Winter Cycling - Nokian A10's - don't seem to be cutting it

I went down twice today. Once from rear wheel slip and the other front. Both on moderate hills featuring glare ice covered with a thin layer of new, loose snow.

Granted, that's a slippery combination but the studs didn't seem to be grabbing much at all. The tires are rated at 65 psi and I had them inflated to about 45 or so.

Too few studs I'm thinking. In past years I've used Kenda Klondikes and it's not like they're perfect in all conditions or anything. But they seemed to have little trouble on ice.

On flat surfaces the Nokians seem to be OK on ice.

I have Marathon Winters (240) studs in St. Cloud, so the conditions are probably very similar to yours. On glare ice or hardpack they are fantastic, but, they progressively get worse and worse depending on how much loose snow is on the road. I've never fell, but I've had to get off sometimes and push if the snow is too deep or chewed up on backroads.

I have Marathon Winters (240) studs in St. Cloud, so the conditions are probably very similar to yours. On glare ice or hardpack they are fantastic, but, they progressively get worse and worse depending on how much loose snow is on the road. I've never fell, but I've had to get off sometimes and push if the snow is too deep or chewed up on backroads.

In this case the falls were due to the ice more than the snow. There was less than 1/2" of snow on top of the ice. The bike just went right out from under me. I'm very familiar with the conditions you're describing and I've always had difficulty with that. I don't remember having as much trouble with ice.

As I'm sure you're seeing right now the situation on the ride home will be a lot different. There could be a few inches of new snow by then.

Perhaps the low pressure you were running was contributing to the problem... narrower and higher pressure tires are able to cut down through a loose snow/slush cover and hit the hard ground below... lower pressures and wider tires are sometimes able to 'float' on top - where there is no traction at all (except the traction loose snow has against the ice underneath.

When I lived in the city I rode all winter with 700 X 35 tires (no studs - the roads were too salty to get icy in all but the coldest temps) and I never had a problem on snowy or slushy roads, but when I tried riding my mtb with 26 X 2.2" tires I was skating around like crazy!

Could be a lack of studs. Looking at the stud pattern of the A10, there's not many there.

I run M&Gs, and have found that a pressure of 25-30 pounds places the most studs on the ice and provides the best all-around traction for my 26" tires. A few days ago conditions were ice covered by 0-2" of snow and they worked well.

Prior to that, at 45 pounds of pressure, they slipped all over.

I would lower the pressure down and try it out a few times before switching.

Could be a lack of studs. Looking at the stud pattern of the A10, there's not many there.

I run M&Gs, and have found that a pressure of 25-30 pounds places the most studs on the ice and provides the best all-around traction for my 26" tires. A few days ago conditions were ice covered by 0-2" of snow and they worked well.

Prior to that, at 45 pounds of pressure, they slipped all over.

I would lower the pressure down and try it out a few times before switching.

I'm running M&Gs at 35-40 lbs and have generally had no issues. I guess its all subject to how you feel when riding. I will say to the OP that it may be due to the snow. The A10 tread pattern doesn't look that aggressive, so even 1/2 inch of snow may have been enough to prevent the studs from getting down to the ice. I've had issues with slipping on snow over glare ice before also, even with more aggressive tread and more studs. I like Peter White's comments. Think of studs as sand on ice. You can walk, but if you run, expect to slip. The A10 just doesn't provide that much "sand" to work with.

This winter is my first with studded tires, Hakkapeliitta W240s. I do notice a couple of limitations:
* there is a joyful feeling when your front tires gets hooked up in icy ruts or tracks. So far I've always been able to pull myself out, but it has been close.
* in snow on ice, particularly anything over an inch or two, I still get that rear tire fishtailing thing that I used to get with my WTB knobbies.
* I am turned into a panicky wimp every time I descend on ice.
* after an hour or two of riding, my legs feel like I've just done a marathon

However, haven't fallen on ice yet (with studded tires) and realize they take me through some terrain that I would never have dreamed of navigating without them.

I was inclined to get something like A10s based on the amount of ice we usually get around here. However, this winter is proving to be exceptional.

After going down again on my way home (3rd time today), I'd pretty much lost confidence in the bike/tires.

Late this evening I decided to do a little head to head comparison to the Kenda Klondikes I'd used in previous years so I got the old Rock Hopper down from the rafters and took it for ride. Immediately it felt alot better. There was still some wheel slip but it seemed more manageable.

To be fair to the A10s, I took the Peugeot for another ride. It actually felt a lot better than earlier. Could have been the colder temps or maybe the snow was just more packed. I deliberately took both bikes through the types of snow/ice combinations that had caused me some grief earlier. No crashes. Both slipped some but Peugeot with the A10s felt less stable. There wasn't as marked a difference as I thought there might be, but there was a difference.

When I got them back to the garage I noticed quite a difference in the tires that you'll see in this pic:

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff216/tjspiel/bikeforum/a10vsKlondike.jpg

The A10s don't appear to shed the snow as well.

My dilemma is what to do. I could go back to the Rock Hopper and the Klondikes but it's slow as molasses when road conditions are good. I could alternate between the bikes as conditions warrant. The problem with that is we have limited floor space in the garage which is why the Rock Hopper was hanging. Finally, I could switch to a different road bike that'll take 35's and buy some Marathon Winters or W106s. That would have to wait until next year.

Just an idea--you said that you keep your mountain bike in the garage--do you keep your other bike inside? If so, bringing a warm bike out into the cold will cause more ice and snow to stick to all surfaces, including the tires. I keep my winter bike at "outside temperature" all winter.

Just a thought.

It's interesting to hear experience from someone who's actually been riding A10's in the snow. Theories and looks are interesting, but real world experience is the only way to know for sure if something works or doesn't.

And it sounds like it doesn't. The fact that the A10's don't work in snow isn't surprising, though - looking at pics, it looks like a summer road tire, whereas other studded tires like the w106 look more like a mountain bike tire. It sounds like the A10 is only really good for pretty snow free conditions - like when it's a high of 45 during the day, so it doesn't snow but water refreezes at night when you commute home (or in the morning) so you want studs for the ice.

Thanks for posting your experience - I was thinking about getting a pair of the Schwalbe Marathon Winter studded tires for my bike, but maybe the more mountain-bike-looking Nokian w106's would be necessary for the snow. Hmm...

Just an idea--you said that you keep your mountain bike in the garage--do you keep your other bike inside? If so, bringing a warm bike out into the cold will cause more ice and snow to stick to all surfaces, including the tires. I keep my winter bike at "outside temperature" all winter.

Just a thought.

Both had been in the garage for several hours before I tried this but there may be something to it. The road bike lives out in the garage just like the mountain bike but it is kept in my office during the day. It could be that the warm tires did impact my ride home. The Nokians were already packed with snow before I did my comparison ride so maybe the test was a little unfair. However, I crashed twice on my way into work that morning and the bike had been outside since about 5:30 the previous evening.

It's interesting to hear experience from someone who's actually been riding A10's in the snow. Theories and looks are interesting, but real world experience is the only way to know for sure if something works or doesn't.

And it sounds like it doesn't. The fact that the A10's don't work in snow isn't surprising, though - looking at pics, it looks like a summer road tire, whereas other studded tires like the w106 look more like a mountain bike tire. It sounds like the A10 is only really good for pretty snow free conditions - like when it's a high of 45 during the day, so it doesn't snow but water refreezes at night when you commute home (or in the morning) so you want studs for the ice.

Thanks for posting your experience - I was thinking about getting a pair of the Schwalbe Marathon Winter studded tires for my bike, but maybe the more mountain-bike-looking Nokian w106's would be necessary for the snow. Hmm...

Well, my summer road tires are 23mm slicks and trust me, the A10s are nothing like those !

I'm not quite sure what the A10s are good for. A couple of weeks earlier I wiped out going up a hill on glare ice. There was no snow at all. Now this is a road bike with an aggressive geometry so that may have contributed to the problem with rear wheel spin. I also may have been standing instead of sitting.

I've had some slip with the klondikes on the same hill but in that case, there was water running down on top of the ice and while the rear wheel was slipping some, I was no where near falling.

To be fair, most of the time the A10s have been fine. I get more rear wheel slip than I'm used to but it's usually not much of a problem. Drivers have been loudly complaining to the DOT about road conditions this year and they just throw up their hand and say it's been just a nasty combination of temps, rain, ice, and snow.

Nevertheless, I have trouble recommending them (at least the 32mm version) for anyone. There aren't enough studs in the right places for ice, and the tread pattern isn't aggressive enough for much snow. They work well on hard pack. They're fine on ice if you're on flat ground.

The one thing they do seem better at than my 1.95" klondikes is going through and over small snow banks. I'm not sure why, but the tires like those.

Good to know.

I ended up with Marathon Winters because I couldn't find Nokians anywhere, but their rolling resistance on dry roads had me wishing I'd gotten the A10s.... Never will I indulge in such foolish reverie again!

Good to know.

I ended up with Marathon Winters because I couldn't find Nokians anywhere, but their rolling resistance on dry roads had me wishing I'd gotten the A10s.... Never will I indulge in such foolish reverie again!

You were forced to make the right choice ;)

The A10s are nice (for a studded tire) on pavement, but that's not what you buy studded tires for. It's really too bad. They're the only studded tire available as far as I know in a 32mm size. I think a few more studs and having them placed closer to the center of the tire would make all the difference on ice.

I could have lived with the shortcomings on snow. I know before I go out if I'm going to encounter much snow or not. Ice is more insidious.

Well, I just ordered some Nokian A10's. With winter nearing an end, I was beginning to think that running 240's was more than necessary. I was planning on having the A10's on one bike, and the 240's on another. For the mostly dry streets I have now (no new snow for weeks), I crave a smoother ride, but the 240's will be ready to go in case more snow falls. I hope this isn't a mistake.

BTW- the 240's have served me well in packed snow, ice, and fresh snow. No complaints other than the effort it takes to roll with them.

Could the low pressure allow the studs to push into the tire instead of grip on the ice?

oh yeah way too few studs

true trust can only be had with a lotta studs. like 300....or bare minumum, twice what a10 has
which is 72

Could the low pressure allow the studs to push into the tire instead of grip on the ice?

this is true, but the a10 only has very few studs to begin with. prob not his issue

Well, I just ordered some Nokian A10's. With winter nearing an end, I was beginning to think that running 240's was more than necessary. I was planning on having the A10's on one bike, and the 240's on another. For the mostly dry streets I have now (no new snow for weeks), I crave a smoother ride, but the 240's will be ready to go in case more snow falls. I hope this isn't a mistake.

BTW- the 240's have served me well in packed snow, ice, and fresh snow. No complaints other than the effort it takes to roll with them.

I'm really thinking that two bikes is the way to go. I pulled the A10s off my bike and put on one W106 and one Marathon Winter. I still had trouble with snow covered ice. The streets have improved a lot in the last week but I still have about a 2 mile stretch with a lot of uneven ice. The A10s would have been OK on that but not as good as the 106s or the Marathons. Earlier in the season I was trying to climb a moderate grade hill covered with glare ice. With the A10s my rear wheel kept sliding out from under me. With other studded tires I'll get some slippage in those conditions but not as bad.

What is nice about the A10s is that they do roll well for a studded tire.

So next year I may be getting yet another set of studded tires, this time for my MTB. This bike will be my "get through anything" bike and I'll reserve my road bike with the 106/Marathon combination for moderately bad to good conditions.

I'm really thinking that two bikes is the way to go. I pulled the A10s off my bike and put on one W106 and one Marathon Winter. I still had trouble with snow covered ice. The streets have improved a lot in the last week but I still have about a 2 mile stretch with a lot of uneven ice. The A10s would have been OK on that but not as good as the 106s or the Marathons. Earlier in the season I was trying to climb a moderate grade hill covered with glare ice. With the A10s my rear wheel kept sliding out from under me. With other studded tires I'll get some slippage in those conditions but not as bad.

What is nice about the A10s is that they do roll well for a studded tire.

So next year I may be getting yet another set of studded tires, this time for my MTB. This bike will be my "get through anything" bike and I'll reserve my road bike with the 106/Marathon combination for moderately bad to good conditions.

I wonder what would happen if you just put a tougher studded tire in front but a faster one in the rear? Obviously not an A10, but like a 106 or a Marathon Winter in the rear. If you had 2 wheels for the front (swapping front wheels take like 30 seconds max, right?) you could put a w106 on one wheel and a w240 on the other then use the one most suited to your riding conditions. What do you think?

(P.S. I always feel obligated to mention, for anyone reading my comments about this that I would *never* run a studded tire in the front but not in the rear. Different levels of studs in the front and rear are a different story, though.)

I wonder what would happen if you just put a tougher studded tire in front but a faster one in the rear? Obviously not an A10, but like a 106 or a Marathon Winter in the rear. If you had 2 wheels for the front (swapping front wheels take like 30 seconds max, right?) you could put a w106 on one wheel and a w240 on the other then use the one most suited to your riding conditions. What do you think?

(P.S. I always feel obligated to mention, for anyone reading my comments about this that I would *never* run a studded tire in the front but not in the rear. Different levels of studs in the front and rear are a different story, though.)

On my current road bike swapping the wheels requires deflating bigger tires (like 35mm), otherwise I can't get them past the brake pads. It would be quicker to grab another bike, - as long as the garage is clean enough to keep two handy ;)

(P.S. I always feel obligated to mention, for anyone reading my comments about this that I would *never* run a studded tire in the front but not in the rear. Different levels of studs in the front and rear are a different story, though.)

Am puzzled by this comment. During mild winters, I might ride for months with a front studded tire and a regular tire in the rear. What have I been doing wrong?? Think that I could have died, without learning the truth...

Am puzzled by this comment. During mild winters, I might ride for months with a front studded tire and a regular tire in the rear. What have I been doing wrong?? Think that I could have died, without learning the truth...

Um, perhaps you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today?

I just didn't want to get off topic with an explanation.

3 people I know started out with a studded front tire and rode it for months just fine, then had a spectacular crash because they didn't have any traction on the rear tire. That's what they told me. They went and bought a new rear studded tire right after that.

*3 people I know in person*'s experience is enough for me to never recommend anyone else give it a try.

You're free to do what you want, and here in Minnesota we likely get more snow and ice than you get with your seemingly easy-going winters. But we're talking about recommendations, not forcing anyone to do anything, and I would never recommend doing just one - from talking to people who do it regularly, it's my experience that if you need 1 studded tire you need both.

3 people I know started out with a studded front tire and rode it for months just fine, then had a spectacular crash because they didn't have any traction on the rear tire. That's what they told me. They went and bought a new rear studded tire right after that.

Hmm... Per one bike that I use, I have 4 studded tires, so if put only one on, it is not for the lack of tires, but because that action is reasonable under conditions.



You're free to do what you want, and here in Minnesota we likely get more snow and ice than you get with your seemingly easy-going winters. But we're talking about recommendations, not forcing anyone to do anything, and I would never recommend doing just one - from talking to people who do it regularly, it's my experience that if you need 1 studded tire you need both.

The circumstances for riding with one studded tire are those of mild winter conditions, so I am puzzled how having harsher conditions is supposed to provide more experience with regard to the above. You make a generalization that is simply incorrect to put it bluntly. When there is some snow and occasional ice, a front studded tire will provide a reasonable steering and a regular rear tire will give most of the traction one needs. When pushing it into any sort of conditions, such as riding on pure ice, I am sure one can get into trouble. This in itself does not make the statement valid of the general need to put on both tires studded.

I'll go even further and say that from experience, I'd rather have a high-stud-count tire on the front and a regular knobby on the back than matching low-stud-count tires.

This is not intended to be advice to a novice, and there are a number of situations where this set-up is problematic. But I use it and I'm just fine, and I enjoy the little bit of speed I get from a lighter rear wheel. Other times I use no studs, or lots of studs front and rear.

There is no single solution to winter tire setup on a bicycle.

Hmm... Per one bike that I use, I have 4 studded tires, so if put only one on, it is not for the lack of tires, but because that action is reasonable under conditions.



The circumstances for riding with one studded tire are those of mild winter conditions, so I am puzzled how having harsher conditions is supposed to provide more experience with regard to the above. You make a generalization that is simply incorrect to put it bluntly. When there is some snow and occasional ice, a front studded tire will provide a reasonable steering and a regular rear tire will give most of the traction one needs. When pushing it into any sort of conditions, such as riding on pure ice, I am sure one can get into trouble. This in itself does not make the statement valid of the general need to put on both tires studded.

I went to winter biking clinic put on by a local bike coop in the fall of 2007. In the opinion of the guy from the coop, studded tires were a waste of money and his advice was to take public transportation on the few days a year where conditions made biking too dangerous.

There are others like him who ride year round without studs. My guess is though that they stick mostly to well trafficked streets where any ice or snow wears away quickly. That's fine if you can do that.

Unfortunately I've become well schooled in winter crashes. In my 4 seasons of winter riding I've had a few front wheel related mishaps but no rear wheel crashes up until this year. This year I've had the rear wheel slide out from under me twice. Once was on a relatively mild day when snow melted early in the day and coated a hill with ice when temps dropped a bit in the afternoon.

I understand the logic behind putting a studded tire on the front wheel only, especially if you don't need to worry about climbing a hill that may be icy. Personally though my studded tires go on after the first ice or snow and stay on until April. I like to go fast too, but I'm too lazy for tire switching unless I can leave it in a particular configuration for at least a couple of weeks.

I'm running A10s on a Pacer.

Rolling resistance is about the same as a Marathon Plus 32.

They handle some ice and some snow on the flats. It's a very square tire. It's not for cornering much, just going straight ahead and keeping the bike vertical.

They will not climb on anything beyond a small patch of ice or snow.

The stud count is so low that you will get slippage of a couple of inches between studs every time you apply power on even a small incline. The low stud count leads to the front sliding on anything gnarly and then it's game over.

They do what they are intended to do: light commuting on paved roads with enough gription to save you on the odd bit of ice.

I like them.

I also have Ice Spiker Pros on the bike I use for real snow and ice riding. Those hook up and stay hooked up even on the hills.

Hmm... Per one bike that I use, I have 4 studded tires, so if put only one on, it is not for the lack of tires, but because that action is reasonable under conditions.


Clearly from your post, if you only put one on it is because you choose to. But whether it is "reasonable" is a separate topic entirely.



The circumstances for riding with one studded tire are those of mild winter conditions, so I am puzzled how having harsher conditions is supposed to provide more experience with regard to the above. You make a generalization that is simply incorrect to put it bluntly. When there is some snow and occasional ice, a front studded tire will provide a reasonable steering and a regular rear tire will give most of the traction one needs. When pushing it into any sort of conditions, such as riding on pure ice, I am sure one can get into trouble. This in itself does not make the statement valid of the general need to put on both tires studded.

No, that statement is exactly why having no studs in the back doesn't work. When you hit glare ice, or what looks like snow but is a thing layer of powder on top of glare ice, your rear tire provides next to no traction if you turn at all. Rubber has practically no grip while turning on glare ice, though it has decent grip on that "ice mixed with half melted snow" stuff.

I really do think the difference here is illustrated by your statement that "When pushing it into any sort of conditions, such as riding on pure ice, I am sure one can get into trouble. This in itself does not make the statement valid of the general need to put on both tires studded".

Where I am, riding on pure ice is something that's going to happen to happen to you eventually if you commute all over the place on your bike. Just last night I ran into these conditions in my car, where melting snow led to a huge puddle (20 ft across) at the bottom of a hill which my car slid right over with no traction. Only the fact that I saw it before I hit it saved me from going off the road - and I assure you, there was no hope of turning with purely rubber tires once you hit that ice. The difference between my bike and my car is that my car doesn't fall over when I lose traction, it loses steering. Had I not seen it (with no other cars around), I might have simply ended up over the curb or crashed into a telephone pole, which would have been expensive but probably wouldn't have cause me any real injuries. Had I been on my bike, I would have fallen over and either been bruised but fine or seriously broken a bone.

Some people have a higher tolerance for risk than I do. I was in Phoenix last year renting a mountain bike, and the guy at the shop had his arm in a sling - broke it mountain biking. His attitude was "That happens sometimes. Eventually I'll be to old to deal with broken bones, but it's so much fun I'm going to keep at it until I reach that point!" Obviously, other people have a different idea of what's "acceptable risk". On the other hand, when I visit my parents I often bike over on our local MUP. My parents feel the sketchier section of the MUP is to sketchy for me to bike back at night on. I disagree, so (though I always keep an eye out) I bike back on it anyways.

To me, anything above the "summer biking" risk of having an accident is to high, especially when it's a matter of a relatively small amount of money, convenience, or speed so while I do recommend winter biking, I would never recommend doing it with only 1 studded tire. Obviously other people have different opinions, but for me the fact that 3 people I've personally met started with 1 studded tire and bought a 2nd one after a spectacular wipeout because they didn't have studs on the back is enough for me to say that I don't recommend it unless you're comfortable with the idea that there's a good chance you'll eventually break a bone. Some people are.

I have had similar experience to the OP but with Nashbar tires which I believe are made by Kendra. I bought the 26 " version 4 years ago and they are really reliable on ice and 'OK' in snow. The down side is they are heavy and slow. Like riding in sand.

Two years ago I bought clearance Nashbar 700x35 tires. They are much faster and lighter but also have less thread and studs. This winter I went down twice on slow turns on glare ice with the 700's. I also struggled to 'hook' up leaving stop signs on glare ice. I brought out the 26's and haven't gone down since. The 26's are much wider and I run lower psi so they really bite more.

I now use the 26's on really bad days and reserve the 700's for days when the roads are mostly clear and just a few rough patches. I treat the 700's almost like a cyclocross tire.

I went to winter biking clinic put on by a local bike coop in the fall of 2007. In the opinion of the guy from the coop, studded tires were a waste of money and his advice was to take public transportation on the few days a year where conditions made biking too dangerous

LOL.

Winter cycling clinic advice: Just ride the bus.

About one month ago I took a ride on frozen sea ice here in Helsinki. I have Nokian W106 studded tyres front and rear, several years old but still by no means worn out. They've been great on road this winter too.

There was no snow on the ice. It had formed quickly, maybe over a week or so, so it was the best kind (no freeze-thaw cycle, so no weaker ice layers in between). You could see right through it, which was unnerving at first. Weather was coldish, maybe -10C. I had great difficulty getting started due to almost no traction on ice. My boots and the unladen bike kept slipping in all directions. Once I got on saddle, studs provided enough grip to cautiously accelerate or brake. Absolutely no leaning on curves (heck, what curves, it took me the better half of a bay to manouver a careful U-turn).

Observations: riding on ice is fun. The W106, though a great winter tyre for road, is not the best choice for continuous glare ice surface. Riding on ice is fun. Stopping without crashing is very difficult. Getting going again is even more difficult, so don't stop. I might have had more traction if I had lowered tyre pressure, but I doubt it would have helped "cornering" one bit with these tyres. All long distance ice skaters have a lunatic grin permanently glued on their face, like Jack Nicholson in The Shining. I shudder to think how I looked to them, due to the fun part I may have mentioned already.

Regarding the A10, I believe the current model name is Hakkapeliitta Stud. I think the W106 has better thread design than A10/Stud for varying winter conditions. On glare ice conditions, I'd expect them to be about equal (that is, leaving something to be desired in one aspect or another). After this experience, if we had any harsher conditions, I'd have to start considering the W240s for commuting. More studs, and more evenly spread towards the sides of tyre too.

--J

About one month ago I took a ride on frozen sea ice here in Helsinki. I have Nokian W106 studded tyres front and rear, several years old but still by no means worn out. They've been great on road this winter too.

There was no snow on the ice. It had formed quickly, maybe over a week or so, so it was the best kind (no freeze-thaw cycle, so no weaker ice layers in between). You could see right through it, which was unnerving at first. Weather was coldish, maybe -10C. I had great difficulty getting started due to almost no traction on ice. My boots and the unladen bike kept slipping in all directions. Once I got on saddle, studs provided enough grip to cautiously accelerate or brake. Absolutely no leaning on curves (heck, what curves, it took me the better half of a bay to manouver a careful U-turn).

Observations: riding on ice is fun. The W106, though a great winter tyre for road, is not the best choice for continuous glare ice surface. Riding on ice is fun. Stopping without crashing is very difficult. Getting going again is even more difficult, so don't stop. I might have had more traction if I had lowered tyre pressure, but I doubt it would have helped "cornering" one bit with these tyres. All long distance ice skaters have a lunatic grin permanently glued on their face, like Jack Nicholson in The Shining. I shudder to think how I looked to them, due to the fun part I may have mentioned already.

Regarding the A10, I believe the current model name is Hakkapeliitta Stud. I think the W106 has better thread design than A10/Stud for varying winter conditions. On glare ice conditions, I'd expect them to be about equal (that is, leaving something to be desired in one aspect or another). After this experience, if we had any harsher conditions, I'd have to start considering the W240s for commuting. More studs, and more evenly spread towards the sides of tyre too.

--J

I'm really really not trying to sound argumentative, but this last weekend I took out my new winter bike with Schwalbe Marathon Winters on a hockey rink and while I wouldn't have been able to turn "fast", I had no problem turning or starting moving. My dad who recently installed the Nokian Mount and Ground's on his bike (the 26" equivalent of the 106's with studs in the middle but not on the side) had no problems starting from a stop or doing relatively slow turns either (though he almost fell over trying to do a quick turn). Do the 106's have less grip on ice than the Mount and Ground's?

Ice forming in different conditions has subtly different properties.

I used to ride my mountain bike on clear ice on a freshwater reservoir when I was at college... without any studs at all. There was no superb bike handling skills involved. It's just that while the ice was somewhat slippery, and visually looked smooth, there must have been some oddity of temperature or surface roughness that allowed rubber to stick just a little bit.

Similarly, my winter road conditions may vary from yours. And even with a non-studded tire on the back, or sometimes front and back, I don't think there is a "very good chance I will eventually break a bone"... at least not for that reason.

for me the fact that 3 people I've personally met started with 1 studded tire and bought a 2nd one after a spectacular wipeout because they didn't have studs on the back is enough for me to say that I don't recommend it unless you're comfortable with the idea that there's a good chance you'll eventually break a bone. Some people are.

Good. I'm glad that this ended up as a truth I could afford dying without knowing of.

I'm really really not trying to sound argumentative, but this last weekend I took out my new winter bike with Schwalbe Marathon Winters on a hockey rink and while I wouldn't have been able to turn "fast", I had no problem turning or starting moving. My dad who recently installed the Nokian Mount and Ground's on his bike (the 26" equivalent of the 106's with studs in the middle but not on the side) had no problems starting from a stop or doing relatively slow turns either (though he almost fell over trying to do a quick turn). Do the 106's have less grip on ice than the Mount and Ground's?

You should have been on the ice here in Helsinki in the beginning of January. It was impossible to walk on it at all. I was riding on it with W240s at both ends, and the speed maxed out around 50 km/h not because of insufficient power but insufficient traction. The traction of the rear tire was equal to the air resistance at that point (well, in truth, part of the problem is the pulse nature of pedal power where the force is not steady and then you get slip at the point where your pedals are horizontal). That is really silly, normally you have to approach the speed of sound on a land vehicle to hit that particular problem.

Starting from standstill was rather tricky, as just standing on a pedal led to the bike sliding all over and then falling over. What you had to do was to position a pedal almost but not quite on the bottom, then stand on that and start accelerating v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.

I've ridden on the ice here for thirty years, and that was the most slippery I've ever experienced.

Of course, in the end I hit a bad spot and had a nice swim. Juha can be glad he didn't have to do that.

I did wear a pair of ice spikes around my neck, just in case. I'm fairly confident I would have been able to pull myself out, but the bike would definitely have been lost. Hope you didn't lose yours, Teemu.

Regarding the traction on my trip: I pretty soon decided to follow some long distance ice skaters' tracks, for two reasons. First, I wasn't too sure the ice would hold my weight. I figured I'd either be safe following them, or at the very least fall in the same hole with them :). Second, just their skate blade marks on the ice made small but notable difference in traction. At one point local kids had been playing on the ice. Skate marks everywhere. Riding through that, I had no problems with slipping. Beyond that area, a push on the pedals (while riding seated) would again cause the rear wheel to lose grip.

--J

I did wear a pair of ice spikes around my neck, just in case. I'm fairly confident I would have been able to pull myself out, but the bike would definitely have been lost. Hope you didn't lose yours, Teemu.

Regarding the traction on my trip: I pretty soon decided to follow some long distance ice skaters' tracks, for two reasons. First, I wasn't too sure the ice would hold my weight. I figured I'd either be safe following them, or at the very least fall in the same hole with them :). Second, just their skate blade marks on the ice made small but notable difference in traction. At one point local kids had been playing on the ice. Skate marks everywhere. Riding through that, I had no problems with slipping. Beyond that area, a push on the pedals (while riding seated) would again cause the rear wheel to lose grip.

--J

20 years of playing broomball on outdoor rinks has taught me that not all ice is equal in terms of grip. In broomball you use special shoes instead of skates so you can easily feel the difference. We just finished up our 7th game this year and the ice hasn't been the same twice.

So I believe it when one person says he was riding on a hockey rink with ease and another person was having difficulty on a different ice covered surface.

20 years of playing broomball on outdoor rinks has taught me that not all ice is equal in terms of grip. In broomball you use special shoes instead of skates so you can easily feel the difference. We just finished up our 7th game this year and the ice hasn't been the same twice.

So I believe it when one person says he was riding on a hockey rink with ease and another person was having difficulty on a different ice covered surface.

Well fyi, I'm the person who replied about riding on a hockey rink and I'm not saying that what the guy said isn't true. I can certainly believe that, with some of the absolutely slipperiest ice you can find that the w106's are enough to stay upright but not really turn at all. I just responded because it sounded like they were saying the w106's weren't good enough for any ice, which wasn't my experience with similar tires, but it sounds like it's just that they aren't good enough for full control on extremely slippery ice, which I certainly find believable.

I just don't run across a lot of "perfect storm" ice conditions on my commute (and roads pretty much never have "perfect" ice on them) and that's my obsessive/compulsive obsession whenever anyone mentions anything concerning studded tires. :D

I did wear a pair of ice spikes around my neck, just in case. I'm fairly confident I would have been able to pull myself out, but the bike would definitely have been lost. Hope you didn't lose yours, Teemu.

The bike is not lost. It's just in storage. On the seafloor. But I know exactly where.

:o

...because it sounded like they were saying the w106's weren't good enough for any ice...That was certainly not my intention. If you got that picture, I didn't make it clear enough. My bad. As I mentioned the W106s have served me well on road, I don't expect that to change.

Sometimes a little snow on smooth ice is deadly, for any tire. The snow keeps the studs from engaging and even if the knobs grip the snow, the snow slips because it's on ICE! I ride recreationally on Lake Champlain with Marathon Winters and find them to be a good all round winter tire.

I have had the same thing happen to me with nokian W106 tires. Downhill, and a turn. I was just going way to fast for the corner.

W106 tires seem to shed snow well.