Outside edge of front tires stairstepping

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
> On 11/07/2017 4:39 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 6:11:28 PM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2017 2:20 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 3:36:14 AM UTC-10, 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's going to take the tech about half an hour to do the suspension check
> >>>> over....going around pulling on things and hitting things with a mallet and
> >>>> getting some sense of the general condition of the suspension. Then he is
> >>>> going to spend ten or fifteen minutes talking with you about how you drive,
> >>>> THEN he's going to start measuring the suspension. So figure an hour's time
> >>>> for a full-priced technician just to look everything over.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Also, you do not need a "4 wheel" alighnment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've been reading up on alignment where the Toyota only has front
> >>>>> camber/caster (which is one setting) and toe, so that's all I need are
> >>>>> those two things.
> >>>>
> >>>> What you MOST need is the guy pushing and prodding and hitting things with a
> >>>> hammer to make sure everything on the suspension is stable. The actual
> >>>> alignment on the machine is the easy part and the less important part.

On 11/07/2017 4:58 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
>> On 11/07/2017 4:39 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 6:11:28 PM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2017 2:20 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 3:36:14 AM UTC-10, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's going to take the tech about half an hour to do the suspension check
>>>>>> over....going around pulling on things and hitting things with a mallet and
>>>>>> getting some sense of the general condition of the suspension. Then he is
>>>>>> going to spend ten or fifteen minutes talking with you about how you drive,
>>>>>> THEN he's going to start measuring the suspension. So figure an hour's time
>>>>>> for a full-priced technician just to look everything over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, you do not need a "4 wheel" alighnment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been reading up on alignment where the Toyota only has front
>>>>>>> camber/caster (which is one setting) and toe, so that's all I need are
>>>>>>> those two things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you MOST need is the guy pushing and prodding and hitting things with a
>>>>>> hammer to make sure everything on the suspension is stable. The actual
>>>>>> alignment on the machine is the easy part and the less important part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You take it to the tire store, they put it on the machine, they measure it,
>>>>>> they put shims in so everything looks good on the machine and they declare
>>>>>> it aligned. But if you have anything loose and worn, it will be out of
>>>>>> alignment again by the time you get it out of the shop. Before putting it
>>>>>> on the machine you need to verify this isn't the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I can find a shop who will do those two CHECKS for around $25 that would
>>>>>>> make logical sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But to pay for an entire mounted tire just to save on a mounted tire seems
>>>>>>> like throwing good money away logically as it was aligned two years ago
>>>>>>> (and at that time, it needed it because the front left was wearing really
>>>>>>> fast).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's maintenance. Every 3,000 miles you change the oil, and you look over
>>>>>> all the hoses and belts and check the fluid levels just to make sure everything
>>>>>> is okay. You're not wasting time or money doing the check just because it
>>>>>> _is_ okay. You spend the time or money to make sure it stays that way. Every
>>>>>> once in a while you need to check the state of the suspension as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yeah, finding someone who actually knows what they are doing and who
>>>>>> can do a careful alignment is rare, and it's worth supporting that person.
>>>>>> --scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>>>>>
>>>>> I changed the inner and outer tie rod ends in my crappy Dodge truck, being careful to compare the parts and counting treads. I thought I did pretty good and had my mechanic adjust the toe-in. He said it was it was about an inch off. The truck tracks beautifully now. He did a most wonderful job.
>>>>
>>>> Counting threads is a WOFTAM unless you are refitting the original back
>>>> into place. You would be better advised to measure lengths from the
>>>> swivel axis, much more so if the parts are not factory OEM originals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Xeno
>>>
>>> Well, heck I did measure the parts. I ain't dumb!
>>
>> I hope not.
>>
>> > That don't work either without some pretty good measuring tools.
>>
>> We mechanics tend to have them, micrometers, vernier calipers, etc.
>> > OTOH, the point is moot. I wasn't assuming that the alignment and
>> > my replacing the ball joints would be perfect. You pretty much have
>> > to do an alignment after doing this kind of work.
>>
>> You proved it when the mechanic checked it.
>>
>> > I mean, I ain't dumb!
>>
>> I certainly hope not.
>>
>> I have done thousands of alignments in my time. I know what works and
>> what doesn't. I also have seen what home mechanics can do to their cars
>> and it isn't always pretty.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Xeno
>
> What's your point?

My point is that I have lots of experience with steering and suspension
and, if a set of tie rods is needing replacement, it's likely that the
wheel alignment won't have been spot on even before you replaced them.
In fact, if I had to replace tie rod ends, I'd be assuming the rest of
the steering and suspension has done the same amount of work and be
giving it a very thorough check over.

> Are you saying that you possess perfect knowledge

Errr. No. You must be thinking of *God*.

> and would be able to replace inner and outer ball joints so that
> they're somehow in alignment?

I'd get it pretty close by eye. Not that I would trust that. For one,
that would be assuming the alignment was correct in the first instance -
and generally they are not. It's rare I would make such an assumption. I
prefer starting from a known point and the wheel aligner will give me
that. It will also tell me where the alignment needs to be and if
anything is bent.

> Mostly you sound like a poser to me.

I am a trained and experienced motor mechanic and for the last 20 years
of my working career I was a technical teacher in the field. If that's
what a poser is, maybe I am. ;-)

> My guess is that even professionals would have to have an alignment
> don't after doing a job like that. Sorry, I'm not impressed, pal!

Hey, I guess that makes me a *professional* then! I always do alignments
after jobs like that!

Now get off your high horse and reread my first point on the topic. I
said counting threads is pointless on a *replacement tie rod end*. When
I replace tie rods, I always do an alignment check regardless. I said
*you* would be better advised to measure rather than count threads. This
was said *assuming* the absence of professional alignment gear and a new
tie rod end. I don't bother since I have always had access to 2 and 4
wheel alignment systems at work. I set the car up on the machine and let
it tell me how far to adjust those threads. While I'm at it, I'll check
every other setting as well and adjust as required.

--

Xeno

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:49:53 AM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
> On 11/07/2017 4:58 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
> >> On 11/07/2017 4:39 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 6:11:28 PM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
> >>>> On 10/07/2017 2:20 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 3:36:14 AM UTC-10, 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's going to take the tech about half an hour to do the suspension check
> >>>>>> over....going around pulling on things and hitting things with a mallet and
> >>>>>> getting some sense of the general condition of the suspension. Then he is
> >>>>>> going to spend ten or fifteen minutes talking with you about how you drive,
> >>>>>> THEN he's going to start measuring the suspension. So figure an hour's time
> >>>>>> for a full-priced technician just to look everything over.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, you do not need a "4 wheel" alighnment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've been reading up on alignment where the Toyota only has front
> >>>>>>> camber/caster (which is one setting) and toe, so that's all I need are
> >>>>>>> those two things.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What you MOST need is the guy pushing and prodding and hitting things with a
> >>>>>> hammer to make sure everything on the suspension is stable. The actual
> >>>>>> alignment on the machine is the easy part and the less important part.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You take it to the tire store, they put it on the machine, they measure it,
> >>>>>> they put shims in so everything looks good on the machine and they declare
> >>>>>> it aligned. But if you have anything loose and worn, it will be out of
> >>>>>> alignment again by the time you get it out of the shop. Before putting it
> >>>>>> on the machine you need to verify this isn't the case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I can find a shop who will do those two CHECKS for around $25 that would
> >>>>>>> make logical sense.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But to pay for an entire mounted tire just to save on a mounted tire seems
> >>>>>>> like throwing good money away logically as it was aligned two years ago
> >>>>>>> (and at that time, it needed it because the front left was wearing really
> >>>>>>> fast).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's maintenance. Every 3,000 miles you change the oil, and you look over
> >>>>>> all the hoses and belts and check the fluid levels just to make sure everything
> >>>>>> is okay. You're not wasting time or money doing the check just because it
> >>>>>> _is_ okay. You spend the time or money to make sure it stays that way. Every
> >>>>>> once in a while you need to check the state of the suspension as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And yeah, finding someone who actually knows what they are doing and who
> >>>>>> can do a careful alignment is rare, and it's worth supporting that person.
> >>>>>> --scott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I changed the inner and outer tie rod ends in my crappy Dodge truck, being careful to compare the parts and counting treads. I thought I did pretty good and had my mechanic adjust the toe-in. He said it was it was about an inch off. The truck tracks beautifully now. He did a most wonderful job.
> >>>>
> >>>> Counting threads is a WOFTAM unless you are refitting the original back
> >>>> into place. You would be better advised to measure lengths from the
> >>>> swivel axis, much more so if the parts are not factory OEM originals..
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Xeno
> >>>
> >>> Well, heck I did measure the parts. I ain't dumb!
> >>
> >> I hope not.
> >>
> >> > That don't work either without some pretty good measuring tools.
> >>
> >> We mechanics tend to have them, micrometers, vernier calipers, etc.
> >> > OTOH, the point is moot. I wasn't assuming that the alignment and
> >> > my replacing the ball joints would be perfect. You pretty much have
> >> > to do an alignment after doing this kind of work.
> >>
> >> You proved it when the mechanic checked it.
> >>
> >> > I mean, I ain't dumb!
> >>
> >> I certainly hope not.
> >>
> >> I have done thousands of alignments in my time. I know what works and
> >> what doesn't. I also have seen what home mechanics can do to their cars
> >> and it isn't always pretty.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Xeno
> >
> > What's your point?
>
> My point is that I have lots of experience with steering and suspension
> and, if a set of tie rods is needing replacement, it's likely that the
> wheel alignment won't have been spot on even before you replaced them.
> In fact, if I had to replace tie rod ends, I'd be assuming the rest of
> the steering and suspension has done the same amount of work and be
> giving it a very thorough check over.
>
> > Are you saying that you possess perfect knowledge
>
> Errr. No. You must be thinking of *God*.
>
> > and would be able to replace inner and outer ball joints so that
> > they're somehow in alignment?
>
> I'd get it pretty close by eye. Not that I would trust that. For one,
> that would be assuming the alignment was correct in the first instance -
> and generally they are not. It's rare I would make such an assumption. I
> prefer starting from a known point and the wheel aligner will give me
> that. It will also tell me where the alignment needs to be and if
> anything is bent.
>
> > Mostly you sound like a poser to me.
>
> I am a trained and experienced motor mechanic and for the last 20 years
> of my working career I was a technical teacher in the field. If that's
> what a poser is, maybe I am. ;-)
>
> > My guess is that even professionals would have to have an alignment
> > don't after doing a job like that. Sorry, I'm not impressed, pal!
>
> Hey, I guess that makes me a *professional* then! I always do alignments
> after jobs like that!
>
> Now get off your high horse and reread my first point on the topic. I
> said counting threads is pointless on a *replacement tie rod end*. When
> I replace tie rods, I always do an alignment check regardless. I said
> *you* would be better advised to measure rather than count threads. This
> was said *assuming* the absence of professional alignment gear and a new
> tie rod end. I don't bother since I have always had access to 2 and 4
> wheel alignment systems at work. I set the car up on the machine and let
> it tell me how far to adjust those threads. While I'm at it, I'll check
> every other setting as well and adjust as required.
>
> --
>
> Xeno

As I said, I did indeed measure. I also said that the point is moot because an alignment was going to be done anyway. I recommend that an alignment always be done when replacing these parts. What's your point?

In rec.autos.tech, 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?

I think the answer is no, not always.

If caster has a range of 2 to 4 and camber 5 to 7, that doesn't mean
that you can put caster at 2 and camber at 7 and everything is even
moderately acceptable, aiui.

The range refers to one value at a time, that if the caster has a range
of 2 to 4 and you have it set at 1.9, that's bad in itself, regardless
of what the other values are. (Maybe in some special situations a
skilled aligner can safely go outside the range, I don't know one way or
the other, but my point is made in the paragraph above, which I think
you think would be acceptable.)

Alignment is a compromise and any particular setting of camber, for
example, may well limit the acceptable setting of caster to a smaller
range than the range given in the spec. Competent pros know this and
allow for it.

Corrections?

I hope you don't intend to tell the shop what settings you want, and
will instead tell them your problem** and what you think woudl help,
without ordering them to do that.

**I'm not sure why some feathering is worth all this trouble in the
first place. Will your tires wear out sooner? How much sooner? How
much is that in dollars?

On 13/07/2017 1:03 PM, micky wrote:
> In rec.autos.tech, 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?
>
> I think the answer is no, not always.
>
> If caster has a range of 2 to 4 and camber 5 to 7, that doesn't mean
> that you can put caster at 2 and camber at 7 and everything is even
> moderately acceptable, aiui.

Camber is a tyre wearing angle and at 7 degrees would definitely lead to
tyres wearing on one side. For road going cars, 1 degree
positive/negative would normally be the maximum you would aim for.
Competition cars can go to 2 or even 3 degrees.

Caster, on the other hand, has a good deal more leeway since it isn't a
tyre wearing angle. It does create self aligning torque so a decrease
will affect the car's ability to straighten up out of a turn. An
increase, on the other hand, will make the steering heavier.

Toe in changes can affect the understeering/oversteering characteristics
of the car and, therefore, affect the handling.

You need to have an understanding of suspension kinematics before you
arbitrarily play around with manufacturers specifications. Simply
lowering a car will upset the kinematics and, as a consequence, the
handling.
>
> The range refers to one value at a time, that if the caster has a range
> of 2 to 4 and you have it set at 1.9, that's bad in itself, regardless
> of what the other values are. (Maybe in some special situations a
> skilled aligner can safely go outside the range, I don't know one way or
> the other, but my point is made in the paragraph above, which I think
> you think would be acceptable.)
>
> Alignment is a compromise and any particular setting of camber, for
> example, may well limit the acceptable setting of caster to a smaller
> range than the range given in the spec. Competent pros know this and
> allow for it.
>
> Corrections?
>
> I hope you don't intend to tell the shop what settings you want, and
> will instead tell them your problem** and what you think woudl help,
> without ordering them to do that.
>
> **I'm not sure why some feathering is worth all this trouble in the
> first place. Will your tires wear out sooner? How much sooner? How
> much is that in dollars?
>
It generally isn't. It is an effect of the design compromises in
steering kinematics versus vehicle usage. The type of usage described by
the OP is the perfect example of an extreme that is outside the
manufacturers design expectations. The penalty, if it can be called
that, is increased tyre wear. It's no different to expecting increased
tyre wear if every launch is like that of a jackrabbit.

--

Xeno

On 7/9/2017 9:03 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>> 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.

But the Timex will be good enough, and it's replacement will cost way
less than the service on the Rolex I would think.

My first watch was a Timex that had stopped working for my dad. I banged
it around a bit, it started working, and I used it for more than 10 years.

Ever wonder why those old ads showed Timex's getting the cr*p beat out
of them and still ticking. That's because that's what keeps them ticking.

Ed Pawlowski wrote: - show quoted text -
"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. "

Chaya mentioned range in context
to her response to a comment about
steering geometry. I always request
that the aligner aim for as close to
the middle of each alignment spec as
possible. I.E. Toe spec is 0 to +0.10
deg (toe in), I'd aim for 0.05, unless
vehicle is really old or higher mileage.
Then I'd align toward 0.10.

Chaya Eve posted for all of us...


>
> 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.
>

In the matter of car lines the manufacturers have turned the option list
into "lines". In other words if you want basic-no options and want to add
collision avoidance you must buy a higher line, if you want a moon roof then
you must buy the higher line. Of course they always stick in unwanted items
in the higher lines; like premium audio, heated seats. You can't delete
them.

I knew a guy whom worked at a major tire manufacturer in quality control.
After GM started to reject boxcars of tires, they started loading the
exceptional spec tires at the doors of the boxcars after loading the usual
spec'd tires in first. The GM inspectors would only check the first out lot
then move on.

Your marketing education is just a low level of psychology. You are taking
this thread away from the excellent advice of many people who have done this
for many years. Where did you get your education and where do you work?

--
Tekkie

posted for all of us...


>
> 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"

I'm sorry Clare, I just wrote a post with the same points as yours. I didn't
get down to this level prior to posting. It's getting to be too much with
her conflating issues.

--
Tekkie

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:58:57 -0700, Bob F > wrote:

>On 7/9/2017 9:03 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
>But the Timex will be good enough, and it's replacement will cost way
>less than the service on the Rolex I would think.
>
>My first watch was a Timex that had stopped working for my dad. I banged
>it around a bit, it started working, and I used it for more than 10 years.
>
>Ever wonder why those old ads showed Timex's getting the cr*p beat out
>of them and still ticking. That's because that's what keeps them ticking.
A couple of kids were out playing ball, and one of them had a Timex
that had quit. He it it into the infeild with the bat, and it worked
again - al least for a while. My older brother can't wear a cheap
watch. A timex would quit in a week. The rolex worked perfectly. He
can now wear some cheap quartz watches - but cheap mechanicals were
no-go.