notbob wrote: " Later, at a Discount Tires" store, the
shop droid performed a "proper alignment" and told me the tires mean,
"nothing".

nb"

I'm inclined to go along with the discount
tire place! Design, condition, and
alignment of suspension mean a lot more
than old vs new tires, cheap vs top of the
line tires. I've driven every kind of tire -
from budget to the best, and the biggest
difference I feel is from suspension and
amount of steering assist.

Chaya Eve wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 02:08:04 -0400, "Steve W." wrote:

What you feel is known as feathering, one side of the tread block wears
more than the other. If you looked at the end of the block it would
appear as a wedge.

It is commonly caused by improper toe settings and if on one edge only
by improper camber angle as well. BUT it can also be caused by using a
common tire on a vehicle that is driven aggressively. IE high speed
cornering. That places a lot of weight on the outer edge of the tire and
tries to force it to roll under. That will wear the outer edges rapidly.

Now if you had one spot that was "normal" then a wear spot then "normal"
going all the way around the tire that would be cupping. That is
normally a suspension wear problem.

That was a far better answer than I had expected so I appreciate your
expertise. The vehicle was aligned but probably about 2 years ago (while
the tires are about a year old).

The car is driven on a five mile hill every day with scores of hairpins but
it's NEVER driven fast. Those turns are made probably at 20 to 25 MPH (you
can't take the turns any faster and stay on your side of the road).

Could that steep (10% or so) continuously twisting 5-miles each way every
day have caused the "feathering" you explained my "stairstepping" to be?

That would do it. Especially if you travel it in both directions.
Downhill places much more weight on the front end and will wear the
tires faster. I would probably rotate the tires more often to try to
compensate for the wear. You might want to step up to a stiffer sidewall
and maybe even add some camber to even out the wear on the tires a bit.


--
Steve W.

On 07/07/2017 10:17 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 21:56:34 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:45:16 +1000, Xeno
wrote:

You should be buying food and rotating tyres as a natural response to
life in general. Both are necessary.

Not everyone recommends rotation. It's not even possible on some
vehicles. Just replace them in pairs as they wear out. I've personally
never rotated my tires on any car, but that's admittedly just my
choice. In fact, on the car we're talking about, the feathered tires
are probably noisy anyway, so she'd just be moving the noise to the
back, where it might be even worse.
Recommendation on the 4runner is front to back only I move mine from
front to back every time I switch seasinal tires on both of my
vehicles.


That's my plan. Put the studs on the opposite end from where I removed
them last spring, same with the road tires. It comes close to the 5000
mile Toyota recommends.

On 07/07/2017 12:42 PM, Bob F wrote:
Slowing down might make a big difference.

From reading the thread if she goes any slower she'll be parked in the
road.

In rec.autos.tech, on Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:27:02 -0400,
wrote:



You ARE going "too fast" for the tires and conditions. Again - what
vehicle, and what tire - and WHAT PRESSURE are you running. Placard
pressure for stock tires is about 5psi too low for best cornering wear
on most cars - and for heavy cornering with front wheel drive mabee a
bit more. I generally run8 to 10 psi over placard pressure - and I get
even tire wear and very good tire life.

But doesn't the higher pressure make the ride a whole lot bumpier,
unless the road is perfectly flat?

On 07/07/2017 11:07 PM, micky wrote:
In rec.autos.tech, on Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:27:02 -0400,
wrote:



You ARE going "too fast" for the tires and conditions. Again - what
vehicle, and what tire - and WHAT PRESSURE are you running. Placard
pressure for stock tires is about 5psi too low for best cornering wear
on most cars - and for heavy cornering with front wheel drive mabee a
bit more. I generally run8 to 10 psi over placard pressure - and I get
even tire wear and very good tire life.

But doesn't the higher pressure make the ride a whole lot bumpier,
unless the road is perfectly flat?


No. In modern cars you float on a magic cushion of air. otoh, she did
say 4runner. At least for the first generation nothing could make the
ride any worse.

On 8/07/2017 2:17 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 21:56:34 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:45:16 +1000, Xeno
wrote:

You should be buying food and rotating tyres as a natural response to
life in general. Both are necessary.

Not everyone recommends rotation. It's not even possible on some
vehicles. Just replace them in pairs as they wear out. I've personally
never rotated my tires on any car, but that's admittedly just my
choice. In fact, on the car we're talking about, the feathered tires
are probably noisy anyway, so she'd just be moving the noise to the
back, where it might be even worse.
Recommendation on the 4runner is front to back only I move mine from
front to back every time I switch seasinal tires on both of my
vehicles.

Indeed. Some tyres do not like their rotation direction reversed so
switching front with rear on the same side is the norm there. Some
manufacturers specify a diagonal swap. As always, manufacturers advice
is best followed.

--

Xeno

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 01:07:27 -0400, micky
wrote:

In rec.autos.tech, on Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:27:02 -0400,
wrote:



You ARE going "too fast" for the tires and conditions. Again - what
vehicle, and what tire - and WHAT PRESSURE are you running. Placard
pressure for stock tires is about 5psi too low for best cornering wear
on most cars - and for heavy cornering with front wheel drive mabee a
bit more. I generally run8 to 10 psi over placard pressure - and I get
even tire wear and very good tire life.

But doesn't the higher pressure make the ride a whole lot bumpier,
unless the road is perfectly flat?
5PSI is almost undetectable and 10PSI on a 70 series tire still rides
a lot better than a "properly inflated" 60 series.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:27:29 +1000, Xeno
wrote:

On 8/07/2017 2:17 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 21:56:34 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:45:16 +1000, Xeno
wrote:

You should be buying food and rotating tyres as a natural response to
life in general. Both are necessary.

Not everyone recommends rotation. It's not even possible on some
vehicles. Just replace them in pairs as they wear out. I've personally
never rotated my tires on any car, but that's admittedly just my
choice. In fact, on the car we're talking about, the feathered tires
are probably noisy anyway, so she'd just be moving the noise to the
back, where it might be even worse.
Recommendation on the 4runner is front to back only I move mine from
front to back every time I switch seasinal tires on both of my
vehicles.

Indeed. Some tyres do not like their rotation direction reversed so
switching front with rear on the same side is the norm there. Some
manufacturers specify a diagonal swap. As always, manufacturers advice
is best followed.
But do you follow the tire manufacturer's instructions or the
vehicle?
You can NOT go wrong doing a 4 way front to back only rotation.

On 7/8/2017 1:07 AM, micky wrote:
In rec.autos.tech, on Thu, 06 Jul 2017 17:27:02 -0400,
wrote:



You ARE going "too fast" for the tires and conditions. Again - what
vehicle, and what tire - and WHAT PRESSURE are you running. Placard
pressure for stock tires is about 5psi too low for best cornering wear
on most cars - and for heavy cornering with front wheel drive mabee a
bit more. I generally run8 to 10 psi over placard pressure - and I get
even tire wear and very good tire life.

But doesn't the higher pressure make the ride a whole lot bumpier,
unless the road is perfectly flat?


I run 5# over and don't really notice any difference but handling is
improved. At 10# over I imagine you'd see some difference. May be
justifiable for the performance gains on tight turns.

In any case, it sounds like a great road to drive on. One of my
favorite drives was going over the Futa Pass in Italy. This is where
Ducati tests their bikes for performance on turns. There are other
roads with tighter turn, but they are shorter than this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ding-road.html

Notice the rules on passing with a solid line. This is common there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuq4RYiXPrI

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:19:04 +1000, Xeno wrote:

You have a solid live rear axle in that vehicle. There is no possibility
of a camber or toe adjustment at the rear. There is no change in camber
due to suspension deflections.

Thank you for confirming why the rear tires could wear flat while the front
tires seem to wear, as others said, on the outside edge (feathering) due
perhaps to the excessive camber due to the tires "rolling" on the downhill
20mph steep 10% many curves.

My "problem" with doing another alignment is that one was done two years
ago due to tires being 'wasted' but in this case, I don't want to waste an
entire brand-new tire just to doublecheck that alignment.

I realize this is a philosophical issue but it seems to me to be a crime
that alignment costs are such that they waste one of the four things
they're designed to save. In the case of the 4Runner, they waste one of two
things they're trying to save (the front tires).

It's a philosophical issue though, because it's the same cost:benefit issue
you make when you decide to get a heart transplant or a back operation.

Assuming costs in my area are about $100 (on sale) for an alignment and
about $100 per tire (includes mounting), the philosophical issue is that
the alignment costs 1/2 of what you're trying to save.

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?

On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 20:54:11 -0400, "Steve W." wrote:

That would do it. Especially if you travel it in both directions.
Downhill places much more weight on the front end and will wear the
tires faster. I would probably rotate the tires more often to try to
compensate for the wear. You might want to step up to a stiffer sidewall
and maybe even add some camber to even out the wear on the tires a bit.

Thank you for that advice of
* Downhill twisting causes more front end wear than uphills
* Rotate more often
* Stiffer sidewall might help
* (less positive) camber might help

On the camber, if my search results are correct, the outside edge tire wear
would be due to too much positive camber (top spread out). That seems to
indicate that I would *lessen* the (positive) camber (get it closer to zero
than it is now).

Is that the correct direction?

On the "stiffer sidewalls", I searched for what that means in terms of
beign able to actually choose the stiffer sidewall between two tires was
the aspect ratio and the load range.

Is that correct?

I'm not likely to get a "shorter" tire aspect ratio so the only viable
option left is the higher load range (like going from 102S to 105S).

Are you suggesting that a higher load range tire will have less outside
edge feathering?

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 14:36:03 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:19:04 +1000, Xeno wrote:

You have a solid live rear axle in that vehicle. There is no possibility
of a camber or toe adjustment at the rear. There is no change in camber
due to suspension deflections.

Thank you for confirming why the rear tires could wear flat while the front
tires seem to wear, as others said, on the outside edge (feathering) due
perhaps to the excessive camber due to the tires "rolling" on the downhill
20mph steep 10% many curves.

My "problem" with doing another alignment is that one was done two years
ago due to tires being 'wasted' but in this case, I don't want to waste an
entire brand-new tire just to doublecheck that alignment.

I realize this is a philosophical issue but it seems to me to be a crime
that alignment costs are such that they waste one of the four things
they're designed to save. In the case of the 4Runner, they waste one of two
things they're trying to save (the front tires).

It's a philosophical issue though, because it's the same cost:benefit issue
you make when you decide to get a heart transplant or a back operation.

Assuming costs in my area are about $100 (on sale) for an alignment and
about $100 per tire (includes mounting), the philosophical issue is that
the alignment costs 1/2 of what you're trying to save.

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.

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?

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:32:25 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

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?

The way you're looking at this, there's no point in doing anything.
Once the tires are feathered, there is nothing you can do - they are
essentially ruined. If they are not dangerously worn, and not noisy
enough yet to drive you nuts, then just forget about it. You can do an
alignment when you finally replace the tires.

At the same time, it would be nice to know that your front suspension
and steering parts are not dangerously worn, and that should be
checked in an alignment. But it's your car, your life, and your money,
so do whatever you want. You've gotten solid advice here, you just
have to make a decision.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 14:36:03 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:19:04 +1000, Xeno wrote:

You have a solid live rear axle in that vehicle. There is no possibility
of a camber or toe adjustment at the rear. There is no change in camber
due to suspension deflections.

Thank you for confirming why the rear tires could wear flat while the front
tires seem to wear, as others said, on the outside edge (feathering) due
perhaps to the excessive camber due to the tires "rolling" on the downhill
20mph steep 10% many curves.

My "problem" with doing another alignment is that one was done two years
ago due to tires being 'wasted' but in this case, I don't want to waste an
entire brand-new tire just to doublecheck that alignment.

Checking the alignment does NOTHING to damage or waste a tire. Get it
in and have the alignment checked before the tires you moved from the
rear to the front get damaged, and then adjust your tire pressure up
to 5PSI higher than the plackard recommended pressure. Can almost
guarantee a confirmed good alignment and higher pressures WILL solve
the problem

I realize this is a philosophical issue but it seems to me to be a crime
that alignment costs are such that they waste one of the four things
they're designed to save. In the case of the 4Runner, they waste one of two
things they're trying to save (the front tires).

No they don't. Alignments SAVE the tires.

It's a philosophical issue though, because it's the same cost:benefit issue
you make when you decide to get a heart transplant or a back operation.

No, the heart transplant has, statistically, better than an 80% chance
of solving a heart problem, while back surgery has only something less
than 30% chance of fixing a back problem.

Assuming costs in my area are about $100 (on sale) for an alignment and
about $100 per tire (includes mounting), the philosophical issue is that
the alignment costs 1/2 of what you're trying to save.

If you are running $100 tires on a 4 runner you are not running the
right tires.

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 are WAY out to lunch with your "philosophizing"

Just FIX it.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 14:36:04 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 20:54:11 -0400, "Steve W." wrote:

That would do it. Especially if you travel it in both directions.
Downhill places much more weight on the front end and will wear the
tires faster. I would probably rotate the tires more often to try to
compensate for the wear. You might want to step up to a stiffer sidewall
and maybe even add some camber to even out the wear on the tires a bit.

Thank you for that advice of
* Downhill twisting causes more front end wear than uphills
* Rotate more often
* Stiffer sidewall might help
* (less positive) camber might help

On the camber, if my search results are correct, the outside edge tire wear
would be due to too much positive camber (top spread out). That seems to
indicate that I would *lessen* the (positive) camber (get it closer to zero
than it is now).

Is that the correct direction?

On the "stiffer sidewalls", I searched for what that means in terms of
beign able to actually choose the stiffer sidewall between two tires was
the aspect ratio and the load range.

Is that correct?

I'm not likely to get a "shorter" tire aspect ratio so the only viable
option left is the higher load range (like going from 102S to 105S).

Are you suggesting that a higher load range tire will have less outside
edge feathering?
Put 70 series LT tires on and run at elevated pressure. You do NOT
want "passenger car" tires on that vehicle. It is a "light truck" and
should have "light truck" or at least SUV tires on it..

Take the word of a retired former Toyota Service Manager, who has also
had experience in Rallye driving. The firstand simplest thing to do is
AIR UP the tires by at least 5 PSI. The next SMART thing to do is get
the alignment verified. When the tires need replacement replace with a
heavier duty tire - an LT rated tire is recommended on that vehicle,
and if it has the 265 65 tires on it, fo to 245 70 instead. Reducing
the width of rubber on the road will reduce the instability of the
tread on hard turns.

It's not a race car - you don't need wide meats on it.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:32:25 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

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?
You can have an alignment CHECKED - if no adjustment is required,
for a whole lot less than $100 if you get it to the right shop.
Also, you do not need a "4 wheel" alighnment. The toe in can be easily
checked, even without a fancy alignment machine, by anyone worthy to
call himself a mechanic. Less than half an hour's work either way if
no adjustment is required.
Either way, I'd pay to MAKE SURE rather than take a chance on having
to keep throwing tires at it.

That said - in YOUR SITUATION, the first thing I would do is check and
verify tire pressures, and AIR UP 5 PSI.

Chaya Eve wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 20:54:11 -0400, "Steve W." wrote:

That would do it. Especially if you travel it in both directions.
Downhill places much more weight on the front end and will wear the
tires faster. I would probably rotate the tires more often to try to
compensate for the wear. You might want to step up to a stiffer sidewall
and maybe even add some camber to even out the wear on the tires a bit.

Thank you for that advice of
* Downhill twisting causes more front end wear than uphills
* Rotate more often
* Stiffer sidewall might help
* (less positive) camber might help

On the camber, if my search results are correct, the outside edge tire wear
would be due to too much positive camber (top spread out). That seems to
indicate that I would *lessen* the (positive) camber (get it closer to zero
than it is now).

Is that the correct direction?

Add some negative camber to move the tires closer in at the top,
correct. That would place some extra weight on the inner edge of the
tires and reduce the amount of wear at the outer edge.


On the "stiffer sidewalls", I searched for what that means in terms of
beign able to actually choose the stiffer sidewall between two tires was
the aspect ratio and the load range.

Is that correct?

Correct. The higher the speed rating and the higher the load rating the
more rubber and plies are in the sidewalls. That makes the sidewall
stiffer. That will work to prevent the edges from trying to roll under
causing the wear you are seeing. The drawback is that the stiffer tires
reduce ride quality.


I'm not likely to get a "shorter" tire aspect ratio so the only viable
option left is the higher load range (like going from 102S to 105S).

Are you suggesting that a higher load range tire will have less outside
edge feathering?

Yes. Raising the air pressure will also stiffen the tire, but it can
cause issues of it's own.

--
Steve W.

On 7/8/2017 12:32 PM, Chaya Eve wrote:
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?


You really don't have a clue on this. No tires will be wasted. Keep in
mind though, some damage is done and nothing will make it better, just
stop it from getting worse.

There is no way to eliminate the possibility it is the alignment unless
you have it checked. Definitely should be done before getting new tires
or putting the rear tires up front.

OTOH, I'd not be driving up and own steep twisting roads on $100 tires
either.

Are these directional tires by chance?

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 12:55:24 -0400, wrote:

Take the word of a retired former Toyota Service Manager, who has also
had experience in Rallye driving. The firstand simplest thing to do is
AIR UP the tires by at least 5 PSI. The next SMART thing to do is get
the alignment verified. When the tires need replacement replace with a
heavier duty tire - an LT rated tire is recommended on that vehicle,
and if it has the 265 65 tires on it, fo to 245 70 instead. Reducing
the width of rubber on the road will reduce the instability of the
tread on hard turns.

It's not a race car - you don't need wide meats on it.

Thanks for the advice of harder pressure which I will certainly do!

I agree with you on the lack of need for width.

It has 225s on there now, which is the OEM tire.
Nothing wider than that is needed I agree.

The rest is looks but it's an SUV for heaven's sake so all that low-profile
stuff is for posers.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Thomas
wrote:

Are these directional tires by chance?

The tires can be mounted either whitewall or blackwall out.

The shop told my kid that they could rotate in a cross or keep to the same
side (since the spare is a different width) but they would charge extra to
unmount and remount all four tires (blackwall to sidewall).

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:22:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I'd not be driving up and own steep twisting roads on $100 tires
either.

Is that really a sound logical statement?

Here's my super simple logic.
* The tires meet all USA legal specs for the vehicle including exceeding
the load range (105S versus 102S).

You imply that a tire that meets or exceeds the specs for the car is
unsafe, just because I paid $100 for that tire (mounted & balanced).

Maybe I'm missing something critical but I can't find the logic in your
argument?

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:01:58 -0400, wrote:

You can have an alignment CHECKED - if no adjustment is required,
for a whole lot less than $100 if you get it to the right shop.

That's the HOLY GRAIL of services if it exists.

What would be perfect is a "free alignment check" and no charge if the
alignment doesn't need adjusting - but that may never happen for two
reasons.
* Alignment is a range (it's not just a single number), and,
* Nobody offers that anyway (that I can find).

Second-best (and perfectly acceptable) is a $25 alignment check-only, just
like I go to diagnostic-only smog stations, where all they do is MEASURE
the front toe and front camber (which is all that I need).

Also, you do not need a "4 wheel" alighnment.

I've been reading up on alignment where the Toyota only has front
camber/caster (which is one setting) and toe, so that's all I need are
those two things.

If I can find a shop who will do those two CHECKS for around $25 that would
make logical sense.

But to pay for an entire mounted tire just to save on a mounted tire seems
like throwing good money away logically as it was aligned two years ago
(and at that time, it needed it because the front left was wearing really
fast).

Now they're wearing evenly.

The toe in can be easily
checked, even without a fancy alignment machine, by anyone worthy to
call himself a mechanic. Less than half an hour's work either way if
no adjustment is required.

I googled how to check toe and LOTS of people seem to be using string.
All I need is to tie a string to the center point and then cut the ends off
on each side at the center of the tire tread in front and in back at the
midpoint of the wheel axle.

That's a cost of four strings!

Either way, I'd pay to MAKE SURE rather than take a chance on having
to keep throwing tires at it.

I completely understand and agree that if EVERY tire was wearing unusually
fast (which is what happened two years ago to the left front tire), then a
$100 alignment makes perfect logical sense.

But to pay the cost of an entire 40,0000-mile tire just for a remote chance
of getting a thousand or two thousand miles out of the process seems like a
horrid cost:benefit ratio to me.

A $100 alignment is an entire $100 tire completely wasted (in terms of
opportunity cost) if the $100 alignment is not needed.

That said - in YOUR SITUATION, the first thing I would do is check and
verify tire pressures, and AIR UP 5 PSI.

Here's what I definitely will do given the really sound advice.
* Since I never check PSI, I'll start using 40psi (35 is normal)
* Next time I'll get stiffer sidewalls (105S instead of 102S)
* I will rotate every change of seasons (I cross hatch with no spare)
* I will take the downhills slower (if I can but I'm always the slowest)
* I will look for a $25 toe/camber-caster only check around town

To me, if a $25 toe/camber-caster only check existed, it would be a no
brainer. But to definitely throw away a perfectly good $100 40K-mile tire
in opportunity cost just to possibly save a couple thousand miles of wear
on two tires seems not like an obvious cost:benefit logical decision of a
$100 alignment.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 09:46:58 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

At the same time, it would be nice to know that your front suspension
and steering parts are not dangerously worn, and that should be
checked in an alignment. But it's your car, your life, and your money,
so do whatever you want. You've gotten solid advice here, you just
have to make a decision.

I agree with you that the advice is "solid" here.
* It could be normal given the steep slow many curves, or,
* It could be both the camber and toe is too positive.

The only way to tell whether that's the case is to sink $100 into an
alignment.

I don't think it's at the level of "dangerously worn" though but you seem
to think so (but on what evidence?).

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:02:50 -0400, "Steve W." wrote:

Thank you for that advice of
* Downhill twisting causes more front end wear than uphills
* Rotate more often
* Stiffer sidewall might help
* (less positive) camber might help

On the camber, if my search results are correct, the outside edge tire wear
would be due to too much positive camber (top spread out). That seems to
indicate that I would *lessen* the (positive) camber (get it closer to zero
than it is now).

Is that the correct direction?

Add some negative camber to move the tires closer in at the top,
correct. That would place some extra weight on the inner edge of the
tires and reduce the amount of wear at the outer edge.


On the "stiffer sidewalls", I searched for what that means in terms of
beign able to actually choose the stiffer sidewall between two tires was
the aspect ratio and the load range.

Is that correct?

Correct. The higher the speed rating and the higher the load rating the
more rubber and plies are in the sidewalls. That makes the sidewall
stiffer. That will work to prevent the edges from trying to roll under
causing the wear you are seeing. The drawback is that the stiffer tires
reduce ride quality.


I'm not likely to get a "shorter" tire aspect ratio so the only viable
option left is the higher load range (like going from 102S to 105S).

Are you suggesting that a higher load range tire will have less outside
edge feathering?

Yes. Raising the air pressure will also stiffen the tire, but it can
cause issues of it's own.

That all sounds like in the right direction!
* higher air pressure to reduce "roll" (maybe 36psi to 41 psi)
* less positive camber & less positive caster to reduce feathering
* stiffer sidewalls (using higher load range numbers) than OEM
* less wide tread contact patch (it's got the OEM 225s on it now)

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:51:14 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 09:46:58 -0700, Bill Vanek
wrote:

At the same time, it would be nice to know that your front suspension
and steering parts are not dangerously worn, and that should be
checked in an alignment. But it's your car, your life, and your money,
so do whatever you want. You've gotten solid advice here, you just
have to make a decision.

I agree with you that the advice is "solid" here.
* It could be normal given the steep slow many curves, or,
* It could be both the camber and toe is too positive.

The only way to tell whether that's the case is to sink $100 into an
alignment.

I don't think it's at the level of "dangerously worn" though but you seem
to think so (but on what evidence?).

No, I have no reason to think that. What I did say is that they are
ruined, and nothing can change that, even if they are still usable and
safe. If you rotate the tires, you'll just ruin the back tires, too.
The feathering itself does not make them dangerous, but they will
become noisy, if they aren't already.

On 9/07/2017 3:54 PM, Chaya Eve wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:02:50 -0400, "Steve W." wrote:

Thank you for that advice of
* Downhill twisting causes more front end wear than uphills
* Rotate more often
* Stiffer sidewall might help
* (less positive) camber might help

On the camber, if my search results are correct, the outside edge tire wear
would be due to too much positive camber (top spread out). That seems to
indicate that I would *lessen* the (positive) camber (get it closer to zero
than it is now).

Is that the correct direction?

Add some negative camber to move the tires closer in at the top,
correct. That would place some extra weight on the inner edge of the
tires and reduce the amount of wear at the outer edge.


On the "stiffer sidewalls", I searched for what that means in terms of
beign able to actually choose the stiffer sidewall between two tires was
the aspect ratio and the load range.

Is that correct?

Correct. The higher the speed rating and the higher the load rating the
more rubber and plies are in the sidewalls. That makes the sidewall
stiffer. That will work to prevent the edges from trying to roll under
causing the wear you are seeing. The drawback is that the stiffer tires
reduce ride quality.


I'm not likely to get a "shorter" tire aspect ratio so the only viable
option left is the higher load range (like going from 102S to 105S).

Are you suggesting that a higher load range tire will have less outside
edge feathering?

Yes. Raising the air pressure will also stiffen the tire, but it can
cause issues of it's own.

That all sounds like in the right direction!
* higher air pressure to reduce "roll" (maybe 36psi to 41 psi)
* less positive camber & less positive caster to reduce feathering

Camber and caster give you stability at speed. Changing those outside
specs can lead to unintended consequences.
A small amount of positive camber at the front is normal. With no camber
possible at the rear due to a solid live axle, positive camber at the
front reduces cornering power at the front relative to the rear. This
will result in a slight *understeer* and this is good for straight line
stability. Reducing your camber angles at the front will likely result
in an oversteering car. This can be dangerous.
The caster angle creates self aligning torque. A reduction in caster
will make the car less stable.
The car steering geometry specs will have been designed to make your car
safe to drive in all circumstances. In effect, a compromise. If you want
to make changes to factory specs, you really need to know what you are
doing and have a clearly expressed goal. Steering geometry is at best a
compromise. A change for the better in one area may well make another
area more dangerous with regard to vehicle handling.

* stiffer sidewalls (using higher load range numbers) than OEM
* less wide tread contact patch (it's got the OEM 225s on it now)



--

Xeno

On 9/07/2017 3:51 PM, Chaya Eve wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:22:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I'd not be driving up and own steep twisting roads on $100 tires
either.

Is that really a sound logical statement?

Here's my super simple logic.
* The tires meet all USA legal specs for the vehicle including exceeding
the load range (105S versus 102S).

You imply that a tire that meets or exceeds the specs for the car is
unsafe, just because I paid $100 for that tire (mounted & balanced).

Maybe I'm missing something critical but I can't find the logic in your
argument?

The logic is *you get what you pay for*.

Cheap tyres do not perform as well as good quality tyres. I never buy
cheap tyres for my car(s). When the OEMs wear out, I usually fit
Michelins which I have found are not a great deal dearer than the OEM,
and in some cases cheaper, but they grip like baby**** on a blanket. To
me, grip on the road is a factor worth paying for. If you buy tyres on
price alone, you are doing yourself a disservice.

--

Xeno

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:56:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

The car steering geometry specs will have been designed to make your car
safe to drive in all circumstances.

The specs are almost always a *range* so there's room to be at one end or
the other, isn't there?

Chaya Eve wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 12:55:24 -0400, wrote:

Take the word of a retired former Toyota Service Manager, who has also
had experience in Rallye driving. The firstand simplest thing to do is
AIR UP the tires by at least 5 PSI. The next SMART thing to do is get
the alignment verified. When the tires need replacement replace with a
heavier duty tire - an LT rated tire is recommended on that vehicle,
and if it has the 265 65 tires on it, fo to 245 70 instead. Reducing
the width of rubber on the road will reduce the instability of the
tread on hard turns.

It's not a race car - you don't need wide meats on it.

Thanks for the advice of harder pressure which I will certainly do!

For the most part this is true although I have a car that handles much
better when it's 2-5 psi below the number on the door. So try a bit more
air and feel what happens. It will likely help.... but make sure it does.

I agree with you on the lack of need for width.

It has 225s on there now, which is the OEM tire.
Nothing wider than that is needed I agree.

Also... let me point out that some people are very fond of putting all-terrain
tires with aggressive tread on SUVs, and then they wonder why the handling on
the road is poor. This happened to a friend of mine; the tire place sold her
some tires that would have been a very good choice offroad, and she wondered
why her rear-end was hopping so much off the line. Going back to proper road
tires helped a lot.
--sctt
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 9 Jul 2017 09:26:00 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Thanks for the advice of harder pressure which I will certainly do!

For the most part this is true although I have a car that handles much
better when it's 2-5 psi below the number on the door. So try a bit more
air and feel what happens. It will likely help.... but make sure it does.

I have already added a few psi which I actually *like* how it feels. But of
course I'm aware of the butt dyno effect (when I wax my car and change the
oil, it 'feels' faster too so I know that such things are subjective).

It has 225s on there now, which is the OEM tire.
Nothing wider than that is needed I agree.

Also... let me point out that some people are very fond of putting all-terrain
tires with aggressive tread on SUVs, and then they wonder why the handling on
the road is poor.

I agree with you but this is a 2wd which has never been off the shoulder of
the road, so, I don't need poser tires. I treat it like a car.

This happened to a friend of mine; the tire place sold her
some tires that would have been a very good choice offroad, and she wondered
why her rear-end was hopping so much off the line. Going back to proper road
tires helped a lot.

I wish there was some good way of testing tires out beforehand to "feel"
them but it's just impossible. The best you can do is ask friends and read
reviews, but everyone has different requirements and not everyone has the
same vehicle driven the same way (and even if they do, they don't always
say it in the reviews).

So while I like to buy my tires on pure logic, in tires most of that
information is just not available to you for all the tires you might be
considering.

Therefore, I often have to buy tires on published specifications alone,
where the OEM specifications are my starting point (e.g., the load range
and speed range and air pressure and camber and toe, etc.).

It's all homework + logic.
Just like it was at school to get a perfect GPA.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 20:02:58 +1000, Xeno wrote:

The logic is *you get what you pay for*.

If that were actually true, then you just threw 100 years of Marketing
research out the window.

They teach you in business school that you *never* get what you pay for
(and that the people you want to sell your stuff to are those who *think*
you get what you pay for).

They always tell us to have a "good/better/best" lineup, because people
*want* to pay more for "better" stuff, but at the same time they teach us
about 'economies of scale' where you slightly differentiate the product
(e.g., gold-plated trim) so that people will *think* that it's a better
product (even though it's the same product).

Seriously, if anyone truly thinks that you "get what you pay for", they
have never taken a single marketing class in their life because that
statement is never true.

Marketing people can influence prices greatly, where all you get is a lot
of marketing when you pay more for something that you can easily get for
less.

Cheap tyres do not perform as well as good quality tyres.

I'm really sorry to have to be blunt with you, but the only people who say
that are people who compare objects by price are those who known nothing
about the object but they do know numbers so that's why they pick price.

The MARKET sets the price. Do you really think, for example, that a $50,000
Rolex Watch tells better time than a $50 Timex watch?

I never buy cheap tyres for my car(s).

What you care about in tires is measureable "stuff" such as size, traction,
temperature generation, load range, treadwear, noise, comfort, and
handling.

If you can get better "stuff" for less money, then you're paying more for
worse tires.

The iron-clad logic of what I say is inescapable, although I'm never going
to convince anyone who thinks "you get what you pay for" that they are
falling for the oldest trick in the (marketing) book so I do not expect you
to believe a word I am saying.

When the OEMs wear out, I usually fit
Michelins which I have found are not a great deal dearer than the OEM,
and in some cases cheaper, but they grip like baby**** on a blanket. To
me, grip on the road is a factor worth paying for. If you buy tyres on
price alone, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Where did I ever say I buy *anything* on price alone?

Do I look like a person who doesn't use logic when making spending
decisions?

I took too many marketing classes in school to fall for a price-only
comparison. The only things you buy on price alone are commodities.

Depending on your perspective, anything (even tires) can be considered a
commodity - but you and I both do not consider tires to be a commodity.

Propane fuel is a commodity to many people but that doesn't stop marketing
organizations from trying to differentiate their product line (which is
what marketing organizations do). To me, propane from supplier X is the
same as propane from supplier Y even though supplier X might try to tell me
their trucks are prettier or faster or somehow better than supplier Y.

If tires were a commodity to you and to me, then buying on price would be
fine - but neither of us thinks that tires are a commodity.

This is basic marketing 101 so if I'm wrong, then the past thousand years
of business teaching is all wrong and you're right that "you get what you
pay for".

Chaya Eve wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:01:58 -0400, wrote:

You can have an alignment CHECKED - if no adjustment is required,
for a whole lot less than $100 if you get it to the right shop.

That's the HOLY GRAIL of services if it exists.

What would be perfect is a "free alignment check" and no charge if the
alignment doesn't need adjusting - but that may never happen for two
reasons.
* Alignment is a range (it's not just a single number), and,
* Nobody offers that anyway (that I can find).

Second-best (and perfectly acceptable) is a $25 alignment check-only, just
like I go to diagnostic-only smog stations, where all they do is MEASURE
the front toe and front camber (which is all that I need).

I would be very, very suspicious of anyone who did this. They likely have
some kid who knows how to put numbers into the machine doing the job, instead
of an alignment expert doing the work.

It's going to take the tech about half an hour to do the suspension check
over....going around pulling on things and hitting things with a mallet and
getting some sense of the general condition of the suspension. Then he is
going to spend ten or fifteen minutes talking with you about how you drive,
THEN he's going to start measuring the suspension. So figure an hour's time
for a full-priced technician just to look everything over.

Also, you do not need a "4 wheel" alighnment.

I've been reading up on alignment where the Toyota only has front
camber/caster (which is one setting) and toe, so that's all I need are
those two things.

What you MOST need is the guy pushing and prodding and hitting things with a
hammer to make sure everything on the suspension is stable. The actual
alignment on the machine is the easy part and the less important part.

You take it to the tire store, they put it on the machine, they measure it,
they put shims in so everything looks good on the machine and they declare
it aligned. But if you have anything loose and worn, it will be out of
alignment again by the time you get it out of the shop. Before putting it
on the machine you need to verify this isn't the case.

If I can find a shop who will do those two CHECKS for around $25 that would
make logical sense.

But to pay for an entire mounted tire just to save on a mounted tire seems
like throwing good money away logically as it was aligned two years ago
(and at that time, it needed it because the front left was wearing really
fast).

It's maintenance. Every 3,000 miles you change the oil, and you look over
all the hoses and belts and check the fluid levels just to make sure everything
is okay. You're not wasting time or money doing the check just because it
_is_ okay. You spend the time or money to make sure it stays that way. Every
once in a while you need to check the state of the suspension as well.

And yeah, finding someone who actually knows what they are doing and who
can do a careful alignment is rare, and it's worth supporting that person.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 9/07/2017 11:03 PM, Chaya Eve wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:56:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

The car steering geometry specs will have been designed to make your car
safe to drive in all circumstances.

The specs are almost always a *range* so there's room to be at one end or
the other, isn't there?

To make any significant difference to your particular issue, you would
possibly need to go beyond that range.

Have a look at SAI (Steering Axis Inclination) as well. SAI and caster
angles usually increases the positive camber angle of the inside tire
and decreases positive camber angle of the outside tire during a turn
though this will depend on the steering system employed. This is a
designed in effect that you can easily and inadvertently affect when
playing around with other angles.

Unless you have a really good understanding of steering geometry, you
are playing around in the dark.


--

Xeno

On 7/9/2017 1:51 AM, Chaya Eve wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:22:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I'd not be driving up and own steep twisting roads on $100 tires
either.

Is that really a sound logical statement?

Here's my super simple logic.
* The tires meet all USA legal specs for the vehicle including exceeding
the load range (105S versus 102S).

You imply that a tire that meets or exceeds the specs for the car is
unsafe, just because I paid $100 for that tire (mounted & balanced).

Maybe I'm missing something critical but I can't find the logic in your
argument?


Just because a tire meats the minimum specifications does not mean it is
the best tool for the job. Some conditions require more.

My wife's car can happily exist on $100 tires. She rarely goes on the
highway, never drives in snow, rarely goes more than a few miles at a
time. OTOH, I drive some weeks 2000 miles. speeds sometimes in triple
digits, on hills in the snow, on highways in the heat. Do you think the
$100 tire is going to perform as well as a Nokian WR3G? It is about
double the price but can keep you safer in severe condition.

I don't buy on price and minimum specs, I buy on the performance that I
need.

A cheap screwdriver can drive the occasional screw, but if you do it
often you'll find the more expensive ones fit your hand better and thus
work better. Meantime, enjoy your hamburger. I'm having a steak.

On 7/9/2017 9:03 AM, Chaya Eve wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 19:56:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

The car steering geometry specs will have been designed to make your car
safe to drive in all circumstances.

The specs are almost always a *range* so there's room to be at one end or
the other, isn't there?


Interesting that you mention that. yes, there is always a range. yet
you mention that your tires meet the minimum specifications of the auto
manufacturer so they are good enough. Tires come in a rather wide range
of specs and characteristics and in your particular situation, you can
do better with other than minimum.

On 7/9/2017 9:35 AM, Chaya Eve wrote:


Cheap tyres do not perform as well as good quality tyres.

I'm really sorry to have to be blunt with you, but the only people who say
that are people who compare objects by price are those who known nothing
about the object but they do know numbers so that's why they pick price.

The MARKET sets the price. Do you really think, for example, that a $50,000
Rolex Watch tells better time than a $50 Timex watch?

I never buy cheap tyres for my car(s).

What you care about in tires is measureable "stuff" such as size, traction,
temperature generation, load range, treadwear, noise, comfort, and
handling.

I'm really sorry to have to be blunt with you, but you are not
translating this to your real life situation. Seems like you only care
about measurable stuff like meeting minimum requirements, not how the
suit your particular needs.

I do realize you don't really get what you pay for. If you pay 50% more
you are probably getting 25% more in performance, but you have to decide
if you need/want that performance. I drive a fully loaded, every
available option higher end car. I can get to the store just as fast in
a cheap stripped down economy model that is a better value but I choose
not to. It was a choice. The only value is what I justify to myself.



If you can get better "stuff" for less money, then you're paying more for
worse tires.

Sometimes. How are your tires working? Can you get better for less money?




Where did I ever say I buy *anything* on price alone?

Do I look like a person who doesn't use logic when making spending
decisions?


Yes, but twisted logic. I think you are using your knowledge of
marketing to justify you are a cheapskate.



If tires were a commodity to you and to me, then buying on price would be
fine - but neither of us thinks that tires are a commodity.

This is basic marketing 101 so if I'm wrong, then the past thousand years
of business teaching is all wrong and you're right that "you get what you
pay for".


Right, minimum spec is all that matters.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

If tires were a commodity to you and to me, then buying on price would be
fine - but neither of us thinks that tires are a commodity.

Outside of specialty tires, they are a commodity.