low trendwear rating, low traction == LRR?

[PandaBear]

Like CapriRacer said it is almost impossible to find rolling resistance information.

So among all the tires out there for a particular size, can I conclude that if a tire has lower trend wear rating (400) and warranty than the other (480) but different brand, for the same (close enough) price, it will be likely that the lower trend wear rating one will be lower in rolling resistance?

Assumption is both claims to have silica enhanced trend compound.

 

[hstuehmeyer2000]

I don't think that the treadwear rating necessarly directly relates to rolling resistance. Usually though the lower the rating the higher the traction. Real Grippy tires usually have a low treadwear rating.

EDIT: Here is a link with some info about LRR tires.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.ph...report-520.html

 

[HTSS_TR]

Tread life is not easily compared between brands, it is not easily compared within brand for different performance categories. LRR is somewhat related to traction, if you look at the same model of the same brand you may find some sizes have more than one UTQG, the higher speed rated sizes usually have lower tread life, higher traction and higher rolling resistance.

Example: Yokohama AVID W4S and H4S. UTQG of W4S is 400 AA A and H4S is 500 AA A. H4S has lower RR than W4S.

 

[JHZR2]

Maybe treadwear on a non summer/uhp tire. But traction? Nope. I've seen A/A rated LRR tires.

 

[CapriRacer]

There's a lot going on here.

First, the UTQG ratings are NOT like the end result of a test. There's a test involved - and in theory, you should be able to compare between brands - but what is really going on is NOT over-reporting.

For example: If there is a tire that gets a rating of 560 according to the test, but the tire manufacturer is marketing this tire as a lower rated model, then they could mark the tire at 400 without reservation. The same is true of the other ratings.

So to answer PandaBear's question - IF (and it's a big "IF") the UTQG ratings were accurate, then, yes, true LRR tires would have both low treadwear and traction ratings.

- BUT -

The term "LRR" is another terribly mis-understood term. When Tire Rack assigns that to a tire, it's because the tire manufacturer has designated that particular line of tires as having improved RR - and the tire manufacturer is doing a comparison to a comparable product.

So if Goodstone produces the "FireEagle LW" (Long Wear) with a 560/A/A rating, and they come out with a "FireEagle RR" with a 520/A/A and declare that to be LRR, it doesn't mean that the RR is better than the "FireEagle OEM".

 

[Nick R]

So would B/B rated 560 tires (like the Firestones on my cruze) be considered LRR, or just junk? Lol

 

[PandaBear]

The reason I ask is there is no LRR tires in 195/60/14 for reasonable price at H rating.

The closest thing I can find are rumors, that certain tires (like Falken Ziex 512, Sumitomo HTR A/S P01, and the now discontinued Sumitomo HTR 200 at high inflation) are lower RR and certain tires (General Altimax HP, BF Goodrich gForce Super Sport, etc) are higher RR.

Since I prefer cheap, good enough traction (almost all H rated tires), non directional, and fuel economy (since I no longer drive long distance), I was thinking between Fuzion Touring H&V vs Sumitomo HTR A/S P01. They seems to both have silica trend compound and one is slightly lower in trendwear (400 vs 480).

I am very confused, especially for new tires that have no gotten much review and survey on the internet about fuel economy.

 

[leeharvey418]

Rolling Resistance is the new snake oil - there's no real industry standard that defines 'Low Rolling Resistance', so tire makers are free to compare their product to whatever they want to call a 'comparable' tire. Just pay close attention to the basis for comparison (I ditched my Revos and got a set of Ecopias and my mileage increased 50%! ...of course I also went from 25 psi to 50 psi at the same time...).

Look for fuel consumption tests that actually put tire directly up against each other in identical conditions - Tire Rack has started doing this recently, and I believe Consumer's Union has been doing it for a while. Then again, I've never seen either of them do a comparison that would actually allow anyone to evaluate differences across market segments...

 

[SteveSRT8]

LRR is indeed pure snake oil. No real basis to evaluate the claims.

Waste of time for the tiny improvement that it yields.

 

[nthach]

treadwear!=LRR.

Even though Toyota and Honda have used an OEM-spec Bridgestone Potenza RE92 on the 1st gen Prius and Insight with a 160/A/A rating. Michelin makes a LRR HydroEdge with a 800/A/B rating.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
There's a lot going on here.

First, the UTQG ratings are NOT like the end result of a test. There's a test involved - and in theory, you should be able to compare between brands - but what is really going on is NOT over-reporting.

For example: If there is a tire that gets a rating of 560 according to the test, but the tire manufacturer is marketing this tire as a lower rated model, then they could mark the tire at 400 without reservation. The same is true of the other ratings.


So, is this why there are some max/uhp summers and all seasons which are rated at 400 treadwear (more or less), but perform/stick/handle/produce g forces as if they were 200 or less treadwear rubber??

 

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
So, is this why there are some max/uhp summers and all seasons which are rated at 400 treadwear (more or less), but perform/stick/handle/produce g forces as if they were 200 or less treadwear rubber??

Maybe. Like I said - there's a lot going on!