What is the optimal shape of the studs?

How to make tires attractive to buyers? This question is acute for most manufacturers. Indeed, the task is not simple. For an ordinary buyer, a car tire is a black rubber circle. In the vast majority of cases, only the price is of interest. But how to move forward in development, offering the lowest price? In most cases, this is impossible. That's why the most advanced tires are expensive, and to stand out from the crowd, marketing "gimmicks" are used. This can be attributed to loud technologies like "bear claw". The tire literally screams that, having overcome all the laws of physics, it will stop like a peg even on ice. 

Often, technologies go not alongside, but in parallel with such loud names. This is understandable, as each company has people responsible for development, and people responsible for sales. But can useless technologies be attributed to complex anti-skid stud shapes? If not, then what shape of the studs is the most effective? After all, each manufacturer has its own "unique" shape. Today we will explore this issue. 

Anti-skid studs are an element of the tire consisting of two types of metal. This is mainly an aluminum body (less often steel) and a carbide-tungsten insert. To begin with, let's figure out why a complex body shape is needed. 

Initially, the studs were "single-flanged". The stud flange is an element of the body responsible for holding the stud in the tire rubber. If the studs did not have a flange at the base, they simply could not be held in the elastic tread of the tire. But over time, engineers needed to improve the characteristics on ice, and the main problem was precisely the compromise between the elastic winter tire rubber and the inclination of the stud during braking. It was decided to use another flange above precisely to reduce the inclination, and therefore to make the stud work more efficiently on ice. Thus, "double-flanged" studs appeared. Such studs are more complex in production, but they are more efficient. That's why it's hard to find single-flanged studs today, except in very cheap tires. 

A more complex stud body shape is aimed at the same characteristics: retention and reduction of "tilting" of the stud in the contact patch. It would be possible to make huge stud flanges and solve the problem, but there is a regulation that limits the weight of the studs to 1.1 grams. That's why manufacturers once switched to aluminum. The weight limit makes you think about the shape, fighting for every 0.1 mm. 


The complex shape of the core also matters. The transverse and longitudinal traction of the tire on ice depends precisely on the shape of the core. The optimal shape, of course, is a circle, which is perfectly confirmed by the Michelin X-ICE NORTH 4 tires. But they went a bit beyond the bounds, returning to steel and reducing the stud itself, which gave them more room for maneuver. Other manufacturers are forced to play with the shape of the tungsten carbide insert, increasing the longitudinal traction, sacrificing the transverse or vice versa. The reason for this is the same total weight of the stud. 

As mentioned above, both the body and the insert of the stud with a complex shape make sense, and this is absolutely not a marketing ploy. As for the optimal shape, the answer is unequivocal. Each tire has its own stud, and it complements precisely this model, as calculated by the manufacturer.