Kleber Krisalp HP3 vs Debica Frigo HP2

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!

Toyota

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.

Kleber Krisalp HP3
Kleber Krisalp HP3

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.

Debica Frigo HP2
Debica Frigo HP2

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.

Barum Polaris 5 vs Continental WinterContact TS860

In the winter tire spectrum, the Barum Polaris 5 and the Continental WinterContact TS860 stand tall with their impressive performance credentials. But which of the two stands the test of winter roads better? Let’s find out!

Winter Tire

Key Takeaway

  • Wet Performance: WinterContact outperforms its counterpart due to versatile siping design, improving grip on damp surfaces. Its peer, however, exhibits less aggressive siping with a stiffer rubber compound, affecting performance.
  • Snow Grip: Barum Polaris 5 (review) takes the lead in light snow due to its effective tread design, capturing snow and ensuring better contact.
  • Vibration Dampening: The Continetal shines in absorbing road disturbances, offering a smoother ride. On the flip side, its counterpart provides a stiffer ride due to a harder rubber compound.
  • Noise Generation: The Barum wins with superior pitch sequencing technology that reduces overall noise, while its counterpart experiences higher in-groove resonance levels, so it becomes noisier.
  • Ice Traction: WinterContact leads, providing faster braking and handling on icy surfaces, while its counterpart lags due to fewer ice-biting features.
  • Dry Gripping: Both tires perform similarly, but Barum 5 slightly edges out if one can tolerate road stiffness.
  • Dry Handling: Polaris 5 outperforms the other with superior lateral g-forces and lap times.
  • Tread and Fuel Usage: The Continental WinterContact is more fuel-efficient due to streamlined lugs and less aggressive tread voids. Whereas the Polaris 5, exhibits longer tread life thanks to a tougher rubber compound and deeper tread.

Snow Grip

When it comes to snowy conditions, the Barum Polaris 5 takes the lead, particularly when navigating light and fluffy snow.

Though it should be noted, however, that its performance falls short on icy or compacted snow, which will be discussed separately.

So the Barum Polaris 5’s superior performance in snow can be attributed to its tread design, which features abundant in-groove notches and voids.

Barum Polaris 5
Barum Polaris 5

These design elements act as snow trappers, enhancing ground contact by capturing the snow.

Basically what’s happening here is that the tire is utilizing the snow sticking effect to its advantage.

You see, snow has better adherence to itself than to rubber, contributing to the tire’s excellent performance.

So with lodged snow, the tire is making better contact, and yielding superior results.

On the other hand, the Continental WinterContact TS860, with its less spacious and simpler tread design, fails to offer as effective snow-to-snow contact, especially in heavier conditions.

Wet Performance

When it comes to wet surfaces, the performance of tires heavily depends on their design features. One crucial factor is the number of grooves or sipes present on the tire, as well as the ability of the tread rubber to absorb water.

Both of these go hand in hand, as sipes basically suck water particles in (by flexing), and so they need to be malleable, to properly contract or expand.

Having said that, although both tires feature ample grooves and sipes to displace water and prevent, slipping and hydroplaning, I would still go with Continental WinterContact here.

This is because this tire

incorporates diverse types of sipes that are adept at absorbing and channeling water, thus enhancing its grip on damp roads.

The tire’s design includes numerous tightly-packed, sturdy yet flexible sipes, which greatly bolster its performance around corners.

On the other hand, the Barum Polaris 5, while not lagging too far behind, exhibits less aggressive siping and a stiffer rubber compound.

So it’s sipes aren’t giving us as great of the overall handling and braking capabilities.

Road Vibrations Dampening

Tires play a vital role in dampening road irregularities and act as supplementary suspension systems for the vehicle, if you will.

And to cut the story short, in that aspect, the Continental WinterContact takes the lead with its superior, and innovative tread compound.

Its rubber basically offers a better managing of uneven surfaces, absorbing road disturbances, and resulting in a relatively more smoother ride for the driver and passengers.

Whereas on Barum, you don’t see as much bumps absorption, and it makes sense, as the tire offers a comparatively stiffer rubber compound (to basically improve tread life).

Ice Traction

When it comes to traction on ice-clad surfaces, the WinterContact TS860 shines, thanks to its angled slits and multi-directional in-groove notches.

These combined with the tread’s robust siping, facilitate faster braking and enhanced handling on icy surfaces, allowing for 2 seconds faster handling times, and 4 feet shorter braking.

So why the Barum Polaris 5 is lagging here?

Well mainly due to the wider tread gaps, limited notches, and less aggressive siping pattern, resulting in fewer “teeth” biting into the ice.

Therefore, the winner in terms of ice traction is the Continental.

Noise Generation

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

And Continental here, is taking the back seat. Basically the tire’s shoulder voids restrict a lot of air entry, reducing noise from that source (as that’s where most air come in). But the problem emerges from within, as that noise echo more, creating higher in-groove resonance levels.

In contrast, the Barum Polaris 5 manages to be quieter, thanks to its superior pitch sequencing technology.

This technology modifies the tread block geometry, causing various tones to be produced as air particles collide with the tread.

And then, these different tones then work to cancel each other out, resulting in reduced overall noise.

Tread and Fuel Usage

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

In terms of fuel efficiency, the Continental WinterContact TS860 emerges superior, with its more streamlined lugs and less aggressive tread voids.

This design minimizes obstacles during linear rolling and enhances fuel economy.

However, when considering tread life, the Barum excels, due to its harder tread compound and deeper tread.

The Barum Polaris 5 basically, resists wear more effectively, thanks to its lighter weight and tougher rubber compound.

And of course, its deeper tread also implies a longer duration to reach the legally required 2/32″ tread depth, extending its lifespan.

So in essence, the Continental is better in fuel (though only marginally), while the Barum does better in case of treadwear. Though both tires don’t offer any warranty, if you are wondering.

Dry Gripping

The effectiveness of dry grip depends predominantly on the central tread area, where the majority of the tire’s load is concentrated during linear cruising.

And so it makes sense why both tires are on par here. Showing up with similar braking distance values.

Though if you still have to pick one. Go with Barum, if you don’t mind the road stiffness, otherwise Continental should be considered.

Though note that its only half part of the overall equation, and the other, handling, can be a deal-breaker for you if you consider Wintercontact (for dry road, of course).

Dry Handling

The tire’s ability to handle or maintain lateral grip depends largely on the shoulder lug design and overall tread “flexibility”.

Now the thing both tires offer very closed up shoulder lugs, but still you see superior lateral g-forces and lap times on Barum.

This is because the WinterContact has a softer rubber which flex/bend more as the tire corners, this results in lagging steering response, and greater susceptibility to oversteering and understeering.

Take Home Points

This rigorous comparison has highlighted the strengths of both tires, with each outperforming the other in different categories.

The Continental WinterContact TS860 excels in wet traction, vibration dampening, and ice performance. On the other hand, the Barum Polaris 5 dominates in snow performance, noise reduction, and dry traction. Interestingly, both tires present stiff competition in dry handling.

Moreover, while the Continental’s boy also excels in fuel economy, the Barum Polaris takes the prize for tread life.

Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4 vs 5

Both the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4 and the Alpin PA 5 are the examples of tire engineering brilliance, as each tire come with a distinct prowess to conquer all types of weather conditions. Yes, you can say, that new is not always better, well, not at least here. Let me show you why is that.

Winter Tire
The Pilot Alpin series is certified by top sports cars’ manufacturers like the BMW.

Key Takeaway

  • Tread Longevity: The Alpin PA5 excels due to its lighter structure, which extends its lifespan.
  • Ice Performance: The PA5 outperforms with its unique biters, snow vices, and aggressive siping.
  • Wet Grip: The PA5 leads in wet handling due to superior water expulsion capabilities.
  • Hydroplaning: The Michelin PA4 excels by effectively dispersing water through wider grooves.
  • Snow Performance: The PA4 outperforms with its broader grooves and asymmetric tread pattern.
  • Dry Traction: The PA5 leads due to its streamlined design and interlocking central lugs.
  • Handling: The PA5 excels due to its compact shoulder blocks and lighter structure.
  • Tread Noise: The PA5 has a quieter ride because of its crowded tread design.
  • On-Road Vibration: The PA4 provides superior comfort by absorbing road vibrations.

Review Michelin PA4 in detail: https://snowytires.com/michelin-pilot-alpin-pa4-review/

Tread Longevity

When it comes to the longevity of the tire’s tread, an important performance aspect influenced by rolling resistance.

And so here, both tires demonstrate similar effectiveness, showing up with almost similar rolling resistance values.

But yes, you can say, there are other factors as well, and those were also considered here.

The Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5 gains an advantage in terms of weight. Its lighter structure exerts less pressure on the lugs as the tire rolls, thus extending its lifespan.

Although the tread life is still comparable to its counterpart, the other tire has the advantage of having larger tread depth. As a result, it takes a longer time for this tire to reach the legal limit of 2/32″ tread depth.

Winner: Both!

Wet Perfromance

Wet traction is primarily influenced by two components: the tread design and the rubber compound.

And these factors showcase the tire’s ability to clear water away effectively, which BTW, is done from the sipes and grooves.

The grooves play a significant role in water clearing, providing resistance to hydroplaning. And on the other hand, the sipes contribute to wet grip by clearing water off at a micro level.

They basically essentially function by drawing water particles into their slits, (acting as a water vacuum cleaner if you will).

Let’s examine these dimensions in more detail.

Wet Grip

While both tires feature ample siping and flexible tread rubber, the Michelin X Ice gains an edge in terms of wet handling. However, when it comes to wet directional grip, both tires perform equally well.

The Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5’s superiority in wet handling can be attributed to its superior water expulsion capabilities from the shoulders.

This is due to the presence of curving sipes (that work at all angles), and saw-toothed edges on all curving directional blocks.

These design elements ensure a relatively more effective grip during cornering, reducing overall slippage.

Conversely, the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4 with its less aggressive siping, results in somewhat underwhelming handling performance during testing.

Winner: Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5.

Hydroplaning

Hydroplaning, a condition where water prevents the tread from making proper contact with the road, poses a significant safety concern.

In this aspect, the PA4 outperforms its bigger brother, by effectively dispersing water in all directions through its wider grooves.

The tire’s offers two very big longitudinal channels, along with curving laterally oriented one pathways too. And these give out slightly greater float speed values then PA5.

(Float speed is the direct measure of hydroplaning BTW, it tells you about, how fast a tire can roll over standing water, without floating).

Talking about PA5, the tire with more closed-up lugs can’t offer as much water dispersion, though due to it’s streamlined longitudinally design, its straight aqua test results are almost similar to its counterpart.

Winner: Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4.

Ice Performance

In icy conditions, the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5 clearly outshines its competitor.

Through the utilization of advanced design features, such as unique biters scattered across the tread and enhanced with snow vices, this tire delivers slightly better overall traction in icy conditions.

Moreover, you also get a more aggressive siping here and in-groove notches, on its relatively more compacted up tread design.

On the other side, the PA4 with its asymmetric, open desing falls short here.

First off, the tire does not feature as aggressive of the overall siping. Then the tire blocks are joined up with each, disallowing them to have decent mobility.

And yes, the wider biters hinder their efficiency on compacted ice where narrower, aggressive siping is required.

Though this tire gets to offer superior experience on heavier vehicles like on SUVs.

Winner: Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5.

Snow Performance

When it comes to snow-covered terrains, the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4 outperforms nearly all other (similar budget), winter tires, including its counterpart.

This superiority is attributed to the tire’s broader grooves, and asymmetric tread pattern, which enhance its ability to make greater snow-to-snow contact.

The tire’s biters/in-groove notches, basically pick up the snow particles and trap them in, allowing for this type of contact, and its crucial for traction, as snow sticks better on snow than on rubber.

Moreover, the tire is also narrower (on average), and with this, it exerts more pressure on the ground, increasing snow grabbing efficacy.

On the other hand, the relatively closed pattern of the PA5 struggles to accumulate as much snow, hampering its traction.

This tire isn’t as aggressive, and its in-groove notches aren’t that effective either.

Winner: Michelin Pilot Alpin PA4.

Comfort Levels

The degree of comfort provided by a tire largely depends on its noise generation and its capability to dampen vibrations.

These characteristics are primarily governed by the tire’s construction.

Let’s examine each of these elements.

Tread Noise

Tread noise is produced when air particles collide with the tread walls of the tire. And if there are wider grooves in the tread design, there would more room for air particles, and they would strike with greater force, increasing overall, what they call, in-groove noise.

Having said that, the PA5 is taking the lead here, with its more crowded up design, where grooves to rubber ratio is relatively lower.

And on top of that, you get a directional design, where the air particles have a more streamlined flow, (so they don’t strike around as much, reducing overall noise production).

The PA4, on the other hand, doesn’t have both of these features, so it’s more voided structure is nosier, even though the tire offers a very decent pitch sequencing technology.

Winner: Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5.

On-Road Vibration

Now, even though the PA5 is quieter on roads, I still rate both tire equal in overall comfort performance.

This is because the PA4 excels in mitigating road vibrations, providing superior impact comfort.

The very same lug mobility/flexibility which limits the tire handling, helps it here, basically.

They mold to soak/suck up the vibrations coming from the surface, allowing for a smoother overall ride experience.

In other words, the tire’s rubber is more absorbent of the road imperfections.

And yes, the greater tread depth is also a plus here, which provide a thicker buffer layer between the tire and any road irregularities.

Winner: Michelin PA4.

Dry Traction

Dry traction, a vital performance measure for any tire, depends on the extent of rubber in contact with the road surface. In this domain, two key factors come into play: directional grip and lateral traction.

Let’s discuss them separately.

Directional Grip

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

And the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5 excels in this aspect due to its more streamlined design, combined with interlocking central lugs, which maximize contact with the road.

This type of structure, enables shorter braking distances compared to its counterpart.

Conversely, the Michelin PA4 falls short here, due to its wider grooves and less streamlined structure, resulting in braking distances that are 5 feet longer.

Winner: Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5.

Handling

The quality of overall handling is significantly influenced by the tire’s shoulder design and overall weight. This is because, during turns, the weight load shifts towards the edges of the tread, basically, due to inertia.

And here the Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5 once again emerges better, thanks to basically two primary factors.

Firstly, its more compact shoulder blocks enhance rubber-to-road contact, improving handling.

And secondly, the tire’s lighter structure, combined with a shallower tread depth, reduces lug movement or block bending during cornering, providing more balanced understeering and oversteering capabilities.

The PA4 again lacks here with its asymmetric, less streamlined design, and yes, with wider grooves, which causes more lug movement, diminishing steering feedback.

Winner: Michelin Pilot Alpin PA5.

So What’s The Verdict?

Well, both are high-end winter tires with distinct strengths in various areas. But overall the newer tire is leading in more performance sections.

The PA5 stands out for its exceptional tread longevity, as its lighter structure reduces pressure on the lugs, resulting in an extended lifespan. And it excels in wet (roads), due to its unique biters which also help in icy conditions.

Though on fluffy snow, the PA4 stands out, with its asymmetric, more aggressive tread strcture. Though this very same design comes in the way of allowing this tire to have a better handling performance on dry tar.

Moreover, in terms of tread and fuel economy, Michelin Alpin PA5 again takes the lead. And same is the case with on-road noise reduction performance.

Though that part comes in comfort, and PA4, offers a less bumpier overall ride, so its rated better in the vibration absorption section.

Barum Polaris 5 vs Kormoran Snow

The Barum Polaris 5 and the Kormoran Snow are both notable players in the winter tire game, as they come up with distinctive expertise in handling and comfort, catering to a variety of driving needs and road conditions. Let’s check these boys out in more details.

Winter Tire on BMW

Sizes Info

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

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

On the other side, the Kormoran Snow comes in 15 to 18 inches wheels, with following specs.

  • Speed ratings: T, H and V.
  • Load ratings: SL and XL.
  • Tread depth: 10/32″ on all.
  • Weight: 16 to 24 lbs.
  • Tread warranty: None.

Ice Traction

When it comes to navigating treacherous icy surfaces, the Barum Polaris 5 asserts its dominance with unwavering confidence.

Barum Polaris 5
Barum Polaris 5

It outperforms its competitor by stopping a whole second quicker on average, due to it’s more stable longitudinal gripping capabilities.

This remarkable advantage extends to acceleration as well, with the Barum Polaris 5 showcasing superior speed control up to 40 mph.

The Barum basically offers more biters per its tread’s surface area. In other words, its tread is more crowded up with biting edges, for you example you see multiple angled slits going in both lateral directions, along with more aggressive siping and in-groove notches.

All these offer superior ice traction, in both gripping and handling departments.

On the other hand, the Kormoran Snow’s shortcomings in this domain, is due to its wider tread voids, for the most part.

So you get fewer notches per square inch of the tread (if you will).

Moreover the tire also lacks features such as multi-angled siping, which further detract from its performance.

Snow Traction

Now before starting here, I have to say, both tires showcase their prowess in snowy landscapes, delivering impressive performance values, no doubt.

Though with a more aggressive tread pattern, the Kormoran Snow edges ahead here, particularly when encountering fluffy snow.

Basically, the wider tread voids of this tire allow for better snow-to-snow contact, with the lug voids effectively retaining fluffy snow particles within their interconnected grooves.

This is significant, because snowflakes produce better friction, attaching to themselves, instead of rubber (of the tread).

On the other side, the Barum Polaris 5 presents a more closed design with a continuous running rib in the middle of the tread, devoid of any interlocking grooves. Basically in essence the tire features a less aggressive pattern.

So you get limited traction on this tire.

And yes, adding to that, is its missing scooping lugs, so the tire does not offer a good enough paddling abilities like seen on the Kormoran.

Comfort Levels

The overall ride comfort encompasses two aspects: noise and the tire’s ability to absorb road shocks. Let’s pick them both separately.

Noise Generation Enhancement

Tires make noise due to two main reasons. First, when air hits the sides of the tire as it rolls, it creates noise that enters through the tire’s edges. Second, the patterns on the tire’s surface can cause sound waves to bounce around and create more noise.

Now the Koroman tires are designed to reduce the first type of noise. They have very closed up shoulders, and some other features, that prevent a lot of air from entering through the edges of the tire. Basiaclly you can say, that’s killing noise at the source.

Though the problem begins when the reduced air particles still make more noise bounching the walls of the tread, leading to what they call in-groove resonance.

The Barum is quieter overall on the other hand, as they deal with this resonance by advanced technology that changes the shape of the patterns on the tire’s surface.

What’s happening here is that when air particles hit these modified patterns, they create different tones. These tones cancel each other out, reducing the overall noise produced by the tire.

Road Vibration Dampening

Tires are important for making the ride smoother by reducing vibrations and bumps from the road, as they act like an extra suspension system (if you will), for the vehicle, providing stability.

Now here, the Koroman shines with its excellent performance in managing uneven road surfaces. It has a special rubber composition that helps absorb the disturbances caused by bumps and uneven parts of the road. This results in a smoother and more comfortable ride for the driver and passengers.

In contrast, the Polaris 5 is not as efficient at absorbing these bumps and irregularities. This is because the Barum tire uses a harder rubber compound, which is intentionally designed to last longer. It prioritizes the lifespan of the tire over absorbing vibrations from the road.

Dry Performance

Dry grip, determined by the extent of rubber contact with the road surface, relies on two key components, namely the grip, which is also known as directional grip (so it makes sense its measure with braking distances), and then there’s lateral traction, which gets calculated with cornering abilities.

Let’s start with grip.

Longitudinal Grip

So this (directional) grip, refers to the tire’s efficiency in maintaining a solid connection with the road when rolling straight, where the tire’s central area bears the most weight concentration.

So it makes sense why, how much rubber (of tread’s central area), meeting the road is significant here.

And that the very reason why the Barum is taking the lead here, as the tire ensures a more consistent surface contact with its continuous running rib, and closed up tread desing, overall, resulting in superior performance.

In comparison, although the Kormoran Snow also features an almost continuous running layer in the central tread area, it lacks the streamlined design of its counterpart, due to wider lateral tread voids, for the most part.

Consequently, it experiences a braking distance almost 8 feet longer than the Polaris 5.

Lateral Grip

Handling, on the other hand, relies on the tire’s shoulder areas and overall weight.

So why is that?

Well, this is because, when cornering, the weight (on the tire), shifts towards the shoulders due to inertia, placing significant importance on the connection between the shoulder lugs and the road.

And here again, the Barum Polaris 5, with its closed-up shoulder lugs, offers better performance.

In contrast, the Kormoran Snow, besides featuring wider grooves, so each of its lug bears more weight pressure, resulting in the tread’s susceptibility to flex.

This bending of the lugs (during cornering), leads to a weakened steering feedback and reduced balance between under and oversteering.

And this of course leads to lagging handling.

Summing up

In terms of ice traction, the Barum Polaris 5 tire outperforms its competitor with quicker stopping and superior gripping capabilities, here the Kormoran tire falls short due to wider tread voids.

For dry performance, the Barum excels in braking and cornering with its solid connection to the road. Whereas the Kormoran has weaker handling, due to its lacking steering response.

In snowy conditions, the Kormoran Snow performs better, though, with its aggressive tread pattern, while the Barum Polaris 5 is superior on icy conditions.

Lastly, we also have mixed results in the overall road comfort department, where the Koromoran gives you better bumps absorption capabilities, and the Barum is quieter.

Cooper Evolution Winter vs Discoverer True North

Both the Cooper Evolution Winter and the Discoverer True North take center stage in the winter tire market, each exhibiting distinctive performances in handling, comfort, and longevity. Which tire will emerge victorious in this frosty face-off?

Winter Tire on Audi
Discoverer True North on Audi.

Key Takeaway

  • Dry Conditions Performance: The Cooper Discoverer True North outperforms in dry conditions due to interlocking lugs in the central tread area, ensuring superior surface contact.
  • Snow Traction: The Cooper Evolution, with its wider tread voids, performs better in fluffy snow. It retains snow particles in its interconnected grooves, thus enhancing traction.
  • Wet Traction: The True North excels in wet grip due to its aggressive siping pattern. However, the Evolution Winter provides superior hydroplaning resistance with its broader grooves and sweeping arms, efficiently dispersing water and preventing traction loss.
  • Ice Traction: The Discoverer True North shines on icy terrains, providing superior braking, acceleration, and handling. Though, the Evolution Winter still performs commendably when fitted with studs.
  • Comfort Levels: While the True North offers a quieter ride due to packed up shoulders and advanced pitch sequencing technology, the Evolution Winter excels in impact comfort due to its softer tread compound.

Performance in Dry Conditions

The effectiveness of a tire’s grip on dry surfaces depends on two primary factors.

I’ve discussed these both below.

Directional Grip

The key to achieving strong directional grip lies in the central tread area, which determines the contact between the rubber and the road surface.

And if you are wondering, why middle? Then know, that, when a tire rolls straight, the weight is mostly concentrated on the middle area.

Now having said that, it makes sense, why the Cooper Discoverer True North takes the lead.

The tire utilizes interlocking lugs in this region, ensuring superior and uninterrupted surface contact, leading to enhanced performance.

On the other hand, the Cooper Evolution lacks to its counterpart, due to wider tread voids. It although features a near-continuous running central (most) rib, which is also streamlined, its still more spacious.

So it isn’t able to provide ample rubber to road contact, resulting in 9-foot longer braking distance (calculated on average).

Handling

Handling is influenced by the tire’s shoulders area and overall weight distribution.

Why shoulders?

Well, because, when a vehicle corners, the weight shifts towards the edges of the tread, due to inertia, putting pressure on the lugs in that region. And the capability of these lugs to engage with the road significantly affects handling performance.

That’s why here again the Cooper True North is pulling ahead, providing a better contact patch.

Whereas the Evolution lacks, not only because of its spacious tread design, but also because of its weight.

It’s heavier structure basically causes increased flex in the tire’s lugs, resulting in diminished steering feedback and an imbalance between understeering and oversteering.

So True North is the clear winner in overall dry traction section.

Snow Traction

On fluffy snow, the Cooper Evolution emerges as the clear winner, with its unique tread design, featuring wider tread voids, enables improved snow-to-snow contact.

The lug voids retain fluffy snow particles within their interconnected grooves and snow vices, enhancing traction. Additionally, the pronounced directional pattern facilitates paddling, scooping snow backward, and generating superior forward momentum.

On the other side, the Cooper Discoverer True North lacks, with its more packed up design, which isn’t able to hold as much snow.

And of course, you also don’t get the similar snow scooping abilities here as well.

Wet Traction

Two primary elements affect wet traction are discussed below.

Wet Grip

Wet grip depends on sipes.

These are slits in the tread which soak up water particles, by expanding. So that’s why tread flexibility is also important here.

Now, although both tires feature substantial siping, the Cooper Discoverer True North has a slight edge in wet grip performance, as it incorporates a more aggressive siping pattern, with more, you can say teeth to them.

Though Evolution still manages to outperform its brother in the hydro/aquaplaning test.

Hydroplaning Resistance

Hydroplaning occurs when water forms a thin layer between the tire tread and the road surface, leading to reduced traction. Wider grooves in the tread help prevent hydroplaning.

The Cooper Evolution Winter excels in this aspect with its broad grooves and sweeping arms.

These features efficiently disperse water in all directions, resulting in superb hydroplaning resistance during both straight-line and curve aquaplaning tests.

Ice Traction

When it comes to icy terrains, the Cooper Discoverer True North tire clearly outshines its counterpart in braking, acceleration, and handling tests.

And here, the key difference lies in the tire’s design and features that enable better grip on this slippery terrain.

It incorporates more biters, offering larger tread voids, abundant notches, dual and multi-angled siping, and snow vices oriented in both lateral directions.

And on top of that, its asymmetrical pattern is a plus too.

On the other hand, the Evolution Winter with less aggressive siping pattern, and wider grooves lacks to its bigger brother.

Though its performance is still commendable, when you put studs on this boy.

Comfort Levels

Ride comfort is not only the tire’s ability to absorb road shocks, there are other factors too. There’s noise, ride stability and so on.

Speaking of noise first, it gets generated more on voided up tread pattern, as it has to with air particles hitting the walls of the tread (where the impact of hitting is what rendering the unwanted sound waves).

Now the Cooper True North, with more packed up shoulders don’t allow noise to get in (a lot). And the remaining that manages to get in, producing noise, is handled with the tire’s sophisticated pitch sequencing technology.

This tech offers slight geometric variances in the tread blocks, creates disparate tones that cancel each other out, reducing noise levels.

The Cooper Evolution Winter now, may be louder, it still offers a better impact comfort performance, due to its relatively softer tread compound, which enhances its shock absorption ability, resulting in a smoother and more comfortable ride.

So yes, both tires excel in different aspects of comfort.

Summing Up

In conclusion, both boys exhibit distinct strengths in different performance areas.

The Discoverer True North exhibits commendable performance in dry conditions, demonstrating superior directional grip and handling due to its interlocking lugs and effective weight distribution.

Furthermore, it excels in ice traction, courtesy of its abundant notches, dual and multi-angled siping, and asymmetrical tread pattern.

The tire also offers a quieter ride, thanks to its packed shoulder design and sophisticated pitch sequencing technology.

On the other hand, the Cooper Evolution Winter shows superiority in snow traction with its unique tread design and wider voids, facilitating better snow-to-snow contact.

Its softer tread compound also delivers improved impact comfort, offering a smoother ride.

In terms of wet traction, the Evolution Winter outperforms with superior hydroplaning resistance due to its broader grooves and sweeping arms, although it falls behind slightly in wet grip.

Hence, both tires offer a well-rounded performance with respective strengths suitable for different driving conditions and preferences.

Note that the ultimate choice between the two would rely on the driver’s specific needs and driving circumstances.