LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


Go whine somewhere else.

Good to see you found another victim to your sad game of life, and you WON again. You deserve an award for this shit.

REVSCENE IS SRS BUSINESS YO

I have a feeling some posts should be getting deleted from this thread but anyways.

They're absolutely horrid and should never be used by anyone who has even the slightest interest in road safety. Intentionally designing, marketing, and selling tires that are terrible at all times is pretty shady on the part of anyone who makes them.

Absolutely horrid and terrible at all times? That seems a bit of an overstatement.

I've been running Nokian WRs on one vehicle for about 5 years now and, while we rarely see anything remotely resembling extreme winter conditions on Vancouver Island, they've been fine. They're a hell of a lot better at everything than the OEM tires (Continental ContiProContact LRR), especially in the rain, which we obviously get a lot of.

The Nokian WRs are well-rated pretty much everywhere with the exceptions of extreme winter conditions (compared to dedicated winter tires), cold weather braking (compared to dedicated winter tires), and tread life (compared to all-seasons).

Are all-weather tires a good compromise? - The Globe and Mail
All-weather tires vs. winter tires ? what's the difference? | Toronto Star
*The Star doesn't actually say where they pulled this data from or what tires were in the comparison group

Automobile Protection Association | 2015-2016 Winter Tire Reviews: Passenger Car, Minivan, & Compacy SUV Tires
Consumer Reports lists them as a best buy under both the all-season and winter tires categories.

They also carry the Mountain and Snowflake symbol, meaning they do meet the requirements of Transport Canada for winter driving in medium pack snow.

I don't think anyone would argue that dedicated sets of good winters and good summers can be replaced by all-weathers without losing some performance and safety relatively-speaking, but I would probably use the term adequate or, at worst, mediocre rather than "absolutely horrid" or "terrible." They're not $30 Wal-Mart/Canadian Tire specials.

I'd disagree there. I ran on Nokian WRG2's for four winters, including 08/09 when we had that big snowstorm around Christmas. Even in several feet of snow, the tires worked well on flat and hill roads. Went up to Whistler several times and had no issues. Rain was fine as well as long as I wasn't driving super aggressively (and who would do that on All-weather tires anyways). What I found them best on, was the slushy stuff when the snow started to melt. Only time that they didn't perform is when it got really icy, they didn't have much grip and I almost slid into a 4-way stop.

If you are 95% driving within Metro Vancouver, an All Weather tire between October and April is a good way to go, and then run summers the rest of the year.

I'm on Nokian Hakkapeliittas right now and it is a bit overkill for Metro Vancouver, especially during an El Nino year.

I would have to agree with Jmac here.

All weather tires tend to use:
- all season style tread with emphasis on water evacuation (Raincouver)
- soft winter compound (December to February)
- plenty of siping for snow traction (maybe 7 days per year here)

I would almost say they are ideal for people who stay within the lower mainland, if I hadn't already tried the General Altimax Arctic (huge channels for water evacuation)

At the end of the day an all weather tire will get you where you need to go if you're not in shitty snow. Sorry but if you're fearing for your life on an all weather tire in the sun or rain you should consider slowing the fuck down.

Agree to disagree then, and it may be a bit of an overstatement (no way would I use the term adequate though) but I'm in the camp that if you're buying tires (the most important thing on the car) you shouldn't cheap out on some half assed rubber that's probably okay most of the time. If you're fine not stopping as well if some knob cuts you off go for it.

As a side note that line from the APA article about AWD vehicles being different is stupid.

If you're already running two sets of tires just buy good summers and good winters. I can't see the logic behind buying good summers and shitty "all weather" winters.

I'm with underscore on this one. It depends on your driving preferences and what kind of performance you are looking for. All-seasons will always be a compromise. If you're looking at running them year-round it's a purely economic decision. There is no such thing as a high performance all season tire. If you already have a great summer tire there is no reason to be buying all-seasons as a winter set.

http://i.imgur.com/XIRdsLT.png

:badpokerface:

Aaaaaaaanyway...

Having a bit of a debate with myself. Looking to pick up a new set of tires to replace my shit Michelin Pilot Alpin PA2's and have been contemplating between the x-ice3's, Hakka 7's and Hakka 8's. Both the 7 and 8 are studded, the xi3's aren't. I've used a set of Hakka R's in the past and am more than willing to drink Nokian's kool aid.

However, what I've heard (and no idea if it's true or not) is that while studded is obviously better on ice and hard packed snow, they tend to lose some traction in fresh powder over non studded. Any truth to that? We get a strong mixture of both road conditions up here, so I'm not sure if there's any advantage to going with one over the other. Thoughts?

Also, worth going for the Hakka 8's over the 7's, especially if they're the same price?

I have studded General Altimax snow tires on the wife's CRV and i do not find any loss of traction in fresh snow.
I've also had studded snow tires on my old NX2000 and had no issues when we had that bad snow storm back in 99. Made it up SFU without any issues. My front lip on the other hand.

Just took the QX4 around SFU with my new Duratracs. I went looking for areas with fresh snow and never had to take her out of 2wd (rwd). Even stopped on a hill. A little bit of wheel spin and counter lock and she started to climb the hill.

I swear by studded tires, especially for driving up north or in the Interior. I don't think there is any loss of traction in fresh snow. I just had my truck out with studded Hankook R11s in 5" of fresh light powder and they were excellent.

I think studded Hak's would be a perfect winter tire.

I can't see the reasoning for studs losing traction in fresh snow, but they do lose traction on clear pavement. When I was looking the X Ice 2/3 were the highest rated pretty much everywhere, but the 2's tended to be a lot cheaper than the 3 if you can find a set in your size.

I'm not sure how much difference in road conditions there is up in Kamloops vs Kelowna, but here the 2's have performed extremely well on my girlfriends Prelude and her sisters Celica, and the main roads are usually cleared down to the pavement the majority of the time.

Main difference is Kamloops is basically one giant hill. Kelowna is nice and flat, comparatively. I tend to leave to/from work when there is little traffic and the plows are nowhere to be seen.

As for losing traction in powder, I've no idea why that would happen. Just from reading reviews from random people it seemed to be an odd, and slightly common theme.

Just passed my neighbour in his G37XS, he laughed when I bough snows for my G, he has "AWD" and doesn't need snows. He's currently stuck at the bottom of our hill

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps9khkr5w6.jpg


http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x...pshtopio1h.jpg

G's are the worst vehicle in the snow...I wouldn't enjoy driving them in the snow even with the best tires.

I beg to differ. I've driven a few G35X with good snowies and they were beasts...

My RWD G is having 0 issue with good snowies..

Honestly, any vehicle with proper tires is going to be fine in the snow.
It's the cars without proper tires that are the worst cars in snow. That and cars that are too low.
For reference, I daily drove an S2000 and never had too much problems in the snow when I had new snow tires and didn't go too crazy with the gas pedal.

The trick with reviews if weeding out the people who have no clue what they're talking about or who were using them incorrectly. Many of them are likely experiencing legitimate issues but I have a feeling at least some are from people who think having studs is like having 4WD or AWD (invincible in all conditions).

I did find this study from the State of Washington from 2002, it's a bit old but the summary on pages x-xiii (10-13) seem to be a good overview.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/rep...orts/551.1.pdf

Reading through that bit I was a bit incorrect about the reduced traction when it's clear, studs appear to have minimal effect on braking only on dry asphalt, other surfaces they're worse though.

For braking, accelerating, and corning, you want a softer compound because they are willing to flex which helps maintain traction with the road.

With studs, they stick out 1-2 mm from the tire.
On anything other than ice, the studs will reduce the amount of contact patch you have with the road which reduces the amount of friction.

I'll try to take some pics of my wife's tires to show what I mean. Once you see the wear pattern on the tire, you will see what I mean.

For corning, studs don't affect it that much because most of the studs are usually towards the middle of the tire which doesn't affect the amount of contact patch with the outside edge of the tire.

The studding must depend on the style of the tire, because I'm pretty sure the studded Hankooks I got for SnowX have most of them near the outside of the tire.

Got any pics of them?
I wonder if the tire was molded with the studs in place?
I know my Generals were studded afterwards.