XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

Mounted & balanced a set of tires for one of my kids' friends this weekend
<https://i.postimg.cc/3N6h13VR/tire33.jpg>
On brand new steel wheels the kids bought (of unknown-to-me brand or size):
<https://i.postimg.cc/FR4mwvyR/tire02.jpg>

Where I'd like to ask other adults for purposefully helpful advice so that
I can learn from your experience as this is my first ever mounting &
statically balancing new tires on a brand new set of steel wheels at home.
o Laufenn "G Fit as tires: 215/65R15 95H, TW=500, TR=A, TMP=A

1. These tires had both red (shape) & yellow (weight) dots:
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZRMmnm8J/tire05.jpg>
Where, AFAIK:
o red = uniformity point of maximum radial force variation of the tire
(i.e., difference between the highest & lowest weight points)
(aka the tires' point of maximum radial force and runout)
(aka the tires' high point)
to be aligned to the steel rim's point of minimum radial run-out
(i.e., to be aligned to the steel wheels' low point)
o yellow = the point of lightest weight of the tire
to be aligned with the valve stem on the wheel assembly
which represents the heaviest weight point of the wheel assembly

2. We followed the "red rules over yellow" maxim by marking the rim in
front where this white paint mark was on the back of each rim:
<https://i.postimg.cc/0Qh9yxv7/tire08.jpg>

3. But since the steel wheels were new, is _this_ mere paint dot on
the inside of each rim the actual match mounting indicator?
<https://i.postimg.cc/RZJWBMHQ/tire03.jpg>

4. Other than that white paint dot, we couldn't find low-point dimples
or scratches, or other indications on the steel wheels:
<https://i.postimg.cc/G2f0d1YG/tire04.jpg>

5. So we simply matched the red tire mark to the steel rim white paint dot:
<https://i.postimg.cc/TPRhWnsQ/tire09.jpg>

6. In addition, the old wheels were quite different in size than the new,
where the new wheels were the stock size for this vehicle & the old
wheels were completely different in size, shape, & depth:
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zLtCV8M/tire16.jpg>

7. But what was strange about the front axle, was this aluminum spacer:
<https://i.postimg.cc/qRK81skn/tire14.jpg>

8. And what was even stranger about the rear axle was this steel and
aluminum spacer assembly:
<https://i.postimg.cc/7ZgrrcmQ/tire23.jpg>

9. The boys asked me if they should keep or ditch the spacer, but I simply
didn't have a clue since I have never encountered such things before.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Wz2wtDvk/tire22.jpg>

10. I suspect they were needed perhaps due to the depth of the old wheels:
<https://i.postimg.cc/0jM2YnPR/tire15.jpg>

11. Where the rear axle had a much thicker spacer than the front axle did:
<https://i.postimg.cc/d0Nb2T6G/tire34.jpg>

12. Where in the end, we opted to remove all the spacers on both axles:
<https://i.postimg.cc/zBn49P5F/tire35.jpg>

13. Where the original lug nuts on the front axle seemed to fit well on the
front lug bolts:
<https://i.postimg.cc/76pkST9f/tire31.jpg>

14. But for the rear axle, the lug nuts that were holding together the
two-piece rear spacer seemed to fit the lug bolts better.
<https://i.postimg.cc/mDg1zKDm/tire30.jpg>

In summary, what advice would you give if you have mounted and balanced
tires on new steel wheels at home?

NOTE: I've done SUV tires many times before, but on old steel wheels,
where, in the past, SUV tires were a pain to seal the bead as compared to
sedan tires, but the SUV tires were relatively easy to mount onto the steel rims (as opposed to sedan tires on both steel & alloy wheels); whereas
these LT tires were the complete opposite of my prior SUV tire experience!
o These LT tires were a pain to get onto the rim, but,
o They sealed so trivially that it took _zero_ force to pop in the bead.

The fit was so tight that I literally popped the bead without any holding
of the tire whatsoever to seat the bead. It was _that_ tight on the rim.

NOTE: Dynamic balance test is free, where the kid reported zero vibration
at speed, but where I told him Costco will balance any wheel for around
five bucks a wheel (an extra 50 cents per wheel if they're on the vehicle),
so dynamic balance is assured due to two simple things:
a. The on-the-road dynamic balance test is always constant & free, and,
b. The Costco dynamic balance, if needed, is only five bucks per wheel.

We didn't need to dispose the old tires, but here in California, Costco
takes back worn carcasses for $1 each plus about 10% sales tax
(why there's a _second_ sales tax on tires is beyond my pay grade).

NOTE: I have a separate bead breaker, but we didn't need it for this job because the kid kept the old wheels and tires.

Note: We didn't put steel clipon weights because you can't get lead weights
in California it seems, and besides, I couldn't find them when we needed
them, so we were stuck with ounce and half ounce stickon California
non-lead alloy wheel weights.

Note: We used the snap in (rubber boot) brass shielded tire valves because
the kids forgot to buy their own, so those were the only ones I have since
I used up all my bolt on 0.453" tire valves on the last mounting job.

Note: We used liquid dish detergent for lube, where these tires were super tight, like I've never seen tires be (where I've mounted, oh, about 40
tires in the last handful of years, give or take a few tires).

Note: It's about $20 per wheel (plus usually around 3 to 7 bucks each for disposal, plus around 3 to 4 bucks each for valves) for mounting and
dynamic balancing which we saved for this kid, in addition to taxes and shipping, all of which was free since we bought out of state.

And of course, the local tire shops _never_ bother to match mount.
--
Usenet is a place for adults to gather to politely discuss technical stuff.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

On 31/3/20 1:10 pm, Arlen Holder wrote:

Mounted & balanced a set of tires for one of my kids' friends this weekend <https://i.postimg.cc/3N6h13VR/tire33.jpg>
On brand new steel wheels the kids bought (of unknown-to-me brand or size): <https://i.postimg.cc/FR4mwvyR/tire02.jpg>

Where I'd like to ask other adults for purposefully helpful advice so that
I can learn from your experience as this is my first ever mounting & statically balancing new tires on a brand new set of steel wheels at home.
o Laufenn "G Fit as tires: 215/65R15 95H, TW=500, TR=A, TMP=A

1. These tires had both red (shape) & yellow (weight) dots:
  <https://i.postimg.cc/ZRMmnm8J/tire05.jpg>
  Where, AFAIK:
  o red = uniformity point of maximum radial force variation of the tire
          (i.e., difference between the highest & lowest weight points)
          (aka the tires' point of maximum radial force and runout)
          (aka the tires' high point)
          to be aligned to the steel rim's point of minimum radial run-out
          (i.e., to be aligned to the steel wheels' low point)
  o yellow = the point of lightest weight of the tire
          to be aligned with the valve stem on the wheel assembly
          which represents the heaviest weight point of the wheel assembly

2. We followed the "red rules over yellow" maxim by marking the rim in
front where this white paint mark was on the back of each rim:
  <https://i.postimg.cc/0Qh9yxv7/tire08.jpg>

3. But since the steel wheels were new, is _this_ mere paint dot on
  the inside of each rim the actual match mounting indicator?
  <https://i.postimg.cc/RZJWBMHQ/tire03.jpg>

4. Other than that white paint dot, we couldn't find low-point dimples
  or scratches, or other indications on the steel wheels:
  <https://i.postimg.cc/G2f0d1YG/tire04.jpg>

5. So we simply matched the red tire mark to the steel rim white paint dot:
  <https://i.postimg.cc/TPRhWnsQ/tire09.jpg>

6. In addition, the old wheels were quite different in size than the
new,   where the new wheels were the stock size for this vehicle & the old
  wheels were completely different in size, shape, & depth:
  <https://i.postimg.cc/8zLtCV8M/tire16.jpg>

7. But what was strange about the front axle, was this aluminum spacer:
  <https://i.postimg.cc/qRK81skn/tire14.jpg>

8. And what was even stranger about the rear axle was this steel and
  aluminum spacer assembly:
  <https://i.postimg.cc/7ZgrrcmQ/tire23.jpg>

9. The boys asked me if they should keep or ditch the spacer, but I
simply   didn't have a clue since I have never encountered such things before.
  <https://i.postimg.cc/Wz2wtDvk/tire22.jpg>

10. I suspect they were needed perhaps due to the depth of the old wheels:
   <https://i.postimg.cc/0jM2YnPR/tire15.jpg>

11. Where the rear axle had a much thicker spacer than the front axle did:
   <https://i.postimg.cc/d0Nb2T6G/tire34.jpg>

12. Where in the end, we opted to remove all the spacers on both axles:
   <https://i.postimg.cc/zBn49P5F/tire35.jpg>

If the spacers were fitted, they were fitted for a reason. If you are
using the same rims, *use the spacers*. If you are fitting *new* rims
that differ in any way from the original, measure them. The offset is
the critical measurement. If the offset is different from factory, you
will need spacers, If the offset is the same as factory rims, you
shouldn't need spacers if the OEM didn't use them.

Those spacers server two purposes;

They centre the wheel over the bearings so that the bearings both share
the load. You can shorten bearing life if you get this wrong. That said,
some people use spacers, like those fitted to the rear, to increase rear
track and don't care about the offset.

As well as the above, they give the desired steering offset so that
*steering* operates as designed at the factory. This offset is
*critical* to safe operation of the steering. This is a very complex
topic so please do not dick about making decisions the consequences of
which you do not comprehend.

Here is a good summary of stuff you *need to know*.

https://www.moderntiredealer.com/article/712036/helping-your-customer-understand-why-wheel-offset-matters

13. Where the original lug nuts on the front axle seemed to fit well on
the    front lug bolts:
   <https://i.postimg.cc/76pkST9f/tire31.jpg>

14. But for the rear axle, the lug nuts that were holding together the
   two-piece rear spacer seemed to fit the lug bolts better.
   <https://i.postimg.cc/mDg1zKDm/tire30.jpg>

In summary, what advice would you give if you have mounted and balanced
tires on new steel wheels at home?

NOTE: I've done SUV tires many times before, but on old steel wheels,
where, in the past, SUV tires were a pain to seal the bead as compared to sedan tires, but the SUV tires were relatively easy to mount onto the steel rims (as opposed to sedan tires on both steel & alloy wheels); whereas
these LT tires were the complete opposite of my prior SUV tire experience!
o These LT tires were a pain to get onto the rim, but, o They sealed so trivially that it took _zero_ force to pop in the bead.

The fit was so tight that I literally popped the bead without any holding
of the tire whatsoever to seat the bead. It was _that_ tight on the rim.

NOTE: Dynamic balance test is free, where the kid reported zero vibration
at speed, but where I told him Costco will balance any wheel for around
five bucks a wheel (an extra 50 cents per wheel if they're on the vehicle), so dynamic balance is assured due to two simple things:
a. The on-the-road dynamic balance test is always constant & free, and,
b. The Costco dynamic balance, if needed, is only five bucks per wheel.

We didn't need to dispose the old tires, but here in California, Costco
takes back worn carcasses for $1 each plus about 10% sales tax (why
there's a _second_ sales tax on tires is beyond my pay grade).

NOTE: I have a separate bead breaker, but we didn't need it for this job because the kid kept the old wheels and tires.

Note: We didn't put steel clipon weights because you can't get lead weights in California it seems, and besides, I couldn't find them when we needed them, so we were stuck with ounce and half ounce stickon California
non-lead alloy wheel weights.

Note: We used the snap in (rubber boot) brass shielded tire valves because the kids forgot to buy their own, so those were the only ones I have since
I used up all my bolt on 0.453" tire valves on the last mounting job.

Note: We used liquid dish detergent for lube, where these tires were super tight, like I've never seen tires be (where I've mounted, oh, about 40
tires in the last handful of years, give or take a few tires).

Note: It's about $20 per wheel (plus usually around 3 to 7 bucks each for disposal, plus around 3 to 4 bucks each for valves) for mounting and
dynamic balancing which we saved for this kid, in addition to taxes and shipping, all of which was free since we bought out of state.

And of course, the local tire shops _never_ bother to match mount.

These days rims are much better manufactured than in the past and match mounting isn't generally necessary.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote :

If the spacers were fitted, they were fitted for a reason.

Hi Xeno,

Thanks for taking the risk of responding as it's tough on Usenet to
converse when it's just text and a bunch of snapshots.

As you noted, I'm also absolutely sure the spacers were there for a good reason, whether for sheer looks or because the clearly non-stock alloy
wheels we took off were vastly different than the stock (aka factory spec) steel wheels we replaced them with.

I'm not too worried about not putting the spacers back because the new
stock steel wheels fit fine without those spacers, where I was just
wondering if a simple cheap Chevy pickup truck would ever have spacers in a stock situation in the first place.

These days rims are much better manufactured than in the past and match mounting isn't generally necessary.

Hi Xeno,

I love to learn the details where I'm sure there's a reason for everything.

The main question, really, is whether that "white dot" was the match
mounting mark on the new steel rims, where I'm pretty sure if it is that
they didn't consider match mounting not necessary when they put that dot
there in the first place.

Nobody does that stuff for no good reason. They just don't. :)

I'm an old man, where you don't want to know how many times I've heard
people say "oh, that bolt doesn't do anything", simply because they
couldn't be bothered to replace all the bolts they took out.

If they're gonna bother putting a match-mounting mark on the wheels, and another corresponding mounting mark on the tires, then I'm gonna use them.

If they're not needed, particularly on new wheels and new tires, then they wouldn't put them there, IMHO. Although I am very familiar with the Tire
Rack saying that nobody cares about match mounting anymore because they
have dynamic balance machines which will compensate for anything.

We had to static balance - so it would seem to me that it's important to
use as little weight as possible, where on one tire, we didn't need
anything (but that was the tire with the red and yellow does 180 degrees apart).

Interestingly, the tires that needed the most balance weight were those
where the red and yellow dots were off by about thirty to sixty degrees (or so).
--
Usenet is so much more valuable, and pleasant, when people share solutions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

On 31/3/20 5:21 pm, Arlen Holder wrote:

In response to what Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote :

If the spacers were fitted, they were fitted for a reason.

Hi Xeno,

Thanks for taking the risk of responding as it's tough on Usenet to
converse when it's just text and a bunch of snapshots.

As you noted, I'm also absolutely sure the spacers were there for a good reason, whether for sheer looks or because the clearly non-stock alloy
wheels we took off were vastly different than the stock (aka factory spec) steel wheels we replaced them with.

I'm not too worried about not putting the spacers back because the new
stock steel wheels fit fine without those spacers, where I was just
wondering if a simple cheap Chevy pickup truck would ever have spacers in a stock situation in the first place.

These days rims are much better manufactured than in the past and
match mounting isn't generally necessary.

Hi Xeno,

I love to learn the details where I'm sure there's a reason for everything.

The main question, really, is whether that "white dot" was the match
mounting mark on the new steel rims, where I'm pretty sure if it is that
they didn't consider match mounting not necessary when they put that dot there in the first place.

Nobody does that stuff for no good reason. They just don't. :)

Where it is most useful is for the OEMs at the factory when the car is assembled. That mark will not be on a rim for long unless it is etched
or stamped in - and they often are. Back in the 70's Ford in this
country had a really big issue with *tyres* on Falcons. Lots of vibes
and no amount of balancing would fix it. At the dealer, we had a set of
rims and tyres that were perfect in every way - a diagnostic tool with a
Ford part number. If that sorted the issue, the tyres were tossed out
and the rim runout checked with new tyres then fitted. Too much radial
force variation in the OEM tyres. And it was badon the Falcon because
that particular front suspension layout seemed overly sensitive to such
things. I went on to work in GM dealerships so never knew if they had
issues with subsequent models of Falcons.

I'm an old man, where you don't want to know how many times I've heard
people say "oh, that bolt doesn't do anything", simply because they
couldn't be bothered to replace all the bolts they took out.

If they're gonna bother putting a match-mounting mark on the wheels, and another corresponding mounting mark on the tires, then I'm gonna use them.

Here's an idea. Mount up the rims on a wheel sans tyres, then get a dial indicator and check the vertical runout. That way you will *know* the
extent of the runout, if any, and the location. Then see where it is in relation to the rim mark.

Rims generally do not suffer from balance issues. If anything, the rim
will be in quite good balance *until* you mount the valve stem. The
yellow balance match mounting is to compensate for the extra *mass* of
the valve as it indicates the lightest point of the tyre. OEMs will use
the red dot in preference as that is the radial force variation
indicator. They will then use balance weights to sort out the balance
issues.
Since you have a new rim, you can use the red mark on the tyre and align
it with the rim marker. In fact, that is the preference when fitting a
new tyre on a new rim. Then proceed to balance and ignore the relative locations of each mark. Focus on red. Of course, you may end up with
more balance weights this way but them's the breaks. Life is full of
compromise and the auto industry is no exception.

If they're not needed, particularly on new wheels and new tires, then they wouldn't put them there, IMHO. Although I am very familiar with the Tire
Rack saying that nobody cares about match mounting anymore because they
have dynamic balance machines which will compensate for anything.

We had to static balance - so it would seem to me that it's important to
use as little weight as possible, where on one tire, we didn't need
anything (but that was the tire with the red and yellow does 180 degrees apart).

That is quite understandable. The red and yellow dots indicate quite
different things.

Interestingly, the tires that needed the most balance weight were those
where the red and yellow dots were off by about thirty to sixty degrees (or so).

I suggest you watch a video on how tyres are manufactured. Very
enlightening. Years ago I did a study tour of the Goodyear tyre factory
and it explained a lot - especially how the tread was *rolled on*. You
not only get mass variations but you also get flex variations and they
can create issues you will never balance out. You should find a suitable
video on youtube.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote :

Where it is most useful is for the OEMs at the factory when the car is assembled.

Hi Xeno,

I thank you for offering advice on Usenet because my goal is to learn.

Rest assured I know it's risky me asking (and you answering) this type of question on Usenet since a _lot_ of people have strongly held opinions, particularly on home & automotive repairs that they, themselves, _hate_ to
do, where their opinions are then seemingly based on exactly zero (0) facts (since they themselves would never tackle even such a simple task as this
is).

Hence I appreciate that you offered your advice, as I know both you and
Clare, for example, have at least mounted and balanced tires yourselves.

Regarding factory tire mounting, I'm well aware that the Internet is rife
with claims that the OEMs don't bother to dynamically balance brand new
wheels and tires, although I don't really have that on a reliable source as yet.

That mark will not be on a rim for long unless it is etched
or stamped in - and they often are.

Yup. I've posted pictures in the past of a "notch" in old steel Toyota
rims, for example, where it's certainly obvious that this "white dot" in
these brand new rims exists on all four wheels ... so I can only "assume"
it's the match mounting mark to be aligned to the steel rim's point of
minimum radial run-out (i.e., to be aligned to the steel wheels' low point)

Rest assured I had the kids scour the rims for any other marks though...
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKvyDTgm/tire38.jpg>

Where the white paint dot was all we could find in _each_ of the rims.
<https://i.postimg.cc/G2f0d1YG/tire04.jpg>

Here's an idea. Mount up the rims on a wheel sans tyres, then get a dial indicator and check the vertical runout. That way you will *know* the
extent of the runout, if any, and the location. Then see where it is in relation to the rim mark.

Thanks for that purposefully helpful suggestion Xeno.

I might try that on the next set of wheels, as I use a dial gauge all the
time to check rotor runout (which some people incorrectly call 'warp');
where I have a bunch of dial gauges (e.g., to check piston TDC) which can
be screwed into a jig of some sort to check the wheel runout off the car.

Rims generally do not suffer from balance issues. If anything, the rim
will be in quite good balance *until* you mount the valve stem. The
yellow balance match mounting is to compensate for the extra *mass* of
the valve as it indicates the lightest point of the tyre.

Thanks for that advice Xeno on the yellow (lightest point of the tire)
mark, where almost all the past 60 or so tires I've had shipped to my house
in the past few years (the first score of which I had others mount for me
until I got sick of all the shortcuts I could clearly see they took) had
_both_ the yellow and red mounting marks, where Clare apprised me long ago,
as I recall, to mount the yellow mark to the heaviest point of the wheel assembly (which is presumed to be at the valve stem) if it's an old rim
which doesn't clearly indicate any match mounting marks.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wT9zRVKf/tire13.jpg>

OEMs will use
the red dot in preference as that is the radial force variation
indicator.

What I've always found interesting is that both the red and yellow mark
have been on almost all the consumer tires I've bought on the net, where I
find it hard to believe they're all _also_ sold to OEMs.

So they must be putting these red marks on tires expecting them to be
placed on _new_ rims by consumers, even if not by the OEMs themselves.
Right?

Since you have a new rim, you can use the red mark on the tyre and align
it with the rim marker. In fact, that is the preference when fitting a
new tyre on a new rim. Then proceed to balance and ignore the relative locations of each mark.

Yup. That's exactly our logic.

Red (maximum radial force variation) rules over yellow (lightest weight)
_if_ you have new steel wheels with point of minimum radial run-out (low point) match-mounting marks; otherwise, yellow rules over red where you can "assume" the valve stem is the heaviest spot on the steel wheel.

Focus on red. Of course, you may end up with
more balance weights this way but them's the breaks. Life is full of compromise and the auto industry is no exception.

That's an interesting statement, Xeno!

At first I didn't understand why focusing on red (matching the maximum
radial force variation of the tire to the low point of the rim) would
result in more weight than if we focused on yellow (light point of the tire
to the heavy point of the wheel), as, in the end, it's all based on F=ma & momentum, is it not?

Is it often the case, all other things being equal, that focusing on the
red (minimizing radial force variation) versus focusing on the yellow (minimizing weight variation) results in lesser weights added overall?

I wasn't aware of that, where, if I think in terms of just weight, it makes inherent sense, but if I think in terms of force & momentum, I'm not so
sure I comprehend the dynamics of why focusing on red (force variation)
would result in more weight than yellow (weight variation).

I suggest you watch a video on how tyres are manufactured.

I think I might have watched every "how things are made" video on the
Internet, from Orange Juice to Tires. Rest assured I've seen how tires are made. :)

Very
enlightening. Years ago I did a study tour of the Goodyear tyre factory
and it explained a lot - especially how the tread was *rolled on*.

Yup. Seeing the steel belts being created and the rubber being vulcanized
in layers is interesting to say the least!
--
Usenet is a public place for purposefully helpful adults to share ideas.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what <hubops@ccanoemail.ca> wrote :

http://tinyurl.com/ur8rvy2

*Thanks for that helpful link to "wheel adapters" from Adapt It USA.* <https://adaptitusa.com/5-x-112-to-5-x-115-wheel-adapter.aspx>

That's EXACTLY what the pickup truck _rear_ wheel adapters looked like!
o Although the front adapters were _completely_ different!
<https://i.postimg.cc/QMF2DKpq/tire37.jpg>

That link doesn't say _why_ anyone would do such a thing to a Chevy though.
o It simply assumes you know why you would want such a thing on your axle!
<https://i.postimg.cc/6Q5BsQ3W/tire17.jpg>

It doesn't tell us _why_ these things were on the axle in the first place.
o Where I don't know the history of this truck as it wasn't mine.

And the kid who owned the old pickup only bought it recently himself.
o Where he _hated_ the alloy rims & low-profile tires that we replaced.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zfrBbp3B/tire36.jpg>

The main reason I asked for more information on why anyone would put such a thing on their axle is I've only replaced, fixed, mounted, and balanced
about 40 tires at home in the past handful of years, where this is the
first time I had run into these "wheel adapters".

So I was asking those who know more than I do why anyone would put such
things on their vehicle in the first place.
--
Usenet is where purposefully helpful adults publicly help each other.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

On 1/4/20 5:56 am, Arlen Holder wrote:

In response to what Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote :

Where it is most useful is for the OEMs at the factory when the car is
assembled.

Hi Xeno,

I thank you for offering advice on Usenet because my goal is to learn.

Rest assured I know it's risky me asking (and you answering) this type of question on Usenet since a _lot_ of people have strongly held opinions, particularly on home & automotive repairs that they, themselves, _hate_ to do, where their opinions are then seemingly based on exactly zero (0) facts (since they themselves would never tackle even such a simple task as this is).

Hence I appreciate that you offered your advice, as I know both you and Clare, for example, have at least mounted and balanced tires yourselves.

More than I care to count - and that's why I don't bother nowadays.

Regarding factory tire mounting, I'm well aware that the Internet is rife with claims that the OEMs don't bother to dynamically balance brand new wheels and tires, although I don't really have that on a reliable source as yet.

In fact, you may find the OEMs are the *only ones* who do it.

That mark will not be on a rim for long unless it is etched or stamped
in - and they often are.

Yup. I've posted pictures in the past of a "notch" in old steel Toyota
rims, for example, where it's certainly obvious that this "white dot" in these brand new rims exists on all four wheels ... so I can only "assume" it's the match mounting mark to be aligned to the steel rim's point of minimum radial run-out (i.e., to be aligned to the steel wheels' low point)

The problem with radial force variation is that it isn't only runout
that creates the issue. The joint in the tread layer at manufacture can
become less elastic than the rest of the tread and that will cause a
vibration. Happened to a work colleague some 40 years ago on his pickup.
The vehicle had a nasty vibration and balancing didn't cure it. The
dealer even went to the effort of *grinding* the tread so the tyre was perfectly round. No dice. A new set of tyres was the cure but the dealer
and tyre company weren't happy.

Rest assured I had the kids scour the rims for any other marks though... <https://i.postimg.cc/CKvyDTgm/tire38.jpg>

Where the white paint dot was all we could find in _each_ of the rims. <https://i.postimg.cc/G2f0d1YG/tire04.jpg>

Which is why a lot of tyre fitters don't bother. The white mark on the
rim is no longer extant so they just fit according to the yellow balance
mark.

Here's an idea. Mount up the rims on a wheel sans tyres, then get a
dial indicator and check the vertical runout. That way you will *know*
the extent of the runout, if any, and the location. Then see where it
is in relation to the rim mark.

Thanks for that purposefully helpful suggestion Xeno.

I might try that on the next set of wheels, as I use a dial gauge all the time to check rotor runout (which some people incorrectly call 'warp');
where I have a bunch of dial gauges (e.g., to check piston TDC) which can
be screwed into a jig of some sort to check the wheel runout off the car.

Rims generally do not suffer from balance issues. If anything, the rim
will be in quite good balance *until* you mount the valve stem. The
yellow balance match mounting is to compensate for the extra *mass* of
the valve as it indicates the lightest point of the tyre.

Thanks for that advice Xeno on the yellow (lightest point of the tire)
mark, where almost all the past 60 or so tires I've had shipped to my house in the past few years (the first score of which I had others mount for me until I got sick of all the shortcuts I could clearly see they took) had _both_ the yellow and red mounting marks, where Clare apprised me long ago, as I recall, to mount the yellow mark to the heaviest point of the wheel assembly (which is presumed to be at the valve stem) if it's an old rim
which doesn't clearly indicate any match mounting marks. <https://i.postimg.cc/wT9zRVKf/tire13.jpg>

OEMs will use the red dot in preference as that is the radial force
variation indicator.

What I've always found interesting is that both the red and yellow mark
have been on almost all the consumer tires I've bought on the net, where I find it hard to believe they're all _also_ sold to OEMs.

OEMs will often get special sets made up. But then, they likely buy
millions of them so purchasing power is much greater. All the tyres go
through on the same line so I can't see why OEM tyres wouldn't be the
same, with respect to match marks, as the aftermarket tyres.

So they must be putting these red marks on tires expecting them to be
placed on _new_ rims by consumers, even if not by the OEMs themselves.
Right?

Not necessarily. As I stated above, they all go through the same line
and OEMs buy millions of tyres.

Since you have a new rim, you can use the red mark on the tyre and
align it with the rim marker. In fact, that is the preference when
fitting a new tyre on a new rim. Then proceed to balance and ignore
the relative locations of each mark.

Yup. That's exactly our logic.
Red (maximum radial force variation) rules over yellow (lightest weight)

That is the logical approach. You can't balance out RFV by any other
means than using the match marks - but you can compensate balance with
more or less weights as required.

_if_ you have new steel wheels with  point of minimum radial run-out (low point) match-mounting marks; otherwise, yellow rules over red where you can "assume" the valve stem is the heaviest spot on the steel wheel.

Focus on red. Of course, you may end up with more balance weights this
way but them's the breaks. Life is full of compromise and the auto
industry is no exception.

That's an interesting statement, Xeno!

At first I didn't understand why focusing on red (matching the maximum
radial force variation of the tire to the low point of the rim) would
result in more weight than if we focused on yellow (light point of the tire to the heavy point of the wheel), as, in the end, it's all based on F=ma & momentum, is it not?

Depends on what the RFV marks are matching for. Resistance variation in
the tyre rubber can create a semblance of runout in that it will create
a vibration. There is a term for that resistance variation in the tyre
rubber but is escapes me for the moment - oldtimers disease ya know.

Is it often the case, all other things being equal, that focusing on the
red (minimizing radial force variation) versus focusing on the yellow (minimizing weight variation) results in lesser weights added overall?

The two points are not necessarily the same since they relate to two
different aspects. You could have more or less, it just depends.

I wasn't aware of that, where, if I think in terms of just weight, it makes inherent sense, but if I think in terms of force & momentum, I'm not so
sure I comprehend the dynamics of why focusing on red (force variation)
would result in more weight than yellow (weight variation).

I suggest you look up the causes of radial force variation. It isn't
limited to weight or runout.

I suggest you watch a video on how tyres are manufactured.

I think I might have watched every "how things are made" video on the Internet, from Orange Juice to Tires. Rest assured I've seen how tires are made. :)

Very enlightening. Years ago I did a study tour of the Goodyear tyre
factory and it explained a lot - especially how the tread was *rolled
on*.

Yup. Seeing the steel belts being created and the rubber being vulcanized
in layers is interesting to say the least!

Indeed. I'd never realized tyres were made that way until the factory
visit. That said, it made it easier for me to visualise the problems
that can arise in tyres when on vehicles, RFV being one such.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote :

Not necessarily. As I stated above, they all go through the same line
and OEMs buy millions of tyres.

Hi Xeno,
I get your math, and don't argue that the tire makers are putting both the
red (force variation) and yellow (weight variation) dots, not caring at the time of manufacturer who the buyer is...

But these are "Laufenn" tires, which we selected because they were the best tire at the best price; but how many OEMs put "Laufenn" tires on at the factory?

I don't know, but it could be zero (although maybe Laufenn is a big brand somewhere; but personally I had never heard of Laufenn until these tires
showed up in the back of the kid's pickup).

Googling, apparently the Chinese company, Hancook, makes Laufenn tires: <https://drivingpress.com/laufenn-tires-review/>
Apparently manufactured in Indonesia: <https://tirereviewsandmore.com/laufenn-tire-reviews/>

Is it often the case, all other things being equal, that focusing on the
red (minimizing radial force variation) versus focusing on the yellow
(minimizing weight variation) results in lesser weights added overall?

The two points are not necessarily the same since they relate to two different aspects. You could have more or less, it just depends.

Thanks for hazarding an answer as I'm sure there's a _reason_ we match red
to force variation and yellow to weight variation.

In general, I match yellow (light point of the tire) to the valve stem
(heavy point of the rim), but this was my first brand new rim mount in
about 40 home mounts over the past five or so years.

In summary, I love learning about this stuff as knowledge is fun in and of itself (e.g., I can choose a tire by what it says on the sidewall, and that feels good to be able to do).

It's also nice to help out the kids, where my rule was I'll help them get
the tires mounted and balanced, but they had to do all the work, where they dinged up the rims a bit - but I don't think it's more than cosmetic, do
you? <https://i.postimg.cc/nr2z11VB/tire39.jpg>
--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful sharing of facts for common benefit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

Arlen Holder <arlenholder@anyexample.com> wrote:

But these are "Laufenn" tires, which we selected because they were the best >tire at the best price; but how many OEMs put "Laufenn" tires on at the >factory?

A lot, they just mark them with house brands. Hankook OEMs for a whole lot
of companies, just like most of the other big tire outfits do.

I don't know, but it could be zero (although maybe Laufenn is a big brand >somewhere; but personally I had never heard of Laufenn until these tires >showed up in the back of the kid's pickup).

They are the name Hankook uses on their lower-end products.

Googling, apparently the Chinese company, Hancook, makes Laufenn tires: ><https://drivingpress.com/laufenn-tires-review/>
Apparently manufactured in Indonesia: ><https://tirereviewsandmore.com/laufenn-tire-reviews/>

Hankook is a Korean company that has been in the tire business for many
years. They aren't as big as Kumho but they are very big in the racing
market today. They are very much not Chinese.
--scott

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote :

A lot, they just mark them with house brands. Hankook OEMs for a whole lot of companies, just like most of the other big tire outfits do.

Hi Scott,

Thanks for that information, where I appreciate the risk of posting, and
where, I guess, tires can be an "oligopoly" much like automotive batteries
seem to be, where out of hundreds of "brands", only a small number of
actual manufacturers may be churning them out.

Not knowing how many tire companies sell in the USA, Wiki lists 68: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tire_companies>
But that's for the entire world, and not tires sold only in the USA.

They are the name Hankook uses on their lower-end products.

Thanks. I had never heard of Laufenn before, and, until today, I had never looked them up, where all marketing strives for a "good/better/best"
lineup, mainly, IMHO, because people _love_ a number line and hence,
marketing (IMHO) loves to give people a number line to choose from! :)

According to this article, the "number line" from marketing is:
o Laufenn S FIT is an ultra-high performance summer tire;
o Laufenn G FIT is an all-season tire;
o Laufenn X FIT is for SUVs and light trucks;
o Laufenn I FIT is Laufenn's version of a winter/snow tire (studded) <https://drivingpress.com/laufenn-tires-review/>

This article claims they've been selling Laufenn in the USA since 2014:
o Here's where Laufenn Tires come from and our opinion if they're any good. <https://tiremeetsroad.com/2018/06/03/who-makes-laufenn-tires-and-are-they-any-good/>

Where this is apparently the launch shill on November 4th, 2014:
o Hankook launches no-frills Laufenn tire brand <https://www.autoweek.com/news/auto-shows/a1909936/hankook-tire-launches-no-frills-laufenn-brand-sema/>
"Laufenn promises simple, sensible tires for less"

The kid bought the G Fit as online, where Laufenn says this about it: <https://www.laufenn.com/us/front/us_front/gfit.do>
"The G FIT AS is the ideal choice for drivers looking for top-of-the-line
comfort, All-Season performance and optimal fuel efficiency."

But you know how marketing is for consumer commodities such as tires are (IMHO).

The TireRack shill for the G Fit AS tires is here: <https://www.tirerack.com/tires/laufenn-tires.jsp>
"Laufenn tires are designed to be the sensible choice by delivering the
fundamentals demanded to handle everyday driving needs and to inspire
confidence by design...blah blah blah..."

SimpleTire only has a handful of ratings, which are good, but unhelpful: <https://simpletire.com/laufenn-tire-reviews>

Hankook is a Korean company that has been in the tire business for many years. They aren't as big as Kumho but they are very big in the racing market today. They are very much not Chinese.

Thanks for that correction, where I got the "Chinese" from this quote:
"This is not another run-of-the-mill Chinese brand"
in the article cited above, but where I misread what they had meant!

In looking for a review that's not a shill, I found these, which "may" be reliable (but I'm not sure as it's always hard to find good tire reviews):
o Consumer Reports: Laufenn tire reviews <https://www.consumerreports.org/products/tires/laufenn>
o Laufenn S FIT AS earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 50 at $109
o Laufenn X FIT HT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 68 at $120
o Laufenn X FIT AT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 66 at $126
o Laufenn I FIT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 60 at $109
As is often the case with Consumer Reports, they didn't test the one tire
we installed, which was the Laufenn "G Fit AS". :(

I found a Laufenn G Fit AS review here, but as you're well aware, tire
reviews are classic for being almost worthless in many respects:
o <https://www.carbibles.com/laufenn-tires-review/>

I'm sure you know this, but IMHO, tire reviews suffer from the same
problems as most commodity reviews suffer from, like pork bellies
(but that's a separate topic which we've covered before, where I know full
well there are those who claim they have the full test spec sheet of all
tires they've ever wanted to buy - but I don't believe that they do - they
just bullshit - like lots of people do who write these tire reviews).
--
Usenet works best when adults post with purposefully helpful intentions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Arlen Holder <arlenholder@anyexample.com> wrote :

In looking for a review that's not a shill, I found these, which "may" be reliable (but I'm not sure as it's always hard to find good tire reviews):
o Consumer Reports: Laufenn tire reviews <https://www.consumerreports.org/products/tires/laufenn>
o Laufenn S FIT AS earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 50 at $109
o Laufenn X FIT HT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 68 at $120
o Laufenn X FIT AT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 66 at $126
o Laufenn I FIT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 60 at $109
As is often the case with Consumer Reports, they didn't test the one tire
we installed, which was the Laufenn "G Fit AS". :(

Overall...

*Do you think $160 is a good deal that together we helped these kids attain*? <https://i.postimg.cc/CLwNHVKR/tire40.jpg>

Given the goal (always) is not only to learn for myself, but to also teach others, like these kids, how to select and buy their tires by the specifications and not by the marketing bullshit (in addition to teaching
them how to do their own repairs, mounting & balancing at home)... <https://i.postimg.cc/9MWMg1wY/tire41.jpg>

Given I had never heard of Laufenn before, and given that I taught the kids
how to purchase tires by specifications, & not by marketing bullshit... <https://i.postimg.cc/8PT2F9QH/tire42.jpg>

*Do you think these kids got a good deal with our help for these tires?*
o Laufenn G Fit AS, sized P215/65r15 96H & model LH41

This is what the kids paid out of their pockets for the total task:
o Tires = $160 (4 times $50 minus $40 VISA rebate card)
o Tax = out of state
o Shipping = free
o Mounting = free
o Valves = 'free' (they forgot to buy valves so I gave them mine)
o Static balancing = free (includes free dynamic balance test)
o Disposal = not needed as these tires were mounted on new rims

Do you think $160 total is a good deal that we helped these kids attain? <https://i.postimg.cc/sDBpJDrD/tire43.jpg>
--
The benefit of the public Usenet potluck is we learn well from each other.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

On 4/2/2020 2:23 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

In response to what Arlen Holder <arlenholder@anyexample.com> wrote :

In looking for a review that's not a shill, I found these, which "may" be
reliable (but I'm not sure as it's always hard to find good tire
reviews):
o Consumer Reports: Laufenn tire reviews
<https://www.consumerreports.org/products/tires/laufenn>
 o Laufenn S FIT AS earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 50 at $109 >>  o Laufenn X FIT HT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 68 at $120 >>  o Laufenn X FIT AT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 66 at $126 >>  o Laufenn I FIT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 60 at $109
As is often the case with Consumer Reports, they didn't test the one tire
we installed, which was the Laufenn "G Fit AS". :(

Overall...
*Do you think $160 is a good deal that together we helped these kids
attain*?
<https://i.postimg.cc/CLwNHVKR/tire40.jpg>

Given the goal (always) is not only to learn for myself, but to also teach others, like these kids, how to select and buy their tires by the specifications and not by the marketing bullshit (in addition to teaching them how to do their own repairs, mounting & balancing at home)... <https://i.postimg.cc/9MWMg1wY/tire41.jpg>

Given I had never heard of Laufenn before, and given that I taught the kids how to purchase tires by specifications, & not by marketing bullshit... <https://i.postimg.cc/8PT2F9QH/tire42.jpg>

*Do you think these kids got a good deal with our help for these tires?*
o Laufenn G Fit AS, sized P215/65r15 96H & model LH41

This is what the kids paid out of their pockets for the total task:
o Tires = $160 (4 times $50 minus $40 VISA rebate card)
o Tax = out of state
o Shipping = free
o Mounting = free
o Valves = 'free' (they forgot to buy valves so I gave them mine)
o Static balancing = free (includes free dynamic balance test)
o Disposal = not needed as these tires were mounted on new rims

Do you think $160 total is a good deal that we helped these kids attain? <https://i.postimg.cc/sDBpJDrD/tire43.jpg>

You should be teaching them not to stick their head in the wheel well
like that. Now sure who is the dumbest fucker, the one with head in
there or the dumb fuck taking a picture of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote :

You should be teaching them not to stick their head in the wheel well
like that. Now sure who is the dumbest fucker, the one with head in
there or the dumb fuck taking a picture of it.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

What do you think about the $160 price point for four of these tires?
o *Laufenn G Fit AS, sized P215/65r15 96H & model LH41*
<https://i.postimg.cc/3N6h13VR/tire33.jpg>
--
Those who have never once posted value already proved that they can't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

On 4/3/2020 10:58 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:

In response to what Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote :

You should be teaching them not to stick their head in the wheel well
like that.  Now sure who is the dumbest fucker, the one with head in
there or the dumb fuck taking a picture of it.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

What do you think about the $160 price point for four of these tires?
o *Laufenn G Fit AS, sized P215/65r15 96H & model LH41*
 <https://i.postimg.cc/3N6h13VR/tire33.jpg>

Up front sounds good. You won't really know for maybe 10,000 miles.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Arlen Holder <arlenholder@anyexample.com> wrote :

So I'm curious, Ed, what facts you know that CR & I don't seem to know?

To the point that they will last "maybe 10,000 miles", I simply ask for
what facts you used to base that "maybe 10,000 miles" assessment upon?

Ooops. Allow me to _instantly_ apologize to Ed Pawlowski!

I sent the WRONG post, as I had reconsidered what I wrote and had NOT
intended to send that post (nor one I had written to Clare of similar ilk).

The problem was I had _expected_ Ed to be cynical, so I read into what he
wrote _more_ than what he actually said.

Which means I broke my own rule of making decisions based ONLY on facts.

I apologize.

Ed - correctly - said I won't know for sure until the kid has driven on the tires for about 10,000 miles!

I apologize, openly, publicly, and honestly to Ed for misinterpreting what
he said.

What Ed said was entirely apropos.
o What I said, was not!

I apologize.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote :

Up front sounds good. You won't really know for maybe 10,000 miles.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

Thanks for that assessment, where all I ever care about are the facts.
o All our decisions are to be based on facts - never on marketing bullshit.

The first set of facts we started with are printed on the driver door jamb:
o <https://i.postimg.cc/dQL93brD/tire00.jpg>

I advised the kids to purchase nothing _less_ than those original specs!
o GVWR = 4600/02087 LB/KG
o GAWR FRT = 2500/01134 LB/KG
o GAWR RR = 2700/01225 LB/KG
o PAYLOAD = 1265/574 LB/KG
o SBPL FRT = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X7JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA
o SBPL RR = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X7JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA
o SPBP SPA = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X6JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA
(Note the spare tire, underslung under the bed, is a different rim.)

The second set of facts we looked at for each tire to be considered:
o Laufenn "G FIT AS", P215/65R15 96H LH41 $40 each, mounted & balanced
o Load index = 96 (1,565 pounds, 710 kg)
o Speed rating = H (130 mph, 210 km/h)
o Treadwear = 500
o Traction = A
o Temperature = A
Where the lookups were based on well-known published tables such as:
<https://www.tiresplus.com/tires/tire-buying-guide/tire-load-index-chart/>

While the warranty never impacted our decision process (as that's just marketing positioning), Laufenn offers a treadlife warrnty on all their
tires (although we can discuss that marketing bullshit later if we must).

What I care about are facts - not marketing or other bullshit.
o I make decisions based on facts.

One other fact I have on treadlife is that Consumer Reports tested
"similar" Laufenn tires (but not this specific "G Fit AS" tire). <https://www.consumerreports.org/products/tires/laufenn/>

For example, CR tested treadwear & projected tread life as follows:
o Laufenn X Fit AT = Projected tread life 75,000 miles based on CR's tests
o Laufenn S Fit AS = Projected tread life 60,000 miles based on CR's tests

And, in fact, CR stated for all the tested Laufenn tires I could find:
o "tested tread life exceeds warranty"

So I'm curious, Ed, what facts you know that CR & I don't seem to know?

To the point that they will last "maybe 10,000 miles", I simply ask for
what facts you used to base that "maybe 10,000 miles" assessment upon?
--
Note: The warranty is meaningless IMHO, but it appears to be 45,000 miles.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what <hubops@ccanoemail.ca> wrote :

It's ~ the price of 1 mid-grade tire installed & balanced & taxes
here in southern Ontario Canada.
My 4 year old Kia OEM summer and dealership winter tires
were Nexen brand - I've had more tire problems in those 4 years
than the previous 20 years. .. random sidewall leaks ! with no
damage scrapes or anything ... on 2 of the OEM summer.
... with less than half tread wear ... geeeze.
John T.

Hi John T,

On the treadwear issue, what I deplore is that we really do not have any
good FACTS on how long a tire will last in our definition of "normal use".
<https://i.postimg.cc/0NGXktgp/mount59.jpg>

I've struggled for years trying to figure out how to tell by facts how long
a tire "should" last in normal use (or in our use, which may not be normal
as this Toyota SUV shows:
<https://i.postimg.cc/GLhw2qsC/mount41.jpg>

As Xeno has aptly described in other threads, "my" use of tires turns out
to be unduly harsh, as this Lexus SUV shows:
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zVxVHVx/mount40.jpg>
or this BMW SUV shows:
<https://i.postimg.cc/g004XCLW/mount37.jpg>

What Ed said about miles was appropriate, which is we won't really be able
to tell until we look at the tires after, oh, about 10,000 miles or so,
where this, for example, is camber scrub on a Toyota SUV tire after fewer
than 1000 miles:
<https://i.postimg.cc/zvvyL2tq/mount24.jpg>

Luckily, this kid lives in the flatlands of Silicon Valley, where the
climate and terrain is so mild that he shouldn't get whatever the typical mileage should be for those particular tires, instead of what we get (in
what turns out to be extreme use with respect to camber scrub issues):
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hx2Fw0dK/mount03.jpg>

But what _is_ that typical mileage for those Laufenn tires?
o We really do not have a lot of facts.

The only treadlife "fact" I have, for example, is the treadwear is 500.

One other fact is that Consumer Reports tested four of these Laufenn tires,
but unfortunately not the one tire this kid bought, but where every one of
the Laufenn tires Consumers Union tested exceeded the treadwear warranty, which, I agree, is a bullshit marketing figure, but which is 45,000 miles
on these tires.

CR rated the Laufenn tires it did test at 60,000 & 75,000 miles, which, for
me, would be heaven on earth as I don't get more than about 20K or 30K per
in my use (admittedly with camber scrub & punctures doing almost all the damage).
<https://i.postimg.cc/GpYwkPW2/mount52.jpg>

In summary, treadwear is an important fact to know, but, what FACTS do we
have to predict treadwear given any particular new tire in our hands?
--
Usenet is where purposefully helpful adults publicly share solutions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

On 4/3/2020 12:21 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

In response to what Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote :

Up front sounds good.  You won't really know for maybe 10,000 miles.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

Thanks for that assessment, where all I ever care about are the facts.
o All our decisions are to be based on facts - never on marketing bullshit.

The first set of facts we started with are printed on the driver door jamb:
o <https://i.postimg.cc/dQL93brD/tire00.jpg>

I advised the kids to purchase nothing _less_ than those original specs!
o GVWR = 4600/02087 LB/KG
o GAWR FRT = 2500/01134 LB/KG
o GAWR RR = 2700/01225 LB/KG
o PAYLOAD = 1265/574 LB/KG
o SBPL FRT = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X7JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA
o SBPL RR  = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X7JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA
o SPBP SPA = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X6JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA
 (Note the spare tire, underslung under the bed, is a different rim.)

The second set of facts we looked at for each tire to be considered:
o Laufenn "G FIT AS", P215/65R15 96H LH41 $40 each, mounted & balanced
o Load index = 96 (1,565 pounds, 710 kg)
o Speed rating = H (130 mph, 210 km/h)
o Treadwear = 500
o Traction = A
o Temperature = A
Where the lookups were based on well-known published tables such as:
 <https://www.tiresplus.com/tires/tire-buying-guide/tire-load-index-chart/>

While the warranty never impacted our decision process (as that's just marketing positioning), Laufenn offers a treadlife warrnty on all their
tires (although we can discuss that marketing bullshit later if we must).

What I care about are facts - not marketing or other bullshit.
o I make decisions based on facts.

One other fact I have on treadlife is that Consumer Reports tested
"similar" Laufenn tires (but not this specific "G Fit AS" tire). <https://www.consumerreports.org/products/tires/laufenn/>

For example, CR tested treadwear & projected tread life as follows:
o Laufenn X Fit AT = Projected tread life 75,000 miles based on CR's tests
o Laufenn S Fit AS = Projected tread life 60,000 miles based on CR's tests

And, in fact, CR stated for all the tested Laufenn tires I could find:
o "tested tread life exceeds warranty"

So I'm curious, Ed, what facts you know that CR & I don't seem to know?

To the point that they will last "maybe 10,000 miles", I simply ask for
what facts you used to base that "maybe 10,000 miles" assessment upon?

First, don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of them LASTING
"maybe 10,000 miles." I said we may know then if it is a good deal and
a lot of factors come into play aside from tread life. It may take that
long to give a good assessment.

Like you, I deal with facts
Tires lose air over time. How much? Materials and construction make a difference. Most will lose from 1 to 3 psi a month. Will these be in
that range? You don't know. No facts here yet

Will they be subject to blowing out more or less if you hit a pot hole.
Do you have a fact on that?

Traction on various road types and wet conditions. Do you have a fact
on that? You only have a number based on standardized testing that may
or may not be the same as your driving conditions.

Consumer Reports did tread life testing on similar tires. Good chance
these will be similar. I will agree there.

How durable are they compared to others if you rub a curb? No facts on
that either.

Are the quiet or noisy? Harsh or soft ride?

You may have the tire buy of the century or you may have a big turkey
egg. You made an educated guess on a series of standardized testing but
the result, like any tire, performance will vary depending on your
particular use. Like I said, it will take some miles to find if they
suit your needs well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

On 4/3/2020 12:35 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:

In response to what Arlen Holder <arlenholder@anyexample.com> wrote :

So I'm curious, Ed, what facts you know that CR & I don't seem to know?

To the point that they will last "maybe 10,000 miles", I simply ask for
what facts you used to base that "maybe 10,000 miles" assessment upon?

Ooops. Allow me to _instantly_ apologize to Ed Pawlowski!

I sent the WRONG post, as I had reconsidered what I wrote and had NOT intended to send that post (nor one I had written to Clare of similar ilk).

The problem was I had _expected_ Ed to be cynical, so I read into what he wrote _more_ than what he actually said.

Which means I broke my own rule of making decisions based ONLY on facts.

I apologize.

Ed - correctly - said I won't know for sure until the kid has driven on the tires for about 10,000 miles!

I apologize, openly, publicly, and honestly to Ed for misinterpreting what
he said.

What Ed said was entirely apropos.
o What I said, was not!

I apologize.

Thank you

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote :

It may take that
long to give a good assessment.

I agree and repeat it was completely uncalled for me to snap like I did.

Luckily I pulled back a similar snippy response to Clare when he posted:
"It's Arlen. He'll screw around with it. No doubt."
but I accidentally left the snippy one to you in my out queue, for which I apologize, as I wrote both snippy responses at the same time.

Mea culpa. It was uncalled for on my part. I publicly apologize again.
o To my credit, I ignored Clare's wholly uncalled-for original response.

Like you, I deal with facts,

This is my key point too!
o Facts are the only things I care about when choosing tires.

The huge problem with commodities such as tires, is the utter ignorance we
all have on the specifications of every tire we might consider buying.

We just don't have good facts _other_ than what's printed on the vehicle.
o And what's printed on the sidewall of the tires.

Tires lose air over time. How much? Materials and construction make a difference. Most will lose from 1 to 3 psi a month. Will these be in
that range? You don't know. No facts here yet

I agree that a new tire doesn't have the same "specifications" as a tire
which has been used for a couple of years, where the whole point of meeting
or _exceeding_ specifications is, IMHO, to take that degradation factor
into account.

This affects _all_ tires though.

And yes, I've seen Hancook's "budget" oriented marketing of the Laufenn
tire line, but I personally suspect they use the exact same materials.

That "assumption" is not based on facts though; so it "could" be they use lesser materials - but - what I care about aren't the materials but the
spec.

Unfortunately, the only facts we have are the specs.

Will they be subject to blowing out more or less if you hit a pot hole.
Do you have a fact on that?

Nope. And I suspect nobody has that information for all tires they are considering purchasing.

NOBODY but the manufacturer has those facts.
o The only facts we have are the spec.

Traction on various road types and wet conditions. Do you have a fact
on that? You only have a number based on standardized testing that may
or may not be the same as your driving conditions.

We have the Consumer Reports tests, but, as is often the case with Consumer Reports, they tested every Laufenn model _except_ the one the kid bought!

Even so, you'd have the same problem for all tires, since, as you noted, standardized testing has its own set of flaws.

But it's a lot better than absolutely nothing.

Consumer Reports did tread life testing on similar tires. Good chance
these will be similar. I will agree there.

Yes.

Given there are only 4 models in the Laufenn line, when I saw CR tested
four tires, I figured it was all four models, but they did different sizes
of one model twice. Sigh.

I have a love/hate relationship with CR because I like that they test stuff
in real-world tests (like tread life); but it kills me when they don't test
the specific model I'm considering buying.

How durable are they compared to others if you rub a curb? No facts on
that either.

Yup. But again, we don't have that fact on _any_ tire.

Are the quiet or noisy? Harsh or soft ride?

On this, we can look at the "boy racer" reviews, but, I didn't even look at
the reviews because I've read hundreds, where I think out of hundreds, I've only seen one or two that I thought were worth the effort of reading.

I told the kid to buy by the specs, and that's what he did.

(To be clear, I did suggest this tire for him, since it was the best value
that met or exceeded his door jamb specifications.)

You may have the tire buy of the century or you may have a big turkey
egg. You made an educated guess on a series of standardized testing but
the result, like any tire, performance will vary depending on your
particular use. Like I said, it will take some miles to find if they
suit your needs well.

I agree with you that after, oh, about 10,000 miles, the kid will know a
lot more about those tires on that particular pickup truck used the way he
uses it.

I think we'd have had the _same_ problem with all tires we would be considering, where all we have, by way of facts, are the specs.

I wish we had more than just the specs that we have; but we just don't.
--
Usenet is a place for adults to gather to politely discuss technical stuff.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote :

I'm betting the sidewalls are cracked within 18months and the wet
traction is terrible . The rubber is HARD. Not to mention the OEM
standard tire on that Chevy half ton club cab truck was borderline
undersized to start with .

Hi Clare,

I appreciate that you risked an opinion on the Laufenn tire quality.

I can't vouch for the durability of the tire, since the only specs that
relate to durability are the load index and speed and temp ratings, all of which simply meet or exceed the original specs as printed on the door jamb.
<https://i.postimg.cc/dQL93brD/tire00.jpg>

If _that_ OEM spec is "undersized", then, well, at least we exceeded it.

As for "wet traction", all we know is that it got an A for wet traction
(but not an AA); but I don't think anyone would call an "A" terrible.

Would they?
o The A indicates an asphalt G-Force of "above 0.47" (but below 0.54?).
o The A indicates a concrete G-Force of "0.35" (but below 0.38?)
<https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=48>

Interestingly, compound matters for the test more than tread pattern:
"Since this test evaluates a sliding tire at a constant 40 mph,
it places more emphasis on the tire's tread compound and less
emphasis on its tread design"

While I can clearly ascertain that feel these tires are of low quality, I
see precious few actual facts that we can state about these tires which deserves such denigration, IMHO.

I'm not saying they're great tires - as I wouldn't know - and I never even heard of the brand until now - but I am saying that the specs appear to be
just fine, as far as I can tell.

What else by way of facts do we have, other than the specs?
o And the CR tests (which tested all but this one model of Laufenn tire).
--
Usenet is a public party where adults gather to discuss topics of interest.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote :

You should be teaching them not to stick their head in the wheel
well like that. Now sure who is the dumbest fucker, the one with
head in there or the dumb fuck taking a picture of it.

Well, at least he had it on jack stands. Likely just as safe as
walking down the stairs carrying a sandwich.

Looked like quite robust jack stands as well.

Hi Xeno,
(who responded to Clare & who responded to Ed Pawlowski's concerns)

I'm glad people commented on the safety procedures as repairing stuff at
home requires us to be safety conscious, just as working on the roof, as I
did this morning to set up a neighbor's WISP Wi-Fi requires a safety
culture at all times.
<https://i.postimg.cc/FHgVtxjg/wisp01.jpg>

Rather funnily, since Apple users are so big on feeling safe, I often have
to tell them that men sometimes have to use chainsaws to chop down trees
rather than butterknives, where the point is that a little bit of danger is
to be expected when mounting and balancing tires - but we still take all
the expected normal sane precautions.

However, I could always use more safety hints, where, to mount these four tires, we used four Harbor Freight six ton jack stands (adjustable up to 15 inches as I recall), where this is the first actual _frame_ vehicle I've
seen in quite a long time (it was an old Chevy pickup from the very early
90s).

We chocked the rear tires, set the parking brake, and set the transmission
in Park; then we jacked up the front using a frame member; and then we
jacked up the rear from the differential.

We set the six-ton jack stands on the frame in the front, but on the axle
in the rear.

For redundancy, we left the floor jack under the differential.

And, since this is California, we "played earthquake" by shaking the truck vigorously _before_ we did any work on it after setting it on the stands.

You'll note the use of a torque wrench, where I had them use _both_ the bar-bending kind, and the click-sound kind, so that they'd get used to both
of them (the kids said they just normally do it by feel).

I had them look up the lug nut torque, where I was surprised that the
owners manual called for 93 foot pounds.

In summary, I'm _happy_ for people to suggest safety procedures, as, well,
as we all know, we were only invincible when we were in our twenties! :)
--
The benefit of the public Usenet potluck is we learn well from each other.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote :

All my purchasing decisions are made by reading
the online reviews - the only source of truth ..
John T.

Even there, you have to actually read and assess them. I've seen one
star reviews with "I ordered the wrong color and don't like it" or even >>"the delivery guy left in at the side instead of the front door"

Then there are the guys who wouldn't know a good tire from a flat one
-and write reviews.

As noted elsewhere, the problem with the "boy racer" reviews is that
they're likely almost never scientific, where tire noise is one example of
the flaws of reviews (as others mentioned in recent threads).

The problem with noise is, as I see it, the same as the problem with almost
all tire specs that matter to the consumer.
o We don't have the specs

At least, not in the USA,

But this article below says Europe has noise specs!
o Is noise really all the tire's fault?
<https://www.tirereview.com/the-fight-against-tire-noise/>
"The ECE noise standards were first applied to OE tires on new vehicles
beginning in 2004 and have expanded to all tires sold in Europe."

"In addition to the ECE branding, beginning on Nov. 1, 2012...
The external noise generated by the tire is indicated both in decibels
(dBs) and by black sound waves that indicate the noise class of the tire,
from 1 (quiet) to 3 (loud).
1 black sound wave: Already 3dB below the 2016 European limit
2 black sound waves: Already com­pliant with the 2016 European limit
3 black sound waves: Compliant with the 2012 European limit

However, in the USA, we don't have noise specs printed on the sidewall.

Hence, it's _impossible_ (in effect), IMHO, in the USA, to compare tires by clearly valuable but factually unattainable specs, such as the amount of
noise the tires will generate on your vehicle, on the roads you drive, the
way you drive them, etc.

That's why I compare tires by attainable reliable specs, but that having
been said, this noise concept intrigues me in that maybe we _can_ find more information about what generates this noise, and how to compare tires for
it.

Googling, this may be apropos (depending on the reliability of the source)
o The Fight Against Tire Noise <https://www.tirereview.com/the-fight-against-tire-noise/>

(1)
"The most common noise produced by tires is tire pattern noise. Pattern
noise is what people usually are referring to when talking about tire
noise; it occurs because air is trapped in the tread pattern and is
suddenly released as the tire rolls along the road surface."

(2)
"Tires also make noise because the tread elements squirm under the weight
of the car and slip over the pavement."

(3)
"The squealing noise that occurs during rapid acceleration, hard braking
and high speed cornering is a result of significant slippage of the rubber
on the road surface. This slippage creates an intense self-induced
vibration of the tread that produces the sounds TV and movie producers are
so enamored with."

(4)
"The combination of poor tire uniformity and a rough road surface can
result in what is known as elastic vibration noise."

The article makes a bunch of "noise" expectation recommendations, such as:

(A)
"In general, vehicles carrying a light load produce lower tire noise than
those with heavy loads. "

(B)
"Tires running higher inflation pressures generate lower noise levels
compared to those with lower inflation levels. "

(C)
"Radials are much quieter than bias tires, and high speeds result in more
noise than lower speeds."

Where they summarize the problem set as:
(a)
"Slick tires on pool table-smooth roads would produce a lot less noise."

(b)
" Unfortunately, the need for wet weather traction requires coarse road surfaces and tread patterns that drain away water. And roads are made up of
a variety of materials that inevitably include bumps, manhole covers,
pavement joints and other obstacles."

(c)
"Tires get noisier as they wear because of their construction, tread design
and uneven wear. As a tire wears and the thickness of the tread and its
sound insulating properties are reduced, it gets closer to its belts and reinforcements – this can increase tire noise."

And...
(d)
"Directional tires often get louder as they wear; much more than non-directional tread designs."

See also these posts about tire noise in
o <http://tinyurl.com/rec-autos-tech>
o <http://rec.autos.tech.narkive.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.autos.tech/VOpJl7sYbPA/ANju-2geBgAJ> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.autos.tech/VOpJl7sYbPA/PhKrk5geBgAJ>
--
Usenet is a wonderful public permanent archive of useful tech discussions: <http://tinyurl.com/rec-autos-driving>
<http://tinyurl.com/rec-autos-tech>
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-home-repair>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote :

Laufenn is an Indonesian tire company owned by Hankook of Korea. They
build "value line" tires. In other words they use lower quality
materials and a simpler design than the Hankook tires. They were
designed for the Indonesian market and 30% of their production is for
the local market. The rest goes to the middle east and North America.
They are quite possibly as good as or better than the other "cheap"
tires on the American market but they are "budget tires" and should
not be expected to be any more than that.

Below is factual information available to consumers for choosing tires from Consumers Union, owner of Consumer Reports (which I have a subscription
to).

While choosing tires by facts, IMHO, is both trivial and impossible, it's interesting to see what "reliable" media report (as opposed to Marketing
shills and "boy racer" online tire reviews).

Unfortunately, as is frustratingly often the case, Consumer Reports tested every Laufenn model _except_ the one we bought by the specs, so I'll simply have to report on the nearest presumed equivalent for the details below
(since not everyone reading this has a Consumer Reports account like I do):

o Consumer Reports: Laufenn X Fit HT, overall score 68 (range 56 to 74) <https://www.consumerreports.org/products/all-season-truck-tire/laufenn-x-fit-ht-388430/overview/>
o Dry braking = Very Good
o Wet braking = Fair
o Handling = Good
o Hydroplaning = Very Good
o Snow traction = Good
o Ice braking = Very Good
o Ride comfort = Very Good
o Noise = Very Good
o Rolling resistance = Very Good
o CR Price = $120
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Laufenn+X+Fit+HT>

Highs
o Strong dry braking grip among all season truck tires.
Lows
o Fair wet stopping performance is typical of many peer models.

CR's Take
From dry braking to resisting hydroplaning, and braking on ice to ride
comfort, this Laufenn earns Very Good ratings on a wide range of CR's
tests. One shortcoming, however: a Fair rating for wet braking.
Its 70,000-mile predicted tread wear is a good showing among SUV/truck
all-seasons.

About
The Laufenn X Fit HT is part of the Tire test program at Consumer Reports.
In our lab tests, Tire models like the X Fit HT are rated on multiple
criteria, such as those listed below.
Dry braking:
Dry braking is measure of stopping performance from 60 to 0 mph.
Wet braking: Wet braking is measure of stopping performance from 60 to 0 mph.
Handling: For most tires, Handling includes how well the tires perform;
in an avoidance maneuver involving a swerve into the left lane and back
into the right lane; on CR's wet handling circuit; and steering feel.

Specs
o Speed rating = T
o Treadwear warranty = 60000
o UTQG treadwear = 620
o UTQG traction = A
o UTQG temperature = B
o Size tested = 265/65R17
o Available sizes = 225/70R15, 225/65R17, 235/70R16, 235/65R17, 235/65R18,
235/60R18, 245/75R16, 245/65R17, 245/70R17, 245/60R18, 255/70R16,
265/70R16, 265/70R17

Interestingly, I ran a CR comparison of Laufenn to Hancook scores:
o 70 Hankook Winter i*cept evo2
o 70 Hankook Winter i*Cept iZ2
o 70 Hankook Ventus V12 evo2
o 68 *Laufenn X Fit HT*
o 68 Hankook Dynapro HT
o 66 Laufenn X Fit AT
o 66 Hankook Dynapro HP2
o 66 Hankook Dynapro AT-M
o 63 Hankook Kinergy PT
o 60 Laufenn I Fit Ice
o 57 Hankook Ventus S1 noble 2
o 56 Hankook I*Pike RW11
o 50 Laufenn S Fit AS <https://www.consumerreports.org/products/tires/ratings/?brand=hankook,laufenn> --
Every thread on Usenet should increase our overall group tribal knowledge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.autos.tech, alt.home.repair

In response to what <thekmanrocks@gmail.com> wrote :

All is well, and interesting discussion about wheels and tires!

Thanks for your input, as I love to learn all that I can about tires.
o Where most people don't seem to understand why we strive to learn.

To them, they buy tires by "price", "warranty", & (it seems), MARKETING.
o Whereas I try to buy tires by facts that matter about tires.

To that end, and in keeping with adding value with ever thread, I watched, reviewed, and summarized a bunch of videos on YouTube which showed how
tires are made, all of which should add value to our existing knowledge on choosing tires:
o *How Tires are made* <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.autos.tech/8lTwO77HwQ4>
--
Usenet is a public place for purposefully helpful adults to share ideas.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Arlen Holder wrote:

I found a Laufenn G Fit AS review here, but as you're well aware, tire >reviews are classic for being almost worthless in many respects:

_______

I've been reading your saga of the pickup truck tires & spacers up to this point, and it's been
one heckuva education!

As far as the carbibles "review" you linked to, that is SALES LITERATURE disguised AS a
tire review! In that case you're right: worthless! Unlike the many actual customer/driver
reviews one can look up on Tire Rack, which I've never been steered wrong by, pardon the
lousy pun. ;)

As far as the spacers and whatever the heck those were mounted on the rear end of that
pickup are concerned, if this young man you're helping is mounting OEM(or as close to it)
rim/rubber combos on his truck, then the kid can just store those monstrosities in the back
of his home garage, closet, or a 'crate fulla memories' - or fulla horrors, take your pick, lol!

Highly unlikely that any OEM carmaker would need spacers on a wheel & tire install, so the
truck will probably handle as intended with the new hardware on it, if not, BETTER, than with
whatever wagon-wheeled, double-plus-sized super wide hotline bling the previous owner
was running on it!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)