You can calculate wear per recorded vehicle mile, but do not call it wear per plowing mile unless working exposure is established. Total travel can include activity that does not represent the edge's road contact. Compare the metric only with its limitations visible, and assess whether differences in working share could change the selection decision.
Separate travel distance from working exposure
Define exactly what the mileage field measures and which vehicle, period and data source it covers. Check whether it includes travel to the route, depot movements or other tasks. Keep the original total rather than subtracting an assumed proportion to create apparent working distance. If the two trial vehicles have different assignments, their total-mile denominators may represent different mixes of work even when the numbers are similar.
The cost-per-lane-kilometre discussion provides broader metric context; this question is whether the available distance actually represents the exposure being claimed. Match wear observations to the same reporting interval and identify missing or uncertain readings. A well-measured numerator does not fix an ambiguous denominator. State whether the reported result is a vehicle-level planning measure or a proposed blade-contact measure, because those serve different purposes.
Identify available logs or validated engagement data and their limits
Review existing dispatch logs, operator records or supported engagement data to see what can be established without inventing precision. If a system has a blade-status field, verify what that field actually means and whether it reliably identifies the relevant position. A raised-or-lowered indication, route assignment or hydraulic command may not by itself demonstrate continuous effective contact. Have the responsible data and equipment owners explain the signal before treating it as measured working exposure.
Where logs support only an approximate range, label the estimate and retain its basis. Do not recreate exact past contact distance from memory. Compare the candidate and control using the same method, and show how uncertainty in working share affects the interpretation. If one assignment clearly contains more travel, report that difference even when it cannot be corrected precisely. The honest conclusion may be that the available records support fleet budgeting but not a fair material wear-rate ranking.
Label the metric accurately rather than calling total miles plowing distance
Choose a metric name that matches the evidence and place the definition beside every reported comparison. Avoid letting a shorthand spreadsheet heading such as plow miles survive into a purchasing report when the field is actually total vehicle distance. Keep service outcome and removal reasons alongside the rate so an apparently low wear figure is not interpreted without regard to what work was completed.
For a blade evaluation enquiry, explain the exposure data available and the comparison you need. Improve future logging prospectively through approved fleet systems and practical observation, without prescribing new equipment settings or invasive monitoring. Record validation checks and known gaps before relying on a new signal. Close the current analysis with accurately labeled metrics and an explicit decision about their fitness for purpose. It is better to retain a useful total-mile observation than to relabel it as a more precise measure the fleet never collected.
Further reading. Clear Roads evaluation ↗
