Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
C
r
W
e
i
g
h
t
(
l
b
s
.
)
G12 Goodyear P225/60R16 97 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Sea
son, TPC 1298MS
9.47 7.36 22.0
G8 Goodyear 225/60R16 98 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Sea
son
9.83 7.44 22.9
G11 Goodyear P225/60R17 98 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Sea
son
10.02 7.58 24.5
B11 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 H Potenza RE92
OWL
340 A A High Performance
All Season
10.13 7.87 25.1
G9 Goodyear P205/75R14 95 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Sea
son
11.27 9.19 19.2
M14 Uniroyal P225/60R16 97 S ASTM 16"
SRTT
540 A B ASTM F 2493-06
Reference
11.96 9.30 25.5
M13 Michelin 225/60R16 98 H Pilot MXM4 300 A A Grand Touring All
Season
12.07 9.13 24.7
G10 Goodyear P205/75R15 97 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Sea
son
12.09 9.46 20.4
B10 Bridgestone 225/60R16 98 Q Blizzak
REVO1*
- Performance Winter 12.11 9.16 26.9
D10 Cooper 225/60R16 98 H Lifeliner Tour
ing SLE
420 A A Standard Touring All
Season
13.56 10.26 25.2
B14 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 V Turanza LS-V 400 AA A Grand Touring All
Season
13.90 10.80 28.6
U3 Dunlop
(Sumitomo)
P225/60R17 98 T SP Sport 4000
DSST
360 A B Run Flat 13.91 10.52 36.4
B15 Dayton 225/60R16 98 S Winterforce* - Performance Winter 13.99 10.58 26.7
P5 Pep Boys
(Cooper)
P225/60R16 97 H Touring HR 420 A A Passenger All Sea
son
14.02 10.89 25.7
R4 Pirelli 225/60R16 98 H P6 Four Sea
sons
400 A A Passenger All Sea
son
14.98 11.33 24.3
B13 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 T Turanza LS-T 700 A B Standard Touring All
Season
15.01 11.66 29.4
B12 Bridgestone P225/60R16 98 W Potenza RE750 340 AA A Ultra High Perform
ance Summer
15.22 11.51 27.4
Original equipment tires on the fuel economy test vehicle.
Standard reference test tires used as control tires throughout all phases of the study.
*Snow tires will not be rated in the national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.
2.2 Tire Rolling Resistance Test Procedures
Tire rolling resistance is measured in a laboratory under controlled conditions. The test condi
tions vary between the various SAE and ISO test standards, but the basic premise is the same in
that a tire is mounted on a free-rolling spindle with no camber or slip angle, loaded against a
large-diameter powered test drum, turned by the drum to simulate on-road rolling operation, and
some measure of rolling loss evaluated. Referring back to the book The Pneumatic Tire[5]:
Rolling resistance is the effort required to keep a given tire rolling. Its magnitude de
pends on the tire used, the nature of the surface on which it rolls, and the operating condi
tions - inflation pressure, load and speed.
8
This description is important because it emphasizes that rolling resistance is not an intrinsic
property of the tire, rather a function of many operating variables. This is why multi-point labo
ratory tests measure a tires rolling resistance over a range of inflation pressures, loads, and for
some tests, a range of speeds. Conversely, single-point point rolling resistance test methods use a
single set of these variables to estimate the rolling resistance of the tire under nominal, straight-
line, steady state operating conditions (the vast majority of a tires rolling operation). In the case
of a laboratory test, rolling resistance (energy loss) is calculated by measuring the amount of ad
ditional force, torque, or power necessary to keep the tire rolling at the test conditions. A fourth
method, which is not widely used, is a deceleration method in which the energy source is de-
coupled from the system and the rate of loss of angular momentum (energy loss) imparted by the
tire is measured.
The two domestic test labs used by the agency had machines that used either the force or the
torque measurement method. A picture of a laboratory rolling resistance test using a force
method can be seen in Figure 4. The machine measures a reaction force at the axle of the test tire
& wheel assembly. The drum is brought up to speed and the tire is warmed up to an equilibrium
temperature. The tire is then lightly loaded to measure parasitic losses caused by the tire spin
dle friction, aerodynamic losses, and the test drum/drive system bearings. The tire is then loaded
to the test load and successive readings are taken until consistent force values are obtained. Dur
ing the test, the loaded radius (r
L
) of the tire is measured during the steady-state conditions. In
ISO 28580 the Rolling Resistance (Fr) at the tire/drum interface is calculated from the measured
force at the spindle (F
t
), multiplied by a ratio of the loaded tire radius (r
L
) to the test wheel radius
(R), minus the skim load (F
pl
).
F
r
= F
t
[1+(r
L
/R)]-F
pl
Equation 1. Rolling Resistance Calculation, Force Method (ISO 28580)
9
F
t
= Spindle
Force
r
L
R
F
r
= Calculated Rolling Resis
tance at Tire/Drum Interface
1.7 met er Dr um
Mot or
Tor que Cel l 1.7 met er
r oadw heel
80 gr i t Sur f ac e
T = torque
Figure 4. Force Method Rolling Resistance Test Machine
Another test lab used by the agency used a torque method machine. The torque method measures
the torque required to maintain the rotation of the drum. The drum is connected to the motor
through a torque cell (Figure 5). The drum is brought up to speed and the tire is warmed up to
an equilibrium temperature. The tire is then lightly loaded to measure the losses caused by the
axle holding the tire and aerodynamic losses from the tire spinning. The tire is then loaded to the
test load and successive readings are taken until consistent torque (T
t
) values are obtained.
F
r
= T
t
/R-F
pl
Equation 2. Rolling Resistance Calculation, Torque Method (ISO 28580)
Figure 5. Torque Method Rolling Resistance Test Machine
10
In one additional calculation, the rolling resistance force (Fr) calculated by any of the methods is
divided by the nominal test load on the tire to produce the rolling resistance coefficient (Cr).
Since the rolling resistance coefficient (Cr) is not linear between tires of different load ranges,
the rolling resistance (Fr) for each tire was compared to the traction, treadwear, and fuel econ
omy measures in the Phase 2 analysis.
Tires in Phases 1 and 2 were subjected to up to three tests. The first and possibly second test may
have been the same indoor rolling resistance test or two different tests, followed by traction,
treadwear or fuel economy testing. A detailed test matrix is provided in Appendix 2. A descrip
tion of the laboratory rolling resistance tests used in Phase 1 follows:
2.2.1 ISO Draft International Standard 28580 Single-Point Rolling Resistance
Tires from all 17 tire models used in Phase 2, though not necessarily the exact tires, were previ
ously tested using the draft ISO 28580 test method.
2.2.2 SAE J1269 & ISO 18164 Multi-Point Rolling Resistance
Tires from all 17 tire models in Phase 2, though not necessarily the exact tires, were previously
tested with SAE J1269, and 11 models were previously tested with ISO 18164 (both tests are
very similar). Data from this multi-point test allows estimation of tire rolling resistance at the test
vehicle load and the two inflation pressures used in the vehicle fuel economy testing.
2.2.3 SAE J2452 Multi-Point (Speed Coast Down) Rolling Resistance
With the exception of the original equipment (OE) tires, tires from 16 tire models in Phase 2,
though not necessarily the exact tires, were previously tested with SAE J2452. Data from this
multi-point test allows estimation of tire rolling resistance at the test vehicle load, two inflation
pressures, and speeds used in the vehicle fuel economy testing.
2.3 Fuel Economy Test Vehicle
A 2008 Chevrolet Impala LS was selected as the test vehicle for fuel economy testing since it
came equipped with P225/60R16 tires, and GM original equipment tires have a Tire Performance
Code (TPC) that allows purchase of replacement tires with the same specifications as the OE
tires. These OE tires (tire type G12) became the 17th group of tires in Phase 2 and had the lowest
rolling resistance of any tire tested in the program (Table 2).
2.4 Test Wheels
Tires were tested on wheels of the corresponding measuring rim width for their size. Wheels of
each size used in the test program were purchased new, in identical lots to minimize wheel-to
wheel variation. A tire participating in multiple tests throughout the test program was mounted
11
once on a single new wheel and continued to be tested on that same wheel until completion of all
tests.
2.5 Test Matrix
The EISA legislation requires a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program to
educate consumers about the effect of tires on automobile fuel efficiency, safety, and durabil-
ity.[15] Phase 2 of the project was therefore designed to examine the effects of tire rolling resis
tance levels on vehicle fuel economy, traction, and treadwear. Phase 1 tires were retested in one
of five Phase 2 test protocols: On-vehicle EPA dynamometer fuel economy (Dyno. FE), wet and
dry skid-trailer traction, on-vehicle treadwear, an experimental indoor treadwear test, or tread
rubber analysis by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA)
(Table 3). Due to time and cost considerations, as well as the physical constraints the fuel econ
omy test vehicle and skid-trailer, the four tests used a subset of the 17 available Phase 2 tire
models selected to cover the range of rolling resistance values in the experiment.
12
Table 3. Test Matrix
Code MFG Size Load
Index
Speed
Rating
Model RR
(lbf)
Dyno.
FE
Wet &
Dry
Traction
On-
vehicle
Treadwear
Indoor
Treadwear
TGA
/
DMA
G12 Goodyear P225/60R16 97 S Integrity 9.47 x x
G8 Goodyear 225/60R16 98 S Integrity 9.83 x x x x x
G11 Goodyear P225/60R17 98 S Integrity 10.02 x x x
B11 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 H Potenza
RE92 OWL
10.13 x x x x x
G9 Goodyear P205/75R14 95 S Integrity 11.27 x x
M14 Uniroyal P225/60R16 97 S ASTM 16"
SRTT
11.96 x x x x x
M13 Michelin 225/60R16 98 H Pilot MXM4 12.07 x x x x x
G10 Goodyear P205/75R15 97 S Integrity 12.09 x x
B10 Bridgestone 225/60R16 98 Q Blizzak
REVO1
12.11 x x x
D10 Cooper 225/60R16 98 H Lifeliner
Touring
SLE
13.56 x x x
B14 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 V Turanza
LS-V
13.90 x x x
U3 Dunlop
(Sumitomo)
P225/60R17 98 T SP Sport
4000
DSST
13.91 x x x
B15 Dayton 225/60R16 98 S Winterforce 13.99 x x x
P5 Pep Boys
(Cooper)
P225/60R16 97 H Touring HR 14.02 x x x
R4 Pirelli 225/60R16 98 H P6 Four
Seasons
14.98 x x x
B13 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 T Turanza
LS-T
15.01 x x x x x
B12 Bridgestone P225/60R16 98 W Potenza
RE750
15.22 x x x
Original equipment tires on the fuel economy test vehicle.
Standard reference test tires used as control tires throughout all phases of the study.
2.6 Tread Compound Properties Testing
The tread rubber of 16 Phase 1 passenger tires was analyzed for compound composition by
thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The mechanical properties of the treads were evaluated by
dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). TGA is a useful tool for characterizing polymer composi
tions. The weight loss as a function of temperature has been used to determine polymer loading,
rubber chemical loading, carbon black loading, and ash levels. For polymers with very different
thermal stabilities, the TGA curves can be used to determine the amount of each polymer pre
sent. Thermogravimetric analysis was performed using about 10 mg of sample of each tire tread.
The purge (He) gas flow rate to the TGA was set at 10ml/min during weight loss measurements.
The heating rate was 10C/min to improve the resolution of small variations in the decomposi
tion curves. At 600C, the purge gas was switched over to air for carbon black combustion.
These average values represent the average of three measurements. Figure 6 shows a representa
13
W
e
i
g
h
t
R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
(
%
)
120
100
Volatile Components
80
60
Polymer
40
20
Carbon Black
Ash (Zinc Oxide, Silica,
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Temperataure (degC)
tive weight loss curve with the regions that represent each component identified. The results of
the TGA analysis are shown in Table 4.
Figure 6. Sample TGA Weight Loss Curve
Table 4. Analysis of Tread Composition by TGA
Tire Black,
Type
Tire
#
Polymer,%
(325-550C)
Volatiles,
phr (25
325C)
phr
(550
850C)
Ash, phr
(Residue)
Total
Filler,
phr
Silica,
phr
Total
Formulation,
phr
B10
3104 57 18 32 25 51 19 169
B11
3129 56.8 18 31 27 52 21 170
B12
3154 49 25 54 25 73 19 198
B13
3179 51.3 22 44 29 67 23 189
B14
3204 52 25 13 54 62 48 186
D10
3313 46.9 33 77 3 77 0 207
B15
3337 54.3 19 63 3 63 0 178
U3
3362 52.4 18 33 40 67 34 185
G8
3412 60.4 15 38 12 45 6 159
G9
3441 52.9 23 60 6 60 0 183
G10
3466 58.3 22 45 4 45 0 165
G11
3491 63.3 15 33 11 37 5 152
M13
3620 54.3 19 10 55 59 49 178
14
Tire
Type
Tire
#
Polymer,%
(325-550C)
Black,
phr Volatiles, Total Total
(550- phr (25- Ash, phr
325C) 850C) (Residue)
Filler, Silica, Formulation,
phr phr phr
P5
3670 47.1 29 79 4 79 0 206
R4
3695 48.3 30 42 35 71 29 201
M14
3720 55 19 30 32 57 26 176
Typical examples of temperature sweep data by the tension method and the shear method are
shown below in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The viscoelastic (dynamic mechanical) properties of a tire
tread have been correlated to the performance of tires.[16],[17],[18],[19] Decreased tangent at
60C is used as a predictor of the tread compounds contribution to tire rolling resistance. In-
creased tangent at 0C has been shown to correlate to the wet traction performance of the tire.
Since these properties tend to move in parallel, lowering the tangent at 60C while maintaining
a high tangent at 0C normally requires utilization of advanced and often more expensive com-
pounding technologies. The DMA results for high tangent at 0C and 60C are shown in Table
5.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Temperatue (C)
T
a
n
g
e
n
t
D
e
l
t
a
Figure 7. Tan as a Function of Temperature From the Tension Test
15
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
-100 -50 0 50 100
Temperature (deg C)
T
a
n
g
e
n
t
D
e
l
t
a
Figure 8. Tan o as a Function of Temperature From the Shear Test
Table 5. DMA Results for Tangent o at 0C and 60C
Tire
Type
Tire
#
Rolling
Resistance*
(lbf)
Tension Shear
Tan o at
0C
Tan o at
60C
Ratio 0/60 Tan o at
0C
Tan o at
60C
Ratio 0/60
G8 3412 9.83 0.169 0.0762 2.22 0.164 0.0689 2.38
G11 3491 10.02 0.174 0.086 2.02 0.177 0.0754 2.35
B11 3129 10.13 0.194 0.0771 2.52 0.174 0.067 2.60
G9 3441 11.26 0.245 0.188 1.30 0.18 0.152 1.18
M14 3720 11.96 0.287 0.193 1.49 0.202 0.146 1.38
M13 3620 12.06 0.254 0.147 1.73 0.168 0.117 1.44
G10 3466 12.09 0.242 0.181 1.34 0.184 0.151 1.22
B10 3104 12.11 0.2 0.155 1.29 0.16 0.133 1.20
D10 3313 13.56 0.26 0.192 1.35 0.183 0.16 1.14
B14 3204 13.90 0.313 0.145 2.16 0.233 0.132 1.77
U3 3362 13.91 0.256 0.173 1.48 0.202 0.147 1.37
B15 3337 13.98 0.208 0.15 1.39 0.158 0.123 1.28
P5 3670 14.02 0.271 0.207 1.31 0.161 0.156 1.03
R4 3695 14.98 0.296 0.201 1.47 0.211 0.159 1.33
B13 3179 15.01 0.265 0.168 1.58 0.19 0.138 1.38
B12 3154 15.22 0.387 0.193 2.01 0.28 0.146 1.92
*ISO 28580 single-point rolling resistance
2.7 On-Vehicle Fuel Economy Testing
The effects of tire rolling resistance on automobile fuel efficiency was evaluated by installing 15
different tire models on a new 2008 Chevrolet Impala LS and evaluating its fuel economy in the
2008 five-cycle EPA fuel economy test.[20] Testing was completed under contract by the Trans
portation Research Center, Inc. (TRC, Inc.) emissions laboratory. Since tire inflation pressure
affects the operational rolling resistance of a tire, the vehicle fuel economy measurements were
conducted at two different tire inflation pressures. Testing was completed at the vehicle placard
16
pressure of 210 kPa (30 psi). Six models were tested at both the placard inflation pressure of 210
kPa and at 158 kPa (23 psi), which represents the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) acti
vation threshold of 25 percent inflation pressure reduction. It is important to note, for reasons
that will be explained, that these tests were research and not official EPA fuel economy ratings
of the test vehicle. The many tire sets and repeats of test for statistical analysis/dual inflation
pressure resulted in the test vehicle acquiring nearly 6,000 miles by the end of testing. The EPA
estimates that new vehicles will not obtain their optimal fuel economy until the engine has bro
ken in at around 3,000 to 5,000 miles.[21] Therefore the fuel economy of the test vehicle was
expected to improve slightly during the course of testing, a factor that was tracked and accounted
for by the repeated testing of the control and OE tires at regular intervals throughout the testing.
2.7.1 EPA 40 CFR Part 86 Dynamometer Fuel Economy Testing
Per EPA 40 CFR Part 86, the new 2008 Chevrolet Impala LS test vehicle was broken in for
2,000 miles on a test track. To keep the original equipment tires in the same low mileage state as
the Phase 1 tires, the vehicle was broken-in on a spare set of replacement tires of the original
equipment size. For this reason, even the fuel economy tests of the Impala with the original
equipment tires were not official EPA test numbers. The original equipment tires were re
installed on the vehicle at placard inflation pressure and the road load coastdown procedure was
completed. The coastdown procedure generates vehicle-specific coefficients for dynamometer
settings and fuel economy calculations.
The fuel economy dynamometer is housed in an environmental chamber to control the tempera
ture for ambient (68 to 86 degrees F), heated (95 degrees F) or cold (20 degrees F) temperatures.
The vehicle dynamometer is a 1.22-meter (48-inch) diameter, smooth surface drum located in the
floor of the chamber. The vehicle is placed atop the dynamometer rolls and restrained to prevent
movement (Figure 9a). A fan meeting standard specifications is located in front of the vehicle to
provide cooling (Figure 9b). A computer is mounted inside the vehicle to provide the driver with
a prescribed speed pattern that must be followed for each test cycle (Figure 9c). The exhaust gas
is routed from the vehicle exhaust tailpipe via hoses to a collection system connected to gas ana
lyzers (Figure 9d).
17
Figure 9a. Tire on 1.22 Meter Dynamometer Figure 9b. Chamber and Fan
Figure 9c. Drive Cycle Computer Figure 9d. Exhaust Coupling
Figure 9. Vehicle Fuel Economy Dynamometer Testing
Details of the 2008 EPA fuel economy test can be found in Table 6, which is from the EPAs
www.fueleconomy.gov Website.[22]
18
Table 6. 2008 EPA Fuel Economy 5-Driving Schedule Test (Source: EPA, 2009)
Driving
Schedule
Attributes
Test Schedule
City (FTP) Highway
(HwFET)
High Speed
(US06)
AC (SC03) Cold
Temp (Cold CO)
Trip Type Low speeds in
stop-and-go
urban traffic
Free-flow traffic
at highway
speeds
Higher speeds;
harder acceleration
& braking
AC use under
hot ambient
conditions
City test w/ colder
outside tempera
ture
Top Speed 56 mph 60 mph 80 mph 54.8 mph 56 mph
Average
Speed
21.2 mph 48.3 mph 48.4 mph 21.2 mph 21.2 mph
Max. Accel
eration
3.3 mph/sec 3.2 mph/sec 8.46 mph/sec 5.1 mph/sec 3.3 mph/sec
Simulated
Distance
11 mi. 10.3 mi. 8 mi. 3.6 mi. 11 mi.
Time 31.2 min. 12.75 min. 9.9 min. 9.9 min. 31.2 min.
Stops 23 None 4 5 23
Idling time 18% of time None 7% of time 19% of time 18% of time
Engine
Startup*
Cold Warm Warm Warm Cold
Lab tem
perature
68-86F 95F 20F
Vehicle air
condition
ing
Off Off Off On Off
*A vehicle's engine doesn't reach maximum fuel efficiency until it is warm.
Whole vehicle preconditioning must be done between the ambient and cold test cycles. There
fore, instead of running all five fuel economy cycles sequentially in their traditional order, testing
with the 15 sets of tires was split into blocks that facilitated a much more rapid test throughput.
In addition, to gather more data for statistical purposes, two extra HwFET cycles were run se
quentially after the first HwFET cycle. The testing was conducted at the placard tire inflation
pressure of 210 kPa (30 psi) and repeated at the TPMS warning activation pressure of 158 kPa
(22.3 psi) for selected tires.
Vehicle Preconditioning
Vehicle preconditioning begins with draining the existing fuel from the vehicles fuel tank and
replacing it with a 40 percent fuel tank capacity fill of the specified fuel. The vehicle is then
driven through one Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS). This procedure is followed
by a soak period of at least 12 hours, but not exceeding 36 hours. All preconditioning procedures
are performed at the conditions of the test schedule.
FTP Schedule Testing
Following the vehicles soak period, the vehicle is pushed, not driven, onto a chassis dynamome
ter for a cold start exhaust emissions test (75 FTP). The Federal test procedure (FTP) simulates
normal city driving and collects dilute exhaust emissions into bags for analysis in three phases:
the cold transient (CT), the cold stable (CS), and the hot transient (HT). The UDDS is followed
during the CT and CS, and, following a ten-minute soak on the dynamometer, the first phase, or
19
bag, of the UDDS is repeated for the HT. The results of these phases are combined to provide
grams per mile (g/mi) for total hydrocarbons (THC), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), car
bon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
x
). Fuel economy, in miles
per gallon, is determined via the carbon balance method.
HwFET Schedule Testing
Following each FTP test, the vehicle is kept on the chassis dynamometer and the Highway FET
(HwFET) driving cycle was run twice. The first running of the HwFET served only to stabilize
vehicle temperatures and emissions, therefore fuel economy was not measured during this cycle.
The cycle is repeated and all emissions measurements are taken as described for FTP testing with
the exception that a single bag is used to collect the dilute exhaust sample (single phase). Fuel
economy, in miles per gallon, is again determined via the carbon balance method. The Phase 2
testing protocol added two additional repeats for the HwFET cycle that were run and measured
sequentially.
US06 Schedule Testing
This test type is the aggressive-driving portion of the supplemental FTP (SFTP), consisting of
higher speeds and acceleration rates.
SC03 (AC2 Alternate) Schedule Testing
This test type has been introduced to represent the engine load and emissions associated with the
use of air conditioning units in vehicles. Since the TRC, Inc. emissions lab lacks the solar-
loading equipment necessary to run a full SC03 test, the AC2 alternative was used. This alterna
tive was only valid for 2000-2001 model year vehicles unless approved by the EPA, therefore the
result for each individual cycle is reported in this report but not composite 5-cycle numbers for
the vehicle.[23] The AC2 alternative mimics the SC03 except that the thermal load is simulated
by placing the vehicles air conditioning temperature control to full hot, air conditioning on, and
the drivers side window left down. In addition, the test cell is kept at 76 F and 50 grains of wa
ter per pound of dry air versus the SC03 requirement of 95 F and 100 grains of water per pound
of dry air. All other procedures follow the SC03.
Cold CO Schedule Testing
This test follows the same driving cycle as the FTP, but the test is performed at 20 F and the
vehicle is filled with Cold CO specific fuel. The vehicle is operated through one UDDS
preparation cycle at 20 F. Then, the vehicle is parked in a soak chamber maintained at 20 F for
a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 36 hours prior to beginning each test. Following the 20 F.
soak, the vehicle is pushed into the dynamometer chamber (which is at 20 F) and then operated
through the normal FTP test.
The program was completed in blocks of tests, with the M14 control tires and G12 OE tire run
multiple times to track possible vehicle, tire and test equipment drift. The completed test cycles
are summarized in Table 7.
20
Table 7. Fuel Economy Test Schedules
Pressure City (FTP) Highway (HwFET)* High Speed (US06) AC (SC03) Cold
Temp (Cold CO)
210 kPa 19 57 19 19 19
158 kPa 6 16 6 6 6
*Two extra cycles completed after first run to gauge statistical variability.
2.8 Skid-Trailer Tire Traction Testing
FMVSS No. 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards requires manufacturers to provide
a (wet slide) traction grade for all tires subject to standard and manufactured after April 1, 1980.
A formal description follows[24]:
To assist consumers purchasing new vehicles or replacement tires, NHTSA has rated
more than 2,400 lines of tires, including most used on passenger cars, minivans, SUVs
and light pickup trucks. Traction grades are an indication of a tire's ability to stop on wet
pavement. A higher graded tire should allow a car to stop on wet roads in a shorter dis
tance than a tire with a lower grade. Traction is graded from highest to lowest as "AA",
"A", "B", and "C". Of current tires: 3 percent are rated AA, 75 percent are rated A,
22 percent are rated B, only 1 line of tires rated C.
The UTQGS skid-trailer traction testing was performed at the NHTSA test facility on Goodfel
low Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas. The traction grading tests are now performed on a
purpose-built oval at the base rather than the original test surface diagram shown in 575.104. The
test pavements are asphalt and concrete skid pads constructed in accordance with industry speci
fications for skid surfaces. ASTM E 501
4
reference (control) tires are used to monitor the trac
tion coefficient of the two surfaces (which varies based on environmental conditions, surface
wear, etc.). During a normal wet traction test, a vehicle tows a skid-trailer (Figure 10) at 40 mph
across the test surfaces. Water is dispersed ahead of the tire from a water nozzle just before the
brake is applied. Instrumentation measures the horizontal force as the brake is applied to one
wheel of the trailer until lock-up, and then held for a few seconds and released. The tests are re
peated for a total of 10 measurements on each surface. The candidate (test) tires are conditioned
by running for 200 miles on a pavement surface. The candidate tires are then fitted to the trailer,
loaded to a specified load and pressure, then subjected to the same testing completed on the con
trol tires. The average sliding coefficient of friction for the candidate tire on each surface is cor
rected using the coefficients of the control tire to yield an adjusted traction coefficient for the
candidate tire on each test surface.
4
ASTM E 501-94 Standard Specification for Standard Rib tire for Pavement Skid Resistance Tests. Available from
American Society for Testing and Materials, http://astm.org.
21
Figure 10. NHTSA San Angelo Skid-Trailer
Phase 2 traction tests were conducted with tires of 16 models previous tested in Phase 1. Two
tires had the highest traction grade AA, 14 tires were graded A (Table 8). Since these tires
experienced some break-in during the 50- to 70-mile rolling resistance tests, these tires were only
conditioned for 70 miles on a pavement surface rather than the normal 200 miles.
5
Since the tires
were not new, and had a reduced break-in, the results generated are for research purposes and are
unofficial. The test matrix was also repeated on dry asphalt and concrete test surfaces. The num
ber of measurements on the dry surfaces was reduced to preserve the limited test surface area
from rubber buildup.
Since modern antilock brakes (ABS) and electronic stability control (ESC) operate in the lower
slip and higher friction region, the peak coefficient recorded during the traction testing was also
used for comparisons in Phase 2 in addition to the slide values used for UTQGS wet traction.
5
Two additional tires of a Phase 1 tire model were broken -in for the full 200 miles and compared to a set of two
that had the 50- to 70-mile roadwheel break-in. There was no significant difference in their traction numbers.
22
Table 8. Phase 2 Wet and Dry Skid-Trailer Test Tires
T
i
r
e
M
o
d
e
l
C
o
d
e
M
F
G
S
i
z
e
L
o
a
d
I
n
d
e
x
S
p
e
e
d
R
a
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
U
T
Q
G
S
T
r
e
a
d
-
w
e
a
r
U
T
Q
G
S
T
r
a
c
.
U
T
Q
G
S
T
e
m
p
.
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
L
e
v
e
l
I
S
O
2
8
5
8
0
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
F
r
(
l
b
f
)
W
e
i
g
h
t
(
l
b
s
.
)
B14 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 V Turanza LS-V 400 AA A Grand Touring All Season 13.90 28.6
B12 Bridgestone P225/60R16 98 W Potenza RE750 340 AA A Ultra High Performance Sum
mer
15.22 27.4
D10 Cooper 225/60R16 98 H Lifeliner Touring SLE 420 A A Standard Touring All Season 13.56 25.2
P5 Pep Boys
(Cooper)
P225/60R16 97 H Touring HR 420 A A Passenger All Season 14.02 25.7
R4 Pirelli 225/60R16 98 H P6 Four Seasons 400 A A Passenger All Season 14.98 24.3
B11 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 H Potenza RE92 OWL 340 A A High Performance All Season 10.13 25.1
M13 Michelin 225/60R16 98 H Pilot MXM4 300 A A Grand Touring All Season 12.07 24.7
B13 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 T Turanza LS-T 700 A B Standard Touring All Season 15.01 29.4
M14 Uniroyal P225/60R16 97 S ASTM 16" SRTT 540 A B ASTM F 2493-06 Reference 11.96 25.5
G8 Goodyear 225/60R16 98 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Season 9.83 22.9
G11 Goodyear P225/60R17 98 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Season 10.02 24.5
G9 Goodyear P205/75R14 95 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Season 11.27 19.2
G10 Goodyear P205/75R15 97 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Season 12.09 20.4
U3 Dunlop
(Sumitomo)
P225/60R17 98 T SP Sport 4000 DSST 360 A B Run Flat 13.91 36.4
B10 Bridgestone 225/60R16 98 Q Blizzak REVO1* - Performance Winter 12.11 26.9
B15 Dayton 225/60R16 98 S Winterforce* - Performance Winter 13.99 26.7
Standard reference test tires used as control tires throughout all phases of the study.
*Snow tires will not be rated in the national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program.
2.9 On-Vehicle Tire Treadwear Testing
FMVSS No. 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards requires manufacturers to provide
a treadwear grade for all tires subject to standard and manufactured after April 1, 1980. A formal
description follows[25]:
Treadwear grades are an indication of a tire's relative wear rate. The higher the tread-
wear number is, the longer it should take for the tread to wear down. A control tire is as
signed a grade of 100. Other tires are compared to the control tire. For example, a tire
grade of 200 should wear twice as long as the control tire. Of current tires: 15 percent are
rated below 200, 25 percent are rated 201 - 300, 32 percent are rated 301 - 400, 20 per
cent are rated 401 - 500, 6 percent are rated 501 - 600, 2 percent are rated above 600.
Additional tires from five of the six models used in UTQG traction testing were tested in the
UTQGS treadwear test. The five tires with treadwear grades ranging from 300 to 700 were
mounted and balanced on 16 x 7.0" rims. The groove depths of the tires were then measured. All
tires were measured with groove one being the outside groove on the serial side. The tires were
23
then installed on five Mercury Marquis vehicles for testing on the UTQG test route near San An
gelo, Texas (Table 9). The vehicles were loaded to 1,182 pounds per wheel within +/-1 percent.
The vehicles were aligned to center of manufacturer's specifications for caster and camber and
toe.
Table 9. On-Vehicle Treadwear Testing
T
i
r
e
M
o
d
e
l
C
o
d
e
M
F
G
S
i
z
e
L
o
a
d
I
n
d
e
x
S
p
e
e
d
R
a
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
U
T
Q
G
S
T
r
e
a
d
-
w
e
a
r
U
T
Q
G
S
T
r
a
c
.
U
T
Q
G
S
T
e
m
p
.
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
L
e
v
e
l
I
S
O
2
8
5
8
0
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
F
r
(
l
b
f
)
W
e
i
g
h
t
(
l
b
s
.
)
M13 Michelin 225/60R16 98 H Pilot MXM4 300 A A Grand Touring All Season 12.07 24.7
B11 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 H Potenza RE92 OWL 340 A A High Performance All Season 10.13 25.1
G8 Goodyear 225/60R16 98 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Season 9.83 22.9
M14 Uniroyal P225/60R16 97 S ASTM 16" SRTT 540 A B ASTM F 2493-06 Reference 11.96 25.5
B13 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 T Turanza LS-T 700 A B Standard Touring All Season 15.01 29.4
Standard reference test tires used as control tires throughout all phases of the study.
The nine-day test conducted consisted of 400-mile day shifts and 400-mile night shifts, for a total
of 7,200 miles including break-in. A Shadow Tracker tracking device was placed in the lead ve
hicle at the beginning of each day shift to record speed, miles traveled, and stops made. The
route is described in Figure 11. The tires were rotated on the vehicle every 400 miles and meas
ured every 800 miles. The vehicles were aligned every 800 miles. The vehicles were rotated
through the convoy at the end of every 800 miles after break-in. The tires from all the vehicles
were rotated from vehicle to vehicle every 1,600 miles after break-in. During the course of the
test, the highest temperature was 93 degrees Fahrenheit and the lowest temperature was 47 de
grees Fahrenheit. The average high for the nine days was 82.6 degrees Fahrenheit and the aver
age low was 63.8 degrees Fahrenheit. There were 581 wet miles during the nine days of testing.
Testing was put on hold for three days due to road closures on the South Loop. The tires were
then measured at the end of the convoy testing to determine the loss of tread depth. More detail
of this test may be found in FMVSS No. 575.104.
24
Figure 11. UTQGS Treadwear Course
2.10 Indoor Tire Treadwear Testing
The FMVSS No. 575.104 requires all passenger tires (with some exceptions) manufactured after
April 1, 1980, to be graded for tread life. However, advances in radial tire tread compounding
since 1980 have resulting in longer life treads that exhibit only a marginal amount of wear after
running the 7,200-mile UTQGS treadwear course. To evaluate the effects of bulk treadwear on
tire rolling resistance, additional tires of the five Phase 1 tire models subjected to on-vehicle
treadwear, as well as original equipment tires from the Impala fuel economy vehicle, were sub
jected to a more aggressive indoor treadwear test developed by Smithers Scientific Services, Inc.
in Ravenna, Ohio (Table 10).
25
Table 10. Indoor Treadwear Testing
T
i
r
e
M
o
d
e
l
C
o
d
e
M
F
G
S
i
z
e
L
o
a
d
I
n
d
e
x
S
p
e
e
d
R
a
t
i
n
g
M
o
d
e
l
U
T
Q
G
S
T
r
e
a
d
-
w
e
a
r
U
T
Q
G
S
T
r
a
c
.
U
T
Q
G
S
T
e
m
p
.
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
L
e
v
e
l
I
S
O
2
8
5
8
0
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
F
r
(
l
b
f
)
W
e
i
g
h
t
(
l
b
s
.
)
M13 Michelin 225/60R16 98 H Pilot MXM4 300 A A Grand Touring All Season 12.07 24.7
B11 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 H Potenza RE92 OWL 340 A A High Performance All Season 10.13 25.1
G12 Goodyear P225/60R16 97 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Season, TPC
1298MS
9.47 22.0
G8 Goodyear 225/60R16 98 S Integrity 460 A B Passenger All Season 9.83 22.9
M14 Uniroyal P225/60R16 97 S ASTM 16" SRTT 540 A B ASTM F 2493-06 Reference 11.96 25.5
B13 Bridgestone P225/60R16 97 T Turanza LS-T 700 A B Standard Touring All Season 15.01 29.4
Original equipment tires on the fuel economy test vehicle.
Standard reference test tires used as control tires throughout all phases of the study.
The testing was completed on an MTS 860 Durability Machine (Figure 12a), 3.048-meter (120
inch) diameter drum covered with 3M 180 (microfinishing) film with servo hydraulic control of
tire radial load, tire slip angle and/or slip load, tire camber angle, road way speed, and braking
torque. A powder spray system is used to prevent rubber buildup on the drum 3M surface. The
machine was programmed with a drive file that allows for consistent application of energy. The
machine was run in force control so that the amount of energy input to the tire/wheel assembly
was consistent between test specimens.
Two test methods were conducted: one was a 25 percent Fz (radial load) test and the other was a
20 percent Fz test. Two tires of each of the six tire models were tested using the 25 percent test.
One each of the five Phase 1 tire models were tested using the less demanding 20 percent test.
The tires were of two load indexes and therefore tested using two different load and force levels
to match the rolling resistance load differences. Table 11 lists these test conditions.
Table 11. Test Parameters
Item P225/60R16 97S 225/60R16 98S
Radial Load 80% Max (lbs / N) 1287 / 5725 1322 / 5882
Camber Angle ( ) 0 0
Speed (mph / km/h) 50 / 80 50 / 80
Inflation Pressure ( psi / kPa) 30.5 / 210 30.5 / 210
Fy (Lateral) Amplitude 25% (lbs / N) 322 / 1431 331 / 1471
Fy (Lateral) Amplitude 20% (lbs / N) 257 / 1145 264 / 1176
Recognizing the historical significance of side force, a frictional work or work rate approach was
conducted in which the side force was the controlled parameter and was varied throughout the
wear test.[26] The 25 percent Fz test consisted of 1,641 lateral force cycles. The input cycle was
a sine wave of the following form, where Fz is the radial load and t is the time in seconds:
26
| 1 |
Fy = (25%Fz sin )
t t |
\
15
.
Equation 3. Input Cycle
A similar cycle was used for the 20 percent Fz profile as well, except the coefficient was equal to
20 percent Fz. Data that was collected as part of the wear testing were tire/wheel assembly
weight, and laser profilometry using a precision scale and a Bytewise CTWIST machine (Figure
12b). The CTWIST machine collects 4,096 data points per tire revolution every millimeter
across the tire. The data was collected at the new or pre-test point, at the halfway point, and at
the end of the test. This allows for wear rate to be evaluated.
The test sequence required the tire wheel assemblies to be weighed, laser-profiled, measured for
rolling resistance using the proposed ISO 28580 single-point test method, and then run on a 400
mile indoor wear cycle. The tires were weighed, laser-profiled, and measured for rolling resis
tance before the final wear cycle of 400 miles was conducted. After the final wear cycle the tires
were then again weighed, laser-profiled, and measured for rolling resistance in their final state.
Figure 12a. MTS 860 Durability Machine Figure 12b. CTWIST Machine
Figure 12. Indoor Treadwear Equipment
27
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Effect of Tire Rolling Resistance on Automobile Fuel Efficiency
Fifteen tire models with varying rolling resistance levels were tested on a single vehicle for dy
namometer fuel economy as previously described. Six models were tested at both the placard
inflation pressure of 210 kPa and at 158 kPa, which represents the TPMS activation threshold of
25 percent inflation pressure loss. The effects of tire rolling resistance on vehicle fuel economy
are known to be on the scale of fractions of a mile per gallon per pound of rolling resistance.
Therefore, from the outset of the program it was known that the fuel economy tests were at
tempting to measure rolling resistance effects that were at the limits of the accuracy of the test
procedure. In an attempt to account for this, the SRTT (tire type M14) control tires were tested
periodically throughout the testing sequence to monitor possible data shifts. These may be of two
types:
1. Shifts in the data due to an event(s) during the approximately four month test pro
gram, or
2. Drift in the data due to gradual changes in vehicle or dynamometer function.
The data is shown in Table 12.
28
Table 12. Test Matrix by Date
D
a
t
e
T
i
r
e
T
y
p
e
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
k
P
a
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
R
e
-
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
l
b
s
C
i
t
y
,
F
T
P
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
F
E
T
(
1
)
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
F
E
T
(
2
)
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
F
E
T
(
3
)
A
i
r
C
o
n
d
i
-
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
,
S
C
0
3
H
i
g
h
S
p
e
e
d
,
U
S
0
6
C
o
l
d
C
i
t
y
,
F
T
P
09/30/08 M14
6
210 11.96 21.3 35.9 36.8 36.2 19.3 21.9
10/01/08 B11 210 10.13 21.3 36.7 37.1 36.8 19.6 22.1
10/02/08 B13 210 15.02 20.8 34.8 35.4 34.6 18.6 21.1
10/06/08 B13 158 15.58
7
20.3 34.3 35.2 34.6 18.5 20.9
10/07/08 G8 158 10.45 21.4 36.5 37.2 36.6 19.3 22.2
10/08/08 M13 210 12.06 21.1 35.8 36.3 36.0 19.4 21.9
10/09/08 M14 158 12.47 21.1 35.9 36.5 36.1 19.3 21.9
10/10/08 G8 210 9.83 21.9 37.3 38.2 37.8 19.9 22.4
10/13/08 M13 158 12.60 21.1 35.5 36.4 35.7 19.3 21.9
10/14/08 B11 158 10.80 21.3 36.3 37.1 36.3 19.3 21.9
10/15/08 M14 210 11.96 21.4 36.2 36.7 36.4 19.3 21.7
10/16/08 G12 210 9.47 21.7 37.5 38.2 37.8 20.1 22.4
10/17/08 G12 158 10.09 21.2 36.5 37.3 36.7 19.4 22.3
10/21/08 M14 210 11.96 18.8
10/22/08 M14 158 12.47 18.4
10/23/08 B11 210 10.13 19.0
10/24/08 B11 158 10.80 18.8
10/25/08 B13 158 15.58 18.1
10/27/08 B13 210 15.01 18.4
10/28/08 G8 210 9.83 19.0
10/30/08 M13 158 12.60 18.3
10/31/08 M13 210 12.06 18.7
11/03/08 G8 158 10.45 18.9
11/05/08 G12 210 9.47 19.3
11/06/08 G12 158 10.09
19.1
11/10/08 M14 210 11.96 21.7 36.8 37.3 36.4 20.0 21.5
11/11/08 B10 210 12.11 21.2 35.9 37.2 35.8 19.6 22.0
11/12/08 B12 210 15.22 20.8 35.4 36.1 35.2 19.4 21.8
11/13/08 B14 210 13.90 21.1 35.7 36.8 35.9 19.5 22.0
11/14/08 D10 210 13.56 21.4 36.1 37.1 36.2 19.6 22.0
11/17/08 B15 210 13.99 20.4 35.8 36.4 35.9 19.3 20.8
11/18/08 U3 210 13.91 21.0 36.0 36.8 36.3 19.5 20.6
11/19/08 G11 210 10.02 21.5 36.2 37.1 36.9 20.9 22.2
11/20/08 P5 210 14.02 21.1 35.7 36.7 35.6 21.5 22.0
11/21/08 R4 210 14.98 20.9 35.7 36.4 21.4 22.1
11/24/08 M14 210 11.96 21.7 37.5 36.5 21.9 22.0
11/25/08 G12 158 10.09 Special Tests (Collection Bag Comparison)
12/02/08 M14 210 11.96 19.1
12/03/08 B10 210 12.11 19.1
12/04/08 B12 210 15.22 18.3
12/05/08 B14 210 13.90 18.5
12/06/08 D10 210 13.56
18.7
6
Bold values denote runs with tire types G12 and M14 that were systematically repeated during the testing
7
Rolling resistance values were estimated for 158 kPa tires by adjusting for pressure using regression coefficients
from ISO 18164 and SAE J1269 multi-point testing for the tire type
29
Not Scheduled
Mis-Test
Legend:
D
a
t
e
T
i
r
e
T
y
p
e
I
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
k
P
a
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
l
b
s
C
i
t
y
,
F
T
P
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
F
E
T
(
1
)
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
F
E
T
(
2
)
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
F
E
T
(
3
)
A
i
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
,
S
C
0
3
H
i
g
h
S
p
e
e
d
,
U
S
0
6
C
o
l
d
C
i
t
y
,
F
T
P
12/08/08 B15 210 13.99 18.2
12/10/08 U3 210 13.91 18.2
12/11/08 G11 210 10.02 19.0
12/12/08 P5 210 14.02 18.5
12/15/08 R4 210 14.98 18.4
12/16/08 G12 210 9.47 18.6
12/17/08 M14 210 11.96 18.8
01/13/09 M14 210 11.96 21.7 37.2 37.0 37.1
01/14/09 M14 210 11.96 21.7 37.3 37.3 37.5 19.8 21.9
01/15/09 G12 210 9.47 22.1 37.8 37.8 37.9 20.3 22.5
01/19/09 B13 210 15.01 20.6 36.0 35.7 35.9 19.5 20.8
01/21/09 G11 210 10.02 22.1 38.0 38.3 37.9 20.4 22.6
01/22/09 P5 210 14.02 21.4 36.2 36.7 36.9 19.6 20.9
01/23/09 R4 210 14.98 21.2 36.3 36.7 36.5 19.6 20.8
3.1.1 Preliminary Analysis: Data Shifts
There were three events identified which corresponded to possible shifts or block events in the
data.
1. The Highway FET fuel economy cycle was run in triplicate, sequentially and showed
systematic differences between the runs.
2. A shift to significantly higher air conditioning SC03 cycle was noted on November
20, 2008. This followed investigation of the differences found in the Highway FET
values.
3. Physical replacement of the valves and recalibration of the analysis system was com
pleted on January 9, 2009.
Each period of time was assigned a group number to analyze for differences in data between
groups as shown in Table 13.
30
Table 13. Events Identified as Possible Data Shift Correlates
Date
Group
Number
Description
9/30/08
11/18/08
to
1
Highway FET cycle was run in triplicate, the exhaust gasses for analysis
from the runs were collected sequentially into Bag #1, Bag #2 and Bag#3
11/19/08 2
The fuel economy lab began a check of the valves and bags to determine if
there were mechanical differences
11/20/08
11/25/08
to
3 The air conditioning SC03 cycle data was significantly higher than expected
01/13/09
01/23/09
to
4
New valves installed and entire system recalibrated. Selected tires were re
run on all cycles except Cold City FTP
10/21/08
11/06/08
to
5
Cold City FTP cycle initial tire types
12/02/08
12/17/08
to
6
Cold City FTP cycle additional tire types
3.1.2 Highway FET Triplicate Analysis:
The vehicle exhaust gas is routed to a number of bags for collection. For the tires in Group 1, the
runs for the triplicate analysis of the Highway FET cycle were compared. There was a significant
difference between the mileage for collection bags, with the mileage for bag #2 being approxi
mately 0.7 mpg (2%) higher than the values for bags #1 and #3. This is evident in the data shown
in Figure 14. The fuel economy lab investigated the mechanical functioning of the system on
November 19, 2008, and was unable to identify any equipment that was not functioning within
specification. The decision was made to complete the final group of tires without making any
changes to the equipment or procedures. Table 14 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
the Highway FET cycle for all tires in groups 1 to 3. On November 25, several runs were made
that showed the difference between values correlated to the physical collection bag used in the
analysis. Six tire types were re-run on the dynamometer in January 2009 after physical replace
ment of the valves in the system and provided data with equal values from all bags. Data for the
Highway FET was therefore analyzed by bag. Unfortunately, this data offset precludes the in
tended use of the Highway FET values to study the precision of the test method.
31
Exhaust Gas & Ambient Air
Sample Collection Bags
Figure 13. Vehicle Fuel Economy Dynamometer Exhaust Collection Bags and Control
System
mpg
34
35
36
37
38
39
Microsoft Date Code
39720 39730 39740 39750 39760 39770
Figure 14. Highway FET Schedule Fuel Economy Versus Bag Collection Number
32
Table 14. Analysis of Variance for Highway FET Fuel Economy by Tire Type and
Collection Bag Number
Dependent Variable: mpg
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 23 100679.7092 4377.3787 59474.9 <.0001
Error 53 3.9008 0.0736
Uncorrected Total 76 100683.6100
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE mpg Mean
0.925213 0.745556 0.271294 36.38816
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
type 20 40.59476016 2.02973801 27.58 <.0001
bag 2 7.64826645 3.82413323 51.96 <.0001
Duncan's Multiple Range Test for mpg
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 53
Error Mean Square 0.0736
Harmonic Mean of Cell Sizes 25.32468
Means With the Same Letter
Are Not Significantly Different.
Duncan Grouping Mean N bag
A 36.81923 26 2
B 36.24400 25 3
C 36.08400 25 1
33
3.1.3 Air Conditioning SC03 11/20/08 to 11/25/08
Tire Type M14 (SRTT) was run as a control tire periodically throughout the test procedure. The
data on November 24, 2008, for the SC03 cycle was significantly higher than that seen previ
ously, as shown in Table 15. The same magnitude of difference was seen in a repeat of the G12
tire at 158 kPa. After the replacement of the valves and recalibration of the system was com
pleted on January 9, 2009, the data returned to the previous level. Figure 15 shows the data for
the SC03 cycle by group. It is apparent that the data from Group 3 does not follow the trend seen
in Group 1 for mpg by rolling resistance of the tire. After repair and recalibration of the system,
the trend for Group 4 returns to nearly that seen in Group 1. No apparent reason for the data shift
was seen, therefore SC03 data from Groups 2 and 3 were removed from the analysis and tire
types G11, P5 and R4 were repeated in Group 4.
Table 15. Air Conditioning SC03 Schedule, mpg for SRTT Tire by Date
Date
G12 Type at 158 kPa,
mpg
M14 Type at 210 kPa,
mpg
09/30/08 19.3
10/15/08 19.3
10/17/08 19.4
11/10/08 20.0
11/2408 21.9
11/25/08 21.9
01/14/09 19.8
34
mpg
18.0
18.5
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 15. Air Conditioning SC03 Fuel Economy Versus Tire Rolling Resistance by
Analysis Group
3.1.4 Analysis by Date for Possible Drift in Data over Time
Tire types M14 (the SRTT) was repeated systematically during the testing as shown in Table 12.
The data for Group 1, or Groups 5 and 6 for the Cold City FTP cycle was analyzed by date of
testing to see if there was a drift in the data over time. Such a shift could result from systematic
changes in the vehicle or dynamometer. Table 16 summarizes the results of the analyses. Al
though no individual change in fuel economy is statistically significant, the fact that all values
seemed to increase slightly over the course of the experiment indicates that there was a slight
drift toward higher fuel economy over time. For the 50 days of testing in this analysis this would
result in a total increase of approximately 0.5 mpg. This means that pair-wise comparisons be
tween tests performed at different times would be suspect. For this analysis, the only pair-wise
comparisons that were studied were between the same tires at different inflation pressures. These
tests were normally performed on successive days, and the greatest difference between tests was
9 days. For the overall effect of tire rolling resistance, the rolling resistance of the tires studied
did not vary systematically over the test period, as seen in Figure 16, so this drift will constitute a
part of the error term in the analysis.
35
Table 16. Change in Fuel Economy Over Total Time of Testing
Test Probability > |t| Coefficient, mpg/day
Highway FET (Bag #1) 0.230 0.0221
Highway FET (Bag #2) 0.246 0.0035
Highway FET (Bag #3) 0.779 0.0045
City FTP 0.655 0.0033
High Speed US06 0.098 0.0095
Air Conditioning SC03 0.236 0.0182
Cold City FTP 0.094 0.0005
Average 0.0088
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Day, Microsoft Date Code
39720 39740 39760 39780 39800 39820 39840
Figure 16. Rolling Resistance of Tires Tested Versus Day of Testing
Table 17 summarizes the data that was excluded from the individual analyses of effects on fuel
economy based on the preliminary data quality analysis.
36
Table 17. Data Excluded from Fuel Economy Analyses
Test Data Excluded
Highway FET (Bag #1) Group 4
Highway FET (Bag #2) None
Highway FET (Bag #3) Group 4
City FTP None
High Speed US06 None
Air Conditioning SC03 Groups 2 and 3
Cold City FTP None
Effect of Inflation Pressure None
Although a number of data quality issues were identified during the fuel economy testing, it is
important to stress that these problems were accounted for prior to ANOVA analysis. Therefore,
the fuel economy results presented in the report are believed to be accurate, as evidenced by
there relative agreement with results of similar studies contained in the literature.
3.1.5 Effect of Tire Rolling Resistance on Fuel Economy
Table 18 shows the results of the analysis of variance for the various fuel economy tests studied.
Figure 17 through Figure 23 illustrate the trends and 95 percent confidence limits of each test for
miles per gallon, calculated for four tires of the specified rolling resistance mounted on the vehi-
cle, versus the rolling resistance force values for the tires studied. Although the R
2
values are
poor, the tire rolling resistance term is significant and the F Values indicate that the overall trend
toward lower fuel economy with increasing tire rolling resistance is statistically significant. Val-
ues of Probability |t| less than 0.05 indicate that the variable (lbf) has a significant effect on roll-
ing resistance. Figure 24 shows the fuel economy as a percentage of the mean for each test ver-
sus the rolling resistance as a percentage of the mean rolling resistance. The scatter in the data is
evident, but the overall trends are clear and the percentage decreases in fuel economy as tire roll-
ing resistance increases show very similar trends. Previous studies have shown the effects of roll-
ing resistance as percentage change in mileage for the vehicle (%mpg) that results from some
percentage change in rolling resistance of the tires (%Rolling Resistance). Table 19 shows the
regression results for this measure. The increase in mpg for a 10 percent decrease in rolling resis-
tance is approximately 1.1 percent, ranging from a low of 0.8 percent for the air conditioning
SC03 cycle to a high of 1.3 percent for the High-Speed US06 cycle. These results agree with the
calculated values of a 0.7 percent to 2.0 percent change in fuel economy for a 10 percent change
in rolling resistance that are shown in the Transportation Research Board, Special Report
286.[27]
37
Table 18. ANOVA Results for Effect of Tire Rolling Resistance on Fuel Economy
Test F Value
Probability
> F
R
2
Value
Coefficient, mpg / lbf.
Rolling Resistance
Probability
> |t|
Highway FET (Bag #1) 46.2 0.0001 0.687 -0.306 0.0001
Highway FET (Bag #2) 71.5 0.0001 0.695 -0.315 0.0001
Highway FET (Bag #3) 75.5 0.0001 0.770 -0.376 0.0001
Average Highway FET -0.332
City FTP 48.5 0.0001 0.593 -0.176 0.0001
High Speed US06 48.6 0.0001 0.611 -0.233 0.0001
Air Conditioning SC03 16.0 0.0005 0.381 -0.131 0.0005
Cold City FTP 45.7 0.0001 0.729 -0.168 0.0001
Table 19. Percentage Change in Fuel Economy Versus Percentage Change in Tire Rolling
Resistance
Coefficient,
Test
% mpg / % Rolling Resistance
Variability,
CV
Highway FET (Bag #1) -0.105 1.13
Highway FET (Bag #2) -0.106 1.15
Highway FET (Bag #3) -0.127 1.08
Average Highway FET -0.113 1.12
City FTP -0.102 1.40
High Speed US06 -0.132 1.77
Air Conditioning SC03 -0.083 1.78
Cold City FTP -0.112 1.07
.
38
mpg
34
35
36
37
38
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 17. Highway FET (Bag #1) Mileage Versus Tire Rolling Resistance
mpg
35
36
37
38
39
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 18. Highway FET (Bag #2) Mileage Versus Tire Rolling Resistance
39
mpg
34
35
36
37
38
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 19. Highway FET (Bag #3) Mileage Versus Tire Rolling Resistance
mpg
20.2
20.4
20.6
20.8
21.0
21.2
21.4
21.6
21.8
22.0
22.2
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 20. City FTP Mileage Versus Tire Rolling Resistance
40
mpg
20
21
22
23
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 21. High Speed US06 Mileage Versus Tire Rolling Resistance
mpg
18.4
18.6
18.8
19.0
19.2
19.4
19.6
19.8
20.0
20.2
20.4
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 22. Air Conditioning SC03 Mileage Versus Tire Rolling Resistance
41
mpg
18.1
18.2
18.3
18.4
18.5
18.6
18.7
18.8
18.9
19.0
19.1
19.2
19.3
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 23. Cold City FTP Mileage Versus Tire Rolling Resistance
42
mpg, %
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
70
Rolling Resistance, %
80 90 100 110 120 130
1 = Highway FET (Bag #1)
2 = Highway FET (Bag #2)
3 = Highway FET (Bag #3)
4 = City FTP 7 = Cold City FTP
5 = High Speed US06
6 = Air Conditioning SC03
Figure 24. Percentage Change in Fuel Economy Versus Percentage Change in
Tire Rolling Resistance
3.1.6 Effect of Reduced Inflation Pressure on Fuel Economy
Underinflated tires have been shown to be a prevalent issue for passenger vehicle safety. In
2001, NHTSA released the results of the Tire Pressure Special Study, showing that 28 percent of
passenger cars had at least one tire underinflated by 8 psi or more.[28] Recently NHTSA pub
lished the results of a sample of vehicles surveyed with and without tire pressure monitoring sys
tems (TPMS).[29] Although the number of vehicles with underinflated tires was less with
TPMS, there were still approximately 20 percent of vehicles equipped with TPMS systems that
had at least one tire underinflated by 25 percent or more.
8
While the primary safety issue for un
der-inflation of tires is reduced vehicle control and possible tire failure due to cumulative dam
age, studies have shown that underinflation increases the rolling resistance of a tire, thus increas
ing vehicle fuel consumption.
Using available literature (1991), Wicks and Sheets assumed that the rolling resistance of a tire
increased inversely with the under pressure ratio (actual tire pressure divided by the recom
mended tire pressure). Using a theoretical drop in pressure from 35 psi (241 kPa) to 25 psi (172
8
For those vehicles equipped with direct TPMS, there were approximately 1% percent with at least one tire underin
flated by 25% percent or more.
43
kPa), they estimated a 3.84 percent increase in vehicle fuel consumption for a 10 psi reduction in
tire inflation pressure.[30] The U.S. Department of Energy predicts an increase in fuel consump
tion of 3 percent for each 10 psi reduction in tire pressure.[31] Clark et al. show increases in roll
ing resistance of 1 percent to 3 percent for each psi reduction in inflation pressure.[32] Hall and
Moreland show increases in rolling resistance of 1 to 2 percent for a 1 psi reduction in inflation
pressure [33] and Continental Tire shows an increase in rolling resistance of 1.6-percent per psi
reduction in rolling resistance.[34] Using the NAS predictions of a 1- to 2-percent decrease in
fuel consumption for a 10 percent increase in rolling resistance, the predicted values in
%mpg/psi is shown in Table 20.
In 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published an SAE paper on the effects of
reduced inflation pressure on fuel mileage measured during on-road vehicle testing.[35] The test
ing used two identical 1979 Chevrolet Nova passenger cars with the OEM radial tires. The two
vehicles were simultaneously driven on a closed test track through repetitive cycles of the then
current EPA Urban and Highway driving schedules. The vehicles had a placard tire pressure of
24 psi (165 kPa), and all four tires on the vehicle were either adjusted up or down by 4 psi (28
kPa) from the placard. The 8-psi (55-kPa) difference in tire pressure generated an average com
posite
9
fuel consumption to tire pressure change ratio of 0.33%/psi.
Table 20. Predicted Change in Fuel Economy for 1 psi Change in Tire Inflation Pressure
Study Predicted Reduction,
%mpg/psi
Calculation Notes:
Wicks and Sheets 0.38 3.8%mpg/10psi
U.S. Department of Energy 0.3 3%pmg/10psi
Clark et al. 0.1 to 0.6
1/%mpg/10%RR/1%RR/psi to
2%/mpg/10%RR/3%RR/psi
Hall and Moreland 0.1 to 0.4
1/%mpg/10%RR/1%RR/psi to
2%/mpg/10%RR/2%RR/psi
Continental Tire 0.16 to 0.32
1/%mpg/10%RR/1.6%RR/psi to
2%/mpg/10%RR/1.6%RR/psi
U.S. EPA 0.33
Measured in on-vehicle tests,
published 1981
Average 0.308
Referencing Schurings work in 1980, LaClair states[36]:
When a tire is under-inflated, its rolling resistance increases by a factor of, on average,
about (P/P
0
)
-0.4
, where P
0
is the specified inflation pressure.
Per this relationship, a (158/210)
-0.4
or 12 percent increase in rolling resistance should be ob
served. Also referencing Schuring, NAS states[37]:
9
Composite fuel cycle was weighted for 55 percent urban cycles and 45 percent highway cycles.
44
Schuring (1980) observes that for conventional passenger tires, an increase in inflation
pressure from 24 to 29 pounds per square inch (psi) will reduce rolling resistance by 10
percent. For a tire inflated to pressures between 24 and 36 psi, each drop of 1 psi leads to
a 1.4-percent increase in its rolling resistance.
Per this relationship, a 10-percent increase (30-23 psi = 7 psi * 1.4%/psi = 10 %) in rolling resis
tance should be observed.
The effect of reduced inflation pressure was estimated from comparison of the dynamometer fuel
economy of the vehicle with the front tires inflated to the placard pressure of 210 kPa (30 psi), to
tests with the same front tires inflated to 158 kPa (23 psi). The lower pressure represents the 25
percent reduced pressure activation threshold of the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS)
specified in FMVSS No. 138. Six tire models that spanned the range of rolling resistances were
chosen for the experiment. Unlike on-road vehicle operation, tests on the indoor fuel economy
dynamometer involve only the driven axle(s) of the vehicle, which for the Chevy Malibu test ve
hicle was the front axle. Since the EPA fuel economy test is completed using only the driven
axle, it is assumed that the effects of the drag of the non-driven axle (rear axle) on vehicle fuel
economy are accounted for in the EPAs complex equations. Therefore, it is also assumed that
the increased rolling resistance of the front tires due to underinflation will scale up through these
equations to the effects of four underinflated tires on vehicle fuel economy. However, no on-road
testing was completed to confirm this.
Statistical pair-wise comparisons of the same tires tested at the two different inflation pressures
did not show significant differences in fuel economy. However, there was a trend for tires at the
lower inflation pressure to generate lower fuel economy in all tests as shown in Figure 26 to
Figure 32, which illustrates the data by tire type, where the L suffix (e.g., M14L) indicates the
158-kPa inflation pressure. Table 21 shows the results of the ANOVA analysis for the tests. All
but one of the tests showed a decrease of 0.3 to 0.5 miles per gallon for all fuel economy cycles
for the 25-percent decrease in tire pressure. The High Speed US06 test showed no significant
change in fuel economy.
Using the relationship between rolling resistance and fuel economy for the vehicle tested by
NHTSA as shown in Table 19, a 0.11-percent reduction in fuel economy is predicted for each 1
percent increase in rolling resistance. Based on LaClairs estimate of rolling resistance increases
of 12 percent for the reduced pressure, a 1.3-percent reduction in overall fuel economy for all
cycles is predicted. Therefore, the actual results in Table 21 of an approximate 1.17-percent re
duction in overall fuel economy for all cycles is fairly close to the 1.3-percent prediction. The
predicted value using the NAS estimate of a 1.1-percent decrease in fuel economy is also very
close to the measured value of 1.17 percent.
However, the measured fuel economy of the vehicle at reduced inflation pressure was signifi
cantly less than the average predicted value shown in Table 20. When weighted in the same
manner as used by the EPA, the results for the Urban and Highway cycles in Table 19 predict
fuel consumption to tire pressure change ratio of 0.11 percent/psi, or about a third of that seen by
the EPA on the track in 1979. The following explanations, or combinations of the following, are
thought to be possible:
45
1. The effects of underinflation on the tire contact patch that would occur with a tire on a
relatively flat road may not approximated by the Hertzian-like contact of the tire on the
curved 48-inch diameter steel rollers of the fuel economy dynamometer (Figure 25).
2. The increased heat build-up of the low inflation tires on the dynamometer rollers, which
could raise the inflation pressure significantly over the short duration of the test and
lower the differential in rolling resistance between the under-inflated and properly in
flated tires.
3. Assuming a nominal load on the tires of 80 percent of maximum sidewall, the predicted
10 percent increase in rolling resistance due to 25 percent underinflation for the highest
rolling resistance tire model in the study (type B12) is 15.22 lbf x 0.1 x 2 tires = +3.0 lbf
for two tires on the front axle. For the lowest, the OE type G12 tires, it is 9.47 x 0.1 x 2
tires = +1.9 lbf. In horsepower terms, at the 60 mph speed of the highway test cycle the
increased rolling resistance forces are roughly 0.3-0.5 hp on a vehicle with an engine
rated at 211 hp at 5800 rpm, or only 0.14-0.24 percent of maximum horsepower. The ve
hicles modern fuel, ignition, and powertrain management software, which may include
adaptive spark timing, adaptive exhaust catalyst, mass-airflow sensors, and other tech
nologies to lessen emissions and optimize fuel economy, may mitigate some of the ef
fects of the additional rolling resistance of the two underinflated tires at the front axle.
This is particularly significant when comparing these results to earlier results using car
bureted vehicles. For instance, the carbureted 1979 Chevrolet Nova vehicles used in the
EPA testing were rated at 115 maximum horsepower at 3800 rpm.
4. The dynamometer loading is dependent on the road load coast-down coefficients of the
vehicle with the OE tires at placard cold inflation pressure. This in turn affects the emis
sions results and therefore the fuel economy of the vehicle. New road load coast-down
coefficients may have to be determined for vehicle tests at the lower TPMS activation
pressure.
Figure 25. Tire to Dynamometer Roller Contact / 2008 Chevrolet Impala LS Engine
46
mpg
30
32
34
36
38
40
type
B
1
1
B
1
1
L
B
1
3
B
1
3
L
G
1
2
G
1
2
L
G
8
G
8
L
M
1
3
M
1
3
L
M
1
4
M
1
4
L
Figure 26. Highway FET (Bag #1) Fuel Economy by Tire Type and Inflation Pressure
mpg
30
32
34
36
38
40
type
B
1
1
B
1
1
L
B
1
3
B
1
3
L
G
1
2
G
1
2
L
G
8
G
8
L
M
1
3
M
1
3
L
M
1
4
M
1
4
L
Figure 27. Highway FET (Bag #2) Fuel Economy by Tire Type and Inflation Pressure
47
mpg
30
32
34
36
38
40
type
B
1
1
B
1
1
L
B
1
3
B
1
3
L
G
1
2
G
1
2
L
G
8
G
8
L
M
1
3
M
1
3
L
M
1
4
M
1
4
L
Figure 28. Highway FET (Bag #3) Fuel Economy by Tire Type and Inflation Pressure
mpg
15
17
19
21
23
25
type
B
1
1
B
1
1
L
B
1
3
B
1
3
L
G
1
2
G
1
2
L
G
8
G
8
L
M
1
3
M
1
3
L
M
1
4
M
1
4
L
Figure 29. City FTP Fuel Economy by Tire Type and Inflation Pressure
48
mpg
15
17
19
21
23
25
type
B
1
1
B
1
1
L
B
1
3
B
1
3
L
G
1
2
G
1
2
L
G
8
G
8
L
M
1
3
M
1
3
L
M
1
4
M
1
4
L
Figure 30. High Speed US06 Fuel Economy by Tire Type and Inflation Pressure
mpg
10
12
14
16
18
20
type
B
1
1
B
1
1
L
B
1
3
B
1
3
L
G
1
2
G
1
2
L
G
8
G
8
L
M
1
3
M
1
3
L
M
1
4
M
1
4
L
Figure 31. Air Conditioning SC03 Fuel Economy by Tire Type and Inflation Pressure
49
mpg
10
12
14
16
18
20
type
B
1
1
B
1
1
L
B
1
3
B
1
3
L
G
1
2
G
1
2
L
G
8
G
8
L
M
1
3
M
1
3
L
M
1
4
M
1
4
L
Figure 32. Cold City FTP Fuel Economy by Tire Type and Inflation Pressure
Table 21. ANOVA Results for Effect of Tire Inflation Pressure Reduction on Fuel Economy
Test
Coefficient Probability
> |t| mpg / 52 kPa %mpg / kPa %mpg / psi
Highway FET (Bag #1) -0.553 -0.030 -0.203 0.0119
Highway FET (Bag #2) -0.173 -0.009 -0.062 0.0164
Highway FET (Bag #3) -0.206 -0.011 -0.075 0.0092
Average Highway FET -0.311 -0.0167 -0.113 0.0125
City FTP -0.166 -0.015 -0.103 0.0008
High Speed US06 -0.018 -0.001 -0.011 0.8200
Air Conditioning SC03 -0.497 -0.049 -0.337 0.0096
Cold City FTP -0.305 -0.031 -0.216 0.0088
3.1.7 Fuel Economy Testing Summary
The repeatability of the fuel economy tests were found to range from 1 to 2 percent. Using a
brand new vehicle, with mileage break-in to the prescribed 2,000 miles, a significant upward
drift in the average mpg between 2,000 and 6,000 miles was noted. Offsets between the intended
triplicate Highway FET results precluded a more precise assessment of the accuracy of the test.
In spite of these limitations, there was a significant effect of tire rolling resistance on fuel econ
omy for all tests over the 9.47 to 15.60 pound range of the tires studied. For all tests, a 10 percent
decrease in rolling resistance resulted in slightly more than a 1 percent increase in fuel economy
for the vehicle. Reducing the inflation pressure by 25 percent resulted in a small but statistically
significant decrease in the fuel economy of the vehicle by approximately 0.3 to 0.5 miles per gal
50
lon for all tests except the high-speed, high-acceleration US06 cycle. Figure 33 illustrates the
trends for the Highway FET (Bag #2) test. As before, the suffix of L for the tire type indicates
the low-pressure condition. The trend to lower mileage with increased rolling resistance is clear.
In general, the tires at lower inflation pressure have lower gas mileage in line with their calculat
ed
10
rolling resistance at the reduced pressure.
mpg
35
36
37
38
39
ISO 28580 RR, lbs
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 33. Highway FET (Bag #2) Fuel Economy Versus Tire Rolling Resistance by Tire
Type and Inflation Pressure
3.2 Correlation of Tangent at 60C to Tire Rolling Resistance
The tread compounds of 16 tire models were tested for dynamic mechanical properties. Litera
ture has suggested that the tangent at 60C correlates to the treads contribution to the rolling
resistance of a tire. The Pearson R product moment correlation of the measures for the 16 tires is
shown in Table 22. The measured rolling resistance has a significant positive correlation of 0.72
to the tangent measured in both shear and tension. The measures in shear and tension are very
highly correlated. The data for rolling resistance versus tangent measured in tension by tire
type is shown in Figure 34. It appears that the data falls into two groups of tangent , which
strongly influences the overall correlation. However, the low tangent and low rolling resistance
group consists of two tire brands. Interestingly, these three tire types shown in the lower left cor
ner of the graph have all been confirmed by their manufacturers as being original equipment tires
models. Table 23 shows the correlation of rolling resistance to some compound properties and
10
Calculated from the coefficients of the multi-point rolling resistance tests of those tire types.
51
how they differ for two brands of tires. Both the Bridgestone and Goodyear tires individually
show a stronger correlation of rolling resistance and tangent at 60C than that shown for all
tires grouped together. The differing correlations to compound properties may be related to dif
fering compound strategies of the companies to tailor compounds for individual tire perform
ance. The Bridgestone tires seem to be sensitive to increases in the total filler level, while the
Goodyear tires seem to be more sensitive to the type of filler (percent silica) and possibly to
other compounding ingredients (volatile content). A broad range of tire types were measured for
compound properties and rolling resistance and will be reported separately.
Table 22. Correlation of Rolling Resistance to Tangent at 60C
Correlation to Rolling
Resistance
Tan C gent at 60
(Tension)
Tang 0C ent at 6
(Shear)
0.7216 0.7311
Probability > |r| 0.0016 <0.0001
Rolling Resistance
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Tangent delta @60C in Tension
0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
Figure 34. ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance (lbs)Versus Tangent at 60C by Tire Type
OE Tires
OE Run-Flat Tire
52
Table 23. Correlation of Properties to Rolling Resistance
Correlation to Rolling Resistance Parameter
All Tires Bridgestone Tires Only Goodyear Tires Only
Tangent at 60C (tension) 0.722 0.901 0.932
Percent Polymer in Compound -0.816 -0.920 -0.598
Percent Volatiles in Compound 0.645 0.828 0.912
Total Filler Level of Compound 0.814 0.907 0.341
Percent of Filler That is Silica -0.109 -0.068 -0.945
3.3 Effect of Tire Rolling Resistance on Safety
Sixteen tire models representing a range of rolling resistance and of other characteristics were
tested for both dry and wet traction by NHTSA. The testing was done in conjunction with the
standard ASTM E501 Standard Reference Test Tire used for UTQGS testing. The FMVSS
575.104 UTQGS Traction grade is based upon the wet slide traction coefficient, which is ad-
justed with results from the ASTM E501 tire to correct for variations in the test surface, envi-
ronmental conditions, etc. Since the standard does not have a procedure for adjusting wet peak,
or dry peak and slide traction coefficients, it was decided to report raw traction data as Traction
Number (coefficient of friction x 10
2
) and as a Ratio to the Course Monitoring Tire (ASTM
E501). The ratios were calculated using the only results from the E501 course monitoring tires
used for that tire models traction testing sequence. In this manner, the ratios represent data that
has been corrected for variations in the test surface, environmental conditions, etc. The wet
slide data is reported in this same format, as well as in the form of the UTQGS adjusted traction
coefficient. Since these tires were previously tested for rolling resistance, and did not undergo
the full break-in period, the results for the adjusted traction coefficients are unofficial. The raw
peak and slide traction data for dry and wet, asphalt and concrete testing, as well as adjusted
UTQGS wet slide coefficients are contained in Appendix 4 through Appendix 10.
3.3.1 Dry Traction Data
Table 24 shows the average dry traction results for each tire type on asphalt and concrete. Table
25 shows the Pearson Product Moment Correlation of the values for dry traction to the tire roll-
ing resistance. The Pearson value indicates the strength and direction of the correlation with val-
ues ranging from -1 for complete inverse correlation, to +1 for complete direct correlation, with
values near zero indicating no correlation between the measures. It is evident that there is very
little correlation between the traction and rolling resistance for these tires. For a value to be sta-
tistically significant the probability > |r| would have to be less than 0.050, and no value ap-
proaches that number. Figure 35 and Figure 36 display clearly that there is no indication that a
tire with improved rolling resistance will necessarily have lower dry traction performance in this
test.
53
Table 24. Dry Traction Results, Traction Number and Ratio to E501 Reference Tire
Tire
Type
ISO 28580 Roll
ing Resistance,
lbf
Traction
Asphalt Concrete
Peak Value Sliding Value Peak Value Sliding Value
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
G8 9.83 94.41 95 65.95 110 93.25 88 75.31 95
G11 10.02 97.45 99 64.66 93 104.07 96 75.95 93
B11 10.13 94.77 96 60.73 98 101.12 93 74.43 91
G9 11.27 98.25 98 74.16 109 102.20 95 78.82 97
M14 11.96 99.53 101 66.67 104 105.50 97 81.70 100
M13 12.07 100.12 101 53.75 82 105.62 97 69.66 85
G10 12.09 98.53 96 74.00 101 102.07 94 78.39 97
B10 12.11 93.83 94 77.65 127 96.45 91 86.63 107
D10 13.56 94.60 95 62.10 101 102.71 96 74.77 94
B14 13.90 101.50 102 75.76 125 107.58 100 85.02 106
U3 13.91 91.75 94 67.23 108 100.22 93 79.71 103
B15 13.99 90.64 92 66.99 107 91.93 86 75.42 97
P5 14.02 95.61 95 56.97 96 94.63 90 71.52 92
R4 14.98 104.19 106 71.13 112 107.86 103 84.38 104
B13 15.01 94.87 94 57.63 96 91.93 88 76.42 98
B12 15.22 103.90 106 56.33 89 108.18 102 71.95 88
E501 - 99.23 100 63.48 100 107.15 100 80.32 100
Table 25. Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Dry Traction to Rolling Resistance
Correlation to ISO
28580 Rolling Re
sistance
Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Asphalt, Dry Traction Concrete, Dry Traction
Peak Value Sliding Value Peak Value Sliding Value
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
0.209 0.200 -0.158 0.045 0.056 0.209 0.069 0.217
Probability > |r| 0.2518 0.2730 0.3886 0.8073 0.7602 0.2507 0.7059 0.2336
54
Figure 35. Dry Traction Numbers Versus ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance
R
2
= 0.0033
R
2
= 0.044
R
2
= 0.0058
R
2
= 0.0241
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance (lbs)
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
Concrete - Peak Number
Asphalt - Peak Number
Concrete - Slide Number
Asphalt - Slide Number
55
Figure 36. Dry Traction Ratios to E501 Course Monitoring Tire Versus Rolling Resistance
R
2
= 0.0003
R
2
= 0.047
R
2
= 0.0445
R
2
= 0.0469
75
85
95
105
115
125
135
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance (lbs)
R
a
t
i
o
t
o
A
S
T
M
E
5
0
1
V
a
l
u
e
Asphalt - Slide Ratio
Concrete - Slide Ratio
Asphalt - Peak Ratio
Concrete - Peak Ratio
3.3.2 Wet Traction Data
Table 26 shows the average wet traction results for each tire type on asphalt and concrete. Table
27 shows the Pearson Product Moment Correlation of the values for wet traction to the tire roll
ing resistance. The Pearson value indicates the strength and direction of the correlation with val
ues ranging from -1 for complete inverse correlation, to +1 for complete direct correlation, with
values near zero indicating no correlation between the measures. For a value to be statistically
significant the probability > |r| should be less than 0.050. The sliding values all have a strong and
significant relationship between better rolling resistance and poorer wet traction. The peak values
display the same tendency but the relationship is much weaker.
Figure 37 and Figure 38 display these trends graphically for the traction numbers and the ratio to
the E501 monitoring tire respectively. From these data, it appears that the tires with lower rolling
resistance values will have poorer wet traction performance in the sliding region. This will be
particularly significant to consumers without ABS systems on their vehicles, since the sliding
value will relate most closely to emergency stopping maneuvers. In contrast, the results for the
measured wet peak traction number in the same figures exhibit much less pronounced trends.
Hence, for newer vehicles with ABS or ESC systems, the tradeoff is expected to be much less
significant.
56
Table 26. Wet Traction Results, Traction Number and Ratio to E501 Reference Tire
Tire
Type
ISO 28580
Rolling Re
sistance, lbs
Wet Traction
Asphalt Concrete
Peak Value Sliding Value Peak Value Sliding Value
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
G8 9.83 87.6 101 48.9 93 58.9 103 35.1 100
G11 10.02 82.9 96 49.9 95 63.4 111 36.6 104
B11 10.13 87.2 102 46.4 90 63.0 110 36.4 99
G9 11.27 82.2 101 54.7 102 58.6 102 36.4 102
M14 11.96 94.8 104 58.8 109 66.2 116 39.6 109
M13 12.07 93.8 103 50.9 97 73.4 132 40.1 111
G10 12.09 83.5 105 55.1 101 56.3 106 36.7 103
B10 12.11 80.0 95 49.5 92 48.6 90 37.4 104
D10 13.56 89.3 106 54.5 100 68.2 122 39.5 109
B14 13.90 94.4 108 58.9 111 76.2 128 42.2 115
U3 13.91 87.5 100 53.7 100 64.9 109 40.2 109
B15 13.99 79.3 94 52.4 97 54.1 101 35.4 98
P5 14.02 84.1 99 54.3 105 70.2 124 41.0 112
R4 14.98 86.9 103 60.5 111 64.5 115 39.1 107
B13 15.01 92.3 105 57.7 108 71.1 120 41.0 111
B12 15.22 96.0 118 59.1 110 80.1 140 42.3 119
E501 - 85.8 100 53.3 100 56.4 100 36.1 100
Table 27. Pearson Product Moment Correlation of Wet Traction to Rolling Resistance
Correlation to ISO 28580
Rolling Resistance
Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Asphalt, Wet Traction Concrete, Wet Traction
Peak Value Sliding Value Peak Value Sliding Value
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
0.299 0.391 0.739 0.725 0.465 0.473 0.700 0.628
Probability > |r| 0.0965 0.0270 <0.001 <0.001 0.007 0.006 <0.001 0.001
57
Figure 37. Wet Traction Numbers Versus ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance
R
2
= 0.0875
R
2
= 0.2116
R
2
= 0.5511
R
2
= 0.5035
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance (lbs)
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
N
u
m
b
e
r
Asphalt - Peak Number
Concrete - Peak Number
Asphalt - Slide Number
Concrete - Slide Number
58
Figure 38. Wet Traction Ratios to E501 Course Monitoring Tire Versus Rolling Resistance
R
2
= 0.2273
R
2
= 0.4133
R
2
= 0.524
R
2
= 0.1657
85
95
105
115
125
135
145
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance (lbs)
R
a
t
i
o
t
o
A
S
T
M
E
5
0
1
V
a
l
u
e
Concrete - Peak Ratio
Concrete - Slide Ratio
Asphalt - Slide Ratio
Asphalt - Peak Ratio
3.3.3 UTQGS Traction Grade
As stated earlier, the FMVSS 575.104 UTQGS Traction grade is based upon the adjusted traction
coefficient, which is calculated from the candidate tires wet slide coefficient of friction and the
standard reference tires wet slide coefficient of friction using the following procedure:
Average the 10 measurements taken on the asphalt surface to find the candidate tire trac
tion coefficient for the asphalt surface. Average the 10 measurements taken on the con
crete surface to find the candidate tire traction coefficient for the concrete surface.
(ix) Compute a candidate tires adjusted traction coefficient for asphalt (
a
) by the
following formula:
a
= Measured candidate tire coefficient for asphalt + 0.50 - Measured
standard tire coefficient for asphalt.
(x) Compute a candidate tires adjusted traction coefficient for concrete (
c
) by
the following formula:
c
= Measured candidate tire coefficient for concrete +0.35 Measured
standard tire coefficient for concrete.
59
The results for the UTQGS Adjusted Traction Coefficient (unofficial) on asphalt verses the roll
ing resistance of the tire as measured by ISO 28580 are presented in Figure 39. The limits for the
three grades within the span of the test tires are indicated on the figure. Similar to the raw wet
traction trailer data, the adjusted traction coefficient on asphalt was lower in lower rolling resis
tance tires.
Figure 39. UTQG Adjusted Traction Coefficient for Asphalt Versus ISO 28580 Rolling
Resistance
R
2
= 0.5175
0.37
0.42
0.47
0.52
0.57
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance (lbs)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
M
u
a
)
A
A
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
d
e
A
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
d
e
B
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
d
e
6
The results for the UTQGS Adjusted Traction Coefficient (unofficial) on concrete verses the
rolling resistance of the tire as measured by ISO 28580 are presented in Figure 40. The limits for
the three grades within the span of the test tires are indicated on the figure. Again, similar to the
raw wet traction trailer data, the adjusted traction coefficient on concrete was lower in lower roll
ing resistance tires.
60
Figure 40. UTQG Adjusted Traction Coefficient for Concrete Versus ISO 28580 Rolling
Resistance
R
2
= 0.405
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.43
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance (lbs)
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
M
u
c
)
A
A
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
d
e
A
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
d
e
B
T
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
d
e
6
3.3.4 Correlation of Tangent at 0C to Wet Traction Properties
Literature has shown a general trend towards increased wet traction properties of tires as the tan
gent at 0C of the tread compound increases. Table 28 shows the Pearson correlation coeffi
cient between the measured slide numbers for wet traction and the tangent at 0C of the tread
compound measured in tension. There is a strong positive correlation of the tangent at 0C to
wet traction of the tires, particularly for the sliding values. The data for the slide number on con
crete versus tangent at 0C is shown in Figure 41. This relationship appears to be more gener
ally applicable than that seen for rolling resistance to tangent at 60C.
61
Slide Number / Concrete
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Tangent delta @0C in Tension
0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40
Figure 41. Slide Traction Number on Wet Concrete Versus Tangent at 0C Measured in
Tension
OE Tires
OE Run-Flat Tire
Table 28. Pearson R Product Moment Correlation of Wet Traction to
Tangent at 0C of the Tread Compound
Correlation
to Tangent
at 0C (Ten
sion)
Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Asphalt, Wet Traction Concrete, Wet Traction
Peak Value Sliding Value Peak Value Sliding Value
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio
E501
Traction
Number
Ratio E501
0.6653 0.8119 0.8432 0.8635 0.7381 0.7536 0.8375 0.8556
Probability >
|r|
0.0049 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0011 0.0007 <0.0001 <0.0001
3.4 Effects of Tire Rolling Resistance on Treadwear Rate
As was seen previously, there was not a good correlation between the rolling resistance and the
UTQGS treadwear grade of the tires studied. Four tire models that were selected to represent the
range of rolling resistance of the models studied, along with the SRTT (tire type M14), were
tested according to the UTQGS testing protocol for treadwear. Although these tires were previ
ously tested for rolling resistance in a laboratory, the wear rates and projected mileages are ex
pected to be similar to those for new tires of the same model. Measurements were taken across
62
Coefficient of
Variation
the tire at six locations in each groove (1 through 4). Data were analyzed by tire type, by groove,
by shoulder (groove 1&4) or tread center (groove 2&3). General observations are shown in
Table 29 for each tire type. The coefficients of variation for the wear rates are approximately 0.5
percent for all tire types indicating that comparisons between tire types at these conditions are
reliable. Models for the wear rate against course mileage produced R
2
values of 0.94 to 0.97 for
linear models and 0.98 to 0.99 for quadratic models. For all tire types except B13 the quadratic
term was statistically significant, indicating that the wear rate tends to change (either increase or
decrease) as the tire wears.
Table 29. Analysis of Tire Wear Data
Tire
Type
Groove 1 to 4 Shoulder Versus
Tread Center
Non-Linear
Behavior
B11 0.30% Groove 1 shows faster
wear rate
11
Shoulder wear rate faster
than tread center
Wear rate tends to
increase
B13 0.44% - Similar wear rates No change in wear
rate
G8 0.51% Groove 4 shows slower
wear rate
12
Similar wear rates Wear rate tends to
increase
M13 0.54% - Tread center wear rate faster
than shoulder
Wear rate tends to
decrease
M14 0.43% - Tread center wear rate faster
than shoulder
Wear rate tends to
decrease
Table 30 shows the treadwear rates and projected mileage to 2/32
nds
tread depth for the tires. For
each model the wear rates for the shoulder and tread center were compared along with the pro
jected lifetime for each area. For tire type B11, the wear rate in the shoulder area was signifi
cantly faster than the wear rate in the tread center with a corresponding decrease in projected
mileage. For tire type M14 the wear rate in the tread center was significantly faster than in the
shoulder area with significantly shorter projected tread life in this area. Tire type M13 had faster
wear rates in the tread center but this was partially offset by a lesser groove depth in the shoulder
area in projecting tire lifetime.
Figure 42 shows the projected average tire mileage to wear out and the minimum projected mile
age, versus the rolling resistance for the tire. From these data, there is no relationship between
expected tire lifetime and rolling resistance. Since the tread depth may affect both rolling resis
tance and tire lifetime, the average wear rate and the fastest wear rate, either from the shoulder or
tread center area, was compared to the rolling resistance. It is evident from Figure 43 that there is
no clear relationship between wear rate and rolling resistance for these tires. In summary, there is
no evidence from this data that a tire with reduced rolling resistance will necessarily have re
duced tread life.
11
Data was influenced by high wear rate of tire #3146. The other B11 tires showed no anomalous behavior for indi
vidual grooves
12
All type G8 tires showed anomalous behavior for groove 4
63
Table 30. Wear Rates and Projected Mileage to 2/32
nds
Tread Depth
From UTQGS Treadwear Course
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
R
e
s
i
s
-
t
a
n
c
e
,
p
o
u
n
d
s
T
i
r
e
T
y
p
e
R
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
W
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
,
m
i
l
/
1
0
0
0
m
i
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
T
r
e
a
d
L
i
f
e
,
m
i
l
e
s
W
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
i
n
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
,
m
i
l
/
1
0
0
0
m
i
W
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
i
n
T
r
e
a
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
,
m
i
l
/
1
0
0
0
m
i
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
L
i
f
e
,
m
i
l
e
s
(
S
h
o
u
l
-
d
e
r
)
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
L
i
f
e
,
m
i
l
e
s
(
T
r
e
a
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
B11 10.13 5.155 54,840 5.752 4.528 48,550 63,200
B13 15.01 6.463 52,020 6.374 6.276 51,790 54,540
G8 9.83 6.447 45,390 6.211 6.471 46,460 45,840
M13 12.07 5.448 41,310 4.795 5.768 45,150 40,500
M14 11.96 5.558 45,000 4.359 6.449 56,730 39,230
Figure 42. Projected Tire Mileage to Wearout (Average and Minimum) Versus ISO 28580
Rolling Resistance
UTQG Course Wear Versus Rolling Resistance
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance, pounds
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
L
i
f
e
t
i
m
e
,
m
i
l
e
s
Average Miles
Minimum Miles
64
Figure 43. Average and Fastest Treadwear Rate Versus ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance
Wear Rates Versus Rolling Resistance
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance, pounds
W
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
,
m
i
l
s
/
1
0
0
0
m
i
l
e
s
Average
Fastest
3.4.1 Analysis of Wear Data From Indoor Treadwear Testing
Four tire models which were selected to represent the range of rolling resistance of the models
studied, along with the SRTT (Type M14) and the original equipment tires from the Chevrolet
Impala used in the fuel economy testing (Type G12), were tested using an experimental protocol
for indoor treadwear testing. While the computerized data acquisition provides 3-dimensional
measurements of the tire profile as shown in Appendix 3, representative measurements at 400
and 800 miles of wear were taken across the tire at six locations; the inside shoulder, the outside
shoulder, and at each of the 4 tread grooves. The average data for the models is shown in
Appendix 3. Tires were tested in duplicate at a severe condition, and for five of the models a
third tire was tested at a milder wear condition. Data was analyzed by tire type, by groove, by
shoulder or tread center and by wear severity.
General observations are shown in Table 29 for each tire type. Although all tires tended to show
somewhat faster wear in the shoulder region than at the tread center, tire type B11 showed wear
rates more than 3 times faster in the shoulder region than at the tread center. This tire type also
showed significantly faster wear rates in the shoulder area in the UTQGS course testing. As ex
pected, the wear rates at the severe condition were two to three times faster than at the mild con
65
dition. The loss per mile on this test was 3 to 20 times the wear rates that the same model tires
experienced on the UTQGS testing course.
Table 31. Indoor Treadwear Tire Wear Data
Average Wear Rate,
mils/1,000 miles
Shoulder Versus Tread Center
Wear Rate, ratio
Tire Type
Severe Condition Mild Condition Severe Condition Mild Condition
B11 103.1 28.8 3.3 3.2
B13 42.4 17.9 2.4 2.6
G8 101.5 37.1 2.3 1.6
G12 57.3 NA 3.1 NA
M13 28.8 12.7 1.2 0.9
M14 36.8 16.3 1.4 1.8
Table 30 shows the projected tire lifetime for severe and mild conditions calculated for both the
shoulder and tread center region of the tires. All tires had the shortest predicted lifetime in the
shoulder area. For the severe wear condition, this ranged from 1,250 miles for tire type B11 and
G8 to 5,500 miles for tire type M13. At the mild condition, the projected lifetime was two to
three times that of the severe condition. Figure 42 shows the projected tire lifetime versus rolling
resistance for the tire types and Figure 45 shows the wear rate versus tire rolling resistance. Both
indicate that there is a trend toward faster wear on this test for tires with lower rolling resistance.
The ANOVA analysis shown in Table 33 to Table 36 indicates that the relationship between
lower rolling resistance and lower expected tread life is statistically significant for this test. This
relationship is stronger for the projected lifetime based on the wear at the tread center, as evi-
denced by the R
2
values of 0.75 to 0.8. Each decreased pound of original tire rolling resistance
correlates to approximately 1,000 miles of reduced wear at the mild condition and 2,000 miles at
the severe condition.
Table 32. Projected Mileage to 2/32
nds
Inch of Tread Depth
Projected Tread Life, miles
Severe Condition Mild Condition
Tire
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance, lbs
Type
Tread Center Shoulder Tread Center Shoulder
G12 9.47 5,156 2,035 NA NA
G8 9.83 4,137 1,264 9,200 5,327
B11 10.13 4,412 1,260 12,842 4,613
M14 11.96 7,732 4,937 17,476 8,738
M13 12.07 8,432 5,717 15,648 12,000
B13 15.01 10,902 4,440 20,628 9,114
66
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance, pounds
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
L
i
f
e
t
i
m
e
,
m
i
l
e
s
Severe - Center
Severe - Shoulder
Mild - Center
Mild = Shoulder
Figure 44. Projected Tire Lifetime for Indoor Treadwear Test
Versus ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance
67
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance, pounds
W
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
,
m
i
l
s
/
1
0
0
0
m
i
l
e
s
Severe - Center
Severe - Shoulder
Mild - Center
Mild = Shoulder
Figure 45. Treadwear Rate for Indoor Treadwear Test
Versus ISO 28580 Rolling Resistance
68
Table 33. Projected Lifetime Versus Rolling Resistance Mild Wear at Tread Center
DependentVariable:ProjectedLifetimeatTreadCenter
WearCondition=Mild