Outside edge of front tires stairstepping

Chaya Eve > wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 12:55:24 -0400, > wrote:
>
>> Take the word of a retired former Toyota Service Manager, who has also
>> had experience in Rallye driving. The firstand simplest thing to do is
>> AIR UP the tires by at least 5 PSI. The next SMART thing to do is get
>> the alignment verified. When the tires need replacement replace with a
>> heavier duty tire - an LT rated tire is recommended on that vehicle,
>> and if it has the 265 65 tires on it, fo to 245 70 instead. Reducing
>> the width of rubber on the road will reduce the instability of the
>> tread on hard turns.
>>
>> It's not a race car - you don't need wide meats on it.
>
>Thanks for the advice of harder pressure which I will certainly do!

For the most part this is true although I have a car that handles much
better when it's 2-5 psi below the number on the door. So try a bit more
air and feel what happens. It will likely help.... but make sure it does.

>I agree with you on the lack of need for width.
>
>It has 225s on there now, which is the OEM tire.
>Nothing wider than that is needed I agree.

Also... let me point out that some people are very fond of putting all-terrain
tires with aggressive tread on SUVs, and then they wonder why the handling on
the road is poor. This happened to a friend of mine; the tire place sold her
some tires that would have been a very good choice offroad, and she wondered
why her rear-end was hopping so much off the line. Going back to proper road
tires helped a lot.
--sctt
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 9 Jul 2017 09:26:00 -0400, Scott Dorsey > wrote:

>>Thanks for the advice of harder pressure which I will certainly do!
>
> For the most part this is true although I have a car that handles much
> better when it's 2-5 psi below the number on the door. So try a bit more
> air and feel what happens. It will likely help.... but make sure it does.

I have already added a few psi which I actually *like* how it feels. But of
course I'm aware of the butt dyno effect (when I wax my car and change the
oil, it 'feels' faster too so I know that such things are subjective).

>>It has 225s on there now, which is the OEM tire.
>>Nothing wider than that is needed I agree.
>
> Also... let me point out that some people are very fond of putting all-terrain
> tires with aggressive tread on SUVs, and then they wonder why the handling on
> the road is poor.

I agree with you but this is a 2wd which has never been off the shoulder of
the road, so, I don't need poser tires. I treat it like a car.

> This happened to a friend of mine; the tire place sold her
> some tires that would have been a very good choice offroad, and she wondered
> why her rear-end was hopping so much off the line. Going back to proper road
> tires helped a lot.

I wish there was some good way of testing tires out beforehand to "feel"
them but it's just impossible. The best you can do is ask friends and read
reviews, but everyone has different requirements and not everyone has the
same vehicle driven the same way (and even if they do, they don't always
say it in the reviews).

So while I like to buy my tires on pure logic, in tires most of that
information is just not available to you for all the tires you might be
considering.

Therefore, I often have to buy tires on published specifications alone,
where the OEM specifications are my starting point (e.g., the load range
and speed range and air pressure and camber and toe, etc.).

It's all homework + logic.
Just like it was at school to get a perfect GPA.

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.

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?

> 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.

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.

> 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?

Do I look like a person who doesn't use logic when making spending
decisions?

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.

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.

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".

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."

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.


--

Xeno

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.

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.

On 7/9/2017 9:03 AM, 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?
>

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.

On 7/9/2017 9:35 AM, Chaya Eve wrote:

>
>> 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?
>
>> 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.

I'm really sorry to have to be blunt with you, but you are not
translating this to your real life situation. Seems like you only care
about measurable stuff like meeting minimum requirements, not how the
suit your particular needs.

I do realize you don't really get what you pay for. If you pay 50% more
you are probably getting 25% more in performance, but you have to decide
if you need/want that performance. I drive a fully loaded, every
available option higher end car. I can get to the store just as fast in
a cheap stripped down economy model that is a better value but I choose
not to. It was a choice. The only value is what I justify to myself.


>
> If you can get better "stuff" for less money, then you're paying more for
> worse tires.

Sometimes. How are your tires working? Can you get better for less money?



>
> Where did I ever say I buy *anything* on price alone?
>
> Do I look like a person who doesn't use logic when making spending
> decisions?
>

Yes, but twisted logic. I think you are using your knowledge of
marketing to justify you are a cheapskate.



> 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".
>

Right, minimum spec is all that matters.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC), Chaya Eve
> 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.

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.