Doesn't this make you feel like a mushroom?

Yeah. That's why we keep wheel covers on the one that is left outside during winter, which in the far north isn't so bad because the Azimuth of the Sun during that time of year is so low (but you already know that, being in Alberta). Still, funny that supposedly replacing tires more frequently is more sustainable, rather than looked upon as more tires in the landfill.

 

Tire places around here refer to a DOT recommendation of six years and "strong recommendation" to replace all at ten years, even spares (which, in many cases, haven't seen much sun where they are stowed).

I don't remember ever replacing a set because of UV damage, and I'm not garage-parked. I haven't, so far, strictly observed the six-year recommendation; I think the set I replaced this spring (for treadwear) I put on in 2018.

The engineering objectives you listed as being served by the reduction of carbon black are pretty much all objectives I can get behind, so kinda yeah, I'm glad engineers work on that kind of stuff while I pay attention to other things.

 

missing the mushroom reference

I've never given it much thought, but tires have seemed relatively the same to me in the last 50 years or so.
plan on 40k, ignore years unless the sidewalls look bad. here in the north, they practically last forever.
I do think they are better with road hazards. flat tires used to be a fairly common problem.

 

I have no problem with you having a problem. planned obsolescence entered most every facet of life many moons ago.
if I could do something about it, I would, but I'm not qualified to decide what the best way to make tires is, for the vehicles, the pocket book, and the environment.
it's mostly a loser all around, and just another problem with cars and trucks, of which there are many much higher on the totem pole

 

I assumed it was the old "I'm a mushroom, they keep me in the dark and feed me bs" line. But I guess to me it feels more like engineers thinking about product improvements while I can focus on other things, 'improvements' meaning on a range of desirable measures even though it's rare for that to be possible without tradeoffs.

As I've, so far, really never replaced tires except for treadwear or road damage, it seems like even if they are trading off some UV resistance for other objectives, they haven't traded so much as to cause me any new issue.

I haven't used "plan on 40k" personally, because I look for treadwear when I shop, and usually get close to the rating. (An exception was a set of Michelin Premier A/S that were supposedly rated 60k and I got about 40—I could see when I measured at 20k they were about half gone.)

The set I just took off was General Altimax RT43 and had been rated, I think, 70k, and I changed them at 68. Liked them the whole time.

What I just put on are Vredestein HiTrac, also with a 70k manufacturer claim. Looking forward to finding out. I like how they ride so far.

 

you can certainly get longer wearing tires if you want them. I prefer quiet, smooth and LRR.

 

This car came with tires so loud I really put a priority on quiet when I had my first chance to change them. That was when I went for the Premier A/S, which had a great reputation for quiet and smooth. But they wore out well before the claimed miles.

The Altimax RT43s that I bought next really seemed to be a sleeper find: all the quiet and smooth I had wanted from the Michelins, for significantly less money, and they lived up to their mileage claim.

We'll see about these Vredesteins in the long run, but so far I am also very happy with them for quiet.

I don't really know about LRR—it may be that I haven't often bought tires that say "LRR" explicitly, but I do look for those that place among the better rolling resistance scores in the reviews I look at.

 

Excuses like rolling resistance, wet grip, and sustainability? Those do matter to me.

Do they matter more to me than UV resistance? Well, so far, I haven't had to decide, because I've never had to replace any tires for UV damage yet, so whatever tradeoff of UV resistance may have been made so far hasn't been enough to affect when I need new tires.

 

I suppose if I lived in the south, it might be more of a thing. when my parents lived in Vegas, with no garage, my dad covered the car when not in use.

 

I do like to buy things based on longevity, all else being equal. that's why I switched to Mac from dell many years ago. only problem is that Mac was 3 times costlier, and lasted about 3 times as long. but I suppose that's less in the landfill, but if you need state of the art, lasting a long time isn't helpful. this MacBook is 13 years old, and can't take updates anymore.

 

we should probably take this to menders venting thread, but appliances are a big pet peeve of mine. I remember when they laster almost forever.
I read the other day that consumers are pushing back against connected appliances.

 

Tire rubber compounds are also $ driven. Tire compound engineers working for tire companies obviously know what side of the bread that the butter is on.

Still - back in the early Prius days we picked up a set of Michelin Hydro-Edge tires as replacements & they had a 90k mile warranty. Ain't seen that kind of warranty in a long time. Our 32K mile car - Lion's share of driving - plug in minivan has 9-yr-old / original rubber for summer use & 5-year-old studded rubber for winter. Whichever set that's not in use is in a shed - that's nice & dark. Much greater worry for us / many out in the boonies - is gravel getting kicked up onto the windshield (& paint) which then starts corrosion / rust due to the road salts eating into the gravel caused paint chips. Sorry for the thread hijack.

 

Farm tractors in the U.S. started getting pneumatic tires in 1933. My family farm's older wheel tractor (not currently operating, always parked inside a shed) dates to the 1950s, I believe it still has its original hard rubber tires. But it is not a type of rubber or tire construction that I'd want on a highway vehicle. Wet traction is awful, snow traction non-existent even with those deep lugs.

That reminds of 1950s-era (and maybe 1960s) home refrigerators, some of which were kept in use an incredibly long time. But they were energy hogs, costing more on the home electric bill than the cost of throwing them away and replacing with a 'modern' shorter life but far more energy efficient model. Even more important in air-conditioning-dominated climate zones.

 

I used to mow a golf course with an 1950's ford tractor. idk if the tires were original, but the sure looked good.
everything on that tractor had easily replaceable and readily available parts, but what about pollution?

 

I lived that story. This house had an old ('50s?) Westinghouse when I moved in, which I think was still working but wasn't convenient (one main door, dinky freezer compartment inside, manual defrosting needed), so I felt like replacing it without spending much money, and scored a newer ('70s? it had fake woodgrain handles) GE for $30 when the university in town was renovating married-student housing.

I patted myself on the back for keeping that $30 fridge going until, like, 2011, with cheap fixes like a new motor-start relay when it needed one.

When I finally replaced it with a brand-new one around 2011, I think it was around $600, I compared a few months of electric bills and realized I had already spent that a couple times over in extra usage while I nursed that old one along.

Is it your belief that rolling resistance and wet grip are not metrics the tire manufacturers strive to improve? Those are two of the metrics you'll nearly always see on the third-party comparison sites where they have to be competitive, so it would seem strange for them not to be serious about them.

Sustainability? Well, I don't know. I guess the comparison sites usually don't have a column comparing the manufacturers' sustainability practices. But then, if somebody said there's a "push for net-zero goals", I'm in no position to say there isn't.

Speaking of "somebody said", say, where did the claims in your original post #1 come from? You included three attachments, but they turn out to be two PNG images of an E and one of a swervy-road S.