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:

Pirelli Scorpion Winter vs Ice Zero FR

The competition is on as Pirelli Scorpion Winter, noted for its comfort and durability, challenges Pirelli Ice Zero FR, hailed for its fantastic handling. Let’s uncover which tire will dominate the winter roads!

Fuel Usage

Fuel efficiency in tires is fundamentally linked to tread design and structural weight as these elements determine the rolling resistance, which directly affects fuel consumption.

In this aspect, both tires showcase similar levels.

Although the Pirelli Ice Zero FR flaunts a lighter overall structure (averaged across all sizes), it has slightly wider tread voids which instigate additional lug movement during maneuvers, requiring extra fuel consumption.

However, this effect is counterbalanced by the Pirelli Scorpion Winter, which, despite its heavier weight applying more pressure on the lugs, results in similar levels of fuel consumption.

Consequently, in terms of fuel economy, it’s a deadlock between the two tires.

Tread Life

The lifespan of a tire’s tread is an amalgamation of various factors such as the tire’s weight, the depth of the tread, its design, and the makeup of its compound. And considering these variables, it’s not surprising to see the Pirelli Ice Zero FR outshining others in this facet.

The Pirelli Ice Zero FR carries a lighter weight, which means each of its individual lugs are subjected to lesser pressure, resulting in minimized friction as they interact with the road’s surface.

And adding to this, the tire features enhanced tread depth. (This quality is advantageous as the deeper the tread voids, the more time it will require for the tire to wear down to its replacement stage).

On the contrary, while the Pirelli Scorpion Winter profits from a somewhat sturdier tread compound that fights against wear, its overall tread life still falls short when juxtaposed with the Pirelli Ice Zero FR.

Comfort Levels

Ride comfort can be essentially boiled down to the reduction of noise and the tire’s ability to absorb shocks from the road.

Discussing noise first, it’s primarily generated when air particles collide with the walls of the tread. In simpler terms, larger tread gaps tend to give rise to a noisier tire.

In this respect, the Pirelli Scorpion Winter enjoys an advantage with its more compact design.

Moreover, the tire employs a superior pitch sequencing technology where alterations in the tread block geometry induce the creation of different tones by air particles. These tones then cancel each other out, leading to a reduction in noise.

On the other hand, the Pirelli Ice Zero FR excels in quelling vibrations, owing to its softer overall tread compound.

Its relatively supple tread composition boosts its shock-absorbing capabilities, assuring a smoother ride.

Thus, while the Pirelli Ice Zero FR offers superior performance in terms of impact comfort, the Pirelli Scorpion Winter renders a quieter ride, with each tire shining in their respective comfort zones.

Fluffy Snow Traction

In conditions of soft snowy landscapes, the Pirelli Scorpion Winter manages to notch ahead slightly, and it accomplishes this, through its expansive assortment of gaps or biters that act as snow traps.

These snow traps foster a robust snow-to-snow bond, which forms the tire’s contact patch with the ground, thus enhancing traction. This effect stems from the fact that snow adheres more effectively to itself than it does to rubber.

In comparison, the Pirelli Ice Zero FR lacks these particular attributes.

Although its tread pattern is also directional, it misses the sleek effect of the Pirelli Scorpion Winter, diminishing its effectiveness in ejecting snow to create forward thrust.

Additionally, a closer examination of its tread reveals that it doesn’t possess as many interconnected tread voids as its rival, leading to less efficient snow-to-snow contact.

Wet Grip

Upon testing, both tires exhibit similar wet braking distances (calculated on average), implying comparable grip levels. However, when it comes to handling, the Pirelli Ice Zero FR slightly outshines its counterpart.

This advantage is primarily due to the tire’s superior water clearance capabilities, credited to its multi-angled sipes and notches, which are facing both lateral and longitudinal directions on the tread. This design facilitates grip in all directions when cornering, minimizing the risk of slippage.

In contrast, the Pirelli Scorpion Winter, which only has laterally oriented sipes on its shoulders, shows a deficiency in overall handling times during testing.

Dry Traction

The overall dry performance of a tire depends on two aspects, directional grip, and handling.

Directional grip’s effectiveness predominantly lies in the central region of the tread, and it makes sense why the Scorpion Winter with more closed up pattern there offer better overall efficacy.

Even though both tires are equipped with robust foundations underneath the central lugs, the Scorpion Winter still manages to provide greater rubber to road contact, resulting in a remarkable 4 feet reduction in average braking distance in tests compared to the Pirelli Ice Zero FR.

Though the opposite happens, when the handling is considered, which relies primarily on the tire’s shoulder design and total weight.

Here, the Pirelli Scorpion Winter having a heftier structural weight is at a disadvantage.

Its greater weight induces increased lug movement during cornering, thereby compromising steering feedback.

On the contrary, the lighter Pirelli Ice Zero FR ensures a more harmonious balance between understeering and oversteering, enhancing overall steering responsiveness.

Ice Traction

In icy conditions, the Pirelli Ice Zero FR holds the upper hand, as it offers more biters per surface area of its tread, including an array of various sipes, and multi-angled notches.

This allows the tire to brake 4 feet faster, on average.

Conversely, the Pirelli Scorpion Winter, although featuring plenty of in-groove notches, lacks an aggressive siping design.

And yes, it rubber is also not that flexible as well, so all its biters don’t get to grip on ice with as much efficacy as seen on its counterpart.

Summing Up

So, what are the key takeaways?

Evidently, each tire excels in distinct areas.

The Pirelli Scorpion Winter shines on snowy terrain due to its extensive snow traps and streamlined tread design, providing superior snow traction. Plus, this tire offers better directional traction on both wet and dry roads

Conversely, the Pirelli Ice Zero FR outperforms in icy conditions due to its specialized biters and comprehensive grip from multiple angles. And this tire features superior handling capabilities in both wet and dry.

In terms of treadwear, the Pirelli Ice Zero FR comes out better, offering longer tread life.

And fuel economy is almost similar on both.

Yokohama IceGuard IG52C vs IG53

Both Yokohama IceGuard IG52C and the Yokohama IG53 are formidable contenders in the frosty domain of winter tires, each showcasing unique grip and stability on slippery surfaces. As winter blankets the land, let’s find out who takes the top spot!

Quick Takeaway

Yokohama IceGuard IG52 excels in:

Directional Gripping: The IceGuard IG52’s interlocking lugs provide a larger contact area, resulting in better directional grip.
Lateral Gripping: Thanks to its biting edges on shoulder lugs and narrower lateral grooves, the IceGuard IG52 significantly outperforms its counterpart in handling dry surfaces.
Tread Life: With its lighter construction, the IceGuard IG52 has better tread life as its lugs create less friction and heat due to reduced ground pressure.
Noise Generation: The IceGuard IG52, with its tread pattern having fewer voids, generates less noise.
Wet Traction: Thanks to an advanced rubber compound, the IceGuard IG52 offers superior water dispersal abilities, enhancing traction on damp surfaces.
Fuel Economy: The IceGuard IG52, with its lighter weight and longitudinally aligned ribs, offers better fuel efficiency.

Yokohama IceGuard IG53 excels in:

Hydroplaning Resistance: The IceGuard IG53, with its interconnected tread voids or grooves, offers exceptional water channeling capabilities.
Vibration Absorption: The next-generation compound of the IceGuard IG53 excels at absorbing disturbances from uneven surfaces.
Ice & Snow Performance: The IceGuard IG53 offers superior performance on icy terrains and in lighter, powdery snow due to its advanced tread compound, biters, and open tread design.

Areas for Improvement:

The Yokohama IceGuard IG52 could improve in hydroplaning resistance, vibration absorption, and ice performance, given its more minimalist approach to handling snow and lack of an advanced compound for absorbing disturbances.
The Yokohama IceGuard IG53 could enhance its directional and lateral grip, tread life, noise reduction, and fuel economy, given its large longitudinal groove in the middle of the tread, thicker lugs with fewer biting edges, greater weight, and less streamlined lugs.

Ice And Snow Performance

The Yokohama IceGuard IG53 offers a noteworthy edge over its competition when navigating icy terrains, showcasing an impressive braking distance that is, on average, 11 feet shorter.

Such superior performance is attributed to the tire’s advanced tread compound, further enhanced by the strategically placed biters scattered across the tread. This high-quality tire also boasts an asymmetric pattern, significantly boosting its ice-gripping capabilities.

Additionally, the tire integrates a state-of-the-art rubber compound that works in harmony with the biters to deliver an unparalleled performance.

Notably, the Yokohama IceGuard IG53 shines in lighter, powdery snow, thanks to its open tread design. This innovative layout incorporates expertly crafted voids which effectively trap soft snow particles within the tread, providing superior snow-to-snow contact. This feature is crucial, as snow adheres more effectively to itself than to rubber.

In contrast, the Yokohama IceGuard IG52 employs a more minimalist approach to handling snow. Its compact tread design, characterized by aggressive, smaller biters, does not retain as much snow, resulting in slightly reduced performance in fluffier snow conditions.

Directional Gripping

The performance of a tire in terms of directional or longitudinal grip, a crucial factor for dry conditions, relies heavily on the design of the tread’s central area. This specific part of the tread bears the majority of the weight during straight-line driving.

When comparing the two tires in this aspect, it’s not surprising that the Yokohama IceGuard IG52 outperforms its counterpart by a significant margin.

To put it simply, this tire provides a larger contact area between the rubber and the road surface in the middle of the tread.

It achieves this through its interlocking lugs that effectively grip the road. In contrast, the IceGuard IG53 features a large longitudinal groove in that area, which results in longer braking distances during tests.

Lateral Gripping

The handling performance of a tire on dry surfaces depends largely on the design of its shoulder lugs and the overall flexibility of the tire.

And here, once again, the Yokohama IceGuard IG52 stands out as it significantly outperforms its predecessor, as the tire incorporates numerous biting edges on its shoulder lugs and narrower lateral grooves, working together to enhance grip.

On the other hand, the Yokohama IceGuard IG53 has thicker lugs with fewer biting edges, limiting its grip capacity.

Additionally, the heavier weight of this tire, during cornering, can lead to delayed oversteer and understeer responses, reducing its overall responsiveness to steering inputs.

Tread Life

The longevity of a tire’s tread is greatly influenced by rolling resistance, which is determined by the weight and design of the tread.

Simply put, lighter tires tend to have better tread life, as such tires exert less pressure on their lugs, as they rub against the road surface, reducing friction and slowing down the rate of wear.

Consequently, the Yokohama IceGuard IG52, thanks to its lighter construction, excels in tread life. Its lugs create less friction and heat due to reduced ground pressure, leading to greater wear resistance.

In contrast, the Yokohama IceGuard IG53 falls short in this regard due to its greater weight, less streamlined lugs, and outdated rubber composition. This puts it behind its newer counterpart, the IceGuard IG52.

Noise Generation

The noise produced by a tire is primarily a result of air particles colliding against the tread walls, and its volume can greatly impact the overall driving experience. Therefore, effective noise management is a key consideration in tire design.

In this regard, the Yokohama IceGuard IG52 takes the lead, thanks to its tread pattern with fewer voids. With fewer voids, there are fewer air cavities available for noise propagation, resulting in reduced noise as the tire rolls.

Fuel Economy

The fuel efficiency of a tire primarily depends on its interaction with the road surface and its overall weight. Both of these factors impact the tire’s rolling resistance, which significantly affects the vehicle’s energy usage.

In this regard, the Yokohama IceGuard IG52 stands out due to its lighter weight and longitudinally aligned ribs, providing better aerodynamic efficiency compared to the larger-spaced, and asymmetric pattern of the Yokohama IceGuard IG53.

As a result, the IceGuard IG52 enables smoother and more energy-efficient travel, especially during straight-line movements such as highway driving, for the most part.

Wet Traction

A tire’s performance on wet surfaces depends on its tread design and rubber composition. In this aspect, the Yokohama IceGuard IG52 surpasses its competitors in various factors, including grip, handling.

The tire utilizes an advanced rubber compound, that offers superior water dispersal abilities, significantly enhancing traction on damp surfaces, where the multi-angled sipes, further that.

Though in case of resistance to hydroplaning, the IG53 takes the upper hand, with its interconnected tread voids or grooves provide exceptional water channeling capabilities in all directions. And so you get higher speeds in both straight-line and curved aquaplaning testing situations.

Vibration Absorption

Tires act as the first line of defense against road irregularities and function as secondary suspension systems for vehicles. And in this context, the Yokohama IceGuard IG53 excels with its next-generation compound.

When encountering uneven surfaces, the construction of the tire adeptly absorbs all sorts of minor disturbances, delivering a smoother ride.

Though in defense of IG52, its lighter weight offers better steering feedback, offering a more refined ride experience still.

So one can rate both these tires equally.

So What’s the Verdict?

In summary, both the Yokohama IceGuard IG52 and IG53 present distinct advantages.

The IG52 excels in dry grip, handling, tread life, noise reduction, and wet traction due to its superior design features.

Conversely, the IG53 stands out in icy conditions and snow handling, offering better vibration absorption, yet falls short in areas like dry grip, tread life, and fuel efficiency.

Both have their unique strengths making the choice between them dependent on specific user requirements and driving conditions.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 vs Bridgestone Blizzak LM005

Winter driving brings its own challenges, and the Kleber Krisalp HP3 and the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, both formidable winter tire options, promise to make the ride smoother. But who will be the superior choice for your needs? Let’s find out!

Key Takeaway

Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 excels in:

Wet Gripping: The Blizzak LM005’s innovative dual siping design allows for better grip on slightly dried surfaces.
Dry Performance: The Blizzak LM005’s continuous central rib provides superior braking distances and excellent directional grip.
Fuel Usage: The Blizzak LM005’s lightweight and longitudinally aligned tread ribs result in less pressure on the road, reducing friction and improving fuel efficiency.
Ice Traction: The Blizzak LM005’s biters, notches, and abundant siping contribute to exceptional ice traction.
Noise Reduction: The Blizzak LM005’s compact shoulder lug design, densely arranged central lugs, and advanced pitch sequencing technology minimize road noise.
Tread Life: The Blizzak LM005’s reduced weight and continuous central rib result in slower wear of the rubber, leading to a longer lifespan.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 excels in:

Hydroplaning Resistance: The Krisalp HP3’s wider grooves and sweeping arms effectively disperse water, offering better hydroplaning resistance.
Fluffy Snow Performance: The Krisalp HP3’s wider tread voids trap powdery snow particles, offering superior snow traction.
Shock Absorption: The Krisalp HP3’s more absorbent tread rubber and deeper tread absorb road bumps and shocks, enhancing overall comfort.

Areas for Improvement:

The Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 could improve in hydroplaning resistance and snow traction, given its symmetric tread pattern and more enclosed structure.
The Kleber Krisalp HP3 could enhance its wet grip, dry performance, fuel efficiency, ice traction, noise reduction, and tread life, given its lack of rectilinear slits, wider tread voids, greater weight, less aggressive siping design, and larger tread voids.

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

Tire Sizes

The Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 comes in just 18 sizes in 18 to 20 inches rims, with following specs.

Speed ratings: H and V.
Load ratings: XL only.
Tread depth: 8 to 11/32″.
Weight: 24 to 36 lbs.
Tread warranty: None.

On the other side, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 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.

Wet Traction

When it comes to wet traction, two key elements play a significant role: the tread pattern and the rubber compound of the tire. These elements determine how well the tire grips the wet surface and its ability to resist hydroplaning.

Let’s start with grip.

Wet Gripping

Out of both tires, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 stands out in wet grip due to its innovative dual siping design.

This design features a combination of rectilinear and interlocking patterns of slits, which act as water magnets by drawing in water particles. This allows the tire to maintain a strong grip on slightly dried surfaces.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 also offers good wet traction with its biters and multi-directional sipes.

However, the absence of rectilinear slits in the tread pattern limits its lateral traction, especially on corners.

Resistance to hydroplaning

In terms of hydroplaning resistance, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 takes the lead.

The tire’s wider grooves and sweeping arms are designed to disperse water effectively, allowing for better float speeds and performance in both curved and straight aquaplaning tests.

Its directional tread pattern helps in sweeping water off the tread surface, preventing hydroplaning.

In contrast, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 lacks the same level of hydroplaning resistance due to its symmetric tread pattern and the absence of interconnected tread voids.

Dry Performance

When it comes to dry traction, two aspects come into play: directional grip and handling.

The Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 excels in directional grip with its continuous running central rib. This rib ensures a strong bond between the rubber and the road, resulting in superior braking distances and excellent directional grip.

The Kleber Krisalp HP3, although not as effective in directional grip due to wider tread voids, still offers good handling capabilities.

Moving towards the handling performance, which is largely determined by the tire’s shoulder lugs, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 lacks here as well.

It shows a similar level of contact between its shoulder lugs and the road compared to its competitors, however, its increased weight affects its performance by causing increased bending of the lugs, which disrupts the balance between oversteer and understeer and leads to a delay in steering feedback.

Consequently, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 exhibits extended handling lap times compared to its counterpart.

Fuel Usage

Fuel efficiency is closely related to road grip and overall weight of tire’s structure. That’s why it makes sense why the Kleber Krisalp HP3 has room for improvement here.

Its considerable/greater weight and extensive tread voids contribute to increased rolling resistance and friction with the road surface. Whereas, the lighter Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 exerts less pressure on the road, resulting in reduced friction and improved fuel efficiency.

Additionally, the longitudinally aligned tread ribs in the LM005 minimize resistance, conserve energy, and enhance fuel efficiency.

Ice Traction

When it comes to ice traction, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 clearly outperforms its counterpart.

The LM005’s superior biters, including angled cuts, V-shaped notches, and abundant siping, contribute to exceptional ice-biting performance.

Moreover, the tire’s shoulder lugs are designed to provide comprehensive grip from various angles, enabling efficient braking and handling.

In contrast, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, although equipped with siping, does not possess the same level of aggressiveness in biting into ice due to its less aggressive siping design, absence of notches, and wider tread voids.

Fluffy Snow Performance

In terms of snow traction, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 takes the lead.

Its wider tread voids allow for better snow-to-snow contact, as the voids trap powdery snow particles within their interconnected grooves.

Its important, because snow sticks better to snow, compared to tread’s rubber.

That’s why, on the other side, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, with its more enclosed structure, is less effective in providing the same level of snow traction.

Ride Quality

Comfort level is determined by the tire’s ability to reduce road noise and dampen vibrations.

And talking about noise first, the Bridgestone LM005 offers a quieter ride due to its compact shoulder lug design and densely arranged central lugs, where these features minimize the space for air particles to move around, resulting in reduced noise.

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

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 performs well in terms of impact comfort. Its more absorbent tread rubber and deeper tread help in absorbing bumps and shocks, enhancing the overall comfort level.

Tread Life

Tread longevity is influenced by rolling resistance, and overall tire structure. And the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 has the advantage in this aspect due to its reduced weight, which leads to less strain on the tread blocks during contact with the road.

This results in slower wear of the rubber. In contrast, the heavier Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its larger tread voids, puts more stress on each lug, leading to faster tread wear and a shorter overall lifespan.

To Summarize

In summary, the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 performs better in wet traction, dry traction (directional grip), fuel efficiency, ice traction, and tread longevity.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 excels in hydroplaning resistance, snow traction, on-road vibration dampening, and impact comfort.

Hankook Winter Icept RS2 vs Kleber Krisalp HP3

In the arena of winter tires, Hankook Winter Icept RS2 and Kleber Krisalp HP3, each offering unique strengths in handling, endurance, and ride comfort, are set to compete. Which one will steal the show? Let’s find out!

Key Takeaway

Hankook Winter Icept RS2 excels in:

Ice Traction: The Winter Icept RS2’s smaller voids, more notches, and multi-directional sipes provide superior ice traction.
Dry Performance: The Winter Icept RS2’s compacted running rib provides more rubber-to-road contact, offering better directional grip.
Handling: The Winter Icept RS2’s closed-up shoulder lugs and weight distribution provide superior handling, especially during cornering.
Noise Reduction: The Winter Icept RS2’s compact tread gaps and superior pitch sequencing technology minimize noise generation.
Wet Traction: The Winter Icept RS2’s aggressive siping pattern and multitude of biters on the tread offer better wet grip.

Kleber Krisalp HP3 excels in:

Snow Traction: The Krisalp HP3’s wider tread voids and bolder directional pattern allow for better snow-to-snow contact, providing superior traction in fluffy snow.
Shock Absorption: The Krisalp HP3’s softer tread compound offers superior shock absorption, ensuring a more comfortable ride.
Aquaplaning Resistance: The Krisalp HP3’s wider grooves provide superior resistance to aquaplaning.

Areas for Improvement:

The Hankook Winter Icept RS2 could improve in terms of snow traction and shock absorption, given its more closed design and harder tread compound.
The Kleber Krisalp HP3 could enhance its ice traction, dry performance, handling, noise reduction, and wet traction, given its lack of notches, streamlined running layer, open shoulder lugs, larger tread gaps, and less aggressive siping.

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

Ice Traction

When it comes to navigating icy surfaces, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 confidently asserts its dominance.

This is because the tire is characterized by relatively smaller voids, filled with a lot more notches, and coupled with multi-directional sipes.

Moreover, speaking of sipes, its tread also offers a combination of lateral and longitudinal slits, which allows it to provide superior braking and cornering abilities.

On the flip side, the Kleber is lacking all these features, where you don’t see V-shaped notches in both lateral directions, and only less aggressive siping.

Verdict: The Hankook Winter Icept RS2 excels in ice traction due to its superior design and features compared to the Kleber Krisalp HP3.

Dry Performance

Dry grip is determined by the extent of the rubber’s contact with the surface, influenced by two key components: directional grip and lateral traction.

Let’s take a closer look at these aspects.

Handling

Handling is greatly influenced by the tire’s shoulder areas and overall weight distribution. Let me explain why this is the case.

During directional travel, pressure is exerted on the middle lugs. However, when cornering, the weight shifts towards the tire’s shoulders due to inertia. It is crucial for these lugs to connect effectively with the road surface to ensure optimal handling.

The Hankook RS2, with its closed-up shoulder lugs, offers better performance in this regard. In contrast, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, in addition to having wider grooves, features a heavier structure. Consequently, the tire’s lugs flex more, as it corners, resulting in weakened steering feedback and a reduced balance between understeering and oversteering.

Therefore, superior handling can be expected from the Hankook.

Directional Grip

The efficiency of directional grip depends on the central tread area, which determines how much rubber-to-road contact is established. When a tire rolls straight, this middle area experiences the most weight concentration.

That’s why the Hankook Winter Icept RS2, with its continuous, more compacted up running rib, there, ensures consistent surface contact as the tire moves straight, resulting in superior performance.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, although featuring an almost continuous running layer, is not as streamlined as its counterpart, leading to a noticeable braking distance that is nearly 9 feet longer.

Verdict: Hankook Winter Icept RS2 is a better choice in terms of directional grip.

Snow Traction

In snowy landscapes, both tires exhibit impressive performances, although the Kleber Krisalp HP3 provides slightly better traction, particularly when it comes to fluffy snow.

The Hankook Winter Icept RS2 features a more closed design with a continuous running rib in the middle part of the tread. However, this configuration lacks interlocking grooves, limiting its ability to collect snow.

In contrast, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its wider tread voids, allows for better snow-to-snow contact. Its lug voids effectively retain fluffy snow particles within their interconnected grooves, creating a favorable traction environment.

Moreover, the tire’s bolder directional pattern provides paddling action, scooping snow backward and generating superior forward momentum compared to its counterpart.

Overall, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 demonstrates better snow performance.

Wet Traction

Wet traction primarily depends on two elements: the tread pattern and the type of rubber compound used in the tire. These factors play a crucial role in determining the tire’s grip on wet surfaces and its ability to resist hydroplaning.

Now, while both tires are equipped with significant siping, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 manages to offer slightly better performance in wet grip. The tire gives out a more aggressive siping pattern, incorporating a combination of rectilinear and interlocking slits.

Additionally, it features a multitude of biters on its tread, enhancing its ability to grip wet surfaces effectively.

Sipes work by expelling air and creating a vacuum, which helps in sucking away water particles from underneath. And here, the Kleber Krisalp HP3, with its less effective siping design, falls behind its counterpart.

Though one thing to note here, is that this tire has the advantage of superior resistance to aquaplaning, due to its wider grooves.

So overall, the Hankook is superior in wet grip, while its counterpart does better with hydroplaning, as seen with straight and curved aqua tests.

Comfort Levels

The overall ride comfort consists of two factors: noise reduction and the tire’s ability to absorb road shocks.

Let’s begin with the noise factor.

To put it simply, noise is created when air particles collide with the walls of the tire’s tread. So, the larger the tread gaps, the noisier the tire becomes.

This is where the Hankook Winter Icept RS2, with its compact tread gaps, offers better overall performance by minimizing noise generation. Additionally, the tire incorporates superior pitch sequencing technology, where the slight variation in geometry among its tread blocks allows the air particles hitting the walls to create different tones that cancel each other out.

On the other hand, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 excels in dampening vibrations. Its comparatively softer tread compound grants it superior shock absorption capabilities, ensuring a more comfortable ride.

Therefore, when it comes to comfort, both tire options from these giants have their strengths.

Summing Up

In summary, both tires offer different scenarios.

The Kleber Krisalp HP3 stands out in fluffy snow conditions with its distinct tread design. However, this very design limits its performance on icy and wet surfaces.

The wider grooves that offer superior snow scooping put this tire at a disadvantage when it comes to dry traction. Nonetheless, the difference in dry traction performance between the two tires is minimal.

Moreover, the Kleber Krisalp HP3 performs better in vibration absorption, while the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 provides superior road quietness.

When it comes to wet traction, the Hankook Winter Icept RS2 offers slightly better wet grip, while the Kleber Krisalp HP3 excels in hydroplaning resistance.

Continental WinterContact SI vs SI Plus

Continental WinterContact SI and the SI Plus, both leading options in the winter tire segment, each showcase individual expertise in traction, tire life, and ride comfort. So its best you consider all of the below.

Quick Takeaway

Continental WinterContact SI Plus excels in:

Wet Traction: The SI Plus’s multi-angled sipes and a combination of rectilinear, and interlocking patterns provide superior wet grip.
Tread Life: The SI Plus’s lighter weight puts less pressure on the tread blocks, slowing degradation of the rubber and prolonging tread life.
Ice Performance: The SI Plus’s aggressive siping and malleable tread allow for superior ice gripping, leading to shorter average braking distances.
Comfort Levels: The SI Plus’s superior rubber compound and pitch sequencing technology result in less road noise, while its more pliable tread provides better vibration damping.
Fuel Economy: The SI Plus’s lighter weight and more streamlined central rib contribute to lower rolling resistance and better fuel economy.

Continental WinterContact SI excels in:

Hydroplaning Resistance: The SI’s wider groove channels allow for quicker water evacuation, offering superior resistance to hydroplaning.
Snow Performance: The SI’s more open lug design and interlocking grooves allow for superior snow pickup and traction on fluffy snowy roads.

Areas for Improvement:

The Continental WinterContact SI could improve in terms of wet grip, tread life, ice performance, comfort, and fuel economy, given its laterally-oriented siping, heavier weight, lack of aggressive siping, and higher rolling resistance.
The Continental WinterContact SI Plus could perform better in terms of snow performance and hydroplaning resistance, given its enclosed tread pattern and narrower groove channels.

Wet Traction

When it comes to wet traction, there are two key factors to consider: grip and resistance to aquaplaning. And let me tell you, that the results for these factors are somewhat mixed between the two Continental tires here.

In terms of grip, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus takes the lead, as it features multi-angled sipes, and a combination of rectilinear, and interlocking patterns.

These sipes point in multiple directions, effectively channeling water away and allowing the tread rubber to maintain better contact with the road.

On the other hand, the Continental WinterContact SI is equipped with laterally-oriented siping and lacks the rectilinear pattern found in the SI Plus. As a result, it doesn’t offer as much grip. However, it performs slightly better in terms of aquaplaning resistance, which refers to the tire’s ability to prevent floating on water.

During testing, the Continental WinterContact SI demonstrated marginally higher speeds in both curved and straight aquaplaning tests. This is because it has wider groove channels that quickly evacuate water compared to its counterpart.

Verdict: Overall, the SI Plus excels in wet grip, while the SI performs better in resisting hydroplaning.

Snow Performance

Both tires demonstrate competitive performance in varying snowy conditions, showcasing their ability to handle wintry challenges. However, the Continental WinterContact SI carves out a slight advantage, especially when navigating fluffy snowy roads.

Despite having a directional tread pattern, the SI’s lugs have a more open design, which allows for enhanced contact between the tire and the snow.

The tire’s interlocking grooves and snow-trapping recesses effortlessly scoop up loosely packed snow, creating a snowy interface between the tire and the ground.

This snowy interface offers superior traction because snow adheres more effectively to other snowflakes than to rubber.

In contrast, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus has a more enclosed tread pattern, featuring a continuous running rib at its core and lacking the interlocking groove configuration.

Consequently, it doesn’t pick up as much snow as the SI, falling slightly short in performance.

Verdict: Overall, the SI Plus performs better on icy surfaces compared to its counterpart.

Tread Life

The lifespan of a tire’s tread is greatly influenced by its rolling resistance, and structure make-up.

And in both aspects, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus surpasses its rival, as the tire’s relatively lighter weight puts less pressure on its blocks, as they rub against the road, resulting in decreased friction and slower degradation of the rubber.

On the other hand, the Continental WinterContact SI is not only heavier but also distributes this extra weight over a smaller rubber surface due to its wider tread voids. As a result, each lug bears a greater amount of weight, leading to quicker tread wear and a shorter overall lifespan.

However, it’s important to note that the performance difference between the two tires is not significant enough to warrant warranties from both brands.

Verdict: Overall, the tread life is better on the Continental WinterContact SI Plus.

Ice Performance

When it comes to icy conditions, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus stands out, showcasing a more favorable average braking distance compared to the SI.

This is due to its more aggressive siping, and relatively pliable tread composition.

While the siping is the obvious one, with malleable tread, all biters get to have greater biting efficacy. So they allow for superior ice gripping.

Verdict: Overall, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus outperforms the Continental WinterContact SI in terms of ice performance.

Comfort Levels

The comfort provided by a tire depends on factors such as road noise and vibration absorption, which are influenced by the tire’s design, incorporated materials, tread pattern, and sidewall structure.

Regarding road noise, it primarily stems from air particles colliding with the tread walls. In this aspect, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus, offers slightly superior performance in reducing noise.

Even though both tires offers similar voided up designs, the Plus variant still renders smaller in-groove resonance, due to it’s superior rubber compound, and pitch sequencing technology.

Moreover, its more pliable tread, also excels in terms of vibration damping, providing better cushioning over road irregularities.

Verdict: The Plus variant takes the lead overall.

Fuel Economy

Fuel consumption is affected by the tire’s adherence to the road and its overall weight. In this regard, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus, with its lighter weight, performs better.

The reduced weight of the tire reduces the pressure exerted on the road, resulting in lower rolling resistance.

Furthermore, the tire’s more streamlined central rib compared to its counterpart allows for smoother rolling. Conversely, the Continental WinterContact SI, with its considerable weight, experiences higher rolling resistance, where lugs are pushed more, as they face greater lug-bending, generating heat and wasting energy that could have been used for rolling the tire efficiently.

Verdict: Overall, the Continental WinterContact SI Plus provides better fuel economy.

Summing Up

In summary, the Continental WinterContact SI and SI Plus each have their unique strengths.

The WinterContact SI Plus excels in wet grip, tread life, ice performance, comfort levels, and fuel economy, attributed to its design, lighter weight, and reduced friction.

The WinterContact SI, however, has an edge in aquaplaning resistance and performance on fluffy snowy roads, thanks to its wider groove channels and open lug design.

The choice between the two should be dictated by the specific driving conditions and needs of the user. And both are commendable options for their respective specialties.