Hi,

I need advice about assessing tire quality from the experts/ gurus in
this forum.

With regards to tire composition and characteristics, what are the
important things I need to look out for when assessing quality of an
unbranded tire. Assuming that the tires are used in the recommended way
( such as not over loading or over speeding), I have heard that there
are several characteristics of tires which make them last longer, and I
am hoping you can shed some light on the following:

Thread depth - Does the tire last longer if it has a deeper thread?

Ply Rating - Is there any disadvantage to having a high ply rating,
and is there any specific correlation between the number of plys and
the weight. (for example each ply should add x kgs to the weight.)?

Quality of rubber - Is there variation in quality of rubber that can
make a tire last longer. Do they mix rubber with anything to increase
durability?

Tire patterns - what are the advantages and disadvantages of using a
rib/lug/mix designs

Weight of the tire - If it is a heavy tire would it last longer
assuming that there is more rubber used.

Sidewall - what is the difference between good quality and bad
quality sidewall?

The weather condition here is very hot, dry and sandy most of the year
with 4 months of moderate rain. So even the well built roads tend to be
very sandy which I assume increases tire friction. Some of the areas I
travel through are very underdeveloped with a lot of pot holes on the
roads. I have heard that nylon/x-ply/bias tires are better then radials
for uneven road surfaces and radials are better for good road
conditions, is this true?

Thank you for your help,
James

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, jamesp010@hotmail.com wrote:

> With regards to tire composition and characteristics, what are the
> important things I need to look out for when assessing quality of an
> unbranded tire.

Unbranded tires are unbranded because the company who made them does not
wish their reputation to be harmed by being associated with that
particular tire, or because that particular tire was made in a backalley
shop in China that was told by an unscrupulous Western importer "Make them
black and round". The "quality" of an unbranded tire is...there's no such
thing.

Tire sales are always going on. You don't have to spend a fortune. Buying
****ty tires is playing with lives (your own and others on the road).

Hi Daniel,

Sorry when I said unbranded I ment a brand that is not yet famous. I
hope you understand. I know that it could be dangerous trying something
new, this is why I am trying to find out what I should know about new
brands tires to minimise the risk. Apart from the making sure they have
E mark, Dot and ISO certified.

Thanks,
James

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, jamesp010@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > With regards to tire composition and characteristics, what are the
> > important things I need to look out for when assessing quality of an
> > unbranded tire.
>
> Unbranded tires are unbranded because the company who made them does not
> wish their reputation to be harmed by being associated with that
> particular tire, or because that particular tire was made in a backalley
> shop in China that was told by an unscrupulous Western importer "Make them
> black and round". The "quality" of an unbranded tire is...there's no such
> thing.
>
> Tire sales are always going on. You don't have to spend a fortune. Buying
> ****ty tires is playing with lives (your own and others on the road).

Be more specific about the tire brand.

Richard.

I have a feeling this is going to be a long thread with opinions all
over the map, mine included. And Daniel Stern may have it right - you
could be a troll motivated to generate a predictably long discussion for
whatever reason.

I am an engineer, but not with experience or technical competency in
tires - only what I have picked up as a consumer for 35+ years of
driving and DIY'ing who happens, for good or bad, to have an engineer's
brain (some might say that I had better give it back, or maybe even that
I'm due a refund).

Here are my opinions, probably none of which I can prove:
Use the UTQG standards (see
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=48) ratings
that are by law printed on at least one side of every tire: Treadwear,
Traction, Temperature.

Having worked in industry in engineering and management in competitive
situations, I've got to believe that there's a quite a bit of stretching
of the specs. by the manufacturers, and there's probably very little if
any meaningful enforcement for truth in specifications. Lacking any
other information to the contrary, I have to simplify things and assume
that they all cheat the same amount, so that would mean the specs. are a
good indicator for comparison shopping (and I asssume the tests to
determine the ratings are meaningful, which they probably are - wouldn't
be surprised if someone wants to argue with that, but that's a starting
point).

No reason these days to go anything less than 400 on treadwear rating.
There are some darn good affordable tires out there with 600 to 650 ratings.

Most tires (probably all I have seen) have an A traction rating - so
apparently that's very do-able even for a lower end tire (maybe the
spec. ranges are two broad).

Most temp. ratings are A or B. Don't go lower than B.

My personal philosophy: Elminate so-called "hi-performance" tires from
your search. Unless your *only* criteria for selection is road grip, you
will get very low bang for the buck - and road grip is not going to be
*that* much better regardless. "Hi-performance" tires, as a category,
have the following characeristics:
(1) Much more expensive unless you settle for even more compromises in
the design and quality than reasonable.
(2) They have poor tread life (way lower than a good, reasonably priced
touring tire).
(3) They have a tendency to have larger tread features (I forget what
you call the individual islands of rubber that make up the tread
pattern), which tend to cause funky wear patterns that become very noisy
starting near the middle of their short tread life.
(4) As a bonus to all the other issues, short of catastrophic failure or
your brother-in-law owning the tire store, you will never get a warranty
adjustment on a "hi-performance" tire even if you can document timely
alignments, maintenance, etc. - they don't care - the manufacturer
assumes that purchasers of "hi-performance" tires, by their very nature,
abuse their tires - burden of proof is on the consumer - and nothing is
provable - so forget it.

Also - buy your tires from the same place you get them installed,
balanced, and rotated and that does your alignments. And get printouts
of your alignments. The fewer parties that are involved, the less
finger pointing to avoid honoring a warranty claim if a problem should
occur (i.e., installer refers you to seller, seller refers you to
manufacturer, manufacturer refers you to the alignment shop, ad
infinitum - you get the picture.

When price shopping apples-to-apples, be sure to add up *all* costs and
benefits of buying mail order and local shop.

**Mail order:
Add in cost of shipping and paying a local shop for mounting and
balancing. Problems 10,000 miles down the road? No help from them.

**Local shop:
Mounting and initial balancing included in price - no shipping cost
added. Many/most shops give free balancing and rotation for the life of
the tires purchased there. Also see above re:
buying/installing/rotating/alignments all being single source (things go
a *lot* smoother if problems).

Can I assume you're not going to be driving well over 100 mph? Good.
Then stick with T or H rated tires (good for extended driving up to 118
mph). To go to higher speed ratings, other things are compromised as
evidenced that many tires are available in T/H speed rating with a given
treadwear rating or guarantee whereas the same tire (same exact model of
tire) in a V speed rating will have a significantly lower treadwear
rating or guarantee.

Most tread depths are 10 to 12 mm. If you have the treadwear rating -
it doesn't matter. Who cares what the intial depth is if it has
whatever treadwear rating. The only difference it could make is at
beginnng of tire life for resistnace to hydroplaning, but there are much
greater determinants of that in the other aspects of the tread design.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

> Having worked in industry in engineering and management in competitive
> situations, I've got to believe that there's a quite a bit of stretching
> of the specs. by the manufacturers, and there's probably very little if
> any meaningful enforcement for truth in specifications.

My father said that the radials he bought in the 1970s with treadwear
ratings of about 150 lasted about 35,000-40,000 miles, but today's
tires rated for 400 don't seem to last any longer. Apparently the
federal government stopped checking the test results around the time
Reagan became President.

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Having worked in industry in engineering and management in competitive
>>situations, I've got to believe that there's a quite a bit of stretching
>>of the specs. by the manufacturers, and there's probably very little if
>>any meaningful enforcement for truth in specifications.
>
>
> My father said that the radials he bought in the 1970s with treadwear
> ratings of about 150 lasted about 35,000-40,000 miles, but today's
> tires rated for 400 don't seem to last any longer. Apparently the
> federal government stopped checking the test results around the time
> Reagan became President.
>


To many varible here as the wear rating does not factor in car weight,
alignment and vehical usage. A heavier vehical will eat the tires
quicker than a lighter one will amd FWD cars will wear front tires
quicker if you do not rotate tham from time to time. (which you should
do RWD or FWD.

--

-----------------
www.thesnoman.com

TheSnoMan wrote:

> > My father said that the radials he bought in the 1970s with treadwear
> > ratings of about 150 lasted about 35,000-40,000 miles, but today's
> > tires rated for 400 don't seem to last any longer. Apparently the
> > federal government stopped checking the test results around the time
> > Reagan became President.

> To many varible here as the wear rating does not factor in car weight,
> alignment and vehical usage. A heavier vehical will eat the tires
> quicker than a lighter one will amd FWD cars will wear front tires
> quicker if you do not rotate tham from time to time. (which you should
> do RWD or FWD.

The car with the old radials on it was heavier and RWD, and all the
tires in question wore down very evenly. I think that tire
manufacturers have simply been exaggerating the treadwear numbers.

>Thread depth - Does the tire last longer if it has a deeper thread?

Only if you purchase the deep weave option. What you want is a plush or
high pile Thread for winter driving or bumpy roads. The tire won't
really last any longer, but it will seem like it because you have to
vacuum it every 2 or 3 days.

>Quality of rubber - Is there variation in quality of rubber that can
>make a tire last longer. Do they mix rubber with anything to increase
>durability?

Mummy powder is sometime used, although others prefer a
titanium-concrete alloy, but it is a bit loud at highway speed.
You might want to try to seek out a nice combination of teflon and
super glue. The super glue really makes it hold the highway, while the
teflon makes it easy to clean.

>Sidewall - what is the difference between good quality and bad
>quality sidewall?

a fair question and an easy one. a good quality sidewall makes you
feel like god's right hand man. Your living on top and all's right with
the world. Your A number one with a bullet on the charts.
With a bad quality sidewall you just get a headache and go to sleep.

>Tire patterns - what are the advantages and disadvantages of using a
>rib/lug/mix designs ?

Experts are mixed on this, but most feel it is primarily to confuse
bugs thereby making it easier to run them over and squash them. Some
feel it has something to do with traction and hydroplaning and such,
there is always a mad fringe on any issue, pay no attention and pick
what looks right to you.

I hope this has been helpful in your purchasing decisions. Mostly look
for tires that are round and about the right size to fit on your
wheels, also most people prefer black as a color choice though some
feel red is making a comeback. Be sure the dealer or agent where you
purchase your tires will provide free air for the life of the tires.
Make a point of this BEFORE you purchase! You may want to make sure
your spare will feel comfortable in the trunk by sleeping curled up in
the tire well for a few days just to see what it is like.

Just some tips.........

ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have)
procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level the
manufacturer has decided.

I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty.

I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit
of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap
tyre may wear out quicker.

I certainly can't afford to buy cheap.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

<jamesp010@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127311965.926845.17050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> E mark, Dot and ISO certified.
[...]

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have)
> procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level the
> manufacturer has decided.

In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least in the automotive world
below first tier. In the automotive world, QS9000 is strictly a CYA for
the first tier customer so that when a problem occurs, they have the
smoking gun in the supplier's own documentation, or have proof that the
supplier's documentation was falsified (good product went out, bad
product was recieved at the customer - how could that be?) - the latter
is often the case because the customer continued to take mandated cost
cuts from the supplier (in what they pay per supplied wigdet) while
requiring more and more bull**** quality documentation (as opposed to
genuine quality documentation) that the supplier could no longer afford
to hire the people to implement because of the cost cuts. The
supplier's only remaining choice is to shut down (because all of their
customers are automotive and require the same bullsh** system) or set up
a streamline system of faking the documentation.

(Remember Firestone tires on Ford Explorers?)

In the same way, JIT gets bastardized. The first tier customer mandates
that inventory control is JIT for them and down thru all tiers of the
supply chain. In reality, that just means that the supplier hides a
reserve stock so that when the inevitable sh** happens in the supply
chain, they can continue to ship product and save the custmor's a**.
The customer knows about this, but realizes that it keeps them out of
hot water, so a lot of winking goes on. But it's the corporate
religion, so know one dares speak up against it or change it.

> I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty.
>
> I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit
> of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap
> tyre may wear out quicker.
>
> I certainly can't afford to buy cheap.

As the saying goes: If you want economy, you have to pay for it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

ISO9000 is a marketing tool. Having ISO9000 merely means that you have met
the prescribed criteria: you have a quality manual, you have procedures
that document what you do, an accredited body has audited your facility to
ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do with
the real quality of products. Many organizations will not deal with
suppliers that are not ISO certified; that's their motivation to get it.
It's a joke.

I've audited more suppliers than I can remember. The first thing I do is
politely accept a copy of their certification, thank them for it, put it
among the papers I have collected and get on to really auditing their
processes. The best feature it provides for me is confirmation that they
should (at least in theory) have their processes documented.

Ken




"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4335766d$0$12182$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have)
> procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level the
> manufacturer has decided.
>
> I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty.
>
> I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that
bit
> of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap
> tyre may wear out quicker.
>
> I certainly can't afford to buy cheap.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> <jamesp010@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127311965.926845.17050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> > E mark, Dot and ISO certified.
> [...]
>
>

I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a particular
company is another matter.)

And what is "real" quality?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"KWS" <noaccount@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_M6dnS3cI9TSO6jeRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
[...]
> ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do
> with
> the real quality of products.
[...]
>
>
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4335766d$0$12182$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> ISO 9000? If so, all it means is that the manufacturer has (should have)
>> procedure in place to ensure reproducibility at whatever quality level
>> the
>> manufacturer has decided.
>>
>> I.e. once good. always good or once nasty, always nasty.
>>
>> I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that
> bit
>> of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a
>> cheap
>> tyre may wear out quicker.
>>
>> I certainly can't afford to buy cheap.
>>
>> DAS
>>
>> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
>> ---
>>
>> <jamesp010@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1127311965.926845.17050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>> > E mark, Dot and ISO certified.
>> [...]
>>
>>
>
>

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a particular
> company is another matter.)
>
> And what is "real" quality?

ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what
is documented, and you document what you do. The content of the
documents and the design of the product could be as bad as you can
imagine - as long as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000
compliant. ISO 9000 compliance means you will have more information at
hand to go back and figure out what happened if something doesn't go
right. (And that is the basis of quality improvement). On developing a
new product, ISO 9000 plays a much smaller role in product quality -
taking a back seat to good design.
While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork
that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000
is mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers
when the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good
product is a mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to
me. I still rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to
everything rolling on them.

Dave

1) I did not say ISO 9000 plays a role in "good" quality other than
reproducing it. The purpose of having the procedures in place is to ensure
that processes are repeated. Of course if companies ignore their own
procedures that's their look-out. Documentation is the basis of an ability
to reproduce something. If you have no guideline of how to do something,
how can you ensure that each batch/product is the same? If you just copy
what you last did, howb you do you stop "creep"?

As you may know, when a business first starts writing SOPs (standard
operating procedures) for getting the quality system registered under 9000,
the SOPs should reflect actual practice, but I am sure a lot write what they
think they should be. SOPs have to be updated regularly to take into
account changes in practice.

2) It also has to be understood that if I as a client approve a sample
product (at whatever level of quality), whether it is a tyre or a chemical
or whatever, then I expect it to remain at that quality until there is an
authorised change.

IIRC 9002 does not cover the development process whereas 9001 does. ISO
9001 itself has nothing to do with the design of a new product, just with
the process of getting there.


At the end of the day you as a customer can select any criteria you like for
deciding on a supplier. I don't think anything I have written precludes
that.

I bet, though, that "good brand names" employ good, documented procedures to
guarantee consistency.

This is not a place to start:
http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dh4bi8015gr@news2.newsguy.com...
> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a
>> particular company is another matter.)
>>
>> And what is "real" quality?
>
> ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what is
> documented, and you document what you do. The content of the documents
> and the design of the product could be as bad as you can imagine - as long
> as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000 compliant. ISO 9000
> compliance means you will have more information at hand to go back and
> figure out what happened if something doesn't go right. (And that is the
> basis of quality improvement). On developing a new product, ISO 9000
> plays a much smaller role in product quality - taking a back seat to good
> design.
> While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork
> that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000 is
> mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers when
> the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good product is a
> mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to me. I still
> rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to everything
> rolling on them.
>
> Dave

Oops: Not a bad place to start...
http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm


DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4335c07c$0$12184$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
[...]
> http://praxiom.com/iso-9001-b.htm
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dh4bi8015gr@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>>> I said it is to ensure reproducibility. (Whether it does for a
>>> particular company is another matter.)
>>>
>>> And what is "real" quality?
>>
>> ISO 9000 doesn't ensure reproducibility - it ensures that you do what is
>> documented, and you document what you do. The content of the documents
>> and the design of the product could be as bad as you can imagine - as
>> long
>> as the paperwork is in order, you remain 9000 compliant. ISO 9000
>> compliance means you will have more information at hand to go back and
>> figure out what happened if something doesn't go right. (And that is the
>> basis of quality improvement). On developing a new product, ISO 9000
>> plays a much smaller role in product quality - taking a back seat to good
>> design.
>> While ISO 9000 is a nice idea, and it covers some important groundwork
>> that really shoddy companies should have but don't have in place, 9000 is
>> mostly a label. It can be useful to skim down a field of suppliers when
>> the numbers are overwhelming, but to say that ensures a good product is a
>> mistake, IMO. So as for tires, ISO 9000 means nothing to me. I still
>> rely on good brand names. Crappy tires are an insult to everything
>> rolling on them.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
>

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

>I have to say it, I can't understand why people always try to save that bit
>of money and increase their risk (even if funds are short). Plus, a cheap
>tyre may wear out quicker.
>
>I certainly can't afford to buy cheap.

Long ago, I had Firestone 500 tires, the company's premium tire at the
time and top-rated by Consumer Reports. All 4 developed tread
separation because of moisture introduced during the manufacturing
process, and the 500s were subject to recall, federal investigation,
and class action lawsuit. Firestone replaced them with their
successor, the 721, but all 4 of mine failed the same way in 40,000
miles. I decided not to take another chance, so I replaced them with a
cheap brand called "Empire," and those tires were fine for about 60,000
miles.

jamesp010@hotmail.com proclaimed:
> Hi,
>
> I need advice about assessing tire quality from the experts/ gurus in
> this forum.

Forums you mean. And I cannot imagine why you posted to equestrian
group unless you plan on putting horseshoes on your car.

Short answer. Do NOT risk your life or the lives of your passengers
on unbranded cheap tires. Or by trying to interpret specifications
where you are so obviously out of your league.
>
> With regards to tire composition and characteristics, what are the
> important things I need to look out for when assessing quality of an
> unbranded tire. Assuming that the tires are used in the recommended way
> ( such as not over loading or over speeding), I have heard that there
> are several characteristics of tires which make them last longer, and I
> am hoping you can shed some light on the following:

There is absolutely no rating of a tire that will tell you anything
about the tire OTHER than the manufacturer's reputation concerning
how honest that manufacturer is in rating their tires. NOTHING.

Case in point, find a single difference between the Firestone
Exploding tires and a similar tire from Goodyear, Goodrich, Michelin,
etc.


>
> Thread depth - Does the tire last longer if it has a deeper thread?

NO. All else being equal, the thicker the tread the more the
tire will squirm and overheat at speed. NOTE that all else is
NEVER equal.
>
> Ply Rating - Is there any disadvantage to having a high ply rating,
> and is there any specific correlation between the number of plys and
> the weight. (for example each ply should add x kgs to the weight.)?

Plys can be made of steel, nylon, rayon, aramid, etc. etc. All
weigh different, and with the exception of rayon that doesn't do
too well if the ply ever gets wet due to a cut, once you know the
number of plies and what they are made of, you are still just as
ignorant of the worth of that tire as you were before you knew this.

>
> Quality of rubber - Is there variation in quality of rubber that can
> make a tire last longer. Do they mix rubber with anything to increase
> durability?

You can make a tire last a long time. So long the rubber will be
pretty much completely oxidized before you ever see tread wear. OR
you can make a tire with traction. Pick ONE. Some manufacturer's do
a pretty good job of compromising between tread wear and traction,
most don't and the smart ones rarely try.

>
> Tire patterns - what are the advantages and disadvantages of using a
> rib/lug/mix designs

None, unless the resulting tire track happens to spell a dirty word
in Arabic or something. A blockier tread will be noisier, but again
you can look at tread patterns all day and still be just as ignorant
about that tire quality than you were before you started.

>
> Weight of the tire - If it is a heavy tire would it last longer
> assuming that there is more rubber used.

No. The heaviest component in a tire tends to be steel cord and tread
belts.
>
> Sidewall - what is the difference between good quality and bad
> quality sidewall?

Good quality sidewalls are good quality sidewalls and bad quality
sidewalls are bad quality sidewalls. And that is about it.
There is no single sidewall construction appropriate for all
designs, vehicles, or driving patterns.

>
> The weather condition here is very hot, dry and sandy most of the year
> with 4 months of moderate rain. So even the well built roads tend to be
> very sandy which I assume increases tire friction. Some of the areas I
> travel through are very underdeveloped with a lot of pot holes on the
> roads. I have heard that nylon/x-ply/bias tires are better then radials
> for uneven road surfaces and radials are better for good road
> conditions, is this true?

Sand decreases traction if on a dry road. You have heard nothing of
truth.

Post your vehicle, whether you ever go offroad, and how fast you tend
to drive plus your geographic location. Nothing beats a GOOD steel
belted radial but only Pirelli and Michelin make those with the full
wrapped tread belts. You can literally drive over a railroad spike
with either tire, and even Consumer Reports has tested this. However,
some of their models have more protection in the sidewall than others.

Or there are several other brands with consistently good, durable
tires.

KWS proclaimed:

> ISO9000 is a marketing tool. Having ISO9000 merely means that you have met
> the prescribed criteria: you have a quality manual, you have procedures
> that document what you do, an accredited body has audited your facility to
> ensure this is all in place, etc. etc. It has just about nothing to do with
> the real quality of products. Many organizations will not deal with
> suppliers that are not ISO certified; that's their motivation to get it.
> It's a joke.

It isn't just a joke, it is a cruel joke on anyone who actually
believes ISO has a single thing to do with actual product quality.
All it means is that you have document revision control for the
documents you CLAIM to use in your processes. It says absolutely
nothing about whether those processes should best be written on
toilet paper. And yes, I have been trained as an ISO Auditor.

larry moe 'n curly proclaimed:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Having worked in industry in engineering and management in competitive
>>situations, I've got to believe that there's a quite a bit of stretching
>>of the specs. by the manufacturers, and there's probably very little if
>>any meaningful enforcement for truth in specifications.
>
>
> My father said that the radials he bought in the 1970s with treadwear
> ratings of about 150 lasted about 35,000-40,000 miles, but today's
> tires rated for 400 don't seem to last any longer. Apparently the
> federal government stopped checking the test results around the time
> Reagan became President.
>
If I recall correctly [and if not, am sure I'll be corrected], the
tread wear rating is done by the manufacturer against their own
designated "100 rating" tire. In other words, the ratings have
not a lot of meaning within a brand and even less between brands
from different source manufacturers--of which there really aren't
that many left.