Outside edge of front tires stairstepping

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


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-10, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/9/2017 11:20 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.
> >
>
> For you. But OP is waiting for someone to agree with him
> that $200 for a new pair of tires every couple of months is
> a better value than a $100 alignment.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Looking for complex solutions for the simplest of problems is a good way to kill time and burn cash. Persons looking to do both should just pick up a hobby - like collecting stuffed unicorns.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:51:13 +0000 (UTC), 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?
A $100 tire is NOT a high quality tire. PERIOD. Yes, it MAY meet the
legal requirements, but it is, as you are finding, a 4000 to 8000 mile
tire, at best, on your vehicle on those roads. What year is your 4
Runner that it comes with 225 series tires - and what aspect ratio and
what diameter?

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?
There is a range that is acceptable, but a car can be "within spec"
in EVERY measurement and still handle like a cow on skates, wear tires
like a bugger, and generally be a handfull on the road. This is why I
said a GOOD alignment tech can tell you if your alignment is a problem
- and a good alignment tech WILL test drive the car both before and
after alignment. There is a certain combination of caster and camber
lead that will give the required stability and steering feel as well
as the best tire wear, and combined with that there is a PROPER amount
of toe-in or toe out that will provide the lowest rolling resistance
and the best tire wear. Knowing that comes with a LOT of experience,
and an excellent understanding of the angles and forces involved.
Sometimes getting the camber or caster lead that is IDEAL is not
possible, so compensating with the other angle can be used to make the
car run straight down the road.
A car will pull to the side of the most negative camber, or the most
positive caster. So if the caster and camber ar within spec but at the
maximum neg cater and pos camber on one side, and reverse on the
other, it will want to do circles around itself going down the road -
as an example.

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
>
>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
>
>> 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.
>
>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.

On 9 Jul 2017 09:36:11 -0400, (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.



That is all you get for $100 from the majority of "tire specialist"
shops and "big box" tire stores.
As for "checking" alignment, that's all you need. The machine will
tell you very accurately and simply and quickly what your alignment is
set to, and if it is within spec. This does not take an expert. A
reasonably intelligent highschool graduate can be trained to operate a
sophisticated alignment rack in a matter of hours - days at most, of
all you need to do is CHECK alignment.

Determining if the alignment is the best it can be, and making the
required adjustments to solve particular problems - THAT takes
sxpertise!!!!
>
>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.

A 4 wheel alignment is still required forsome issues on that 4 runner
- checking to make sure the vehicle is tracking properly etc. You can
read all you like about alignment and still not understand all the
ramifications. To check the suspension on a 2 wheel drive 4 runner
after it is driven onto the rack is less than a 15 minute job. Setting
up the rack and doing an alignment check for a 2 wheel alignment can
take as little as another 15 minutes.

We had a "scuff guage" that would tell me as I drove a vehicle into
the shop if the toe-in was out far enough to cause tire wear in less
than 15 seconds.

That said, my STRONG suspicion is you have a combination of the wrong
tires and the wrong pressures - the front end of a 4 runner is
HELLISHLY STOUT!!! You have to mistreat it pretty badly to throw it
out of alignment, and at your mileage there should not be much wear.
Like I've said NUMEROUS times - AIR UP - and see what happens.

You have still not told me what year your runner is and what size or
type of tire you have other than it is a 225 width.
What aspect ratio, what diameter, what make (brand) and model tire?
- what kind of tread?

Tell me what you have and I'll tell you if it is a tire application
issue - and pretty much tell you what pressure setings you should be
using.
>
>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

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:57:02 -0400, wrote:

> To a very significant extent, "marketing 101" has missed the mark and
>misguided much of the last 2 generations.

Maybe, but marketing is a separate issue from pricing, even if pricing
is an issue in the class. Chaya has seriously oversimplified this
issue, along with the complexity of tire construction. We both know
that tires with the exact same specs can be very, very different in
quality.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 23:40:18 +1000, Xeno >
wrote:

>On 9/07/2017 11:03 PM, 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?
>>
>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.
Like I said, we have no idea what year her 'runner is, and what tires
she is using so we are all, to some extent, "shooting in the dark"
The KPI and SAI are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to be the problem - that front
end is one of the toughest in the industry. If we know what year it
is, and exactly what tires are on it, we (those who know these things)
can tell her for sure what she needs to address.

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 - - -
>
>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 - - - -

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

>So to your point, nobody logical suggested the fault was the tires.

Well I did. Like I said elsewhere, I was told by GM engineers that
certain tires, and certain vehicles have this sort of problem. You did
say that you hear a scrubbing sound even at low speeds. I remember
that Broughams from the 90's, and some early Excalades had this issue
because of the steering geometry and some other forces that I can't
remember. And it's been some years, but when I saw tires with certain
issues, I knew without looking what brand they were. And that is also
why people are saying that $100 tires are not such a good idea. Tires
with identical specs can vary wildly in quality. You don't necessarily
get more when you spend more, but in general, if you want higher
quality and especially durability, you need to pay more. The wear
ratings on tires are just that - the rate of *normal* wear. They don't
take into account any tendency of the tires to lose chunks of rubber,
or to distort, or to wear in odd patterns, or to start cracking
prematurely.