The 2023 Tyre Reviews UHP winter tyre test was an unusual test for Tyre Reviews. Due to travel schedules I was unable to drive the snow part of the testing, and as these tyres have been tested before this year I wouldn't have usually run such a similar test again, but this one had the possibility of a real world wear test which is hard to say no to.
The results, well they are very interesting and shine a new light on some of the products tested.
This test used a Ford Mustang to test the large 255/40 R19 ultra high performance winter tyre test, and the fact we tested wear means we could also test the tyres at a worn state, and due to the timing of the testing, there was the opportunity to test wet braking at warm and cooler temperatures.
This is a tyre test for the real geeks, so I'll be concentrating on the data heavily.
Testing Methodology
Test Driver
Jonathan Benson
Tyre Size
255/40 R19
Test Location
Professional Proving Ground
Test Year
2023
Tyres Tested
6
Show full testing methodologyHide methodology
Every tyre is tested using calibrated instrumented measurement and structured subjective assessment. Reference tyres are retested throughout each session to correct for changing conditions, ensuring fair, repeatable comparisons. Multiple reference sets are used where needed so that control tyre wear does not affect accuracy.
We use professional-grade testing equipment including GPS data loggers, accelerometers, and calibrated microphones. All tyres are broken in and conditioned before testing begins. For full details on our equipment, preparation process, and calibration procedures, see our complete testing methodology.
Categories Tested
Dry Braking
For dry braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 110 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on clean, dry asphalt. I typically use an 100–5 km/h measurement window. My standard programme is five runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. Reference tyres are run repeatedly throughout the session to correct for changing conditions.
Dry Handling
For dry handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable. For more track-focused products, I also do endurance testing, which is a set number of laps at race pace to determine tire wear patterns and heat resistance over longer driving.
Subj. Dry Handling
Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated dry handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Wet Braking
For wet braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 88 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on an asphalt surface with a controlled water film. I typically use an 80–5 km/h measurement window to isolate tyre performance from variability in the initial brake application. My standard programme is eight runs per tyre set where possible, although the sequence can extend to as many as fifteen runs if conditions and tyre category justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. To correct for changing conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly throughout the session — in wet testing, typically every three candidate test sets.
Wet Braking - Cool
This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but is conducted at cooler ambient temperatures, typically below 7°C. The lower temperature allows assessment of how each tyre's compound performs when cold, which is particularly relevant for all-season and winter tyre evaluation. Reference tyres are run at the same frequency as the standard wet braking programme.
Wet Braking - Worn
This test follows the same procedure as the standard wet braking test — entry speed of 88 km/h, full ABS braking, VBOX measurement over the 80–5 km/h window — but uses tyres that have been worn to low tread depth, typically around 2mm. This evaluates how each tyre performs as its tread wears down, which is a critical safety metric. Many tyres lose significant wet braking performance at lower tread depths, and this test quantifies that degradation.
Wet Handling
For wet handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated handling circuit. I generally use specialist wet circuits with kerb-watering systems designed to maintain a consistent surface condition. ESC is disabled where possible so I can assess the tyre's natural balance, transient response, and limit behaviour without electronic intervention masking the result. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, depending on the circuit, tyre type, and consistency of conditions. I exclude laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Control runs are carried out frequently throughout the session, and I often use multiple sets of control tyres so that wear on the references does not become a meaningful variable.
Subj. Wet Handling
Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated wet handling circuit. I score steering precision, steering response, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, aquaplaning resistance, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Wet Circle
For wet lateral grip testing, I use a circular track of fixed radius, typically between 30 and 50 metres, broadly aligned with ISO 4138 principles. The surface is wetted in a controlled and repeatable manner. I progressively increase speed until the maximum sustainable cornering speed is reached. I normally record multiple laps in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions to reduce the influence of camber, banking, or directional track bias. I then calculate average lateral acceleration and compare the result with the reference tyre.
Straight Aqua
To measure straight-line aquaplaning resistance, I drive one side of the vehicle through a water trough of controlled depth, typically around 7 mm, while the opposite side remains on dry pavement. I enter at a fixed speed and then accelerate progressively. I define aquaplaning onset as the point at which the wheel travelling through the water exceeds a specified slip threshold relative to the dry-side reference wheel. I usually perform four runs per tyre set and average the valid results.
Curved Aquaplaning
For curved aquaplaning, I use a circular track, typically around 100 metres in diameter, with a flooded arc of controlled water depth, usually about 7 mm. The vehicle is instrumented with GPS telemetry and a tri-axial accelerometer. I drive through the flooded section at progressively increasing speed, typically in 5 km/h increments, and record the minimum sustained lateral acceleration at each step. The test continues until lateral acceleration collapses, indicating complete aquaplaning. The result is expressed as remaining lateral acceleration in m/s² as speed rises.
Snow Braking
For snow braking, I drive the test vehicle at an entry speed of 50 km/h and apply full braking effort to a standstill with ABS active on a groomed, compacted snow surface, measuring 45-5 km/h. I generally use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever brakes on the same piece of snow twice. My standard programme is twelve runs per tyre set, although the sequence can extend further if the data justify it. I analyse the full set of runs and discard statistical outliers before averaging. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. To correct for changing snow surface conditions, I run reference tyres repeatedly — typically every two candidate test sets.
Snow Traction
For snow traction, I accelerate the vehicle from rest on a groomed snow surface with traction control active and measure speed and time using GPS telemetry. I typically use a 5–35 km/h measurement window to reduce the influence of launch transients and powertrain irregularities. I use a wide VDA (vehicle dynamic area) and progressively move across the surface between runs so that no tyre ever accelerates on the same piece of snow twice. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. I complete multiple runs per tyre set and average the valid results. Reference tyres are run typically every two candidate test sets to correct for changing snow surface conditions.
Snow Handling
For snow handling, I drive at the limit of adhesion around a dedicated snow handling circuit with ESC disabled where possible. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I usually complete between two and five timed laps per tyre set, excluding laps affected by clear driver error or obvious environmental inconsistency. Because snow surfaces degrade more rapidly than asphalt, control runs are carried out more frequently — typically every two candidate test sets.
Subj. Snow Handling
Objective data is only part of the picture, so I also carry out a structured subjective handling assessment at the limit of adhesion on a dedicated snow handling circuit. The circuit is groomed and prepared after every run while tyres are being changed, so each set runs on a consistently prepared surface. I score steering precision, turn-in behaviour, mid-corner balance, corner-exit traction, breakaway characteristics, and overall confidence on snow using a standardised 1–10 scale used consistently across my testing. The final assessment combines numeric scoring with written technical commentary. I complete familiarisation laps on the control tyre before evaluating each candidate.
Snow Slalom
My slalom layout is variable rather than fixed, with cone count and spacing adjusted to suit the vehicle, tyre category, and objective of the programme. On snow, the test is designed to evaluate transient response, lateral grip recovery, body control during rapid load transfer, and steering precision on a low-friction surface. The surface is regularly groomed throughout the session. Timing is usually recorded using VBOX rather than light gates. I average the valid runs and, where appropriate, disable ESC so the result reflects the tyre's behaviour rather than the intervention strategy of the vehicle.
Subj. Comfort
To assess comfort, I drive on a wide range of road surfaces (often dedicated comfort tracks at test facilities) at speeds from 50 to 120 km/h, including smooth motorway, coarse surfaces, expansion joints, broken pavement, and sharp-edged obstacles. I evaluate primary ride quality, secondary ride quality, impact harshness, seat-transmitted vibration, and the tyre's ability to absorb sharp inputs. Ratings are assigned on a 1–10 scale relative to the reference tyre.
Noise
I measure external pass-by noise in accordance with UNECE Regulation 117 and ISO 13325 using the coast-by method on a compliant test surface. Calibrated microphones are positioned beside the test lane, and the vehicle coasts through the measurement zone under controlled conditions. I record the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level in dB(A), complete multiple runs over the relevant speed range, and normalise the result to the reference speed required by the procedure.
Wear
I do not conduct tread wear testing myself; where wear is included in a programme, it is carried out by a contracted specialist test provider using either an on-road convoy method or an accelerated machine-based method. In convoy wear testing, multiple vehicles run a defined public-road route over an extended distance, with tread depth measured at intervals and tyres rotated methodically to reduce positional and vehicle-specific effects. In accelerated machine wear testing, the tyre is run on a specialised roadwheel or rough-surfaced drum system designed to simulate real-world wear under controlled load, speed, alignment, and force inputs. I then use the contracted provider's measured wear rate relative to the reference tyre to estimate projected tread life.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance is measured under controlled laboratory conditions in accordance with ISO 28580 and UNECE Regulation 117 Annex 6. The tyre is mounted on a test wheel and loaded against a large-diameter steel drum. After thermal stabilisation at the prescribed test speed, rolling resistance force is measured at the spindle and corrected according to the relevant procedure. The result is expressed as rolling resistance coefficient, typically in kg/tonne.
In the dry the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005 proved to be the best at stopping the car, impressively beating the Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 which usually dominates the category. The Michelin did have the best subjective results when analysing the balance of the vehicle across the lap and during emergency lane changes.
Dry Braking
Spread: 1.30 M (3.1%)|Avg: 42.38 M
Dry braking in meters (100 - 0 km/h) [Average Temperature 17.5c] (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
41.70 M
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
42.00 M
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
42.10 M
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
42.60 M
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
42.90 M
Superia Bluewin UHP2
43.00 M
Michelin jumped back to the front for dry handling, ahead of the Vredestein Wintrac Pro.
Dry Handling
Spread: 2.44 s (4.7%)|Avg: 53.25 s
Dry handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 19.5c] (Lower is better)
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
52.46 s
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
52.87 s
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
53.01 s
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
53.09 s
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
53.18 s
Superia Bluewin UHP2
54.90 s
Wet
When it comes to winter tyres and wet grip, it's always been difficult to beat the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, and this test is no different with the Japanese tyre having a large advantage over the second placed Vredestein and Continental pairing.
Wet Braking
Spread: 5.80 M (21%)|Avg: 30.82 M
Wet braking in meters (80 - 0 km/h) [Average Temperature 19.5c] (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
27.60 M
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
30.50 M
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
30.50 M
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
31.30 M
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
31.60 M
Superia Bluewin UHP2
33.40 M
The Bridgestone still led in the cooler wet braking test, but it's advantage was smaller, and Continental jumped above the Vredestein. The order otherwise remained the same.
Wet Braking - Cool
Spread: 3.20 M (10.4%)|Avg: 32.20 M
Wet braking at cooler temperature in meters (80 - 0 km/h) [Average Temperature 7.5c] (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
30.70 M
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
31.20 M
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
31.60 M
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
32.90 M
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
32.90 M
Superia Bluewin UHP2
33.90 M
Usually worn wet braking is conducted with the tyres buffed down to the same tread depth. We didn't have the chance to do this, but as we had worn tyres from the wear test I wanted the data to see how they'd brake at their post-wear tread depth.
The order was surprisingly similar, especially when you consider the Bridgestone had much lower tread depth compared to some of its rivals (more on that in a bit.) As this is an unusual way of doing a worn wet braking, the overall weighting of this test is very low in the final results. The worn depth of the tyres can be found in the wear section.
Wet Braking - Worn
Spread: 9.50 M (29.1%)|Avg: 35.47 M
Wet braking at Low Tread Depth (80 - 0 km/h) [Average Temperature 22c] (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
32.70 M
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
32.90 M
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
33.20 M
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
34.60 M
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
37.20 M
Superia Bluewin UHP2
42.20 M
Bridgestone remained at the front for the wet handling test, with the Continental close behind, with both tyres leading the subjective scoring.
Wet Handling
Spread: 7.20 s (8.5%)|Avg: 86.98 s
Wet handling time in seconds [Average Temperature 10c] (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
84.77 s
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
85.01 s
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
85.73 s
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
86.57 s
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
87.85 s
Superia Bluewin UHP2
91.97 s
Bridgestone was the fastest around the wet circle.
Wet Circle
Spread: 0.62 s (5.2%)|Avg: 12.12 s
Wet Circle Lap Time in seconds [Average Temperature 12c] (Lower is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
11.81 s
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
12.02 s
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
12.05 s
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
12.09 s
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
12.32 s
Superia Bluewin UHP2
12.43 s
The Bridgestone also had the best straight and curved aquaplaning result, rounding it out as undoubtedly the best winter tyre in the wet.
Straight Aqua
Spread: 12.50 Km/H (12.5%)|Avg: 93.40 Km/H
Float Speed in Km/H (Higher is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
100.10 Km/H
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
94.90 Km/H
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
92.80 Km/H
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
92.60 Km/H
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
92.40 Km/H
Superia Bluewin UHP2
87.60 Km/H
Curved Aquaplaning
Spread: 2.06 m/sec2 (62.8%)|Avg: 2.23 m/sec2
Remaining lateral acceleration (Higher is better)
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
3.28 m/sec2
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
2.37 m/sec2
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
2.32 m/sec2
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
2.30 m/sec2
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
1.87 m/sec2
Superia Bluewin UHP2
1.22 m/sec2
Snow
The snowmaster Michelin Pilot Alpin 5 proved once again it was the best in snow braking.
Snow Braking
Spread: 0.50 M (3.1%)|Avg: 16.19 M
Snow braking in meters (40 - 0 km/h) [Average Temperature -8.5c] (Lower is better)
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
15.93 M
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
16.11 M
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
16.11 M
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
16.21 M
Superia Bluewin UHP2
16.36 M
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
16.43 M
The Michelin also led the snow traction test, with the Hankook Winter I*Cept evo3 close behind.
Snow Traction
Spread: 0.87 s (11%)|Avg: 8.26 s
Snow acceleration time (0 - 20 km/h) [Average Temperature -8.5c] (Lower is better)
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
7.93 s
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
7.94 s
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
8.20 s
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
8.34 s
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
8.36 s
Superia Bluewin UHP2
8.80 s
The Michelin was also the best during snow handling with the subjective driver reporting it was also the best subjectively.
Snow Handling
Spread: 2.80 s (3.5%)|Avg: 80.69 s
Snow handling time in seconds [Average Temperature -4c] (Lower is better)
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
79.76 s
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
80.00 s
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
80.32 s
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
80.48 s
Superia Bluewin UHP2
81.04 s
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
82.56 s
Comfort
The budget winter tyre was best in the external passby noise test.
Noise
Spread: 3.80 dB (5.3%)|Avg: 72.93 dB
External noise in dB (Lower is better)
Superia Bluewin UHP2
71.30 dB
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
72.00 dB
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
72.40 dB
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
73.10 dB
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
73.70 dB
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
75.10 dB
Value
We always expect Michelin products to do best in wear, and we were not disappointed with their predicted tread life to 1.6mm being the best in test! However interestingly if you live in an area where there is a 4mm law for winter tyres, the Vredestein proved to be the best as it started with a higher tread depth than the Michelin and still had an excellent wear compound.
The wear was tested on a fleet of FWD Audi A6s, driven for 12,120km, and the wear was averaged between the two front tyres to calculate down to 4mm and 1.6mm.
Tyre
Starting Tread Depth
Tread depth at 12,120km
Projected wear to 4mm
Projected wear to 1.6mm
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
8mm
4.3mm
11,375mm
17,420km
Continental WinterContact TS870P
8.5mm
6.5mm
17,500km
26,000km
Hankook Winter I*Cept Evo 3
8.5mm
6.4mm
16,100km
25,180km
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
7.6mm
5.9mm
19,075km
31,460km
Superia Bluewin UHP2
6.6mm
3.3mm
6,300km
16,640km
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
8.5mm
6.9mm
20,125km
30,160km
Please note that wear is non-linear, tyres wear faster during the first few thousand miles. The tyres are measured at least ten times during the wear test and the projected wear calculations are made from the data points after the wear has stabilised, which is why the numbers above don't line up if you straight calculate it.
In terms of purchase price, the budget Superia winter tyre proved to be very cheap to buy, less than half the price of the next cheapest product.
Price
Spread: 176.73 (253.4%)|Avg: 185.73
Price in local currency (Lower is better)
Superia Bluewin UHP2
69.73
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
172.34
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
185.85
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
216.22
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
223.80
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
246.46
With wear and purchase price we can calculate one of the most important metrics, cost per 1000 km driven. Thanks to the exceptional mileage and low purchase price, the Vredestein Wintrac Pro had a clear advantage in this test. The budget tyre, which was so cheap to buy didn't offer much of an value advantage when compared to the tyres which actually offered grip in the dry, wet and snow.
The big loser of the value category was the Bridgestone Blizzak LM005, which compared high wear with a high purchase price to make it significantly more expensive than the Michelin and Continental per 1000 km driven.
Vredestein sadly undid some of it's amazing value work by having the highest rolling resistance of the test, with the Hankook and Continental the only tyres to sneak under the 8kg/t mark.
Rolling Resistance
Spread: 1.46 kg / t (18.6%)|Avg: 8.36 kg / t
Rolling resistance in kg t (Lower is better)
Hankook Winter i cept evo3
7.84 kg / t
Continental WinterContact TS 870 P
7.97 kg / t
Superia Bluewin UHP2
8.02 kg / t
Michelin Pilot Alpin 5
8.45 kg / t
Bridgestone Blizzak LM005
8.58 kg / t
Vredestein Wintrac Pro
9.30 kg / t
Results
So, the big question is, how important is wear? If it was a summer or all season test, it would be unquestionably important, and to the people who do a lot of miles on your winter tyres, then again it's important. But if you're a person who's winter tyres age out before they wear out, and you just want the best grip overall, then it's less of a thing for you.
In summary, if wear isn't important to you as your winter tyres age out before they wear out, the Bridgestone is still very hard to beat. In the final rankings I am including wear as I do think it's important to more people than it's not, so the winner of this test was once again the Continental Wintercontact TS870P proving that not only does it have good grip in all conditions, as we've seen in other tests, but also that it wears well too.
That's not to say the Michelin and Vredestein aren't also great tyres from this test, the gap between the top three was incredibly tiny, and the Hankook once again proved to be a solid winter tyre.
Worst grip in the dry, wet, and snow. Highest wear on test meaning even with the cheap purchase price, it's cost per 1000km driven is still similar to the tyres with grip.