The Tire Question. . .

[mrlynn]

davester wrote:
That Nokian quote is pure marketing fluff. There's no way to judge the performance of a tire based on whether or not it has assymetrical tread. It's just one of many design characteristics a tire has. To use that as a measure would be about the same as using the numbe of megapixels to define camera quality. . .

That wasn't my question. What I'm asking is whether dividing a tire tread into two—or three, or four—different zones, each designed for different road conditions, is a viable and valid approach to tire design, and can really accomplish what the manufacturer intends. Or is that just a marketing ploy?

Obviously any approach, zoned/asymmetric or uniform/symmetric can be done well or badly. The question is: Does asymmetric make sense? It would seem to, but then it's not as if in, say, slushy conditions one-third of the tread takes over and the other two go away—wouldn't they be compromising the first?

I expect that, marketing aside, there is an art and science to tire design. I wonder what the designers think.

Tire Rack is limited. Anyone know of a site that reviews more brands?

/Mr Lynn