How many treadwear miles do we REALLY get for every 100 UTQG points?

How many miles will a typical car actually get on a tire rated 500?
I googled for the Uniform Tire Quality Grade (UTQG) Standards and found
articles which describe how the government runs the Texas test to determine the tire treadwear rating based on the first 7200 miles http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techidH http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/utqg.htm
Basically, 100 = 30,000 miles so 500 = 150,000 miles of tread life based on extrapolation of the first 7,200 miles of wear in San Angelo, Texas.
What I don't get is why I don't get anywhere near 150,000 miles out of a single set of properly inflated, balanced, and rotated tires in a car properly aligned, accelerated, and braked.
So, my question is how many miles do we/you REALLY get for every 100 points in a UTQG rating? In real life. Really.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: How many miles will a typical car actually get on a tire rated 500? : : I googled for the Uniform Tire Quality Grade (UTQG) Standards and found : articles which describe how the government runs the Texas test to determine : the tire treadwear rating based on the first 7200 miles : http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techidH : http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/utqg.htm : : Basically, 100 = 30,000 miles so 500 = 150,000 miles of tread life based on : extrapolation of the first 7,200 miles of wear in San Angelo, Texas. : : What I don't get is why I don't get anywhere near 150,000 miles out of a : single set of properly inflated, balanced, and rotated tires in a car : properly aligned, accelerated, and braked. : : So, my question is how many miles do we/you REALLY get for every 100 points : in a UTQG rating? In real life. Really.
It's on the page you quoted. "The grading fixes 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index, and the grading shall be in multiplies of 20." "A tire graded 200 would wear twice as well on the government course as a tire graded 100."
At 30,000 miles you've had 100% wear, the tyre is worn out.
If you want 150,000 miles, buy a tyre that is GRADED 500, but be warned, it will be expensive. Don't have a severe cut after 100 miles or you lose the money. In real life. Really.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

I'd put more stock in the treadwear warranty of the tire than in the UTQG rating. It's likely that you will get slightly more mileage than the warranty if you drive a light car and take care of your tires (regular rotations and pressure checks) however probably not much. The UTQG rating is simply designed to provide a method for you to *compare* tread life across different brands, etc. by providing a consistent tread life testing methodology, e.g. a 200 UTQG tread life rated tire may not reach 60K miles in real world conditions, but a 300 UTQG tire WILL last probably pretty close to 1.5x as long under the same conditions.
Keep in mind that a) if you're using all-season tires and live in an area with snow, you will end up replacing the tires before they are completely worn out because you don't want to be driving in snow on almost-worn-out all seasons (which reminds me, I predict a fight between Yours Truly and the fleet people in a couple months) and b) tires with high tread life often have low traction due to the hard rubber compound. There are some high end tires that are the exception to this rule (e.g. Michelin) but they are pricey.
I remember years ago, high performance tires used to have underrated UTQG tread life ratings because buyers had a hard association in their minds between long tread life and poor traction. You don't see that so much anymore, but ISTR seeing ratings as low as 50 on DOT legal race tires.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:16:07 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

Hi Nate Nagel,
Being scientifically inclined, I prefer measurements to marketing.
IMHO, the tire manufacturer's "warranty" is a blatant marketing gimmick. I'm always amazed at some of my friends who would rather quote a warranty rather than a test result. IMHO, the "warranty" gibberish has absolutely no bearing on anything other than pure marketing needs. Sure, you'll say they don't warrant what they can't justify and I'll respond with sure, they need to make money, but, how many times have YOU actually redeemed a battery/brakepad/tire warranty in real life? I never do because a) The warranty is prorated b) You have to buy THEIR tire again from THEIR distributor and stock c) You have to pay THEIR (inflated) price at that time d) The warranty is prorated but you often end up paying MORE for the second tire (due to conditions above) than the first tire! Ha. Warranty.
It's not you per se that makes me write this as I've taught many a friend about testing standards - but anyone who quotes a marketing tool as science has to get this lecture from me.
Having said that, does anyone of the millions of drivers out there actually compare their mileage received with the government UTQG test results?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

I don't. Why? There's more to a tire than just it's expected mileage per set. I care more about traction (dry and snow) than whether the tire makes it 50,000 miles or 500,000 miles. I've found tires have a useful lifespan of <10 years, and I usually do about a max of 10,000 miles per year per car because I own multiple cars and thus the sidewalls start to weathercrack or I don't even own the car anymore instead of going through multiple sets of tires.
FWIW, my buddy way back when was doing lots of driving for work and his Goodyear Inifitreads must have done 80-90k miles and still weren't worn out, but that was all easy highway driving.
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treadwear_rating to be eye opening and depressing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

2001 Trans Am, driven extremely hard.
Stock Tires were Goodyear Eagle F1 GSes, they made 23,000 miles. (IIRC the rating was 300) Replacement Tires are Kumho Ecsta MXes, with a 220 rating, they've made it 12,000 miles and aren't totally bald yet.
FWIW, my BF Goodrich Drag radials have a treadwear rating of 0. :)
The Canadian Tire Predator GTS's on my wife's Beretta made it 45k miles before they started to self destruct, there was still plenty of tread left, but the sidewalls started to crack and there was internal belt separation. Unfortunately I don't know the treadwear #, but the treadwear warranty was 50k miles.
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

Where in heck do they get 'those' numbers?
They 'sure' aren't on the NHTSA page you linked to.
To Quote:
A grade of 100 would indicate that the tire tread would last as long as the test tire, 200 would indicate the tread would last twice as long, 300 would indicate three times as long, etc.
End Quote
It says absolutely zip about how many 'miles' the tire can last.
Your second link is a web page that appears to be totally wrong. Their 'example' is worded correct, but their 'test' procedure is bullshit.
Here is the 'real' NHSTA site:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/UTQG / Which resolves to:
http://www.safercar.gov/Tires/pages/TireRatTreadwear.htm
It also states the same as I quoted with 'no' mention of 'miles' in relation to that test, 'only' that the number 100 is assigned to the tread wear on the control tire.
Reality and the tire makers state that the lower rubber is even harder than the stuff on the outside so they wear slower as they age.
Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id !15147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
Reality and the tire makers state that the lower rubber is even harder than the stuff on the outside so they wear slower as they age.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:34:21 -0400, Mike Romain wrote:

Hi Mike Romain, Thanks for checking on my figures. I appreciate that as that's what science is all about. In double-checking, both web pages showed the test procedure but only the second web page showed the 30,000 miles treadwear for every 100 in the UTQG index.
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/TireWheel/utqg.htm "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 *. The grading fixes 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index, and the grading shall be in multiplies of 20.
*The test course consists of three loops of a total of 400 miles (644kms) in the geographical vicinity of Goodfellow Air Force Base (AFB), San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.
(TEST PROCEDURE) * Run a car with test tires mounted till 6,400 miles (10,300kms) pass. (The tire is tested in convoy with a "base" tire so as to eliminate the variable of temperature and road surface. * Measure the tread depth after each 800 miles (1287kms) run. * Then the projected worn out tire life is calculated. Fixing that 30,000 miles (48,279kms) as 100% Index."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anyone can write any bullshit on any webpage, that still makes it bullshit. They show 'A' bullshit test, totally fictional, not 'the test procedure'.
The 'real' test procedure done for the NHTSA makes 'no' mileage claims, only 'comparison' claims.
The webpage is totally 'wrong'.
Therefore your surmise is wrong.
Mike
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:01:46 -0400, Mike Romain wrote:

Hi Mike Romain, I've known about the 30,000 miles ever since they put the treadwear numbers in use. I just pointed to a web page for others to reference. I can point to HUNDREDS of web pages which have that 30,000 base number and to none that have any other number other than 30,000 miles.
Witness ... http://www.lexusclub.co.uk/onallfours.htm which says "The UTQG is very useful, don't listen to those who say 'it means nothing' they are, in almost every way, incorrect. The first number relates to how hard wearing the Tyre is, 100 means 30,000 miles of normal use by a 100 HP, 22 Cwt motorcar".
Or witness ... http://www.arc-light.co.uk/tyreandwheel.html which says "The treadlife index measures the relative treadlife of the tire compared to a "government reference". An index of 100 is equivalent to an estimated treadlife of 30,000 miles of highway driving."
Or witness ... http://www.icarumba.com/cobrands/contentmodules/resourcecenter/articles/icar_resourcecenter_articles_sidewall.asp which says "The base treadwear rating for passenger tires is 100, which translates into an expected tread life of 30,000 miles."
Or witness ... http://www.procarcare.com/icarumba/resourcecenter/encyclopedia/icar_resourcecenter_encyclopedia_tires2.asp which says "The treadwear grade is expressed by a number in multiples of 10-a higher number indicating a comparatively longer tread life. The number 100 is assigned as the standard of 30,000 mile"
Or witness ... http://www.4crawler.com/Diesel/Tires.shtml which says "A rating of 100 is roughly defined as a tire lasting 30,000 miles on the designated test course"
Or witness ... http://www.aicautosite.com/garage/subsys/batirera.asp which says "Relative tread wear is indicated by a number. The control number is 100, indicating approximately 30,000 miles under normal test driving conditions."
(I could go on). If you think this number is wrong, can you find a SINGLE reference that shows a DIFFERENT base number of miles for the 100 index of the UTQG standard?
Or is your surmiser wrong?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

It seems that the 30k number does not necessarily correspond to actual miles for tire lifetime. It's only the figure used in this test to set a standard for comparison. One reference even states "control number." For example, a tire in that test rig that has an expected lifetime of 30k gets, say, 25k actual use miles in real world conditions on a car. But put that same tire on a heavier car, or a car with front wheel drive instead of rear wheel drive, or the other way around, and the lifetime changes. So while on one vehicle we could come up with 30k UTQG == 25k actual, on another vehicle it may work out to 20k actual, or 28k actual, or 32k actual. Then there are the other variables of driving style, climate, load, if the tire is used in a tandem arrangement, city driving vs highway driving, towing, potholes, etc. Too many variables for a simple ratio to take into account. UTQG seems to be a comparative measurement than an actual lifetime estimate. Where it would be useful is you have a set of 100-rated tires that you got 20k out of and want to get a ballpark estimate of how long comparable 200-rated tires will last. But you'd have to find your own baseline on your own vehicle first.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

There is only 'one' site that has the correct information and that site is the NHTSA or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
This is the Administration that 'designed' the UTQG test and they make no mileage claims, quite the opposite.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/TireSafety/ridesonit/brochure.html
If you look at the tire sellers, none of them claim miles related to the UTQG either.
Here is a link to the NHTSA tire testing Laboratory procedure PDF file:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP-139-03.pdf
'ALL' the rest are repeating erroneous information or guesses.
As to how many miles are tested for....
To quote the Laboratory procedure PDF file document on page 43 for the tire endurance test:
The tire shall be run without interruptions at these intervals: 4-hour test: 85% as a percentage of tire maximum load rating 6-hour test: 90% as a percentage of tire maximum load rating 24-hour test: 100% as a percentage of tire maximum load rating
Tire speed o PC and LT Tire without a snowflake symbol on the sidewall, speed in kilometers per hour: 120 kph+0 to 3.2 kph (75 miles/hour +0     to 2 mph) o For PC and LT tires with the snowflake symbol on the sidewall, speed in kilometers per hour: 110 kph+0 to 3.2 kph (68          miles/hour +0 to 2 mph)
End Quote
Or stage 1 is 480 km or 300 miles
Stage 2 is 720 km or 450 miles
Stage 3 is 2880 km or 1800 miles
For a Total of 4080 km or 2550 miles
They do a 90 minute at 120 kph or 75 mph low pressure run.
One for high speed,
30 minutes at 140 kph, 30 minutes at 150 kph, and, 30 minutes at 160 kph.
And a 3 hour warm up at 80 kph in there somewhere...
That's a far cry from 30,000 miles....
Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id !15147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.icarumba.com/cobrands/contentmodules/resourcecenter/articles/icar_resourcecenter_articles_sidewall.asp
http://www.procarcare.com/icarumba/resourcecenter/encyclopedia/icar_resourcecenter_encyclopedia_tires2.asp
If you are truly an admirer of scientific method, how do you expect to get a definitive answer with as many variables as there are among a small group of newsgroup posters? There are so many variables in the operation of any given motor vehicle that it would seem impossible. The treadware ratings are an attempt to standardize usage, and thus eliminate variables, as much as possible. The ratings scale was developed so that one tire could be compared to another, not to give an absolute mileage figure.
There is no meaningful answer to your question. That's why you can't get one. If you find answers in the GPS group, it's because (presumably) GPS information is a bit more specific than tire wear.
There's a reason why so many NG posts include the phrase "Your mileage may vary (YMMV)." In this case, it couldn't be more appropriate.
mg
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

I can see this giving really screwy numbers for snow tires that use a soft "outer" tread, and a harder inner tread.
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Blizzak+WS-50 interestingly, there's no UTQG for these...
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Aug 2007 18:59:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Hi Jim Yanik, Yes. That is the whole point. There is a scientific method (which is the 100 = 30,000 miles extrapolated from 7,200 miles of test driving) ... and there is the practical method.
I'm beginning to understand that this isn't the newsgroup for anyone who actually understands tires based on the responses I received so far. That's ok. It's my bad for going to the wrong group to ask a basic question regarding how long tires last and what their treadwear numbers were.
But, if this is the wrong group for automotive tire questions, ... may I ask ...
Which newsgroup best understands automobile tires in ordinary use?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

It is a very rare occasion when someone can get a valid answer to any question in a usenet newsgroup.
On the other hand, I doubt that even the tire industry actually "understands" tires in ordinary use. For example, why does Goodyear guarantee their tires (for an extra fee) only for the first 25% of tread wear?
The implications are astounding.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:09:07 -0500, nonsense wrote:

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.

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

Glad to hear that's working for you.

Hardly a matter for sci.physics though.

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

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.

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
_Pnina Gersten_ wrote:

Did you ever think that perhaps there's simply no good answer to your question?
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.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.