On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 08:10:53 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

Philosophically, is it a smart decision to definitely kill half of what
you're trying to save, just to measure to see if it needs to be saved?

You don't need to replace the tires to do the alignment.

I must not have made the philosophical argument clear if you say that, so
let me just outline a WORST CASE scenario (philosophically speaking).

1. Assume alignment is fine (for the worst-case scenario philosophically)
2. Assume front tires only are wearing on the outside edges (feathering)

How much does a brand new tire cost, mounted?
About $100.

How much does an alignment check cost, on sale, where I live?
About $100.

That's a philosophical tradeoff of 1 mounted tire to 1 alignment check.

The logic is thus:
A. If the alignment is obviously bad, then it will cause excess wear to
EVERY tire ever put on the front axle, so, of course, you have the
alignment fixed because of the obvious cost:benefit ratio.

B. However, if the alignment is actually ok, then it's not cost effective
to have the alignment checked since the best you will do is save partial
wear to the tires but at worst, you just threw away an entire brand new
tire ($100) just to have the alignment checked.

My point is that checking the alignment costs as much money as does a brand
new tire, so, where would you rather put your money IF the alignment is
actually OK?