Other Brands

Two winter tire heavyweights, the Firestone Winterforce 2 and the General Grabber Arctic 12, each known for distinctive performances in handling, comfort, and durability. The stage is set, let’s find out who steals the winter tire crown!

Info on 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 Firestone Winterforce 2 (review) comes in 14 to 18″ with following.

• Speed ratings: S on all.
• Load ratings: SL and XL.
• Tread depth: 12/32″ on all.
• Weight: 15 to 35 lbs.

Wet Traction

Wet traction is primarily influenced by two factors: tread design and rubber composition.

And although both tires here are pretty impressive, with ample siping and soft tread rubbers, the General Grabber Arctic 12 still manages to stay slightly ahead in this category.

This is because the tire features a more aggressive network of straight and interlocking sipes, which exhibit superior water absorption capabilities, leading to better grip in wet conditions.

On the other hand, the Firestone Winterforce 2, with its single siping design that is also less angled, fails to provide equal overall traction, resulting in longer wet braking distances and handling times.

Though its wider grooves, does allow for better float speeds, resulting in superior resistance to hydroplaning, nonetheless.

Snow Performance

When it comes to proficiency in fluffy snow conditions, both tires exhibit impressive performance, but still the Firestone Winterforce 2 is what you really want, and a closer examination of its construction and design reveals the reasons behind this advantage.

The tire basically features interlocking tread voids, with lugs having snow vices. And both of these work in combination to skillfully trap snowflakes, improving the contact between snow particles. As the tire rolls, the trapped snow makes contact with the ground, enhancing grip since snow adheres better to itself than to rubber.

Furthermore, the tire’s greater weight (on average), facilitates the pushing in of snow, making it easier for the snow to lodge in the treads.

This feature also helps the tire at displacing heavy snow, and this results in forward propulsion as the thrown snow clears the path for the tire’s roll, marginally improving acceleration times.

On the other hand, the General Grabber Arctic 12 demonstrates slightly less effectiveness in braking and handling on snow, with its more enclosed structure, missing with as prominent of the in-groove notches as seen on its counterpart.

So its taking the backseat here.

Fuel Economy

The fuel efficiency of tires is closely related to their grip on the road and their overall weight. In this aspect, the Firestone Winterforce 2 could use some improvement.

The tire’s substantial weight and broader tread voids increase its rolling resistance and friction with the road surface, resulting in reduced fuel economy.

On the other hand, the lighter General Grabber Arctic 12 exerts less pressure on the road, reducing overall friction.

Its longitudinally aligned tread ribs streamline with the tire’s direction, minimizing obstacles to movement, saving energy, and improving fuel economy.

Ice Performance

On icy terrains, you need a lot of smaller biters all over the tread, and looking at both tires, it makes sense why the General Arctic 12 features better overall ice gripping values.

The tire’s intricate features, such as varying-width slanted incisions, combined with dual siping (patterns), and highly angled biters, all aim towards providing a superior performance, relatively.

On the other hand, the Firestone Winterforce 2’s wider tread voids fail to grip ice as effectively. The lack of notches and multi-angled siping on both central and shoulder lugs leads to longer average braking distances and handling times.

Dry Traction

Efficiency in dry grip largely depends on the tire’s contact area with the ground, with directional grip and lateral traction playing key roles. In this regard, the General Grabber Arctic 12, with its wider and more streamlined continuous central rib, holds an advantage.

The central most section of the tire is where it gets most of the directional grip from, as when rolling straight, that area gets to have the most weight concentration on itself.

That’s why directional grip gets measured with braking distances.

In a similar way, the shoulders define handling, as weight shifts towards them on corners.

Now, the Firestone’s tire although only lacks 2 feet in terms of stopping efficacy, its lateral traction could use some help.

Tread Life

Tread life is heavily influenced by a mixture of tire’s rolling resistance, and rubber compound, and considering both, the Winterforce 2 takes the lead.

Sure the tire features larger frictional values, and with it fuel usage, but its stiffer rubber compound still takes longer to wear down to replacement levels.

On the other hand, the Grabber Arctic 12 lacks here with its comparatively softer rubber compound.

But note that, you can’t except too much out of winter tires, and it makes sense why both of them, don’t offer any treadwear warranties.

Comfort Levels

The comfort of a tire largely depends on elements such as road noise and vibration dampening. These characteristics are influenced by the tire’s construction, materials used, tread pattern, and sidewall design, which all work in harmony to determine the ride smoothness.

Regarding noise, the General Grabber Arctic 12 takes the lead with its less voided tread design. With fewer air particles colliding with the tread walls, there is less noise generation.

Moreover, the tire also features a superior tread rubber, featuring better thermal adaptability. So with this, its able to soak up the bumps with greater efficacy.

And yes, since the tire also features smoother turning, and faster response times, if further adds to its overall superiority.

In Conclusion

Let’s summarize everything here now.

When considering snow performance, the Firestone Winterforce 2 shines with its distinctive tread design and higher count of tread voids, providing superior snow grip and clearance.

However, under icy conditions, the General Grabber Arctic 12 excels due to its complex biters, angled cuts, and multi-angled sipes that deliver enhanced traction and handling.

On wet surfaces, the General Grabber Arctic 12 dominates in terms of grip, while its competitor stands out for hydroplaning resistance.

Moreover, the Grabber also features superior comfort performance, and gives you superior fuel economy. And Firestone on the other hand, does better in the treadwear department, lasting longer.

The competition heats up as Cooper Evolution Winter, praised for its superior grip and comfort, squares off against Firestone Winterforce 2, known for its exceptional durability and handling. Let’s find out which tire can conquer the winter roads!

Sizes Info

The Cooper Evolution Winter comes in 67 sizes in 14 to 20 inches, having following specs.

• Speed ratings: T and H.
• Load ratings: SL or XL.
• Tread depth: 12 and 14/32″.
• Weight: 17 to 37 lbs.
• Tread warranty: None.

On the other side, the Firestone Winterforce 2 (review) comes in 14 to 18″ with following.

• Speed ratings: S on all.
• Load ratings: SL and XL.
• Tread depth: 12/32″ on all.
• Weight: 15 to 35 lbs.

Longitudinal Traction

When talking about dry traction, we need to focus on two main parts: grip in a straight line, and handling around corners.

Now out of both, the Cooper Evolution Winter is better good at keeping its grip, or hold, on the road, as it’s designed with a slightly wider center, helping it to stay firmer on the road.

This means the tire can keep in close contact with the road, and can be used to explain why it showcases a shorter braking distance here of 3 feet, (on average).

On the other hand, the Firestone Winterforce 2 doesn’t do as well, with its wider gaps leading to a more limited rubber to surface contact.

Lateral Traction

Handling depends on two factors: contact from the shoulders and lug bending, and both of these aren’t favoring Firestone.

The Cooper Evolution Winter on the other hand, features a tighter shoulder pattern, which helps it grab the road better when moving sideways.

But why shoulders? Well, because they are the ones which bear the most weight, as the tire corners (mainly due to inertia).

And yes, worth reminding, the Cooper tire also features a relatively firmer lugs. Meaning, they don’t bend or flex as much as they do on Firestone.

And its significant, because excessive lug bending causes a delay steering response, which of course limits the overall handling abilities on a tire.

Ice Performance

In the realm of icy conditions, the Cooper Evolution Winter indisputably proves its dominance, showcasing an average braking distance that outperforms its counterpart by a considerable six feet.

And yes, the tire further impresses you with slightly superior acceleration as well, as seen in a range of tests.

So the question is, why does the Firestone fall short in these conditions? And the answer lies in the somewhat limited biting capability of that tire.

You see, the Winterforce 2 struggles due to its larger tread voids, diminished notches, and expanded lateral tread voids in the central tread area.

Such features, are although great on fluffier snow, they impede the overall efficiency when it comes to gripping on packed ice, resulting in compromised braking performance.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Cooper showcases a more aggressive siping that clenches the icy surface with, I have to say, impressive force.

The tire’s strategically angled biters dispersed across the tread, coupled with the dual siping (both rectilinear and lateral), collectively contribute to an relatively better ice-gripping experience, overall.

Fuel Economy

Fuel efficiency of a tire is intimately connected to its tread’s stickiness, and weight properties. And in these aspects, the Firestone Winterforce could certainly use an upgrade.

The weightier build (as seen on average, considering all sizes), and the tire’s larger tread voids, result in heightened lug flexing during cornering, braking, and acceleration.

This happens because each lug is bearing more weight pressure on itself, and the Winterforce’s wider grooves aren’t helping to that either.

This molding of the lugs asks for extra energy expenditure, that could have been used in to the rolling of the tire.

Conversely, the Cooper Evolution Winter, characterized by its more streamlined ribs and sleek design, demonstrates lower rolling resistance values, on average.

This indicates that the tire’s lugs aren’t compelled to apply as much force against the road. Thus, it allows the compact tread structure of the tire to devote its energy towards propelling the tire forward instead of expending energy on the bending of individual blocks.

Wet Traction

Wet traction is predominantly governed by two key elements: the tread design and the rubber compound incorporated into the tire. These variables determine the tire’s grip on damp surfaces and its resistance to hydroplaning. Let’s delve into each aspect further.

Wet Grip

Regarding wet grip, both tires are equipped with generous siping and pliable tread rubber. Nevertheless, the Cooper Evolution Winter still possesses an upper hand in grip, showcasing reduced slippage around corners.

So why is that? Well this tire adopts a dual siping design, incorporating a dense grid of straight and interlocking slits, all thoughtfully angled.

And this configuration offers grip from various directions.

Conversely, the Firestone Winterforce, armed solely with laterally aligned sipes, falls somewhat short in providing all-encompassing traction, which, predictably, results in elongated wet braking distances and handling times.

Resistance To Hydroplaning

Hydroplaning is a phenomenon where water obstructs the tire tread’s consistent contact with the road, causing a traction loss. And in this area, the Firestone Winterforce outperforms with its broader grooves.

Its wider channels, coupled with curving arms, quickly displace water from the tread, allowing higher average velocities, without hydroplaning in both straight-line and curved aquaplaning scenarios.

In comparison, the Cooper Evolution Winter lags due to its limited ability to evacuate as much water out, in a similar amount of time, as seen on its counterpart.

Fluffy Snow Performance

In snowy conditions, both tires yield admirable performance. However, when confronted with fluffier snow landscapes, the Firestone Winterforce 2 emerges as the top contender.

And this tire’s superior traction is primarily credited to its tread design.

Firestone essentially integrates a somewhat more aggressive tread pattern, featuring widely spaced lugs that engage with the snowy surface.

These tread blocks form a snow-to-snow contact, adeptly seizing and holding onto fluffy snow particles within their interlocking grooves and snow-vices.

This interaction fosters a layer of trapped snow, enabling the tread to sustain ground contact through this snow-filled rubber. This is significant because snow bonds more effectively with itself than with rubber, yielding increased friction.

In contrast, the Cooper Evolution adopts a more minimalist strategy, presenting a relatively sealed design with a continuous running rib at the center and missing an interlocking groove structure.

Hence, after thorough testing, we can confidently state that the Winterforce 2 demonstrates superior performance on fluffy snow terrains.

So, what’s the verdict?

In conclusion, both tires exhibit unique strengths that make them suitable for different conditions and requirements.

The Cooper Evolution Winter would be the preferred choice for icy conditions, dry traction, and fuel efficiency, while the Firestone Winterforce 2 is the ideal option for hydroplaning resistance and fluffy snow performance.

Ultimately, the decision rests on the user’s specific driving conditions and needs.

The Goodyear Wintercommand and the Wintercommand Ultra, each revered for their exceptional winter performance, are set to compete. So is the newer tire better here? Well, let’s delve into the details and find out!

Key Takeaway

• Ice Performance: The WinterCommand Ultra is better here, due to its more biting tread features, though I do like the fact that its predecessor had studable lugs.
• Snow Performance: The Goodyear WinterCommand outperforms its Ultra counterpart on fluffy snow due to an aggressive array of tread voids, yielding superior snow-to-snow contact.
• Wet Traction: The Ultra variant surpasses the regular WinterCommand due to a more aggressive siping design with greater flexibility, reducing braking distance and improving handling times.
• Hydroplaning Resistance: The Ultra variant performs better in hydroplaning situations, allowing for higher float speeds, especially during cornering, due to its superior water dispersal abilities.
• Dry Traction: The WinterCommand slightly pulls ahead in directional grip due to its sleeker design with longitudinally aligned ribs. Though in lateral traction, the WinterCommand Ultra shines due to its more stable shoulder lugs and lighter weight, resulting in better steering response and faster lap times.
• Ride Quality: The Goodyear Ultra excels in terms of reducing road noise with its closed tread design and performs better in vibration absorption due to superior settling abilities.
• Tread Life: The Ultra’s lighter weight results in less pressure on the lugs and lesser rolling resistance, therefore increasing its tread life.

Dry Traction

The evaluation of dry traction considers two fundamental characteristics: directional grip and lateral traction. Let’s analyze them individually.

Directional Grip

Directional grip pertains to a tire’s ability to maintain traction during straight-line movement, focusing primarily on the tire’s central portion.

And in this category, the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra (review) slightly pulls ahead, attributable to its slightly sleeker design which features longitudinally aligned ribs.

These ribs essentially enhance the tire’s streamline properties, contributing to the straight rolling direction and improving braking efficiency.

However, the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra falls a bit short in this aspect, primarily due to its directional tread design.

Despite these differences, the actual performance gap is minimal, with a negligible difference of just 0.2 feet, effectively resulting in a draw in this round.

Lateral Traction

The lateral traction of a tire, or its sideways grip, is largely determined by the tire’s contact patch and the composition of the rubber. And in this arena, the WinterCommand Ultra emerges as the frontrunner.

The tire stands out with its more stable shoulder lugs and lighter weight.

These factors jointly inhibit excessive bending of the tire’s tread lugs, facilitating more balanced over and understeer.

This results in a quicker steering response, placing the WinterCommand Ultra ahead, literally.

I mean on lap times calculated, the tire showcased almost 2 seconds faster lap times, on average.

Ride Quality

When it comes to tire comfort, there are two crucial factors to consider: road noise and vibration absorption. And we have some mixed results here.

The Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra stands out in terms of road noise, thanks to its closed tread design.

By restricting the movement of air particles, this design reduces the noise generated when they collide with the tire tread.

On the other hand, the WinterCommand excels in vibration absorption, demonstrating superior settling abilities.

Wet Traction

The pivotal role that siping plays in wet grip is clearly illustrated when comparing two different tires. Both possess an adequate amount of siping, yet the Ultra variant here, significantly surpasses its counterpart.

The tire consistently demonstrated a reduction in braking distance by 4 feet and improved handling lap times by two seconds.

So, what factors contribute here?

Well, the tire offers a more aggressive siping design with greater flexibility. And these attributes allow the tire to effectively manage water on its surface.

To understand how this works, let’s look at the mechanics of sipes. They function by contracting to create a vacuum within the slits, thereby drawing in and removing water particles. This action clears the path, allowing for optimal grip of the rubber.

Unfortunately, the Goodyear Wintercommand tire falls short in these areas. Its sipes lack both the requisite aggressiveness and the flexibility to outperform its peer.

Hydroplaning Resistance

Hydro or aquaplaning, is a situation where a water layer gets formed between the tread and the road surface, causing the vehicle to skid or “plane” on water.

And here again the Ultra variant excels, allowing for greater float speeds, especially when the tire is cornering.

Speed is everything here, and float speed is the maximum speed a tire can achieve on a standing water.

Though both tires offer similar speeds on straight Aqua tests, on curved, the Wintercommand Ultra took a lead by 3 mph.

With a directional tread design, the tire simply offers better dispersing of water out of the its grooves.

Ice Performance

Under packed up snow conditions, the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra emerges as a champion against its peer, showcasing superior braking capabilities.

The tire’s ingeniously engineered tread features, such as multiple angled cuts and in-groove notches, coupled with bifold angled siping, provide extraordinary gripping prowess over icy landscapes, outperforming its predecessor.

In contrast, the Goodyear WinterCommand, with larger tread voids and fewer indentations, struggles to keep up.

Though this tire has the plus point of having studable lugs, its chunkier biters aren’t sophisticated enough to produce as much of a braking or handling efficacy as the Ultra variant.

Tread Life

The tread life of a tire is influenced by rolling resistance. And in this aspect, the Ultra variant shines due to its lighter weight, which reduces pressure on the lugs as they interact with the road.

In contrast, the slightly heavier weight and wider grooves of the simple WinterCommand variant tire, subject each lug to higher pressure and increased heat generation, leading to greater rolling resistance and accelerated rubber wear.

Snow Performance

Both tires deliver impressive performance in various snowy conditions.

However, the Goodyear WinterCommand has a slight advantage, particularly on fluffy snow surfaces. Its aggressive array of biting edges, distributed over its tread, enables enhanced snow-to-snow contact.

This design effectively traps fluffy snow within the interlocking grooves and snow vices, resulting in stronger ground contact with the captured snow.

On the flip side, the Goodyear WinterCommand Ultra, with its more crowded lug design, falls slightly short of delivering similar outcomes.

To End

So lets sum down everything here.

Upon analyzing key parameters, it can be seen how both tires give out very different results in various performance sections.

The WinterCommand Ultra showcased distinct strengths in terms of reduced road noise, extended tread life, superior wet traction, and impressive hydroplaning resistance.

On the other hand, the basic WinterCommand tire excelled in vibration absorption and better performance on fluffy snow surfaces.

Despite minor setbacks, both variants demonstrated effective handling and grip in diverse conditions, illustrating Goodyear’s commitment to quality and performance.

Both Sumitomo Ice Edge and General AltiMax Arctic 12 are pacesetters in the winter tire industry, each displaying unique strengths in the face of frosty and snowy conditions. Let’s see which tire emerges as better pick for you!

Key Takeaway

• Wet Performance: The AltiMax Arctic 12 outperforms here, due to superior water absorption and grip, especially during cornering, thanks to high-density and flexible sipes.
• Snow Grip: The Sumitomo Ice Edge excels on light, fluffy snow due to more in-groove notches and voids that trap snow particles, facilitating better snow-to-snow contact.
• Vibration Absorption: The AltiMax Arctic 12 stands out with its innovative, softer compound that absorbs surface irregularities for a smoother ride, whereas the Ice Edge’s stiffer rubber offers lesser vibration dampening.
• Noise Generation: Arctic 12’s closed-up shoulder voids and superior pitch sequencing technology, which alters tread block geometry, results in less noise generation.
• Ice Traction: Arctic 12’s angled ‘biters’, V-shaped notches, and aggressive siping pattern offer greater handling and directional traction on icy terrains.
• Dry Gripping: General tire here, with its streamlined central rib, shows superior dry grip performance, boasting an average of 4 feet shorter braking distance.
• Dry Handling: Atimax excels here in dry handlin, offering superior steering response and balanced steering.
• Tread and Fuel Usage: The AltiMax Arctic 12 leads in fuel economy and tread life due to its streamlined lugs and less aggressive central tread voids, which minimize obstructions during rolling.

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 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.

Dry Gripping

The efficacy of a tire’s directional grip is mainly contingent upon the central tread area, as this part of the tread gets to meet up with the road with greater force.

That’s why with a more streamlined (arrow-shaped), central most rib, which is also continuous running, the General Altimax 12 comes out on top, showcasing an average of 4 feet shorter braking distance values, upon testing.

On the other side, the Sumitomo with wider lateral groove takes the backseat here.

Dry Handling

The tire’s lateral grip or handling is dependent on the design of the shoulder lugs and overall tread flexibility.

And it gets measured with lateral g forces and lap times in testing.

And in both tests, the General Altimax is better.

The tire basically features lugs which aren’t as susceptible to bending as its counterpart. This allows for superior steering response and a more balanced over and understeering.

Wet Performance

Tire performance on wet surfaces hinges largely on the number and quality of grooves or sipes and the efficacy of the rubber tread in water absorption.

And considering these factors, the AltiMax Arctic 12 seems to have a slight edge due to its variety of sipes that are adept at superior water absorption, enabling firmer grip during all sorts of wet conditions.

This is especially notable when cornering, courtesy of the tire’s high-density, flexible, yet sturdy sipes.

In contrast, the Sumitomo Ice Edge, while still a competent performer, slightly lags behind its competitor due to less aggressive siping and a stiffer rubber composition.

Snow Grip

In the realm of snowy conditions, the tables turn in favor of the Sumitomo Ice Edge, specifically when traversing light, fluffy snow, despite its relatively weaker performance on ice and hard-packed snow.

So why is that the case?

Well, the tire basically is equipped with more in number of in-groove notches and voids, which effectively trap more snow particles, enhancing the tire’s grip by facilitating snow-to-snow contact, given that snow adheres better to itself than to rubber.

The General Altimax, although also features a lot of biters here, its overall snow holding abilities are still lower, thereby impacting its performance.

Vibration Absorption

Tires are very important when it comes to vehicle comfort. This is because these are the first one to hit the imperfections of the road.

So an absorbing tire is appreciated here.

That’s the reason why, out of both, the General AltiMax Arctic 12 stands tall due to its innovative, and softer compound, which delivers a markedly smoother ride by adeptly absorbing surface irregularities.

Whereas the Sumitomo Ice Edge, with its stiffer rubber can’t offer a better vibration dampening efficacy.

Noise Generation

Noise emission from tires primarily stems from two factors:

• When air hits the tire walls (primarily entering through shoulder voids), generating noise.
• And when that noise starts echoing within the tread, leading to in-groove resonance.

Considering both, it can be explained why the Arctic 12, with its closed-up shoulder voids, restricts air entry better, and offers less overall noise generation.

Moreover, with it also handles with noise resonance with its superior pitch sequencing technology, which alters the tread block geometry.

These alternations, account for generated tones/noise levels, with varying frequencies, which attempt to cancel each other out, resulting in a quieter tire.

Tread and Fuel Usage

The relationship between tread life and fuel economy is principally determined by rolling resistance, which is then influenced primarily by the tire’s weight, tread composition, and design.

Now in terms of fuel economy, the General AltiMax Arctic 12 outperforms with its streamlined lugs and less aggressive central tread voids.

These characteristics create a smoother, more continuous central rib, minimizing obstructions during straight-line rolling and consequently enhancing fuel economy.

In contrast, the Sumitomo Ice Edge not only lacks in fuel efficiency department, but also in the tread life.

And the reason is simple. It’s tread lugs are more susceptible to bending, and that asks for additional fuel energy.

Moreover, with this bending/rubbing on the surface of the road, extra heat gets generated.

And I think I don’t have to tell you, that the heat is the biggest enemy of winter tires, when it comes to tread life.

Ice Traction

The General AltiMax Arctic 12 demonstrates superior traction on icy terrains, owing to its more in number, and tiny ‘biters’ made up of angled cuts and V-shaped notches oriented in various directions.

And yes, on top of that, you also get more aggressive siping, which are also angled, and are the mixture of rectilinear and interlocking patterns.

All of these allow for greater handling and directional traction on Arctic 12.

On the other hand, the Sumitomo Ice Edge tends to falter due to its larger tread gaps and fewer notches.

Its siping is not aggressive and only oriented laterally.

And even if you consider its stud holes, its not as studable as the AlitMax.

To Sum Up

So what did we learn?

Well, the General AltiMax Arctic 12 tire stands out in wet performance and dry gripping. Its high-density and flexible sipes allow for superior water absorption and grip, especially during cornering.

Additionally, the tire’s streamlined central rib provides excellent dry grip, resulting in an average braking distance that is 4 feet shorter compared to its competitors.

Moreover, the AltiMax Arctic 12 offers a smooth ride with its softer compound that absorbs surface irregularities and minimizes vibration.

On the other hand, the Sumitomo Ice Edge tire excels in snow grip and dry handling. With more in-groove notches and voids, it effectively traps snow particles, enabling better snow-to-snow contact, particularly on light, fluffy snow.

When it comes to dry handling, the Ice Edge tire resists bending with its shoulder lugs, delivering superior steering response and balanced steering.

However, it falls short in wet performance and ice traction due to its larger tread gaps, fewer notches, and less aggressive siping.

Additionally, the Ice Edge tire is less fuel-efficient and has a shorter tread life compared to the AltiMax Arctic 12, as its lugs are more susceptible, requiring additional fuel energy and resulting in excess heat that reduces tread life.

In the battle of the winter tires, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 and the Debica Frigo HP2, each well-known for distinct strengths in handling and comfort, provide ample choices for different driving preferences. Who will reign supreme? Let’s find out!

Key Takeaway

• Wet Traction: The Debica Frigo HP2 excels in wet grip due to its innovative dual siping design. Conversely, the Kleber tire performs better in hydroplaning resistance with its wider grooves and sweeping arms for efficient water dispersion.
• Dry Traction: The Debica leads in directional grip due to its continuous central rib, whereas its counterpart lacks with its lacking steering response.
• Fuel Efficiency: The Krisalp HP3’s considerable weight and extensive tread voids result in higher rolling resistance and friction, reducing fuel efficiency, compared to its competitor.
• Ice Traction: The Debica performs superiorly on icy surfaces due to its aggressive biters, angled cuts, dual siping pattern, and in-groove notches. The Krisalp HP3, with less aggressive siping and wider tread voids, provides less effective ice traction.
• Snow Traction: The Krisalp HP3 excels in snow traction with its wider tread voids, which enhance snow grabbing and holding abilities. The Frigo HP2’s more enclosed structure results in less effective snow-to-snow contact.
• Comfort Level: The Debica HP2 provides a quieter ride due to its compact shoulder lug design, densely arranged central lugs, and advanced pitch sequencing technology. However, the Krisalp HP3 offers superior impact comfort performance, absorbing shocks from road irregularities more effectively due to its absorbent tread rubber and deeper tread design.

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

Dry Traction

Dry traction is a combination of directional/longitudinal grip and handling.

Now here, in case of directional grip, the Debica Frigo HP2 is taking the lead, because of its more closed up central protion, which gets the most weight pressure on itself (as the tire rolls straight). That’s why on tests, you get 5 feet shorter braking (on average).

So why is that? Well the tire features continuous running central rib, creating an uninterrupted bond between the tire’s rubber and the road surface. This design ensures superior braking distances, which serve as a key measure of directional grip.

In contrast, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its wider tread voids, cannot provide a similar level of performance.

It simply does not offer enough contact patch, from its middle section.

And it also lacks in handling too, where it’s swooping arms get to have more lateral spaces in between (on shoulders).

This is because handling highly depends on the tread extremities (shoulders/sidewalls).

And here, the Kleber lacks with wider grooves, not allowing ample contact patch.

And adding to that is its weight, which pushes lugs to bend more, resulting in delayed steering feedback.

So overall, it makes perfect sense why the tire lags 2 seconds on average, on wet lap handling time tests.

Wet Traction

When it comes to wet traction, the performance of a tire is determined by two key elements: the tread pattern and the rubber compound.

These factors play a crucial role in providing grip on wet surfaces and preventing hydroplaning.

Now, the Debica Frigo showcases an advantage in wet grip due to its more innovative dual siping design.

This design incorporates a combination of rectilinear and interlocking patterns of slits, which act as water magnets.

These sipes, work in combination to draw in water particles more effectively, allowing the tire to maintain a stronger grip on the slightly dried surface.

In comparison, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, although features ample siping and adaptable tread rubber too, it still lacks the rectilinear slits found in the Debica Frigo HP2, resulting in slightly inferior lateral traction on corners.

Though things get better for the tire when you consider the hydroplaning factor.

The Kleber tire offers more aqua or hydroplaning resistance, with its slightly wider grooves and sweeping arms that enhance its ability to disperse water effectively in all directions.

Basically, the tire’s more aggressive directional tread pattern, aids in sweeping water off the tread surface, while the interconnected web of grooves ensures a more efficient water dispersal.

Fuel Efficiency Assessment

Fuel efficiency in tires is closely related to road grip and overall weight.

And in this regard, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 needs improvement, as its considerable weight and extensive tread voids contribute to higher rolling resistance and increased friction with the road surface, comparatively.

It heavier weight basically, exerts more pressure on the road, leading to increased heat and friction production, whereas on Debica Frigo HP2, you get longitudinally aligned tread ribs and a compound less susceptible to bending as the tire maneuvers.

In other words this tire is minimizing resistance, and conserving energy, and with that enhancing fuel efficiency.

Snow Traction Analysis

In terms of snow traction, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 gets to be better, with its wider tread voids, which facilitate superior snow grabbing and holding abilities.

These then offer snow contact, with the loaded snow.

And its important here, because snow sticks better on itself, when you compare its sticking abilities with the tire’s rubber.

On the other hand, the Debica Frigo HP2, with its more enclosed structure, is less effective in maintaining snow-to-snow contact.

Ice Traction

When it comes to navigating icy surfaces, the Debica Frigo HP2 unequivocally showcases superior performance compared to its counterpart, as it showcases significantly quicker stop times and better acceleration capabilities, on this packed up snowy terrain.

This superior performance can be attributed to the tire’s aggressive biters. The central rib of the Debica Frigo HP2 features angled cuts, and a dual siping pattern, along with in-groove notches, all contributing to exceptional ice-biting performance.

In contrast, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, missing with those features, and having less aggressive overall siping, lacks. Its wider tread voids are the main culprit though.

These basically provide less biters/surface area portion of the tread.

Comfort Level Assessment

The comfort level provided by a tire depends on its ability to dampen vibrations and generate minimal road noise. These characteristics are mainly influenced by the tire’s construction.

In terms of tread noise, the Debica Frigo HP2 offers a quieter ride, with its compact shoulder lug design and densely arranged central lugs minimize the space for air particles to move around, resulting in reduced noise.

Additionally, the tire employs advanced pitch sequencing technology to further diminish any residual noise.

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 although lacks in providing as much of a quieter ride, it still does exceptionally well in impact comfort performance.

The tire is very smooth and soaks up shocks, road irregularities, potholes, very well.

Basically, the tire’s tread rubber is more absorbent to bumps, and its deeper tread provides a thicker layer of rubber between the vehicle and the road. And this enhances the tire’s shock-absorbing capabilities, resulting in a smoother and more comfortable ride over uneven surfaces.

Summing Up

In conclusion, both the Debica Frigo HP2 and the Kleber Krisalp HP3 exhibit their unique strengths in varying aspects of tire performance.

With an innovative dual siping design, the Debica stands out in terms of wet and dry traction, as well as fuel efficiency, and demonstrates superior grip on icy terrains. It also provides a notably quieter ride, courtesy of its dense lug arrangement and advanced pitch sequencing technology.

However, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 does not lag far behind.

Its ample siping and unique directional tread pattern aid in effective water dispersal, enhancing hydroplaning resistance.

And although it falls short in dry traction and fuel efficiency, it impressively outperforms in snow traction, taking advantage of wider tread voids for superior snow-to-snow contact.

Furthermore, its resilience in providing a smooth and comfortable ride, with exceptional shock-absorption, adds to its appeal.