Outside edge of front tires stairstepping

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

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

Brain fart?...

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

>On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 11:16:36 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Interesting that you mention that. yes, there is always a range. yet
>> you mention that your tires meet the minimum specifications of the auto
>> manufacturer so they are good enough. Tires come in a rather wide range
>> of specs and characteristics and in your particular situation, you can
>> do better with other than minimum.
>
>Now you are talking logic!
>
>I buy on value. I never buy on price.
>
>Hence it's a given that my tires are better than the OEM tires.
>
>Better speed rating.
>Better load carrying capacity.
>Better traction.
>Better treadwear.
>Quieter tread (less aggressive than OEM since I don't go off road).
>
>Knowing how manufacture's aim for economies of scale, I am sure my tires
>cost more than the OEM tires did, but I don't aim for price.
>
>I aim for logical value.
If, as you are indicating, the tires are NOT DOING THE JOB, it
doesn't make any differnce WHAT you paid for the tires, you are NOT
getting value for your pennies - much less your dollars.
The changes in specs that you have decided on,may well not have
bought you ANY improvement over the OEM tires. Did the OEM tires wear
the same way???? as quickly?
My guess is NO.

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

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

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

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

>On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:40:18 +1000, Xeno > wrote:
>
>> To make any significant difference to your particular issue, you would
>> possibly need to go beyond that range.
>>
>> Have a look at SAI (Steering Axis Inclination) as well. SAI and caster
>> angles usually increases the positive camber angle of the inside tire
>> and decreases positive camber angle of the outside tire during a turn
>> though this will depend on the steering system employed. This is a
>> designed in effect that you can easily and inadvertently affect when
>> playing around with other angles.
>>
>> Unless you have a really good understanding of steering geometry, you
>> are playing around in the dark.
>
>I am well read enough to know that steering geometry gets complex fast
>because everything affects everything else.
>
>The manufacturer understood the steering geometry.
>The manufacturer understood the tires.
>
>I start with their spec and stay within range.
>
>For example, on tires, the OEM spec is considered, by most people I've
>talked to anyway, as a MINIMUM spec. For example, the speed rating (S) is a
>minimum spec. If I get an H-rated tire, that's "likely" to be a better tire
>than that spec'd by the manufacturer (other things taken into account).

Not necessarily - if you never drive thevehicle faster than the
rating of a T rated tire.
>
>The load range, as I recall, is 102, so, likewise, if I get a load range of
>105, I'm getting a "tougher" tire (yes, I know it simply means the weight
>it can carry reliably - but there's a manufacturing aspect to the sidewall
>to allow it to carry that weight).

Not necessatilly - it means the tire will not overheat under the
heavier load and kighr speeds - but it does not imply the sidewall is
eny stiffer - or that the cargass is more suitable for your
application AT ALL.
>
>To your point of exceeding the range specified by the manufacturer, if I go
>to a Z speed rating or a 125 (or whatever) load range, then the compromises
>start to take their toll.
>
>Same with alignment.
>
>Everything depends on the numbers but lets say, for the best argument, that
>I'm on the high end of the positive camber range, and on the high end of
>the positive toe range.
You will have tire wear problems - no ifs, ands, or buts.
>
>It probably would be a "logical" thing to ask the alignment shop to
>consider putting the camber and toe at the lower end of the positive range
>if my main goal was to reduce the feathering that occurs on steep slow
>downhill corners.
>
>Does that logic make sense (to a point that isn't carried to the extreme)?
Definitely better than max toe out and max pos camber - but going
slightly to the neg camber side of the range, and possibly slight toe
IN. Tell me what year your 'runner is and I'll tell you where you
should be starting.

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

>On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:52:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Just because a tire meats the minimum specifications does not mean it is
>> the best tool for the job. Some conditions require more.
>
>What you're saying is true but what you're also saying is, essentially,
>nothing.
>
>It's like me saying that just because an alignment meets minimum
>specifications does not mean it's the best alignment for the job.
>
>There's no substance, no meat in those rhetorical sentences.
>They're both just rhetoric.
>
>Nothing wrong with rhetoric. But there's no meaningful information in it
>that wasn't already agreed upon before the two sentences were uttered.
>
>> My wife's car can happily exist on $100 tires.
>I realize you think that tires can be measured by dollars, but I must
>respectfully disagree.
>
>I'm sure I'm not the only person with marketing degrees here where the
>express purpose of the millions of dollars spent on marketing every month
>is to make people make exactly the kinds of decisions you seem to be
>making.
>
>Hence, I can't fault you for making your buying decisions based on price
>but I can only suggest that you use logical reasoning in that we both know
>that I can find, for any spec you want to ask about, different tires that
>meet that spec at a different price for each tire, all of which meet the
>spec.
>
>Price is meaningless in terms of specs. Facts are everything.
>
>The great thing about marketing is that very few people understand anything
>I said above, so they fall for every marketing trick in the book. And
>that's great because it makes them waste lots of money.
>
>I had one professor who devoted an entire lecture to outlining how a
>typical consumer wastes more than half her disposable income because she is
>unduly influenced by marketing alone.
>
>> She rarely goes on the
>> highway, never drives in snow, rarely goes more than a few miles at a
>> time.
>
>Why not get her a less expensive set of tires which are far better than the
>ones she has now and then use the remaining disposable income to buy her
>flowers?
>
>She gets better tires, and flowers!
>
>> OTOH, I drive some weeks 2000 miles. speeds sometimes in triple
>> digits, on hills in the snow, on highways in the heat. Do you think the
>> $100 tire is going to perform as well as a Nokian WR3G? It is about
>> double the price but can keep you safer in severe condition.
>
>I'm never going to be able to give you a degree in economic theory, nor in
>marketing, nor even in logic.

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

One last choice, then PLONK.
>
>If you actually think that price is a reliable indicator of quality, then
>I'm never going to change your mind. Never. It's actually great (for
>marketing people) that you think that way because you are so easily
>manipulated.
>
>For example, do you ever wonder why the Google Pixel was priced *exactly*
>the same as the iPhone it wanted to compete with? Think about the beauty in
>that very simple marketing decision, and then contrast that with Google's
>previous price strategy.
>
>A favorite expression of one of my professors was:
>* Marketing is genius.
>* People who fall for it are not.
>
>> I don't buy on price and minimum specs, I buy on the performance that I
>> need.
>
>I buy on value.
>All I use is logic and effort.
>
>To buy on price only takes the absolute minimum of logic but no effort.
>To buy on value takes far more logic and far more effort.
>
>Take this simple logic, for example:
>* You can buy Craftsman screwdrivers individually, or,
>* You can buy a whole set of them for a lower unit price.
>
>The price per screwdriver could be twice as much for the individual
>screwdriver than for the set. Assuming you need a set (which is a decent
>assumption, and adjusting the unit price to remove the couple of crapware
>items they include in the numbers), you can easily have a unit cost for the
>set to be about half the unit cost individually.
>
>This is called economies of scale (not scope - which was my bad).
>
>At twice the cost per screwdriver, how is buying screwdrivers individually
>going to get you a better screwdriver than buying them as a set?
>
>HINT: Commodities are different than specialty items.
>
>> A cheap screwdriver can drive the occasional screw, but if you do it
>> often you'll find the more expensive ones fit your hand better and thus
>> work better. Meantime, enjoy your hamburger. I'm having a steak.
>
>I only buy Craftsman screwdrivers. The ones with the red and blue colors on
>the clear plastic handle and with that little ball on top. That's because I
>found they seem to work the best for me and I can replace them if I abuse
>them (because they're not going to wear out unless I abuse them).
>
>I don't buy the yellow and black handled screwdrivers you see everywhere,
>and I don't buy SnapOn screwdrivers either.
>
>I buy Craftsman quality, and the round-top quality inside of Craftsman.
>And I buy them, on sale, and as a set (if I need a set that is).
>
>I also give them as gifts to kids who buy their first car (I actually give
>them an entire toolbag which I assemble separately for them to put in the
>trunk).
>
>Since we are talking about screwdrivers, they periodically go on sale
>(Father's day is a good one to aim for), and I can schedule gifts easily.
>
>Why do you insist that if I pay double for the screwdriver, I get a better
>screwdriver than if I pay half?
>
>Your argument makes no logical sense to me.
>
>Maybe it makes sense to you and to others to pay twice as much for the same
>thing, thinking it's "better" somehow, just because you paid twice as much
>for it?

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

>On 9 Jul 2017 09:36:11 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>
>>>Second-best (and perfectly acceptable) is a $25 alignment check-only, just
>>>like I go to diagnostic-only smog stations, where all they do is MEASURE
>>>the front toe and front camber (which is all that I need).
>>
>> I would be very, very suspicious of anyone who did this. They likely have
>> some kid who knows how to put numbers into the machine doing the job, instead
>> of an alignment expert doing the work.
>
>This makes logical sense that the industry might not benefit from having a
>$25 alignment check only.
>
>In a way, one could argue that it's like having an appointment to the
>doctor where they only checked your eyes for the need for glasses and
>nothing else.
EXACTLY what happens when you go to your opthamologist
>> It's going to take the tech about half an hour to do the suspension check
>> over....going around pulling on things and hitting things with a mallet and
>> getting some sense of the general condition of the suspension. Then he is
>> going to spend ten or fifteen minutes talking with you about how you drive,
>> THEN he's going to start measuring the suspension. So figure an hour's time
>> for a full-priced technician just to look everything over.
>
>Again this is logical. An hour could easily be $100 shop rate.
>
>> What you MOST need is the guy pushing and prodding and hitting things with a
>> hammer to make sure everything on the suspension is stable. The actual
>> alignment on the machine is the easy part and the less important part.
>
>I never disagreed that it's best to have the alignment checked.
>I only pointed out the "opportunity cost" was an entire mounted tire.
>
>Cost of alignment check = cost of 1 mounted tire
>
>The logic is so inescapable that I was surprised people had trouble with
>that math, since it's simple logical math that they teach you in school all
>the time ("opportunity cost") although the "true cost" is what I need to
>calculate, not just the upfront cost.


You have all the theory, yet no wisdom.
>
>> You take it to the tire store, they put it on the machine, they measure it,
>> they put shims in so everything looks good on the machine and they declare
>> it aligned. But if you have anything loose and worn, it will be out of
>> alignment again by the time you get it out of the shop. Before putting it
>> on the machine you need to verify this isn't the case.
>
>Yes. I know. I talk to them while they're aligning my vehicle and I ask
>what they're doing. Sometimes they kick me out behind the yellow line but
>other times they let me walk around with them.

I can see why they'd kick you out.
>
>>>But to pay for an entire mounted tire just to save on a mounted tire seems
>>>like throwing good money away logically as it was aligned two years ago
>>>(and at that time, it needed it because the front left was wearing really
>>>fast).
>>
>> It's maintenance. Every 3,000 miles you change the oil, and you look over
>> all the hoses and belts and check the fluid levels just to make sure everything
>> is okay. You're not wasting time or money doing the check just because it
>> _is_ okay. You spend the time or money to make sure it stays that way. Every
>> once in a while you need to check the state of the suspension as well.
>
>This is a good point in that it's the standard cost of maintaining a car
>just like rotating the tires and changing the oil is.
>
>I just wish it didn't cost as much as the thing it's trying to save!
>I think the price point is set too high - but you've made a point that it's
>an hour and an hour costs what an hour costs. Period.
>
>> And yeah, finding someone who actually knows what they are doing and who
>> can do a careful alignment is rare, and it's worth supporting that person.
>
>Trust in the mechanic is also important. I agree.

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

>On 7/7/2017 7:41 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 07/07/2017 12:42 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> Slowing down might make a big difference.
>>
>> From reading the thread if she goes any slower she'll be parked in the
>> road.
>
>She said she can hear the tire scrub on the turns. That suggests to me
>she's not going that slow.
It also suggests she has either an alignment or pressure issue or
both - and quite possibly tires that are not suitable for the task.
She has yet to say what year her 'runner is, and what tires she is
using, other than they are 225 section tires

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

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

>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 09:04:46 -0700, Bill Vanek >
>wrote:
>
>>>If tires were a commodity to you and to me, then buying on price would be
>>>fine - but neither of us thinks that tires are a commodity.
>>
>> Outside of specialty tires, they are a commodity.
>
>I am quite aware of exactly what you're saying, so I welcome that you are a
>logical thinker when you say that passenger car tires are a commodity.
>
>To the manufacturer, passenger tires are commodities (almost certainly).
>To most consumers, passenger tires "should" be a commodity too!
>
>I knew that would come up so you may note that I crafted the sentences when
>I was talking about commodities to indicate that the buyer decides whether
>something is a commodity (to them) or not.
>
>I used the example of propane gas since it's one of the definitions of a
>commodity (as are pork bellies) but to any one person, if the marketing
>organization can convince them that their propane is better than someone
>else's propane, or that their pork bellies are somehow better, then they
>can charge more, which is really the name of the game.
>
>So, yes, tires are a commodity.
>But if I said that here, they'd kill me.

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

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

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

>On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 11:37:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> How are your tires working?
>
>Based on the logical and sound advice given here?
>Nobody who was logical suggested the problem was the tires themselves.
>
I have suggested SEVERAL times it mat be wrong tires for the
application and have asked for the make, model and size of the tire,
as well as the year of youe 2 wheel drive 4 Runner.
>Sure, they suggested higher air pressure, but that's not the tires.
>They suggested a smaller width, but I'm already at OEM width (225mm) where
>they were assuming 245 and larger widths.

OEM on a 4 runner can be 225, 245, or 265 - they can be 16, 17, 18,
or even 20 inch. They can be 60, 65, 70, or 75 profile tires, and they
can be any of several trad patterns.
>Some suggested thicker sidewalls which I already have with a greater load
>range (I actually think the OEM load range is 99, but I'd have to check but
>I already have a higher load range).
As stated, the load range does not NECESSARILY mean a heavier sidewall
>They suggested slower downhill cornering, but that's not the tires' fault.
>They suggested less +camber & less +toe, but that's not the tire's either.
>They suggested more frequent rotation, but that's not a tire's fault.
>And they suggested better treadwear, but 380 isn't a terrible rating.
It's JUST a marketing number - and you are the "marketing expert" -
the nuber REALLY doesn't mean it's a better tire. Tell us what kind of
crap you are running on, and we will tell you if it is likely to be a
large or small part of the problem.
>
>So to your point, nobody logical suggested the fault was the tires.
I , for one, most definitely have, from YEARS of working with Toyotas
in particular, and vehicles and tires in general.
>
>> Can you get better for less money?
>
>I bought the best value at the time for my tires.
No you didn't if rhey are not doing the job. Going by the "marketing
BS" you bought the cheapest tire that met what you, a marketing major,
thought were your requirements. You have NO IDEA what the requirements
are, and if the tires you bought ACTUALLY meet your requirements.
>
>Could I get better value now?
>Maybe.
>
>Everything depends on the value of the current options, where tire prices
>change by large percentages between models (but not overall).

Tire prices change more between one supplier and another than they do
between brands and models in many cases.
>
>What I mean by that is that any individual model may change in price (up or
>down) in any given month of the year, but some other tire model will also
>change in price (up or down) in that same given month so I have to look at
>value at any given time, where the only time that matters is when I need
>tires (since you can't stock them easily like you can commodities like
>propane which don't degrade over time and which fit innocuously in a 1000
>gallon tank).
>
>If I get a better value with economies of scale by stocking tires with low
>inventory costs, I would consider that but it's just frankly not possible
>to stock tires for a typical homeowner with low inventory costs, given the
>length of time and space required.

You would very possibly end up with a stack of tires that do not meet
your requirements - and there is NO VALUE in having something that
does not do the job - regardless of price.
>
>So I make the value decision and do all the research when I need tires.

Uninformed research, from the appearances so far.
>
>> Yes, but twisted logic. I think you are using your knowledge of
>> marketing to justify you are a cheapskate.
>
>I understand that you said that you always buy the "loaded" car, which in
>marketing terms of "good/better/best" L/XL/GXL means you buy the most
>expensive object.

And I buy it when he's finished with it. If he's taken care of it I
get FANTASTIC value. I'm buying the same car, but I'm not buying the
most expensive.
>
>I also know that we are taught to take the same object and to then
>differentiate it so that we can coax the most amount of money from people
>like you, and, better yet, we get compensated greatly for accomplishing
>that simple goal.

You are lokking at the world through the very jaded eyes of a
marketing expert.
>
>We don't put any effort into the "L" "good" model.
>We put a lot of effort to extract more money for the "XL" better model.
>But we put the most effort into gaining customers like you seem to be.
>
>Why?
>Because "GXL" is where the company makes the most money per item.

When I worked at the dealership we found we made a LOT more monet
sellig 30 corollas than one supra - and it was a lot easier to sell
the "hamburgers" than the "T-Bomes" The dealership could not exist on
selling only the limitted number of highend cars - we THRIVED on
moving quantity at low margin
>
>> Right, minimum spec is all that matters.
>
>I think you want to hear what you want to hear.
>I never said even once that I buy products on the minimum spec unless they
>are commodities.
>
>A commodity, by definition, is only ruled by price.

And you claim tires are commodities - one h rated 150 load rated tire
is the same as the next - the spec, or catalog number, says it all.
So you are buying by price. Sure - you set your "search parameters" by
what you have already stated is "marketinf BS", then you buy the
cheapest that meets those totally arbitrary specifications.
>
>Neither of us considers a tire a commodity, so now we must buy on value.
>If we buy on value, we have to compare performance with cost.

You have not given us ANY reason to believe you are getting "quality"
>
>To compare performance of a tire is a difficult thing because you might
>have an "in" at Bridgestone where you can get the manufacturer's tests for
>their tires but you won't at the same time have an "in" at Cooper to get
>the same comparison information.
>
Don't need an IN.
>So what do you have to compare tires?
>Lots.
>
>* You have the specs that the manufacturer specified
Which are "marketing BS" lik all the rest of it.
>* You have the specs on the current tires to improve upon if you want
If you KNOW what needs improvement, and what improvements constitute
"value" - It appears you may not.
>* You have reviews of tires on the net (of varying degrees of usefulness)
>* You have forums such as this ng to ask questions
And you don't listen to the answers given by expers because "you
know"
>
>For you to say I buy only the minimum spec is for you to deprecate what I
>have been saying about making a logical decision based on value.

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

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

>On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
> wrote:
>
>> They always tell us to have a "good/better/best" lineup, because people
>> *want* to pay more for "better" stuff, but at the same time they teach us
>> about 'economies of scale' where you slightly differentiate the product
>> (e.g., gold-plated trim) so that people will *think* that it's a better
>> product (even though it's the same product).
>
>I realize I said economies of "scale" when I meant economies of "scope".
>
>The marketing genius in the L/XL/GXL lineup is that you get everyone if you
>break your product into three fundamental "good/better/best" ranges (where
>the idea is to gouge as much money as you can from the consumer).
>
>What you do is offer the item which does the job at the "L" level.
>Then you add a few nice-to-haves at a good price markup for the "XL level.
>Then you throw in highly marketed costly items for the "GXL" level.
>
>Most marketing is aimed to get people to jump to the GXL level, while most
>consumers will resist the extremely high price, but they don't want the
>"cheap stuff" which is why you have to have a "good/better/best" range.
>
>They "think" they're getting a good value by going for the "better" because
>they don't want to "think" much when they buy. They just want to associate
>dollars to quality, so you make that association for them with the
>good/better/best L/XL/GXL pricing tier.
>
You give the educated consumer a lot less credit than they are due.
The "educated consumer" doesn't need a degree in marketing.

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

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