"Not Rated For Severe Snow"

E2 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:06 pm

Have you guys seen this new industry "severe snow service" requirements the tires are branded with the mountain/snowflake symbol.

States that the BFG AT or MUD do not need this.

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:33 pm

? My KO's have the snow flake mountain symbol... they are D load

stumpjumper_09 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:49 pm

my duratracs have the symbol. Goodyear forever

E2 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:52 pm

Diggerfreek wrote:

? My KO's have the snow flake mountain symbol... they are D load

D loaded? Well the 32" from what I have seen are Q and S loaded and are not severe ( whatever that really means)

Diggerfreek · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:59 pm

E2 wrote:

Diggerfreek wrote:

? My KO's have the snow flake mountain symbol... they are D load

D loaded? Well the 32" from what I have seen are Q and S loaded and are not severe ( whatever that really means)

D refers to the load range. Like P, C, D, E. The load range E's are not SS rated probably because they are so hard. Q, R, S, T, Z all refer to the top speed rating on the tire..........

AF1N2 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:32 pm

Before the Snowflake symbol, tires were said to be snow rated just by having a aggressive
tread pattern. Then people got smart and figured out that the rubber compound also played
a role in having grip on a snowy road.
So now, if a tire satisfies both the tread pattern (so much of the footprint has to be grooves) and the rubber compound requirement it gets a snowflake.

Mr Nick · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:16 pm

I found it weird that my General Grabber AT2's in 255/65/17 were not rated for Severe Snow, but other similar sizes of the AT2 were...

Boiler · **Posted:** Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:50 am

AF1N2 wrote:

Before the Snowflake symbol, tires were said to be snow rated just by having a aggressive
tread pattern. Then people got smart and figured out that the rubber compound also played
a role in having grip on a snowy road.
So now, if a tire satisfies both the tread pattern (so much of the footprint has to be grooves) and the rubber compound requirement it gets a snowflake.

Actually I'm not sure sure the aggressive tread pattern means that much. I'll take siping over agressive any day of the week. Now put lots of siping on an agressive tread and you've got a winner.

I wonder if the Duratrac is snowflake because it is studdable, hence requiring the studs to be truly snowflake rated, or if it is because of the siping? Lots of tires have some siping but aren't snowflake.

My blizzaks have extra deep treads, but they aren't really agressive (75% tread, not much gap). But the siping occurs about every 3/16 of an inch...

tommudd · **Posted:** Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:37 am

Duratracs are rated without being studded

jeeplikens · **Posted:** Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:00 pm

Boiler wrote:

AF1N2 wrote:

Before the Snowflake symbol, tires were said to be snow rated just by having a aggressive
tread pattern. Then people got smart and figured out that the rubber compound also played
a role in having grip on a snowy road.
So now, if a tire satisfies both the tread pattern (so much of the footprint has to be grooves) and the rubber compound requirement it gets a snowflake.

Actually I'm not sure sure the aggressive tread pattern means that much. I'll take siping over agressive any day of the week. Now put lots of siping on an agressive tread and you've got a winner.

I wonder if the Duratrac is snowflake because it is studdable, hence requiring the studs to be truly snowflake rated, or if it is because of the siping? Lots of tires have some siping but aren't snowflake.

My blizzaks have extra deep treads, but they aren't really agressive (75% tread, not much gap). But the siping occurs about every 3/16 of an inch...

Which brings up another question. SIPing tires. To or Not to. I got a set of tires for a minivan at one tire place that REALLY pushed them. Then for my Liberty, went to another national chain and got some American Prospectors A/T's. I asked about siping. They were 180 from the other guys. I can see that if the manufacture wanted to make thier tires wear out faster, they would follow the snow/ice only tire model. It can get nasty when talking or pitting these guys against each other but for the average person, they want the best of both worlds. A tire that isn't going to wear out faster then it should and provide good performance. I know this much so far with the tires I got. They stop much better then the tires (Goodyear SRA's) that came on the KK. They grip much better and woe on the guy behind me when I'm in deep snow. These things clean treads like they are tossing a hot potato. Chunks, not dust, is thrown high and far. Ground is frozen so where I go mudding can't be tested yet :cry:

but the spring thaw will be here soon.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:07 pm

Mr Nick wrote:

I found it weird that my General Grabber AT2's in 255/65/17 were not rated for Severe Snow, but other similar sizes of the AT2 were...

My stock sized 225/75/16 were the same way. They are 6 ply. I wondered the same thing...not that it made a difference either way. I called TR and they said it was that different sizes had slightly different tread pattern, and also that some municipalities have restrictions on tires that REQUIRE them to be sever snow rated. Places like around Lake Tahoe and some places in western Canada.

jay21 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:45 pm

When in doubt go stupid big!
http://www.mattracks.com/

BVCRD · **Posted:** Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:34 pm

jay21 wrote:

When in doubt go stupid big!
http://www.mattracks.com/

When we were in Alaska, a guy had those on a Ranger. Not so much for the snow, but because of the bogs and beach sand. We were down by the Aleutian Islands.

Brownrecluse · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:44 pm

I know this thread is old but I got a definitive answer from General about the inconsistent rating of the AT2's.

Subject
Grabber AT2 severe snow rating.

Response By Email (Jose) (12/06/2016 09:42 PM)

All the tires are the same, the only difference is the original intended market.
Customer By CSS Email (Mike .) (12/06/2016 05:33 PM)

Ok so the tread compound is different for the non rated sizes?

-------- Original message --------

Response By Email (Jose) (12/06/2016 01:10 PM)
Dear Mike,

[Web Inquiry: 161206-000014]

All Grabber AT2's are studdable All -Season M+S and will perform well in the snow, but areas requiring Mountain/Snowflake by law require the symbol on the tire. As for why, select fitments were originally earmarked for the European market; which requires tires to have a dedicated winter compound in order to carry the 3 peak symbol.

Customer By CSS Web (Mike .) (12/06/2016 05:22 AM)
Hi,

Why are some sizes of the Grabber at2 not rated for severe snow service? Im looking at 225/75r/16's. Will they perform as well in the snow as the ones rated for severe snow service?

bgcarl01 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:10 pm

Don't they give that snowflake out to any tire that outperforms an "industry standard all season" on snow? If I remember correctly it's a freaking tiger paw or something.

Brownrecluse · **Posted:** Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:15 am

bgcarl01 wrote:

Don't they give that snowflake out to any tire that outperforms an "industry standard all season" on snow? If I remember correctly it's a freaking tiger paw or something.

I don't know what the reference tire is but yes you are correct. I just wanted to clear up why some sizes of the Grabber AT2 don't have the rating. I m going to get them and I ll post a review after I get to test them. We will see how they compare to my Subaru forester 5 spd with Blizzak WS80's. Just to be clear I don't expect them to be as good as a dedicated snow tire.

"Not Rated For Severe Snow"

Who is online