On 11/7/2014 4:18 PM, wrote:
ok enough about the nitrogen

what about the water vapor.

I refill my tires with compressed air from my little compressor that has no dryer and i notice the moisture that squirts out.

Is there any bad effect to the tires due to the moisture?

My theory is that when the tire heats up the moisture is driven out of the tire eventually through the permiability of the rubber.


How about this theory?

You drive your car, say, 100 miles and get the internal temperature up
there a bit, with me so far?

So you pull up and park around sunset and it happened to rain that day
so you park in a little puddle.

Now, as the tire cools down and does it suck water from the puddle into
the tire through that same permeable rubber?

Inquiring minds will not enjoy a good night's sleep until this is
answered.

On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 18:36:18 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:55:46 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
I have a 2007 and 2008 and the TPMS have failed on both of them. I have
no
intention of getting them replaced. I think I was quoted a proce of about
$
60 to $ 80 for each wheel. That is getting close to the price of a tire.

Either tires are a LOT cheaper in the USA than in Canada (I know they
are somewhat cheaper) or you are buying crappy tires. I haven't bought
a tire for less than $118 on sale in quite a few years - and I don't
have 17 inch or larger rims or super low profile tires.


I was somewhat low on the tire prices. I put a good grade of Michelin tires
on. They are about $ 125 each. This is just a standard Toyota. Still that
$ 60 to $ 80 just for the sensor is way too high. I bet they only cost
about $ 10 or less to make. Especially in the large quantites they are mass
produced in.

The cost to ship and warehouse them is more than that.
The tires did come with free rotation and flat repair.
If you have to pay someone to rotate the tires two times a year, you might
say the tires are almost free after 5 or 6 years.

And I do all my own rotation and seasonal tire changes (as well as
virtually all of my own repairs)





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

wrote:

There is talk of making TPMS and stability control mandatory on all
vehicles in North America within 5 years.


My Yaris, which is the bottom of the Toyota lineup, came with TPMS, ABS,
traction control and stability control as standard equipment. The
traction/stability control isn't bad in the winter but it makes playing in
the dirt difficult. I'm used to getting a little sideways but the computer
will have none of it.

Supposedly there is some arcane set of actions you can take to turn it off
but that only last until you turn the engine off.

On 11/4/2014 3:17 PM, wrote:
I had a friend who had a puncture in his tire sidewall. No one would fix it, until he found a tire shop that would fix it for cash.

It lasted about 9 months, until on a trip between San Diego and the Bay Area it blew on Interstate 5 in the central valley of California. The Expedition caught the shoulder and rolled, killing him, paralyzing one of his passengers, and seriously injuring the other four.


Gosh, it was worth it saving him a few bucks. Got another idiot off the
highways for good.

On 11/7/2014 1:07 PM, SMS wrote:


At some point you're going to have to use some common sense and stop
with the schtick of demanding studies that you know that no one has ever
done.


No one?
You lost a lot of credibility with that statement. Someome had a reason
to use nitrogen and the had to do some sort of study and testing to
arrive at that conclusion. If not, it would be pure marketing hupe.

On 11/7/2014 5:39 PM, wrote:

There is talk of making TPMS and stability control mandatory on all
vehicles in North America within 5 years.


I had an instance where stability control kicked in on my car during an
evasive move on wet roadway. My guess is if I had my other car I'd be
going sideways across the median, possibly rolling. Great system that
kept me solid like I was on rails.

Read all it

https://powertank.com/truth.or.hype/

Mark

And even more to read here
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=19113

Mark

On 11/7/2014 8:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/7/2014 1:07 PM, SMS wrote:


At some point you're going to have to use some common sense and stop
with the schtick of demanding studies that you know that no one has ever
done.


No one?
You lost a lot of credibility with that statement. Someome had a reason
to use nitrogen and the had to do some sort of study and testing to
arrive at that conclusion. If not, it would be pure marketing hupe.

The main benefit of nitrogen at the consumer level is that it permeates
the tire material much slower than plain air (1/6 to 1/12 the rate
depending on which study you believe). This is beneficial because so few
drivers regularly check their tire pressure.

If we were still in an era where service station attendants checked your
tire pressure at every fill up, or drivers were inclined to regularly
check their pressure, then there would be no benefit at all.
Unfortunately, this is not the way the world works anymore. There is a
public safety benefit from TPMS, nitrogen-filled tires, stability
control, ABS, etc. It's not just the driver of the car that is likely to
be affected if he or she loses control.

It would be rather silly to do a study comparing properly inflated tires
versus severely underinflated tires. Everyone already knows what the
results would be.

Jeff Strickland wrote:


"rbowman" wrote in message
...
Jeff Strickland wrote:

You have to go to
the tire store to have the tire and rim broken down, so they are the
venue
for putting the tube in and they will not do it.

I'll try to remember that the next time I'm mounting new tires on my
bike.



Different tire. Absolutely no comparison after the part about rubber and
round.

A rim is a rim, a tire is a tire, and a set of tire irons is a set of tire
irons. The last time I had a problem breaking a tire down was on a '51
Chevy. Back then you had a bumper jack with a flat foot plate and the
standard method was to put the plate on the bead and jack away. I knew I had
a problem when the car went up and the bead didn't let go.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I had an instance where stability control kicked in on my car during an
evasive move on wet roadway. My guess is if I had my other car I'd be
going sideways across the median, possibly rolling. Great system that
kept me solid like I was on rails.

I've played with mine in the snow and it is impressive. Well, I shouldn't
say 'play' because you can't play anymore. Try to do a donut and you wind up
sitting in the parking lot when the car decides you're not qualified to
drive. Even getting the front to push a little on corners isn't going to
happen.

wrote:

So all "discernable advantages" should be paid for by someone else
and provided to you for free?? Sounds a little bitopportunistic anda
lot like a bad case of "entitlement"

I won't mention politics but SMS's view that he is fully capable of
maintaining the pressure in his tires by checking it with a tire gauge but
the general populace is not and should be provided with a free benefit to
save themselves from themselves has a familiar ring to it.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:22:56 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I had an instance where stability control kicked in on my car during an
evasive move on wet roadway. My guess is if I had my other car I'd be
going sideways across the median, possibly rolling. Great system that
kept me solid like I was on rails.

I've played with mine in the snow and it is impressive. Well, I shouldn't
say 'play' because you can't play anymore. Try to do a donut and you wind up
sitting in the parking lot when the car decides you're not qualified to
drive. Even getting the front to push a little on corners isn't going to
happen.



I can turn the ESC off with the push of a button. I did that in the
snow covered parking lot to see the difference with and without it.
You do get more control.

On 11/07/2014 9:58 AM, SMS wrote:
....

Not true. There is a discernible advantage, but not one that is worth
paying anything extra for. Just never buy tires at a retailer that does
not include nitrogen inflation at no extra charge.

Don't fool yourself that you're not paying for it -- it may not be
itemized, but trust me, it's in there...

I'm curious on how they actually do it -- they surely don't use high
volume N to set the bead, so then they've got to either just mix what's
left after they release that or have a purge system of some sort.
That's got be be a measurable labor increase over ordinary mounting.

--

On 11/08/2014 9:56 AM, SMS wrote:
....

The main benefit of nitrogen at the consumer level is that it permeates
the tire material much slower than plain air (1/6 to 1/12 the rate
depending on which study you believe)....

Best I've seen mentioned is 3-4X for pure N vs O2. One doctoral study I
read ended up w/ 2X for the actual pressure loss/month number. I didn't
study the work but it seems hard to think it's that good--assuming the
higher of 4X instead of 3--

0.8*1 + 0.2*4 = 0.8+0.8 = 1.6 which would only be slightly over 50%
improvement.

Since the actual N concentration in the final inflation isn't 100% it's
less than that by whatever dilution there is as well.

--

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I can turn the ESC off with the push of a button. I did that in the
snow covered parking lot to see the difference with and without it.
You do get more control.

That's not an option with mine. According to the Yaris forums if you put the
parking brake on and tap the brake pedal three times while holding your left
ear lobe with your right hand it will disable ESC. Turn the engine ogg and
it resets.

I've learned to live with it. If I want to play, I've got the bikes. I had a
2007 with a manual and it was more fun. Bad timing, it was totalled by a
snowplow driver just when Japan melted down so I took what I could get
including the AT. All the rest of the stuff wasn't an option. I'll give the
Japanese that; there are dealer installed options but at least for the Yaris
the basic car gets the full meal deal.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 11/07/2014 9:58 AM, SMS wrote:
...

Not true. There is a discernible advantage, but not one that is worth
paying anything extra for. Just never buy tires at a retailer that does
not include nitrogen inflation at no extra charge.

Don't fool yourself that you're not paying for it -- it may not be
itemized, but trust me, it's in there...

I'm curious on how they actually do it -- they surely don't use high
volume N to set the bead, so then they've got to either just mix what's
left after they release that or have a purge system of some sort. That's
got be be a measurable labor increase over ordinary mounting.

--

The set the bead without the core inside of the stem. The air comes out in a
few seconds, they install the core then fill with nitro. I don't see how
this is difficult.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 18:58:18 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 11/07/2014 9:58 AM, SMS wrote:
...

Not true. There is a discernible advantage, but not one that is worth
paying anything extra for. Just never buy tires at a retailer that does
not include nitrogen inflation at no extra charge.

Don't fool yourself that you're not paying for it -- it may not be
itemized, but trust me, it's in there...

I'm curious on how they actually do it -- they surely don't use high
volume N to set the bead, so then they've got to either just mix what's
left after they release that or have a purge system of some sort. That's
got be be a measurable labor increase over ordinary mounting.

--

The set the bead without the core inside of the stem. The air comes out in a
few seconds, they install the core then fill with nitro. I don't see how
this is difficult.


What do they do with the air already in the tire? Unless you draw a
vacuum or otherwise purge the air, it will still dilute the nitrogen.

On 11/08/2014 8:58 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
....

The set the bead without the core inside of the stem. The air comes out
in a few seconds, they install the core then fill with nitro. I don't
see how this is difficult.

That's still atmospheric pressure of this nasty, wet air everybody's so
concerned about...

--

On Saturday, November 8, 2014 12:23:13 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 11/07/2014 12:07 PM, SMS wrote:
...

At some point you're going to have to use some common sense and stop
with the schtick of demanding studies that you know that no one has ever
done.

Done if you'll quit claiming tangible and measurable benefits that can't
be shown to be accruable to the purported causative factor w/o such...

--

+1

On 11/08/2014 5:36 PM, dpb wrote:
On 11/08/2014 9:56 AM, SMS wrote:
...

The main benefit of nitrogen at the consumer level is that it permeates
the tire material much slower than plain air (1/6 to 1/12 the rate
depending on which study you believe)....

Best I've seen mentioned is 3-4X for pure N vs O2. One doctoral study I
read ended up w/ 2X for the actual pressure loss/month number. I didn't
study the work but it seems hard to think it's that good--assuming the
higher of 4X instead of 3--

0.8*1 + 0.2*4 = 0.8+0.8 = 1.6 which would only be slightly over 50%
improvement.

Since the actual N concentration in the final inflation isn't 100% it's
less than that by whatever dilution there is as well.

"...One doctoral study I read ended up w/ 2X for the actual pressure
loss/month number. ..."

I went back and looked -- turns out the author rounded up his number to
2X from his also calculate 1.6-something that he got for simplicity.
Convenient since apparently the work was funded by a N generator
manufacturer.

--

On 11/8/2014 11:27 AM, rbowman wrote:
wrote:

So all "discernable advantages" should be paid for by someone else
and provided to you for free?? Sounds a little bitopportunistic anda
lot like a bad case of "entitlement"

I won't mention politics but SMS's view that he is fully capable of
maintaining the pressure in his tires by checking it with a tire gauge but
the general populace is not and should be provided with a free benefit to
save themselves from themselves has a familiar ring to it.

You're not looking at the big picture. It's often not saving
_themselves_ from themselves, it's saving _us_ from _them_. If they have
a blowout and cause an accident, others are often involved. And do you
check the tire pressure of every vehicle that you or members of your
family get into?

There are many instances of society imposing non-free requirements for
the common good. What ends up happening is the cost of those
requirements ends up to be fairly trivial once volumes go way up.

If you recall the history of TPMS, it became mandatory in the U.S. in
2007 following the Firestone Tire tread separation issue which was
linked to more than 100 deaths. The tread separation was greatly
exacerbated by under-inflation. The cost of TPMS far exceeds the cost of
nitrogen for a vehicle's tires. A vehicle may go through 24 tires at a
cost of maybe 10¢/tire for nitrogen. But a TPMS system adds about $25 in
manufacturing cost to a vehicle.

The government should not also require nitrogen, but it would be
extremely foolish for anyone to buy tires from a store that did not
inflate all the tires they sell with nitrogen.

On 11/8/2014 1:10 PM, dpb wrote:
On 11/07/2014 9:58 AM, SMS wrote:
...

Not true. There is a discernible advantage, but not one that is worth
paying anything extra for. Just never buy tires at a retailer that does
not include nitrogen inflation at no extra charge.

Don't fool yourself that you're not paying for it -- it may not be
itemized, but trust me, it's in there...

You don't understand how retailers set prices. It's not based on fixed
percentage over their costs, it's based on the market.

The reason so many companies advertise an artificially low price for
tires then pile on separate add-ons like road-hazard, valves (for
non-TPMS tires), and nitrogen, is because they want to be able to
advertise an unrealistic price knowing most customers will pay for all
the extras. Even if you declined new rubber valves in the past you'd
often get them anyway. The cost was trivial and replacing it saved the
dealer time and money.

The reason Costco just includes nitrogen is that it makes good business
sense. It reduces their costs by reducing warranty returns for both
treadwear and road hazard.

On 11/09/2014 11:16 AM, SMS wrote:
On 11/8/2014 1:10 PM, dpb wrote:
On 11/07/2014 9:58 AM, SMS wrote:
...

Not true. There is a discernible advantage, but not one that is worth
paying anything extra for. Just never buy tires at a retailer that does
not include nitrogen inflation at no extra charge.

Don't fool yourself that you're not paying for it -- it may not be
itemized, but trust me, it's in there...

You don't understand how retailers set prices. It's not based on fixed
percentage over their costs, it's based on the market.
...

Trust me, however they build their advertising cost structure, the cost
of the product and services _IS_ in there. You're not getting anything
"free", you just don't know where it is in the final check.

It's like the colleague of mine years ago who had some specific expenses
rejected on an expense account for work travel. The next submittal
totalled the same net amount but the items in question were nowhere to
be seen. Same thing here.

The reason Costco just includes nitrogen is that it makes good business
sense. It reduces their costs by reducing warranty returns for both
treadwear and road hazard.

Now you're back to what you promised not to do any more without specific
evidence.

--

SMS wrote:

You're not looking at the big picture. It's often not saving
_themselves_ from themselves, it's saving _us_ from _them_. If they have
a blowout and cause an accident, others are often involved. And do you
check the tire pressure of every vehicle that you or members of your
family get into?

As a matter of fact, yes. The car, pickup, and the bikes all have accurate,
well used pressure gauges. Your argument is similar to those who want to
pass a national helmet law. "It's not the idiot, it's the social cost after
he becomes a vegetable." I've got three fullface helmets on the shelf next
to me; sometimes I wear one, sometimes not, but I don't need a nanny to tell
me to button my jacket. I even have a bicycle helmet that I wore exactly
once; it was a requirement to ride the Trail of the Hiawatha.

Back to the original argument, there are 16 tires out in the driveway, not
counting the 4 bicycle tires. None are filled with nitrogen and all are
doing just fine.

On 11/9/2014 10:31 AM, dpb wrote:
On 11/09/2014 11:16 AM, SMS wrote:
On 11/8/2014 1:10 PM, dpb wrote:
On 11/07/2014 9:58 AM, SMS wrote:
...

Not true. There is a discernible advantage, but not one that is worth
paying anything extra for. Just never buy tires at a retailer that does
not include nitrogen inflation at no extra charge.

Don't fool yourself that you're not paying for it -- it may not be
itemized, but trust me, it's in there...

You don't understand how retailers set prices. It's not based on fixed
percentage over their costs, it's based on the market.
..

Trust me, however they build their advertising cost structure, the cost
of the product and services _IS_ in there. You're not getting anything
"free", you just don't know where it is in the final check.

It is not free. It is included. But the price would not go down if it
was not included. That is the key thing to understand. Companies set
prices based on the market, not how much it costs them to manufacture a
product or provide a service. U.S. automakers would all be gone if they
tried to price their vehicles based on the cost of parts and labor and
then marking it up the same percentage as Toyota or Honda.

It's like the colleague of mine years ago who had some specific expenses
rejected on an expense account for work travel. The next submittal
totalled the same net amount but the items in question were nowhere to
be seen. Same thing here.

It is nothing like that at all, but I do have some good stories about
that. I was in Taiwan for a trade show. The person who packed the
exhibit forgot to include a computer keyboard. I walked to a store and
bought a keyboard for about US$10. I submitted the expense and it was
rejected. I was told that the company was cracking down on equipment
purchases put onto expense accounts and that I should have submitted a
purchase order. The fact that the show was the next day, and I was in
Taiwan at the show, did not matter. They finally did pay me the money
without me having to turn the $10 into a mileage reimbursement

On 11/9/2014 1:23 PM, rbowman wrote:
SMS wrote:

You're not looking at the big picture. It's often not saving
_themselves_ from themselves, it's saving _us_ from _them_. If they have
a blowout and cause an accident, others are often involved. And do you
check the tire pressure of every vehicle that you or members of your
family get into?

As a matter of fact, yes. The car, pickup, and the bikes all have accurate,
well used pressure gauges.

What about rental cars? What about cars that your kids may ride in for
carpools or after school events? It's a societal benefit for vehicles to
have safety features, especially when those features cost little to
implement.

Your argument is similar to those who want to
pass a national helmet law. "It's not the idiot, it's the social cost after
he becomes a vegetable." I've got three fullface helmets on the shelf next
to me; sometimes I wear one, sometimes not, but I don't need a nanny to tell
me to button my jacket. I even have a bicycle helmet that I wore exactly
once; it was a requirement to ride the Trail of the Hiawatha.

It's not similar at all. A motorcyclist that is injured or killed due to
not wearing a helmet is unlikely to affect other road users. It is their
choice as to how much risk they want to take in their lives.

I like what some states do in not requiring motorcycle helmets as long
as the rider provides proof of accident insurance in addition to
whatever medical coverage the rider has. That is a fair compromise
though the amount of insurance required would not even cover one week in
the hospital.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/04/17/243752.htm

On 11/9/2014 6:34 PM, SMS wrote:
It is nothing like that at all, but I do have some good stories about
that. I was in Taiwan for a trade show. The person who packed the
exhibit forgot to include a computer keyboard. I walked to a store and
bought a keyboard for about US$10. I submitted the expense and it was
rejected. I was told that the company was cracking down on equipment
purchases put onto expense accounts and that I should have submitted a
purchase order. The fact that the show was the next day, and I was in
Taiwan at the show, did not matter. They finally did pay me the money
without me having to turn the $10 into a mileage reimbursement

I'd be tempted next time, to follow the procedure.
Of course you'd sell nearly zero product, and not
be able to input any orders. But, you were told
by the powers that be, how they want to you do do
it, and you followed the orders you printed out
and put in your attorney's safe.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 11/9/2014 6:41 PM, SMS wrote:



It's not similar at all. A motorcyclist that is injured or killed due to
not wearing a helmet is unlikely to affect other road users. It is their
choice as to how much risk they want to take in their lives.

I like what some states do in not requiring motorcycle helmets as long
as the rider provides proof of accident insurance in addition to
whatever medical coverage the rider has. That is a fair compromise
though the amount of insurance required would not even cover one week in
the hospital.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/04/17/243752.htm

I don't care if you take yourself out. I know one guy that did. I also
know of another that spent months in the hospital and years in a rehab.
After the insurance ran out, taxpayers picked up the tab. What is
really sad, he came over the crest of a hill and into a car driven by
his father.

SMS wrote:

What about rental cars? What about cars that your kids may ride in for
carpools or after school events? It's a societal benefit for vehicles to
have safety features, especially when those features cost little to
implement.

No kids. The last time I drove a rental car I drove for any appreciable
distance was over 10 years ago. I did a walkaround before I left the
National lot. No, I didn't use a tire gauge but my right boot is finely
calibrated.

It's not similar at all. A motorcyclist that is injured or killed due to
not wearing a helmet is unlikely to affect other road users. It is their
choice as to how much risk they want to take in their lives.

That's not how the helmet crowd tells it. Long term incapacitating injuries
are a social cost imposed on us all. I imagine they would like to outlaw
bikes altogether in the interests of womb to tomb comfort and safety.

Seatbelts were the same wheeze. I woll admit I used seatbelts before they
were mandatory. Driving from the passenger side after you've slid across a
vinyl bench seat is tricky.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 11/9/2014 6:41 PM, SMS wrote:



It's not similar at all. A motorcyclist that is injured or killed due to
not wearing a helmet is unlikely to affect other road users. It is their
choice as to how much risk they want to take in their lives.

I like what some states do in not requiring motorcycle helmets as long
as the rider provides proof of accident insurance in addition to
whatever medical coverage the rider has. That is a fair compromise
though the amount of insurance required would not even cover one week in
the hospital.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/04/17/243752.htm

I don't care if you take yourself out. I know one guy that did. I also
know of another that spent months in the hospital and years in a rehab.
After the insurance ran out, taxpayers picked up the tab. What is
really sad, he came over the crest of a hill and into a car driven by
his father.

Hi,
My smoking cigars, motorbike riding and sky diving days ended when I got
married.

Here in Manitoba we have a publically owned auto insurance company called "Autopac". I pay about $800 per year for insurance on my 1998 Chevy Cavalier, and I'm told that's pretty good compared to for-profit insurance companies operating in other provinces.

But, motorcycle insurance here is actually a lot higher than auto insurance. The reason for that is that MOST car accidents are fender benders involving less than $5,000 worth of body work to both vehicles and occasionally some injury to the drivers. When a motorcycle gets into an accident, the damage to the bike is a relatively small expense, but the driver of the bike generally is much more seriously injured and often has to spend months in the hospital and years in physiotherapy afterward, and it's those medical expenses that are incurred after the accident that makes motorcycle accidents so much more expensive to insure against.

I had a tenant who worked for Autopac, and he said that the morbid sense of humour is that in a motorcycle accident, you hope the biker gets killed, that way there's no medical expenses to pay.

Correction...... what I thought was a cut on the sidewall turned out to be cosmetic. There was a screw in the tread causing the leak. How did I find out? I got such a run-around at the tire stores that I decided to stop looking for a "bargain" and went to my neighborhood mechanic. If it was going to cost $100 for a tire, I would rather give him the business.

Within 2 minutes he had found a leak - screw in the tread. Sidewall was just a cosmetic scratch from scraping the curb. Total charge $15 plus I gave him some extra $$.

The lessons here for me are to only do business with people you trust, and there is no free lunch.

Now, about the tire store run around....

Every one of them I called on the phone had a different story and price when I showed up.

For example.... one $55 tire over the phone at Big O Tires ended up being $107 after tax, balance, installation and recycle fee. The "4 for 2" special now being advertised by Big O Tires turned out to be four $55 tires plus extras, totaling over $400: two tires at $70 each plus $40 times 4 for balance, installation, tax and recycle fee, plus the "required" super deluxe lifetime front end alignment for $110.


"Sasquatch Jones" wrote in message ...
I have a slow lead in the side wall that came from scraping some kind of sharp object laying by the curb. Looks like a 1/2-inch cut, but jagged. Tire is tubeless radial. Is it possible to patch something like this on the side wall? Patch kits say they are for the tread but don't say specifically not to use them on the side.

2nd thought -- can I put a tube in it? Seems like I remember tire places say tubeless can't be fixed with a tube, but I can't see why not.

Anyway, thanks in advance for any help.

SJ

On 11/09/2014 5:34 PM, SMS wrote:
....

It is not free. It is included. But the price would not go down if it
was not included. That is the key thing to understand. Companies set
prices based on the market, not how much it costs them to manufacture a
product or provide a service. U.S. automakers would all be gone if they
tried to price their vehicles based on the cost of parts and labor and
then marking it up the same percentage as Toyota or Honda.
....

Nonsense on the latter; whether they would reduce pricing on the removal
of the amenity/service is a totally different question--more than likely
they'd just take the marginally higher return.

Certainly if the price structure is not reflective of the cost of
producing the product or service they won't last long...

--

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 09:12:01 -0800, SMS
wrote:



The government should not also require nitrogen, but it would be
extremely foolish for anyone to buy tires from a store that did not
inflate all the tires they sell with nitrogen.

What if the tires are 40 bucks cheaper at the store?
You're getting ridiculous. Nitrogen isn't needed at all.
It's not even a consideration for me.
Seems like you're just pimping for Costco.

On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 17:57:38 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

SMS wrote:

What about rental cars? What about cars that your kids may ride in for
carpools or after school events? It's a societal benefit for vehicles to
have safety features, especially when those features cost little to
implement.

No kids. The last time I drove a rental car I drove for any appreciable
distance was over 10 years ago. I did a walkaround before I left the
National lot. No, I didn't use a tire gauge but my right boot is finely
calibrated.


I rented a 2004 Malibu for a long trip and did a walkaround.
Had 5000 miles on it. Tires looked okay.
I was about 60 miles from home before I got it to 70 mph.
It was all over the road, and I really thought the alignment was
screwed up, and I was going to have to take it back.
No way I could drive it for 1200 miles. As a last resort I bought a
tire gage. The right front had 14 psi. Low profile tires.
TPMS would have alerted to that.

It's not similar at all. A motorcyclist that is injured or killed due to
not wearing a helmet is unlikely to affect other road users. It is their
choice as to how much risk they want to take in their lives.

That's not how the helmet crowd tells it. Long term incapacitating injuries
are a social cost imposed on us all. I imagine they would like to outlaw
bikes altogether in the interests of womb to tomb comfort and safety.

Seatbelts were the same wheeze. I woll admit I used seatbelts before they
were mandatory. Driving from the passenger side after you've slid across a
vinyl bench seat is tricky.

I started wearing them when they became available because of that.
Once I wore them, I never went back.

On 11/9/2014 8:49 PM, Sasquatch Jones wrote:
Correction...... what I thought was a cut on the sidewall turned out to be cosmetic. There was a screw in the tread causing the leak. How did I find out? I got such a run-around at the tire stores that I decided to stop looking for a "bargain" and went to my neighborhood mechanic. If it was going to cost $100 for a tire, I would rather give him the business.

Within 2 minutes he had found a leak - screw in the tread. Sidewall was just a cosmetic scratch from scraping the curb. Total charge $15 plus I gave him some extra $$.

The lessons here for me are to only do business with people you trust, and there is no free lunch.

Been dealing with the same tire guy for 30 years now. Fair price, no
BS. Stick with your guy if you have a good one.

nestork wrote:

Here in Manitoba we have a publically owned auto insurance company
called "Autopac". I pay about $800 per year for insurance on my 1998
Chevy Cavalier, and I'm told that's pretty good compared to for-profit
insurance companies operating in other provinces.

Even factoring in the exchange rate, that's pretty steep.

But, motorcycle insurance here is actually a lot higher than auto
insurance.

Motorcycle insurance is not mandatory in this state so the coverage is
inexpensive for me but then I'm not a 20-something and none of my bikes are
crotch rockets or motorhomes on two wheels.

On 11/9/2014 6:15 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

What if the tires are 40 bucks cheaper at the store?

You're making up ridiculous stories, but yes, that would make a
difference. I have compared tire costs many times and Costco is always
much cheaper out the door. Usually at least $100. And that includes
nitrogen inflation.

You can make up "what ifs" until you're blue in the face but that does
not change the facts.

On 11/9/2014 6:00 PM, dpb wrote:
On 11/09/2014 5:34 PM, SMS wrote:
...

It is not free. It is included. But the price would not go down if it
was not included. That is the key thing to understand. Companies set
prices based on the market, not how much it costs them to manufacture a
product or provide a service. U.S. automakers would all be gone if they
tried to price their vehicles based on the cost of parts and labor and
then marking it up the same percentage as Toyota or Honda.
...

Nonsense on the latter; whether they would reduce pricing on the removal
of the amenity/service is a totally different question--more than likely
they'd just take the marginally higher return.

Certainly if the price structure is not reflective of the cost of
producing the product or service they won't last long...

But they do last. The only reason the big 3 were producing small cars
was because of government requirements that their fleet MPG be at a
certain level. They would much rather have produced only high margin,
high profit, low MPG models. They set their small car prices at market
prices, and lost money on them in order to increase the fleet mpg.