On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 11:16:36 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Now you are talking logic!

I buy on value. I never buy on price.

Hence it's a given that my tires are better than the OEM tires.

Better speed rating.
Better load carrying capacity.
Better traction.
Better treadwear.
Quieter tread (less aggressive than OEM since I don't go off road).

Knowing how manufacture's aim for economies of scale, I am sure my tires
cost more than the OEM tires did, but I don't aim for price.

I aim for logical value.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:40:18 +1000, Xeno wrote:

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.

I am well read enough to know that steering geometry gets complex fast
because everything affects everything else.

The manufacturer understood the steering geometry.
The manufacturer understood the tires.

I start with their spec and stay within range.

For example, on tires, the OEM spec is considered, by most people I've
talked to anyway, as a MINIMUM spec. For example, the speed rating (S) is a
minimum spec. If I get an H-rated tire, that's "likely" to be a better tire
than that spec'd by the manufacturer (other things taken into account).

The load range, as I recall, is 102, so, likewise, if I get a load range of
105, I'm getting a "tougher" tire (yes, I know it simply means the weight
it can carry reliably - but there's a manufacturing aspect to the sidewall
to allow it to carry that weight).

To your point of exceeding the range specified by the manufacturer, if I go
to a Z speed rating or a 125 (or whatever) load range, then the compromises
start to take their toll.

Same with alignment.

Everything depends on the numbers but lets say, for the best argument, that
I'm on the high end of the positive camber range, and on the high end of
the positive toe range.

It probably would be a "logical" thing to ask the alignment shop to
consider putting the camber and toe at the lower end of the positive range
if my main goal was to reduce the feathering that occurs on steep slow
downhill corners.

Does that logic make sense (to a point that isn't carried to the extreme)?

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:52:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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

What you're saying is true but what you're also saying is, essentially,
nothing.

It's like me saying that just because an alignment meets minimum
specifications does not mean it's the best alignment for the job.

There's no substance, no meat in those rhetorical sentences.
They're both just rhetoric.

Nothing wrong with rhetoric. But there's no meaningful information in it
that wasn't already agreed upon before the two sentences were uttered.

My wife's car can happily exist on $100 tires.
I realize you think that tires can be measured by dollars, but I must
respectfully disagree.

I'm sure I'm not the only person with marketing degrees here where the
express purpose of the millions of dollars spent on marketing every month
is to make people make exactly the kinds of decisions you seem to be
making.

Hence, I can't fault you for making your buying decisions based on price
but I can only suggest that you use logical reasoning in that we both know
that I can find, for any spec you want to ask about, different tires that
meet that spec at a different price for each tire, all of which meet the
spec.

Price is meaningless in terms of specs. Facts are everything.

The great thing about marketing is that very few people understand anything
I said above, so they fall for every marketing trick in the book. And
that's great because it makes them waste lots of money.

I had one professor who devoted an entire lecture to outlining how a
typical consumer wastes more than half her disposable income because she is
unduly influenced by marketing alone.

She rarely goes on the
highway, never drives in snow, rarely goes more than a few miles at a
time.

Why not get her a less expensive set of tires which are far better than the
ones she has now and then use the remaining disposable income to buy her
flowers?

She gets better tires, and flowers!

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'm never going to be able to give you a degree in economic theory, nor in
marketing, nor even in logic.

If you actually think that price is a reliable indicator of quality, then
I'm never going to change your mind. Never. It's actually great (for
marketing people) that you think that way because you are so easily
manipulated.

For example, do you ever wonder why the Google Pixel was priced *exactly*
the same as the iPhone it wanted to compete with? Think about the beauty in
that very simple marketing decision, and then contrast that with Google's
previous price strategy.

A favorite expression of one of my professors was:
* Marketing is genius.
* People who fall for it are not.

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

I buy on value.
All I use is logic and effort.

To buy on price only takes the absolute minimum of logic but no effort.
To buy on value takes far more logic and far more effort.

Take this simple logic, for example:
* You can buy Craftsman screwdrivers individually, or,
* You can buy a whole set of them for a lower unit price.

The price per screwdriver could be twice as much for the individual
screwdriver than for the set. Assuming you need a set (which is a decent
assumption, and adjusting the unit price to remove the couple of crapware
items they include in the numbers), you can easily have a unit cost for the
set to be about half the unit cost individually.

This is called economies of scale (not scope - which was my bad).

At twice the cost per screwdriver, how is buying screwdrivers individually
going to get you a better screwdriver than buying them as a set?

HINT: Commodities are different than specialty items.

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.

I only buy Craftsman screwdrivers. The ones with the red and blue colors on
the clear plastic handle and with that little ball on top. That's because I
found they seem to work the best for me and I can replace them if I abuse
them (because they're not going to wear out unless I abuse them).

I don't buy the yellow and black handled screwdrivers you see everywhere,
and I don't buy SnapOn screwdrivers either.

I buy Craftsman quality, and the round-top quality inside of Craftsman.
And I buy them, on sale, and as a set (if I need a set that is).

I also give them as gifts to kids who buy their first car (I actually give
them an entire toolbag which I assemble separately for them to put in the
trunk).

Since we are talking about screwdrivers, they periodically go on sale
(Father's day is a good one to aim for), and I can schedule gifts easily.

Why do you insist that if I pay double for the screwdriver, I get a better
screwdriver than if I pay half?

Your argument makes no logical sense to me.

Maybe it makes sense to you and to others to pay twice as much for the same
thing, thinking it's "better" somehow, just because you paid twice as much
for it?

On 9 Jul 2017 09:36:11 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

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.

This makes logical sense that the industry might not benefit from having a
$25 alignment check only.

In a way, one could argue that it's like having an appointment to the
doctor where they only checked your eyes for the need for glasses and
nothing else.

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.

Again this is logical. An hour could easily be $100 shop rate.

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.

I never disagreed that it's best to have the alignment checked.
I only pointed out the "opportunity cost" was an entire mounted tire.

Cost of alignment check = cost of 1 mounted tire

The logic is so inescapable that I was surprised people had trouble with
that math, since it's simple logical math that they teach you in school all
the time ("opportunity cost") although the "true cost" is what I need to
calculate, not just the upfront cost.

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.

Yes. I know. I talk to them while they're aligning my vehicle and I ask
what they're doing. Sometimes they kick me out behind the yellow line but
other times they let me walk around with them.

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.

This is a good point in that it's the standard cost of maintaining a car
just like rotating the tires and changing the oil is.

I just wish it didn't cost as much as the thing it's trying to save!
I think the price point is set too high - but you've made a point that it's
an hour and an hour costs what an hour costs. Period.

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.

Trust in the mechanic is also important. I agree.

On 7/9/2017 12:07 PM, Chaya Eve wrote:

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'm never going to be able to give you a degree in economic theory, nor in
marketing, nor even in logic.

If you actually think that price is a reliable indicator of quality, then
I'm never going to change your mind. Never. It's actually great (for
marketing people) that you think that way because you are so easily
manipulated.

There is no lower priced tire that would give me the performance I need.
Easy logical decision. If there was, I'd buy it. The tire was bought
based on performance, not name brand or anything else.



For example, do you ever wonder why the Google Pixel was priced *exactly*
the same as the iPhone it wanted to compete with? Think about the beauty in
that very simple marketing decision, and then contrast that with Google's
previous price strategy.

A favorite expression of one of my professors was:
* Marketing is genius.
* People who fall for it are not.

I know a guy that started a company that made the clear plastic packing
tape we see on most packages. He tried selling it for less than half
the price of the name brands. Could not sell it. He raised the price
to be 5% less and the sales started coming in. After a few yers he sold
the company and retired.


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

I buy on value.
All I use is logic and effort.

To buy on price only takes the absolute minimum of logic but no effort.
To buy on value takes far more logic and far more effort.

I think we are saying the same thing. I buy on performance I need. No
matter the price, it is not a good value if it does not do the job. A
28 foot ladder is $300. I can get a ladder that will take the same
wight, works just as well and is only $120. Better value? not if it is
20 feet and does not reach my roof.

Take this simple logic, for example:
* You can buy Craftsman screwdrivers individually, or,
* You can buy a whole set of them for a lower unit price.

The price per screwdriver could be twice as much for the individual
screwdriver than for the set. Assuming you need a set (which is a decent
assumption, and adjusting the unit price to remove the couple of crapware
items they include in the numbers), you can easily have a unit cost for the
set to be about half the unit cost individually.

This is called economies of scale (not scope - which was my bad).

At twice the cost per screwdriver, how is buying screwdrivers individually
going to get you a better screwdriver than buying them as a set?

HINT: Commodities are different than specialty items.

Hint: If I only need a #2 Phillips for $5, it is a waste to buy a set
of 10 screwdrivers that will never be used for $10. Unless I can sell
what I won't use.



Since we are talking about screwdrivers, they periodically go on sale
(Father's day is a good one to aim for), and I can schedule gifts easily.

Why do you insist that if I pay double for the screwdriver, I get a better
screwdriver than if I pay half?

Your argument makes no logical sense to me.

You changed the argument. If you are only going to use a screwdriver
one in your life for one screw, it makes no sense to buy a set on sale
at Father's day for gifts. I want to drive that screw today.


Maybe it makes sense to you and to others to pay twice as much for the same
thing, thinking it's "better" somehow, just because you paid twice as much
for it?


Never said that. I buy what I need or buy what I want. Sometimes what
I want does not come in other prices and models. I make the decision,
yes or no based on desire and wallet.

On 7/7/2017 7:41 PM, rbowman wrote:
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.

She said she can hear the tire scrub on the turns. That suggests to me
she's not going that slow.

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 09:04:46 -0700, Bill Vanek
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.

I am quite aware of exactly what you're saying, so I welcome that you are a
logical thinker when you say that passenger car tires are a commodity.

To the manufacturer, passenger tires are commodities (almost certainly).
To most consumers, passenger tires "should" be a commodity too!

I knew that would come up so you may note that I crafted the sentences when
I was talking about commodities to indicate that the buyer decides whether
something is a commodity (to them) or not.

I used the example of propane gas since it's one of the definitions of a
commodity (as are pork bellies) but to any one person, if the marketing
organization can convince them that their propane is better than someone
else's propane, or that their pork bellies are somehow better, then they
can charge more, which is really the name of the game.

So, yes, tires are a commodity.
But if I said that here, they'd kill me.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 11:37:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
How are your tires working?

Based on the logical and sound advice given here?
Nobody who was logical suggested the problem was the tires themselves.

Sure, they suggested higher air pressure, but that's not the tires.
They suggested a smaller width, but I'm already at OEM width (225mm) where
they were assuming 245 and larger widths.
Some suggested thicker sidewalls which I already have with a greater load
range (I actually think the OEM load range is 99, but I'd have to check but
I already have a higher load range).
They suggested slower downhill cornering, but that's not the tires' fault.
They suggested less +camber & less +toe, but that's not the tire's either.
They suggested more frequent rotation, but that's not a tire's fault.
And they suggested better treadwear, but 380 isn't a terrible rating.

So to your point, nobody logical suggested the fault was the tires.

Can you get better for less money?

I bought the best value at the time for my tires.

Could I get better value now?
Maybe.

Everything depends on the value of the current options, where tire prices
change by large percentages between models (but not overall).

What I mean by that is that any individual model may change in price (up or
down) in any given month of the year, but some other tire model will also
change in price (up or down) in that same given month so I have to look at
value at any given time, where the only time that matters is when I need
tires (since you can't stock them easily like you can commodities like
propane which don't degrade over time and which fit innocuously in a 1000
gallon tank).

If I get a better value with economies of scale by stocking tires with low
inventory costs, I would consider that but it's just frankly not possible
to stock tires for a typical homeowner with low inventory costs, given the
length of time and space required.

So I make the value decision and do all the research when I need tires.

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

I understand that you said that you always buy the "loaded" car, which in
marketing terms of "good/better/best" L/XL/GXL means you buy the most
expensive object.

I also know that we are taught to take the same object and to then
differentiate it so that we can coax the most amount of money from people
like you, and, better yet, we get compensated greatly for accomplishing
that simple goal.

We don't put any effort into the "L" "good" model.
We put a lot of effort to extract more money for the "XL" better model.
But we put the most effort into gaining customers like you seem to be.

Why?
Because "GXL" is where the company makes the most money per item.

Right, minimum spec is all that matters.

I think you want to hear what you want to hear.
I never said even once that I buy products on the minimum spec unless they
are commodities.

A commodity, by definition, is only ruled by price.

Neither of us considers a tire a commodity, so now we must buy on value.
If we buy on value, we have to compare performance with cost.

To compare performance of a tire is a difficult thing because you might
have an "in" at Bridgestone where you can get the manufacturer's tests for
their tires but you won't at the same time have an "in" at Cooper to get
the same comparison information.

So what do you have to compare tires?
Lots.

* You have the specs that the manufacturer specified
* You have the specs on the current tires to improve upon if you want
* You have reviews of tires on the net (of varying degrees of usefulness)
* You have forums such as this ng to ask questions

For you to say I buy only the minimum spec is for you to deprecate what I
have been saying about making a logical decision based on value.

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

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).

I realize I said economies of "scale" when I meant economies of "scope".

The marketing genius in the L/XL/GXL lineup is that you get everyone if you
break your product into three fundamental "good/better/best" ranges (where
the idea is to gouge as much money as you can from the consumer).

What you do is offer the item which does the job at the "L" level.
Then you add a few nice-to-haves at a good price markup for the "XL level.
Then you throw in highly marketed costly items for the "GXL" level.

Most marketing is aimed to get people to jump to the GXL level, while most
consumers will resist the extremely high price, but they don't want the
"cheap stuff" which is why you have to have a "good/better/best" range.

They "think" they're getting a good value by going for the "better" because
they don't want to "think" much when they buy. They just want to associate
dollars to quality, so you make that association for them with the
good/better/best L/XL/GXL pricing tier.

You can't make the L-to-XL pricing jump too high, but you can get away with
making the XL-to-GXL price jump very high (because you're playing on
consumer emotions).

Everyone wins when you market it right.
* the cost-conscious consumer thinks they got good product at a good price.
* the value-conscious consumer thinks they got a better value at not too
much of a bump in price
* the status-conscious consumer pays through the nose for status and gets
it if the marketing department can maintain the status feelings
* the company makes out because they sold essentially the same product to
three different types of customers, making the most profit on the third
type but still making profits on the first and second type due to economies
of scale (volume) and economies of scope (differentiation).
* the marketing department wins awards and bonuses for increasing the
perceived value of the GXL "best" model, even though it's essentially the
same item as the other two (only it has special options and gold trim and
free coffee and free car washings, or whatever makes people feel good).

Chaya Eve wrote:

This is a good point in that it's the standard cost of maintaining a car
just like rotating the tires and changing the oil is.

I just wish it didn't cost as much as the thing it's trying to save!

You don't do maintenance to save your tires. You do maintenance to save your
life.

Maybe you have a tie rod going bad. Maybe you have a steering knuckle wearing
out. Probably not, but unless you check it, you don't know. And if you do
have a front end problem, the only symptom you may have is odd tire wear. So
you check it out.

You check the front end because the consequences of front end failure on a
twisty road are very, very bad and may well involve your head becoming
separated from the rest of your body as your vehicle rolls down the side of
the mountain.

Tire life? Who cares. Tires are cheap, passengers are expensive.
--scott


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

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

Are these directional tires by chance?
Haven't seen too many $100 directional tread tires

On 2017-07-09, wrote:

Haven't seen too many $100 directional tread tires

Then you haven't seen "too many" motorcycle tires. They are easily
over $100usd and many are directional.

nb

On 2017-07-06, Chaya Eve wrote:
Is it normal for the outside edges of the front tires to be stairstepping
on the outer inch or two only?

It's called "cupping" or "scalloping". Usta be common ona lotta older
motorcycle tires (Dunlap K70's). Never seen it on a car tire,
but, here is a link:

http://www.procarcare.com/includes/content/resourcecenter/encyclopedia/ch25/25readtirewear.html

nb

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:51:13 +0000 (UTC), 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?
A $100 tire is NOT a high quality tire. PERIOD. Yes, it MAY meet the
legal requirements, but it is, as you are finding, a 4000 to 8000 mile
tire, at best, on your vehicle on those roads. What year is your 4
Runner that it comes with 225 series tires - and what aspect ratio and
what diameter?

On 2017-07-09, wrote:

A $100 tire is NOT a high quality tire. PERIOD.

Where do you get this stuff!?

I bought 4 tires from Discount Tire ($126usd /4) and they were of better quality
than of Big O Tires, which I paid over $100 per tire for their top of
the line steel belted radials.

Naturally, this was some time ago, but the fact remains. The Big O SBRs
alsmost killed me, several times, until I finally ditched 'em fer the
cheaper tires from Discount, which were infinitely better tires. 8|

nb.

On 7/9/2017 6:55 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2017-07-06, Chaya Eve wrote:
Is it normal for the outside edges of the front tires to be stairstepping
on the outer inch or two only?

It's called "cupping" or "scalloping". Usta be common ona lotta older
motorcycle tires (Dunlap K70's). Never seen it on a car tire,
but, here is a link:

http://www.procarcare.com/includes/content/resourcecenter/encyclopedia/ch25/25readtirewear.html

nb



I've had it on two cars. FWD and the rear tires cupped. My '01 Regal
was the worst. I did not rotate them and the rear tires could have
lasted another 20k easily bit I could not take the noise any more.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:03:26 +0000 (UTC), 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?
There is a range that is acceptable, but a car can be "within spec"
in EVERY measurement and still handle like a cow on skates, wear tires
like a bugger, and generally be a handfull on the road. This is why I
said a GOOD alignment tech can tell you if your alignment is a problem
- and a good alignment tech WILL test drive the car both before and
after alignment. There is a certain combination of caster and camber
lead that will give the required stability and steering feel as well
as the best tire wear, and combined with that there is a PROPER amount
of toe-in or toe out that will provide the lowest rolling resistance
and the best tire wear. Knowing that comes with a LOT of experience,
and an excellent understanding of the angles and forces involved.
Sometimes getting the camber or caster lead that is IDEAL is not
possible, so compensating with the other angle can be used to make the
car run straight down the road.
A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
positive caster. So if the caster and camber ar within spec but at the
maximum neg cater and pos camber on one side, and reverse on the
other, it will want to do circles around itself going down the road -
as an example.

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

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.


The correct statement is "you only get what you pay for - if you are
lucky" or " you seldom get more than what you pay for"

Another - "If you want first quality oats you need to be willing to
pay first quality prices - If you are willing to settle for oats that
have already been through the horse, they DO come a little cheaper"

$100 tires that fit a Toyota 4 Runner definitely fall into the "been
through the horse" category

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?

Sometimes they do - and that Timex will not be keeping time 45 years
from now, while the Rolex likely will. My Dad's old Rolex Tutor was
just cleaned and ovehauled - it is 65 years old

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.

You do not know ANYTHING about 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.

I have used a LOT of different tires in the millions of miles I've
driven over the last 50 years, and I've sold and installed THOUSANDS
for hundreds - even thousands of customers over the years. There ARE
some reasonably decent quality low priced tires today - but for a
LITTLE more money you can buy significantly higher quality tires - and
for a LOT more money you can buy tires slightly better than that. It's
the rule of diminishing returns - - -

My rule is never buy the cheapest or the most expensive ANYTHING- you
are ultimately over-paying for both. The cheapest doesn't do the job,
so you don't get anywhere near your money's worth - and when you buy
more expensive or better than you need, you do not gain as much as the
difference in price would indicate - so you also do not get your
money's worth.

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?
Price has a LARGE influence if you are buying $100 tires for your 4
Runner - even with the difference between pricing in Canada and the
USA.

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

Your logic in approaching this problem leaves a LOT to be improved
------

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.

And even then, you don't. Computers and electronics are "commodities"
today - and largely cars and tires today as well.

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.

Their price structure and marketing makes them "commodities"

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".


To a very significant extent, "marketing 101" has missed the mark and
misguided much of the last 2 generations.

On 9 Jul 2017 09:36:11 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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.



That is all you get for $100 from the majority of "tire specialist"
shops and "big box" tire stores.
As for "checking" alignment, that's all you need. The machine will
tell you very accurately and simply and quickly what your alignment is
set to, and if it is within spec. This does not take an expert. A
reasonably intelligent highschool graduate can be trained to operate a
sophisticated alignment rack in a matter of hours - days at most, of
all you need to do is CHECK alignment.

Determining if the alignment is the best it can be, and making the
required adjustments to solve particular problems - THAT takes
sxpertise!!!!

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.

A 4 wheel alignment is still required forsome issues on that 4 runner
- checking to make sure the vehicle is tracking properly etc. You can
read all you like about alignment and still not understand all the
ramifications. To check the suspension on a 2 wheel drive 4 runner
after it is driven onto the rack is less than a 15 minute job. Setting
up the rack and doing an alignment check for a 2 wheel alignment can
take as little as another 15 minutes.

We had a "scuff guage" that would tell me as I drove a vehicle into
the shop if the toe-in was out far enough to cause tire wear in less
than 15 seconds.

That said, my STRONG suspicion is you have a combination of the wrong
tires and the wrong pressures - the front end of a 4 runner is
HELLISHLY STOUT!!! You have to mistreat it pretty badly to throw it
out of alignment, and at your mileage there should not be much wear.
Like I've said NUMEROUS times - AIR UP - and see what happens.

You have still not told me what year your runner is and what size or
type of tire you have other than it is a 225 width.
What aspect ratio, what diameter, what make (brand) and model tire?
- what kind of tread?

Tell me what you have and I'll tell you if it is a tire application
issue - and pretty much tell you what pressure setings you should be
using.

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

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:57:02 -0400, wrote:

To a very significant extent, "marketing 101" has missed the mark and
misguided much of the last 2 generations.

Maybe, but marketing is a separate issue from pricing, even if pricing
is an issue in the class. Chaya has seriously oversimplified this
issue, along with the complexity of tire construction. We both know
that tires with the exact same specs can be very, very different in
quality.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:40:18 +1000, Xeno
wrote:

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.
Like I said, we have no idea what year her 'runner is, and what tires
she is using so we are all, to some extent, "shooting in the dark"
The KPI and SAI are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to be the problem - that front
end is one of the toughest in the industry. If we know what year it
is, and exactly what tires are on it, we (those who know these things)
can tell her for sure what she needs to address.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:52:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

It will likely outlast the $100 tire almost 2:1, even with the
difference in driving conditions too - - -

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.
and the cheap screwdriver will mabee drive 20 screws before it strips
out the head of the cheap chinese screws, while a better screwdriver
might do 200 - and if you use better screws, you might do 2000 without
having even one stripped head - and the screwdriver is good for
another 2000 or 5000 good screws - - - -

cl...:

Uhh, got that backwards on the camber and caster:

Car will pull toward side with LEAST
positive Caster, or toward side with
least NEGATIVE(most upright wheel)
camber.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:34:53 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

So to your point, nobody logical suggested the fault was the tires.

Well I did. Like I said elsewhere, I was told by GM engineers that
certain tires, and certain vehicles have this sort of problem. You did
say that you hear a scrubbing sound even at low speeds. I remember
that Broughams from the 90's, and some early Excalades had this issue
because of the steering geometry and some other forces that I can't
remember. And it's been some years, but when I saw tires with certain
issues, I knew without looking what brand they were. And that is also
why people are saying that $100 tires are not such a good idea. Tires
with identical specs can vary wildly in quality. You don't necessarily
get more when you spend more, but in general, if you want higher
quality and especially durability, you need to pay more. The wear
ratings on tires are just that - the rate of *normal* wear. They don't
take into account any tendency of the tires to lose chunks of rubber,
or to distort, or to wear in odd patterns, or to start cracking
prematurely.

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:48 -0400, wrote:

A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
positive caster.

Brain fart?...

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 16:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 11:16:36 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Now you are talking logic!

I buy on value. I never buy on price.

Hence it's a given that my tires are better than the OEM tires.

Better speed rating.
Better load carrying capacity.
Better traction.
Better treadwear.
Quieter tread (less aggressive than OEM since I don't go off road).

Knowing how manufacture's aim for economies of scale, I am sure my tires
cost more than the OEM tires did, but I don't aim for price.

I aim for logical value.
If, as you are indicating, the tires are NOT DOING THE JOB, it
doesn't make any differnce WHAT you paid for the tires, you are NOT
getting value for your pennies - much less your dollars.
The changes in specs that you have decided on,may well not have
bought you ANY improvement over the OEM tires. Did the OEM tires wear
the same way???? as quickly?
My guess is NO.

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 22:21:06 -0400, wrote:

and the cheap screwdriver will mabee drive 20 screws before it strips
out the head of the cheap chinese screws, while a better screwdriver
might do 200 - and if you use better screws, you might do 2000 without
having even one stripped head - and the screwdriver is good for
another 2000 or 5000 good screws - - - -

Better yet, the good ones have a no-questions lifetime warranty, so
they'll do infinite screws.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 16:07:08 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:40:18 +1000, Xeno wrote:

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.

I am well read enough to know that steering geometry gets complex fast
because everything affects everything else.

The manufacturer understood the steering geometry.
The manufacturer understood the tires.

I start with their spec and stay within range.

For example, on tires, the OEM spec is considered, by most people I've
talked to anyway, as a MINIMUM spec. For example, the speed rating (S) is a
minimum spec. If I get an H-rated tire, that's "likely" to be a better tire
than that spec'd by the manufacturer (other things taken into account).

Not necessarily - if you never drive thevehicle faster than the
rating of a T rated tire.

The load range, as I recall, is 102, so, likewise, if I get a load range of
105, I'm getting a "tougher" tire (yes, I know it simply means the weight
it can carry reliably - but there's a manufacturing aspect to the sidewall
to allow it to carry that weight).

Not necessatilly - it means the tire will not overheat under the
heavier load and kighr speeds - but it does not imply the sidewall is
eny stiffer - or that the cargass is more suitable for your
application AT ALL.

To your point of exceeding the range specified by the manufacturer, if I go
to a Z speed rating or a 125 (or whatever) load range, then the compromises
start to take their toll.

Same with alignment.

Everything depends on the numbers but lets say, for the best argument, that
I'm on the high end of the positive camber range, and on the high end of
the positive toe range.
You will have tire wear problems - no ifs, ands, or buts.

It probably would be a "logical" thing to ask the alignment shop to
consider putting the camber and toe at the lower end of the positive range
if my main goal was to reduce the feathering that occurs on steep slow
downhill corners.

Does that logic make sense (to a point that isn't carried to the extreme)?
Definitely better than max toe out and max pos camber - but going
slightly to the neg camber side of the range, and possibly slight toe
IN. Tell me what year your 'runner is and I'll tell you where you
should be starting.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 16:07:11 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:52:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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

What you're saying is true but what you're also saying is, essentially,
nothing.

It's like me saying that just because an alignment meets minimum
specifications does not mean it's the best alignment for the job.

There's no substance, no meat in those rhetorical sentences.
They're both just rhetoric.

Nothing wrong with rhetoric. But there's no meaningful information in it
that wasn't already agreed upon before the two sentences were uttered.

My wife's car can happily exist on $100 tires.
I realize you think that tires can be measured by dollars, but I must
respectfully disagree.

I'm sure I'm not the only person with marketing degrees here where the
express purpose of the millions of dollars spent on marketing every month
is to make people make exactly the kinds of decisions you seem to be
making.

Hence, I can't fault you for making your buying decisions based on price
but I can only suggest that you use logical reasoning in that we both know
that I can find, for any spec you want to ask about, different tires that
meet that spec at a different price for each tire, all of which meet the
spec.

Price is meaningless in terms of specs. Facts are everything.

The great thing about marketing is that very few people understand anything
I said above, so they fall for every marketing trick in the book. And
that's great because it makes them waste lots of money.

I had one professor who devoted an entire lecture to outlining how a
typical consumer wastes more than half her disposable income because she is
unduly influenced by marketing alone.

She rarely goes on the
highway, never drives in snow, rarely goes more than a few miles at a
time.

Why not get her a less expensive set of tires which are far better than the
ones she has now and then use the remaining disposable income to buy her
flowers?

She gets better tires, and flowers!

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'm never going to be able to give you a degree in economic theory, nor in
marketing, nor even in logic.

And yours is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for you in this case. You need a
qualified automotive mechanic - and a Toyota specialist with alignment
experience definitely wouldn't hurt - yet you refuse to listen to me.
You are getting $95 per hour information for FREE - yet you don't
listen - you don't answer the basic questions. You sadly are the kind
of "customer" that can NOT be helped.

One last choice, then PLONK.

If you actually think that price is a reliable indicator of quality, then
I'm never going to change your mind. Never. It's actually great (for
marketing people) that you think that way because you are so easily
manipulated.

For example, do you ever wonder why the Google Pixel was priced *exactly*
the same as the iPhone it wanted to compete with? Think about the beauty in
that very simple marketing decision, and then contrast that with Google's
previous price strategy.

A favorite expression of one of my professors was:
* Marketing is genius.
* People who fall for it are not.

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

I buy on value.
All I use is logic and effort.

To buy on price only takes the absolute minimum of logic but no effort.
To buy on value takes far more logic and far more effort.

Take this simple logic, for example:
* You can buy Craftsman screwdrivers individually, or,
* You can buy a whole set of them for a lower unit price.

The price per screwdriver could be twice as much for the individual
screwdriver than for the set. Assuming you need a set (which is a decent
assumption, and adjusting the unit price to remove the couple of crapware
items they include in the numbers), you can easily have a unit cost for the
set to be about half the unit cost individually.

This is called economies of scale (not scope - which was my bad).

At twice the cost per screwdriver, how is buying screwdrivers individually
going to get you a better screwdriver than buying them as a set?

HINT: Commodities are different than specialty items.

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.

I only buy Craftsman screwdrivers. The ones with the red and blue colors on
the clear plastic handle and with that little ball on top. That's because I
found they seem to work the best for me and I can replace them if I abuse
them (because they're not going to wear out unless I abuse them).

I don't buy the yellow and black handled screwdrivers you see everywhere,
and I don't buy SnapOn screwdrivers either.

I buy Craftsman quality, and the round-top quality inside of Craftsman.
And I buy them, on sale, and as a set (if I need a set that is).

I also give them as gifts to kids who buy their first car (I actually give
them an entire toolbag which I assemble separately for them to put in the
trunk).

Since we are talking about screwdrivers, they periodically go on sale
(Father's day is a good one to aim for), and I can schedule gifts easily.

Why do you insist that if I pay double for the screwdriver, I get a better
screwdriver than if I pay half?

Your argument makes no logical sense to me.

Maybe it makes sense to you and to others to pay twice as much for the same
thing, thinking it's "better" somehow, just because you paid twice as much
for it?

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 16:07:19 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On 9 Jul 2017 09:36:11 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

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.

This makes logical sense that the industry might not benefit from having a
$25 alignment check only.

In a way, one could argue that it's like having an appointment to the
doctor where they only checked your eyes for the need for glasses and
nothing else.
EXACTLY what happens when you go to your opthamologist
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.

Again this is logical. An hour could easily be $100 shop rate.

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.

I never disagreed that it's best to have the alignment checked.
I only pointed out the "opportunity cost" was an entire mounted tire.

Cost of alignment check = cost of 1 mounted tire

The logic is so inescapable that I was surprised people had trouble with
that math, since it's simple logical math that they teach you in school all
the time ("opportunity cost") although the "true cost" is what I need to
calculate, not just the upfront cost.


You have all the theory, yet no wisdom.

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.

Yes. I know. I talk to them while they're aligning my vehicle and I ask
what they're doing. Sometimes they kick me out behind the yellow line but
other times they let me walk around with them.

I can see why they'd kick you out.

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.

This is a good point in that it's the standard cost of maintaining a car
just like rotating the tires and changing the oil is.

I just wish it didn't cost as much as the thing it's trying to save!
I think the price point is set too high - but you've made a point that it's
an hour and an hour costs what an hour costs. Period.

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.

Trust in the mechanic is also important. I agree.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 10:21:33 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 7/7/2017 7:41 PM, rbowman wrote:
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.

She said she can hear the tire scrub on the turns. That suggests to me
she's not going that slow.
It also suggests she has either an alignment or pressure issue or
both - and quite possibly tires that are not suitable for the task.
She has yet to say what year her 'runner is, and what tires she is
using, other than they are 225 section tires

She thinks she is "smart" - mabee even smarter than the rest of us -
but will not give us the basic information required to answer her
question intelligently - because she "knows" she has the best tires
she can buy for her application - the price doesn't come into it, and
branding is just "marketing BS" - my words, not hers - but it is
strongly implied.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:34:45 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 09:04:46 -0700, Bill Vanek
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.

I am quite aware of exactly what you're saying, so I welcome that you are a
logical thinker when you say that passenger car tires are a commodity.

To the manufacturer, passenger tires are commodities (almost certainly).
To most consumers, passenger tires "should" be a commodity too!

I knew that would come up so you may note that I crafted the sentences when
I was talking about commodities to indicate that the buyer decides whether
something is a commodity (to them) or not.

I used the example of propane gas since it's one of the definitions of a
commodity (as are pork bellies) but to any one person, if the marketing
organization can convince them that their propane is better than someone
else's propane, or that their pork bellies are somehow better, then they
can charge more, which is really the name of the game.

So, yes, tires are a commodity.
But if I said that here, they'd kill me.

Tires ARE a Commodity in some ways - but not like Propane or Pork
Bellies, or Soy Beans.
There are SIGNIFICANT differences between one tire and another - not
necessarilly "brand to brand" but definitely "model to model" There is
(can be) a lot of difference between 2 tires of the same speed,
weight, and traction rating of the same size.

One distributor's propane is virtually identical to anothers if it
meets the same sulpher specs etc.(and likely comes out of the same
pipeline "slug", the ame railcar, and the same distribution tank.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:34:53 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 11:37:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
How are your tires working?

Based on the logical and sound advice given here?
Nobody who was logical suggested the problem was the tires themselves.

I have suggested SEVERAL times it mat be wrong tires for the
application and have asked for the make, model and size of the tire,
as well as the year of youe 2 wheel drive 4 Runner.
Sure, they suggested higher air pressure, but that's not the tires.
They suggested a smaller width, but I'm already at OEM width (225mm) where
they were assuming 245 and larger widths.

OEM on a 4 runner can be 225, 245, or 265 - they can be 16, 17, 18,
or even 20 inch. They can be 60, 65, 70, or 75 profile tires, and they
can be any of several trad patterns.
Some suggested thicker sidewalls which I already have with a greater load
range (I actually think the OEM load range is 99, but I'd have to check but
I already have a higher load range).
As stated, the load range does not NECESSARILY mean a heavier sidewall
They suggested slower downhill cornering, but that's not the tires' fault.
They suggested less +camber & less +toe, but that's not the tire's either.
They suggested more frequent rotation, but that's not a tire's fault.
And they suggested better treadwear, but 380 isn't a terrible rating.
It's JUST a marketing number - and you are the "marketing expert" -
the nuber REALLY doesn't mean it's a better tire. Tell us what kind of
crap you are running on, and we will tell you if it is likely to be a
large or small part of the problem.

So to your point, nobody logical suggested the fault was the tires.
I , for one, most definitely have, from YEARS of working with Toyotas
in particular, and vehicles and tires in general.

Can you get better for less money?

I bought the best value at the time for my tires.
No you didn't if rhey are not doing the job. Going by the "marketing
BS" you bought the cheapest tire that met what you, a marketing major,
thought were your requirements. You have NO IDEA what the requirements
are, and if the tires you bought ACTUALLY meet your requirements.

Could I get better value now?
Maybe.

Everything depends on the value of the current options, where tire prices
change by large percentages between models (but not overall).

Tire prices change more between one supplier and another than they do
between brands and models in many cases.

What I mean by that is that any individual model may change in price (up or
down) in any given month of the year, but some other tire model will also
change in price (up or down) in that same given month so I have to look at
value at any given time, where the only time that matters is when I need
tires (since you can't stock them easily like you can commodities like
propane which don't degrade over time and which fit innocuously in a 1000
gallon tank).

If I get a better value with economies of scale by stocking tires with low
inventory costs, I would consider that but it's just frankly not possible
to stock tires for a typical homeowner with low inventory costs, given the
length of time and space required.

You would very possibly end up with a stack of tires that do not meet
your requirements - and there is NO VALUE in having something that
does not do the job - regardless of price.

So I make the value decision and do all the research when I need tires.

Uninformed research, from the appearances so far.

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

I understand that you said that you always buy the "loaded" car, which in
marketing terms of "good/better/best" L/XL/GXL means you buy the most
expensive object.

And I buy it when he's finished with it. If he's taken care of it I
get FANTASTIC value. I'm buying the same car, but I'm not buying the
most expensive.

I also know that we are taught to take the same object and to then
differentiate it so that we can coax the most amount of money from people
like you, and, better yet, we get compensated greatly for accomplishing
that simple goal.

You are lokking at the world through the very jaded eyes of a
marketing expert.

We don't put any effort into the "L" "good" model.
We put a lot of effort to extract more money for the "XL" better model.
But we put the most effort into gaining customers like you seem to be.

Why?
Because "GXL" is where the company makes the most money per item.

When I worked at the dealership we found we made a LOT more monet
sellig 30 corollas than one supra - and it was a lot easier to sell
the "hamburgers" than the "T-Bomes" The dealership could not exist on
selling only the limitted number of highend cars - we THRIVED on
moving quantity at low margin

Right, minimum spec is all that matters.

I think you want to hear what you want to hear.
I never said even once that I buy products on the minimum spec unless they
are commodities.

A commodity, by definition, is only ruled by price.

And you claim tires are commodities - one h rated 150 load rated tire
is the same as the next - the spec, or catalog number, says it all.
So you are buying by price. Sure - you set your "search parameters" by
what you have already stated is "marketinf BS", then you buy the
cheapest that meets those totally arbitrary specifications.

Neither of us considers a tire a commodity, so now we must buy on value.
If we buy on value, we have to compare performance with cost.

You have not given us ANY reason to believe you are getting "quality"

To compare performance of a tire is a difficult thing because you might
have an "in" at Bridgestone where you can get the manufacturer's tests for
their tires but you won't at the same time have an "in" at Cooper to get
the same comparison information.

Don't need an IN.
So what do you have to compare tires?
Lots.

* You have the specs that the manufacturer specified
Which are "marketing BS" lik all the rest of it.
* You have the specs on the current tires to improve upon if you want
If you KNOW what needs improvement, and what improvements constitute
"value" - It appears you may not.
* You have reviews of tires on the net (of varying degrees of usefulness)
* You have forums such as this ng to ask questions
And you don't listen to the answers given by expers because "you
know"

For you to say I buy only the minimum spec is for you to deprecate what I
have been saying about making a logical decision based on value.

You buy the cheaoest that meats your arbitrary at best, requirements.
You refuse to give the information required for an EXPERT to give you
a qualified, intelligent answer as to what your problem really is.
Just because your marketing degree trumps an auto mechanic, no matter
how qualified and experienced?????

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 17:34:56 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

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

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).

I realize I said economies of "scale" when I meant economies of "scope".

The marketing genius in the L/XL/GXL lineup is that you get everyone if you
break your product into three fundamental "good/better/best" ranges (where
the idea is to gouge as much money as you can from the consumer).

What you do is offer the item which does the job at the "L" level.
Then you add a few nice-to-haves at a good price markup for the "XL level.
Then you throw in highly marketed costly items for the "GXL" level.

Most marketing is aimed to get people to jump to the GXL level, while most
consumers will resist the extremely high price, but they don't want the
"cheap stuff" which is why you have to have a "good/better/best" range.

They "think" they're getting a good value by going for the "better" because
they don't want to "think" much when they buy. They just want to associate
dollars to quality, so you make that association for them with the
good/better/best L/XL/GXL pricing tier.

You give the educated consumer a lot less credit than they are due.
The "educated consumer" doesn't need a degree in marketing.

Particularly in today's automotive market, where there really are very
few "options" if you want, say, a sunroof on a car, you need to buy a
minimum trim level that is NOT base. And if you want, say, the high
end infortainment system with navigation, you need to buy the next
level up - which ONLY comes with the sun roof. Gone are the days, to a
great extent, of ordering from the "menu" where you could order the
big motor on the "stripper" and get a "sleeper" - with eithe bench or
bucket seats, in any colour you wanted, with any colour pait you
wanted - and any tire and wheel combo, and any gear ratio the company
made, with or without Posi.
You have 3 choices, Base, Medium, and high content - or L, GL, or GLX
You can't make the L-to-XL pricing jump too high, but you can get away with
making the XL-to-GXL price jump very high (because you're playing on
consumer emotions).

No, you are playing on consumer's WANTS. They WANT the sunroof and the
navigation system and high end audio - so they buy the GLX

Everyone wins when you market it right.
* the cost-conscious consumer thinks they got good product at a good price.
* the value-conscious consumer thinks they got a better value at not too
much of a bump in price
* the status-conscious consumer pays through the nose for status and gets
it if the marketing department can maintain the status feelings
* the company makes out because they sold essentially the same product to
three different types of customers, making the most profit on the third
type but still making profits on the first and second type due to economies
of scale (volume) and economies of scope (differentiation).
* the marketing department wins awards and bonuses for increasing the
perceived value of the GXL "best" model, even though it's essentially the
same item as the other two (only it has special options and gold trim and
free coffee and free car washings, or whatever makes people feel good).
No, that's why you have a chevy, a cadillac, a BMW and a Mercedes.
THAT is where pride and emotion make people do stupid things.
Mer bought homself a loaded Kia or Hyundai for less money than a
"base" BMW or Merc or Caddy, that will cost him WAY less in
maintenance and repairs, where he will get WAY more for it at resale,
in percentage terms than either of the options, or a lower contented
car - meaning he got VALUE for for his money. REal value, not based on
"marketing BS"
It's "marketing BS" that sells Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, Caddy,
Lincoln, Lamborgini, and Ferarri et al.

On 10/07/2017 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:52:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

It will likely outlast the $100 tire almost 2:1, even with the
difference in driving conditions too - - -

That is very true. On my previous Toyota, the OEM tyres were done in at
60,000 kilometres. I replaced them with Michelins of the same spec and,
after another 60,000 kilometres, were only 50% worn. What's more, the
Michelins were cheaper than the OEM replacements by $50 a wheel. To top
it off, the Michelins had better grip and handling than the OEMs. No way
would I even be thinking of a $100 tyre, especially so on an SUV.

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.
and the cheap screwdriver will mabee drive 20 screws before it strips
out the head of the cheap chinese screws, while a better screwdriver
might do 200 - and if you use better screws, you might do 2000 without
having even one stripped head - and the screwdriver is good for
another 2000 or 5000 good screws - - - -



--

Xeno

On 9 Jul 2017 22:46:02 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2017-07-09, wrote:

Haven't seen too many $100 directional tread tires

Then you haven't seen "too many" motorcycle tires. They are easily
over $100usd and many are directional.

nb
OK, Notsosmart - we were not talking motorcycles ----

On 10/07/2017 11:57 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
wrote:

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.


The correct statement is "you only get what you pay for - if you are
lucky" or " you seldom get more than what you pay for"

Another - "If you want first quality oats you need to be willing to
pay first quality prices - If you are willing to settle for oats that
have already been through the horse, they DO come a little cheaper"

$100 tires that fit a Toyota 4 Runner definitely fall into the "been
through the horse" category

Love your analogy.

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?

Sometimes they do - and that Timex will not be keeping time 45 years
from now, while the Rolex likely will. My Dad's old Rolex Tutor was
just cleaned and ovehauled - it is 65 years old

A Rolex is something that will be handed down for generations. A Timex
will be lucky to last for a single generation.

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.

You do not know ANYTHING about tires.

I too have come to that conclusion.

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.

I have used a LOT of different tires in the millions of miles I've
driven over the last 50 years, and I've sold and installed THOUSANDS
for hundreds - even thousands of customers over the years. There ARE
some reasonably decent quality low priced tires today - but for a
LITTLE more money you can buy significantly higher quality tires - and
for a LOT more money you can buy tires slightly better than that. It's
the rule of diminishing returns - - -

My rule is never buy the cheapest or the most expensive ANYTHING- you
are ultimately over-paying for both. The cheapest doesn't do the job,
so you don't get anywhere near your money's worth - and when you buy
more expensive or better than you need, you do not gain as much as the
difference in price would indicate - so you also do not get your
money's worth.

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?
Price has a LARGE influence if you are buying $100 tires for your 4
Runner - even with the difference between pricing in Canada and the
USA.

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

Your logic in approaching this problem leaves a LOT to be improved
------

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.

And even then, you don't. Computers and electronics are "commodities"
today - and largely cars and tires today as well.

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.

Their price structure and marketing makes them "commodities"

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".


To a very significant extent, "marketing 101" has missed the mark and
misguided much of the last 2 generations.



--

Xeno

On 9 Jul 2017 23:31:03 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2017-07-09, wrote:

A $100 tire is NOT a high quality tire. PERIOD.

Where do you get this stuff!?

I bought 4 tires from Discount Tire ($126usd /4) and they were of better quality
than of Big O Tires, which I paid over $100 per tire for their top of
the line steel belted radials.

Naturally, this was some time ago, but the fact remains. The Big O SBRs
alsmost killed me, several times, until I finally ditched 'em fer the
cheaper tires from Discount, which were infinitely better tires. 8|

nb.
I used to by first run tires for less than $30. That was a lifetime
ago. You can buy a cheap chinese or Korean tire for a small car for
$100 and mabee get a decent tire. Not for a 4800 lb SUV

On 10/07/2017 3:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chaya Eve wrote:

This is a good point in that it's the standard cost of maintaining a car
just like rotating the tires and changing the oil is.

I just wish it didn't cost as much as the thing it's trying to save!

You don't do maintenance to save your tires. You do maintenance to save your
life.

Maybe you have a tie rod going bad. Maybe you have a steering knuckle wearing
out. Probably not, but unless you check it, you don't know. And if you do
have a front end problem, the only symptom you may have is odd tire wear. So
you check it out.

You check the front end because the consequences of front end failure on a
twisty road are very, very bad and may well involve your head becoming
separated from the rest of your body as your vehicle rolls down the side of
the mountain.

Tire life? Who cares. Tires are cheap, passengers are expensive.
--scott


Yes and a regular wheel alignment should be seen as *preventative
maintenance*.

--

Xeno

On 10/07/2017 12:28 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:48 -0400, wrote:

A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
positive caster.

Brain fart?...

Hey, it happens! ;-)

--

Xeno