To stud or not to stud?

Backstory: 1998 Subaru Impreza AWD, living in the backwoods of Maine with a 27 mile commute to work that involves mostly backcountry roads that aren't plowed super well. And when there are plowed, it results in that packed layer of snow/ice sitting atop the asphalt. I don't do any off-roading or anything like that.

Last winter, I ran a set of worn (about 7/32-8/32 of remaining tread) Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 (a studless snow). They were great on the packed snow/ice. But once there got to be more than about an inch or two of snow on the ground, they got squirrely.

Where I work, I can get pretty good discounts on snow tires. There are only two options we keep on hand, the Firestone Winterforce and a club tire we carry called the Arctic Claw TXi. Both are designed to be studded, but obviously can be run without. I do have the ability to order up pretty much anything, but would prefer something that is reasonably available so that if I have a blowout, a new tire is easy to get. So there are plenty of options.

tl;dr: What snow tire, nonstudded, studded or unstudded would you recommend for back road use?

snow tire...nuff said....just me

Funny, about 5 minutes ago I sold a set of Firestone Winterforces that I had posted on Craigslist. They were studded and did very well on my old Volvo 245.

Whatever the current gen of the Nokian Hakkapellita studded snow. You'll laugh at snow so deep that it'll cover your headlights. I ran a set of Hakka1s unstudded on my Miata years ago and it would plow snow with the front bumper and not even notice. The only time they didn't kick total ass was on one particularly icy day, and even then I watched several cars spin right in front of me and only felt a little squirelly. Adding studs would solve that problem.

pigeon wrote: Whatever the current gen of the Nokian Hakkapellita studded snow. You'll laugh at snow so deep that it'll cover your headlights. I ran a set of Hakka1s unstudded on my Miata years ago and it would plow snow with the front bumper and not even notice. The only time they didn't kick total ass was on one particularly icy day, and even then I watched several cars spin right in front of me and only felt a little squirelly. Adding studs would solve that problem.

Still looking for the +eleventy-billion button

Nokian Hakkap-whats-it-kalled even without studs will climb an ice covered tree. The first time I encountered them they came on an E28 535is I picked up as a winter beater... I thought that car was freakin' awesome in the snow until the tires wore out 2yrs later and it wouldn't even move across wet grass. I've had 2 sets since on the mrs car and my M3. I'm not sure how they got to be so far ahead of everyone else - but they are.

Copy all that and add one. Years ago I had good all-seasons and got stuck in the Rocky Mountians. My bro pulled me out with a stock Jetta running Hakkapeliittas (just checked the spelling!). In other words, the Hakkapeliittas had more than twice the traction of my all-seasons. I'm a believer in dedicated snow tires (with the little mountain on them) and Hakkapeliittas in particular.

David

I've heard nothing but great things about Haks....that said we have cheap Hankook iPikes on my wifes E30, and the thing is unstoppable....

I had a set of winterforces on my 1987 Firebird, car never had a single issue in the snow. RWD, open diff w/ 125lbs in the trunk. Stable at speed and dug through anything. No studs, illegal here in MI, but if you can get'em try it out.

DWNSHFT wrote: Copy all that and add one. Years ago I had good all-seasons and got stuck in the Rocky Mountians. My bro pulled me out with a stock Jetta running Hakkapeliittas (just checked the spelling!). In other words, the Hakkapeliittas had more than twice the traction of my all-seasons. I'm a believer in dedicated snow tires (with the little mountain on them) and Hakkapeliittas in particular. David

you used copy and paste twice there didn't you?

Nah, just typed very carefully.

David

Obligatory "Snow? What is this Snow you speak of?" post here. :D

I'll keep a list of snow tires in case I ever get exiled out of the warm, snowless South.

I sweer by studded tires. I would probly stick with what is readily available for practicality.

How much do you have to pay to have studs installed? Just curious, not like I'm ever going to need them in Ft. Lauderdale.

Ended up ordering the Winterforces, simply because they are the most easily available option. In comparison to our club tire (the Arctic Claw), these are waaaay more stout and solid.

Studding at our place runs about $15 a tire, though it was only $12 last year.

Still waffeling on whether or not to run them studded or not. I wouldn't have to pay for them (since I'd be installing the studs, oh joy) but the noise they make would drive me crazy.

Live with the noise

Two points:

1) I'm at 9000 feet in Colorado, and live on a 7-mile long unpaved county road that is heavily shaded. Although it's plowed regularly, the shade and traffic makes the surface slick as can be from mid-November through early April. I have Blizzaks on my Jeep Liberty (main driver and used a lot where the snow is melted) and studded winterforces on my Toyota 4x4 pickup. The Blizzaks work very well, but the studs are definately better on the slick ice. If the law allows them, go with the studs. The winterforces (studded) aren't nearly as noisy as some studded tires I've used in the past.

2) True story. Way back at the dawn of time (acutally the very first Rim of theWorld stage rally back in 1976, I think - although it could have been the 1975 rally at Big Bear in California) a Canadian driver (I think Lauri Piavarinta?) was in the area picking up a load of Hakkas to use in Canadian winter rallies. He found out about the rally and sent his wife off to rent a car he could use in the event, and that they could find a bolt-in roll bar for. She brought back a Dodge Colt, which made Lauri exclaim "What a wife, she rents a brand that pays contingency money!" He bolted up a set of Hakkas and was running in the top ten when the car ran out of gas. They removed the safety equipment and the Hakkas and turned the car in without a word.

Great tires, those Hakkas.

Okay, definitely going with the Winterforces due to the reasonable price and good availability for me.

What about the possibility of studs reducing dry and wet road grip? There's not glare ice (or even snow) on the ground everyday during the winter time. How do the Winterforces in particular fare?

Get the Winterforces, skip the studs. They flat out don't need the help. Expect 2-3 seasons of use. They're mushy and loud on dry pavement but fantastic for snow, ice, and rain.

Where I grew up EVERYONE had two sets of tires: a set of general all-seasons for the summer, and a set of studded snows for winter.

If I have it my way, I will NEVER run a studded tire again in my life. Don't get me wrong, if you have to deal with ice, there's nothing better. The rest of the time it's just rowrrowrrowrrowrrrowwwrrrrowworrrr, less traction on things that are not ice, and you really don't want to take corners with any sort of force or you risk ripping the studs out. (not really damaging to the tire, just less effective the next time it's icy).

the winterforce are great on loose snow but SUCK as an ice tire. I've run them (unstudded) on several different vehicles and they are currently on my pathfinder but I will be going with a "studless" tires for this winter as I rarely need to drive in loose snow and having traction on ice and packed snow is more important. Test have proven that true "studless" winter tires have far superior grip on dry pavement than studded tires while rivaling their performance in the slick stuff.

My winterforces sucked so bad that I left them on all year. Currently have 33,000 miles on them and they are still several 32's off the wear bars. Hard to kill. Great offroad and mud traction when they were newer. Decent wet traction.

II'm going to be switching to the goodyear ulta grip SUV ice for this winter.

mith612 wrote: What about the possibility of studs reducing dry and wet road grip?

It's not a possibility, it's a reality. That's where you've got to decide where you need the traction the most. Studs work wonders on smooth ice. They do very little on packed snow, even if it's very hard packed. And they lose you traction everywhere else.

So, if you live on an ice glacer, get studs. If you live in snow and slush, go studless. In between, decide how badly you really need smooth ice traction, and how much other traction you're willing to give up to get it.

Studs are only worth having if you're driving on ice, so unless you regularly drive on icy roads there's no need to get them. I'm not a fan of studs at all as they're hell on the roads, annoyingly loud, screw up your handling, hurt your fuel economy, and cost more to boot.

Bryce

Nashco wrote: Studs are only worth having if you're driving on ice, so unless you regularly drive on icy roads there's no need to get them. I'm not a fan of studs at all as they're hell on the roads, annoyingly loud, screw up your handling, hurt your fuel economy, and cost more to boot. Bryce

Spoken like a true Portlander! I hate the idiots around here that run studs all winter long and tear up the roads with them. They're still usually found on the side of the road in the ditch when we do get a couple of days of snow/ice.

fiat22turbo wrote: Spoken like a true Portlander! I hate the idiots around here that run studs all winter long and tear up the roads with them. They're still usually found on the side of the road in the ditch when we do get a couple of days of snow/ice.

Well, yeah. Why would they need to change their driving for the conditions? They have studded tires!

What about the possibility of studs reducing dry and wet road grip?

Pft! Everybody knows that studs are great for dry grip, I mean, how could a tire possibly NOT grip the road better with a whole bunch of metal spikes grabbing it?!