Read it before posting. This is probably where I got the 3:1 wear ratio.

While I perfectly respect the idea that the front tire is more critical than the rear, I am not sure that I buy the logic of his do-not-rotate argument. For example, replacing tires when they are worn (whatever it might be) would mean that you may ride on a pretty worn front tire for a long while. His Tires and Tubes entry suggests that you should replace a tire if you get frequent flats or when the tire's fabric has been damaged, states that I personally would not tolerate on a front tire anyway (and probably not on a rear tire either).

As this point, I am inclined to think that rotation is a non issue for commuters (tires are replaced when they need to be), tourers on fairly short tour (say 1 000 kms or less) where (good) tires are unlikely to need replacement, or on very long tour where even the best tires will have to be replaced anyway. I still think that on longish tours that approach the expected longevity of a tire, one is likely to end up with pretty worn rear tires but still very good front tires. Therefore, it might make sense to rotate tires at 1/3rd of the distance. Rotation practically guarantees that no spare tire will be needed on tour, and rotating early should give you plenty of tire life on the front wheel.

I'd like to add that this is not something interfering with our sleep patterns -- 26" tires are available practically everywhere. But I'd rather watch the birds rather than hunt that elusive bike shop (or carry a truckload of spares).