Originally Posted by jrickards

On the other hand, I question the rationality (certainly mine if not those of others) regarding recommendations for the number of studs on a tire based on the average winter conditions of the rider's location. At times, it sounds like that we recommend low stud-count tires for people whose location may rarely see ice or slippery surfaces and high stud-count tires for those of us for whom summer is just a season of poor skiing. Ice is no less slippery whether it is a freak ice storm in January in southern Florida or in July in Alaska or December in Montana. If a high-stud-count tire is the only way a cyclist traveling at a particular speed on an ice patch around a corner can stay upright and in control, then it doesn't really matter where they live or the normal conditions of their winters, their riding style, speed and the slipperiness of the icy patch on the corner is all that matters and should be the determination of how many there should be on their tires to keep them upright around that icy corner.

I guess that the only thing I can add to this is that, even if there is a freak ice storm in Florida, it won't last long and so a rider without appropriately-studded tires to stay upright in icy conditions should take the one or two days off from riding when these conditions occur once every 10 years or so. On the other hand, a winter cyclist in an area where there are weeks or months of slippery conditions would be wise to get a high-stud-count tire because they will need all of the studs many, many more times in the winter than the Florida-ite.