On Wed, 1 May 2019 06:52:13 -0400, Biff Tannen wrote:

Yah, there's no difference in quality between a Pooplan chainsaw at McLowes Depot and a Stihl Professional.

This is a philosophical discussion where my main point is that it's only
stupid people who tend to say "you get what you pay for".

They _want_ things to be as simple as a price.
o But it's not.

They _wish_ things to be as simple as a price.
o But it's not.

They actually _believe_ things to be as simple as a price.
o But it's not.

The real world is more complicated than they can possibly even imagine.
o It's only their brain which is simple

Simple like the brain of a child.
o Who still believes in Santa Claus.

The fact is that you can pay $300 for a Poulan at Sears (if you can find a
Sears) or $300 for a Husky at Lowes, where the price has nothing whatsoever
to do with how well that Craftsman works (which, we all know to have crappy
engines) versus the Lowe's Husky or the local landscape supply Stihl.

The price has nothing to do with how well the chainsaw works.
o Anyone who says otherwise is illogical, and generally ignorant, IMHO.

Certainly they _believe_ price tracks efficacy..
o But I can name plenty of examples where that's just not true.

For example, generic trucks versus name brand.
o Or, for example, Costco gas versus Chevron gas

The reason is simple, which is that the price is set by a variety of
factors, many of which are completely unrelated to efficacy.

For an obvious example, you can pay a lot for a specific red iPhone
o But it's no better (or worse) than any other similar iPhone

There are so many obvious examples that anyone who says "you get what you
pay for", is usually not a logical person.

They can't back up their own statements since it takes mere seconds to
prove them dead wrong.

If their entire belief system is DESTROYED in two seconds of facts...
o then their belief system is imaginary

It's like they believe in Santa Claus
o But two seconds of facts can destroy that imaginary belief system.

You can pay $20 for a ****ty Fram oil filter
o Or you can pay $5 for a great Mann oil filter

The price is the price
o And the quality is the quality

Anyone who says "you get what you pay for" can't comprehend that
o The complexity of the actual facts is beyond their comprehension

It's actually terrifying how dumb most people really are.
o Anyone who says "you get what you pay for", is terrifyingly dumb (IMHO)

On Wed, 1 May 2019 20:07:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

For example, generic trucks versus name brand.
o Or, for example, Costco gas versus Chevron gas

That was supposed to be "generic drugs" versus name brand.

Anyone who thinks that the price indicates the efficacy
o Probably still believes in Santa Claus

My only point in this is that it's only stupid people who say that "you get
what you pay for".

They _want_ things to be as simple as their brain works.
o They can't handle the complexity that the world isn't that simple.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Yeah, save half an hour, then go home and have to spend that much time
anyway jacking up the car and putting the wheels on. Plus, most people
don't have another set of wheels to begin with and while the tires are
being mounted, you can be shopping at Costco, having your pizza, eating
their free food samples, etc.

Hi Trader,
I thank you for bringing up the fact that Costco now mounts non-Costo
tires, which changes the equation, and where I fully agree with your logic
that the extra two dollars Costco charges to remove and replace the wheel
from the vehicle is inconsequential in the scheme of things.

So I didn't note specifically the two dollars, which I agree with you that
most people would pay, where I simply assumed those two dollars you're
speaking about are in the noise level of the calculations.

Given everyone but three folks on this thread have likely _never_ done the
job at home, and even two of those three may never have done it "at" home,
most people are talking out of their ass when they make nonsensical lame
excuses for why they can't do anything at home that will get their hands
dirty such as something as trivially simple as mount and balance a tire.

Adding in the two dollars you seem to be complaining about, there are both
viable options for a homeowner who actually doesn't mind getting his hands
dirty.

OPTION 1:
1. Save about 1/3 the price purchasing online and then by mounting &
balancing at home (you can save hundreds of dollars per set).
2. If desired, pay $22 for Costco to triple-check the balance.
NOTE: The additional two dollars means you drive to Costco and leave the
vehicle with them for them to remove the wheels from the vehicle, check
your balance, give you a detailed report (if they'll do that for you), and
then put the wheels back on.

OPTION 2:
1. Save about 1/5 the price by purchasing online
2. Then drive to Costco to pay $60 for the lifetime balance & rotation

I agree with you, once we add the two dollars you were complaining about,
that both options are perfectly viable, where option 1 is more fun, but
option 2 isn't bad and works best for most of the folks here who are afraid
or who don't know how or who can't store the tools, or who complain that
the tools are ****ty, etc. (all of which are simply lame excuses for the
simple fact that they don't like to get their hands dirty doing this type
of job, which is so easy to do that anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly
never done it at home themselves).

Most people who posted, save for two, have never likely changed a tire in
their entire life, which is why they're filled to the brim with those lame
excuses.

In short, I agree with you on the extra two dollars being worth it for
Costco to remove and replace the wheels on the vehicle when triple-checking
the balance, while you go shop or eat their $1.50 soda or $2 pizza.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

I said similar in another post.

Is it a fact that _nobody_ who has posted, except me, has actually _done_
the job "at" home, using home equipment?

On Wed, 1 May 2019 11:07:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

No BS from me. I think for most people it is silly to DIY when the
payback is measured in decades. I have no interest in doing it.

I'm not sure if you have an air of superiority or are just arrogant.
Its the way you come across though.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

I'm allergic to bull****.
o Particularly from people who are afraid of doing the job themselves.

Hence, they have absolutely zero idea of what they're talking about.
o IMHO, they're all just like grade schoolers discussing Santa Claus, Ed.

Do you remember when Normal Schwarzkopf responded to a news reporter:
"Have you ever _been_ in a minefield?"
REFERENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci88go_rWYY

Some things, like changing tires at home, people are either afraid, or ill
informed, or they don't have the money for tools, or for storage, or they
don't want to get their hands dirty, or whatever, so they make up all sorts
of lame idiotic excuses for why they can't do something as trivial as
replace a tire at home.

The real answer is that everything they say is just pure bull****
o Because they've never even once done it in their entire lives.

They're just spouting bull**** ... like that idiotic reporter was.
o I apologize if I'm too blunt and factual and honest for you.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 03:53:46 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

That¢s overstate, its better than nothing.

Hi Rod and Steve,

We go way back, mostly on the Apple newsgroups, where you know I speak
valid verifiable facts and that I don't make **** up and that I'm allergic
to bull**** from people who make claims out of their ignorant asses.

You both are well aware that, never once, in thousands of posts, have my
facts ever been materially wrong(1) since I simply don't make **** up.

If I said I did it, then I did it, and if I said it worked, then it worked.

In _my_ experience, with 30 tires, a good static balance appears to work
rather well by the measurement of lack of perceptible vibration at speed.

However, given the new information kindly supplied by Trader about the
Costco $22 triple check on balance, I'm going to take the next set of
wheels to Costco to ask them if they can triple-check my work.

Only then will we have the facts of how different the results are in the
specify set of tires tested.

--
(1) I'm human, so, I must have once or twice in many thousands of posts,
misstated a material fact, especially as Usenet is casual, but nobody can
find any material fact I've stated that was wrong (trust me, they've
tried), which you have to admit is pretty incredible for factual
credibility on Usenet.

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...



On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:



And the "specs" on a car battery don't tell you the important stuff -
like how long it will last, or when it will fail at -30. Knowing what
factory it was made in (only a few companies actually BUILD batteries
- regardless how many brand names there are) and which companies are
actually building quality batteries at that point in time (one company
makes the best this year - and it's the worst next year, for example)
is more important than what's printed on the label.
Canadian Tire used to have their AGM batteries made by Johnson
Controls, and they switched to Brad Penn?

East Penn, actually



. Same spec. Same model.
Different colored plastic. One was a POS and the other was and still
is one of the best batteries you can buy - at any price.

They make Deka batteries also. Near Reading, PA.

Were they the good or bad ones?

--
Tekkie

On Wed, 1 May 2019 04:32:36 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
wrote:

In Clare Snyder writes:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:
Canadian Tire used to have their AGM batteries made by Johnson
Controls, and they switched to Brad Penn?

East Penn, actually

. Same spec. Same model.
Different colored plastic. One was a POS and the other was and still
is one of the best batteries you can buy - at any price.

So if I route through Canada on my next trip,
what should I look for?
The current stock of eliminator AGMs will all be East Penn as the
change was made last year.I believe they have grey tops while the
inferior batteries had blue tops.
Not sure about the Nautilis marine AGMs which I believe are still
blue top.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 20:29:55 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder" wrote:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

I said similar in another post.

Is it a fact that _nobody_ who has posted, except me, has actually _done_
the job "at" home, using home equipment?

Sure, I have.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 06:38:09 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:33:53 -0700, Sanity Clause wrote:

"Themselves".
Does that mean only those who've done it in their driveway at home, or
does it also include the shop I've worked at for the last 12 years?

Hi Sanity Clause,
It means different things depending on the question that the person is
answering.

If the question is a technical question about the proper final result in
mounting tires, such as where the colored dots go with respect to the valve
stem (or match mounting marks, which are generally obliterated in older
wheels), then it's a question that the pros can answer.

But if it's a question about using a Harbor Freight ****ty tool, it's
likely NOT a question anyone can answer who hasn't used the Harbor Freight
****ty tools.

I, for one, have used the Harbor Freight ****ty tools, but most people who
are making up excuses for NOT doing tires at home, have NEVER done tires
anywhere, but even if they have, they've never done tires at home using the
HF ****ty tools.

Having a pro try to answer those types of questions is sort of like having
a farmer in California try to answer why they urinate on their crops in
India.

Two different use models, where the farmer in California has all the latest
mechanization and irrigation and tractor-fed fertilization, while the
farmer in India ****es and poops on his crops to get them to grow.

Worse, most of the people responding, except maybe you, me, and Clare, have
_never_ in their entire lives mounted a tire at home using the ****ty
equipment that we're discussing here - where maybe even you and Clare have
never done that.

As stated previously - I've mounted tires with ****ty equipment (not
Harbor Fright because they don't do business in Canada - but the same
cheap crap chinese changer is available here and friends have had
them. I refuse to use them.

I've changed tires with 2 "spoons" and a high-lift "handy-man" jack
and been less frustrated -- - and that's saying a LOT!!

Remembering that I'm allergic to bull****, all those people making up those
outlandish excuses for why they can't do it are just like my grandkids
making up outlandish excuses for why they didn't do their homework.

The honest answer is that they don't like changing tires at home.
o All the rest is pure bull****, IMHO, if they've never done it.

Either way, we normally use the yellow dot, not just because it's
"correct" in our little version of reality, but because everyone expects
it.

I thank you for bringing up the fact that the yellow dot "can" be used,
where _most_ of the references Clare and I have been discussing say to use
it only if the red dot doesn't exist.

No - you can't read. The information I supplied says there are two
ways to match mount a tire.Uniformity and weight. They say the red dot
(uniformity) is more important if it is there AND THE RIM IS MARKED
because you can't balance out an out-of-round condition. If the rim
mark is not there - either never marked or no longer obviously
visible, use the yellow. The yellow dot will MINIMIZE the amount ov
external weight required to balance the wheel. It also said how to
find the high spot on the rim.If there is no high spot on the rim
uniformity matching is both impossible and pointless.

Sometimes facts are conflicting, where they seem to be conflicting here,
which is ok, as long as we're all aware that they conflict.

The facts come first, and then we deduce rational logic from those facts:
o Red is almost always the uniformity indicator
o Yellow is almost always the weight indicator
o Most cites (but not all say the red dot takes precedence over yellow
o Most cites (but not all) say to mount the valve stem to the dots in the
absence of match-mounting marks (which is almost always on older rims).

Most forged alloy rims do not have uniformity markings and are
virtually "dead true" when spun. Most welded steel rims do have a high
spot that is affected by the weld in the rim - but after hitting a few
potholes the highspot is liable to be anywhere BUT where it was marked
due to different low spots being established. The weight distribution
doesn't change with the beating the rim takes on the road

There's a confusing issue of weight of steel versus alloy, where it seems
that the presumed heavy spot moves 180 degrees between steel and alloy
because of the weight difference between the hole drilled for the valve,
and the valve itself.

Even if we miss by an inch or two, or the dot has worn off over time
(used tire), or if we get a tire brand that doesn't even use dots, the
balancer makes it all happy again. It's really not that critical.

It's not _that_ simple, but it's close to that simple.
o The whole point is to minimize added weight by good initial placement

In summary, I do appreciate that you have experience, because other than
Clare, the posters who made up excuses have never changed a tire at home,
so their excuses were based on nothing material.

I've changed 30 tires at home, where I can say a few things:
1. I mount the red dot to the valve stem on both steel & alloy
(but maybe I should re-think that based on what you & Clare say).

2. I have never failed to mount a tire, from puny 15 inch tires to larger
17 inch tires, where the SUV tires are the hardest due to the sidewalls, I
think, which are designed for heavier loads.

3. I static balance, which I admit is basic, but which seems to work in
that I don't get perceptible vibration, but I like Trader's information
that Costco now dynamically balances tires for only five bucks, which is a
great deal.

So, moving forward, my plan is:
A. Buy tires at great prices online & have them shipped for free, to me.
B. Mount/Balance/Rotate/Repair them at home using HF ****ty equipment.
C. If I feel vibration, then pay Costco $5 per tire to dynamically balance.

One question I'd like to ask you is whether you feel that an
_imperceptible_ vibration can cause damage?
Not saying it WILL but it CAN - as a lot of "shimmy" can be damped
out so it is not perceptible in the steering wheel, but the tie rods
still feel it.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 07:07:18 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

The price is usually at least based on something

We disagree philosophically, where I completely understand your assumption
that if something is more expensive, it _must_ be better.
Never said that. You totally misunderstand. Higher cost does not
mean better. Many examples of that - but when the price is lower than
it should be you pretty much know there is something wrong.
For me, if something is more expensive, it's just more expensive.
o The expense is an indication of the demand and nothing else.

For you if it is less expensive it's a better deal. For me, unless I
KNOW why it's less expensive I assume it is just CHEAP. CHEAP
generally means inferior. Inexpensive isn't ALWAYS cheap, and isn't
ALWAYS inferior - but the general rule is if it looks too good to be
true it usually is.

Demand may or may not track with quality.
In today's North America generally it doesn't. Low quality and high
demand seem to track more directly than high quality and high demand.

People seem to know all about the price of something, and nothing
about either the cost or quality.(value) - as Oscar Wilde put it " A
man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

Of course, if everyone were _intelligent_, the demand might better match
quality, but the mere fact that advertising works means that the demand is
influenced by bull**** marketing, which has _nothing_ to do with quality.

Bull**** marketing, as you call it, is required to sell what people
don't need. Price pretty much sells everything else

In short, my philosophy is based on fact since I'm allergic to bull****.
o You get what you get (which is whatever you can tell about what you get).
o You pay what other people pay (since the overall demand sets the price).
Yet the demand for cheap crap drives the North American economy -
not the demand for high quality

On Wed, 1 May 2019 20:38:09 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
wrote:

On Wed, 1 May 2019 11:07:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

No BS from me. I think for most people it is silly to DIY when the
payback is measured in decades. I have no interest in doing it.

I'm not sure if you have an air of superiority or are just arrogant.
Its the way you come across though.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

I'm allergic to bull****.
o Particularly from people who are afraid of doing the job themselves.

Hence, they have absolutely zero idea of what they're talking about.
o IMHO, they're all just like grade schoolers discussing Santa Claus, Ed.

Do you remember when Normal Schwarzkopf responded to a news reporter:
"Have you ever _been_ in a minefield?"
REFERENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci88go_rWYY

Some things, like changing tires at home, people are either afraid, or ill
informed, or they don't have the money for tools, or for storage, or they
don't want to get their hands dirty, or whatever, so they make up all sorts
of lame idiotic excuses for why they can't do something as trivial as
replace a tire at home.

The real answer is that everything they say is just pure bull****
o Because they've never even once done it in their entire lives.

They're just spouting bull**** ... like that idiotic reporter was.
o I apologize if I'm too blunt and factual and honest for you.
For someone who claims to ba allergic to BS - - - - - - - - - -

On Wed, 1 May 2019 20:59:35 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
wrote:

On Thu, 2 May 2019 03:53:46 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

That¢s overstate, its better than nothing.

Hi Rod and Steve,

We go way back, mostly on the Apple newsgroups, where you know I speak
valid verifiable facts and that I don't make **** up and that I'm allergic
to bull**** from people who make claims out of their ignorant asses.

You both are well aware that, never once, in thousands of posts, have my
facts ever been materially wrong(1) since I simply don't make **** up.


Fact Check. You are starting to sound like Trump

If I said I did it, then I did it, and if I said it worked, then it worked.

In _my_ experience, with 30 tires, a good static balance appears to work
rather well by the measurement of lack of perceptible vibration at speed.

However, given the new information kindly supplied by Trader about the
Costco $22 triple check on balance, I'm going to take the next set of
wheels to Costco to ask them if they can triple-check my work.

Only then will we have the facts of how different the results are in the
specify set of tires tested.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 17:04:47 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...



On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:



And the "specs" on a car battery don't tell you the important stuff -
like how long it will last, or when it will fail at -30. Knowing what
factory it was made in (only a few companies actually BUILD batteries
- regardless how many brand names there are) and which companies are
actually building quality batteries at that point in time (one company
makes the best this year - and it's the worst next year, for example)
is more important than what's printed on the label.
Canadian Tire used to have their AGM batteries made by Johnson
Controls, and they switched to Brad Penn?

East Penn, actually



. Same spec. Same model.
Different colored plastic. One was a POS and the other was and still
is one of the best batteries you can buy - at any price.

They make Deka batteries also. Near Reading, PA.

Were they the good or bad ones?
Definitely the good ones

trader_4 wrote: "And they dynamically balance them too, which you can't do at home"

I don't know if it's the same thing, but I insist on
'road-force balancing' whenever I replace, or
rotate my tires.

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 4:24:37 PM UTC-4, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2019 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Yeah, save half an hour, then go home and have to spend that much time
anyway jacking up the car and putting the wheels on. Plus, most people
don't have another set of wheels to begin with and while the tires are
being mounted, you can be shopping at Costco, having your pizza, eating
their free food samples, etc.

Hi Trader,
I thank you for bringing up the fact that Costco now mounts non-Costo
tires, which changes the equation, and where I fully agree with your logic
that the extra two dollars Costco charges to remove and replace the wheel
from the vehicle is inconsequential in the scheme of things.

So I didn't note specifically the two dollars, which I agree with you that
most people would pay, where I simply assumed those two dollars you're
speaking about are in the noise level of the calculations.

Given everyone but three folks on this thread have likely _never_ done the
job at home, and even two of those three may never have done it "at" home,
most people are talking out of their ass when they make nonsensical lame
excuses for why they can't do anything at home that will get their hands
dirty such as something as trivially simple as mount and balance a tire.

Adding in the two dollars you seem to be complaining about, there are both
viable options for a homeowner who actually doesn't mind getting his hands
dirty.

OPTION 1:
1. Save about 1/3 the price purchasing online and then by mounting &
balancing at home (you can save hundreds of dollars per set).
2. If desired, pay $22 for Costco to triple-check the balance.
NOTE: The additional two dollars means you drive to Costco and leave the
vehicle with them for them to remove the wheels from the vehicle, check
your balance, give you a detailed report (if they'll do that for you), and
then put the wheels back on.

OPTION 2:
1. Save about 1/5 the price by purchasing online
2. Then drive to Costco to pay $60 for the lifetime balance & rotation

I agree with you, once we add the two dollars you were complaining about,
that both options are perfectly viable, where option 1 is more fun, but
option 2 isn't bad and works best for most of the folks here who are afraid
or who don't know how or who can't store the tools, or who complain that
the tools are ****ty, etc. (all of which are simply lame excuses for the
simple fact that they don't like to get their hands dirty doing this type
of job, which is so easy to do that anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly
never done it at home themselves).

Most people who posted, save for two, have never likely changed a tire in
their entire life, which is why they're filled to the brim with those lame
excuses.

In short, I agree with you on the extra two dollars being worth it for
Costco to remove and replace the wheels on the vehicle when triple-checking
the balance, while you go shop or eat their $1.50 soda or $2 pizza.

Woaaah there Pilgrim! There you go again. I have no idea WTF you're
talking about. I never posted anything here about a $2 extra charge at
Costco or anything about $2 period. One more time, what I said was that
it makes no sense to me to screw around changing tires at home when you
can get them mounted and dynamically balanced for $15 a tire at Costco.
And then when it was suggested that you can take wheels to Costco to
have the tires mounted instead of waiting, I said that makes no sense
to me either, because while you might save some time at Costco, you
then have the job back home of jacking up the car and changing the wheels.
That undoes any time savings, and now you have WORK to do too.
And most people don't have a spare set of wheels either. Geez, you drop
the car with the Costco tire people, you shop at Costco, take your time,
have a piece of pizza, check you mail on your phone, etc and it's done.
That is ALL that I said. And everyone else here has pretty much told
you the same thing.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 18:56:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I don't know if it's the same thing, but I insist on
'road-force balancing' whenever I replace, or
rotate my tires.

As I said, I'm allergic to illogical bull****.

While there are times where road force balancing is required, there are
certainly times when it's not required - and hence - a waste of duplicative
effort.

It's sort of like combing your hair a hundred times a day even though your
hair doesn't need combing, or sippering up your zipper when it's already
zippered up, or climbing stairs twice when you already climbed them, or
washing a windshield when it's already clean, or screwing a screw in over
and over again even though it'[s already screwed in, or shining your shoes
again even though they're already shiny, or eating a nice meal, then puking
it out, and then eating it again, and again, and again, or like carrying
around four umbrellas even though one would suffice, etc.

The point is simple:
o You either need it
o Or you don't.

If you don't need it then why insist on it?
o Or, put another way...how do you know you need it?

The real answer is that you just _think_ you need it.
o It's a classic FUD ploy that advertisers live and breathe

The gullible sheep fall for every marketing trick in the book.

I'm not saying RFB isn't a good thing when it's needed.
o I'm simply asking you how you know that you need it?

LOGIC QUESTION:
If you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, what do you think that
expensive Hunter RFB machine is going to gain you?

On Wed, 01 May 2019 18:29:15 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

We disagree philosophically, where I completely understand your assumption
that if something is more expensive, it _must_ be better.
Never said that. You totally misunderstand. Higher cost does not
mean better. Many examples of that - but when the price is lower than
it should be you pretty much know there is something wrong.

Hi Clare,
I agree with your statements above where adults generally have no problem
aggreeing first on facts, and then on rational logical deductions based on
those facts.

The facts are that _plenty_ of things don't match "performance" with
"price" (or whatever metric we want to match with price.

A classic example is, for example, high octane gasoline for a vehicle that
is running correctly that wasn't designed for it. Putting high-octane fuel
in that car won't gain the driver a single iota of anything valuable in
terms of performance.

It just cost more.
o It's not better gas.

Many people (idiots all) _think_ it's better gas.
o Do you know why they _think_ it's better gas Clare?

I do.

I've been running an experiment for _decades_, where I innocently ask the
person getting gas near me what's the difference between the ratings, where
I'm terrified of the answers I get. If you ever want any confirmation that
the vast majority of people are brain dead, just ask them what the
difference is between the various grades of gasoline, Clare.

While I'm sure you know the correct answer, the vast majority of people
I've asked that question of terrify me that they actually _believe_ the
bull**** they spew.

As you must be aware Clare, putting more expensive gas in your car results
in only one perceptable change, which is that it decreases your disposable
income.

It has no other effect where it takes me mere seconds to DESTROY the belief
system that 'you get what you pay for'.

You get what you get.
o What you pay for it is up to a host of other factors.

I do understand your point though that sometimes we need to be "wary" that
the price is just "too cheap", e.g., if gas were sold at $1 per gallon,
we'd wonder how on earth they can do that, so it might be a clue that
something is fishy.

For you if it is less expensive it's a better deal.

Hi Clare,
Above you said I didn't understand you, and now I'm showing that you didn't
understand me, where that's normal for Usenet because it's a medium of just
words, where it takes a bit of clarification when the inference is
different from the implication.

Just as you felt I inferred incorrectly that you claimed "you get what you
pay for", where in reality, you were claiming that sometimes it's so cheap
that we have to question what it is that we're getting - I have to clarify
for you what I said.

I never once said "less expensive is a better deal".

I said you get what you get.
o And you pay what you pay.

The price has almost nothing to do with what you get, Clare, where I can
prove that time and again (e.g., compare a Fram oil filter with a Hengste
or Mann oil filter, as just one of a zillion examples).

Sometimes price tracks performance.
o Often it doesn't.

My point was _always_ very clear, Cla

You get what you get.
o What you pay for that is a different equation altogether.

You know, for example that I buy by the specs.
o I buy batteries by the specs (which mean more than just amps & volts)
o I buy tires by the specs (which means more than just UTQG numbers)
o I buy gasoline by the specs (which means more than just octane ratings)
etc.

For you to infer that I implied that I buy by price is dead wrong.
o I buy by the specs - and I pay the lowest price for those best specs.

There are _many_ tradeoffs in buying by specs and then factoring in the
price, where each items has its own equation.

But I am on record as saying time and again that the PRICE is the LAST
thing you look at.

You first look at the specs; and then you factor in the price.

For me, unless I
KNOW why it's less expensive I assume it is just CHEAP. CHEAP
generally means inferior. Inexpensive isn't ALWAYS cheap, and isn't
ALWAYS inferior - but the general rule is if it looks too good to be
true it usually is.

Hi Clare,
I have nothing against being wary if a price seems too good.

But really, if I pay $100 for a tire at Tire Rack, and if I pay $75 for
that exact same tire at Simple Tire, how on earth are you going to claim
that the tire is somehow (magically?) "better" just because I paid more for
it at one outlet than the other?

As always, you get what you get.
o What you pay for it is a different calculation altogether.

Demand may or may not track with quality.
In today's North America generally it doesn't. Low quality and high
demand seem to track more directly than high quality and high demand.

People seem to know all about the price of something, and nothing
about either the cost or quality.(value) - as Oscar Wilde put it " A
man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

Hi Clare,
I've been on record for _years_ saying that PRICE is LAST.
o You first determine the desired specs that you need
(where word "spec" doesn't mean the bull**** from the marketing guys).

Then you find the _best_ items that meet your spec.

Lastly, you factor in the price.

It's the _intelligent_ way of doing things, Clare.
o IMHO, those who _start_ with price, are doing it backwards.

IMHO, most people can't fathom that the price has nothing per se to do with
the performance of the item, so they _think_ that the price tracks the
performance.

If I buy a BMW in California, and pay $10,000 more for it, and then if I
buy that same BMW in Nevada, and pay $10,000 less, it's still the same BMW.

Anyone who says "you get what you pay for", is an idiot, IMHO, Clare.
o You get what you get.

What you pay for it depends on a host of unrelated factors.

Bull**** marketing, as you call it, is required to sell what people
don't need. Price pretty much sells everything else

Hi Clare,
At least you seem to comprehend that marketing is in the business of
creating imaginary belief systems (e.g., like the need to have, oh, I don't
know, a tattoo, or the need to drink soda, or the need to use high octane
fuel (so your car "feels better"), etc.

Lots of this bull**** marketing is done for tires, for example, where women
are targeted especially wonderfully where I recall a commercial where a mom
is driving in the rain with kids in the back and all of a sudden a dog
crosses the wet road and she jams on the brakes, and then the commercial
says something like "Aren't you glad you're safe with Michelins" (or
whatever brand it was).

The commercial was complete and total bull**** Clare
o But that's what the gullible sheep fall for.

If advertising of imaginary belief systems didn't work, they wouldn't be
spending billions on advertising.

We unearthed, for example, long ago, as I recall, trade rags which
purported to claim to tell the tire shops how much money they would make by
convincing gullible customers to get RFB as a habit. (It might take a while
to dig up those cites, but that's what I recall when we last discussed this
topic.)

There was a guy in this very thread who was convinced that he _needs_ RFB
on all his tires, which is just total bull****, Clare.

There are times when you need it, of course...
o And there are plenty of times when you don't.

The problem with balance, of course, is that it's not so easy to know when
you need it if you're not the person who mounted the tire, which, I agree,
complicates the decision due to the ignorance of the owner in that case.

In short, my philosophy is based on fact since I'm allergic to bull****.
o You get what you get (which is whatever you can tell about what you get).
o You pay what other people pay (since the overall demand sets the price).
Yet the demand for cheap crap drives the North American economy -
not the demand for high quality

Hi Clare,
As you know, I buy tires by the reliable specs but, as you know, the specs
we _really_ want, are nearly impossible to get for every tire we're
considering.

Likewise, I buy brake friction materials by the spec, where, again, the
specs we really want simply don't exist.

You can buy some things by the specs, where you can be reasonably well
assured that the specs aren't a lie (e.g., gasoline), but there are plenty
of other things where the specs could easily be a lie (e.g., radio
transmitter EIRP or speaker 3dB frequency response).

Everything we buy has a _different_ set of specs and lack of specs, no
matter _what_ that object is, Clare.

My main point to the morons who claim 'you get what you pay for', is that
they _wish_ the world was as simple as a number line when it comes to
assessing quality.

But it's not.

If you buy a tree, it has a different spec than if you buy a tire which has
a different spec than if you buy a shoe which has a different spec than if
you buy a screwdriver which has a different spec than if you buy a
capacitor which has a different spec than if you buy a pair of jeans which
has a different spec than if you buy a starter motor which has a different
spec than if you buy a chalk board, etc.

In the end, those simpletons who _wish_ you could assess quality by the
price are spewing bull**** of their imaginary belief system just like two
small kids discussing Santa Claus are spewing the bull**** of an imaginary
belief system.

The maxim I follow when purchasing anything is this simple, Cla
o I strive to look at the spec first - using price as the last metric.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 21:48:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Woaaah there Pilgrim! There you go again. I have no idea WTF you're
talking about. I never posted anything here about a $2 extra charge at
Costco or anything about $2 period. One more time, what I said was that
it makes no sense to me to screw around changing tires at home when you
can get them mounted and dynamically balanced for $15 a tire at Costco.
And then when it was suggested that you can take wheels to Costco to
have the tires mounted

Hi Trader,
It's normal on Usenet, which is a delayed text-only medium, for
clarification to be needed when people are discussing things that they're
not aware of the math which is involved.

To clarify for you, that extra $2 (i.e., 50 cents per wheel) negates the
need for the wheels to need to be removed by the owner.

To clarify even further the price which I have posted many times after you
said that Costco mounts non-Costco tires:
o You can pay $5 per wheel if you hand Costco the wheel, or, better yet,
o You can pay $5.50 per wheel, if you leave the wheels on the car.

To clarify even further what I said from the beginning, if you pay this
fifty cents per wheel, Costco will remove the wheels from the vehicle and
put them back (essentially, it costs you a quarter for each operation).

At those prices, most people would logically opt to drive the car to
Costco, and _not_ drop off the wheels, which is what I have been trying to
tell you.

instead of waiting, I said that makes no sense
to me either, because while you might save some time at Costco, you
then have the job back home of jacking up the car and changing the wheels.

Hi Trader,
I don't think you understood that the two dollars is in the noise level,
where it literally costs about twenty five cents per operation of removal
and reinstallation, which is so cheap as to be in the noise level.

So whether you drop off the wheels or you drop off the car, it's the same
price (essentially) either way.

Literally, the price is two dollars different, which isn't enough of an
impact, either way, for us to be discussing, don't you think?

Essentially, the price is the same whether you drop off the wheels or
whether you drop off the car, which is what I've been trying to get you to
comprehend in the last couple of posts.

I told you this when I first responded to your very helpful information
that Costco mounts non-Costco tires, so I'm not sure why we're _still_
hashing it out multiple times.

In summary, whether you drop off the tires or you drop off the car, it's
the same price (differing by only two bucks, which is in the noise level,
Trader, IMHO).

That undoes any time savings, and now you have WORK to do too.

Again, whether you drop off the wheels, or whether you drop off the car,
it's essentially the same price.

And most people don't have a spare set of wheels either.

Whether you drop off the wheels or you drop off the car, it's up to you,
since the price is essentially the same either way.

Geez, you drop
the car with the Costco tire people, you shop at Costco, take your time,
have a piece of pizza, check you mail on your phone, etc and it's done.
That is ALL that I said. And everyone else here has pretty much told
you the same thing.

Hi Trader,
It's strange that you're telling _me_ that "everyone has told me the same
thing" when I was the one who told everyone here that the price is
essentially the same whether you drop off the car or whether you drop off
the tires.

If people are telling me that, then they're idiots, since I am the one who
called Costco and reported the prices.

So your claim that they're "telling me the same thing" is just more
bull**** on your part that is completely imaginary since I'm the one who
told _them_ the prices that Costco charges.

Let me re-iterate since you seem to be spewing total bull****, not because
you're lying, but because you actually seem to honestly _believe_ the
bull**** you just spewed.

FACT:
1. You told me that Costco mounts non-Costco tires.
FACT
2. I called Costco and confirmed their prices for that work.
FACT:
3. I published the price that shows a puny $2 difference for whether you
drop off the car, or whether you drop off the tires.

LOGIC:
The two dollars is in the noise level, Clare, at least it is for me.
LOGIC:
For you to continually make a big deal of this puny two dollars means that
you have some other problem, Clare, because I clearly said it's in the
noise level multiple times Clare.
LOGIC:
It's complete bull**** for you to claim that others needed to "tell me"
about this obvious clear fact.

Let's just summarize that just because you are confused, doesn't mean that
I'm not factual and logical.

It simply means you're confused - and that confusion has nothing to do with
me since I presented the Costco price list very early on in this thread
Clare.

I assume you didn't read that Costco price list, or maybe you didn't
comprehend that Costco price list, or maybe you don't _like_ that Costco
price list (or whatever).

I can't tell you why you failed to comprehend something as simple at this
two dollars being in the noise level in terms of affecting a decision on
whether to drop off the wheels or the car.

In short:
o I'm allergic to bull****
o I'm all about facts - and logical deductions based on those facts.

On Wed, 1 May 2019 06:33:55 -0700, sms wrote:

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Hi Steve,

The one problem with that statement is that, IMHO, nobody here really seems
to have viable facts for an accuratge percentage of wheels that actually
_need_ to be dynamically balanced when the match mounting and static
balance is done well and where there isn't any perceptible vibration at
speed.

Since you make the strong claim above, do you actually have any statistics
to help us understand what your belief system is actually based upon?

On Wed, 01 May 2019 18:36:37 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

Fact Check. You are starting to sound like Trump

Hi Clare,



Let's keep politics out of this since politics is one place where imaginary
belief systems abound, and, as you should know by now, I'm allergic to
bull****, so you can imagine what I think of politicians who spew it.

On 5/2/19 4:01 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
It's normal on Usenet, which is a delayed text-only medium, for

Maybe your el-cheapo usenet service doesn't allow images but the better news servers handle images just fine.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 4:01:53 AM UTC-4, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2019 21:48:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Woaaah there Pilgrim! There you go again. I have no idea WTF you're
talking about. I never posted anything here about a $2 extra charge at
Costco or anything about $2 period. One more time, what I said was that
it makes no sense to me to screw around changing tires at home when you
can get them mounted and dynamically balanced for $15 a tire at Costco.
And then when it was suggested that you can take wheels to Costco to
have the tires mounted

Hi Trader,
It's normal on Usenet, which is a delayed text-only medium, for
clarification to be needed when people are discussing things that they're
not aware of the math which is involved.

To clarify for you, that extra $2 (i.e., 50 cents per wheel) negates the
need for the wheels to need to be removed by the owner.

To clarify even further the price which I have posted many times after you
said that Costco mounts non-Costco tires:
o You can pay $5 per wheel if you hand Costco the wheel, or, better yet,
o You can pay $5.50 per wheel, if you leave the wheels on the car.

To clarify even further what I said from the beginning, if you pay this
fifty cents per wheel, Costco will remove the wheels from the vehicle and
put them back (essentially, it costs you a quarter for each operation).

At those prices, most people would logically opt to drive the car to
Costco, and _not_ drop off the wheels, which is what I have been trying to
tell you.

instead of waiting, I said that makes no sense
to me either, because while you might save some time at Costco, you
then have the job back home of jacking up the car and changing the wheels.

Hi Trader,
I don't think you understood that the two dollars is in the noise level,
where it literally costs about twenty five cents per operation of removal
and reinstallation, which is so cheap as to be in the noise level.

So whether you drop off the wheels or you drop off the car, it's the same
price (essentially) either way.

Literally, the price is two dollars different, which isn't enough of an
impact, either way, for us to be discussing, don't you think?

Essentially, the price is the same whether you drop off the wheels or
whether you drop off the car, which is what I've been trying to get you to
comprehend in the last couple of posts.

I told you this when I first responded to your very helpful information
that Costco mounts non-Costco tires, so I'm not sure why we're _still_
hashing it out multiple times.

In summary, whether you drop off the tires or you drop off the car, it's
the same price (differing by only two bucks, which is in the noise level,
Trader, IMHO).

That undoes any time savings, and now you have WORK to do too.

Again, whether you drop off the wheels, or whether you drop off the car,
it's essentially the same price.

And most people don't have a spare set of wheels either.

Whether you drop off the wheels or you drop off the car, it's up to you,
since the price is essentially the same either way.

Geez, you drop
the car with the Costco tire people, you shop at Costco, take your time,
have a piece of pizza, check you mail on your phone, etc and it's done.
That is ALL that I said. And everyone else here has pretty much told
you the same thing.

Hi Trader,
It's strange that you're telling _me_ that "everyone has told me the same
thing" when I was the one who told everyone here that the price is
essentially the same whether you drop off the car or whether you drop off
the tires.

If people are telling me that, then they're idiots, since I am the one who
called Costco and reported the prices.

So your claim that they're "telling me the same thing" is just more
bull**** on your part that is completely imaginary since I'm the one who
told _them_ the prices that Costco charges.

Let me re-iterate since you seem to be spewing total bull****, not because
you're lying, but because you actually seem to honestly _believe_ the
bull**** you just spewed.

FACT:
1. You told me that Costco mounts non-Costco tires.
FACT
2. I called Costco and confirmed their prices for that work.
FACT:
3. I published the price that shows a puny $2 difference for whether you
drop off the car, or whether you drop off the tires.

LOGIC:
The two dollars is in the noise level, Clare, at least it is for me.
LOGIC:
For you to continually make a big deal of this puny two dollars means that
you have some other problem, Clare, because I clearly said it's in the
noise level multiple times Clare.
LOGIC:
It's complete bull**** for you to claim that others needed to "tell me"
about this obvious clear fact.

Let's just summarize that just because you are confused, doesn't mean that
I'm not factual and logical.

It simply means you're confused - and that confusion has nothing to do with
me since I presented the Costco price list very early on in this thread
Clare.

I assume you didn't read that Costco price list, or maybe you didn't
comprehend that Costco price list, or maybe you don't _like_ that Costco
price list (or whatever).

I can't tell you why you failed to comprehend something as simple at this
two dollars being in the noise level in terms of affecting a decision on
whether to drop off the wheels or the car.

In short:
o I'm allergic to bull****
o I'm all about facts - and logical deductions based on those facts.

In short, I showed you twice now where you totally
misrepresented what I've said, that you attributed things to me that
I never said. And your dishonest methods continue,
you're off to another whole page about the $2 BS, explaining it
AGAIN to me. I didn't post a damn thing about $2. Never, nor do I
give a ****. Also, how you keep saying "Hi Trader", over and over,
while replying within one post, is just plain weird.

its a DIY group

the guy likes to DIY his tires

more power to him.

is this really something we need to argue about

m

On 5/2/2019 3:00 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2019 18:56:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I don't know if it's the same thing, but I insist on
'road-force balancing' whenever I replace, or
rotate my tires.

As I said, I'm allergic to illogical bull****.

While there are times where road force balancing is required, there are
certainly times when it's not required - and hence - a waste of duplicative
effort.

It's sort of like combing your hair a hundred times a day even though your
hair doesn't need combing, or sippering up your zipper when it's already
zippered up, or climbing stairs twice when you already climbed them, or
washing a windshield when it's already clean, or screwing a screw in over
and over again even though it'[s already screwed in, or shining your shoes
again even though they're already shiny, or eating a nice meal, then puking
it out, and then eating it again, and again, and again, or like carrying
around four umbrellas even though one would suffice, etc.

The point is simple:
o You either need it
o Or you don't.

If you don't need it then why insist on it?
o Or, put another way...how do you know you need it?

The real answer is that you just _think_ you need it.
o It's a classic FUD ploy that advertisers live and breathe

The gullible sheep fall for every marketing trick in the book.

I'm not saying RFB isn't a good thing when it's needed.
o I'm simply asking you how you know that you need it?

LOGIC QUESTION:
If you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, what do you think that
expensive Hunter RFB machine is going to gain you?


Why not skip the silly BS and tell us why it is not needed or how we can
tell if needed or not?

Give is facts, not the BS above. Instead of calling people gullible,
educate them.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:42:45 AM UTC-4, wrote:
its a DIY group

the guy likes to DIY his tires

more power to him.

is this really something we need to argue about

m


I don't care if he likes to DIY tires. I do care when he makes posts
attributing things to me that I never said. I simply said that it makes
no sense to me to change tires at home when you can get them mounted AND
dynamically balanced at Costco for $15. He turned that into a post
where he claimed, or strongly implied, that I had said
that the best procedure is to mount your tires at home, static balance
them, then go to Costco for dynamic balance if needed. And then he
made a post, replying to me, about some $2 charge at Costco, as if I'm
involved in that, when IDK what he's even talking about.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 10:14:29 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/2/2019 3:00 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2019 18:56:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I don't know if it's the same thing, but I insist on
'road-force balancing' whenever I replace, or
rotate my tires.

As I said, I'm allergic to illogical bull****.

While there are times where road force balancing is required, there are
certainly times when it's not required - and hence - a waste of duplicative
effort.

It's sort of like combing your hair a hundred times a day even though your
hair doesn't need combing, or sippering up your zipper when it's already
zippered up, or climbing stairs twice when you already climbed them, or
washing a windshield when it's already clean, or screwing a screw in over
and over again even though it'[s already screwed in, or shining your shoes
again even though they're already shiny, or eating a nice meal, then puking
it out, and then eating it again, and again, and again, or like carrying
around four umbrellas even though one would suffice, etc.

The point is simple:
o You either need it
o Or you don't.

If you don't need it then why insist on it?
o Or, put another way...how do you know you need it?

The real answer is that you just _think_ you need it.
o It's a classic FUD ploy that advertisers live and breathe

The gullible sheep fall for every marketing trick in the book.

I'm not saying RFB isn't a good thing when it's needed.
o I'm simply asking you how you know that you need it?

LOGIC QUESTION:
If you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, what do you think that
expensive Hunter RFB machine is going to gain you?


Why not skip the silly BS and tell us why it is not needed or how we can
tell if needed or not?

Give is facts, not the BS above. Instead of calling people gullible,
educate them.

I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling
any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of
options when mounting new tires:

no balancing
static
dynamic
RFB

I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
mostly useful if you're having a problem.

trader_4 wrote: "I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of
options when mounting new tires:

no balancing
static
dynamic
RFB

I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
mostly useful if you're having a problem. "

I take it 'static' balance means the tire/wheel
is not spun to balance it?


As for RFB, I do it every time I rotate so
I KNOW there won't be any problems.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
trader_4 wrote: "I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of
options when mounting new tires:

no balancing
static
dynamic
RFB

I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
mostly useful if you're having a problem. "

I take it 'static' balance means the tire/wheel
is not spun to balance it?

Yes




As for RFB, I do it every time I rotate so
I KNOW there won't be any problems.

Makes no sense, because balancing the tire/wheel assembly with RFB doesn't
have anything to do with which location on the car that it's installed on.
And once a tire is balanced, it should remain pretty much balanced,
unless something happens, like a weight falls off. But I would not be
re-balancing tires at rotation, unless I had a problem, eg vibration.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling
any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of
options when mounting new tires:

no balancing
static
dynamic
RFB

I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
mostly useful if you're having a problem.

I agree with EVERYTHING Trader said above.
o Adults are funny that way

When people say logical things like Trader just did, they're easy to agree
with.

It's only when they make lame excuses for when the logic fails, just as the
logic of why my grandkids can't clean the bathroom always seems to fail.

If they simply admitted they don't like doing the job, it would be logical.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 08:45:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

As for RFB, I do it every time I rotate so
I KNOW there won't be any problems.

Makes no sense, because balancing the tire/wheel assembly with RFB doesn't
have anything to do with which location on the car that it's installed on.
And once a tire is balanced, it should remain pretty much balanced,
unless something happens, like a weight falls off. But I would not be
re-balancing tires at rotation, unless I had a problem, eg vibration.

Again, Trader is thinking logically where _this_ is the type of discussions
we should be having on a DIY repair group, IMHO.

IMHO, two things adults should have no problem agreeing with a
a. Facts
b. Logic deduced from those facts.

It's when people don't comprehend facts, or when they deduce irrational
logic from those facts, when the BS starts flying, IMHO.

I'm allergic to BS; but I easily agree with logic Trader recently posted.

The key question that I don't have an answer for is WHAT PERCENTAGE of
mounts _need_ dynamic/rfb balancing after proper match mounting and static
balancing at home?

Folks may not remember, but we've been though this question before, where
the equation is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for a shop where rework is super
expensive, and where the customer pays for even unnecessary work.

For a shop to RECOMMEND RFB is assumed to be something that benefits them
in every way, but the question for us on a home repair group is whether RFB
benefits us when done _every_ time (at what tradeoff in wasted resources).

I don't recall ANYONE ever having presented any facts better than the ones
I unearthed (as I recall), the last time we discussed this topic, where I
found, as I recall, HUNTER MARKETING MATERIAL suggesting shops imduce all
customers to get RFB, whether they need it or not.

I think an analogy might be sort of like having a haircut forced upon you,
whether you need it or not.

The real issue is that I don't think we have the facts as to whether or not
we _need_ that RFB haircut if we already have our hair cut short such that
there's no perceptible vibration in the dynamic test by driving at speed
after match mounting and static balancing at home.

The logic is that cutting your hair twice in the same day doesn't gain you
anything if you don't need that second haircut; it simply costs you
unnecessarily if it's not actually needed.

On 5/2/2019 1:34 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

Again, Trader is thinking logically where _this_ is the type of discussions
we should be having on a DIY repair group, IMHO.

IMHO, two things adults should have no problem agreeing with a
a. Facts
b. Logic deduced from those facts.


True. Why did you not answer my question about the cost of the "free"
snacks you spoke of. You said it was free, is that not a fact?

On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:44:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

True. Why did you not answer my question about the cost of the "free"
snacks you spoke of. You said it was free, is that not a fact?

Hi Ed,

You mentioned that joke before where I didn't bother wasting everyone's
time responding to you that it was a simple sarcastic humorous dig that you
are attempting to make a mountain out of simply because _you_ don't like
that I pointed out that I speak facts and that I deduce rational logic from
those facts.

Whenever I say I speak facts, what always happens is that some idiot on the
net _tries_ to find my material facts wrong, where they end up wasting
everyone' time playing sill little semantic games where all they can find
is a typo, a thinko, or, in the case that you are playing your silly little
game attempting, a sarcastic joke that they attempt to twist out of
context.

Why can't we simply discuss the facts and merits here of a mounting DIY
without you repeatedly and constantly playing silly semantic games, Ed?

The facts are simple:
o Mounting & static balancing at home _can_ be done.
o The tools costs about $200 (albeit they're ****ty tools - but they work)
o The storage, use, & cost of these tools is similar to other tools we own
etc.

The logic is also simple:
o Some people _enjoy_ doing a DIY at home; while others apparently hate it.
o Just be honest that you hate it - which is a perfectly logical feeling.

The facts are that you can DIY at home.
o The goal is a well-balanced wheel

Toward that goal, the logical sequence is simple for those who hate DIY:
o They go to Costco, for example, & spend $60, and the job is done

It's not a DIY - but the job is done, right?
o I don't argue with that logic since it's perfectly reasonable logic.

Adults are funny that way.
o I don't argue with your logic that you prefer NOT to DIY

I simply point out that the _reason_ many people don't DIY is that they
don't like DIY and not any of the other arguments that have been proposed,
because _all_ those other arguments fail simple basic logic tests.

If people _do_ wish to DIY at home, I suggest this simple logic:
o Buy online, mount & static balance at home (eat all the food you want)
o The next time you're on the highway, doublecheck for vibration
o If you feel vibration, head to Costco for an inexpensive triplecheck

If the fact is that you don't feel any vibration, and, if we "assume" that
imperceptible vibrations don't cause damage (which is an unknown at this
point), then the simple obvious most basic of all logic is that having your
hair cut twice in the same day buys you nothing, where, having a balanced
wheel rebalanced buys you nothing.

Cutting your hair again, when it's already cut, buys you nothing, Ed.

Since I'm all about facts, and logic deduced from those facts...
o Does anyone else see logical errors in that suggestion above?

trader_4 posted for all of us...



Then I hope you have an Epipen and you must need to use it frequently,
because you're full of it.


Another expression I can latch on to. Thanks.

--
Tekkie

On 5/2/2019 2:12 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:44:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

True. Why did you not answer my question about the cost of the "free"
snacks you spoke of. You said it was free, is that not a fact?

Hi Ed,

You mentioned that joke before where I didn't bother wasting everyone's
time responding to you that it was a simple sarcastic humorous dig that you
are attempting to make a mountain out of simply because _you_ don't like
that I pointed out that I speak facts and that I deduce rational logic from
those facts.

Whenever I say I speak facts, what always happens is that some idiot on the
net _tries_ to find my material facts wrong, where they end up wasting
everyone' time playing sill little semantic games where all they can find
is a typo, a thinko, or, in the case that you are playing your silly little
game attempting, a sarcastic joke that they attempt to twist out of
context.

Why can't we simply discuss the facts and merits here of a mounting DIY
without you repeatedly and constantly playing silly semantic games, Ed?


You said it was free FACT is, it was not. See, very easy.

On 5/2/2019 2:12 PM, Arlen G. Holder (aka Tire Whisperer) wrote:
The facts are simple:
o Mounting & static balancing at home_can_ be done.
o The tools costs about $200 (albeit they're ****ty tools - but they work)
o The storage, use, & cost of these tools is similar to other tools we own
etc.


Roughly ten years ago (March 2009), I invested $200 in the S&P 500 and then took a nap.Â* Today that $200 has grown to ~$750...and I never broke a sweat or got my hands dirty.

Don't get me wrong, if you actually enjoy wrestling old dirty tires, knock yourself out but I'll stick to more enjoyable hobbies.

On 5/2/2019 1:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/2/2019 1:34 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

Again, Trader is thinking logically where _this_ is the type of discussions
we should be having on a DIY repair group, IMHO.

IMHO, two things adults should have no problem agreeing with a
a. Facts
b. Logic deduced from those facts.


True.Â* Why did you not answer my question about the cost of the "free" snacks you spoke of.Â* You said it was free, is that not a fact?


Good catch, Ed.Â* Please pass the Epi-pen.

--
Get off my lawn!

On 5/2/19 2:12 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
Whenever I say I speak facts, what always happens is that some idiot on the
net_tries_ to find my material facts wrong, where they end up wasting
everyone' time playing sill little semantic games where all they can find
is a typo, a thinko, or, in the case that you are playing your silly little
game attempting, a sarcastic joke that they attempt to twist out of
context.

Achoo! Achoo!

Sorry, I'm allergic to bull****.

On 1/5/19 11:33 pm, sms wrote:
On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
UPDATE:

Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years, where
each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Static balancing is a waste of time.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 2/5/19 3:53 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"sms" wrote in message
...
On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
UPDATE:

Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years,
where
each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Thats overstate, its better than nothing.

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)