No. It's just physics. Rear one will use 2-3 faster than front one due to weight put on it. Rotating them - like we do on cars - will help squeeze as much life out of each one.

On my end, I buy 3 per season and replace the rear one mid-season mainly because it's easier this way and I don't like playing with sealant.

Oh, and, don't play with your saddle if the only goal is to get more mileage out of your tire. You may end up injuring yourself.

you’re goin’ straight to H-E-double hockey sticks now! 🙄

I would not use tire wear to determine fit.

No. But even if it was, you wouldn't adjust it for that reason.

Thank you, I am amazed it took 28 posts before this was pointed out. At 75 my bike fit is more important to me than ever in keeping the milage up and I can remember how casual I was with fit 50 years ago.

Yeah, using tire wear to evaluate bike fit is not something that I've ever encountered anytime during the last 40-50years or so.

Tire wear and fit - the ultimate: get your La-Z-Boy fitted properly, stay off that bicycle seat and tire wear will stay (exactly) equal.

Nobody's quite said this but - rear tires are the drive tires. We transmit power to the road by basically scrubbing the tire on the road. Stopping is the same. Granted, we try to keep the scrub (slippage) to a minimum, both while pedaling and braking (barring those fix gear skidder types) but some scrub happens. More with stronger riders, more with erratic pedalers.

The message? If we want to enjoy the bicycle or simply just get around, live with it - accelerated rear tire wear happens. Wouldn't surprise me if bikes with longer chainstays get more tire wear despite less weight on them simply because you would get more scrub putting the same power into the tire with less weight on it. (I don't see noticeably more front tire wear on my LowRidered and front panniered bikes.)

The post was somehow “derailed” in some unexpected directions. Nobody intends to spoil seat back adjustment to squeeze a few km more from the rear tire. I had the feeling that my body goes too far back on the saddle, like I need the saddle to be reset a little back.
Then I wondered whether the faster wearing rate of the back tire can be a sign that my position is already too far back. Finally, I set the saddle back with around 1.3 cm.

That is a large change.

Yes, I can remember when I was getting my last "Old Man" fit he was moving the saddle 2 or 3mm at a time for the fore aft adjustment.

I just have to say that is ridiculous. Unless of course you have some special butt positioning device attached to the saddle - which I'm quite certain I do not want to see, thanks.

I don't think so, unless you are at an extreme seat back position and wanting to extend it even further. The area where you can "rest" your sit bones on a saddle is around 2 cm long - enough to absorb a seat back error of +/- 1 cm. Then, with a small adaptation of the body you can absorb even a little bigger error.
The increment of 2-3 mm is valid for saddle height setting, because here you have very little reserve to absorb errors.

Where are we getting this?

Yeah, well it still remains that tire wear indicates nothing more than the fact that there is more weight and drive forces on the rear tire than the front, as is the case in most bikes. I use a very setback saddle position, and I imagine the rear tire wears a bit faster for me than people who use a very forward position, but that's just how it is.

I noticed that +/- 5mm around the optimum saddle height results in either muscle soreness around the knee (if too low) or in low pedaling efficiency and poor stability (if too high).
This applies for road bike, at higher and longer efforts. For a more casual situation, like mild recreational riding in the park, there is no much difference even at -2 or -3 cm.

You do realize that 5mm is only 0.200", right ?

Yes, just a different measure unit. At +/- 10 mm error I would get back home immediately and re-adjust. Or just make a short ride at 25 km/h on flat road.

Some of us have more demanding posteriors.

I find that a cm of difference in setback actually makes a huge difference - 4.6cm setback and I can ride for 5 hours with no back issues, but 5.6cm of setback and I end up with a lower back ache.

What I tried to highlight was that there is a zone of more than 2 cm on the longitudinal axe of the saddle (maybe max 3-4 cm for selected saddle forms) where it is still large enough to support the seat bones. Therefore, the body can "silently" compensate for an error of +/-1 cm in set back setting, by self positioning in the "sweet spot" on the longitudinal axe of the saddle.
By contrast, every cm of saddle height error will translate in altering of the knee angle, with no margin for body self adjustment.

Maybe your saddle is already at the back limit (assuming that "-" means back), so the body has no margin left to compensate further back

I don't find that. I find there's a fairly small area where the sitbones are adequately supported while giving the thighs sufficient space to work while also not pressing on the perineum. But that's me.

I don't argue here, everybody feels different. Or, maybe the fact that my saddle has a large and long "cutout" plays a role here.

Fit ends up being very personal. I'm not flexible at all, so I roll my hips forward and ride with a straight back. This makes saddle fore/aft placement critical because I can't just bend more at the waist to lengthen out. Also makes saddle choice critical. Hence, "But that's me."