Scenario: an agency or contractor wants to trial new blades but cannot test everything. Direct answer: build a long list from public sources, score it against your own needs, drop what fails a fit or support test and trial the top two or three against your current blade with a standard protocol. I rank no product. The sources named below are public, and I describe only what the pages say.
Public sources to build the long list
| Source | What it offers | Caution |
|---|---|---|
| Clear Roads Product Experience Feedback 2006-2021 | State ratings and comments on many blades and plows | Opinions from few units; some entries are old |
| Clear Roads Project 18-02, High Performance Blade Evaluation (completed January 2023) | The project page says it was to compile and analyse field tests at several state DOTs and develop a field test protocol and cost-benefit method; products include a Quick Reference Guide and final report | I read the project page only, not the report |
| Public bid results and tabulations | What agencies bought and at what total price | Totals hide quantities and specs |
| Supplier references | Agencies using the product now | Ask for a phone call, not just a name |
Shortlist method
The shortlist is a filter rather than a ranking, and the weights should be set before the candidates arrive.
- List needs: surfaces, speeds, hazards, plow models, climate and budget.
- Collect candidates with a note on where each came from; provenance matters when you defend the choice.
- Screen on fit: hole pattern, dimensions and compatibility.
- Screen on evidence: recent field evidence in conditions like yours.
- Screen on support: local parts, lead time and vendor response.
- Score them in a table with weights set in advance.
- Trial the top two or three against the current blade on matched trucks.
Template: scoring
| Criterion | Weight (you set) | Blade A | Blade B | Blade C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fit to plows | ||||
| Field evidence | ||||
| Price per set | ||||
| Vendor support | ||||
| Fitting time |
Limits
This is a method, not a recommendation. A shortlist is only as good as its sources, and the trial decides.
Keep the trial honest
Decide the stopping rule before you start: how many hours per edge, how many trucks and what result would make you adopt, extend or drop a blade. Record every failure, including ones you think were unlucky. A trial that discards inconvenient results teaches nothing. When it ends, write a one-page summary with the data and its limits, and file it with the shortlist so that the next review starts from facts.
Boundary: No product is ranked and only the 18-02 project page was read, not its report; the trial, not the shortlist, should decide.
Sources and further reading. External references are dated; where a figure is quoted, the link shows where it came from.
High Performance Blade Evaluation (Clear Roads Project 18-02) (Completed January 2023) ↗Clear Roads Product Experience Feedback 2006-2021: Combined Results, Blades and Plows (Covers state feedback 2006-2021; accessed 2026-10-24) ↗Choosing a Carbide Blade Manufacturer: Nine Evaluation Criteria ↗Snow Plow Blade Lifespan: The Variables That Actually Decide It ↗Carbide snow plow blades ↗Where to Find Other Agencies’ Plow-Blade Specs: Public Records and Bid Portals ↗How a Local Agency Can Propose a Winter Maintenance Research Idea to Clear Roads ↗Multiple-Edge Plows: What Three States Found ↗
