to stud or not to stud....tires that is.

Yeah, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but whatevs. I'm feeling lazy and don't feel like digging.

 

So I was looking at picking up a set of snow tires and steelies for my LGT this winter from tirerack.com. I live in Michigan right now, but I'm planning on moving back out west (either: WA, OR, ID, MT, CO) after I finish up my final year of school. Yeah, its illegal to run studded tires on MI but ask me if I give a ****. What I want to know is:

 

1) Will tirerack stud my tires AND still ship them to me even though I live in MI?

 

2) Why shouldn't I get studded tires? Michigan as some might know has some pretty nasty road conditions in the winter. We see it all here from snow covered, to slush, to black ice, wet surface, variable conditions and straight up hockey rink shit.

 

I understand the benefits of going studded, but why should I not stud my snows this winter?

 

TIA.

Read tirerack's comparo of studless tires vs. studded. The primo studless tires raped the studded one. Studless tires is where the tire companies throw their R&D at nowadays.

Right on, thanks man.

If you see ice, lots of ice, go studded.

 

Otherwise, go with one of the good "Studless Ice & Snow."

Read tirerack's comparo of studless tires vs. studded. The primo studless tires raped the studded one. Studless tires is where the tire companies throw their R&D at nowadays.

 

TireRack is very careful about NOT comparing the premium non-studded ice/snow tires they sell to a premium studded tire, such as the Nokian Hakka 7. Instead, they rig their tests by comparing premium non-studded tires to a ancient studded design from Firestone, and from this one comparison, they erroneously conclude and imply, that the latest non-studded tires will outperform all studded tires on ice. It just ain't so.

 

There is plenty of R&D going into studded tires, from Nokian, Michelin, Gislaved, and Continental. Firestone not so much.

^ Does Tire-Rack even sell any of the premium studded winters?

^ Does Tire-Rack even sell any of the premium studded winters?

 

Nope. From what I remember, they sell a studded tire from Firestone, General, and Pirelli. No studded Michelin, Nokian, or Gislaved.

In the 2009 Scandinavian tire test, the Michelin Xi2 had the best ice braking performance of the 8 non-studded tires, but even so it could not outbrake any of the 14 studded tires on ice, not even the lowly studded Nankang tire.

 

Compared to the Nokian Hakka7, the Xi2 required 42' more in braking distance on ice, from 50 km/hr. The Michelin Primacy Alpin required 87' more feet to stop than the Hakka7!

 

http://www.naf.no/Forbrukertester/Dekk/Dekktester/Vinterdekktest-2009/

In the 2009 Scandinavian tire test, the Michelin Xi2 had the best ice braking performance of the 8 non-studded tires, but even so it could not outbrake any of the 14 studded tires on ice, not even the lowly studded Nankang tire.

 

Compared to the Nokian Hakka7, the Xi2 required 42' more in braking distance on ice, from 50 km/hr. The Michelin Primacy Alpin required 87' more feet to stop than the Hakka7!

 

http://www.naf.no/Forbrukertester/Dekk/Dekktester/Vinterdekktest-2009/

Boy do I wish that was in English.

I live in Oregon. I've only run studless on my LGT for the last 3 seasons and they work great. Running studs on dry pavement sucks ass. Studs FTL IMO.

 

http://photos.imageevent.com/mattg/legacygt/large/IMG_3923.JPG

^ From what little experience I have, with studded winters, no, I would not want them, either - at least not in my area.

 

But if we saw more ice, I'd definitely at least get them for the wifey, if not myself, too.

 

Even for as advanced as the "Studless Ice & Snow" genre happens to be, there's a reason why all of the hardcore brands do still carry studded variants.

 

Tires are always a compromise, and there's going to be a need.

 

 

----

 

 

Nope. From what I remember, they sell a studded tire from Firestone, General, and Pirelli. No studded Michelin, Nokian, or Gislaved.

 

^ That's what I thought, too.

 

In the 2009 Scandinavian tire test, the Michelin Xi2 had the best ice braking performance of the 8 non-studded tires, but even so it could not outbrake any of the 14 studded tires on ice, not even the lowly studded Nankang tire.

 

Compared to the Nokian Hakka7, the Xi2 required 42' more in braking distance on ice, from 50 km/hr. The Michelin Primacy Alpin required 87' more feet to stop than the Hakka7!

 

http://www.naf.no/Forbrukertester/Dekk/Dekktester/Vinterdekktest-2009/

 

Exactly.

 

I think that people have to remember that even as good as TireRack is as a resource, they're still inherently biased, and will try to sell their products. They are, after all, a business. Can't blame them.

 

It's up to the consumer to be a smart shopper.

Studded is good (hell great) on ice.

It isn't so good on anything else. How often are you really on ice?

I've had winters in the outback that I've driven more on snow covered roads than on pavement. I could never have predicted it was gonna be that way.

 

Unless you live in an area that WILL have the roads covered most of the time, you don't want studded. They are awesome on snow and ice and dirt. They are loud, dangerous, and slippery on pavement. They also wear stupid fast anytime they are one pavement

Probably depends on what you get for weather

We get serious ice storms here (Ice took my power out for 5 days last yr)

 

We run studded snows every winter for the last 4 years and couldn't imagine otherwise.

Just get a set of mock chains if it gets that bad... Otherwise Blizzaks will get you just about anyware you want to go....

 

http://www.scc-chain.com/images/Sidebar_SZ6.gif

Ok live in Oregon too.... Studs FTW . Had studless for 2 years (hankook icebear) and they work good for a year or two but then wear and suck in deep snow or near freezing temps . I have been stuck with them several times in meadows parking at the end of the day after big snows. Bought a set of studs from a wrx driver on rims and they ruled through last years winter . (biggest snow in 50years in pdx) . I drive to ski/ride 20-30 times a year and I am convinced there is no subsitute for studs when the condition are the worst (unless you like chaining).

 

Jim

.........They are awesome on snow and ice and dirt. They are loud, dangerous, and slippery on pavement.......

 

Dangerous? Slippery on pavement? That may have been true 20 years ago for studded tires, but it is no longer a valid generalization.

 

From the 2009 test referenced earlier, the Michelin Xi2 required 37.2m to come to a stop on wet pavement from 80 km/hr whereas the studded Hakka7 required 37.4m

 

In that test, 13 of the studded tires outbraked 6 of the non-studded tires on wet pavement.

 

The shortest wet braking distance went to the Michelin Primacy Alpin, at 27.8m, but it had the longest braking distance on ice of all the tires tested at 75.5m.

You also have to check local/state laws. Where I am, studded tires and chains are illegal.

 

It seems that studded tires are a thing of the past. For mild/little snow, most people run all-seasons. For moderate snow, people get performance winter tires. For heavy snow, people get studless tires. Where do the studded fit in? It seems that most studless outperform studded tires even in snow, and studded really can't be driven in any other condition. Are you planning on seeing tarmac? If so, studded is not the option IMO.

When Tirerack does tests, they use brand new tires... and brand new studs.

 

Newly studded tires have the studs stick out slightly past the rubber. This digs into the pavement and does give very good traction (and destroy the road). Once the tires have been driven around a bit, the studs wear down flush with the rubber. Once this happens, you lose ALOT of the traction the studs gave you. Which is why you should only get studs if you spend the majority of your time on covered roads, so the studs don't wear down and become useless.

 

 

I don't think Subaru's need studded tires. They have enough traction to get moving in almost anything even with pretty shitty tires. Stopping

and turning are always an issue... but's that's more about driver responsibility and not overdriving the conditions.

There are times that they make you put chains on (ugh, what a pain!) unless you have studded tires on the passes here in Oregon. If you have studded tires, you can drive right past the chain-up pullouts.

There are times that they make you put chains on (ugh, what a pain!) unless you have studded tires on the passes here in Oregon. If you have studded tires, you can drive right past the chain-up pullouts.

 

That's my issue right now. From what I've read in the owner's manual, at least for the '10, chains aren't allowed to be used due to clearance in the fender. And driving up to Mount Hood most of the time during winter, you either have to carry traction devices or have them installed.

my buddy gave me a set of snow tired siped/studded on stock wheels. insanely overkill. I hate the sound of studs. All you have to have is a tire with the snowflake symbol, that counts as a traction device

Ahh, thanks for the info on that, didn't know that was how it worked. I really hate driving around and hearing studded tires on bare pavement. The roads around here really don't ice over much though, unless we get those batches of freezing rain.

 

What do you run for winter tires? I've read up on here about different brands and quality, but there's just a ton of info.

 

Traction tire options

Oregon state law allows motorists to use studded tires between Nov. 1 and April 1. Because of the damage caused by studded tires to roads, ODOT encourages drivers to consider using chains or non-studded traction tires.

 

Traction tires without studs meet Rubber Manufacturers Association standards for use in severe snow conditions and carry a special symbol on the tire sidewall showing a three-peaked mountain and snowflake. Research shows these tires provide better traction than studded tires when used on bare pavement.

Yeah, but I've been on hwy 35 near Bennett Pass with just packed snow, and the vehicles without either studded tires or chains were sliding sideways down the banked road. Rubber alone ain't gonna keep you off the wall under those conditions.

It seems that studded tires are a thing of the past. For mild/little snow, most people run all-seasons. For moderate snow, people get performance winter tires. For heavy snow, people get studless tires. Where do the studded fit in? It seems that most studless outperform studded tires even in snow, and studded really can't be driven in any other condition. Are you planning on seeing tarmac? If so, studded is not the option IMO.

 

and

 

 

......They are awesome on snow and ice and dirt.They are loud, dangerous, and slippery on pavement.

 

Dangerous? Slippery on pavement? That may have been true 20 years ago for studded tires, but it is no longer a valid generalization.

 

From the 2009 test referenced earlier, the Michelin Xi2 required 37.2m to come to a stop on wet pavement from 80 km/hr whereas the studded Hakka7 required 37.4m

 

In that test, 13 of the studded tires outbraked 6 of the non-studded tires on wet pavement.

 

The shortest wet braking distance went to the Michelin Primacy Alpin, at 27.8m, but it had the longest braking distance on ice of all the tires tested at 75.5m.

 

I agree with outahere.

 

The ADAC is no joke (there is a reason why our snow-bound overseas brothers and sisters have served as guide for our own winter testing - why does TireRack send its representatives overseas? - their knowledge and experience greatly exceeds that of our own), and looking at those test figures, I can't help but think that what was conventional wisdom even a decade ago just no longer holds true today, thanks to modern tire technology.

 

I love the TireRack, but let's not get carried away. They're a retailer, they are in business to stay in business, and they will try to sell what's in their stock. There's a good reason why you won't find any of their representatives discussing competitive products, as well as why they have no testing done of the premium "Studless Ice and Snows" versus premium studded tires. They are not completely unbiased sources.

 

Currently, to say that premium studded tires are unsafe or offer distinctly less performance capabilities in clear conditions, be it wet or dry, than comparable premium "Studless Ice and Snow" tires is to fly in the face of recognized and respected modern data.

 

[ Look at the ADAC data for the Michelin Xi2 "Studless Ice & Snows," which is what's considered a top-ranked tire of that genre - now flip open the latest copy (December, '09) of Car & Driver, and check out its dry and wet-road stopping distances, at a rather chilly 23 deg. F. Still feel that the studded Nokian Hakka7s would be that much more unsafe than the Xi2s, given the ADAC data?

 

If you're going to maintain that the premium studded tires are "unsafe" on clear roads - wet or dry - I think you'll also need to concede that a modern "Studless Ice & Snow," even a premium one, is just as unsafe. ]

 

 

---

 

 

Ahh, thanks for the info on that, didn't know that was how it worked. I really hate driving around and hearing studded tires on bare pavement. The roads around here really don't ice over much though, unless we get those batches of freezing rain.

 

What do you run for winter tires? I've read up on here about different brands and quality, but there's just a ton of info.

Traction tire options

Oregon state law allows motorists to use studded tires between Nov. 1 and April 1. Because of the damage caused by studded tires to roads, ODOT encourages drivers to consider using chains or non-studded traction tires.

 

Traction tires without studs meet Rubber Manufacturers Association standards for use in severe snow conditions and carry a special symbol on the tire sidewall showing a three-peaked mountain and snowflake. Research shows these tires provide better traction than studded tires when used on bare pavement.

 

I can't help but think that such "research data" is outdated - look at the ADAC findings.

 

Furthermore, the "snowflake on the mountain" symbol is, itself, something that I fear - though hope not - go the way of the "M+S" rubber-stamp:

 

http://www.wheels.ca/Tire%20Talk/article/196342

 

Take the Goodyear Fortera TripleTread, in 265/65-17 sizing, for example. It's an "all season" tire, but with the "snowflake on the mountain" designation.

 

When Tirerack does tests, they use brand new tires... and brand new studs.

 

Newly studded tires have the studs stick out slightly past the rubber. This digs into the pavement and does give very good traction (and destroy the road). Once the tires have been driven around a bit, the studs wear down flush with the rubber. Once this happens, you lose ALOT of the traction the studs gave you. Which is why you should only get studs if you spend the majority of your time on covered roads, so the studs don't wear down and become useless.

 

I don't think that makes sense.....

 

The tire surface is not a homogeneous block, and not incompressible. As the tire presses down and the tread spreads open (if it didn't, then winter tires wouldn't really work, at all) there will be more of the stud exposed, even as the tire continues to wear - and that's not even considering the innovations that tires like the Hakka7 bring to the table.

 

Furthermore, tire-wear is tire-wear, and just as the studs will become less of a traction aid as they themselves wear, the compared "Studless Ice & Snow," as it wears, will at the minimum also lose tread depth, but also, in some cases, such as the Bridgestone WS60, lose even its proprietary surface-layer compound, which will render it much less capable (remember when the Xi2 was first introduced, at the Michelin press-event, they purportedly wanted "real-world" simulations - with reduced tire tread depths, accomplished via shaving - but that was a thin disguise for taking away the Tube Multicell compound advantage of the WS60's dual-layering).

 

 

----

 

 

I truly think that the studs -vs- no studs decision needs to lie with the specific purpose/needs of the unique driver. Even with "safety" concerns no longer valid, comfort, as well as issues such as legality and highway/high-speed travel are still very real-world concerns, and the trade-offs that one person is willing to make, may not be acceptable compromises for another.

 

I think that DukeTrout's tale, as well as that of MrBluesman's, illustrate this, perfectly:

 

Yeah, but I've been on hwy 35 near Bennett Pass with just packed snow, and the vehicles without either studded tires or chains were sliding sideways down the banked road. Rubber alone ain't gonna keep you off the wall under those conditions.

 

Probably depends on what you get for weather

We get serious ice storms here (Ice took my power out for 5 days last yr)

 

We run studded snows every winter for the last 4 years and couldn't imagine otherwise.

 

Here in Metro-Cleveland, Ohio, in the near-eastern suburbs, I can only dream of running studded tires. Yes, there's likely going to be at least one day out of the winter, every year, where I'll absolutely dominate - but the rest of the time, it's definitely going to be FTL, particularly given my typical commuting/errand needs (which, since the LGT is my true daily-driver, that occupies 99% of my miles and seat-time).

 

But if I moved somewhere else - where I saw more ice and packed snow? I can certainly envision having a set.