Winter specific tires for cars, do don't why which ?

[jorn]

No tire will matter in wet snow like this. The whole car will be ending up floating because the bottom of the car will have more area and "lift" than all the tires combined. Dry snow is not that compact, and not that hard to ram trough. Rammed my way trough yesterday after a really snowy night, but it was below freezing so the snow wasnt heavy and got pushed to the sides.

The superwide ones are designed to float on top of frozen snow. The top layer gets pretty hard when melted/frozen some times. Then put into a long deep freeze. I can walk on snow with a frozen top layer without sinking to my hips. Now and then i crack the top layer and sink, but overall it holds my weight pretty good. Cant do that on fresh wet snow. And theese conditions are never seen on any road i know of (1meters snow with frozen top layer).
Would never go any wider on the winter tires unless my car is really heavy. No need to float if i make it off my driveway and reach the road. And the narrow wheels will cut right trough the slush/snow and the spikes get's a grip on something firm (ice) instead of floating on top of slush (with no control) when i get up in speed. No one uses wide tires around here, not twice Im used to 185 winter tires on the other cars i have owned

 

[TEEJ]

Yeah, it all depends on how deep is deep, and how soft is soft.

You don't need wide tires to float on ice, but you do for softer snow...like a snowshoe. The fatter tires distribute the weight better so you don't sink down to the car body like you did above.

Of course, if you make it out of the driveway, and the road is covered with hard packed snow or ice, the same wide tires might be more toboggan-like than you'd like.

 

[jorn]

You dont want to float on anything when driving in traffic. Thats when bad stuff happens. You want the rubber to hit the hard ground with good pressure. The narrow tires slices trough snow/slush/water and gets grip on the hard surface below. I want my tires to reach the hard ground in any conditions. Thats what makes me able to steer.
The super wide "arctic truck"ones with almost no airpressure are not that good in traffic. You can have fun offroad with a "arctic truck" on solid frozen snow, or softer ground. But it will have the opposite effect of what we want when driving at higher speeds in slippery winter traffic.

If the snow is way deeper than the ground clearance, and not frozen solid in any of it's layers, then you wont get too far with any set of wheels.

 

[orbital]

+

When we have a 3-day snowstorm, I snowblow & shovel out several times for that one snowstorm event.
Doing it all at once is waaaay to hard.

Then its 1-2-3 to get to your main road,,,,which will likely be plowed.


btw, I'm not ready for snow yet, still dealing w/ leaves.

 

[think2x]

It's close, but the properly sized tire would have been narrower, which is the whole point..

The factory size is 225/60/16 which is 26.6" Diameter. The Enkei 18" set was 1/4" taller than OEM. The new Grabbers are slightly taller still at 27". People on the Outback forum run as big as 28" with a small lift but the size I chose is the biggest you should go with stock suspension.
I research EVERYTHING before I purchase.

 

[TEEJ]

You dont want to float on anything when driving in traffic. Thats when bad stuff happens. You want the rubber to hit the hard ground with good pressure. The narrow tires slices trough snow/slush/water and gets grip on the hard surface below. I want my tires to reach the hard ground in any conditions. Thats what makes me able to steer.
The super wide "arctic truck"ones with almost no airpressure are not that good in traffic. You can have fun offroad with a "arctic truck" on solid frozen snow, or softer ground. But it will have the opposite effect of what we want when driving at higher speeds in slippery winter traffic.

If the snow is way deeper than the ground clearance, and not frozen solid in any of it's layers, then you wont get too far with any set of wheels.

Hence the toboggan-like traction.



(Yes - Narrow is better if you WANT to sink down and there's something down there to gain traction on, like pavement, etc. Fatter is better if your tires can't reach the pavement, etc. The ground doesn't have to be frozen for a snow shoe to work...merely able to compress with sufficient resistance to match the distributed weight on it, etc....called flotation, etc. This is why snow shoes work, and can support a man on top of soft, unfrozen snow.)

On streets and hard surfaces with slush, and other penetrable strata...the narrower treads increase penetration and traction on the substrate. This is more like when you'd wear crampons instead of snow shoes.





My only point is that the mantra of ONLY narrow tread being useful in snow is wrong...and the context is when the snow shoe effect can be beneficial.

 

[jorn]

For most pepole it's not wrong. Most pepole dont creep on top of 1meter frozen snow in 5-10 mph like the iceland trucks does (when the season allows it). And you cant drive on top of 1 meter soft snow with any wheels. If you need to do that, you buy a snowmobile. Even snowmobiles (the owerpowered ones with extra long belts) can easely get stuck in too deep and soft snow (or extremly wet slush).
You can walk on soft snow with snow shoes, but you weigh less than a car. + snowshoes are flat and you lift your feets when you walk. Your car cant lift the tire out of its track + the tire is round. Thats not a great shape if you want to float on soft snow. They need to be meters wide and have a huge diameter to have the same (flat) contact area as a single flat snowshoe has.

Roads are plowed, and if they are not, all traffic stops. If you float on top of something loose, youll loose control more often than you would like and you would prob not be able to follow the normal traffic speed.

 

[TEEJ]

Correct.

 

[StarHalo]

I research EVERYTHING before I purchase.

Good to hear; I'd be more worried about gas mileage than the suspension, but I'm glad somebody thought of it

 

[StarHalo]

I GOT A SUV, I CAN JUST DRIVE WHEREVER IN THE SNOW..

 

[kaichu dento]

You don't need wide tires to float on ice, but you do for softer snow...like a snowshoe. The fatter tires distribute the weight better so you don't sink down to the car body like you did above.

Absolutely do not want wider tires for more flotation unless you're talking about going off-roading, in which case the tires you'd want will be wider than you want for driving on regular roads.

You dont want to float on anything when driving in traffic. Thats when bad stuff happens. You want the rubber to hit the hard ground with good pressure. The narrow tires slices trough snow/slush/water and gets grip on the hard surface below. I want my tires to reach the hard ground in any conditions. Thats what makes me able to steer.
The super wide "arctic truck"ones with almost no airpressure are not that good in traffic. You can have fun offroad with a "arctic truck" on solid frozen snow, or softer ground. But it will have the opposite effect of what we want when driving at higher speeds in slippery winter traffic.

If the snow is way deeper than the ground clearance, and not frozen solid in any of it's layers, then you wont get too far with any set of wheels.

This is exactly right and the best approach would have been to do what he already suspected he needed to do, but hoped that he wouldn't have to - dig at least tire trenches the whole way to driveable ground, and at least knocking the top down where the snow was already higher than the suspension would clear.

In this situation a lot can be done just by tracking on foot and knocking the snow down, compacting it a bit. As Jorn said, the worst thing he was fighting wasn't the snow depth, but the consistency.

 

[MichaelW]

Quality winter tires have winter compound the entire tread depth-Michelin, Bridgestone, Goodyear, etc. Blizzak's 'tube multi-cell' compound extends only the top 55%

Contact pressure: Since the tread block configuration can not be changed dynamically [check back in 100 years], the only way to adjust contact pressure is to adjust inflation pressure.
In very light rain/sleet/slush/snow better traction is achieved through higher contact pressure. (increasing from 30 to 45psi)
In deeper snow, enhanced traction occurs when the vehicle doesn't sink. Progress is hampered because you have to move up a gravitational gradient with very little tire traction (and you usually spin the tire, and fall back down), just to move forward. So in such a situation cutting back inflation pressure from 30 to 15psi would be better. That is why you need a tire pressure gauge for winter.
Tire companies have already empirically demonstrated that snow:snow has better traction than tire:snow. This is the purpose of sipes [maybe more correctly called kerfs], to hold snow in the tire, which interlocks with snow on the ground, resulting in superior traction.

Once you go winter tire, you don't go back to no-seasons. (start from page 81)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sy...e+popular+mechanics&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[SemiMan]

Blizzaks only have their specific winter compound on the top 50 or so percent as it is softer and would not lend itself well to a deep tread which is also helpful to create a multi-purpose winter tired. I don't think that makes it any less quality, just different design trade offs. Having used Blizzaks and a number of other winter tires over the years (X-ice, Toyo Observe, and a few models I can't remember from Bridgestone, Michelin, and General). With the exception of deep new snow, the Blizzaks had noticeably better traction in winter conditions than the other tires. They were the third winter set on one particularly difficult to drive in winter rear wheel drive as well as an SUV that was the all use family vehicle often taken into the snow belt. For the other vehicles over the years, I preferred other qualities offered by its competitors including better dry performance and longer tread life.

I have in very specific conditions lowered my tire pressure to get my car off a side street that had deep snow, but for the most part, never adjusted above recommended as odds are I would not switch back quick enough and end up wrecking the tires

 

[MichaelW]

Blizzaks are 100% winter tires. The LM series don't utilize the tube multicell feature, because Bridgestone says it can not reach H & V speed ratings.
For example the Dunlop Graspic DS-3 tires are only winter tires for the top 55% of tread depth, and all-season for the rest.
Michelin made a bid deal about well worn winter tire functionality with their new X-ice xi3 tire.
and you know winter tires are getting good when Michelin offer a tread wear guarantee.

 

[okenobi]

Just wondering if you chaps over the pond get/have heard of Nokian?

They are a Finnish tyre manufacturer and have a great reputation in Europe. I've just bought four of their "performance" winters for my Skoda and so far in just the damp, cold UK they've been fantastic. But I'm driving to Italy for the winter and can't wait to really test them. They're my first set of winters and it's only my second ski season. I'll be living right on the border between France and Italy and whilst I could ski between the two, it takes 2.5hrs and is A LOT of lifts! So I suspect the car will be making the 40 minute road trip reasonably regularly throughout the season!

 

[RBR]

.....

 

[okenobi]

I would though recommend to check if snow chains might be compulsory in these regions you plan to go to at winter conditions. Edith : Often on defined roads, marked by a traffic sign looking like this. http://www.avd.de/fileadmin/user_uploads/Recht-und-Wissen/Verkehrszeichen-268_222px.png

It´s sometimes duty to have these chains on your wheels in the Alps, otherwise you might face a nice ticket what can become an expensive amusement, especially in Italy and France.

Cheers

RBR

Yeah, I'm aware of the signs. Was there last year. Problem is my car won't allow chains due to clearance issues. So I'm gonna buy socks and hope that I can get away with it with the local police. Socks are legal in France, but nowhere else yet. Problem is, if I physically can't fit chains, what am I supposed to do?!

Looking forward to seeing the tyres perform in the conditions they're intended for though...

 

[SemiMan]

Just wondering if you chaps over the pond get/have heard of Nokian?

They are a Finnish tyre manufacturer and have a great reputation in Europe. I've just bought four of their "performance" winters for my Skoda and so far in just the damp, cold UK they've been fantastic. But I'm driving to Italy for the winter and can't wait to really test them. They're my first set of winters and it's only my second ski season. I'll be living right on the border between France and Italy and whilst I could ski between the two, it takes 2.5hrs and is A LOT of lifts! So I suspect the car will be making the 40 minute road trip reasonably regularly throughout the season!

Nokians have been in North America for as long as I can remember. They do not have much of a following or distribution here though. They have just really never taken off. It used to be that some of the European car dealerships would offer them in winter packages but I don't even see that very much. They are available and have a small following, but never have really taken off. They tend to be on the expensive side compared to other winter tires.

One issue with the Nokian's at least in the past, i.e. <2010, is they have been more a snow tire than a snow and ice tire. Most of the populated parts of North America that have to deal with winter conditions are more concerned with icy conditions than with pure snow. Yes we have areas that get cold and stay cold all winter, but we have large populations that flirt with the freezing point for a significant portion of winter. Perhaps Nokian needs better marketing to the right areas?

Semiman

 

[smokinbasser]

I have had 4WD exclusively since the 70s and most had all terrain treads.

 

[jamesmtl514]

My driveway, about 4.5 feet of snow in some places. My FWD TL-S on dedicated winters sometimes had trouble getting out.

Here dedicated winter tires are a must (legally and responsibly)