s tread design capture and hold snow particles more effectively, allowing the trapped snow to make better contact with the ground. This feature leverages the concept that snow sticks better to itself than to rubber, thereby enhancing traction.

On the other hand, the Michelin X-Ice Snow has a less aggressive, more compact tread design that’s not as effective at picking up snow, rendering it slightly less efficient in heavier snow conditions.

Fuel Usage

Fuel efficiency in tires is intimately connected to tread design and weight, as these aspects significantly impact rolling resistance, which in turn directly affects fuel consumption.

And considering both, it can be explained why Michelin Snow leads here.

The tire basically features a more stable lug design, with stiffer rubber composition. This basically leads to restricted lug/block movement, which then leads to lower energy expenditure.

On the other hand, with softer compound, the opposite happens on the Goodyear Winter. It’s lugs mold a lot more, as the tire maneuvers. So additional energy is required here, that could’ve used in to the rolling of the tire.

Summing Up

In conclusion, each tire brings its strengths to the table and is suited to different conditions and preferences.

The Michelin X-Ice Snow offers a quieter, more efficient ride with robust performance in various weather conditions.

In contrast, the Goodyear Ultra Grip Winter provides superior snow performance and smoother rides over rough terrains, while struggling in some areas like fuel efficiency and noise generation.

As always, the choice should be based on your specific needs and priorities, ensuring a safe, efficient, and comfortable drive.