Originally Posted By: bourne
Please go ahead and read it again. Here is a Quote from there .....Again , like I said , each company has its OWN base tire.........
You didn't read anywhere in the quote you provided that says that - and while there is a grain of truth in what you've said, the whole truth is more complex.
Sometimes there has to be a comparsion to another tire - and it's frequently one of the current offerings - but ultimately it has to be traced to the SRTT - Standard Reference Test Tire - which the regulation is calling the course monitoring tire.
Originally Posted By: bourne
.....I sell tires for a living , I make it a point to know my product.......
Then listen and learn from someone who answers questions from people who sell tires. What you wrote next will help you sell tires - and I sincerely believe you believe what you wrote - but it is just flat, not true.
Originally Posted By: bourne
......The ratings only exist so that tire manufacturers have SOME sort of a quality criteria they have to meet. Meaning as long as a tire meets the requirements the manufacturer shoots for " traction, temperature and treadwear " , they do not have to test it any more, neither do they have to submit it for any more testing. .....
About a year ago, the company I work for - a major tire manufacturer - got a letter from NHTSA (National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration). One of the tires we made didn't meet the UTQG grade imprinted on the sidewall of the tire.
In a series of conference calls: They showed us their test data, we had to show them ours (in other words, did we actually conduct the test? We did!), then between the 2 groups, we figured out why their test results differed from our test results - It was a difference in manufacturing plants. They were right and we had change our rating.
Very embarrassing, but it worked out well. The folks at NHTSA could have been heavy handed abd slapped us with a fine, but instead, they worked with us. They were more concerned that we comply with the regulation and that what was published was backed by test data. Because we had actually conducted the test and had no reason to believe the difference in plants was significant, and because we volunteered to downgrade the published rating to match their data, they closed the inquiry.
We chose that path because running these tests is expensive and we couldn't justify the cost involved.
Originally Posted By: bourne
........A tire rated A might very well work as an AA rated tire, the company just chose to place it in the market with an A rating. Here is an example, we sell Goodyear Wrangler Silentarmors at work , rated for 50k treadlife rating. I know of at least 10 different customers , who in regular everyday driving , maintained their alignment and rotated regularly, got 70k+ miles with tread left to spare.
Wanna explain why Michelin with a treadwear of 500 is warranting their tires for 60k , compared to Goodyears with 520 rating warrantied for 50k ? ....
Sure. First, different parts of the country have different road surfaces. The AVERAGE treadwear in a given area will differ depending on where the tires operate.
For example, we know that Southern Florida has really abrasive road surfaces. They use aggregate from what is reffered to as "young limestone". It hasn't been in the ground as long as - say - limestone from Colorado. In the Florida limestone, the stone cleaves such that the sea shells leave a sharp edge that literally rips the tread rubber off.
The Pittsburgh area is also difficult on tire wear - but that's because there is hardly a flat, straight piece of roadway. Most tire wear occurs in cornering - straight ahead miles are pretty close to free miles.
Originally Posted By: bourne
....Or why this General tire with a 640 Treadwear rating is only warrantied for 40k for H rated of higher, yet the treadwear spec is the same for almost all tires ???....
This is where the marketing folks live. I can't explain why they've done this, but it smells more about marketing than it does test results.
Originally Posted By: bourne
....... One more example, three tires in 205-60-16 size
Goodyear Comforttred : 640 A B 70k warranty
Hankook Optimo H727 : 700 A B 100k warranty
Bridgestone Serenity : 740 A A 70k warranty
Now as an uninformed consumer , if you walk into a tire store , which tire looks to give you the best value for your money ? And what makes you think you will get that value ?....
The questions you asked aren't test results kind of questions. It more about how the different tire manufacturers view their marketing.
Very few tires are returned unbder warranty for wear. In other words, there is very little cost associated with offering a very high treadwear warranty.
The question then boils down to how aggressive does the company want to be. It's obvious that General is being very agressive on their rating, but conservative with their warranty - an interesting position. Same for Bridgestone. Hankook is being agressive on both. Goodyear looks like they are relating the UTQG rating to the warranty.
Originally Posted By: bourne
.......so to summarize , UTQG ratings are more similar to minimum requirements and are relative, effective when comparing tires made by the same manufacturer, not so much when trying to compare two DIFFERENT manufacturers.
The tire manufacturers have given you - the tire retailer - plenty of room to contrast and compare. While what you say is true about the differening rating and warranty and how they don't line up, it is quite a different thing to say you can't compare between brands. The marketing departments in each of the tire brands WANTS you to compare. They WANT you to have tools to use to sell their product. They just disagree on how to do that.
Some feel the UTQG rating is the best way. Those folks can push the rating very far. Some think the warranty is key and they'll offer a hugely inflated warranty.
Others are concerned about integrity and try to coordinate their rating to their warranty. (I know, it seems like foreign concept when we talk about marketing!)
This is exactly why the UTQG rating was created to begin with. But the tire manufacturers are pretty intelligent and have figured out a way to deal with the regulation.
I can appreciate what you are saying, but the published rating is based on both the test result and the individual company's marketing philosophy - and that varies all over the map. It gives you retailers plenty of room to compare and contrast.
If it makes you feel more comfortable to dismiss the treadwear rating - fine. It's a very complex area. But surely you would agree that the difference between a tire with a 500 rating and a tire with a 700 rating HAS to be different regardless of the difference in brand.
Please go ahead and read it again. Here is a Quote from there .....Again , like I said , each company has its OWN base tire.........
You didn't read anywhere in the quote you provided that says that - and while there is a grain of truth in what you've said, the whole truth is more complex.
Sometimes there has to be a comparsion to another tire - and it's frequently one of the current offerings - but ultimately it has to be traced to the SRTT - Standard Reference Test Tire - which the regulation is calling the course monitoring tire.
Originally Posted By: bourne
.....I sell tires for a living , I make it a point to know my product.......
Then listen and learn from someone who answers questions from people who sell tires. What you wrote next will help you sell tires - and I sincerely believe you believe what you wrote - but it is just flat, not true.
Originally Posted By: bourne
......The ratings only exist so that tire manufacturers have SOME sort of a quality criteria they have to meet. Meaning as long as a tire meets the requirements the manufacturer shoots for " traction, temperature and treadwear " , they do not have to test it any more, neither do they have to submit it for any more testing. .....
About a year ago, the company I work for - a major tire manufacturer - got a letter from NHTSA (National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration). One of the tires we made didn't meet the UTQG grade imprinted on the sidewall of the tire.
In a series of conference calls: They showed us their test data, we had to show them ours (in other words, did we actually conduct the test? We did!), then between the 2 groups, we figured out why their test results differed from our test results - It was a difference in manufacturing plants. They were right and we had change our rating.
Very embarrassing, but it worked out well. The folks at NHTSA could have been heavy handed abd slapped us with a fine, but instead, they worked with us. They were more concerned that we comply with the regulation and that what was published was backed by test data. Because we had actually conducted the test and had no reason to believe the difference in plants was significant, and because we volunteered to downgrade the published rating to match their data, they closed the inquiry.
We chose that path because running these tests is expensive and we couldn't justify the cost involved.
Originally Posted By: bourne
........A tire rated A might very well work as an AA rated tire, the company just chose to place it in the market with an A rating. Here is an example, we sell Goodyear Wrangler Silentarmors at work , rated for 50k treadlife rating. I know of at least 10 different customers , who in regular everyday driving , maintained their alignment and rotated regularly, got 70k+ miles with tread left to spare.
Wanna explain why Michelin with a treadwear of 500 is warranting their tires for 60k , compared to Goodyears with 520 rating warrantied for 50k ? ....
Sure. First, different parts of the country have different road surfaces. The AVERAGE treadwear in a given area will differ depending on where the tires operate.
For example, we know that Southern Florida has really abrasive road surfaces. They use aggregate from what is reffered to as "young limestone". It hasn't been in the ground as long as - say - limestone from Colorado. In the Florida limestone, the stone cleaves such that the sea shells leave a sharp edge that literally rips the tread rubber off.
The Pittsburgh area is also difficult on tire wear - but that's because there is hardly a flat, straight piece of roadway. Most tire wear occurs in cornering - straight ahead miles are pretty close to free miles.
Originally Posted By: bourne
....Or why this General tire with a 640 Treadwear rating is only warrantied for 40k for H rated of higher, yet the treadwear spec is the same for almost all tires ???....
This is where the marketing folks live. I can't explain why they've done this, but it smells more about marketing than it does test results.
Originally Posted By: bourne
....... One more example, three tires in 205-60-16 size
Goodyear Comforttred : 640 A B 70k warranty
Hankook Optimo H727 : 700 A B 100k warranty
Bridgestone Serenity : 740 A A 70k warranty
Now as an uninformed consumer , if you walk into a tire store , which tire looks to give you the best value for your money ? And what makes you think you will get that value ?....
The questions you asked aren't test results kind of questions. It more about how the different tire manufacturers view their marketing.
Very few tires are returned unbder warranty for wear. In other words, there is very little cost associated with offering a very high treadwear warranty.
The question then boils down to how aggressive does the company want to be. It's obvious that General is being very agressive on their rating, but conservative with their warranty - an interesting position. Same for Bridgestone. Hankook is being agressive on both. Goodyear looks like they are relating the UTQG rating to the warranty.
Originally Posted By: bourne
.......so to summarize , UTQG ratings are more similar to minimum requirements and are relative, effective when comparing tires made by the same manufacturer, not so much when trying to compare two DIFFERENT manufacturers.
The tire manufacturers have given you - the tire retailer - plenty of room to contrast and compare. While what you say is true about the differening rating and warranty and how they don't line up, it is quite a different thing to say you can't compare between brands. The marketing departments in each of the tire brands WANTS you to compare. They WANT you to have tools to use to sell their product. They just disagree on how to do that.
Some feel the UTQG rating is the best way. Those folks can push the rating very far. Some think the warranty is key and they'll offer a hugely inflated warranty.
Others are concerned about integrity and try to coordinate their rating to their warranty. (I know, it seems like foreign concept when we talk about marketing!)
This is exactly why the UTQG rating was created to begin with. But the tire manufacturers are pretty intelligent and have figured out a way to deal with the regulation.
I can appreciate what you are saying, but the published rating is based on both the test result and the individual company's marketing philosophy - and that varies all over the map. It gives you retailers plenty of room to compare and contrast.
If it makes you feel more comfortable to dismiss the treadwear rating - fine. It's a very complex area. But surely you would agree that the difference between a tire with a 500 rating and a tire with a 700 rating HAS to be different regardless of the difference in brand.
