possible for bad tire to act like a warped rotor?

Just curious, I got a new set of tires on my company car last week and
since then a shimmy under braking that I'd attributed to a warped rotor
is completely gone. Is it possible that bad tires could cause this? I
doubt it was overtightened lug nuts as the whole impetus for the new
tires was a flat; I was able to change it easily with the factory lug
wrench (fortunately; I didn't have a 4-way with me.)

nate
a
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

> Just curious, I got a new set of tires on my company car last week and
> since then a shimmy under braking that I'd attributed to a warped rotor
> is completely gone. Is it possible that bad tires could cause this?

Absolutely. A tire slightly out of round, a tire with a bubble, a
separated belt... they can all make it feel like something's wrong with
the brakes under various conditions, particularly when it's a
"borderline" condition. As they get worse, it can get to be screamingly
obvious that it's the tire, but when it's "just a little" off, well...

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Just curious, I got a new set of tires on my company car last week and
> since then a shimmy under braking that I'd attributed to a warped rotor
> is completely gone. Is it possible that bad tires could cause this? I
> doubt it was overtightened lug nuts as the whole impetus for the new
> tires was a flat; I was able to change it easily with the factory lug
> wrench (fortunately; I didn't have a 4-way with me.)
>
> nate
> a


Definitely possible, especially if its a flaw like a separated/broken
belt on a front tire, so that when the tire gets a braking load on it it
deforms in the area of the broken belt.

Don Bruder > wrote in news:470b814e$0$14104
:

> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>> Just curious, I got a new set of tires on my company car last week and
>> since then a shimmy under braking that I'd attributed to a warped rotor
>> is completely gone. Is it possible that bad tires could cause this?
>
> Absolutely. A tire slightly out of round, a tire with a bubble, a
> separated belt...



....a badly mounted tire that does not spin true...

That's are far more common than the defects you mention.


--
Tegger

On Oct 9, 4:11 pm, Tegger > wrote:
> Don Bruder > wrote in news:470b814e$0$14104
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >> Just curious, I got a new set of tires on my company car last week and
> >> since then a shimmy under braking that I'd attributed to a warped rotor
> >> is completely gone. Is it possible that bad tires could cause this?
>
> > Absolutely. A tire slightly out of round, a tire with a bubble, a
> > separated belt...
>
> ...a badly mounted tire that does not spin true...
>
> That's are far more common than the defects you mention.

The tire was patched at least once (lost track of how many times I'd
had which tire patched, along with rotations...) so it had been
dismounted and remounted, but it seemed to develop over time, not
appear all of a sudden after it was patched. I didn't see any bubbles
either, but then again these were Goodyear Integrity which have to be
the most ****e tires I've ever driven on, even worse than the
Continental all-seasons that came on my '02 GTI.

Why do mfgrs. spec such crap tires for new cars? I guess I can kind
of understand the Impala, although these were so bad they were
dangerous, but VW spec'ing those awful Contis for the GTI makes me
shake my head.

nate

"N8N" > wrote in message > Why do mfgrs. spec such crap
tires for new cars? I guess I can kind
> of understand the Impala, although these were so bad they were
> dangerous, but VW spec'ing those awful Contis for the GTI makes me
> shake my head.

Tires can be a very important, but elusive, issue.
I gave up on Goodyear and Firestone years ago... Maybe they have improved in
the interim.

I buy Michelins,usually.

The issue of pulsation in the front is easily confused with brake issues,
tire issues, suspension
wear, and more.

What some perceive as pulsation may be hard to pin down. It is not always
as it seems.

> Why do mfgrs. spec such crap tires for new cars? I guess I can kind
> of understand the Impala, although these were so bad they were
> dangerous, but VW spec'ing those awful Contis for the GTI makes me
> shake my head.
>
> nate

when you make 100,000 cars, and need 400,000 tires a nickel or a dime
multiplied by 400,000 adds up.

whoever bids cheapest, supplies tires

On Oct 10, 4:39 am, "Mark" > wrote:
> > Why do mfgrs. spec such crap tires for new cars? I guess I can kind
> > of understand the Impala, although these were so bad they were
> > dangerous, but VW spec'ing those awful Contis for the GTI makes me
> > shake my head.
>
> > nate
>
> when you make 100,000 cars, and need 400,000 tires a nickel or a dime
> multiplied by 400,000 adds up.
>
> whoever bids cheapest, supplies tires

Sure, I know this, but wouldn't $0.10 a car be a small price to pay
for a car that actually performs to the capabilities of its drivetrain
and suspension? Some of us shop for cars primarily on factors other
than price (although "can I afford it" certainly is a concern) and
test driving a car where it's clear the bean counters won is
definitely a turnoff.

nate

In article .com>,
N8N > wrote:

> On Oct 10, 4:39 am, "Mark" > wrote:
> > > Why do mfgrs. spec such crap tires for new cars? I guess I can kind
> > > of understand the Impala, although these were so bad they were
> > > dangerous, but VW spec'ing those awful Contis for the GTI makes me
> > > shake my head.
> >
> > > nate
> >
> > when you make 100,000 cars, and need 400,000 tires a nickel or a dime
> > multiplied by 400,000 adds up.
> >
> > whoever bids cheapest, supplies tires
>
> Sure, I know this, but wouldn't $0.10 a car be a small price to pay
> for a car that actually performs to the capabilities of its drivetrain
> and suspension? Some of us shop for cars primarily on factors other
> than price (although "can I afford it" certainly is a concern) and
> test driving a car where it's clear the bean counters won is
> definitely a turnoff.
>
> nate

YOU paying a dime extra for ONE car is meaningless - It isn't the SELL
price, it's the MAKE price that the car companies are worried about. To
you and me, it's an extra dime. Big fat flippin' deal. To them, it's an
extra 40 grand over a 100K unit production run.

I have to agree with *BOTH* sides, actually - From the buyer's side,It
sucks having to deal with the bean-counters, but when you look at things
realistically, the makers are in business to make as much money as they
can, while spending as little as possible in the process. Basic
economics in action.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

Don Bruder wrote:
> In article .com>,
> N8N > wrote:
>
>
>>On Oct 10, 4:39 am, "Mark" > wrote:
>>
>>>>Why do mfgrs. spec such crap tires for new cars? I guess I can kind
>>>>of understand the Impala, although these were so bad they were
>>>>dangerous, but VW spec'ing those awful Contis for the GTI makes me
>>>>shake my head.
>>>
>>>>nate
>>>
>>>when you make 100,000 cars, and need 400,000 tires a nickel or a dime
>>>multiplied by 400,000 adds up.
>>>
>>>whoever bids cheapest, supplies tires
>>
>>Sure, I know this, but wouldn't $0.10 a car be a small price to pay
>>for a car that actually performs to the capabilities of its drivetrain
>>and suspension? Some of us shop for cars primarily on factors other
>>than price (although "can I afford it" certainly is a concern) and
>>test driving a car where it's clear the bean counters won is
>>definitely a turnoff.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> YOU paying a dime extra for ONE car is meaningless - It isn't the SELL
> price, it's the MAKE price that the car companies are worried about. To
> you and me, it's an extra dime. Big fat flippin' deal. To them, it's an
> extra 40 grand over a 100K unit production run.
>
> I have to agree with *BOTH* sides, actually - From the buyer's side,It
> sucks having to deal with the bean-counters, but when you look at things
> realistically, the makers are in business to make as much money as they
> can, while spending as little as possible in the process. Basic
> economics in action.
>

But what it means is that as long as ONE manufacturer still makes a
decent product, the bean-counters get nothing from me - I either buy
from the good mfgr. or buy used.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel