Rovelo RWT-768 is a Touring winter tire with a directional tread pattern, designed for Passenger cars.
Key performance
Overall rating: 93.5% (8 measurements from 1 independent tests)
The overall rating is calculated as the arithmetic average of the average scores for each discipline, to eliminate bias towards disciplines with a large number of tests.
Dry Performance
-
Dry braking
PoorBased on 1 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7th|7-7th range|Rating: 92.4%Performance Chart
- Poor: 1 (100%) A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 43.6m 7th / 7 Q4 (Worst 25%) +3.3m +1.5m 1.4m 92.43% -1.77 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 0% of competitors per test
- ➖ No first-place finishes
- ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
- ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 1
- ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 1
- ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 1
Results in numbers
- Best result:43.6 m (2019 Quattroruote )
- Worst result:43.6 m (2019 Quattroruote )
- Average result:43.6 m
- Max gap to leader:+3.3 m (2019 Quattroruote )
-
Dry handling
PoorBased on 1 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7th|7-7th range|Rating: 93.6%Performance Chart
- Poor: 1 (100%) A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 12.5sec 7th / 7 Q4 (Worst 25%) +0.8sec +0.6sec 0.4sec 93.6% -1.99 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 0% of competitors per test
- ➖ No first-place finishes
- ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
- ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 1
- ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 1
- ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 1
Wet Performance
-
Wet braking
PoorBased on 1 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7th|7-7th range|Rating: 83.8%Performance Chart
- Poor: 1 (100%) A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 58.8m 7th / 7 Q4 (Worst 25%) +9.5m +7.7m 2.8m 83.84% -2.31 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 0% of competitors per test
- ➖ No first-place finishes
- ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
- ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 1
- ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 1
- ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 1
Results in numbers
- Best result:58.8 m (2019 Quattroruote )
- Worst result:58.8 m (2019 Quattroruote )
- Average result:58.8 m
- Max gap to leader:+9.5 m (2019 Quattroruote )
-
Wet handling
PoorBased on 1 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7th|7-7th range|Rating: 92.8%Performance Chart
- Poor: 1 (100%) A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 104.9sec 7th / 7 Q4 (Worst 25%) +7.6sec +6sec 1.6sec 92.76% -2.31 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 0% of competitors per test
- ➖ No first-place finishes
- ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
- ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 1
- ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 1
- ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 1
Snow Performance
-
Snow braking
EliteBased on 1 tests|1 wins|Avg. pos. 1th|1-1th range|Rating: 100%Performance Chart
- Good: 1 (100%) A solid performance, clearly above the average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 28m 1st / 7 Q1 (Top 25%) 🏆 -0.5m 0.8m 100% +1.25 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 100% of competitors per test
- 🏆 Victories (1st place): 1 of 1
- ✅ Podium finishes (TOP-3): 1 of 1
- ✅ No bottom-half finishes
- ✅ No worst-3 finishes
- ✅ No last-place finishes
Results in numbers
- Best result:28 m (2019 Quattroruote )
- Worst result:28 m (2019 Quattroruote )
- Average result:28 m
- Max gap to leader:0 m ()
-
Snow handling
ExemplaryBased on 1 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 6th|6-6th range|Rating: 97.7%Performance Chart
- Average: 1 (100%) A typical result, close to the test average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 70.7sec 6th / 7 Q4 (Worst 25%) +1.6sec +0.5sec 1.2sec 97.74% +0.07 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 16.7% of competitors per test
- ➖ No first-place finishes
- ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
- ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 1
- ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 1
- ✅ No last-place finishes
-
Snow traction
PoorBased on 1 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7th|7-7th range|Rating: 88.8%Performance Chart
- Weak: 1 (100%) The result is noticeably below the average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 27.8sec 7th / 7 Q4 (Worst 25%) +3.1sec +1.3sec 2.4sec 88.85% -1.34 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 0% of competitors per test
- ➖ No first-place finishes
- ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
- ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 1
- ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 1
- ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 1
Secondary
-
Noise
PoorBased on 1 tests|0 wins|Avg. pos. 7th|7-7th range|Rating: 98.5%Performance Chart
- Poor: 1 (100%) A poor result, significantly worse than the test average.
Detailed Test Results: 1 tests analyzed (2019)Test / Size Res Place Qrtl Diff. Median IQR Score Z-sc. 2019 Quattroruote 225/50 R17 58.3dB 7th / 7 Q4 (Worst 25%) +0.9dB +0.6dB 0.4dB 98.46% -1.92 Key statistics
- Typically outperforms 0% of competitors per test
- ➖ No first-place finishes
- ➖ No TOP-3 finishes
- ⚠️ Bottom-half finishes: 1 of 1
- ⚠️ Worst-3 finishes: 1 of 1
- ❌ Last-place finish: 1 of 1
Results in numbers
- Best result:58.3 dB (2019 Quattroruote )
- Worst result:58.3 dB (2019 Quattroruote )
- Average result:58.3 dB
- Max gap to leader:+0.9 dB (2019 Quattroruote )
Rovelo RWT-768 Test History
Year
Magazine
Size
Place
Score
2019
Quattroruote
225/50 R17
7 (7)
2019 Quattroruote (225/50 R17)
The tyre placed 7th overall.
Performance Summary
| Discipline | Place | Diff. | Perf. | Z-Sc. | Rat. | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dry braking |
7th of 7 | +3.3m | 92.4% | -1.77 | Poor | Significantly worse than competitors, major drawback. |
Dry handling |
7th of 7 | +0.8s | 93.6% | -1.99 | Poor | Significantly worse than competitors, major drawback. |
Wet braking |
7th of 7 | +9.5m | 83.8% | -2.31 | Poor | Significantly worse than competitors, major drawback. |
Wet handling |
7th of 7 | +7.6s | 92.8% | -2.31 | Poor | Significantly worse than competitors, major drawback. |
Snow braking |
🏆 1st of 7 | -0.2m | 100% | 1.25 | Good | Reliable and consistent performance, above average. |
Snow handling |
6th of 7 | +1.6s | 97.7% | 0.07 | Average | Typical mid-level result, no clear strengths or weaknesses. |
Snow traction |
7th of 7 | +3.1s | 88.8% | -1.34 | Weak | Below average, noticeable shortcoming compared to most competitors. |
Noise |
7th of 7 | +0.9dB | 98.5% | -1.92 | Poor | Significantly worse than competitors, major drawback. |
Detailed Results
Dry braking
Dry braking at 100km/h in meters
-
1 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 340.3m
-
2 Michelin Alpin 641m
-
3 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-141.6m
-
4 Continental WinterContact TS 86042.1m
-
5 Falken Eurowinter HS0142.1m
-
6 Nokian WR D442.4m
-
7 Rovelo RWT-76843.6m
7th of 7, +3.3m longer braking distance, 92.4% rating
Dry handling
Dry handling time in seconds
-
1 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 311.7s
-
2 Nokian WR D411.8s
-
3 Continental WinterContact TS 86011.9s
-
4 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-111.9s
-
5 Michelin Alpin 612s
-
6 Falken Eurowinter HS0112.2s
-
7 Rovelo RWT-76812.5s
7th of 7, +0.8s slower, 93.6% rating
Wet braking
Wet braking at 100km/h in meters
-
1 Michelin Alpin 649.3m
-
2 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 349.6m
-
3 Nokian WR D450.9m
-
4 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-151.1m
-
5 Continental WinterContact TS 86051.4m
-
6 Falken Eurowinter HS0152.4m
-
7 Rovelo RWT-76858.8m
7th of 7, +9.5m longer braking distance, 83.8% rating
Wet handling
Wet handling time in seconds
-
1 Continental WinterContact TS 86097.3s
-
2 Michelin Alpin 698.5s
-
3 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 398.5s
-
4 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-198.9s
-
5 Nokian WR D498.9s
-
6 Falken Eurowinter HS01100.1s
-
7 Rovelo RWT-768104.9s
7th of 7, +7.6s slower, 92.8% rating
Snow braking
Snow braking at 50km/h in meters
-
1 Rovelo RWT-76828m
-
2 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-128.2m
-
3 Falken Eurowinter HS0128.3m
-
4 Continental WinterContact TS 86028.5m
-
5 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 328.9m
-
6 Nokian WR D429m
-
7 Michelin Alpin 629.6m
1st of 7, -0.2m shorter braking distance, 100% rating
Snow handling
Snow handling time in seconds
-
1 Michelin Alpin 669.1s
-
2 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-169.5s
-
3 Continental WinterContact TS 86070s
-
4 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 370.2s
-
5 Nokian WR D470.5s
-
6 Rovelo RWT-76870.7s
-
7 Falken Eurowinter HS0176s
6th of 7, +1.6s slower, 97.7% rating
Snow traction
Snow acceleration time in seconds
-
1 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-124.7s
-
2 Continental WinterContact TS 86025.1s
-
3 Michelin Alpin 625.9s
-
4 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 326.5s
-
5 Falken Eurowinter HS0126.9s
-
6 Nokian WR D427.5s
-
7 Rovelo RWT-76827.8s
7th of 7, +3.1s slower, 88.8% rating
Noise
External noise in dB
-
1 Michelin Alpin 657.4dB
-
2 Falken Eurowinter HS0157.5dB
-
3 Goodyear UltraGrip Performance Gen-157.6dB
-
4 Nokian WR D457.7dB
-
5 Continental WinterContact TS 86057.9dB
-
6 Pirelli Winter Sottozero 357.9dB
-
7 Rovelo RWT-76858.3dB
7th of 7, +0.9dB louder, 98.5% rating
Rovelo RWT-768 vs. Competitors
Key Statistics
- Dry braking #10 of 11
- Dry handling #10 of 10
- Wet braking #8 of 11
- Wet handling #6 of 11
- Snow braking #1 of 11
- Snow handling #3 of 11
- Snow traction #10 of 11
- Noise #5 of 10
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
3
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
4.6%
97.03%
4.6%
-1.84 m
10
Rovelo RWT-768
92.43%
—
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
9
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
2.6%
96.20%
2.6%
+2.60 km/h
10
Rovelo RWT-768
93.60%
—
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
6
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
1.3%
85.19%
1.3%
-0.67 m
8
Rovelo RWT-768
83.84%
—
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
6
Rovelo RWT-768
92.76%
—
—
7
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
1.4%
91.35%
1.4%
-1.13 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
4
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
93.6%
93.56%
93.6%
+74.85 km/h
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Rovelo RWT-768
100.00%
—
—
9
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
5.0%
95.05%
5.0%
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
3
Rovelo RWT-768
97.74%
—
—
8
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
1.7%
96.01%
1.7%
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
5
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
6.4%
95.20%
6.4%
—
10
Rovelo RWT-768
88.85%
—
—
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
5
Rovelo RWT-768
98.46%
—
—
10
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
3.3%
95.20%
3.3%
+2.34 dB
#
Model
Performance ⓘ
% ⓘ
Abs. ⓘ
1
Goodride ZuperSnow Z507
100.0%
100.00%
100.0%
-7.20 kg/t
