Quantifying Snow Tire Reputation

Okay. So I've been doing some quantitative research to determine, to a more finite degree, which ranks higher overall- the Nokian Hakkapelitta R2 or the Bridgestone Blizzak WS80. Both in question are winter tires.

There is significant debate around which rates higher overall, even though both are comparable but not exact when it comes to performance and cost. I'm looking to come to a more finite conclusion about which is quantifiably a better tire when compared to the other.

I am looking for people who have driven either the Blizzak WS80 or the Nokian Hakkapelitta R2 for one or more seasons as a sample group and need three points of data; them being:

1. How many miles were driven on the tire overall (best guestimate) during a) the life of the tire or b) the life of the tire thus far and how much of the tire is left (ranked 100-0 percent of the usable tire tred i.e to the wear indicators)

2. Overall impression of the tire

   • How well did it grip during ice, slush, deep snow, wet
     payment, dry but cold pavement? (ranked 1-10 overall)

   • How well did the tire handle overall in the above listed criteria?

   • Rating of the quality of the tire compared to average market cost of the tire. Is it worth what you paid? Assuming you didn't get gouged on the price but paid a fair market value for the tires. (ranked 1-10).

     --I'm trying to account for price differences that individuals may have payed. That being, paying too much for a tire and subsequently impacting the overall rating of cost to benefit. That is why I am assuming that Nokians, on average, cost around $20-$45 more per tire depending on location.

3. Overall rating of the tire based on what your expectations of the tire in question. I.E did you get what you were expecting when you bought the tires? Were you impressed or was there something left lacking?

Thank you for the time and input. If I can make the study more precise I welcome any input on the design. Thanks!