On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 09:41:41 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> There was a time I did all of that stuff. As I got older, I found it
> easier to write checks than drop a tranny. I still put in the
> windshield washer fluid though.

Like you, I used to do more stuff myself.
Now I do "deferred maintenance".


> On a monetary basis, yes. On a practical basis, no. I'm not willing to
> invest a lot of time and space to save $20 when I can earn that in less
> time than it takes to mount the tire.

What you just said is the real reason most people don't mount their own
tires and align their suspension. Over a decade, it would cost only $800
for two cars' mounting, and $1000 for alignments.

You can make more than that by not taking the appreciable time that it
would take to just LEARN how to do mounting and alignments.

My only beef with that sentiment is that people don't tell the truth to
themselves when they say that the reason they don't do it is the cost of
the tools.

The reason is, as you said, that they have better things to do.
And that's ok.

> Work is a factor. Some people actually enjoy the sense of
> accomplishment more than the money saved.

This is true. It's why people do crossword puzzles.
For me, I get a sense of empowerment.

I enjoy the freedom and convenience of fixing a flat, for example, at home.
So, if the tire is low, I limp home and fix it.
And when I put it back on, I feel safe and satisfied.

> Or perhaps you can do a
> little part time brain surgery and earn enough in an hour to pay for a
> full set of tires, including mount and balance.

Absolutely.
This is the real reason most people don't align and mount.
It's because they have better things to do.
All I'm asking is for people to be truthful to themselves.

> Given the price difference it may be better, but not 5X better.

We're both old men so I don't have to explain that price is an indication
of demand only whereas quality may or may not correspond to demand.

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

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

My main argument is that anyone who says "you get what you pay for", hasn't
thought the problem set through.

You actually get what you get, and you pay what *others* are willing to pay
(since the masses set the price ... you don't set the price).

My hypothesis is that those who use price as a major indicator of quality
are generally those who don't understand that which they are buying.

They use a number as an indicator of quality only because two numbers are
easy for them to measure against (whereas cold cranking amps and amp hours
are harder for them to compare for two reasons).
1. Technical specs need to be understood, in and of themselves
2. Technical specs often need to be balanced against one another

I may be wrong - but that's my theory.

> I find
> that as price goes up, value goes down.

I can't disagree.
Look at how much off-season fruits and vegetables cost.

If we somewhat equate "value" to "quality", we can note that the quality of
fruit goes down in the off season, and yet the price goes up.

The quality goes down as the price goes up simply due to supply and demand,
where individuals don't get to determine either the supply nor the demand.

As an individual, you either pay that price - or you don't pay that price.

If there are enough people who pay that price, the price stays high.

If there aren't enough people to pay that price, the supply either
disappears, or the price goes down.

So, the price isn't any indicator of quality nor value.
It's merely an indicator of aggregate demand.

> Applies to most everything we
> buy. Double the price and get 50% better, tops. Is it better to have a
> fully loaded Chevy or a stripped down Buick at the same price?

You have a good point which is that for every dollar increase in price, you
often get exponentially less increase in value.

So, for example, a one hundred dollar car has a certain priceerformance
ratio, but a two hundred thousand dollar car probably doesn't have a 2:1
priceerformance ratio. It's probably far less than 2:1.

> My car came with 5 ears of roadside assistance. Last time a tire had to
> be changed I sat in the car at night in the rain for 20 minutes for the
> guy to show up. Nice feature. I don't recall the last time I used a
> lug wrench, but is is over 25 years.

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

I find that where I drive has a lot to do with flats.
Where I live there is a bunch of new construction, and lots of remodeling
and landscaping.

Personally, I think nuts and bolts fall off the truck, but I can't prove
that.

My wife has AAA which I'm ok with since it makes her feel good.
Truth be known, she calls me and I take care of the problem.

But she feels safer knowing they'll tow her or give her gas or jump her car
or fix a flat, or jimmy her locks, or whatever it is that they do.

I even once called them because I parked on a hill in what turned out to be
mud and my RWD sedan couldn't back out and I couldn't go forward as the
nose was buried into the hillside.

So I called her AAA, and they took it even though I'm not female. I don't
think the driver of the tow truck cares, as long as he gets paid. He pulled
me out of that mud (sideways!) and I drove off intact.

So AAA has its merits.

> You have quite a list of tires. Some do not give a traction rating
> though. Of course, I'd want A or AA.

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

But we can assume, as you did, that wet straightline traction is critical.
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiret....jsp?techid=48

For the size you mentioned, you'd probably never want to ever go below A,
and you'd almost certainly want AA.
A = above 0.47g on wet asphalt, above 0.35g on concrete
AA = above 0.54g on wet asphalt, above 0.38g on concrete

The treadwear rating also gives you an average dry friction coefficient
using the formula that the average dry friction coefficient is 2.25 divided
by the treadwear rating raised to the 0.15 power.

> What the specs don't show is how
> well constructed the tire is, how well it rides, how quiet it is.

Actually, the specs do tell you how well constructed the tire is.

The load range tells you very much how well constructed the tire is.
The speed rating tells you that also.
Also the XL designation (aka the ply rating) tells you that.
As does the temperature rating.

> Name
> brand means little too. There are plenty of lesser known companies that
> make excellent products.

While Goodyear & Michelin marketing people must hate intelligent thinkers
like you and me, I have to agree with you that brand name, for tires, is
meaningless.

Just as there are no bad brake pads sold in the US, there are no bad tires
sold in the USA.

The specs that must be printed on friction materials tells you what you
need to know, and the specs that must be embossed into the tire sidewall
tell you what you need to know.

There are just various levels of good.

> I am curious as to which one you would buy and why.

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

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

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

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

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

a. AA 500 $150
b. AA 400 $100
c. A 500 $75

There is rarely an exact tie, but if there were an exact tie, then I'd make
the decision based on other factors, such as warranty or the smile on the
salesman's face, or whatever the "soft" tie-breaker criteria may be.

The problem where most people give up is how to rank those three criteria
above on "value".

As you noted, making the value tradeoffs are the bitch here.

For example, I can see myself choosing *any* of those sample tires, based
on those value tradeoffs.
a. AA 500 $150 has the best wet traction & the best treadwear
b. AA 400 $100 has the best wet traction & is a lot cheaper
c. A 500 $75 is a lot cheaper and has good wet traction & treadwear

>> Nonetheless, how would you compare these tires at Walmart today?
>> HINT: I know how to pick the best tire in that bunch - and it's not by
>> price alone.
> You have my attention

If this was my wife's car, I'd probably choose "a" but if it was mine, I'd
probably choose "c"; but my point is that you only look at tires that meet
or exceed OEM specs, and then you list the tires by teh specs YOU care
about most.

Then you make tradeoffs based on the specs.

The point is that you don't make those tradeoffs based on brand, sidewall
color, tread pattern, boy-racer reviews, dealer recommendations, etc.,
since most people are looking for someone else to tell them how to buy
tires, where, my premise is that the sidewall tells you everything you need
to know.