Prev: Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
Next: We already knew that turn signal DRL's were a bad idea...
From: _Pnina Gersten_ on 25 Aug 2007 16:16
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:09:07 -0500, nonsense wrote:
> It is a very rare occasion when someone can get a
> valid answer to any question in a usenet newsgroup.

Hi nonsense,

I normally get absolutely WONDERFUL GPS answers on the
sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup so I expected more of this newsgroup. But
again, it's not anyone's fault if I asked a question beyond the newsgroup;
it's my fault.

I'm still trying to find a newsgroup that knows both the mileage they get
on their automotive tires in actual use and what the treadwear number is
stamped on the tire itself. I searched and searched but this was the best I
could find. Sorry.

> why does Goodyear guarantee their tires (for
> an extra fee) only for the first 25% of tread wear?

I do not know but I strongly suspect it's all in their marketing. I am a
scientist in a highly marketed organization and I'm constantly astounded at
the wierd stuff the marketeers come up with and that the public buys.

For example, we make a set of software and then they asked us to make a
low-cost set so we added loops galore to the original software and just
bypassed them in the higher-end software. These marketeers guarantee a 20%
speedup if the customer uses the high-end software or their money back! Ha!

That's why I don't trust any of the marketing and stick to tested
standards.

Is there ANYONE who knows both the treadwear number stamped on your tire
and how long it actually lasted?
From: nonsense on 25 Aug 2007 16:50
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:09:07 -0500, nonsense wrote:
>
>>It is a very rare occasion when someone can get a
>>valid answer to any question in a usenet newsgroup.
>
>
> Hi nonsense,
>
> I normally get absolutely WONDERFUL GPS answers on the
> sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup so I expected more of this newsgroup.

Glad to hear that's working for you.

> But
> again, it's not anyone's fault if I asked a question beyond the newsgroup;
> it's my fault.

Hardly a matter for sci.physics though.

> I'm still trying to find a newsgroup that knows both the mileage they get
> on their automotive tires in actual use and what the treadwear number is
> stamped on the tire itself. I searched and searched but this was the best I
> could find. Sorry.

Best of luck. Did you try corresponding with the
manufacturer(s)?

>>why does Goodyear guarantee their tires (for
>>an extra fee) only for the first 25% of tread wear?

> I do not know but I strongly suspect it's all in their marketing. I am a
> scientist in a highly marketed organization and I'm constantly astounded at
> the wierd stuff the marketeers come up with and that the public buys.

I guess you've missed the operative word in my question, that
word was "only". And you also missed the "extra fee" so it
isn't a marketing issue at all.

> For example, we make a set of software and then they asked us to make a
> low-cost set so we added loops galore to the original software and just
> bypassed them in the higher-end software. These marketeers guarantee a 20%
> speedup if the customer uses the high-end software or their money back! Ha!

So the actual "we can make a handsome profit" price
for your product is the lower price. On my worse day
I would never continue working for a firm that does
stuff like that.

> That's why I don't trust any of the marketing and stick to tested
> standards.

> Is there ANYONE who knows both the treadwear number stamped on your tire
> and how long it actually lasted?

I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to this
question. I took the second set of tires off my car
not that long ago. They were supposed to have a
50K life (per sales blurbs) and they had lots of
mileage remaining in the tread. But I got real
unhappy with the noise they were making that came
about because of apparent hardening of the rubber.

I gave them away to some really poor folks who were
thrilled to have tires with good tread regardless
of the noise. Their free tires improved their
quality of ride, as did my new replacements using
a better grade of tire.

Those 50K tires with 30 K on them that I gave away
were approaching 5 years in service.

So the reason to replace tires isn't always a tread
wear issue.
From: _Pnina Gersten_ on 25 Aug 2007 19:10
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:51:55 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
> For instance, letting us know what kind of car you drive and where you
> live might help. Both have a significant impact on tread life.

I live near Pleasanton California where it almost never rains nor snows.
Well, it rains a bit in the winter but never in the fall, summer, or
spring. It's pretty flat so there are no hills, nor do I drive on dirt
roads. My car is a Toyota Camry, year 2000 and I've the stock size tires
and wheels. I drive like a little old lady mostly around town and not much
on the highway. When I drive on the highway, I stay below about 85 as my
limit. Around town I try to avoid sudden starts and stops and I never spin
my wheels nor do I leave skid marks on the road. Still, I don't get
anywhere near the 30,000 miles per index 100 for my tires, having been
through two full sets of tires in the 85,0000 miles I've driven since I
bought the car new. I buy my tires where I get free balancing and rotations
and about twice a year I take them in for the tests. I had the car aligned
twice since I bought it and the shocks/struts have been replaced about a
year ago. I keep a tire gage in my glove box so when I fill the tires about
every few months, I check to keep them at the right specification that I
read off the door panel. I get about a flat a year (on average it seems)
and they have to repair the tire from the inside (sometimes it's too close
to the edge and they have to throw the tire away).

I'm not sure what else matters. What else would you need to know?
From: sdlomi2 on 25 Aug 2007 23:16

"_Pnina Gersten_" <pd53(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BF2Ai.4512$Oo.3534(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:51:55 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> For instance, letting us know what kind of car you drive and where you
>> live might help. Both have a significant impact on tread life.
>
> I live near Pleasanton California where it almost never rains nor snows.
> Well, it rains a bit in the winter but never in the fall, summer, or
> spring. It's pretty flat so there are no hills, nor do I drive on dirt
> roads. My car is a Toyota Camry, year 2000 and I've the stock size tires
> and wheels. I drive like a little old lady mostly around town and not much
> on the highway. When I drive on the highway, I stay below about 85 as my
> limit. Around town I try to avoid sudden starts and stops and I never spin
> my wheels nor do I leave skid marks on the road. Still, I don't get
> anywhere near the 30,000 miles per index 100 for my tires, having been
> through two full sets of tires in the 85,0000 miles I've driven since I
> bought the car new. I buy my tires where I get free balancing and
> rotations
> and about twice a year I take them in for the tests. I had the car aligned
> twice since I bought it and the shocks/struts have been replaced about a
> year ago. I keep a tire gage in my glove box so when I fill the tires
> about
> every few months, I check to keep them at the right specification that I
> read off the door panel. I get about a flat a year (on average it seems)
> and they have to repair the tire from the inside (sometimes it's too close
> to the edge and they have to throw the tire away).
>
> I'm not sure what else matters. What else would you need to know?
_Prina, I find this quite interesting, and I've been lazily waiting for
a valid answer to your question--it's been on my mind, on a back burner I
must admit, but has nonetheless bothered me over the years. The most
explanations I've received from tire dealers is the 'relativity
excuse'--i.e., a 200 theoretically goes 2 times the miles as a 100-rated
tire. My dad sold tires and I sold cars. At one time I would install the
el cheapo tires, like those with a 220 twr(treadwear rating), on cars I was
sending to auction. After all, if they weren't Michelins, new tires were
just that--new tires (We only knew of 1 'quality' tire in my area.). But
after I saw 2 customers wearing those same tires(not sold by me): (1) have a
blowout while sitting at a red light in hot weather; and (2) another have a
blowout riding in town at about 35 mph; both these tires blew out on the
sidewall, of all places. I quit even using them on the auction-units!
My customers and my family and I never have gotten the mileage wear
advertised by that belief in 30k per 100 rating. One actually did get 60k
on a set of 60-k Michelins on a '95 Riviera, but I refused to ride with him
for the last 10-15k miles. Like you, I feel there must be some percentage
we can use to help determine the actual miles to "really" expect. Even
twr's will differ among mfgs--I don't wish to beat them down, but "Energy
Men" stores will put a 500 twr on a tire that won't give but about 60-70%
the miles that a 500 Michelin will give.
My guestimate therefore would have to be for a given mfg. Michelins,
for instance, I'd guess like you: using 500 to indicate 5 times the 30k, or
150,000 miles, I'd estimate about 1/2 the theoretical 150k, or 75k at
best--in our state, the last 2/32 inch of tread legally must be replaced!
My friend who got 60k from his Mich's was using Summits, and the 60k he
quoted me was what the selling dealer had told him--but the twr was way
higher than 200--which would've been twice the 30k from the 100 twr. IIRC,
his twr was about 400. Using the relativity model, that would suggest 4
times 30k, or 120 k. And 1/2 of this 120k would be the 60k he actually
got--some miles from quality and some miles from prayers!
I used to buy a metric-design tread from Western Auto--made pretty tires
for Taurus's etc.--and IIRC their twr was about 320. We ran a set on an
~'87 model Taurus. With about 20k on the tires, we sold it to a local
company. Seems like they asked me to get them a new set of tires when they
had put about another 10k on them, for a total of 30k miles. This rates
about 96k based on the 100 giving 30k, and works out to be a factor of about
1/3 actual miles as based on the 96k theoretical miles. These were cheap
tires, and may have had a much-inflated rating like the "Energy Men" ratings
I mentioned earlier.
Then one exception I must toss in: a friend who bought a new Explorer
and drove it on many daily 200-mile round trips, got an unbelieveable 130k
on a set of Firestones. He then traded it to the local Toyota store, which
cleaned it up and put it on their budget lot--with the same tires, just
polished to give them a glossy appearance.
My final analysis from all this bs is that one would at least have to
use a different set of parameters, and percentages, as he moves from one
mfg. to another. But we can be assured of one thing: that model of 30k per
100 rating can NOT be relied upon. Even if we stick to one brand, the %'s
are going to vary as we go from one temp. rating to another and from one
traction rating to another.
Now to introduce another problem that prevents our getting as many
miles...those damnable flat spots that occur and create such roar and
bumping, even with 2/3 the original tread depth still remaining. Can we
legally claim 2x their original cost?...or 3x the orig. cost?...as a
charitable income tax deduction? I cried every time I had to "donate" so
many over the years that I'd think it reasonable to claim some % of their
original cost to pain and suffering!!!
This whole theme seems to just defy all scientific criteria. Unless we
defer it to "social science"!!! All my 2 cents' worth, and often worth
every dime. sam



From: Lee Richardson on 26 Aug 2007 10:21
Just a data point.

1999 4dr Olds Alero 3400 V6, purchased new. Factory original BF Goodrich
Touring T/As.

P215/60 R15
TPC Spec 1139 M/S
Treadware 380
Traction A
Temperature B

This car has 107,500 miles on it and while obviously worn, none of the tires
are down to the tread wear indicators in any groove. Tires are wearing
extremely evenly, have been rotated maybe 3 times in the life of the car,
although the fronts of course wear quicker than the rears on this front
wheel drive car. Rain and dry traction still excellent, even in resistance
to hydroplaning in standing rain water. Wheels seem to be exceptionally
well aligned, although it has never had a wheel alignment and was in one
moderate collision to the right front corner. This car rolls very easily,
when you lift at 45 mph it slows -very- gradually.



Location is Evansville, Indiana, miles have been about 75% city, 25%
highway. About 99 percent paved roads, but roughness, pot holes, rough
train tracks, etc. are not unusual.

Lee Richardson
Mech-Tech


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
Next: We already knew that turn signal DRL's were a bad idea...