Not as a direct blade ranking without evidence that the relevant duties and conditions are comparable. Front-plow and underbody records describe different equipment positions and may describe different tasks. Keep them as position-specific planning evidence. If the decision concerns which blade performs better in one position, arrange a comparison that addresses that same position and service requirement.
Identify differences in position, task and contact exposure
Identify the exact equipment, mounting position, blade configuration and work represented by each record. Include the required service outcome and the exposure measure actually captured. A shared truck, route or season does not establish that two positions performed equivalent work. Describe the assignments from the fleet's evidence rather than importing a general assumption about which position must always be more demanding.
The front, underbody and wing-position guide offers broader selection context; this discussion concerns the validity of a specific historical control. Check whether the underbody data includes concurrent work by another blade and whether the new trial uses the same system arrangement. Record relevant differences without attempting to quantify their effects from unsupported rules. If the historical log only reports vehicle distance, make clear that position-specific working exposure may be unavailable.
Use the records for position-specific planning rather than direct product ranking
Report each position's observed costs, condition and service output separately. These can inform stock, maintenance capacity and the budget for that position even when they cannot determine a material winner. Avoid dividing both totals by the same vehicle distance and calling the result a controlled comparison. A common unit improves presentation but does not make the underlying tasks interchangeable.
Consider whether any narrower question is supported. For example, the records may establish the actual number of replacement events at each position during the observed periods, without establishing why they differed. Keep that observation distinct from a causal conclusion about carbide grade or supplier quality. If one position had different starting condition, inspection coverage or removal criteria, state those limits too. Historical data should remain useful at its real scope rather than being stretched into a control it was not designed to provide.
Design a same-duty comparison if a material decision is required
Define the decision before designing the next comparison. If choosing a blade for the front position, identify a suitable front-position baseline and consistent service criteria. Have the responsible team plan practical observations under normal safe operations, documenting configuration and duty changes. Do not change equipment use or setup outside the applicable instructions to make it resemble the historical underbody assignment.
For a position-specific blade enquiry, provide the actual assembly and the evidence gap you want the trial to address. Keep the historical underbody record as contextual planning information rather than deleting it. The final report should explain why it was not used as a direct control and which findings remain relevant. Close the current review with a supported position-level observation or a clearly bounded trial plan, not a product ranking derived from differences in task and mounting position. That distinction helps procurement buy for the real application without overstating what the available records prove.
Further reading. Clear Roads evaluation ↗
