Winter tyres vol 2
Discussion
Somewhatfoolish said:
Woke up today with it 0.5 degrees, without having paid attention. I was going to replace my winters this year in my daily drive but considering moving to all seasons instead. Is there a sensible thread on this? I don't currently have to cope with anything particularly exciting generally, but it also has to be much better than a southerner - basically if it will cope with a rwd car on untreated roads on the pennines in the depths of winter it'll be fine. But I'd also like to know that if I economise like this and switch from PS4s there won't be too much of a downgrade in the dry? Maybe there's already a miracle compound - the PS4s must be a few years old by now - that will be almost as good?
I ran my Volvo on the OEM Continental Summers for six months before swapping to CC2s. I haven't noticed any difference in the summer. But then again it's not a car to be throwing around on its door handles or doing track days. If I had something very sporty I probably wouldn't want the compromise, but for my usage it's worked out really well. But by definition it will always be a compromise!I'm sure Jon's reviews will have more scientific data comparing all seasons to summer tyres.
https://www.tyrereviews.com/
Always nice when your current tyres do well. I'm on Goodyear Vector 4 seasons - Gen 2 version so not the exact Gen 3 as tested here..
Other than the good all round performance in this and other tests when I bought my first set replacing OE Bridgestone summers on an Octavia they transformed the car as they were so much quieter. The Bridgestones had very intrusive tye noise,
Subjectively they felt like they gave a more comfortable ride as well.
I've used them in both fresh unploughed snow and packed snow. Even when the fresh snow was around a foot deep it went through no bother.
There has been a few times when they have got me home or got me out to essential appointments when summers would not have done it.
Even driving on packed snow where a car on summers would get by they make a drive more relaxed. One New Year's day driving home from Torridon I was on snow for about 30 hilly miles. Totally relaxed. Summers would have been nerves jangling
Always nice when your current tyres do well. I'm on Goodyear Vector 4 seasons - Gen 2 version so not the exact Gen 3 as tested here..
Other than the good all round performance in this and other tests when I bought my first set replacing OE Bridgestone summers on an Octavia they transformed the car as they were so much quieter. The Bridgestones had very intrusive tye noise,
Subjectively they felt like they gave a more comfortable ride as well.
I've used them in both fresh unploughed snow and packed snow. Even when the fresh snow was around a foot deep it went through no bother.
There has been a few times when they have got me home or got me out to essential appointments when summers would not have done it.
Even driving on packed snow where a car on summers would get by they make a drive more relaxed. One New Year's day driving home from Torridon I was on snow for about 30 hilly miles. Totally relaxed. Summers would have been nerves jangling
darreni said:
I’m looking to switch to cross climate 2 on the wife’s Qashqai. I note that some reviews knock the wet performance against some of the competition.
Is this really noticeable when plodding round town or at motorway speeds?
I was concerned about that, but I've not noticed any problems. I go up one uphill corner on my commute which regularly has water running across it from the fields above and the tyres do make a curious swooshing sound as I go through it, but never feel unstable. Is this really noticeable when plodding round town or at motorway speeds?
(You don't get that kind of technical insight from Jon)!
The Goodyear Vectors rate highly in the wet so you could see if they are available. I couldn't get them in my size but have them on my wife and son's cars.
darreni said:
I’m looking to switch to cross climate 2 on the wife’s Qashqai. I note that some reviews knock the wet performance against some of the competition.
Is this really noticeable when plodding round town or at motorway speeds?
I'm struggling with the top ranking of the CC2, presumably it was so good in the snow and dry braking that it garnered loads of points for a win? But when one looks at the individual disciplines that I would imagine are important in a yukky grey cold wet British winter it seems to fall well short. It seems to be amazing in the snow, merely OK overall in the dry and barely average in the wet, looking at the Tyre reviews scores in detail. It wouldn't be my choice despite coming first. Is this really noticeable when plodding round town or at motorway speeds?
21st Century Man said:
I'm struggling with the top ranking of the CC2, presumably it was so good in the snow and dry braking that it garnered loads of points for a win? But when one looks at the individual disciplines that I would imagine are important in a yukky grey cold wet British winter it seems to fall well short. It seems to be amazing in the snow, merely OK overall in the dry and barely average in the wet, looking at the Tyre reviews scores in detail. It wouldn't be my choice despite coming first.
Jon does mention that the result are based on his weightings, and if you prefer to change those weightings in favour of, for example wet vs snow, then you can on the Tyrereviews website.https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/Results-Gri...
https://www.tyrereviews.com/Tyre-Tests/Results-Gri...
MustangGT said:
I am not fond of the Michelin CC tyres because they appear to have around 1mm less tread from new (6.6mm vs 7.6mm) If changing at 3mm this is a lot less tyre life.
Have a read of this:https://www.tyrepress.com/2017/12/the-obvious-choi...
Incidentally my CC2 are down to 6mm after 10,000 miles so wear rate is pretty good.
MustangGT said:
I am not fond of the Michelin CC tyres because they appear to have around 1mm less tread from new (6.6mm vs 7.6mm) If changing at 3mm this is a lot less tyre life.
I'm not buying any tyre with less than 8mm, even if the Mich's last longer if you run them right down to legal min for many thousands of miles you will have at least 1mm less tread depth to clear water, many car owners sensibly don't want to run to legal min.I change tyres at 3mm too, a well worn set is much more likely to see the car visiting the scenery if one encounters standing water.
Smint said:
I'm not buying any tyre with less than 8mm, even if the Mich's last longer if you run them right down to legal min for many thousands of miles you will have at least 1mm less tread depth to clear water, many car owners sensibly don't want to run to legal min.
I change tyres at 3mm too, a well worn set is much more likely to see the car visiting the scenery if one encounters standing water.
Did you read that article at all?I change tyres at 3mm too, a well worn set is much more likely to see the car visiting the scenery if one encounters standing water.
Let me summarise - Michelin CC had better aquaplaning resistance at 2mm tread depth than other tyres with 4mm tread remaining.
Initial tread depth can affect noise, rolling resistance, handling stability. It does not necessarily translate into better wet grip/braking/aquaplaning resistance.
Read up years ago on the Nokian website where higher tread depth was recommended for constant slush/soft snow environments, but was disadvantaged in other conditions.
Had my Mini Clubman serviced, asked them to check for a drivetrain noise, garage reckon it's the rear tyres (CrossClimates) as they are "stepped" (that's what they said) and starting to perish.
I was a bit annoyed as they still have a decent amount of tread left until I looked at my records and realised that they had been on for 50k miles!
I regularly drive through standing water on a dual carriageway in the winter - my CC2s have never shown any signs of aquaplaning or losing contact with the road service - which is very different to the midrange summer tyres I had on my previous car.
I was a bit annoyed as they still have a decent amount of tread left until I looked at my records and realised that they had been on for 50k miles!
I regularly drive through standing water on a dual carriageway in the winter - my CC2s have never shown any signs of aquaplaning or losing contact with the road service - which is very different to the midrange summer tyres I had on my previous car.
sly fox said:
Did you read that article at all?
Let me summarise - Michelin CC had better aquaplaning resistance at 2mm tread depth than other tyres with 4mm tread remaining.
Initial tread depth can affect noise, rolling resistance, handling stability. It does not necessarily translate into better wet grip/braking/aquaplaning resistance.
Read up years ago on the Nokian website where higher tread depth was recommended for constant slush/soft snow environments, but was disadvantaged in other conditions.
Yes and there's a whole world of difference between what happens in a controlled environment with cars driven and tests conducted by professionals and the rest of us suddenly finding a large amount of standing water due to blocked drains which only one side of the car hits, with other traffic and umpteen other obstacles likely to feature on a probably already ruined road surface.Let me summarise - Michelin CC had better aquaplaning resistance at 2mm tread depth than other tyres with 4mm tread remaining.
Initial tread depth can affect noise, rolling resistance, handling stability. It does not necessarily translate into better wet grip/braking/aquaplaning resistance.
Read up years ago on the Nokian website where higher tread depth was recommended for constant slush/soft snow environments, but was disadvantaged in other conditions.
Smint said:
MustangGT said:
I am not fond of the Michelin CC tyres because they appear to have around 1mm less tread from new (6.6mm vs 7.6mm) If changing at 3mm this is a lot less tyre life.
I'm not buying any tyre with less than 8mm, even if the Mich's last longer if you run them right down to legal min for many thousands of miles you will have at least 1mm less tread depth to clear water, many car owners sensibly don't want to run to legal min.I change tyres at 3mm too, a well worn set is much more likely to see the car visiting the scenery if one encounters standing water.
Smint said:
MustangGT said:
Most tyres are around 7.5 to 7.7mm tread depth new (according to Camskill).
Indeed, thats why my shortlist is now Goodyear Uniroyal and without looking them up again a couple of others possiby Vred Quatracs but don't quote me on the vreds.sly fox said:
Did you read that article at all?
Let me summarise - Michelin CC had better aquaplaning resistance at 2mm tread depth than other tyres with 4mm tread remaining.
Initial tread depth can affect noise, rolling resistance, handling stability. It does not necessarily translate into better wet grip/braking/aquaplaning resistance.
Read up years ago on the Nokian website where higher tread depth was recommended for constant slush/soft snow environments, but was disadvantaged in other conditions.
The article also says Let me summarise - Michelin CC had better aquaplaning resistance at 2mm tread depth than other tyres with 4mm tread remaining.
Initial tread depth can affect noise, rolling resistance, handling stability. It does not necessarily translate into better wet grip/braking/aquaplaning resistance.
Read up years ago on the Nokian website where higher tread depth was recommended for constant slush/soft snow environments, but was disadvantaged in other conditions.
‘ The other model deemed safe when approaching the legal tread depth limit was the Vector 4Seasons Gen-2’
Gassing Station | Suspension, Brakes & Tyres | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff