Winter Tires on Steroids (Look for the NEW Ice Grip Symbol)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- The Ice Grip Symbol, first introduced in Europe in 2021, is making its debut in North America on the Nokian Hakkapeliitta 10 and the Nokian Hakkapeliitta R5.
Photo/Video Footage: Nokian, Pexels
Twitter: @JackTalksTires
=============================================================
DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a sponsored video. All opinions expressed are my own, and are based on interviews with industry experts, and/or my experience as a journalist and editor covering the automotive industry for over 20 years, and/or research I conducted on the specific topic covered in this video.
#jacktalkstires
#nokiantyres
#nokiantires
#wintertires #winterstorm2022
#winterstorm
Interesting video. I have heard that severe winter tires are bad for wet roads but this info was controversial and was based on customers' reviews which are generally not reliable. Some noted that Brigestone WS90 or Michelin x-Ice Snow are way too soft. In this video there is some proof of that. It looks like it makes sense to avoid those tires with an ice grip symbol. It kind of makes the tire choice more complicated.
Thanks man! Because of you equipped my daughter's car with a set of hakkapeliitta r10
Thank you for this informative video about the new type of tire. I wonder what is the reference tire they use as the base of test.
So when I drive down from the icy mountains to the warmer valley, I'm supposed to have a spare set of tires along - LOL. The warning just keeps the lawyers off their butts. I'm lucky to live in CO, where those of us in the mountains just swap to studded tires for the winter.
Very cool! I saw that Europe has the ice symbol and I was wondering if it would ever come to North America.
But Nokian's explanation doesn't match the warning itself.
The warning says that the tires are not suitable for wet conditions.
But Nokian's explanation says that using the tires in weather warmer than 45F could result in low tread or uneven wear, which can in turn lead to hydroplaning and blowouts.
As I said, the warning does not match Nokian's explanation, for several reasons:
First, the melting point of water is well below 45F. When it is between 32F and 45F, it will be wet and yet it will be below 45F. (And of course, if the roads are salted, then the freezing point will be even less than 32F.) According to the warning, these tires should *not* be used because it is wet. But according to Nokian's explanation, these tires *can* be used because it is below 45F.
In other words, the warning about wet conditions implies that ice tires should only be used below 32F, or possibly only when it is below 20F (the melting point of a 10% salt solution) or even below 2F (the melting point of a 20% salt solution - see science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/road-salt.htm). So the warning implies it must be below 32F, 20F, or 2F, while Nokian implies it only has to be below 45F.
Second, a person should be regularly checking their tread with a tread depth gauge. As long as the tire tread is deep (at least 5/32") and worn evenly, then it sounds like there isn't a problem according to Nokian's explanation. So if someone uses a tire like this, they should simply be checking their tread regularly - but they should already be doing that on their all-season tires too. The warning implies that the tires should *never* be used in wet conditions, but the Nokian explanation implies that a person can use these tires in wet conditions between 32 and 45F as long as they regularly check their tire tread.
So it's disappointing that the warning and the explanation don't match.
And according to Nokian's own testing, their all-weather WR G4 has between 15% and 28% better ice braking performance than their all-season tires (see th-cam.com/video/PPnWfKKcEz0/w-d-xo.html). So that implies that the all-weather WR G4 might technically qualify for this ice symbol too. But unfortunately, I suspect that Nokian will refrain from including the symbol even if the WR G4 technically qualifies, because by putting the symbol on, they will be forced to include a fallacious and fraudulent warning stating falsely that the WR G4 cannot be used in wet conditions.
In other words, Nokian might be forced to conceal the excellent ice performance of the all-weather WR G4 because by revealing its excellent ice performance, they will be forced to misinform consumers by falsely stating the WR G4 is unsuitable for wet conditions. And obviously, Nokian would not want to say that about an all-weather tire meant for year-round use.
I hope the warning is updated, because I am afraid that this mandatory warning about wet conditions will cause some makers to refrain from including the ice symbol even when their tires qualify.
Or I hope that this warning is only obligatory in Europe but not North America, because it appears that this warning is fallacious and fraudulent, at least in some cases (such as weather between 32 and 45F).
The reality is probably that the tires would wear very fast in warmer conditions, which would wear down the tread and make them more prone to hydroplaning. So even in warm but wet conditions they'd work well ... briefly. And you could do okay if you check the tread depth regularly. But that's too complicated for the average consumer, who wouldn't understand anything beyond whether it is or isn't good in wet conditions (not more nuanced explanations or why) and wouldn't check their tread depth. So it's better to give the simple answer "Do not use above 45°F." If any warnings or limitations don't seem to make sense, keep in mind the common idiot. I wouldn't consider the warnings fraudulent, as they're not making false claims of what it can do. It can do everything they say it can, and if you follow their stated (even if overzealous) warnings, you'll be safe. What they're doing is selling themselves short to avoid liability. Which does get absurd at times, but appeases the legal department. On a similar note, all the things that say "This product contains a substance known to the state of California to cause cancer..." because it's easier to just slap that warning on it than it is to actually determine if it does or doesn't cause cancer. Lot more at stake by not including warnings that might be necessary than by including unnecessary warnings. Though here they might miss out on sales because they're understating the abilities, especially the WR G4.