20" Inch Efficient Winter Tires Compilation List - 275/60R20

[Luc Lavigne]

why not 275-65r20

Sponsored

 

[CO-rayman]

why not 275-65r20

Not many options, much higher prices, much heavier tires/less efficient.

p.s., lower speed rating on the 275/65R20s, 100 mph vs. 118 mph for most

 

[SeaGeo]

When I was looking in September, it was 115.

Discount Tire's website still says 115.
https://www.discounttire.com/buy-tires/nokian-hakkapeliitta-r5-suv/p/117612

Yeah, Nokian still lists both. I've had a hell of a time trying to find anything in stock from Nokian at Discount. If I were to guess, people would be able to find them at Simple Tire first/easier.

 

[CO-rayman]

Yeah, Nokian still lists both. I've had a hell of a time trying to find anything in stock from Nokian at Discount. If I were to guess, people would be able to find them at Simple Tire first/easier.

Yep, that was my experience in September. I could basically only get the Hankooks or the General Grabber Arctics. I went with the Hankooks due to better noise profile (probably because of the newer thread pattern), slightly better thread depth, and lower price.

I jumped the gun a bit since I don't need the snow tires until November, but I still had to wait for the tires to be shipped from UT to CO.

 

[Riviot]

FWIW I have the Hakka LT3 on my truck in the winter, and have a set of Michelin X-ice SUV on our R1S in the winter (which are 115 rated). I prefer the x-ice. Just sharing as I'm not sure I'd say it performs significantly better the R5 or some other options.

I feel like we've talked about this before... But even in Puget Sound's mild weather? I've avoided winter tires because it isn't often constantly below 40s.

 

[SeaGeo]

I feel like we've talked about this before... But even in Puget Sound's mild weather? I've avoided winter tires because it isn't often constantly below 40s.

We have

I opt to ride around with them from basically Dec through sometime in Feb since we're usually in the 40s, and I'm mostly worried about the instances where I'm going through the passes / the extremes. Plus my commute is never near the daily high. I'd rather wear through a set of tires earlier than have poor performance when I want it.

Goodyear says below 45 is when they are "most effective". We have an average low of below 40 for Dec into March and a high below 50 for Dec--Feb.

https://www.goodyear.com/en_US/learn/tire-care-maintenance/when-to-put-on-winter-tires.html

 

[ksurfier]

For winter tires, most places will install them below manufacturer specifications since there’s a clear understanding that they will be used in cold temperatures and don’t need the added safety factors that a year round tire requires.

 

[Spaceball1]

It depends on what your door plaque says. A lot of R1 vehicles have been shipped with 115 tires, and Rivian issued a recall to send them a new door plaque.

Discount installed those tires for me on my R1S last year, and I bought them from TireRack who called and asked and I explained Rivian was shipping with 115.

BUT it can definitely be problematic, so for most people I'd recommend a different tire as well.

Do you have more info on this? I bought my truck used, built in 7/22, and it had the OE 115 tires on it (22s). My door plaque doesn’t say a tire load rating, just GAWR and GVWR. Did the original plaque have the tire rating and then they removed it? I don’t think GAWR or GVWR ever changed to my knowledge?

I know newer tires in the same 22s were made to 116, though. I bought a used pair that was identical except it was 116 rated.

Find it odd that they’d change something on the plaque but not recall the actual tires, if they indeed were not high enough rated.

 

[ksurfier]

In simplest terms, 115 doesn’t meet legal load requirements (something like 80# shy). However, 116 does meet requirements, since it’s so close, many here feel comfortable using the 115 rating, for Rivian, I doubt they see any value in using a load rating below 116…The only tire that’s 115 that I’d consider using is Pirelli AS+3, otherwise there are at least 3-4 116H tires that are better than the 115 tires.

 

[Spaceball1]

In simplest terms, 115 doesn’t meet legal load requirements (something like 80# shy). However, 116 does meet requirements, since it’s so close, many here feel comfortable using the 115 rating, for Rivian, I doubt they see any value in using a load rating below 116…The only tire that’s 115 that I’d consider using is Pirelli AS+3, otherwise there are at least 3-4 116H tires that are better than the 115 tires.

But they did ship trucks new with 115 tires, so either something changed in the legality, or the 115 was borderline but legal (which with straight math below, 115 should work), or they would have recalled the tires (which they didn’t). Lastly, they could have changed the air pressure requirements, perhaps? I’ve only ever seen 48 psi cold for all Rivians.

I saw something on another thread about a more complex calculation for load ratings but I don’t recall the exact factor used (I haven’t fact checked that factor either). Versus what I’ve always done which is the higher of the two GAWR divided by two gets you the minimum load rating you need for any given 4-wheeled vehicle.

Rear GAWR = 4960 lbs
Each wheel = 2480 lbs (min needed)
Load rating 115 = 2679 lbs

Technically a 113 load rating meets the requirements, though air pressure plays into the calculations as well, so that does complicate it a bit. That’s why tire shops won’t stray from OE tire requirements as a minimum, even if the load rating technically would meet the requirements.

 

[SeaGeo]

In simplest terms, 115 doesn’t meet legal load requirements (something like 80# shy). However, 116 does meet requirements, since it’s so close, many here feel comfortable using the 115 rating, for Rivian, I doubt they see any value in using a load rating below 116…The only tire that’s 115 that I’d consider using is Pirelli AS+3, otherwise there are at least 3-4 116H tires that are better than the 115 tires.

But they did ship trucks new with 115 tires, so either something changed in the legality, or the 115 was borderline but legal (which with straight math below, 115 should work), or they would have recalled the tires (which they didn’t). Lastly, they could have changed the air pressure requirements, perhaps? I’ve only ever seen 48 psi cold for all Rivians.

Without getting into the details too much, I suspect RIvian made a mistake when they allowed the 115 tires and missed that they should have reduced the load rating by 10%. This was brought up here after a friend of mine got a bit frustrated by this topic when he tried to grab some 115 XL rated Nokian nATs and did a deep dive.
https://riviantrackr.com/news/the-hidden-challenge-of-finding-tires-for-your-rivian/

Which coincidentally resulted in this:
https://riviantrackr.com/news/2022-...recalled-for-incorrect-vehicle-weight-labels/

Find it odd that they’d change something on the plaque but not recall the actual tires, if they indeed were not high enough rated.

They're high enough for the vehicle, I suspect the new plaque just has a lower GAWR, but I haven't seen anyone share their new label. It's cheaper to send a new label to people who want it and reduce the GAWR to meet the tire load rating than it is to get several thousand people 4 new tires.

At the end of the day, even with the 115 factored down by 10% they're off by 45 lbs, and they're short the GAWR by 2%. People have to make their decision here. When I bought my Michelin's I talked with Rivian and they were still shipping 115s, so I felt (and feel) ok with it. If I were buying tires today, I would probably just find a 116. I do like my Michelin's better than my Nokian LT3 though.

 

[usulio]

At the end of the day, even with the 115 factored down by 10% they're off by 45 lbs, and they're short the GAWR by 2%. People have to make their decision here. When I bought my Michelin's I talked with Rivian and they were still shipping 115s, so I felt (and feel) ok with it. If I were buying tires today, I would probably just find a 116. I do like my Michelin's better than my Nokian LT3 though.

Tirerack refused to ship me Michelin X-Ice 275/60/20 because I had typed Rivian in on the website search bar and was buying Rivian compatible wheels. I pointed out that I wasn't asking them to install the tires, and I never even said I was installing these on a Rivian. They didn't care. I agreed to switch to the Hakkapelitta R5.

 

[Spaceball1]

Without getting into the details too much, I suspect RIvian made a mistake when they allowed the 115 tires and missed that they should have reduced the load rating by 10%. This was brought up here after a friend of mine got a bit frustrated by this topic when he tried to grab some 115 XL rated Nokian nATs and did a deep dive.
https://riviantrackr.com/news/the-hidden-challenge-of-finding-tires-for-your-rivian/

Which coincidentally resulted in this:
https://riviantrackr.com/news/2022-...recalled-for-incorrect-vehicle-weight-labels/


They're high enough for the vehicle, I suspect the new plaque just has a lower GAWR, but I haven't seen anyone share their new label. It's cheaper to send a new label to people who want it and reduce the GAWR to meet the tire load rating than it is to get several thousand people 4 new tires.

At the end of the day, even with the 115 factored down by 10% they're off by 45 lbs, and they're short the GAWR by 2%. People have to make their decision here. When I bought my Michelin's I talked with Rivian and they were still shipping 115s, so I felt (and feel) ok with it. If I were buying tires today, I would probably just find a 116. I do like my Michelin's better than my Nokian LT3 though.

Perfect article, just what I was looking for, thanks!

Sorry for going off topic…as an engineer I find this all very interesting!

I still think there’s some confusion on the label recall, as it only affected 666 vehicles and according to the recall docs it only updated the “maximum cargo and passenger loading” not the GAWR or GVWR (in fact that’s a separate sticker that’s not part of the recall). Generally I’ve seen that number change depending on vehicle options, which makes sense.

So it seems that label recall and the 115 tire size issue are independent of each other. Also note my 2022 had 22s and I wasn’t apart of the recall.

Lastly, I’m still unsure why Rivian didn’t have to recall the vehicles sold with 115 load 22s. Perhaps they were able to prove the tires actually exceeded the 115 and met 116 requirements. I had a pair of 115 and pair of 116 tires on mine for a while when the fronts got toasted by previous owner (using conserve) on my truck, and they looked identical other than the 115/116 markings.

 

[SeaGeo]

Tirerack refused to ship me Michelin X-Ice 275/60/20 because I had typed Rivian in on the website search bar and was buying Rivian compatible wheels. I pointed out that I wasn't asking them to install the tires, and I never even said I was installing these on a Rivian. They didn't care. I agreed to switch to the Hakkapelitta R5.

Interesting. I had no problem getting them to send them to me. They called and asked and I pointed out Rivian sells/sold 115s.

I'm sure the R5s are great too!

 

[SeaGeo]

I still think there’s some confusion on the label recall, as it only affected 666 vehicles and according to the recall docs it only updated the “maximum cargo and passenger loading” not the GAWR or GVWR (in fact that’s a separate sticker that’s not part of the recall). Generally I’ve seen that number change depending on vehicle options, which makes sense.

That's an interesting point. I wonder if they overlooked the other sticker. Or if it doesn't matter from a regulatory standpoint for the tires.

So it seems that label recall and the 115 tire size issue are independent of each other. Also note my 2022 had 22s and I wasn’t apart of the recall.

I had a 2022 with 22s, but it shipped with 116. The vast majority of them did as well. That the recall specifically references the tires being overloaded, it certainly seems like the most obvious cause was the 115s and the math with the regulation. I had been waiting for one of the owners to pop up and share the new label, but I haven't seen anyone mention it.

Lastly, I’m still unsure why Rivian didn’t have to recall the vehicles sold with 115 load 22s. Perhaps they were able to prove the tires actually exceeded the 115 and met 116 requirements. I had a pair of 115 and pair of 116 tires on mine for a while when the fronts got toasted by previous owner (using conserve) on my truck, and they looked identical other than the 115/116 markings.

I still think the recall was simply to bring down the recommended payload max payload to bring the tire and loading label into compliance.

Sponsored