On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 04:21 PM, David Guertin wrote:

>>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Ross <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>     Jason> My opinion is that since you are asking about "dry, wet,
>     Jason> [snip] road noise, and tread wear" you're in line for the
>     Jason> Q's, not the 1's or 2's.  The 1's and 2's are for "who
>     Jason> cares about non-snow performance, I just don't want to die
>     Jason> when it is snowy" situations - ie no compromises snow
>     Jason> tires.  The Q's have compromised snow performance (compared
>     Jason> to 1's and 2's) to get you some of the non-snow performance
>     Jason> you are asking about.
> I'm not so sure about this. All I know is what I read on the Web, and
> what the guy at the tire shop said, and what I know from my own
> experience with the Q. But I don't think the Q has anything like
> compromised snow performance, or better dry-pavement performance, and
> I don't think Nokian markets them that way (that would be the
> NRW/WR/whatever). The marketingspeak for all three of these tires
> seems to be nearly identical, actually.

Grrr... that's what I meant to type, it just didn't come out that way.
Yeah, for compromised snow / dry tires, go with NRW/WR/whatever.  I,
too, don't know the difference between 1's, 2's, and Q's (or 10's for
that matter).  Sorry for the confusion.

Jason - "redraobwons"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit