Originally Posted by
EjustE
Absolutely no scientist will accept data from such a test in a peer reviewed scientific publication. Small sample size and potential variables with individual tires (not to talk about the other variables).
To create a scientific test that would give you results with some statistic confidence and would be acceptable in the academic community, you would need to try at least 5-10 different copies of the same tire (hopefully of different batches and bought from different locations) in 2-3 sizes, and at least 50 different tires. That's 500-1000 tires x $35 = $17.5-30K + time and material and instruments and salaries. Let's round it up to an even $50K, maybe $100K depending on the instrumentation you need. That's why scientists need grands to do their experiments...
You were really convincing up until the last line, it's grant not grand. Most people in the scientific community, especially those in academia know the difference.
Your probably right about the tire requirements, but you did miss two variables, and it could be insignificant to deal breaking, tire age. You would need to make sure that all of the tires tested were the same age. If one group of tires was fresh from the factory and another group of tires had been sitting in a warehouse for 2 years and then languishing on a dealer shelf for another year, they would have dried out to some degree, which could affect the results as well. Considering that most of the tires come from overseas, in huge containers, one brand of tires, even at a variety of dealers could be newer or older then another. For true scientific testing all tires would need to come from the factory made within say the same month. Tire diameter is another issue, a tire that is really good at 700C, may be less then stellar at 650B, 26" or 27".
What we usually see are not scientific tests, we see magazine style tests, which are much less scientific, and there usually we find it the same as with any other product test, the company that paid for $1,500,000 worth of advertising last year has the really good product, and the company that didn't advertise at all, has the really crappy one.