tire wear speculations (2)

[maximum at weetamoo.com]

Phil wrote:

>>It carries a very high rating for wear, although no one
>>seems to put much stock in such numbers

With lots of good reasons indeed, my good man Phil.

UTQG wear ratings are still done by the manufacturers even though:

"The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate
 of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified
 government test course."

 It is my belief that "wear" ratings specifically only carry weight within
the brand.  IE: A Fireyear with a rating of 300 indexed at 100 will
last 3 times as long as a Fireyear with a rating of 100 but maybe only
twice as long as a Goodstone with a 100 rating.... but a Goodstone 300
should last 3 times as long as a Goodstone with a 100...huh? Let's face
it too... if you're sporting 300HP at the rear wheels you're just not
gonna get the wear you will if you're pumping out a mere 150HP.  Again,
you know your mileage may vary.  I also believe that history and current
technology is a factor.  Tires have come so far in the past decade that
a tire graded ten years ago at may not yield what you expect when compared
to a similarly graded tire that came out of a fresh mold last year.

 Lots of people recognize that I frequently don't know what the hell I'm
talking about.  These people are probably no better...anyone remember
Joan "the bigger the explosive at the airbag the better" Claybrooke?

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/UTQG/UTQG_qna.html#Treadwear

Make of that what you will.  I'm going to go drink some single malt now.

Royal aka 20RoT