Tire tread on cars: why are they all different?

Let’s say you go shopping for new, all-season tires for your standard passenger car. If you look at the tire tread patterns on 20 different tires of the same size, you’ll see 20 different patterns. Why is that? After all these years of performing R&D (modeling, testing, etc.), wouldn’t you assume tire designers have discovered the “optimal” tread pattern, and as a result all tire manufacturers would be using the same pattern?

Which brings me to another thought: does marketing have anything to do with tire tread patterns? Are tire designers pressured to make the tread also look good by their marketing departments? Because I can see where that might be a factor for some people when choosing a tire. “This tread looks cool - I want it.”

Nope, among other things for the same reasons we get different hardnesses, heat behaviors, pressure behaviors, etc.: different ones work differently in different situations.

And since tire threads don’t need to match other parts, there’s no need to standardize them. The size of the tires yes, but that’s because of the need to match other parts. And even though sizes are standardized, it’s a standard with multiple options.

Whatever types of tires are put on expensive sports cars are often seen as “better” tires, even if they aren’t better for all applications. The typical example of this is the proliferation of low profile tires in the past several years. Low profile tires don’t flex as much, which is good for sports cars that are taking turns at high rates of speed. For normal driving, low profile tires suck. The same lack of flex that helps them grip the roads in corners also gives the tire a lack of flex when running over potholes and the like, so you feel every bump.

There’s no reason to put low profile tires on standard passenger cars, but many of them have low profile tires just because they are perceived to be better.

It’s the same thing with tire tread. Your typical passenger car probably works best with symmetrical tires, as these are typically the lowest noise, longest lasting, and can be rotated in any direction around the car without issues for longer tire life.

Sports cars usually use directional treads, so now a lot of passenger cars also use directional treads, because again, the tires that go on more expensive cars must be better, right? Unlike low profile tires, directional treads actually do have a benefit for passenger cars. They perform better on wet roads and snowy roads. The disadvantage is that the ride typically isn’t as smooth, and, since the tires are directional, they can’t be cross-rotated. Since these tires are often more sporty, they are often designed with rubber compounds that grip the road better, but don’t last as long.

Both directional and non-directional tires come in different patterns that can be optimized for different conditions. The three main conditions are rain, snow, and dry pavement. Tires that grip good on wet roads don’t roll as easily on dry roads, reducing gas mileage. Tires that roll great on dry roads and are great for your mileage tend to suck on wet and snow. All-season tires are basically a trade-off, but exactly how you balance the various driving conditions leads to endless variations in tread design. Some may favor mileage over performance in different conditions. Others may favor long tire life. Some may even favor a quiet and comfortable ride.

If one tire manufacturer comes up with some new whiz-bang tread pattern that performs better at water shedding for wet road performance, they aren’t just going to throw that design out and let everyone copy it. They are going to patent and trademark it, and probably feature their “new technology” in their advertising. Other tire manufacturers will then try to come out with their own improved versions. Even if those other designs work on the same underlying principles, they have to use a different tread pattern to avoid infringing on the first manufacturer’s patents and trademarks.

Different tread designs also allow the tire salesman to point to the tread and say “See? Ours are different than theirs. Ours are better.”

For trucks, “aggressive” looking treads sell better.

Somewhere I have heard that the finalized tread pattern is a bit of a crap shoot beyond certain ‘guidelines’ of how it will actually react. Some is known, such as open tread (more grip in slippery conditions but more road noise, harsher ride) vs closed tread other factors like tread width, diagonal vs horizontal,vertica vs all types of curves etc… So no I don’t believe they have a optimized design.

Which brings it down to the consumer and their past experience. I have had various tread types and I have a general idea the patterns that have worked well for me and which ones do not. When I look for a tire I look for certain qualities and usually pleased with the results. FWIW I like to see what I consider a snow tire design into a all season. I like to see thin zigzag lines (for snow grip) along with wide larger channels (to allow the ‘lugs’ to penetrate to the road or deep into the snow, and give water a place to go), along with a pattern that suggests vertical and horizontal lines, instead of diagonal lines (don’t know why but diagonal lines seem to do worse in slippery conditions) and a closed tread pattern to reduce road noise. Also non-directional as I want to be able to rotate them freely.

Now with that perhaps there is a fantastic tire that I will love with a diagonal pattern, but I won’t be looking for it, so manufactures have to make different styles.

As far as “looks” is concerned I believe it plays a part in higher performance/speed rated tires. Those in the market for these tires are conscious of appearance.

I understand what the OP is saying.

Sure, winter tires are going to be different from all-season tires which are different from racing tires, etc.

But if you have two big-name brand all-season tires, you would kinda expect the treads to look pretty similar. Sort of like how over the last 40 years car shapes have gotten more and more similar (elongated bubble) due to similar desires for aerodynamics.

If they are striving for similar goals, and fighting against similar physical constraints (basic physics), then you would think the “answers” would tend to converge over time as they incrementally improve.

an “all season” tire is not an “all season” tire. A tire can be optimized for a number of characteristics, including but not limited to:

  • long tread life
  • rolling resistance
  • dry handling (grip)
  • wet traction
  • noise
  • slick surface (mud/snow) traction

and so on. You generally can’t have everything, so you have to pick and choose which characteristics you optimize for depending on the intended role. A “high performance” all-season tire for e.g. a Mustang might optimize for dry grip and wet traction, and accept higher noise and shorter tread life as an acceptable trade-off. A “general purpose” all-season tire for e.g. your $_GENERIC_CUV might instead be optimized for long tread life, low noise, and wet traction. a “cold weather” (M+S rated) all-season (e.g. Nokian) would design the tread with additional siping and flexibility to improve winter performance, at the cost of tread life and noise.

quite possibly, but I’ve only seen “nifty” tread patterns on summer high performance tires. My SRT-4 came with BF Goodrich KD/W2 tires, and I’ve got to believe someone in marketing did come up with the idea of making the tread look like flames.

being high-performance tires, they were incredibly noisy and wore out in about 30,000 miles.

Many here are assuming they are doing DnD stats, taking 3 points off intelligence to add two to the strength and one to magic use. They neglect that there is a initial roll for all of that, in that some tires suck balls by design, they don’t do well in anything, some are average across the board, and some excel in many conditions and really suck at nothing.

Replace “tires” with “running shoes” and ask the same question. Actually you can play that game with most consumer products.

The answer IMHO is

  1. There is no single optimal pattern
  2. Patterns are different to distinguish the products. If they were all the same, buyers would perceive the tires as the same, and would just buy the cheapest one.

I don’t know if esthetics of tire tread come into play but manufacturers certainly tout the benefits of their tread designs (channels away water, grips the road, plows through snow, etc.), and I think it’s mostly marketing.

Is it possible for tire manufacturers to have industrial design patents on tread patterns? If so, seems like that would be another reason that tread patterns would have to differ between brands.

You can patent any feature as long as it is unique (not encompassed by prior art), useful (it has to perform some function or provide some benefit), and not trivial (you can’t patent a ‘new’ color or a classical mechanism). If a tread design is demonstrated to perform some unique function, such as reducing hydroplaning, it can absolutely be patented. Defending a patent against similar features not explicitly defined in the patent, on the other hand, is another issue enitrely.

As others have noted, there is no one ‘ideal’ tread feature; by their nature, tires are a compromise between traction (both forward and lateral), noise/vibration/handling (NVH), varying performance on wet/dry/hot/cold surfaces, durability, and cost. And the tread block is not all their is to the tire; the sidewall stiffness and construction play as much into tire performance and NVH as the tread block itself, while the belt/ply system and bead contribute far more to tire robustness than the tread. Tire phenomenology is incredibly complex because of the hyperelastic nature of tire compounds and the composite nature of tire construction. In fact, the modern radial tire is probably the most complex unified mechanism product in existence on the basis of engineering hours and effort to develop and improve it and outside of the engine and transmission itself the tire is the most complex component of a modern automobile.

The major tire manufacturers all have large engineering analysis and test centers which are constantly working on improvements on tire technology, and there are whole tools in commercial finite element systems that have been designed specifically for and by tire manufacturers as well as dedicated complex instrumentation for measuring various aspects of tire performance. Aesthetics may play some minor role in tread design just in terms of symmetry but nobody but tread designers spend their time looking at tread patterns, and for the vast majority of consumers tires are just black rubbery blobs that hold up their vehicle. Although there are obvious aesthetic attractions for low profile sidewalls or large knobby tires on a truck that can be marketed to a specific audience, but that is a matter of form following function rather than vice versa.

Stranger

It is a well known medical idea that where there are many possible suggested treatments for a condition, it’s because none of them are much better than any of the others.

Like anti-depressant medication.

If one was any good, everybody would be using it.

Sure, but those have put all the points into the LOW-COST attribute, which appeals to some; even if its a false economy.