Nokian Mount and Ground W160 vs Hakk. W106
My wife ordered W106s for Christmas but the LBS got W160s instead. I found out when I opened my present and am now wondering if I should keep them. I wanted the W106 b/c the studs are in the center and seem like they would give better control on the ice; the W160 has studs that are further out to the sides. I will be using these for daily commuting. Has anyone used both the W106 and W160? If so, which did you prefer? I know that you can supposedly lower the psi on the W160 to get the studs to contact, but that would give a squishy, less efficient ride than fully inflated W106s. Any suggestions? How do the tires corner on dry pavement? If I mount mine and try them I can't take them back.
Thanks for any info.
I actually had a similar situation, I ordered 106's from my LBS, but 160's showed up instead. Because it took so long to find a set in the first place I kept the 160's. I use them for daily commuting as well, and they're great. Amazing traction on ice, all the studs make contact going straight (I run them at 40 psi). I am fairly large though, 6'2 210, so if you're significantly lighter, that may factor in. I go over a lot of dry pavement on our main thoroughfares, and cornering has been fine. I can't comment on the 106's because I have not tried them before.
Originally Posted by jlgerhar
Man of Leisure
Peter White describes the differences eloquently here:
Well, I decided to just keep the 160s and you are right, they are great on the ice and even hold their own off road.