On 4/2/2017 1:08 PM, Jonas Schneider wrote:


Certainly higher-quality food, for example, would be in demand, but, it's
well known in the grocery business that when fruits and vegetables are
plentiful, the price goes down and the quality goes up.

When it's off season, or if there was a drought, the price goes up and the
quality goes down.

Chicken wings used to be cheap. I remember years ago buying a 5 pound
bag for a quarter. Yes, 5 cents a pound or in today's money, about 36
cents a pound. Since becoming popular they are selling for about $2,50
a pound. For dinner tonight I'm making thighs on sale for 99 cents.



Is it just me, or do we get fewer flats nowadays?
I remember, as a kid, that I got flats in my bias-ply tires rather
frequently. Now I only get about one or two flats a year.

Far fewer flats. Less destructive too, in a sense. Seems they lose air
slower so that nail may be in there and give you a day or two hint you
have a problem. (assuming you look at the tires once in a while) Goes
low slow so you can drive to a place to take care of it instead of in
the dark on the highway.


Now we get to the point of deciding how to buy a tire!
What matters is what matters to you.


My selection process is as easy as simple math, but my purely logical
selection process requires technical knowledge sufficient to understand the
specs printed on the sidewall of every tire.

I didn't look at the sidewall specs of all those tires, but my process
would be the same with choosing your tire as with choosing mine.

A. There are no absolutes when tradeoffs are involved, but generally:
1. I would compare everything against the OEM tire spec!
2. That is, any tire that meets OEM specs goes on the short list.
3. And any tire that fails any of the OEM specs, is tossed out.

B. Then I would rate highest what I care about most.
1. If that is wet traction, then I'd put the AA tires on top.
2. But if that was treadwear, I'd put the 500s above the 100s.
3. If it was price, then the cheapest OEM-spec tire would be on top.

One by one, I'd rank the tires in the order of the specs I care about.
Assuming it was wettraction/treadwear/price, then I would rank like this:


Thanks for taking the time to explain that. I'll be looking for tires
in the fall and will use that process. In the past, snow was a factor,
but now that I'm retired, I may never intentionally drive in snow again.
Sure, it can happen but planning ahead eliminates 99% of it.

On 04/02/2017 11:08 AM, Jonas Schneider wrote:
Once you've whittled down the selection to tires that all meet or exceed
the OEM specs, then you rank them in the order of trusted specification
that you care about most.

The last set of tires I bought were Cooper CS5's. In part my choice was
determined by reviews by boy racers like this:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/coope...5-tire-review/

I did not chose the OEM tires, Bridgestone Potenza 92E's. While they
have acceptable performance on dry pavement, they are a low rolling
resistance design that helps Toyota with their fleet mileage statistics.
I had two Yaris's that came with the tires and wore them out in under
25,000 miles. I find that unacceptable for a lightweight vehicle.

I won't even start on my process for selecting bike tires, particularly
for my dual sport bike. For example, Dunlop D606's are great in mud but
howl like a banshee at 80 mph on pavement. Bridgestone Trailwings are
civilized on the pavement but only marginally better than any pure
street tire in the mud.

Even bicycle tires are not exempt. Want to know the rationale behind my
recent purchase of a set of Serfas Drifters?

On 4/2/2017 1:00 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/02/2017 11:08 AM, Jonas Schneider wrote:

Even bicycle tires are not exempt. Want to know the
rationale behind my recent purchase of a set of Serfas
Drifters?

Here's a guess. You couldn't find a Michelin City tire.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 04/02/2017 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/2/2017 1:00 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/02/2017 11:08 AM, Jonas Schneider wrote:

Even bicycle tires are not exempt. Want to know the
rationale behind my recent purchase of a set of Serfas
Drifters?

Here's a guess. You couldn't find a Michelin City tire.


Not in 26" at the local REI, just 27". The tires I replaced were
Continental Town & Country. They were my favorites years ago but then I
couldn't find them. They reappeared so I got a set. Meanwhile,
Continental had switched production to India or China. I bought them in
June of 2015. As I pumped them up to 65 psi this spring, I heard an odd,
tearing noise. It was the sidewall cords ripping apart. Looking on the
forums, early sidewall failure is common with the new manufacture. So
much for T&C.

Before the Contis I'd been running Ritchey Tom Slicks. They'll take a
higher pressure and are faster but I found them to be high maintenance.
I'll see how the Serfas do. At least running 65 psi instead of 90
softens some of the bumps and I'm not racing.

My other Mtn bike has knobbies and when I do ride on pavement it seems
like a lot of work compared to the slicks or inverted tread.

On 4/2/2017 3:19 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/02/2017 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/2/2017 1:00 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/02/2017 11:08 AM, Jonas Schneider wrote:

Even bicycle tires are not exempt. Want to know the
rationale behind my recent purchase of a set of Serfas
Drifters?

Here's a guess. You couldn't find a Michelin City tire.


Not in 26" at the local REI, just 27". The tires I replaced
were Continental Town & Country. They were my favorites
years ago but then I couldn't find them. They reappeared so
I got a set. Meanwhile, Continental had switched production
to India or China. I bought them in June of 2015. As I
pumped them up to 65 psi this spring, I heard an odd,
tearing noise. It was the sidewall cords ripping apart.
Looking on the forums, early sidewall failure is common with
the new manufacture. So much for T&C.

Before the Contis I'd been running Ritchey Tom Slicks.
They'll take a higher pressure and are faster but I found
them to be high maintenance. I'll see how the Serfas do. At
least running 65 psi instead of 90 softens some of the bumps
and I'm not racing.

My other Mtn bike has knobbies and when I do ride on
pavement it seems like a lot of work compared to the slicks
or inverted tread.



Agreed on the Ritchey. That's a Panaracer product; very
light, very fast, uniform, smooth ride. A fine weave fabric
but doesn't suffer abuse well. Different customer from a
Serfas or a Michelin.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 12:00:14 -0600, rbowman wrote:

The last set of tires I bought were Cooper CS5's. In part my choice was
determined by reviews by boy racers like this:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/coope...5-tire-review/

Auurgh! Tire reviews.
Tire reviews are like people rating their mother's cooking.
Everyone is biased toward the tires *they* selected, while some can't stand
their mother, no matter what.

The market research I quoted earlier said that 60% of buyers want someone
else to choose their tires for them. To me, that's what reviews are for. So
some boy racer in a 1968 Camaro can tell you what you should put in your
Honda.

The problem with boy-racer reviews is that they're religion and politics
wrapped up in false buttmeter readings surrounded by marketing placebos.
Oh, and did I mention that there is absolutely zero instrumentation?

Did you ever watch a boy racer take a motorcycle drivers' license test?
Everyone one thinks he nailed it, and yet, with a dispassionate observer, a
huge proportion actually failed.

A guy spends six hundred bucks for tires, and then he writes a review about
it. The review is sort of like how the CIA rates dictators we prop up in
South America. Yeah, they're *******s, but they are "our *******s".

Anyway, with that in mind, let's read that review:
COOPER TIRE CS5 TIRE REVIEW
http://www.motortrend.com/news/coope...5-tire-review/

This is getting long so I'll post my observations of that review
separately.

I did not chose the OEM tires, Bridgestone Potenza 92E's.

You probably do what most people do, including me.
The market research I quoted said that most people choose OE tires early in
the life of the vehicle, where they stray further and further away as the
vehicle ages.

I won't even start on my process for selecting bike tires, particularly
for my dual sport bike. For example, Dunlop D606's are great in mud but
howl like a banshee at 80 mph on pavement. Bridgestone Trailwings are
civilized on the pavement but only marginally better than any pure
street tire in the mud.

I'm not sure how motorcycle tires differ from passenger-car tires, as it
has been a while since I have ridden myself. Last ones I bought I mounted
myself though, and didn't bother to balance them.

Even bicycle tires are not exempt. Want to know the rationale behind my
recent purchase of a set of Serfas Drifters?

The problem I have with bicycle tires is that the specs aren't known, so,
you're stuck with lousy data to make a decision upon.

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 01:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Jonas Schneider
wrote:

Anyway, with that in mind, let's read that review:
COOPER TIRE CS5 TIRE REVIEW
http://www.motortrend.com/news/coope...5-tire-review/

Here are my impressions as I read that specific review:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/coope...5-tire-review/

* It's Motor Trend, so, the good is that it's not some kid in a Camaro.
* It's Motor Trend which I respect less than I do Car & Driver.
* But it's a professional outfit - so they should be ok (let's see).
----------
* They shill for Cooper Tires, which all the mags tend to do
* They went to San Antonio, which is the correct place to go in the USA
* Apparently they only tested Cooper CS5 Grand Touring & Ultra Touring
----------
* The bad news is that this is gonna only be about very few tires
* So how do we use that data to compare with the thirty other tires?
* The answer is that we can't - but let's keep reading.
----------
* Yikes. What kind of test are they running? The validity is crazy.
* Car A1 is a Ford Mustang fitted with Hankook Optimo H727 touring tires
* Car A2 is fitted with Cooper CS5 Grand Touring tires
* Car A3 is fitted with Cooper CSS Ultra Touring tires
* Car B1 is a Corvette driven by an Indy legend running Cooper Zeon RS3-A
tires. (WTF?)
----------
* Then they give us the obligatory marketing bs about silica & siping
* Then they describe the skidpad, which is a large lake of wet asphalt
----------
* The author takes the A1 Mustang with Hankook's and gets a "feel".
* Then he takes the A1 Mustang with Cooper CS5 Grand Touring tires.
* Surprise surprise. With the Cooper marketing guys paying for everything,
the author notices a "higher threshold of grip". Ummm... ok.
* The only measurement they made was the author's lap time, which, of
course, wasn't corrected for his experience increasing with the course.
* Then we hear the obligatory non-measured marketing bull**** about
"pregoressive" and "communication", all of which is boy-racer talk
(especially keeping in mind that Cooper is paying the tab).
----------
* OK. One complete bull**** test finished, where they didn't measure
anything meaningful, and they corrected for nothing, and yet, surprise
surprise, the test that the Cooper marketing guys designed from start to
finish shows that the marketing guys' test "showed how well the tires may
handle".
Sheesh. I just wasted my time, but I plod onward.
----------
* Now we're on a dry autocross on the Hankook tires.
* Surprise surprise. The marketing guys designed a test where "the story is
much the same". I'm shocked. Shocked I say. Shocked.
* This article reminds me of what a rag MT is, but let's look at this
objectively.
----------
* Lo and behold, the Mustang with the Cooper tires was "able to carry a
higher speed through teh corners with more driver confidence".
* What complete bull**** again.
* Again, nothing was tested except speed, which wasn't corrected for with
the driver gaining experience in the second run.
* Where are the placebo tires, by the way?
* What? Placebos? We don't do no stinking placebos in Marketing tests!
* Where are the corrections for experience?
* We don't do no stinking corrections.
* Where are the measurements?
* What? We don't report no stinking measurements.
----------
* I'm still plodding through, but this article is complete bull****.
* Even if it wasn't complete bull****, it still wouldn't prove anything
other than the stated Coopers might be better for a couple of things than
the stated Hancooks on a Mustang driven the way the marketing guys want you
to drive it.
----------
* Now it's lunch time.
* After lunch ... huh? Now we move to a BMW 328i? WTF?
* Nobody mentioned this BMW before. Oh well, it's a Marketing game.
* We're supposed to assume a small bimmer is impressive with Pirelli's I
guess.
----------
* Now they take the tiny bimmer on the Pirelli Cinturato P7 tires
* Then, same bull**** test, but with the Cooper CS5 Ultra Touring tires.
----------
* They play up the Pirellis, of course, (this is marketing, after all).
* Better to beat a better tire, don't you think?
* Anyway, even they admit it's not an "apples to apples" test when they say
the bimmer went faster than the Mustang did.
* This is really getting tedious with all the bull****.
----------
* OH my. The Pirelli was "much more communicative".
* Did they measure anything other than track speed yet.
* Nope. WHy would they. This isn't really a tire test after all.
----------
* Tediously, we get to the final test (I hope).
* Lo and behold, the "drive was more confident" with the final set of
tires.
* No measurements again, so, I call bull**** on the test again.
----------
* Back to the wet autocross with the bimmer on Pirellis.
* Lo and behold, the Marketing selected tires "returned the most confident
laps" (which were always the last laps, of course).
----------
* I love the next statement.
* "The best lap times were set with the cooper tires"
* Duh. It was always the last lap in a complex loop which the author
himself said it took getting used to. (them's marketing guys is no fools!)
----------
* For some reason, we now segue into Unser driving them around in a
Corvette. WTF?
----------
* Then we summarize by *repeating* the obligatory marketing bull**** about
silica and sipes, complete with brand names for the wear bars.
* I didn't know wear bars had brand names!
* Look at that, the tires have "durable uniform construction".
* The marketing guys must have ****ed in their pants hearing that.
* Woo hoo! "StabilEdge technology" (hint - those are the sipes, I guess).
* Lots of marketing bull**** in that paragraph - but let's move on.
----------
* Oh Jesus. More marketing bull**** about the "wear square".
* (As if it's rocket science to know when a tire is worn.)
----------
* Oh ****. Another paragraph of marketing bull****, this time for the third
time they cover "StabilEdge" bumps between the tire grooves.
* Does this bull**** never end?
----------
* Now they discuss the asymetrical tread - as if that's a big deal.
* They discuss the benefits to rotation ... which is ok stuff.
----------
* Now comes the great Marketing Conclusion.
* Guess what?
* Cooper is better than Hankook and Pirelli!
* Yup. There it is. A ****ty test but a great blanket statement
=----------
* Guess what! "Cooper *dominated* these tests! Yup. Surprise surprise.
* Thank God that was the end.
----------

Overall, if you haven't guessed my reaction yet, they proved absolutely
nothing, and they tested almost absolutely nothing, and they certainly
measured only one thing and they didn't even report that measurement.

This was worse than a boy-racer review because it wasted everyone's time
except the marketing guys' budget at Cooper.
*

On 04/02/2017 07:27 PM, Jonas Schneider wrote:
Auurgh! Tire reviews.
Tire reviews are like people rating their mother's cooking.
Everyone is biased toward the tires *they* selected, while some can't stand
their mother, no matter what.

Then you might as well blindfold yourself and throw darts at the wall.

A guy spends six hundred bucks for tires, and then he writes a review about
it. The review is sort of like how the CIA rates dictators we prop up in
South America. Yeah, they're *******s, but they are "our *******s".

I doubt the Motor Trend writer is paying for many tires out of his own
pocket. Possibly he's getting paid under the table by Cooper but is that
worth slagging a couple of other brands that he found inferior?

The must have bought the topspeed author a few beers too:

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cooper-...3761.html#main

But, like the guy said, buying tires is boring. Not sucking completely
is the main criteria.


I did not chose the OEM tires, Bridgestone Potenza 92E's.
You probably do what most people do, including me.
The market research I quoted said that most people choose OE tires early in
the life of the vehicle, where they stray further and further away as the
vehicle ages.

The Bridgestones on the first Yaris were worn and I planned to replace
them in the spring with some other brand. However, the Yaris did not
survive a head on collision with a snow plow. The second Yaris came with
the same tires, which I replaced with Coopers when they wore out. The
92E's are not bad for ride quality, noise, and traction but the tread
life sucks and they're quite expensive when you're not Toyota buying
them by the boatload.


I won't even start on my process for selecting bike tires, particularly
for my dual sport bike. For example, Dunlop D606's are great in mud but
howl like a banshee at 80 mph on pavement. Bridgestone Trailwings are
civilized on the pavement but only marginally better than any pure
street tire in the mud.
I'm not sure how motorcycle tires differ from passenger-car tires, as it
has been a while since I have ridden myself. Last ones I bought I mounted
myself though, and didn't bother to balance them.

These days motorcycle tires tend to be designed for specific ends.
Dunlop D401's, known as Dunrocks in some circles, have great life. I got
over 15,000 on the rear and replaced the front when i got sick of
looking at it. However performance suffers. I ran a couple sets of
Bridgestone Spitfires. Much better performance, but only about 7500
miles on the rear. You pays your money and you makes your choice. I'm
running Pirelli Routes on the Harley now. Decent performance and the
jury is out on the mileage. All the boy racers report 10 to 15k, so
that's better than the spitfires.

I've been through a few flavors with the DR650. I get about 5000 miles
on the rear with D606 which is more oriented to off-road, and around
7000 with the Trailwings, which are more on road. I'm running Kendas
now, less aggressive than the D606's and they'll go to about 6000. When
I need a front tire it will not be a Kenda. For whatever reason it's a
pain in the butt to seat the beads on the Kenda fronts. I do not balance
knobbies. I mean, how could you ever tell?

The V-Strom gets Michelin Anakee III's. Good grip, good life, and not
completely useless in the dirt if you're careful. After all, what good
is an adventure bike if you can't adventure.

The big difference with bikes other than you only have two tires under
you so you think a little more about what you're buying, is you're also
buying them a lot more frequently and unless you're in a mindless rut
can do your own comparisons.

On 04/02/2017 08:07 PM, Jonas Schneider wrote:
Overall, if you haven't guessed my reaction yet, they proved absolutely
nothing, and they tested almost absolutely nothing, and they certainly
measured only one thing and they didn't even report that measurement.

Okay, I get it. Every magazine writer is a complete asshole bought off
by the local friendly sales guy. Every civilian reviewer that laid out
$600 thinks whatever he bought is the greatest thing since sex. Nobody
publishes reliable data. The consumer is screwed. I'll go you one
better. A major chain in the western US, Les Schwab's, which I've bought
tires from, tends to sell tires with their own house models and brands.
I've bought tires from them, never had problems, and their service is
great, but good luck trying to find out anything about a 'Road Control
Touring A/S'.

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 21:56:54 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/02/2017 07:27 PM, Jonas Schneider wrote:
Auurgh! Tire reviews.
Tire reviews are like people rating their mother's cooking.
Everyone is biased toward the tires *they* selected, while some can't stand
their mother, no matter what.

Then you might as well blindfold yourself and throw darts at the wall.

No no no.
All is not lost.

We don't have perfect information.
But we do have good information.

What you do is read the sidewall.

The sidewall of every passenger car tire sold in the USA contains a wealth
of information about the construction of the tire, the wet and dry traction
of the tire, and the treadwear expectancy of that exact tire.

Do I wish we had the factory datasheets?
Sure.

I doubt the Motor Trend writer is paying for many tires out of his own
pocket. Possibly he's getting paid under the table by Cooper but is that
worth slagging a couple of other brands that he found inferior?

We all know that these magazines are "entertainment".
Even the network news is "entertainment".
Hell ... our own President is sheer entertainment!

There's nothing wrong with reading that magazine, or any magazine (heck, I
used Playboy as my anatomy reference for years in my early days!).

There's nothing wrong with reading the magazine.
But let's be realistic.

That wasn't a "tire review".
It was a shill for the Cooper tire marketing guys.

Nothing wrong with that - it's entertainment (which is why they brought
Unser in driving a Corvette since it had nothing whatsoever to do with
rating the passenger car tires).

My point is that you're never going to find anything better for *all*
tires, than the sidewall of *every* tire.

Sure, you can get a factory datasheet of one or two tires, but you'll never
get that detailed information for all the tires you are considering.

The must have bought the topspeed author a few beers too:
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/cooper-...-ar163761.html

Notice the content of the first sentences of that article by Christian Moe?
It's essentially the exact same first and last sentences of the MT article
by Jason Udy.

They both ran through the same tests at the same track at the same time
using the same cars using the same tires?

The article says a dozen journalists were handed this "opportunity".
So it's not surprising that two different journalists wrote stories based
on their sanctioned "business trip" (for that is what it was).

But, like the guy said, buying tires is boring. Not sucking completely
is the main criteria.

Those articles were lock stock and barrel orchestrated from start to finish
by the Cooper Marketing Team.

There's nothing wrong with reading that article.
* All I'm saying is that the article was entertainment.
* I'm saying the article was run by Cooper Marketing.
* I'm saying the journalists were given an opportunity to write a "story".
* And they were certainly fed the exact same marketing blurbs.

I'm saying they reported exactly zero measurements.
* They didn't even report the lap times.
* And their 'tests' had no controls whatsoever (not even a placebo).

Clearly - it's entertainment and not science.
More to the point - it's MARKETING and not science.

Nothing wrong with that.
But, the blanket statements that Cooper beats Pirelli and Hancook are not
supported by anything in the articles.

I'm not saying Cooper isn't better, nor that Pirelli and Hancook are
anythign special to beat - all I'm saying is that the articles were pure
Cooper marketing and magazine entertainment.

They were not tire reviews.

I did not chose the OEM tires, Bridgestone Potenza 92E's.
You probably do what most people do, including me.
The market research I quoted said that most people choose OE tires early in
the life of the vehicle, where they stray further and further away as the
vehicle ages.

The Bridgestones on the first Yaris were worn and I planned to replace
them in the spring with some other brand. However, the Yaris did not
survive a head on collision with a snow plow.

Yikes. I hope everyone was ok.

The second Yaris came with
the same tires, which I replaced with Coopers when they wore out. The
92E's are not bad for ride quality, noise, and traction but the tread
life sucks and they're quite expensive when you're not Toyota buying
them by the boatload.

The problem here is that most of us (all of us?) trust our own experience
far more than we trust others' experience.

That's human nature.

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 22:10:18 -0600, rbowman wrote:

Okay, I get it. Every magazine writer is a complete asshole bought off
by the local friendly sales guy.

I went in with an open mind, but I have read car magazines before,
especially when I was a kid, and they are fantastic for entertainment.

Why do you think Cooper marketing brought in Unser driving a Corvette on
the Cooper tires anyway with the author riding shotgun? It's all
entertainment. It wasn't supposed to be a tire test.

If it was a tire test, they would have measured *something* (anything!)
But they reported absolutely ZERO measurements. Zero!
What kind of tire test is that?

A thousand words of some author praising the Cooper marketing guys.
It's great entertainment; but it wasn't even close to a "tire test".

Even if it was a tire test, it only "tested" three tires, none of which are
the size and brand of mine nor the size and brands I was looking at nor
anyone else - so - it was useless as a tire test. Great for entertainment;
but useless as a tire test.

What's sad is that you apparently *thought* it was a tire test.
That's a very scary thing.

Do you realize what that "test" really was?
Or, do you still think it was actually a tire test?

Please, dear God ... don't tell me you still think it was really a tire
test. Please ... renew my faith in the innate intelligence of humans.
Please Dear God.

Every civilian reviewer that laid out
$600 thinks whatever he bought is the greatest thing since sex. Nobody
publishes reliable data.

This statement is where we disagree.
To my knowledge, only two entities publish "reliable data".
1. Consumers Union (aka Consumer Reports), and,
2. The sidewall of every passenger tire sold in the United States

Unfortunately, when I look at CR reports, they don't have every tire I'm
looking at, but the good news is that every sidewall of every tire has the
"reliable data" that you say doesn't exist.

Does the sidewall have reliable data on overall tire construction? Yes.
Does the sidewall have reliable data on wet straight traction? Yes.
Does the sidewall have reliable data on average dry traction? Sort of.
Does the sidewall have reliable data on treadwear life? Sort of.
----------
Does the sidwall have reliable data on anything else? No.
----------

The consumer is screwed.

No they are not.

Every tire has reasonably reliable data on construction, traction, and
tread life.

Would I like more data printed on the sidewall? Sure.
But that's good enough to pick tires by.

Certainly it's *far* better than that "tire review".

I'll go you one
better. A major chain in the western US, Les Schwab's, which I've bought
tires from, tends to sell tires with their own house models and brands.
I've bought tires from them, never had problems, and their service is
great, but good luck trying to find out anything about a 'Road Control
Touring A/S'.

That's my entire point, which I said earlier, which is that the sidewall of
*every* tire gives you reasonably reliable data about the construction,
traction, and treadwear of that exact tire.

That's printed on *every* passenger tire.

Now, some people will tell me they get "factory analysis" and "factory
tests" and "factory data" for their (racing?) tires - which is fantastic if
they can get that information - because - Lord Knows - the factory knows
all of that.

But good luck on getting factory datasheets on all the tires you're
considering.

Even CR, which is an OK magazine (they are just ok though), doesn't rate
all the tires.

All you have that is reliable for all tires, is what's printed on the
sidewall. To ignore that information would be foolish.

Does the sidewall have reliable data on overall tire construction? Yes.
Does the sidewall have reliable data on wet straight traction? Yes.
Does the sidewall have reliable data on average dry traction? Sort of.
Does the sidewall have reliable data on treadwear life? Sort of.
----------
Does the sidwall have reliable data on anything else? No.
----------


You forgot date code...

You don't want old tires.

m

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:47:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You forgot date code...

You don't want old tires.

That's a good point.
Thanks for bringing that up.

There is a date code on every tire.
And a plant code and sort of serial number.

That date code doesn't work well for online tire buying.
But if you're in a tire store, you can hand select the latest dates.

Probably they'll not really want you doing that.
At Costco you might get away with hand picking by date code since they
store the tires right there in the store (AFAIK).

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:03:11 +0000 (UTC), Jonas Schneider
wrote:



Then you might as well blindfold yourself and throw darts at the wall.

No no no.
All is not lost.

We don't have perfect information.
But we do have good information.

What you do is read the sidewall.

The sidewall of every passenger car tire sold in the USA contains a wealth
of information about the construction of the tire, the wet and dry traction
of the tire, and the treadwear expectancy of that exact tire.

Do I wish we had the factory datasheets?
Sure.


big snip


The problem here is that most of us (all of us?) trust our own experience
far more than we trust others' experience.

That's human nature.

Bought new tires today. Trusted my own experience and consulted with
the dealer. They are the same spec as the OEM tire on my car, but not
the same brand. Why? Because even though the sidewall spec was good,
the Michelin tires were crap. They never rode smooth even though the
balance was checked and they were rotated. Vibration started at 45
and got worse with speed. Very bad at 80 and up.

I finally got rid of them and put on a set of Nokian entyre 2.0.
Steers better, rides better, and smooth to 100 mph, the fastest I
tried so far.

There is more to a good tire than the specs on the sidewall. They have
to be put together properly too.

As for price, I got them from a local dealer for $2 more than on line
prices so that is a plus for me.

After 10k or so I can give a better review to see how they are holding
up. I've had Nokian WRG3 on another car and like them, but now
retired, I'm not planning in driving is snow any more.

replying to Jonas Schneider, Captain Obvious-er wrote:
Wow.... you bought a no-name chinese tire at a lower price than a quality
name brand tire. So what's the point you're trying to make?

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/mainte...n-1127932-.htm

On Friday, August 16, 2019 at 11:14:06 AM UTC-4, Captain Obvious-er wrote:
replying to Jonas Schneider, Captain Obvious-er wrote:
Wow.... you bought a no-name chinese tire at a lower price than a quality
name brand tire. So what's the point you're trying to make?

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/mainte...n-1127932-.htm

This is an old thread, but I can't help but point out how the person who
started this thread sure sounds like a certain poster that shows up here
once in a while. Besides all the complex analysis while overlooking the
obvious, he mounts his tires at home. That's a clue.....

And notably absent in that first post is what the two brands of tires
were. Like you say, it could be a well known, respected tire versus
a Chinese no name. Still, having said that, from what I've seen on
the internet, lots of people that never have bought a Chinese tire,
slam them as junk, while people who actually have them all seem to say
they are fine, better than they expected, etc.

I'll find out. I recently bought cheap Chinese tires from Walmart.
I was almost forced into it. I needed tires for my old classic Mercedes
that uses 14" wheels. Very few choices today in a tire that size with
the load and speed rating, etc. But I found Lionheart, which is Chinese
and they were only $38, which sure surprised me. One thing I can say,
the existing tires were BF Goodrich Traction T/A, bought from a local
dealer. The wheels had lots of weights on them to balance them. One
had about two dozen .25 ounce weights. With the new Chinese tires,
only a couple of weights. So, apparently these tires are more even,
better balanced than the former tires. Also, people who say tires from
China or Indonesia, or wherever can't be good, many of the major brands
are making their tires in those or similar countries today. They could
still be better than other tires, because they are better designed and
manufactured, but I also think it's a mistake to just dismiss Chinese
tires as no good. So far these tires are perfectly fine. How long they
last, we'll see. I recently replaced tires on the BMW, those were
Michelins and they went 100K miles, which sure surprised me. So there,
extra cost upfront paid off.

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:09:25 PM UTC-4, Jonas Schneider wrote:
For years, I have been buying tires from TireRack, opting to mount them and
static balance them myself at home.

This week, I called TireRack, to order a set of four passenger tires, where
I picked a traction A, temperature A, and treadwear 400 tire, with load
range 99 and speed W, where the price, shipped to my door, was $375 all
included.

I had a friend over who suggested Simple Tire, so trying them just to
compare, I was shocked that the same set of four tires, same brand, size,
model, and everything, shipped to my door was just under three hundred
bucks.

Tires are commodities, where, in general, commodities are already selling
for the lowest price, where volume makes huge differences, but we already
know TireRack has huge volume.

How can Simple Tire basically sell the same tire commodity for a whopping
twenty percent less, all things considered? Twenty percent is huge for a
commodity.

Have you found that tire prices are dropping drastically?

I bought a set of tires at Mavis last week. Their price was 15% below TireRack.com.