Reviews & Comparisons

Get the Scoop on the Latest Winter Tires

Check out my freshest reviews and comparisons of winter tires right below.

On the Hunt for Something Specific? Use the search bar to find the exact winter tire you're looking for.

Got Questions or Need Help? Don't hesitate to reach out via email or drop a comment on any post. I'm here to guide you.

My goal? To give you clear, comprehensive reviews that make picking the right winter tires a breeze.

Latest Winter Tire Reviews at Your Fingertips:

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!

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!

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.

Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 vs SottoZero 2

Both Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 and SottoZero 2 are trusted allies when battling winter’s wrath, each offering unique weapons to combat icy roads and snowy paths. As winter approaches, let’s find out which ally stands strongest!

Quick Takeaway

Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 (review) performs better in:

Tread Wear: This tire features a lighter construction, putting less strain on the tire lugs during motion, hence prolonging its functional life.
Ice Performance: With advanced design elements, the Sottozero 3 offers superior traction and handling in icy conditions.
Wet Traction: It provides superior wet handling due to its enhanced water expulsion capabilities and effective siping, resulting in shorter braking distances.
Dry Traction (Directional Grip): With a more streamlined design and interlocking central lugs, this tire offers greater rubber-to-road contact and superior performance.
Handling: Compact shoulder blocks and lighter structure ensure balanced understeering and oversteering capabilities.
Tread Noise: Due to densely packed shoulder lugs and interlocking central lugs, this tire produces lower levels of noise.

Pirelli Winter Sottozero 2 performs better in:

Snow Performance: Engineered grooves on this tire provide better snow-to-snow contact, offering superior friction and grip.
On-Road Vibration: This tire offers superior impact comfort due to its more absorbent tread rubber and greater tread depth.

TreadWear

The longevity of tread, (largely influenced by the degree of rolling resistance), is a critical performance parameter where both tires demonstrate equivalent effectiveness.

Though still if you really have to pick one here, I’d say go with Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3, as the tire features a relatively lighter construction, exerting reduced strain on the tire lugs during motion, which effectively prolongs its functional life, a little more, comparatively.

The Sottozero 2 on the other hand, featuring less innovative tread compound is not as elastic, so it reaches the 2/32″ of tread depth limit faster.

Ice Performance

The Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 exhibits superior performance under icy conditions, as its advanced design elements, including unique biters dispersed throughout the tread and augmented by snow vices, yield marginally superior overall traction.

This innovative design, bolstered by multi-directional siping and snow vices, results in enhanced braking responsiveness and handling effectiveness across various snowy conditions.

In contrast, the Pirelli Winter Sottozero 2, though featuring multi-directional biters, fails to compete adequately. Its wider biters reduce efficiency on compacted ice where more aggressive, narrow siping is preferred, making it better suited for larger vehicles like SUVs due to its more extensive tread voids.

Wet Traction

Two primary elements influence wet traction performance: the tread design and the rubber compound, as together, they determine the tire’s ability to eliminate water (basically with the help of sipes and grooves).

Majority of water is removed with grooves, so these contribute to the hydroplaning renaissance the most, while the remaining left over water is dealt with sipes, which translate in to what we call wet grip.

Let’s discuss both in more details.

Now in terms of grip, the Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 presents a slight advantage in wet handling due to its enhanced water expulsion capabilities (through its more effective siping).

These sipes are multi-angled and work along side the tire’s numerous other biters and overall asymmetric tread design to provide you with overall 4 feet shorter braking distances, and faster handling times on average.

In contrast, the Pirelli Winter Sottozero 2 does not offer as aggressive of the overall tread pattern, and it’s closed up tread design is also not so well designed when it comes to hydroplaning as well.

Hydroplaning is a condition, which is characterized by the disruption of tread contact with the road due to water interference. In simpler words, it’s when a tire starts to float.

And here the Sottozero 3 with wider grooves, offer a more effective dispersing of water, and in multiple directions too. So you get slightly better float speeds in both curved and linear aqua tests.

Snow Performance

Snow has a lot of types, but still two of them are the most important ones, there’s ice, and then there’s soft/fluffy snow.

And although the Pirelli Winter Sottozero 2 is overall lacking, when it comes to ice, the tire outperforms its updated version, thanks to it’s well engineered grooves, which provide better snow to snow contact.

This type of contact, basically offers better friction and overall grip, as snow adheres better to itself than to rubber.

The Sottozero 3 in comparison, is lacking here, as the tire struggles to accumulate a comparable amount of snow.

Dry Traction

Dry traction serves as a crucial performance metric for any tire, with its measure primarily contingent upon the quantity of rubber establishing contact with the road surface.

And this brings us to two pivotal elements here, directional grip and lateral traction. Let’s start with grip.

Directional Grip

The effectiveness of directional grip is largely reliant on the tire tread’s central region.

This correlation emerges from the fact that, as the tire rolls straight, the central most area is what bears the most weight pressure upon itself.

That’s why it makes sense why out of both tires, with a more streamlined design, the Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 emerges superior.

The tire features interlocking central lugs, which offer greater rubber to road contact, and as these lugs are also backed up by powerful reinforced foundations, you get superior overall performance here, as showed by its average braking distance values on tests.

In contrast, the Winter Sottozero 2 doesn’t perform quite as well due to its broader grooves and less aerodynamically streamlined structure, which result in braking distances extending approximately five feet longer.

Handling

The caliber of tire handling is significantly determined by the shoulder design and overall weight of the tire. This is due to the inertia-induced weight shifting towards the tread edges during cornering.

And here, once again the Sottozero 3 seems to take the upper hand. But why? Well, because of two main reasons.

First, the tire’s compact shoulder blocks significantly enhance the level of rubber-to-road contact.

And second, the combination of the tire’s lighter structure and shallower tread depth restricts lug movement (or block bending) during cornering, thus ensuring balanced understeering and oversteering capabilities.

The Sottozero 2 on the other hand, lacks behind as it’s missing with both of these features mentioned above.

Comfort Levels

The degree of comfort furnished by a tire is substantially dependent on two factors: its level of noise generation and its ability to dampen vibrations.

Let’s examine each of these elements more closely.

Tread Noise

Tread noise typically originates from the collision of air particles with the tread walls of the tire.

So to put simply, larger tread voids tend to create a higher level of noise.

That’s why when comparing, the Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 emerges as a quieter option, attributed to its densely packed shoulder lugs, the primary entry point for air.

Moreover, the tire’s interlocking lugs in the middle further dampen down the noise levels, as they vary slightly form one other in geometry.

This basically produces different sets of tones as air particles collide them, and those try to cancel out each other.

On-Road Vibration

While the Pirelli Winter Sottozero 2 may generate more noise, it outperforms its counterpart in the aspect of dampening road vibrations, thus offering superior impact comfort.

And this can be attributed to the more absorbent tread rubber and greater tread depth, which together provide a thicker buffer layer between the tire and any road surface irregularities.

Summing Up

After an extensive comparison, it’s clear that both Pirelli Winter Sottozero 3 and Sottozero 2 come with their respective strengths and weaknesses. Despite their shared manufacturer, the two tires diverge quite a bit in terms of specific performance categories.

The Sottozero 3 particularly shines in longevity, with a slightly longer tread life, and in ice, wet and dry performance, providing superior traction and handling capabilities, thanks to its innovative design, multi-directional siping, and larger tread voids. It also has an edge in comfort, proving to be the quieter option due to its densely packed shoulder lugs and varying geometry interlocking lugs, which work together to mitigate noise.

In contrast, the Sottozero 2, though lacking in several areas compared to its updated counterpart, shows its mettle in terms of snow performance and on-road vibration damping. Its well-engineered grooves allow better snow-to-snow contact, enhancing friction and overall grip, while its more absorbent tread rubber and greater tread depth ensure superior impact comfort by buffering against road surface irregularities.

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.

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).

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).

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.

Nokian Nordman 7 vs Hakkapeliitta 10 R3

In the winter tire world, Nokian Nordman 7, with its superb performance on snowy terrains, and Hakkapeliitta 10 R3, known for its excellent handling on icy roads, are both set to compete. So let’s find out which tire is a better fit for your needs!

Wet Traction

Navigating wet surface requires more than just sipes. You also need a very complex make of tread rubber, along with well engineered grooves which account for hydroplaning.

Hydroplaning Resistance

Hydroplaning is a dangerous phenomenon, where tires act like unwilling hovercrafts, when water becomes an obstacle between the tread and the road surface.

So here it makes sense why the Nokian Nordman 7 (review) with wider grooves and more angled sweeping arms, gets to offer greater average float speeds on both straight and curved roads.

Float speeds is simply put, maximum speed a tire can reach over standing water, and the Hakkapeliitta 10 lacks in both by an average of 2 mph.

With closed up voids, this tire simply can’t evacuate water as abruptly as its counterpart.

Wet Grip

While hydroplaning has its role in overall wet gripping, sipes are still a major key players here. And that’s the reason why the Nordman 7, armed with more aggressive siping design gets to offer you with greater handling times and braking efficacy.

The tire basically offers an interlocking siping design, that goes all the way deep, down to the tread’s base, and this combined with its relatively softer compound, sipes act like thirsty sponges, drawing in water particles, allowing the tire biters to grasp the slightly dried surface firmly.

On the flip side, on the Hakkapeliitta 10 R3, these sipes aren’t that interlocking, and missing with full depth features. I mean don’t get me wrong, sipes do go all the way on its tread too, but it’s just not the same tread design you see at the end of the day, as the tire wears off, I mean.

Check out the tire’s image to see what I mean.

Dry Traction

Dry traction spins a two-part tale: one of directional grip, the other of handling. Let me talk about them both.

For directional grip, the limelight is on the central tread, meaning, its the tire’s main point of contact with the road.

And it’s especially true for winter tires, given their rounded contact patch and largely directional design.

But out of both tires here, the Hakkapeliitta 10 R3 still manages to come out better, showing up with 10 feet greater braking distance values.

Whereas on the other side, the Nokian Nordman 7, with its wider tread voids, is unable to match up, although its handling capabilities bring some redemption.

Handling is about maintaining traction during cornering, and largely hinges on shoulder lugs.

That’s why the Nordman 7 is also lacking here. Not only the tire features wider shoulder voids, but it’s blocks are also more prone to bending (as the tire turns, and weight focuses on those shoulders).

And consequently with this lug bending, the tire showcases lacking steering response.

Fuel Efficiency Assessment

Fuel efficiency and rolling resistance, in tires are both directly proportional to each other.

So looking at the factors affecting that resistance is the key, and those include tire’s tread design, weight, and the rubber composition, well, for the most part.

And considering all, it makes sense why the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 R3 sets a high bar in this department, owing to a combination of features designed to reduce energy loss and improve fuel economy.

First, its reduced weight compared to Nordman 7 plays a significant role. Lighter tires have less inertia and require less energy to rotate, which means the vehicle’s engine doesn’t need to work as hard, resulting in less fuel consumption.

Secondly, the tread design of the Hakkapeliitta 10 R3, with its longitudinally aligned tread ribs, provides a more streamlined path of travel. This reduces air resistance and further contributes to lower energy consumption.

And yes, lastly, the tire also features a more innovative silica-based compound that reduces friction between the tire and the road, resulting in a smoother ride and less wasted energy.

The Nokian Nordman 7 basically lack a little bit to its counterpart in all these sub-departments. This tire, features a softer tread compound (for the sake of simplifying things), which basically is more susceptible to lug bending, so extra energy is required in the rolling of the tire.

Ice Traction

Mastering icy conditions is arguably one of the most difficult feats for any tire, and its the most important reason why winter tires exist.

But what’s the main attribute of any winter tire? Well, having a lot of biters, on the tread.

So it makes sense why out of both Nokian boys here, the Nordman 7 still takes the lead by showcasing faster handling times, steering response values, and directional grip.

Thanks to the it’s innovative, and aggressive siping, and in-groove notches, the tire offers a more confident drive on this packed up snowy terrain.

The Hakapeliitta 10 on the other side, lacks the necessary tread design features such as aggressive siping, and snow vices. And yes, you also don’t have the option here to add studs, which further improves things up on Nordman 7.

Tread Longevity Evaluation

Tread longevity is an unsung hero when it comes to evaluating a tire’s worth, as it directly adds to the overall tire’s value.

And in this respect, the Hakkapeliitta 10 R3 proves its mettle.

Its relatively durable rubber, which is also infused with a greater composition of silica, leads to a reduced friction with the road, resulting in slower wear of the rubber.

This attention to detail ensures the tire’s longevity, promising reliability and consistent performance over time.

On the flip side, the Nordman 7, burdened by its extra weight and larger tread voids, so it generates a faster burning rate in comparison.

Snow Traction Analysis

The Nokian Nordman 7 is also a better tire when it comes to soft snowy terrains, as the tire features a design which allows for superior snow to snow contact abilities.

This type of contact is what you want exactly, because of simple fact that snowflakes like to stick on to each other more, instead of rubber.

The multiple tread voids on the tire amply trap in snow particles better and offer greater frictional values compared to Hakkapeliitta 10 R3.

Comfort Level Assessment

The level of comfort offered by a tire is although also dependent on its steering feedback capabilities, its mostly relied on the tire’s ability to soak up the imperfections of the road, if you will.

And here, the Hakkapeliitta 10 R3 is taking the lead, with its relatively spongier inner construction and tread rubber on top.

These allow for better dampening of the road vibrations compared to less absorbent tread rubber on Nordman 7.

Tread Noise

Tread noise is another area, which enhances the overall ride comfort by a lot, and here, again the Hakkapeliitta 10 R3 is taking the lead.

This is because this tire features intricately designed and densely arranged lugs that don’t allow a lot of air particle collisions in the first place. That’s what tread noise is by the way, its simply because of air, and with less bald design, the Nokian 10 R3 gets to be quieter.

Furthermore, the tire’s advanced pitch sequencing technology dampens any residual noise, resulting in a peaceful driving environment, relatively.

In comparison, the Nordman 7 isn’t able to provide the same experience here, as the tire’s tread produces greater in-groove resonance.

So what’s the verdict?

Well, it all comes down to this.

In the realm of wet traction, the Nokian Nordman 7 trumps with superior grip and resistance to hydroplaning, thanks to the tire’s well engineered biters.

These biters are also allowing this tire to be better when it comes to snowy and icy terrains.

Though things are a little different on dry roads, where the Hakkapeliitta 10 R3.

Moreover, the tire also takes the lead, when it comes to overall comfort and tread life, but lacks to its counterpart in case of fuel economy.

In the end, just leave with this, while each tire has its strengths, your ultimate choice depends on your specific needs and driving conditions.