Outside edge of front tires stairstepping

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).

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).

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.

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)?

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.

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 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.

> 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 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.

>>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 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.

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

On 7/9/2017 12:07 PM, Chaya Eve wrote:

>> 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.
>
> 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.

There is no lower priced tire that would give me the performance I need.
Easy logical decision. If there was, I'd buy it. The tire was bought
based on performance, not name brand or anything else.


>
> 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 know a guy that started a company that made the clear plastic packing
tape we see on most packages. He tried selling it for less than half
the price of the name brands. Could not sell it. He raised the price
to be 5% less and the sales started coming in. After a few yers he sold
the company and retired.

>
>> 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.

I think we are saying the same thing. I buy on performance I need. No
matter the price, it is not a good value if it does not do the job. A
28 foot ladder is $300. I can get a ladder that will take the same
wight, works just as well and is only $120. Better value? not if it is
20 feet and does not reach my roof.
>
> 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.

Hint: If I only need a #2 Phillips for $5, it is a waste to buy a set
of 10 screwdrivers that will never be used for $10. Unless I can sell
what I won't use.



> 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.

You changed the argument. If you are only going to use a screwdriver
one in your life for one screw, it makes no sense to buy a set on sale
at Father's day for gifts. I want to drive that screw today.


> 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?
>

Never said that. I buy what I need or buy what I want. Sometimes what
I want does not come in other prices and models. I make the decision,
yes or no based on desire and wallet.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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).
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.

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

> Can you get better for less money?

I bought the best value at the time for my tires.

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).

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.

So I make the value decision and do all the research when I need tires.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

So what do you have to compare tires?
Lots.

* You have the specs that the manufacturer specified
* You have the specs on the current tires to improve upon if you want
* You have reviews of tires on the net (of varying degrees of usefulness)
* You have forums such as this ng to ask questions

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.

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 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).

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).