Pirelli Ice Zero 2 =или= Michelin X-Ice North 4 /// что лучше?

Product(s) Compared

• Pirelli Ice Zero 2
  • Newer generation mentioned; this is the main Pirelli tire reviewed.
• Michelin X-Ice North 4
  • Described as “fairly new,” with roughly ~1.5 seasons of existing real-world reviews.

Key Features Discussed

Shared/Related Tread Design Traits (Directional Winter Tire)

• Both tires use directional tread blocks (“peaks are directed”).
• Both feature a rib/stability structure formed by connected center blocks (described as a “monolithic” concept).
• Shoulder block arrangement is treated as important for snow performance:
  • Pirelli: small/large shoulder blocks alternate, and blocks widen toward the shoulder to help:
    • dig through snow
    • remove slush
    • improve water/slush drainage at the contact patch.
• The reviewer notes the tires show “more in common than it might seem,” but also points to meaningful differences in block placement.

Tread Depth Measurement (Numerical)

Using a tread-depth device, the reviewer reports:

• Pirelli Ice Zero 2: about 8.6 mm
  • Summary indicates other readings also come out higher.
• Michelin X-Ice North 4: about 7.9 mm

Conclusion from this metric: Pirelli has deeper tread, which should help with:

• slush absorption
• loose snow
• drainage

Stud Design (Ice Performance + Noise Claim)

Michelin (praised)

• Stud area is reduced to increase pressure on ice, increasing stud force.
• Mentioned as having an extremely high stud count (“a million studs”).
• Claimed advantage: quiet operation for a stud tire
  • Attributed to “small stud” effect, reducing asphalt noise.

Pirelli (criticized/skeptical discussion)

• The reviewer criticizes that Pirelli “flipped” studs from the previous generation to improve braking, implying uncertainty about whether it meaningfully changes the braking/acceleration tradeoff.
• The reviewer discusses stud placement logic and proposes a hypothetical compromise (e.g., 50% studs one way / 50% opposite), explicitly noting this is not an actual product feature.

Rubber Compound Hardness (Shore A Values, Numerical)

Measured (3 readings averaged):

• Pirelli Ice Zero 2: ~53.2 Shore
• Michelin X-Ice North 4: ~48.3 Shore

Implication stated: Michelin uses a softer compound, likely improving:

• comfort
• potentially cold grip characteristics (as framed by the reviewer)

Sidewall Softness and Comfort

• Michelin: sidewall described as soft/elastic (the reviewer describes bending the tire and emphasizes softness), implying more comfort.
• Pirelli: sidewall described as denser/harder
  • The reviewer notes some users may like the “dense” feel, but the reviewer personally prefers the softer comfort.

Sidewall Thickness (Numerical)

• Pirelli: ~7.8 mm
• Michelin: ~6.4 mm

Claim: Pirelli’s thicker sidewall may support tougher durability/mileage.

Stud Density Estimation via Sample Counting

The reviewer counts studs in a marked area:

• Michelin: 37 studs
• Pirelli: 26 studs

The reviewer also references Michelin’s marketing claim about maximum stud count vs competitors in at least a mentioned size (205/55 R16).

Weight / Fuel-Economy Proxy

Tires weighed:

• Pirelli: ~11.2 kg
• Michelin: ~11.1 kg

Conclusion: Essentially no weight difference → the reviewer expects similar fuel economy and only minor effects on acceleration dynamics.

Price Comparison (Numerical; as of July 2020)

For size 215/65 R16 (manufacturer suggested retail price):

• Pirelli Ice Zero 2: 6370 rubles
• Michelin X-Ice North 4: 6450 rubles

Framing: Difference is framed as very small (~80 rubles), so the decision is positioned as more about road conditions than price.

Pros and Cons (As Framed by the Reviewer)

Michelin X-Ice North 4 — Pros

• More comfortable, attributed to:
  • softer compound (lower Shore)
  • softer sidewall
• Better highway handling feel via “monolithic” directional stability.
• Quieter on asphalt despite studs, credited to small stud design.
• Strong ice performance attributed to stud physics (stud pressure) + high stud count.

Michelin X-Ice North 4 — Cons / Caveats

• Reviewer implies tread depth is lower than Pirelli’s (about 7.9 mm vs 8.6 mm), which could matter for:
  • deep slush
  • wear life / usage longevity
• Otherwise, no major explicit negatives—overall presented as condition-dependent.

Pirelli Ice Zero 2 — Pros

• Deeper tread (measured) → better ability to handle:
  • slush/loose snow
  • drainage/retention behavior (as described)
• Thicker sidewall → expected better durability/mileage
• Reviewer says performance is very close overall, with Pirelli stronger on:
  • rougher roads
  • poorly cleaned surfaces

Pirelli Ice Zero 2 — Cons / Caveats

• Reviewer says Michelin has no pronounced advantages over Pirelli besides:
  • what is framed as Pirelli’s stronger/more robust construction
• Stud design change (vs previous generation) is treated skeptically:
  • uncertainty whether it truly optimizes braking/acceleration
• Noise is mentioned:
  • reviewer later suggests Pirelli studs can be quite large and may rattle somewhat on asphalt (not presented as catastrophic, but as a potential downside).

User Experience / Operating Conditions Guidance (Main Recommendation Logic)

The reviewer repeatedly frames the choice by road condition:

• If roads are poorly cleaned / rough / pothole-like → Pirelli Ice Zero 2
• If roads are closer to “plus or minus nothing” (typical winter mixes around 0°C swings) → Michelin X-Ice North 4, favored for:
  • comfort
  • road holding
  • quieter asphalt behavior
  • strong ice performance

Comparisons Made

• Continental ContiContact 3 Spiral is referenced briefly:
  • Initially preferred based on observed shoulder block placement.
  • Later the reviewer “rehabilitates” Pirelli, claiming block placement differences were significant versus other tires.
• Primary head-to-head: Pirelli Ice Zero 2 vs Michelin X-Ice North 4
  • Arguments tied to: tread depth, stud design/count, compound hardness, sidewall thickness/softness, and noise/comfort.

Overall Verdict (Concise)

• Michelin X-Ice North 4 is favored for:
  • more comfortable
  • quieter
  • better-rounded winter driving
  • when roads aren’t severely degraded.
• Pirelli Ice Zero 2 is favored for:
  • worse/rougher conditions
  • where slush handling (deeper tread) and thicker sidewall durability matter most.
• With price nearly equal, the practical takeaway is:
  • Michelin for generally better roads
  • Pirelli when roads are rough/poorly cleaned

Unique Points Mentioned

1. Directional tread + directional stability concept similar between tires.
2. Block/monolithic rib structure at center mentioned.
3. Pirelli shoulder block alternation discussed as aiding acoustic comfort (reduced resonance).
4. Shoulder blocks widen toward the shoulder to clear snow/slush and drain water.
5. Tread depth measurement: Pirelli ~8.6 mm vs Michelin ~7.9 mm.
6. Michelin stud physics praised (smaller stud area → higher pressure on ice).
7. Michelin marketing claim: stud count advantage + quiet asphalt behavior.
8. Pirelli stud change criticized/considered less convincing; reviewer proposes a possible alternate stud orientation split (not a product claim).
9. Compound hardness: Michelin softer (~48.3 Shore) vs Pirelli harder (~53.2 Shore).
10. Sidewall feel: Michelin softer/elastic; Pirelli denser/harder (comfort tradeoff).
11. Sidewall thickness: Pirelli thicker (~7.8 mm) vs Michelin (~6.4 mm) → expected durability/mileage.
12. Stud density sampling: Michelin 37 vs Pirelli 26 in the highlighted area.
13. Note that stud effects relate to ice braking/acceleration and also noise.
14. Weight nearly equal (~11.1–11.2 kg) → similar fuel economy expectations.
15. Price nearly equal for the compared size (~6370 vs ~6450 rubles in July 2020).
16. Final condition-based recommendation: - Pirelli for badly cleaned/rough roads - Michelin for typical mixed winter conditions near 0°C

Speakers / Perspectives

• The subtitles contain one primary speaker/reviewer delivering measurements and opinions.
• No clearly distinct secondary speakers are present.