Comments on: Design Format

By: plsathome

plsathome — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:56:06 +0000

I’d suggest having for each of the three criteria an indicator of “best” and “worst” rated tires. Particularly nice if there were a computer site with a sorting feature common to spread-sheets, that permitted one to rank one’s most important characteristic (say, traction) first, and then within the top 20%, the second most important characteristic, revealing the third.

By: plsathome

plsathome — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:51:28 +0000

THe first and last are clearest to me

By: plsathome

plsathome — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:48:53 +0000

I’m with the focus group — this is what I want to know first. Given the relatively slight effects on fuel efficiency as I understand it, .03-.04 gallons/100 miles — 2.47 gallons/100 miles v. 2.5 gallons/100 miles on my car, or about $.09/100 miles, I’d rate this one last.

By: NYCMuscleman18

NYCMuscleman18 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:06:34 +0000

Does it matter if the measurements aren’t distributed evenly? So if on one metric a tire beats 70% of all other tires, but that 70% of tires are actually only 5-10% worse, isn’t a percentile range kind of misleading?

By: FTIQ

FTIQ — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:47:11 +0000

The first and the third pictures make much more sense than the one currently used. It looks like either a mushroom cloud or a cowboy hat. The second and fourth pictures are okay, but not as good as the first and third.

By: regjunkie1

regjunkie1 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:25:35 +0000

The agency should definitely provide percentile ranges. So, for example, a 75 might be in the top 25% of all tires, a 23 might be in the bottom 25% of all tires, etc. Otherwise, there’s not reference point from which to make comparative judgments.