Michelin or Pirelli which is better. Comparison of Pirelli tires with analogues

Tire Rack puts on a "Clash of the Titans" comparing the latest Max Performance tires from Michelin and Bridgestone.

Clash of the Titans is usually referred to as an epic showdown between really strong rivals, so this phrase is quite suitable to describe the new Tire Rack test, which brought together two of the latest Max Performance tires, as well as two models that have long been considered one of the best in this category. Over the past 10 years, Max Performance tires have evolved to an astonishing level of development and now provide exceptionally reliable grip on both dry and wet surfaces, yet combine their ride quality with a civilized character that makes them suitable for everyday use. Many of today's supercars drive out of the factory with Max Performance tires fitted as original equipment, as these tires maximize the power of these vehicles right out of the box. And besides this, many sports driving enthusiasts themselves put these tires on their cars, which they use every day.

Not so long ago, two true titans of the tire world introduced their new models of the Max Performance class - the Bridgestone Potenza S-04 Pole Position and the Michelin Pilot Super Sport. Both are welcome replacements for tires that are already popular and proven. But which one is better? To find out, Tire Rack experts compared tire behavior in the real world and on the race track, and the top-end tires in the Max Performance category - Continental ContiExtremeContact DW and Pirelli PZero - were chosen as opponents of the two newcomers. Tire Rack notes that Continental recently topped the rankings compiled by tire buyers on the company's website for some time, while Pirelli has always performed well in tests and since its premiere in 2007 managed to enter the factory equipment of many of the most powerful supercars.

The tests used BMW E92 328i coupe (2011) with 17x8.0 inch wheels. All tires were taken in size 225/45R17 with full tread depth.

Tires tested:

road test

The 10.6 km road track consists of sections simulating highway conditions, a local road and a country road, which makes it possible to test tires at both highway and city traffic speeds. In addition, there are areas of smooth and coarse-grained concrete, as well as new asphalt and pavement after patching. This allows you to determine the noise level, comfort, ride quality and handling in everyday life, as conditions are identical to those encountered during a normal commute.

None of the tires were a disappointment in the road test, and all were able to provide good handling in normal driving conditions. As to which tires are better, opinions are divided between Michelin and Bridgestone. Both tires respond quickly and accurately to steering inputs, but the Bridgestone's responses feel more linear, and the amount of side-slip in a corner builds up gradually, while the Michelin does it more abruptly. The verdict is that both tires are excellent, but behave a little differently. The Pirellis also respond clearly and consistently, but not as quickly as the Michelins and Bridgestones, with the Continentals coming in last as they feel less informative, with experts noting that there is a pause between turning the steering wheel and their response.

But this shortcoming of Continental allowed them to take the lead in the test for ride quality, and these tires are the best at absorbing sharp pavement joints and providing a smooth ride on “patched” pavement. Michelins handle small to medium sized bumps well, but the rider will feel a bit of a jolt when hitting a big bump. Bridgestones are slightly stiffer than Michelins when riding over small bumps, but they absorb impact energy better when hitting a large pothole. The Pirellis were quite a bit behind the rest, as they were slightly less comfortable.

The noise level of all three tires can be considered quite acceptable, but again the Continental was the best. The Michelin and Bridgestone are outperformed by the Continental as they make a subtle but noticeable noise as they increase in speed. The Pirellis are a bit humming at high speeds, especially on tarmac.

Race track tests

The test track (one lap length - 0.5 km) includes 90-degree turns, freeway exits, as well as several lanes to determine how the tires behave during lane changes. Pilots ride on both dry and wet surfaces to evaluate traction, responsiveness, handling, and more. during emergency maneuvers.

On the test track, Michelins immediately take the lead thanks to excellent steering responses and excellent traction on the front axle, which allows you to pass corner apexes with relative ease. Overall, the Michelin's cornering behavior was just as impressive as their grip during acceleration and braking. Subjective scores put the Bridgestone in second place, which also showed excellent handling and informativeness, but the lap time dropped these tires to the last line, as the tires could not complete the route as quickly as the rest. Less than two-tenths of a second behind the Michelin, Pirelli came in second in this test, proving they could be faster than subjective estimates would suggest. The Pirelli don't have the responsiveness or cornering stability of the Michelin, but these tires provide incredible grip. At the end of the list were the Continentals, which were less informative and confident during the slalom and high-speed sections, but their high level of grip allowed them to slightly pass the Bridgestone.

In the wet, the Michelins once again topped the rankings, holding contact with the road so confidently that it even led some drivers to feel overconfident, resulting in a few skids - even with such high levels of grip. Continentals also provide optimal grip on wet surfaces, but they are too slow to respond to rider input. The Bridgestone grip was weaker than the Continental, but they pleased with the same responsiveness and information content as on a dry surface. The Pirellis are very balanced tires that give the rider good grip, but they don't hold ground contact well enough to catch up with the top three tires.

Fuel consumption

The test includes driving on a 10.5 km route, including sections of an expressway (speed limit - 100 km/h), a highway (90 km/h) and a country road (65 km/h), as well as two Stop signs and one traffic lights in each section. The pilots drove about 800 km in a few days. Because it was important to get the same fuel economy as regular drivers, pilots respected speed limits and turned on cruise control wherever possible. No special fuel-saving techniques were applied.

It is important to understand that although conditions were created to be as stable as possible for greater accuracy, long-term testing is required to really accurately determine the effect of tires on fuel consumption, since the results of this test could be affected by changes in atmospheric pressure, temperature, etc.

(The higher the score, the better)

In the coming weeks, Formula 1 will know the choice of tire supplier for 2017 to 2019 and it will make a huge difference to the sport.

Pirelli and Michelin are fighting for the opportunity to become an official supplier. The Italians have been providing F1 teams with tires since 2011, while the French were last involved in the Grand Prix in 2006.

At the same time, Michelin wants a radically new approach to the use of tires in F1, while Pirelli representatives generally adhere to their current philosophy. And the question arises which choice would be ideal for the sport.

Let's compare...

Pirelli: Philosophy F1

Having successfully coped with the task of sole tire supplier since 2011, Pirelli simply supported the ideas that were voiced by the F1 bosses.

Much of the slick requirement for the 2012 season was driven by the events of the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix, so the Italians were tasked with developing tires with increased wear to allow drivers to average two or three pit stops per race.

With this concept in mind, Pirelli decided to keep the 13-inch wheels, which are extremely rare on today's road cars. It was this question that caused a lot of criticism from their potential competitors from the Michelin camp.

Michelin: Speed ​​and low profile tires

Representatives of Michelin have voiced two simple requirements, under which they are ready to return to Formula 1.

The French manufacturer wants F1 to switch to tires that will allow drivers to attack at the limit for a long time with minimal wear. In addition, Michelin wants to ditch 13-inch wheels in favor of 18-inch wheels or even larger. In doing so, they advocate low-profile tires, which are more common on modern road cars, as they already use a similar approach in the World Endurance Championship and in Formula E.

Reviewer F1fanatic.co.uk Keith Collantine spoke on the pages of websites on this issue:

“It seems to me that since the creation of tires subject to wear, the teams have more or less coped with this challenge. This is reminiscent of the return of refueling in F1 in 1994: in the early years, several teams ran into problems, but pretty quickly everything returned to normal.

A reasonable question arises: does the current tire philosophy bring more harm or benefit to modern F1? It took some time for the drivers to begin to honestly express their dissatisfaction with the fact that they are able to drive at the limit for a rather limited section of the race due to the nature of the slicks.

In addition, F1 needs to address the slowdown in the pace of cars in recent years, and this can be achieved by changing tires, which will be an order of magnitude cheaper than complex changes to the technical regulations.

For me personally, the issue of tire size is purely aesthetic. But I would say that the current 13-inch wheels look outdated, and there is no doubt that with the freedom to choose the size of the wheels from the teams, they would all switch to larger diameter slicks, if only for the sake of speed.

Among studded tires, Continental, Nokian and Michelin have been sharing the podium for several years, not letting strangers into the circle of the elite. And this year was no exception.

The named trio of spikes is again the best on Russian roads: each has more than 900 points. First place goes to Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7, the most suitable for active drivers. But it is, alas, the most expensive and most disadvantageous: the price / quality ratio is 6.24. Very close, with a difference of less than half a percent, the Russian version of the Michelin X-Ice North 2: cool, confident and inexpensive, price / quality - 5.51. Continental, a little late with the presentation of the novelty ContiIceContact, threw its vassal Gislaved Nord Frost 5 (price / quality - 5.15) into the gap, slightly increasing its spikes. He did not disappoint and won the third place for the senior, and lagged behind the leader by less than 2%.

Pirelli and Goodyear tried their best to compete with the top three, but once again they successfully repulsed the attack. So, in fourth place is the Pirelli Winter Carving Edge lighter, in fifth is the intelligent Goodyear Ultra Grip Extreme. In terms of price / quality ratio, both tires are almost equivalent: 5.06 and 5.09, respectively.

The sixth and seventh lines were occupied by strong good players - the Dutch Vredestein Arctrac (862 points, price / quality - 4.29) and the domestic

Cordiant Sno-Max (856 points and 3.62).

A little behind, next to the bar of 840 points, are the Bridgestone Ice Cruiser 5000 (price / quality - 5.43) and the Korean "winter pike" Hankook Winter i-Pike, which clearly competes with Vredestein, since they have the same price / quality ratio. Nizhnekamsk's novelty Kama Euro 519 closes the top ten with a modest result of 828 points (price / quality - 3.62, like Cordiant), which turned out to be not as strong as expected. Let's hope for a quick update.

10th place: Kama Euro 519

• Despite the fact that the Kama has the most spikes, the grip on ice is very low: the car starts off and accelerates uncertainly, slows down in jerks. The lateral grip is the weakest among all the spikes. When sorting out the speed, the car is blown off the intended trajectory, it slides for a long time. Unexpected slippage and a sharp loss of grip are especially unpleasant. It is impossible to predict the beginning of a breakdown, you understand this only when the car has already “floated”.
• On snow, acceleration and braking are weak, lateral grip is the worst, the edge of transition to sliding, as well as on ice, is not felt.
• On a snowy road, the car goes smoothly, however, if you drop the steering wheel, it strives to go into deeper snow. When adjusting the course, the steering angles are large. Snowdrifts are best overcome with intense slipping. An undoubted advantage is a confident exit back if it was not possible to break forward.
• Course stability on the pavement is not bad, but there is not enough information on the steering wheel and delays when taxiing interfere. Braking on dry and wet pavement is worse than average.
• Fuel consumption is average at any speed. The spikes are too deep, which largely explains the low traction on ice.
• They make a lot of noise, they transmit the entire microprofile of the road to the car, as if they were heavily pumped.

9th place: Hankook Winter i-Pike

• "Pike" or "tip" - this is the last word in the name of tires with a tread pattern similar to the often copied Gislaved NF 3.
• On ice, the grip properties are weak, they make you move slowly. With a slight increase in speed, the car “does not hear” the steering wheel in a turn, loses its intended trajectory and slides for a long time. It's good that breakdowns and recovery occur quite smoothly.
• On snow, the tires brake and accelerate more confidently, but the lateral grip is much worse than the longitudinal one.
• At small angles of rotation, the “empty” steering wheel interferes with the driver, at large angles - breakdowns into a skid. It is impossible to feel the beginning of the slide.
• On a snowy road they carry a car without comment. They are reluctant to drive in deep snow, and you have to skid with caution, otherwise you can dig in.
• On asphalt, they lag a little when taxiing. They brake on dry and wet worse than others.
• They make an unpleasant noise at any speed, two rumbling peaks stand out from the general rumble - at urban (40-60 km / h) and suburban (90-110 km / h) speeds.
• Sensitively shake the car on bumps.
• Fuel consumption is average at any speed.
• Studded neatly, but a little too small, an extra two to three tenths of a millimeter of protrusion of the studs would have improved traction on ice.

8th place: Bridgestone Ice Cruiser 5000

• The model goes down in history, giving way to the new IC 7000, but so far it has been successfully sold.
• These tires have never been strong on ice: reluctant acceleration, below-average braking, frankly poor lateral grip and sluggish responses. Nevertheless, at moderate speed they behave quite adequately. There is only one problem: to guess this speed.
• I went a little faster - the steering angles and the reaction time of the car increase significantly, it begins to smear the trajectory and gets out of control.
• On snow, the steering angles are smaller, but the behavior is unstable, the front end drifts in the initial phase of the turn and skids on an arc of constant radius. In both cases, a little overspeed leads to long slides. They slow down worse than the rest, the rearrangement is performed at the lowest speed, on a par with the Kama.
• On a snowy road, they hold a straight line confidently. They are not afraid of deep snow marks on the road, overcoming them without stress.
• On clean pavement, I like the informative steering and precise execution of steering commands.
• Braking on asphalt of any condition is average.
• Not comfortable enough: the tread emits an almost helicopter drone, and the tires transmit shocks from any road bumps to the body, as well as vibrations to the floor and steering wheel.
• The studding is of very high quality in terms of dispersion (no more than 0.2 mm), but is somewhat small. And there are ten less studs than tires of other brands.

7th place: Cordiant Sno-Max

• Domestic tires; unlike the Kama, they correspond to European standards in terms of the number of spikes.
• They accelerate and slow down on the ice moderately, but in the turn they are forced to be careful: they hold noticeably worse across than in the longitudinal direction. They require a sweeping amplitude of steering, and on the curve of a turn, the feeling that the car turns not due to the rotation of the front wheels, but because of the withdrawal of the rear ones, does not leave.
• On the snow, the balance "along-across" changes. The weakest acceleration and braking are combined with an average level of lateral grip. When taxiing, the turning angles of the steering wheel are too big, the slip is a little longer than that of the giants, although they remain within reasonable limits.
• The course on the snow is kept clearly, but large steering angles complicate its correction. They are not afraid of snowdrifts and snowdrifts: they confidently start, move and turn, reliably get out in reverse.
• They float on asphalt, while the steering wheel is “empty”, it has to be turned at significant angles.
• On dry pavement, the brakes are average, on wet pavement they are better than average.
• They make a lot of noise on the asphalt with a tread and spikes and howl in dense snow. They transmit vibrations from small road bumps and shocks from road joints.
• In terms of fuel consumption, the most insatiable in the test.
• The quality of the studding: the protrusion spread is small (0.4 mm), but the spikes still stick out high, there is a risk of losing or breaking the cores out of them.

6th place: Vredestein Arctrac

• Feature of the tire - the small weight coexisting with the increased loading capacity.
• On ice, the longitudinal grip is weak, and the transverse grip is medium. They slip at the start, delaying the acceleration process; the car is stopped worst of all. At the same time, they show average results on the circle, although they do not at all inspire confidence in the corners: they either cling to or break off. They are sharply restored, unpleasantly jerking the car. They don't like slips.
• On snow, they accelerate modestly, brake and turn moderately.
• The car is clearly controlled on them, but only before the start of slips, into which it turns unexpectedly for the driver. The case ends with a sweeping skid.
• They move smoothly along the snow-covered straight line, without remarks.
• They overcome deep snow uncertainly, turn reluctantly, but get back well.
• On the pavement, we liked the clear course and clear “zero”.
• They brake well, and on a dry surface - very well, almost on a par with Goodyear. Wet show average results.
• They make noise and shake the car, voicing asphalt bumps, rustling loudly in dense snow.
• At a speed of 90 km / h, fuel consumption is average, at 60 km / h - increased.
• Studding is of high quality both in protrusion of spikes and in spread.

5th place: Goodyear Ultra Grip Extreme

• Acceleration and lateral grip on ice are average, braking is better. Each turn of the steering wheel at speeds above 30 km/h causes a slight steering skid. If you let off the gas at the same time, the skid will intensify and require steering adjustments.
• On snow, all characteristics are also not below average. In turns, the car is controlled clearly, the limit is limited by the demolition of the front end. However, in the second rearrangement corridor, skidding begins already at a low speed. Keeping the car in check and achieving high results is possible only with the help of an electronic assistant or proactive driver actions.
• Course stability on a snowy road is clear, without comment.
• Snow crossings are not for these tires. It is better to move only in tightness in snowdrifts, otherwise you will get up, or even dig in.
• On asphalt, they go straight in a straight line, but they are late with steering .. But they slow down best of all, both on wet and dry (in this they are almost on a par with Vredestein).
• They buzz with a tread, but the noise of spikes is a separate article. They howl at high speed and distinctly crunch at low speed. Shake the car on small and medium bumps.
• They roll well, because they consume average fuel.
• The quality of the studding is comparable to the Cordiant: the spread is within reasonable limits, but the performance is on the verge of the maximum allowable.

4th place: Pirelli Winter Carving Edge

• Ice, like Goodyear, is not afraid. Accelerate, brake and turn confidently. On an arc of constant radius, the limiting speed does not cause a pronounced drift or skid, the car's steering is close to neutral. On the ice ring, the speed is limited to a soft drift-skid. This allows you to change the curvature of the turn by resetting or adding gas.
• They also work quite conscientiously on snow: in braking, acceleration and rearrangement they show average results. The behavior is clear, understandable, without remarks, with an element of "ignition" - they provoke an active ride.
• On a snow-covered road they go smoothly, clearly responding to taxiing.
• It is better to overcome deep snow with a slight slip, but without excessive zeal, otherwise you can dig in.
• Asphalt line is held tenaciously in a summer way, braking on a wet surface is average, on a dry one it is above average.
• Annoyed by the hoarse-howling crunch of thorns. They shake noticeably on any irregularities, even small ones.
• Studding is satisfactory in all respects.

3rd place: Gislaved Nord Frost 5

• They differ from last year's ones in a slightly increased size of the solid insert of the spikes.
• Open the category of premium tires. Better braking and lateral grip, very good acceleration on ice. In corners they behave very confidently, at the limit the speed is limited by a slight skid, which requires a little adjustment.
• On the snow, they also hold up with dignity: very good braking, good acceleration and average lateral grip. There are no complaints about the handling of the car, its behavior and the clarity of reactions. Handles well even on slides.
• Stubbornly keep the course on a snowy road. In deep snow, however, they do not behave very confidently.
• On the pavement, they are reminiscent of Goodyear: they are a little late in reacting to course corrections.
• In braking on wet pavement, they are the best (on a par with Goodyear), on dry pavement - quite a decent average result.
• Noisy, very distinctly crunchy spikes, especially at low speeds.
• They transmit shocks from single irregularities to the body.
• Fuel consumption is increased at any speed.
• Studding: the spread of the protrusion is within reasonable limits, but the protrusion itself would be nice to slightly reduce - for the sake of the durability of the spikes.

2nd place: Michelin X-Ice North 2

• A nice feature of these tires, which inspire confidence in safety on any road, is well-balanced longitudinal and transverse grip. We note good braking on ice (despite the classic round spikes), average acceleration and very good lateral grip. On the arc of the turn, when the gas is released, the car is slightly twisted, helping to register the turn.
• On the snow, excellent traction properties: the shortest braking distance, intense acceleration and a record speed on the rearrangement. Stable behavior and clear reactions even in gliding. When overspeeding, they gently slide sideways, intensively decelerating.
• Better than others, they hold a snowy road, they are sensitive to the actions of the steering wheel. Deep snow is overcome confidently, allowing you to make any maneuvers.
• They are good on the pavement: they clearly keep the given direction, without delay they react to the actions of the steering wheel.
• Dry braking is average, but on wet tires they pass: the weakest result.
• Snorting noise on paved roads. Shake the car a little on road microroughnesses.
• The most economical (along with Nokian) at any speed.
• Studding is very high quality, gives reason to believe that the spikes will last a long time.

1st place: Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7

• There is only one step from confidence to aggressiveness. All ice performance, including lap times, is better than average and acceleration is the best. However, there is a feeling that the tires accelerate and brake better than they turn. Behavior in corners on ice is understandable and predictable, in the limit, a slight helping skid.
• On the snow, very good braking (only Michelin is better), the best acceleration, the second result in the rearrangement. They are well controlled even in slips, they react without delay to turning the steering wheel, due to this they fit into a turn of seemingly unimaginable steepness. All this provokes a fast ride, so you need to honestly assess the level of your skill.
• Clearly follow the set course on a snowy road.
• In deep snow, everything is done easily and naturally, without fear of stops, slip starts, or sharp turns.
• On asphalt, they float a little from side to side.
• They brake on a dry surface moderately, but on a wet one they show the most modest result.
• They rustle with spikes and tread, shake the car on small bumps.
• Economical at any speed.
• Studded very high quality, problems due to the loss of spikes are not expected.

Outside: Continental ContilceContact

• These tires were presented to the public after the completion of our "white" tests. But we found an opportunity to compare them with the test winner Nokian HKPL 7 in New Zealand, where winter is in full swing in June. They rented the same "Golf VI", on which they conducted their own tests, but could not find asphalt roads, because the duel took place only on ice and snow. However, for the first acquaintance and revealing the abilities of the novelty, this is enough.
• On ice, they accelerate and brake almost on a par with the Nokian, but in the transverse grip it’s just a cut above: the difference is more than 8% in favor of the German novelty. Handling is beyond praise, reactions to steering are clearer, behavior is more stable - at the limit, the car only slightly slips with the rear axle. And this is on very slippery ice, where the Nokian behaves like an average: it does not shine with information content on the steering wheel and stability of behavior - it breaks into a demolition, then into a skid and slides longer than we would like.
• On snow, the difference is almost the same, the braking distance and acceleration time are comparable to those of Nokian, but handling, like on ice, is better than that of the "seven". The steering wheel is filled with information on a straight line, clear reactions and understandable behavior in a turn. Tires draw the car into corners without a hint of drift HKPL 7 on the same track are less informative, give intermittent drift at the entrance to the turn and more active skid on the arc.
• In deep snow, the "Germans" lose a little to the "Finns": they start off uncertainly, requiring the addition of gas, but with intense slipping they strive to dig in.
• Studding is high quality and stable.

FRICTION TIRE RANKING

The non-studded tires collected in the test, they are also Velcro or Scandinavian, are already known to our readers. They were updated two or three years ago, with the exception of the long-lived Vredestein Nord-Trac and the new Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice +.

The results of the leaders were heaped - in the range from 899 to 924 points. The first five do not differ by more than 3%. But their characters are different, and each tire in our test set its own record, or even several.

When choosing, the reader should be guided not by the overall result, but by individual preferences and preferences, and, of course, take into account the advantages and disadvantages we have listed.

The Russian Nokian Hakkapeliitta R set records in braking and acceleration on snow and at the same time showed the worst braking on dry pavement. It remains the most expensive on the market: price / quality - 6.16. The most attractive in this parameter is the Bridgestone Blizzak WS60 (4.99) - the best in terms of longitudinal grip on ice and braking on dry pavement, but the most voracious in terms of fuel consumption. The Michelin X-Ice 2 is a well balanced tyre, all performance is good except for acceleration on snow. The expensive ContiVikingContact 5 (price / quality - 6.04) has the best results on the ice lap and in acceleration on snow, and it turned out to be the worst in braking on wet pavement. The Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice+ is an all-round tire that is the best in repositioning. The price/quality ratio (5.45) is the same as that of a Michelin tire, and, apparently, they will have to compete with each other in the market. But the title of the most economical tire in the struggle between Nokian Hakkapeliitta 7 and Michelin X-Ice 2 was won by the Russian-Finnish tire.

Far from the new Vredestein Nord-Trac with 852 points is noticeably behind the others. Even in terms of the price / quality ratio of 4.11, it is clear that he is no longer able to compete with younger giants.

Kama Euro 519 without studs scored 830 points. Here is an example of the misuse of a product originally created in a studded version. In terms of rubber hardness, Nizhnekamsk tires are closer to Europeans (such as ContiWinterContact TS 830, Michelin Alpine, Pirelli Snowsport, Kumho KW17), and therefore cannot compete on equal terms with Scandinavians on ice and snow. But on clean asphalt they feel very confident.

7th place: Kama Euro 519

• These tires are designed for studding, but the "bald" version is often sold - not the best solution for icy and snowy roads.
• On ice, the traction is worse than any real non-studded tire. Acceleration is prolonged, braking is ineffective, jerky. In corners, large steering angles, delayed reactions, prolonged slips, in the limit of demolition of the front end and a significant straightening of the trajectory.
• On snow, braking is very weak - only Vredestein is worse; acceleration is mediocre, like Michelin; at the rearrangement, the maximum speed and behavior are worse than those of the others. The comments are almost the same as on ice: insufficient information content on the steering wheel, large angles of its rotation, prolonged sliding. On a snowy straight, the car pulls in the direction of deeper snow, the correction of the course is complicated by large steering angles.
• In deep snow, they turn better than they go straight, so you can tack if necessary. On asphalt, they swim a little within the lane and are late when taxiing. They brake great. On a wet surface they show the best results, on a dry one - above average.
• One of the reasons: the tires are harder than others. Not comfortable enough: they make a lot of noise, periodically howl and shake the car noticeably. Fuel consumption at 60 km / h is too big, at 90 km / h is average.

6th place: Vredestein Nord-Trac

• On ice, traction leaves much to be desired; braking and acceleration are very weak (only Kama is worse). However, on the ice circle they are kept in the middle peasants, they creak like other “Scandinavians”. Nevertheless, the behavior of the car is predictable, without surprises and problems. Upon reaching the maximum speed, it begins to gently slide outward, straightening the trajectory.
• In the snow they perform about the same. In braking, the worst, lateral grip is weak, except that acceleration is average. When accelerating, it feels good how the electronics keep the tires from slipping. Maneuvering is complicated by increased steering angles. In corners, top speed results in slight oversteer.
• On a snow-covered straight line, with uniform movement and gas release, the car scours a little, in light acceleration it goes much more clearly. They do not like snowdrifts, it is better to overcome them on the move, without stopping and not to turn the steering wheel unnecessarily. It is not recommended to skid, otherwise you can dig in.
• On the asphalt they go smoothly, but they are late when adjusting the direction. Braking on pavement is also not brilliant, and on wet and dry brakes are weak.
• Loudly rustling tread on rough pavement, howling at high speed in corners, clapping on bumps. Large bumps are unpleasantly hard. Fuel consumption at 60 km / h is average, at 90 km / h it is increased.

5th place: Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice+

• A novelty of the company, which, in fact, fell into the category of premium tires.
• She does not have a noticeable preference for the surface, with the exception of asphalt. On any road, the tires show a fairly smooth character and similar behavior.
• On ice, both longitudinal and lateral grip are average. At the moment of starting off, it is easy to break the wheels into slipping, so you need to put pressure on the gas carefully.
• On snow, braking and acceleration are also average, and the speed at the rearrangement “jumps” into the lead. This is partly the merit of electronics (on the Golf it is non-switchable). The skid in the second corridor starts early, but ESP simply does not allow it to develop. The same thing happens during acceleration: as on the Vredestein, it feels good that the electronics are strangling the engine, otherwise the tires will slip into slip.
• On the snowy road, everything is smooth, without remarks.
• In deep snow they behave confidently, easily maneuver, do not dig in when slipping.
• On asphalt, when changing course, you feel a slight steering of the rear axle.
• Braking is not a record, but very effective on wet pavement, and (especially!) On dry pavement.
• Comfortable: softly rustling tread, rolling gently along the road.
• At 60 km / h, fuel is consumed economically, according to this indicator they compete with Michelin. However, at 90 km / h, the consumption increases to the average.

4th place: Continental ContiVikingContact 5

• The leader of our test two years ago. This time the results are more modest. Apparently, the new exercise “braking on wet pavement” influenced. Nevertheless, no weaknesses were found on snow and ice, they are held in the premium category (over 900 points).
• On the ice, they accelerate and brake in the top four, and on the lap they show the best result. They squeak, creak, as if instead of ice under the wheels there is wet concrete, but they hold on! When maneuvering, the steering turns are quite large.
• On the snow they feel much more confident: better acceleration, very good braking and an average result on the rearrangement. As on ice, steering angles are too big. The course on the snowy road is quite clear, the direction correction is responded without delay
• Deep snow is overcome confidently in any mode.
• On an asphalt straight line, they float slightly within the lane. They stop well on dry pavement, but on wet pavement they pass, braking the worst. Wet grip is considered by tire manufacturers to be the opposite of rolling resistance. Here, like the "bridge", no "wet" clutch, no fuel economy.
• Comfort comparable to Michelin: quiet and smooth.
• Fuel consumption at 60 km / h is average, at 90 km / h it is increased.

3rd place: Michelin X-Ice 2

• Feel confident on the "white" roads and off-road. There are no failures, except for weak acceleration on snow.
• They don’t shine on the ice, but they hold on confidently: they slow down and accelerate actively, on the lap they share the second result with Nokian. Unlike the "bridge", they captivate with a balanced clutch "along and across". Clear reactions, smooth transitions into slips - in general, they behave clearly and reliably.
• On snow, the characteristics are not leading: in braking, the worst of the top four, in rearrangement, it is also the fourth result, acceleration is the weakest.
• When you add gas, they actively screw into the turn, and on the reset they slightly straighten the trajectory.
• The snow-covered road is kept without comment.
• In deep snow behave confidently. Even with intensive slipping, they emerge, go forward, not trying to dig in, and are not afraid of slipping.
• On asphalt they go without comment, even to small turns of the steering wheel they react without delay, almost like summer tires.
• On dry pavement, they brake better than average, on wet pavement - very well.
• Comfortable, noise and smooth running without comment. Economical at any speed, but roll a little worse than the Nokian.

2nd place: Bridgestone Blizzak WS60

• On "white" surfaces they show outstanding results, but, alas, along with frankly weak ones. On ice, excellent braking and better acceleration. It would seem that the model is just right to declare the ice leader!
• But weak lateral grip spoils the whole picture (only the Kama passes the ice circle more slowly), makes you be careful in corners. Tires that inspire confidence during acceleration and braking noticeably lose grip in a turn.
• Management is clear, sliding is soft and understandable. On snow, braking is very good and a decent result on rearrangement, but acceleration is very weak. The tires require accuracy when starting off and are only ready to take full throttle when moving (it looks like Nokian behaves).
• On a snow-covered road they go better than others, they immediately respond to direction corrections.
• Snowdrifts are easily overcome, they are not afraid of slipping, because they do not dig in.
• On the pavement they go clearly, but the reactions, like most winter tires, are slightly smeared.
• On a dry road, they slow down best of all, they don’t favor wet roads - the result is worse than average.
• They make noise, transmit vibrations and slight itching from microroughnesses.
• Highest fuel consumption at any speed.

1st place: Nokian Hakkapeliitta R

• Almost equally strong on snow and ice, not a single weak characteristic.
• On the ice surface, very good braking is in harmony with the same lateral grip and acceleration. A light twisting skid helps in turning, they are well controlled in slips, they gently restore grip when exiting slips.
• On snow, all characteristics are the best. Confident braking, energetic acceleration, high speed (together with the Goodyear) of the rearrangement and clear behavior on it. Accept and forgive small mistakes in management.
• Confidently hold on to the snow-covered road. Snowdrifts and snow marks are not terrible. Start after a stop, turns of any curvature, departure back - all this is done without difficulty and special skills.
• On asphalt, they float slightly within the lane.
• On dry pavement, the brakes are weak, on wet pavement they are moderate. It seems that there is little left for the asphalt, all the “powers” ​​went to the snow and ice.
• No comments on noise. But you can find fault with the smoothness of the ride: single irregularities are marked on the body with sharp shocks.
• They set a record for fuel efficiency, even ahead of Michelin.

The editors express their gratitude to all companies that provided tires for testing.

There are a wide variety of tires available in the automotive market. Of these, we can distinguish the most popular, which have a good reputation among motorists. However, how to choose the best among manufacturers? Many drivers have long and steadily had their own preferences when purchasing tires, but no less number of car owners still cannot choose the best one. Therefore, we decided to consider Pirelli tires and compare them with products from other manufacturers: how are they better or worse?

history of the company

The creation of the Pirelli company took place in 1872 in Milan, where the main office is still located. The creator is Giovanni Battista Pirelli, who at the age of 23 knew for sure that he wanted to open his own business related to the production of rubber products.

The enterprise turned out to be small, the turnover was initially very small. Various rubber products were produced, and tires began to be made only in 1894, and then only for bicycles. The first car tires appeared in 1901.

Subsequently, the production of tires for sports cars participating in races began at the company's enterprise. In 1907, one of the participants with Pirelli tires took first place in the competition, which brought the company popularity.

Another no less significant event in the history of the company is the release of calendars in 1964. Then they were very popular. Currently, their release continues.

As before, the manufacturer offers quality tires. Therefore, many motorists are wondering which is better: Pirelli tires or analogues?

Pirelli or Michelin

For comparison, take the Pirelli Ice Zero and Michelin X-Ice North 3 models. Both copies are equipped with studs, and the tread pattern is very similar. Pirelli tires are particularly reliable, and are also able to provide a minimum braking distance.

Their quality is fully consistent with the price, but there is one significant drawback - at positive temperatures, tires lose their properties.

If we consider the model from Michelin, we can note that it has excellent grip on snow and asphalt, as well as effective braking. However, on ice, traction deteriorates.

These tires are optimal for those who drive a car for a long time, as they contribute to comfortable driving. If indicators are important, then it is best to give preference to Pirelli.

Pirelli or Goodyear

If we compare Pirelli Ice Zero tires with Goodyear Ultra Grip Ice Arctic tires, then the second option, although a little, is still in the lead. They performed well both on asphalt and in difficult off-road conditions. At high speed they have good directional stability.

True, they have one significant disadvantage - when hitting a track, skidding begins. Therefore, Pirelli tires provide a safer driving experience.

Pirelli or Nokian

Nokian is also a well-known manufacturer with a good reputation. His leading model is Nokian Nordman 5. Is it better than Pirelli Ice Zero?

Nokian has good handling and grip on ice, but on asphalt, these figures deteriorate significantly. Also, the spikes on the protectors fall out quite quickly, which can not be attributed to positive qualities.

Pirelli tires, on the other hand, have an increased resource, and the spikes do not fall out almost throughout the entire operation. Grip on ice is about the same, but because of the wear resistance, Pirelli winter tires win.

As it turned out, Pirelli winter tires are better than almost all of their competitors. They have all the necessary properties, but at the same time they cannot be operated at positive air temperatures. This is the only significant drawback.