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:

Nokian Nordman 7 vs Hankook I PIKE

Both Nokian Nordman 7 and the Hankook I PIKE showcase their unique strengths, and weaknesses, when it comes to handling snowy and icy roads. So let’s discuss things to find a better pick for your needs.

Dry Traction

Dry traction depends on the tire’s overall contact with the ground and can be divided into two components: directional grip and lateral traction.

And here, the Hankook I PIKE surpasses its counterpart, with its more reliable and consistent rubber to road contact, resulting in shorter braking distances and quicker acceleration times during tests.

However, the Nokian Nordman 7 (review) tire makes a comeback when it comes to dry handling, offering greater lateral g forces.

But why is that? I mean both tires offer similar footprint from shoulders (as we measured it).

Well, this has to do with the Nokian Nordman 7 offering a lighter strcuture which offers superior steering response.

So in essense, the Hankook is better in driectional dry grip, while the Nordman 7 is superior when it comes to handling.

Snow Performance

When it comes to handling in snow, both tires demonstrate commendable performance. However, upon careful consideration, the Nokian Nordman 7 still gets a slight advantage, thanks to its wider gaps and notches, as seen on its tread.

These particular design elements are crucial as they effectively catch and hold snow, to create a snow to snow contact.

But why that matters?

Well, because, snow has a tendency to adhere better to itself rather than to rubber, so that aids in providing the tire with excellent gripping efficacy.

Moreover, the Nordman 7 tire boasts a special V-shaped lug design, which is a feature that aids in pushing snow away from the tire and propelling it forward, resulting in slightly quicker acceleration.

Conversely, the Hankook I PIKE tire performs slightly less admirably in snowy conditions due to its tread design, which includes a continuous center rib and narrower notches.

In the realm of snow performance, the clear winner is the Nokian Nordman 7 tire.

Ice Performance

In terms of ice performance, the Hankook I PIKE takes the lead, where our extensive tests have consistently shown that it outperforms the Nordman 7 tire by stopping 8.6 feet shorter, on average.

Similarly, the tire also showed superior acceleration capabilities on a average 0 to 40 mph drag test.

And both of these have to do with the tire’s unique biting edges distributed across the tread, which offer better gripping efficacy on hard packed up snow.

Conversely, the Nokian Nordman 7 tire encounters some difficulties on ice due to its wider tread gaps and fewer biting edges.

Fuel Economy

Fuel consumption is significantly influenced by factors such as the tire’s adherence to the road surface and the overall tread pattern. And considering these aspects, it easily understandable, why the Hankook I PIKE tire delivers slightly superior overall performance.

Its longitudinally aligned central rib translates to a more streamlined tread design, promoting better and straighter rolling of the tire, resulting in lower fuel consumption.

On the other hand, the Nokian Nordman 7 tire’s less “streamlined”, you can say, directional tread pattern, featuring lateral tread voids, poses more challenges for the tire, as it rolls. This leads to increased rolling resistance and subsequently higher fuel consumption.

Verdict: When it comes to fuel economy, the winner is the Nokian Nordman 7.

Wet Traction

The traction on wet surfaces is greatly influenced by two key factors: tread design and the type of rubber compound used in the tire’s tread. These factors significantly impact the tire’s (wet) grip and its resistance to hydroplaning.

In terms of grip, the Hankook I PIKE manages to get ahead, thanks to its more aggressive mix of linear and interlocking sipes.

These sipes possess the capability to absorb water more effectively, and provide exceptional wet grip, both in lateral and directional line tests.

In contrast, the Nokian Nordman 7 tire primarily relies on laterally oriented sipes, which fall short in providing comparable overall traction. Consequently, it often exhibits longer handling times, though braking efficacy is similar to its competitor.

And yes, the tire also does better in the hydroplaning resistance testing, where its lugs are more efficient in providing faster float speeds on both curved and stragith aqua tests.

Comfort Levels

Tire comfort is primarily determined by factors such as road noise generation and vibration absorption capabilities. These attributes can vary based on the tire’s construction, materials used, tread design, and sidewall configuration.

In this regard, both tires offer remarkably similar performances. They provide a supremely smooth ride and excel in cushioning against road bumps.

Moreover, both tires exhibit comparable noise reduction abilities, which is significant as noise primarily stems from air particles colliding with the tire’s tread walls.

Verdict: In terms of comfort levels, both tires are equally impressive, making it a tie between them.

Verdict?

After conducting a thorough comparison of these two exceptional winter tires, it is clear that each tire possesses unique strengths.

The Nokian Nordman 7 tire excels in deep snow conditions, thanks to its wider tread voids, notches, and V-shaped lugs, which ensure superior snow displacement. Furthermore, it demonstrates impressive lateral traction on dry roads.

The Hankook I PIKE tire, on the other hand, showcases superior traction capabilities on icy terrain, owing to its abundance of biting edges and varied incisions. Additionally, it offers better braking and handling efficiency on wet roads and slightly outperforms in terms of fuel economy.

In terms of comfort, both tires provide equally outstanding performances.

Considering all factors, it is evident that both the Nokian Nordman 7 and Hankook I PIKE tires have their respective strengths and excel in different areas.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 vs Nexen WinGuard Sport 2

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 and the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2, both notable for their distinctive winter performance, are now in the spotlight. Let’s dig deeper into their features to reveal a better tire for your needs.

Sizes Info

The Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 comes in 15 to 20 inches with following.

Speed ratings: H and V.
Load ratings: SL and XL.
Tread depth: 10.5/32″ on all.
Weight: 15 to 30 lbs.
Tread warranty: None.

On the other side, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 (review) comes in 14 to 20 inches, (99 total sizes), in following specs.

Speed ratings: T and H.
Load ratings: SL and XL.
Tread depth: 10/32″.
Weight: 16 to 32 lbs.
Tread warranty: None.

Ice Traction

The Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 displays remarkable proficiency on icy surfaces, surpassing its counterpart with confidence.

In fact, it stands as one of the finest ice tires available in the market.

Its superiority lies in its meticulously crafted tread design, featuring a combination of slanted incisions in varying sizes and V-shaped notches extending in both lateral directions.

This, in conjunction with its dual-angled design of more aggressive sipes, results in significantly shorter braking distances and improved handling times during tests.

I’d discuss its traction in greater details, in a while.

Moving on towards the Kleber Krisalp HP3…

The Kleber tire is characterized by larger tread voids and fewer notches, appears somewhat ill-equipped for icy conditions.

The central tread area of this tire struggles to maintain a secure grip on packed ice due to wider lateral tread voids, and its performance is compromised by the absence of multi-angled siping.

Overall, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 outperforms the Kleber Krisalp HP3 on icy terrains, although the studable lugs of the Kleber Krisalp HP3 enable it to handle more extreme situations with greater effectiveness.

Dry Traction

When it comes to dry conditions, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 outshines its counterpart, providing superior directional grip and handling capabilities.

Talking about the directional grip first, the tire’s central tread area is a critical factor here. And in this regard, the Nexen, with its more compacted up middle area, ensures a more continuous contact with the road surface as the tire moves straight, leading to exceptional performance.

Moving on towards the handling, the Nexen is again taking the lead.

The additional weight of Kleber adversely affects its handling, resulting in increased movement of the lugs during cornering, ultimately weakening the steering feedback.

Thus, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 lags behind in terms of both, the directional grip, and the handling.

Tread Life

The tread life of a tire is closely intertwined with its rolling resistance, which is determined by factors such as weight and tread design.

Hence, it is logical, why the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 performs better in this aspect. With its lighter structure, the tire’s tread does not experience excessive pressure against the road surface.

And less pressure translates to reduced friction, thereby mitigating the rate of tire wear.

On the flip side, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 is heavier, exerting more weight on a smaller portion of the tire due to the larger spaces between the treads.

Consequently, the treads wear out faster, potentially resulting in a shorter lifespan for the tire.

So overall, the Nexen tire here is expected to offer better tread life.

Wet Traction

When driving on wet surfaces, a tire’s ability to maintain grip becomes crucial. This capability is primarily influenced by the tread pattern and the rubber texture utilized in the tire’s construction.

The interplay of sipes and grooves in the tread design contributes to water dispersion, reducing the risk of hydroplaning. Meanwhile, the softness of the rubber determines the tire’s flexibility, enabling it to adapt to changing surface conditions.

In this context, although both tires feature substantial tread voids to disperse water efficiently, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 still possesses the upper hand.

This tire incorporates a blend of interlocking and straight sipes that effectively channel and absorb water, resulting in superior wet traction.

The densely packed sipes of the tire, coupled with an optimal balance of rigidity and flexibility, provide enhanced grip, particularly during cornering.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 features laterally oriented sipes that, while effective, do not offer the same level of grip as the Nexen.

Nonetheless, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 exhibits commendable resistance to hydroplaning. This is attributable to its larger grooves that promote effective water dispersion, minimizing the risk of losing control on wet surfaces.

Consequently, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 demonstrates superior wet grip, while the Kleber Krisalp HP3 exhibits better resistance to hydroplaning.

Snow Performance

When it comes to performance on snowy terrain, both tires deliver impressive results.

However, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 particularly excels when navigating through fluffy snow.

The key to its exceptional traction lies in the unique design of its more spacious tread pattern, featuring lugs that make direct contact with the snow surface.

These lugs create a snow-to-snow connection, which proves more efficient for traction since snow adheres better to other snow than to rubber.

On the other hand, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 exhibits a more minimalist design in terms of thicker snow, with its continuous center rib and absence of interlocking groove structures.

This design makes the tread of the Nexen less effective at collecting snow, thereby providing the Kleber Krisalp HP3 an advantage in fluffy snowy conditions.

Fuel Economy

The topic of fuel economy in tires revolves around two primary parameters: adherence to the surface and overall weight. These factors directly impact the rolling resistance of a tire, which plays a significant role in energy consumption.

Considering this, it is understandable why the Kleber Krisalp HP3 lags behind in this aspect. Its greater weight leads to increased lug bending against the road surface during cornering, resulting in additional energy consumption that could have been utilized for the tire’s rolling motion.

Conversely, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 is lighter and designed with longitudinally aligned ribs, providing superior aerodynamic properties compared to the more spacious pattern of the Kleber Krisalp HP3.

As a result, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 delivers smoother straight-line journeys, such as on highways. Overall, it offers better performance in terms of fuel efficiency.

Comfort

The level of comfort provided by a tire encompasses two key factors: road noise and vibration absorption.

Let’s delve deeper into each for a more comprehensive analysis.

Noise Generation

Tire noise is generated when air particles collide with the tread walls.

This noise can significantly impact the overall driving experience, making its management a critical aspect of tire design.

In this regard, the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 holds an advantage over the Kleber Krisalp HP3. The tire’s tread pattern features a less voided structure, leaving less space for air to bounce around, thereby generating less noise as the tire rolls on the road.

This design consideration makes the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 a quieter tire, enhancing the comfort level for both the driver and passengers.

Conversely, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its larger tread voids, provides more room for air to collide with the tread walls, resulting in higher noise levels.

Vibration Absorption

Tires serve as the primary defense against road irregularities, and their ability to absorb and dampen vibrations caused by bumps, potholes, and other imperfections significantly contributes to the ride comfort.

In this aspect, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 outperforms, with its unique tread design and compound composition, which grant it superior vibration absorption capabilities.

When the Kleber comes into contact with bumps or uneven surfaces, its construction effectively cushions these impacts, resulting in a smoother ride that minimizes the transmission of vibrations to the vehicle’s body. This enhances the comfort level for the occupants.

On the other hand, while the Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 also offers reasonable vibration absorption, it does not quite match the performance of the Kleber Krisalp HP3, where the main culprit is still its stiffer external most cap ply.

Summing Up

Ultimately, the verdict boils down to this, where both tires are robust winter options, each showcasing distinct strengths.

The Nexen WinGuard Sport 2 notably excels on icy surfaces and in dry traction, thanks to its intricate tread design and unbroken center rib. Additionally, it offers superior fuel efficiency due to its lighter weight and streamlined design. It also has a slight advantage in wet traction and provides a quieter ride.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 shines on snowy terrains and in vibration absorption, owing to its open tread pattern and effective cushioning design. Despite being heavier, which leads to quicker tread wear and reduced fuel efficiency, it demonstrates exceptional snow performance and comfort on bumpy surfaces.

Barum Polaris 5 vs Debica Frigo HP2

The Barum Polaris 5, known for its exceptional snow grip, and the Debica Frigo HP2, with its superior ice traction, lock horns in this face-off. Let’s crown a king out of these budget friendly winter tires.

Sizes Info

The Debica Frigo HP2 comes in 15 to 18 inches with following specs.

Speed ratings: T and H.
Load ratings: SL and XL.
Tread depth: 12/32″.
Weight: 16 to 28 lbs.
Tread warranty: None.

On the other side, 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.

Ice and Snow Traction

When navigating icy terrains, the Debica Frigo HP2 shines brilliantly, as it showcases with 8 feet shorter braking distances, on average, and a whole second faster handling times (on laps, again on average).

Simply put, the tire offers gerater number of biters, and those combined with the tire’s better interlocking siping, you see better results overall.

In contrast, the Barum Polaris 5, with a less aggressive siping pattern and lacking multiple angles, finds its overall ice traction somewhat limited.

Though the tire does better when the ground is fluffy.

When faced with the challenge of softer, powdery snow terrains, the Barum Polaris 5 tire’s comprehensive network of tread voids functions as snow traps, providing superior contact between the tire and the snow. This enhanced contact generates greater friction, as the lodged snow meets the ground.

The Debica Frigo HP2, in contrast, lacks these specific characteristics. The tire fails to establish as much contact with the lodged snow within its grooves. Furthermore, its smaller tread voids limit its ability to paddle through the snow. In contrast, the Barum Polaris 5 throws snow backwards, generating better forward momentum.

Verdict: The Debica Frigo offers better icy traction, but lacks to its counterpart, when it comes to fluffy/powdery snowy terrains.

Comfort Levels Explored

When delving into the realm of comfort, the intricacies unfold in a captivating tale, divided into two chapters: the department of noise reduction and the tire’s ability to navigate road shocks with grace.

Let us embark on an exploration of each aspect separately.

Road Noise

The symphony of road noise originates from the collision of air particles with the tread walls, with the shoulder area acting as the main gateway for these, I should say, acoustic disturbances.

So this means, reduction of shoulder voids corresponds to a decrease in noise production.

In this regard, the Debica Frigo HP2 gains commendable points with its relatively compact design, keeping the shoulder voids small. By doing so, it restricts the influx of air and minimizes its impact on the tread walls, as explained above.

Yet, the Barum Polaris 5 challenges this achievement with its innovative pitch sequencing technology. This technology introduces variations in the tread block geometry, leading to the creation of distinct sounds. The harmonious interplay of these tones cancels each other out, effectively reducing noise.

Hence, when it comes to noise reduction, both tires are similar.

Road Bumps Absorption

The tires’ ability to absorb the jolts and imperfections of the road, highly depends on the build. That’s why the Debica Frigo HP2 takes the lead with its softer tread compound.

The tire’s malleable composition allows it to gracefully embrace the road’s imperfections, offering a smoother ride.

However, just as in the realm of noise reduction, another twist in the plot unfolds, as the Barum Polaris 5, while potentially less efficient in absorbing bumps, manages to provide a subjectively better sense of overall steering.

I am it’s firmer rubber to road contact provide a better under and over steering balance. So one can also draw both tires here as well.

Verdict: Debica Frigo HP2 offers superior impact comfort performance.

Fuel Usage

The efficiency of a tire’s fuel consumption is deeply intertwined with its tread design and overall weight. These elements significantly influence rolling resistance, a crucial factor impacting fuel consumption.

In this regard, both tires exhibit nearly identical levels of rolling resistance. The Debica Frigo HP2, with its lighter average weight across all sizes, features slightly wider tread voids. Consequently, this increased lug movement during maneuvers demands additional fuel.

On the other hand, the Barum Polaris 5, despite its heavier weight exerting greater force on the lugs, strikes a balance with its stiffer compound, resulting in equivalent fuel consumption levels.

Thus, when it comes to fuel efficiency, we once again witness a harmonious tie between these two contenders.

Dry Directional Grip

The tire’s capacity for directional grip is predominantly attributed to the central area of the tread. This region bears the bulk of the tire’s load during straight-line motion, such as highway driving. So how well tread connects the road form there is crucial.

That’s why it makes sense why the Barum shows better results here. While both tires exhibit continuous central ribs for consistent road contact, the Barum Polaris 5’s compact and continuous pattern extending to the surrounding lugs contributes to a shorter braking distance.

Verdict: The Barum Polaris 5 demonstrates superior linear grip when it comes to dry conditions, where it shows 5 feet quicker braking distances on average, compared to Debica.

Wet Traction

The tire’s traction on wet surfaces hinges greatly on its tread design and the composition of its rubber compound.

In this domain, the Debica Frigo HP2 shines slightly brighter than its rival, even though both tires feature extensive siping. Sipes, acting as channels or voids, expel air and draw in water particles, thus enhancing wet grip.

Leveraging a dual siping system, which combines assertive interlocking and linear designs, the Debica Frigo HP2 showcases remarkable wet traction abilities. The multi-angled sipes further enhance cornering capabilities, ensuring grip in all directions.

On the other hand, the Barum Polaris 5 employs a different siping approach, featuring predominantly lateral sipes. This results in a slightly different traction performance.

However, it’s worth noting that the Barum Polaris 5 excels in resisting hydroplaning. The tire showcases superior “float” speeds, which refer to the maximum speed it can maintain over standing water without losing contact with the road. This advantage holds true in both straight and curved water-testing scenarios.

Dry Lateral Traction

The performance of lateral traction, or handling, is heavily influenced by the tire’s shoulder structure and overall mass.

But why shoulders? Let me explain.

During cornering, the weight is displaced to the edges of the tread (shoulders/sidewalls) due to inertia, so compact shoulders do better.

Now, while both tires exhibit similar footprints in this area, the Barum Polaris 5 still lacks due to its greater weight, which pushed lugs to bend more against the road.

This excessive bending of the lugs creates an imbalance between understeer and oversteer, compromising the tire’s overall steering feedback.

Consequently, the Debica Frigo HP2 emerges as the victor in terms of dry handling. It provides better control and stability, granting drivers a heightened sense of confidence.

To Conclude

After thoroughly evaluating these tires across various criteria, it becomes evident that each possesses its own unique appeal, depending on specific strengths.

The Debica Frigo HP2 stands out with commendable performance in wet traction, shock absorption, and ice traction.

On the contrary, the Barum Polaris 5 exhibits superior performance in powdery snow traction and dry directional grip.

It’s crucial to note that both tires perform equivalently in terms of fuel usage and road noise, making the ultimate choice highly dependent on individual requirements and prevailing driving conditions.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 vs Sava Eskimo HP2

Both the Kleber Krisalp HP3 and the Sava Eskimo HP2, are top budget winter tires, celebrated for their impressive performance on types of weather conditions. Though let’s see which one comes on top here.

Key Takeaway

Sava Eskimo HP2 excels in:

Dry Traction: Thanks to a thicker middle section and a continuous middle strip for constant road contact, resulting in quicker stopping times.
Wet Traction: Its innovative dual siping design ensures efficient water absorption and a robust grip on slightly dried surfaces.
Fuel Efficiency: Due to longitudinally aligned tread ribs and a compound resistant to bending, this tire offers better fuel economy.
Ice Traction: Aggressive biters on the central rib and shoulders, combined with angled cuts, dual siping, and in-groove notches ensure exceptional ice-biting performance.
Noise Reduction: Compact shoulder lug design and densely arranged central lugs, combined with advanced pitch sequencing technology, mitigate road noise effectively.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 (review) excels in:

Hydroplaning Resistance: Features larger grooves and sweeping arms for optimal water dispersion and superior hydroplaning resistance.
Snow Traction: The larger tread voids enhance snow gripping and retention abilities, ensuring better performance in fluffy/powdery snow.
Impact Comfort: An absorbent tread rubber and deeper tread offer a thicker cushion between the vehicle and the road, absorbing shocks and providing a smoother, more comfortable ride on uneven surfaces.

Areas for Improvement:

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 could improve its dry traction and fuel efficiency due to its large tread gaps and heavier weight.
The Sava Eskimo HP2 could enhance its snow traction due to its more enclosed structure limiting snow-to-snow contact.

Dry Traction

The Sava Eskimo HP2 does this really well when it comes to directional grip, thanks to its thicker middle section which supports most of the tire’s weight when driving straight.

This leads to stopping around five feet quicker than others on average in tests.

The reason it works so well is its continuous middle strip that keeps the tire in constant contact with the road.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 struggles in comparison.

Having larger gaps in the tread, its middle section doesn’t contact the road with as much rubber.

Moreover, due to heavier weight, the tire also does not offer as good of a steering response, as seen on its counterpart.

Verdict: Sava Eskimo HP2 takes the lead, in terms of overall dry traction.

Enhanced Wet Traction

Wet traction hinges on two pivotal factors: the tread pattern and rubber compound. Both crucially contribute to gripping wet surfaces and averting hydroplaning.

The Sava Eskimo HP2 has an edge here with its innovative dual siping design, comprising rectilinear and interlocking slits that act as water magnets. These sipes work in tandem to efficiently absorb water, thereby enabling a robust grip on slightly dried surfaces.

Contrastingly, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, though featuring ample siping and adaptable tread rubber, falls short due to the absence of rectilinear slits, yielding somewhat inferior lateral traction.

Nevertheless, the Kleber redeems itself in hydroplaning resistance department, thanks to its slightly larger grooves and sweeping arms that optimally disperse water.

Its aggressive directional tread pattern and web of interconnected grooves actually offer a better water escaping efficacy, relatively.

Verdict: Sava Eskimo HP2 offers better wet grip, while the Kleber Krisalp HP3 provides superior resistance to hydroplaning.

Fuel Efficiency Evaluation

Fuel efficiency in tires is intricately tied to road grip and weight. So greater the grip, the more adhesive the tire would be with the road. Similarly, larger the wegith, the more the tread gets pushed down, and larger would be the rolling resistance.

That’s why here, the Sava Eskimo HP2, with its longitudinally aligned tread ribs and a compound resistant to bending, is taking the lead.

On the other side, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 could use some improvements here, as its hefty weight and large tread voids result in greater rolling resistance and friction.

Verdict: Sava Eskimo HP2 offers better fuel economy.

Snow Traction Review

When it comes to snow traction, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 takes the lead with its larger tread voids, which bolster its snow gripping and retention abilities.

The performance in snow is actually largely dependent on how well the tire offers snow to snow contact, and Kleber with its relatively larger voids grabs the snow, and holds on to it for good.

(Snow to snow contact is significant, because snow sticks better on other snowflakes, compared to rubber).

Conversely, the more enclosed structure of the Sava Eskimo HP2 is less effective in maintaining snow-to-snow contact.

Verdict: Kleber offers better fluffy/powdery snow traction.

Ice Traction Evaluation

In icy conditions, the Sava Eskimo HP2 unequivocally outperforms with faster stopping times and better acceleration capabilities on packed snow.

And its superior performance is attributed to its aggressive biters on both the central rib and the shoulders, which feature angled cuts, a dual siping pattern, and in-groove notches, culminating in exceptional ice-biting performance.

In contrast, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 falls behind, primarily due to its wider tread voids that provide fewer biters per unit surface area.

Verdict: Sava Eskimo HP2 offers better ice grip.

Comfort Level Appraisal

The comfort level delivered by a tire hinges on its ability to mitigate vibrations and generate minimal road noise, where both of these are influenced by the tire’s construction.

The Sava Eskimo HP2 excels in providing a quieter ride with its compact shoulder lug design and densely arranged central lugs.

These basically don’t allow air particles to freely flow and strike with the walls to create noise. Further, the tire also employs advanced pitch sequencing technology to mitigate residual noise.

On the other side, although the Kleber Krisalp HP3 doesn’t match up in noise reduction, it shines in impact comfort.

The tire, by design, absorbs shocks, and manages road irregularities and potholes exceptionally well. Its absorbent tread rubber and deeper tread offer a thicker cushion between the vehicle and the road, enhancing its shock-absorbing abilities and ensuring a smoother, more comfortable ride on uneven surfaces.

Verdict: Sava does better when it comes to noise, while the Kleber is superior in mitigating road bumps.

Conclusion

Both tires have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Sava Eskimo HP2 excels in dry and wet traction, ice traction, fuel efficiency, and noise reduction.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 performs better in terms of snow traction and impact comfort.

The decision between the two tires depends on the driver’s specific needs and the prevailing driving conditions.

It is emphasized that regular maintenance and appropriate tire care can enhance the performance and longevity of both tire models.

Hankook Winter Icept RS2 vs RS3

Hankook Winter Icept RS2, renowned for its excellent snow traction, and Hankook Winter Icept RS3, praised for its superior handling on ice, are both set to put their best foot forward. But who will rule the winter roads? Let’s find out!

Quick Takeaway

Hankook Winter Icept RS3 excels in:

Ice Performance: Due to slanted incisions, V-shaped biters, enhanced flexibility, and multi-angled sipes, offering shorter braking and faster handling.
Wet Grip: Utilizes both rectilinear and interlocking sipes for superior water absorption and clearing, leading to enhanced traction.
Impact Comfort: Soft rubber compound provides effective cushioning, ensuring a more comfortable ride over uneven surfaces.
Dry Grip: Superior due to the longitudinal central rib, providing increased ground contact and resulting in shorter stopping times.

Hankook Winter Icept RS2 excels in:

Snow Performance: Wider tread voids and in-groove notches trap snow particles, enhancing grip and displacement of thick snow.
Tread Noise: Offers a quieter ride due to more streamlined channels for air particles.
Dry Handling: Lug firmness during cornering allows for faster overall steering response.

Also note, that both tires perform equally in fuel Economy, where similar rolling resistance values were seen on both.

Ice Performance

In the realm of icy terrains, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 emerges as the victorious tire, surpassing its counterpart with exceptional prowess.

As my testing show, the tire offered 5 feet shorter braking, and a whole second faster handling, comparatively.

So why is that?

Well, this tire offers slanted incisions, combined with V-shaped biters facing both lateral directions, and all these features offer unparalleled gripping abilities on icy surfaces.

Furthermore, the tire’s enhanced flexibility and multi-angled sipes amplify its gripping capability, providing an even greater advantage.

Conversely, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 falls short in this regard, lacking notches on its smoothed-out edges. While it offers adequate grooves and ample sipes, it cannot match the biting capability of its counterpart.

Verdict: Overall, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 takes the lead in ice performance.

Snow Performance

In snowy conditions, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 takes the lead due to its unique design features. The tire’s wider tread voids and in-groove notches prove invaluable in trapping snow particles.

This design promotes increased traction as the lodged snow provides a superior grip compared to the rubber tread itself.

Furthermore, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2’s better swooping V-shaped lugs excel at displacing thick snow, enhancing forward momentum and contributing to better acceleration times.

In contrast, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 presents somewhat limited braking and handling capabilities due to its relatively closed design, featuring a continuous central rib and narrower in-groove notches.

The tire’s directional tread pattern, lacking the as streamlined swooping arms, as seen on its competitor, limits its efficiency when it comes to snow paddling.

Hence, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 outperforms its counterpart in snowy conditions.

Wet Grip

When it comes to wet traction, two pivotal factors play a significant role: tread design and rubber compound. And considering both aspects, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 emerges as the frontrunner.

Although both tires feature an abundance of siping across their treads, aiding their grip, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 holds a distinct advantage.

This advantage stems from the tire’s utilization of both rectilinear and interlocking sipes, which possess superior water absorption capabilities. And these combined with its multi-angled sipes, the tire clears water in all directions, further enhancing its traction.

On the other side, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2’s tire lacks these features.

And it heavily relies on laterally oriented sipes, leading to longer wet braking distances and handling times.

Verdict: The Hankook Winter Icept RS3 excels in wet conditions, surpassing its counterpart.

Fuel Economy

Fuel economy hinges on several factors, including the tire’s adherence to the road surface and overall tread pattern. And evaluating these aspects reveals that both tires feature similar rolling resistance values, resulting in similar miles per gallon (MPG) figures.

However, the reasons for this similarity differ between the two.

The Hankook Winter Icept RS3’s softer compound leads to extra lug bending, which requires additional energy, ultimately reducing fuel economy. Nevertheless, the tire’s longitudinally aligned rib compensates for this drawback, resulting in fuel economy similar to that of the Hankook Winter Icept RS2’s tire.

On the other hand, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 features a directional tread pattern with lateral tread voids, which can lower fuel economy. However, its lugs remain firmly in place when the tire corners, brakes, or accelerates, allowing for comparable fuel economy to its counterpart.

Therefore, both tires perform equally in terms of fuel economy.

Comfort Levels

Comfort levels of a tire largely depend on factors such as road noise and vibration absorption capability, which can vary significantly based on the tire’s construction.

Regarding noise, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 holds the upper hand, offering a relatively quieter ride, where the tire’s swooping arms create a more streamlined channel, allowing air particles to pass through without colliding the walls, (which generates noise in the first place).

On the other hand, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 is although relatively louder, it excels in absorbing bumps, the 2nd main part of overall comfort.

Its thermally adaptive softer rubber compound provides effective cushioning, ensuring a more comfortable ride over uneven surfaces.

Thus, when it comes to impact comfort, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 takes the lead.

Dry Traction

Dry performance encompasses two essential aspects: grip and handling. Grip refers to the tire’s ability to roll or brake when moving straight, often measured through braking distances.

In this domain, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 stands out with its shorter stopping and handling times, owing to its longitudinal central rib, which provides increased ground contact.

Conversely, while the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 may not excel in gripping, its handling is superior. (Tests indicate that it is 0.5 seconds slower than its counterpart).

Handling relies on two factors: contact from the shoulders and lug bending, and in both cases, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 takes the lead.

Despite weighing similarly to its counterpart, its lugs remain firm during cornering, allowing for faster overall steering response.

In contrast, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3, with its relatively softer compound, lacks in this aspect and fails to deliver comparable results.

Verdict: The Hankook Winter Icept RS2 demonstrates better dry handling, while the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 excels with its shorter braking distances.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these two formidable winter tires each demonstrate specific advantages. The Hankook Winter Icept RS2 shines in fluffy snow conditions, thanks to its wider tread voids, in-groove notches, and superior snow-clearing V-shaped lugs. However, it falls short in terms of ice performance compared to its counterpart.

Moreover, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 excels in dry handling but lacks in directional gripping ability. On the other hand, the Hankook Winter Icept RS3 outperforms its counterpart in wet conditions.

Moreover, both tires are rated equally when it comes to comfort and fuel economy.