What is more economical: studs or tread?

The constant rise in fuel prices is no longer a surprise to anyone. The price is growing steadily and becoming a major expense for car owners. For this reason, many car owners are paying more attention to energy-saving tires. This is quite logical, since up to 25% of all fuel is spent on tires, or rather, on their rolling resistance.

We have already written about how significant energy savings in tires can be achieved, but the next question arises: if tires can differ depending on the manufacturer, can there be a significant difference between types of tires. What if we compare the flagship models of one manufacturer, which will be more efficient - studded or non-studded tires?

Regular fuel consumption tests are conducted by the Swedish publication "Vi Bilägare". In the latest tests, they compared the fuel consumption of winter tires in the size 225/45/17. Of course, the test did not go without top tire models from manufacturers such as Michelin, Nokian, Continental. We compared the results. The table below shows the fuel consumption per 100 km of travel.
 

The difference in favor of non-studded tires is quite explainable. Studded tires have a more developed tread pattern, which helps them overcome complex road sections. On the one hand, 0.5 liters per 100 km is not a small figure, and it can be said that non-studded tires should be chosen, but on the other hand, it should be noted that the test is a test. It does not include a typical urban driving cycle consisting of traffic jams and movement through traffic lights. Such a difference can be noticeable if you often travel on country roads with a constant speed and a small number of stops. But it's also worth remembering that winter tires are not about economy, but about safety. In harsh winter conditions on a country road, it's still better to choose studded tires. In other words, there is a difference in consumption, but it's not so significant that it would seriously affect your decision.