Outside edge of front tires stairstepping

On 10/07/2017 12:21 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:52:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 7/9/2017 1:51 AM, Chaya Eve wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:22:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd not be driving up and own steep twisting roads on $100 tires
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> Is that really a sound logical statement?
>>>
>>> Here's my super simple logic.
>>> * The tires meet all USA legal specs for the vehicle including exceeding
>>> the load range (105S versus 102S).
>>>
>>> You imply that a tire that meets or exceeds the specs for the car is
>>> unsafe, just because I paid $100 for that tire (mounted & balanced).
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm missing something critical but I can't find the logic in your
>>> argument?
>>>
>>
>> Just because a tire meats the minimum specifications does not mean it is
>> the best tool for the job. Some conditions require more.
>>
>> My wife's car can happily exist on $100 tires. She rarely goes on the
>> highway, never drives in snow, rarely goes more than a few miles at a
>> time. OTOH, I drive some weeks 2000 miles. speeds sometimes in triple
>> digits, on hills in the snow, on highways in the heat. Do you think the
>> $100 tire is going to perform as well as a Nokian WR3G? It is about
>> double the price but can keep you safer in severe condition.
>
> It will likely outlast the $100 tire almost 2:1, even with the
> difference in driving conditions too - - -

That is very true. On my previous Toyota, the OEM tyres were done in at
60,000 kilometres. I replaced them with Michelins of the same spec and,
after another 60,000 kilometres, were only 50% worn. What's more, the
Michelins were cheaper than the OEM replacements by $50 a wheel. To top
it off, the Michelins had better grip and handling than the OEMs. No way
would I even be thinking of a $100 tyre, especially so on an SUV.
>>
>> I don't buy on price and minimum specs, I buy on the performance that I
>> need.
>>
>> A cheap screwdriver can drive the occasional screw, but if you do it
>> often you'll find the more expensive ones fit your hand better and thus
>> work better. Meantime, enjoy your hamburger. I'm having a steak.
> and the cheap screwdriver will mabee drive 20 screws before it strips
> out the head of the cheap chinese screws, while a better screwdriver
> might do 200 - and if you use better screws, you might do 2000 without
> having even one stripped head - and the screwdriver is good for
> another 2000 or 5000 good screws - - - -
>


--

Xeno

On 10/07/2017 11:57 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 20:02:58 +1000, Xeno > wrote:
>>
>>> The logic is *you get what you pay for*.
>>
>> If that were actually true, then you just threw 100 years of Marketing
>> research out the window.
>>
>> They teach you in business school that you *never* get what you pay for
>> (and that the people you want to sell your stuff to are those who *think*
>> you get what you pay for).
>>
>> They always tell us to have a "good/better/best" lineup, because people
>> *want* to pay more for "better" stuff, but at the same time they teach us
>> about 'economies of scale' where you slightly differentiate the product
>> (e.g., gold-plated trim) so that people will *think* that it's a better
>> product (even though it's the same product).
>>
>> Seriously, if anyone truly thinks that you "get what you pay for", they
>> have never taken a single marketing class in their life because that
>> statement is never true.
>
>
> The correct statement is "you only get what you pay for - if you are
> lucky" or " you seldom get more than what you pay for"
>
> Another - "If you want first quality oats you need to be willing to
> pay first quality prices - If you are willing to settle for oats that
> have already been through the horse, they DO come a little cheaper"
>
> $100 tires that fit a Toyota 4 Runner definitely fall into the "been
> through the horse" category

Love your analogy.
>>
>> Marketing people can influence prices greatly, where all you get is a lot
>> of marketing when you pay more for something that you can easily get for
>> less.
>>
>>> Cheap tyres do not perform as well as good quality tyres.
>>
>> I'm really sorry to have to be blunt with you, but the only people who say
>> that are people who compare objects by price are those who known nothing
>> about the object but they do know numbers so that's why they pick price.
>>
>> The MARKET sets the price. Do you really think, for example, that a $50,000
>> Rolex Watch tells better time than a $50 Timex watch?
>
> Sometimes they do - and that Timex will not be keeping time 45 years
> from now, while the Rolex likely will. My Dad's old Rolex Tutor was
> just cleaned and ovehauled - it is 65 years old

A Rolex is something that will be handed down for generations. A Timex
will be lucky to last for a single generation.
>>
>>> I never buy cheap tyres for my car(s).
>>
>> What you care about in tires is measureable "stuff" such as size, traction,
>> temperature generation, load range, treadwear, noise, comfort, and
>> handling.
>>
>> If you can get better "stuff" for less money, then you're paying more for
>> worse tires.
>
> You do not know ANYTHING about tires.

I too have come to that conclusion.
>>
>> The iron-clad logic of what I say is inescapable, although I'm never going
>> to convince anyone who thinks "you get what you pay for" that they are
>> falling for the oldest trick in the (marketing) book so I do not expect you
>> to believe a word I am saying.
>
> I have used a LOT of different tires in the millions of miles I've
> driven over the last 50 years, and I've sold and installed THOUSANDS
> for hundreds - even thousands of customers over the years. There ARE
> some reasonably decent quality low priced tires today - but for a
> LITTLE more money you can buy significantly higher quality tires - and
> for a LOT more money you can buy tires slightly better than that. It's
> the rule of diminishing returns - - -
>
> My rule is never buy the cheapest or the most expensive ANYTHING- you
> are ultimately over-paying for both. The cheapest doesn't do the job,
> so you don't get anywhere near your money's worth - and when you buy
> more expensive or better than you need, you do not gain as much as the
> difference in price would indicate - so you also do not get your
> money's worth.
>>
>>> When the OEMs wear out, I usually fit
>>> Michelins which I have found are not a great deal dearer than the OEM,
>>> and in some cases cheaper, but they grip like baby**** on a blanket. To
>>> me, grip on the road is a factor worth paying for. If you buy tyres on
>>> price alone, you are doing yourself a disservice.
>>
>> Where did I ever say I buy *anything* on price alone?
> Price has a LARGE influence if you are buying $100 tires for your 4
> Runner - even with the difference between pricing in Canada and the
> USA.
>>
>> Do I look like a person who doesn't use logic when making spending
>> decisions?
>
> Your logic in approaching this problem leaves a LOT to be improved
> ------
>>
>> I took too many marketing classes in school to fall for a price-only
>> comparison. The only things you buy on price alone are commodities.
>
> And even then, you don't. Computers and electronics are "commodities"
> today - and largely cars and tires today as well.
>>
>> Depending on your perspective, anything (even tires) can be considered a
>> commodity - but you and I both do not consider tires to be a commodity.
>
> Their price structure and marketing makes them "commodities"
>>
>> Propane fuel is a commodity to many people but that doesn't stop marketing
>> organizations from trying to differentiate their product line (which is
>> what marketing organizations do). To me, propane from supplier X is the
>> same as propane from supplier Y even though supplier X might try to tell me
>> their trucks are prettier or faster or somehow better than supplier Y.
>>
>> If tires were a commodity to you and to me, then buying on price would be
>> fine - but neither of us thinks that tires are a commodity.
>>
>> This is basic marketing 101 so if I'm wrong, then the past thousand years
>> of business teaching is all wrong and you're right that "you get what you
>> pay for".
>
>
> To a very significant extent, "marketing 101" has missed the mark and
> misguided much of the last 2 generations.
>


--

Xeno

On 10/07/2017 3:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Chaya Eve > wrote:
>>
>> This is a good point in that it's the standard cost of maintaining a car
>> just like rotating the tires and changing the oil is.
>>
>> I just wish it didn't cost as much as the thing it's trying to save!
>
> You don't do maintenance to save your tires. You do maintenance to save your
> life.
>
> Maybe you have a tie rod going bad. Maybe you have a steering knuckle wearing
> out. Probably not, but unless you check it, you don't know. And if you do
> have a front end problem, the only symptom you may have is odd tire wear. So
> you check it out.
>
> You check the front end because the consequences of front end failure on a
> twisty road are very, very bad and may well involve your head becoming
> separated from the rest of your body as your vehicle rolls down the side of
> the mountain.
>
> Tire life? Who cares. Tires are cheap, passengers are expensive.
> --scott
>
>
Yes and a regular wheel alignment should be seen as *preventative
maintenance*.

--

Xeno

On 10/07/2017 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

On 10/07/2017 12:28 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:48 -0400, wrote:
>
>> A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
>> positive caster.
>
> Brain fart?...
>
Hey, it happens! ;-)

--

Xeno

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 19:28:37 -0700, Bill Vanek >
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:48 -0400, wrote:
>
>>A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
>>positive caster.
>
>Brain fart?...
If that's what I wrote - yes. Top out is positive CAMBER - and the
car will pull to the highest positive CAMBER or least negative..
Caster is opposite.
Positive CASTER is top back and it will pull to the side with the
least positive, or most negative.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:30:43 -0400, wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 19:28:37 -0700, Bill Vanek >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:30:48 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>>A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
>>>positive caster.
>>
>>Brain fart?...
> If that's what I wrote - yes. Top out is positive CAMBER - and the
>car will pull to the highest positive CAMBER or least negative..
>Caster is opposite.
> Positive CASTER is top back and it will pull to the side with the
>least positive, or most negative.

Easy to do. I had to think about it before I replied.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:15:10 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
> wrote:

>Is it normal for the outside edges of the front tires to be stairstepping
>on the outer inch or two only?
>
>By stairstepping, I mean that you can't see the wear all that much but if
>you rub your hand over the tread in one direction, you can feel a lip on
>each side swipe tread.
>
>If you run your hand over in the other direction, you don't feel it. You
>only feel it if you run your hand from back to front on the outside tread
>of the two front tires.
>
>If you do the same with the rear tires or on the inner edge of the front
>tires, you don't feel any 'stairstepping".
>
>The tires are about a year old and are wearing the front outside edges
>only.

One hundred and 5 posts?! Talk about beating a dead horse into powder.
--
It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

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! That don't work either without some pretty good measuring tools. 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. I mean, I ain't dumb!

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