Just mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years - saving over $400

[Arlen G. Holder]

UPDATE:

Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years, where
each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.

For example, the "drop center" trick that Clare taught me was, by far, the
most critical trick of all. And, this time, I learned that it's a bad idea
leaving the packing tape on the tires as it makes it harder to seat the
bead if the beads are bent inward versus pushed out a bit.

While I've done all sizes from 15" wheels to 17" wheels, these 15" P225/75
Optimo H724 tires have thick sidewalls that make it a bit more difficult
than the 99V passenger car tires to break the 1st bead and seat the 6th
bead.

One mistake I made was to leave the packing tape still on the tires while
they waited for me to find my "round tuit", where the pinching in of the
beads made seating the tire problematic for the few seconds that it takes
to pop the bead into place.

I had to ask a second person to help pull up the upper bead with one hand
and a knee while I pushed up from below with two hands, where another trick
I learned long ago was to adapt an airgun to screw into the Schrader valve
so that filling it with air during the bead-seating process is essentially
hands free.

This mountain eats up everyone's tires, which _never_ get the claimed
mileage (not even close) but I can't use the warranty because I can't prove
that I do all the work myself.

Cost savings at $20/tire = $600 minus about $200 for tools = $400 to date,
but the real value is the satisfaction of being able to do it myself.

Here are some photos, just so you see what it looks like.
o This SUV needs to be taken in for a front-end alignment:
<https://i.postimg.cc/q7t7ZRzj/mount01.jpg>
o Breaking the 1st bead takes a couple of minutes:
<https://i.postimg.cc/26DfF8vq/mount02.jpg>
o The outside edge of the front tires wears too much:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hx2Fw0dK/mount03.jpg>
o TREADWEAR is said to be 500 (but it won't get that):
<https://i.postimg.cc/1zSWvgCZ/mount04.jpg>
o The tire valves are about 1-1/2 inch long (.453):
<https://i.postimg.cc/sXX4L55b/mount05.jpg>
o I replaced the valves with all-metal valves:
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVNNvLJn/mount06.jpg>
o This home-made adaptor works great to seat the beads:
<https://i.postimg.cc/WzZW9MvT/mount07.jpg>
o Leaving the packing tape on was a bad idea:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DwnjgJY3/mount08.jpg>
o I mounted the "red spot" next to the tire valve:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Pqq6GGj6/mount09.jpg>

For anyone who wants to do it yourself, the tools cost about $200 where I
got most of mine from Harbor Freight, where those tools suck, but they do
the job.

What you need is:
o A dedicated bead breaker (the one with the mounter sucks even worse).
This tool is a pain to use but it breaks a bead in a couple of minutes.
You have to put a board on it because the base is too short.
o A bolted-in tire-mounting tool (you _must_ bolt it down!)
The bead breaker attachment on the mounter is nearly worthless.
o A static bubble balancer
o A set of tire irons (these aren't necessary, but are sometimes helpful
when you have a problem with the 6th and final bead)
o Vise grips - you need them - surprisingly - because the HF mounting tool
handle twists in your hands so the vise grips provide leverage to keep it
from twisting.
o A Schrader Valve Screwdriver (you need this to remove the insert so that
you can quickly fill the tire to set the beads during the final step)
o Dish detergent (everything is surprisingly easy when lubricated)
o Tire marking pen (to mark the inside sidewall after each rotation)
o Wheel weights (to static balance the wheel after mounting)
o Hammer (to tap the wheel weights into place)
o I have a valve-stem removal tool but it's not needed (just use a knife)
o Floor jack, wheel chocks, jack stands, lug wrench, torque wrench (to
remove and replace the wheels from the vehicle)
o Compressor, hoses, chucks, gauges (to seat the bead & fill the tire with
air)

Parts:
o Tires (Costco takes old tires for $1 each, plus sales tax)
o Wheel weights (it seems that 1 to 2 ounces seems to be needed most
o Valve stems (I kind of like the 0.453 diameter 1-1/2 inch steel ones)

[Biff Tannen]

On 4/29/19 4:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> UPDATE:
>
> Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years, where
> each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.
>
>

I've considered a lot of hobbies to amuse myself while I ride this dirt ball around the Sun but I must admit that tire wrestling is not one of them.  But hey, if it blows your skirt up, knock yourself out.

[trader_4]

And 30 tires in five years. He's a very busy troll.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 4/29/2019 4:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> UPDATE:
>
> Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years, where
> each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.
>
>

> This mountain eats up everyone's tires, which _never_ get the claimed
> mileage (not even close) but I can't use the warranty because I can't prove
> that I do all the work myself.
>
> Cost savings at $20/tire = $600 minus about $200 for tools = $400 to date,
> but the real value is the satisfaction of being able to do it myself.
>

Whatever works for you. n the past 15 years I paid to have 8 tires
changed. No payback for me.

[trader_4]

About the same here, 4 in the last 5 years. Got them mounted at Costco
for $15 each. They will even mount tires that you don't buy there.
And they dynamically balance them too, which you can't do at home.
I do a lot of work on cars myself, brakes, transfer case chain, valve
cover gaskets, water pumps, but not this when you can get it
done in 20 mins for $15 a tire. Those other repairs just use the typical
shop tools that I already have and I saved $$$$. Transfer case chain is
a good example, it would be $3000 at the BMW dealer, I did it for $100.

[Clare Snyder]

The mounting and ballancing on my Haks was free - cost me the same
mounted and ballanced as "cash and carry" - and repairs are free for
the life of the tire. I changed enough tires in my working years that
I don't need to do it as a hobby - and particularly with shitty
equipment. As for balancing, a static balance uis betterthan none,
but a 1/4 oz resolution on a dynamic balance is pretty much a
requirement for me at highway speeds. I want my tires running SMOOTH
AS SILK - not just balanced well enough to keep them from shaking the
hubcaps off.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:06:31 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> About the same here, 4 in the last 5 years. Got them mounted at Costco
> for $15 each. They will even mount tires that you don't buy there.

Hi trader_4,

Usenet is a shared information source, sort of like a Potluck Picnic, where
each person tries to bring something of value to all to the picnic table.

Hence, every post is designed to add value for everyone, so I THANK YOU for
that purposefully helpful and very useful information about the Costco
setup.

The Costco near me _used_ to refuse to mount non-Costco tires, so I was
surprised that you said yours mounts non-Costco tires.

Armed with your purposefully helpful information, I called the local Costco
at (831)469-0961 x5 (other), x4 (auto), who confirmed EXACTLY what you just
said!

This is great news, where I'll contribute this to the Potluck Picnic:
o $60 to mount four tires on four wheels (on or off the vehicle)
o $20 to dynamically balance four wheels (if they are off the vehicle)
o $22 to dynamically balance four wheels (if they are on the vehicle)
o $11 to repair a tire
o $1 to dispose of old tires (the guy said that's what they get charged)

In addition:
o They won't let you ship tires to them; but you can bring them in.
o They won't mount tires older than 3 years (based on the date stamp)
o They will rotate & balance tires that are older than 3 years though
o You don¢t get the Costco-tire free lifetime balance & rotation though
o They will not touch tires below the 2/32" wear bars for any purpose

When I asked the Costco guy _when_ this started, the guy said they used to
work on non-Costco tires years ago, and then stopped, and now started it up
only about two years ago.

> And they dynamically balance them too, which you can't do at home.

Just to be clear, and to ensure we're always adding value to the potluck
picnic that is Usenet, the empirical dynamic balance test is free, and
extremely easily done "at home".

You just drive the car at highway speeds.
o If you can't feel vibration, it's dynamically balanced (AFAIK).

Besides, with this new information you've kindly brought to the Potluck
Picnic which is Usenet, for $20 in toto, we can _check_ how well we
statically balanced the four wheels.

This is _great_ news you brought up that Costco does this for us!
o Thanks for bringing value for all in the Potluck Picnic that is Usenet

> I do a lot of work on cars myself, brakes, transfer case chain, valve
> cover gaskets, water pumps, but not this when you can get it
> done in 20 mins for $15 a tire.

Hi trader,
I agree with you on your facts of the Costco prices, and on most of your
logic (adults are funny in that facts are easy to agree on, as is rational
logic).

Your logic is that it's "easier" to let Costco do it all for you, where the
facts I'll contribute which affect the logic is that I've never been to
Costco tire center without standing on long lines, even if I get there at
opening time, so the _actual_ time is no where near 20 minutes for four
tires.

Obviously the actual time will vary greatly, but 20 minutes doesn't seem
rational to me for four tires at a typical Costco, which, I hope most
people know, isn't exactly known for short lines (e.g., even the gas
station lines are long, as are the food court lines, and the purchasing
lines, and even the line to ask a question of the eyeglass center or
pharmacists).

Where on earth to you have a Costco which not only has no lines, but which
does the entire job in 20 minutes for four tires, where I can't even get to
the counter in that time frame, let alone have them do all the paperwork
and pay for it, etc. in that time frame?

> Those other repairs just use the typical
> shop tools that I already have and I saved $$$$. Transfer case chain is
> a good example, it would be $3000 at the BMW dealer, I did it for $100.

Hi trader,
As you're aware, I did a clutch a few months back, with the help of this
newsgroup, as I had to replace the flywheel, for example, which required
tools that I couldn't find at the local auto parts stores (the pilot
bearing pulling tools were too large to fit in the ID of the pilot
bearing).

This newsgroup is GREAT for learning things, since there are helpful people
here who contribute to the potluck picnic something that EVERYONE can learn
from.

My contribution is that the job is easy, and it takes about the same amount
of time (when you factor everything in) as having a shop do it, so you
don't do the job at home to save time.

You mostly do the job at home to learn, and to enjoy doing it, and to
relish in the _knowledge_ gained by doing things yourself, which is, after
all, a key purpose of doing _any_ repair by yourself.

As for savings, with this "new costco math", the savings, in 5 years, are:
o $450 at Costco for 30 tires minus $200 for tools = savings of only $250

If we add the dynamic balance check, the math becomes:
o $250 minus $20 = about $225 (I'm rounding numbers for easy math)

The key point to make is that there are _benefits_ to home repair
o One key benefit is that you _learn_ more about things
o Another key benefit is that you can do it any time you want to
o Another benefit is that you can do it more often when you do it yourself
o Another benefit is that you can "save" tires they won't repair (if you
want to, as it's your choice based on your decision tree)
o The best benefit is the satisfaction of self sufficiency

The cost benefit is always going to be there ... for example, the tools
almost always pay for themselves ... but that's not the main reason you do
home repair yourself.

The main reason is that you learn about and enjoy home repairs, and that
you have the convenience of doing the job the way you want the job done
(e.g., you use steel tire valves even if the tire shop doesn't use them).

[Sanity Clause]

Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> o I mounted the "red spot" next to the tire valve:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Pqq6GGj6/mount09.jpg>

Should I mention that traditionally the red spot is the "high" point of
the tire, and would match with the "low" point of a slightly-not-round
wheel, and the yellow dot is the "light" part of the tire, and matches
with the "heavy" part of the wheel, usually where the valve is? Nah,
that would be mean. :)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:09:25 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> The mounting and ballancing on my Haks was free - cost me the same
> mounted and ballanced as "cash and carry"

Hi Clare,
I have to thank you for contributing to the tribal knowledge here, where
Usenet is sort of like a Potluck Picnic, where everyone brings something of
value for the others.

For me, you helped me many times when I hit stumbling blocks, e.g., when I
didn't know how to get the clutch done, or when I didn't know how to
replace the cooling system, and others helped, for example, on the bimmer
where the CCV replacement was a bitch, etc., and for that I thank you all.

You also found GREAT information about brake pad friction material, e.g.,
the Michigan Police Cruiser Tests, where it's damn difficult to sort
through all the marketing BS that surrounds brake pads (where almost nobody
knows how to buy pads & shoes without falling prey to marketing BS, IMHO).

We've discussed polyetheramines (e.g., "techron" marketing) where I'm
allergic to marketing bullshit, and where Costco gas is as good as any gas
sold in terms of detergents, for example.

I'm all about facts, and then logical deductions based on those facts,
where we've discussed, for example, tire warranties in the past, where you
basically often don't get to use them due to the fine print.

Since I'm all about facts, and logic based on those facts, I generally
disagree with people who just make shit up, like the guys who think you can
get decent tire specs on the net (you just can't, where I wish you could,
but you can't "compare" tires by the real spec even if you got the $100,000
specs, simply because you'd need those $100,000 specs on all the tires
you're considering, which just isn't gonna happen realistically). So all
you have is what is molded onto the tire to go by (since tires are one of
the most bullshit marketing commodities on this planet, IMHO).

Lots & lots of people fall for marketing bullshit; but I try not to.

With respect to the math on you getting "free" mounting and balancing, it
depends, on course, on how much that "free" cost you, in that generally
costs are bundled when they're said to be "free", where I generally add up
the total cost, and not just the individual cost of cherry-picked items.

For example, I'd compare the total costs of a "free" mounting and balancing
by comparing the total cost at the shop, versus the total cost from buying
from SimpleTire and then having Costco mount and balance them (although
Costco charges $5 for balancing each time if you bring in your own tires).

> - and repairs are free for the life of the tire.

We have a Wheelworks locally which conveniently does free repairs too, but
I prefer to do my own patchplug repairs at home simply for the satisfying
convenience of not having to bring the car or tire to them.

Plus, as you're aware, lots of people plug tires from the outside at home,
where, at home, I _still_ use the patchplug method, but it leaves the
option of a quick outside patch which is even more convenient than an
inside repair is (not that an inside repair is difficult since it's about
as easy as it gets).

> I changed enough tires in my working years that
> I don't need to do it as a hobby

You have a point that a LOT of people don't like to get their hands dirty
doing repairs, and tires are one of those things most people make excuses
for not doing, but the real reason they don't do it is the same reason they
don't clean toilet bowls.

If I made a living cleaning bathrooms, for example, (which, let's assume
for the example that I don't like doing that), then the last thing I'd want
to do when I get home, would likely be cleaning bathrooms.

But, personally, I like pouring hydrochloric acid in my toilet bowl to
clean the crud. It just feels good to watch the acid dissolve the calcium
deposits, so what we enjoy is up to us.

The only problem I have with most people's logic on why they don't do their
own tire mounting & balancing is that they really are just making excuses
for why they don't do something they just don't like doing.

At least you're honest that you just don't like doing it.
o Most people make up bullshit excuses for why they "can't" do it (IMHO).

I'm allergic to bullshit.
o It's fine if people _hate_ doing it (just like they hate doing homework)
o But most of the excuses they make for not doing it don't hold water

You should hear the bullshit excuses I hear from the grandkids, for
example, on why they can't do their homework.

The simple answer whenever someone says they can't mount and balance their
own tires/wheels is that they just don't like doing it. And that's ok.

What's not ok are the bullshit excuses the try to foist on us.

> and particularly with shitty equipment.

Hi Clare,
I fully agree with you that the equipment from HF is shitty.
o The tools work - but they're shitty.

I don't disagree with you on facts
o Adults almost never have problems agreeing on facts

In fact, there are plenty of articles on the net for how people tried to
MODIFY the shitty HF equipment to work better. These people use lathes,
grinders, welders, taps, etc., so they _know_ what they're doing, and the
fact is that they _still_ use the HF tools as the starting point.

For example, this guy highly modified the bead breaker:
o https://youtu.be/6dFTvsRoaPk

Everything that he said was wrong with the bead breaker, is true.
o Even I modified it, slightly, with a piece of wood

The best part of the bead breaker, though, is that curved part, which is
fantastic; but the rest of the bead breaker sucks (but it works).

While he bolted down the bead breaker, I find that stepping on a piece of
foot-wide board parallel to the base works fine. This guy was more redneck
about fixing the flaws in the bead breaker, where the fact that people who
can weld and craft steel _still_ use the bead breaker is a testament to the
value of the curved part of the bead breaker tool from HF.
<https://youtu.be/XSQpPteBb6w?t=28>

The tire changing tool, by way of contrast, is pretty good, except that the
bead breaker attachment to that tire changing tool is nearly worthless on
larger SUV tires (it works fine only on small economy car tires).

It's so easy to change tire with that tool that this guy does it in pajamas
and slippers, where I admit, I've done it barefoot a few times myself. :)
<https://youtu.be/Gg4iPmU9OYs>

This guy did modifications of the HF tire changing tool using a lathe and
grinder and welding and tapping equipment, where you must clearly note that
EVERYONE is SUCCESSFUL with the stock HF tools, but everyone notes that
they are a bit flimsy with obvious design flaws.
<https://youtu.be/-OpmTfyeR7E>

> As for balancing, a static balance uis betterthan none,
> but a 1/4 oz resolution on a dynamic balance is pretty much a
> requirement for me at highway speeds. I want my tires running SMOOTH
> AS SILK - not just balanced well enough to keep them from shaking the
> hubcaps off.

Hi Clare,

Most people simply assume every tire _needs_ to be dynamically balanced,
IMHO, where I've found that a static balance seems to work just fine.

We've discussed dynamic balancing before, where I showed the team the
clever marketing pages in the past which show that there's a lot of
bullshit around dynamic balancing, along with a lot of good science.

When you need it you need it, and when you don't, you don't
o It's like penicillin

You either need penicillin, or you don't need penicillin.
o Taking penicillin when you don't need it, doesn't help anything

If your tires are balanced well enough to not vibrate, then balancing them
again isn't going to change antyhing just like taking penicillin for when
you're not sick isn't going to change anything about your health.

I don't even know of a shop that won't dynamically balance, where they have
to blance anyway, so they may as well dynamically blance (which will reduce
return visits, which are what cost them the most, I'm sure).

In summary, these are what I've learned, from doing 30 tires:
o It's easy to mount and static balance at home
o Anyone who says otherwise, likely has never done it (MHO)
o Almost everyone who says they can't do it, for exmaple, never did it

IMHO, most people are making lame excuses when they claim "why" they can't
do it, since it's easy to do at home.

The real reson most people don't do it is simply they don't like doing it.
o And that's OK.

At least you're honest in why you don't do it.
o I appreciate your honesty because I'm allergic to bullshit from others
who can't admit they don't like getting their hands dirty so they make up
all sorts of lame excuses why they can't do their homework.

I _like_ being self suffiient where I don't mind my hands being dirty
o They prefer having other people get their hands dirty

That's fine, as long as they're honest to themselves about it.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:02:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> As for savings, with this "new costco math", the savings, in 5 years, are:
> o $450 at Costco for 30 tires minus $200 for tools = savings of only $250
>
> If we add the dynamic balance check, the math becomes:
> o $250 minus $20 = about $225 (I'm rounding numbers for easy math)

Oooops. The math may be off a bit as it was off the cuff above, but the
math isnt' the main reason you get satisfaction out of being self
sufficient, just as the math in the enjoyment of composting isn't in the
saving you might get from having a smaller garbage pail.

IMHO, if we want to talk savings, I suspect the real savings are that you
can choose any tire you like when you buy the lowest priced best-quality
tires at a reputable outlet such as "SimpleTire", which, alone, saves you a
ton of money where they don't charge sales tax or shipping most of the time
in addition to having great prices, and _then_ you can mount them yourself,
or, you can have Costco mount & balance them for $15, or, you can have
Costco just balance them for $5.

The point is that most people make excuses when the reality always seems to
be that they just don't like getting their hands dirty on this job, where
the main reason for doing a home repair like this is, IMHO, the
satisfaction of being self sufficient and in doing the job right (e.g.,
metal valves, heavy spot properly placed, fewest wheel weights, etc.).

There are other ancillary advantages, e.g., you can fix things when stores
are closed, you can do them in your pajamas without having to wait in lines
at the shop, you can fix things that they might not touch, e.g., nearer to
the shoulder than they might fix or more worn than they might touch, etc.,
all of which are adult decisions YOU can make, and not them (as long as
you're aware of the RMA guidlines which we all presumably are well aware
of).

You can even patch a leak from the outside, if you do it at home, where
nobody here is likely to be insisting they never did that in their life!
:)

In short, most of what I hear from people as to why they don't like doing
their homework is from people who have _never_ done it.

The ones who have never done it always seem to have the mnost excuses.
o When the fact is that it's trivially easy to mount/balance at home.

As far as I know, only Clare has done it, and he is clear that he doesn't
like doing it, particulrly with shitty equipment, where I don't disagree
and where I applaud his honesty.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:05:44 -0700, Sanity Clause wrote:

> Should I mention that traditionally the red spot is the "high" point of
> the tire, and would match with the "low" point of a slightly-not-round
> wheel, and the yellow dot is the "light" part of the tire, and matches
> with the "heavy" part of the wheel, usually where the valve is? Nah,
> that would be mean. :)

Hi Sanity Claus,

I appreciate those comments, where, if you have a cite that backs up your
belief system, I think it would be useful to all, as Usenet is designed to
be a potluck picnic where each person adds value where they can.

Without further cites, I'd just note offhand that we have a looooooooong
thread on a.h.r, as I recall, on this topic of exactly what the red and
yellow spots mean, which can be _different_ for each manufacturer (and
which aren't always there).

For example, we've covered that the marks are generally most useful for
brand-new wheels (where the original match mounting marks are still
visible), and we've covered why the light spot is still generally the valve
area (all else being equal, of course), even though there's an "additional"
valve there, simply because the plug of missing steel is generally heavier
than the rubber & brass valve despite the very many old intuitive wives
tales to the contrary.

I'm all about facts, where we've looked at the cites in the past to
conclude that, in the absence of match-mounting marks on the wheel, the
best course for a starting point mount at home is the red spot goes next to
the valve if you have a red spot, and if you have only a yellow spot, as I
recall, it goes opposite the valve (but I'd have to dig up the cites to
doublecheck on that as most tires I've mounted have both the red and yellow
so I only use the red mark as my starting point).

In summary, if you can back up your belief system with a cite, I'll read
it, and if you want, I can dig up cites that back up my belief system since
my belief system is never imaginary - my belief system is _always_ based on
actual facts.

If facts show I need to _change_ my belief system, then I'll change it.
o But at the moment, the facts show the red dot goes next to the valve
(for stock steel wheels, and for most manufacturers' tires)

If you have facts that show otherwise, please cite them so we all benefit
from every post.

[Clare Snyder]

There is only one place in Ontario to buy Nokian Hak tires - KAL
Tire. If I picked the tires up and took them home and installed them
myself they would have cost the same as having them mounted and
ballanced - which also gives me free repairs.
Their normal install and spin balance is $15 each

>
>For example, I'd compare the total costs of a "free" mounting and balancing
>by comparing the total cost at the shop, versus the total cost from buying
>from SimpleTire and then having Costco mount and balance them (although
>Costco charges $5 for balancing each time if you bring in your own tires).
>
>> - and repairs are free for the life of the tire.
>
>We have a Wheelworks locally which conveniently does free repairs too, but
>I prefer to do my own patchplug repairs at home simply for the satisfying
>convenience of not having to bring the car or tire to them.
>
>Plus, as you're aware, lots of people plug tires from the outside at home,
>where, at home, I _still_ use the patchplug method, but it leaves the
>option of a quick outside patch which is even more convenient than an
>inside repair is (not that an inside repair is difficult since it's about
>as easy as it gets).
>
>> I changed enough tires in my working years that
>> I don't need to do it as a hobby
>
>You have a point that a LOT of people don't like to get their hands dirty
>doing repairs, and tires are one of those things most people make excuses
>for not doing, but the real reason they don't do it is the same reason they
>don't clean toilet bowls.

I still get my hands dirty - but on things more satisfying than fixing
tires - or on things that save me more money

>
>If I made a living cleaning bathrooms, for example, (which, let's assume
>for the example that I don't like doing that), then the last thing I'd want
>to do when I get home, would likely be cleaning bathrooms.
>
>But, personally, I like pouring hydrochloric acid in my toilet bowl to
>clean the crud. It just feels good to watch the acid dissolve the calcium
>deposits, so what we enjoy is up to us.
>
>The only problem I have with most people's logic on why they don't do their
>own tire mounting & balancing is that they really are just making excuses
>for why they don't do something they just don't like doing.
>
>At least you're honest that you just don't like doing it.
>o Most people make up bullshit excuses for why they "can't" do it (IMHO).

If I had the equipment I used to have available to me, to able to do
the job RIGHT (balancing for instance, or changing tires on my
expensive alloys without damaging them) I might still do it - but a
bubble balance does not meet MY standard for balancing, and a shitty
"harbor fright" changer does not meet my requirements for cnanging
tires on MY expensive alloy rims. The few time "I" need to change and
balance tires would never make owning the equipment "I" would want
worth while - and the space requiredfor that equipment, as well as the
money I would tie up for that equipment, is better used for other
things.

I don't use my lathe much either, but it's paid for and I use it for
"fun" things - at least occaisionally. Same goes for my welder. Things
that I CANNOT easily have someone else do for me the way I want them
done, when I want them done, and for what I consider a "reasonable"
price. - and I'll still have someone who is better at the job than me
do it if it is something "critical". For instance, I don't TIG weld -
just stick or gas - and a good friend of mine is a TIG artist. My 7
inch lathe can't handle some jobs I want to do - so I either take it
to one friend or another who have big lathes - - one much higher
precision than the other - who also has a milling machine - either to
collect a favor or to pay them to do the job.

But I would NEVER mount a rare expensive alloy rim on that POS.

>
>This guy did modifications of the HF tire changing tool using a lathe and
>grinder and welding and tapping equipment, where you must clearly note that
>EVERYONE is SUCCESSFUL with the stock HF tools, but everyone notes that
>they are a bit flimsy with obvious design flaws.
> <https://youtu.be/-OpmTfyeR7E>
>
>> As for balancing, a static balance uis betterthan none,
>> but a 1/4 oz resolution on a dynamic balance is pretty much a
>> requirement for me at highway speeds. I want my tires running SMOOTH
>> AS SILK - not just balanced well enough to keep them from shaking the
>> hubcaps off.
>
>Hi Clare,
>
>Most people simply assume every tire _needs_ to be dynamically balanced,
>IMHO, where I've found that a static balance seems to work just fine.

It works fine except when it doesn't.

>
>We've discussed dynamic balancing before, where I showed the team the
>clever marketing pages in the past which show that there's a lot of
>bullshit around dynamic balancing, along with a lot of good science.
>
>When you need it you need it, and when you don't, you don't
>o It's like penicillin
>
>You either need penicillin, or you don't need penicillin.
>o Taking penicillin when you don't need it, doesn't help anything

And eating garlic when you need penicillin can cost you your life

>
>If your tires are balanced well enough to not vibrate, then balancing them
>again isn't going to change antyhing just like taking penicillin for when
>you're not sick isn't going to change anything about your health.

Depending on the vehicle - YOU may not feel the dynamic inballance -
but your tie-rod ends might. Dynamic inballance doesn't cause tramp -
it causes shimmy - on rear wheels with a live axle it's not an issue -
where on a sensitive independent front suspension it can be critical.

>
>I don't even know of a shop that won't dynamically balance, where they have
>to blance anyway, so they may as well dynamically blance (which will reduce
>return visits, which are what cost them the most, I'm sure).

I don't know of a colmmecial tire shop that HAS a static balancer any
more.

>
>In summary, these are what I've learned, from doing 30 tires:
>o It's easy to mount and static balance at home
>o Anyone who says otherwise, likely has never done it (MHO)
>o Almost everyone who says they can't do it, for exmaple, never did it
>
>IMHO, most people are making lame excuses when they claim "why" they can't
>do it, since it's easy to do at home.
>
>The real reson most people don't do it is simply they don't like doing it.
>o And that's OK.
>
>At least you're honest in why you don't do it.
>o I appreciate your honesty because I'm allergic to bullshit from others
>who can't admit they don't like getting their hands dirty so they make up
>all sorts of lame excuses why they can't do their homework.
>
>I _like_ being self suffiient where I don't mind my hands being dirty
>o They prefer having other people get their hands dirty
>
>That's fine, as long as they're honest to themselves about it.

If I'm going to get my hands dirty I'd rather do it on an engine (or
even brakes) than on tires

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 20:00:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> If facts show I need to _change_ my belief system, then I'll change it.
> o But at the moment, the facts show the red dot goes next to the valve
> (for stock steel wheels, and for most manufacturers' tires)

I'm always beholden to facts as I abhor imaginary belief systems.

Since I'm allergic to the intuition of old wives tales, but also since my
memory is not even close to perfect, I looked up the cites again, even
though I haven't read them in years, where it must be noted that the only
perfect cite will be one from Hancook, which I didn't find, so we have to
go on what we can find.

This is what Yokohama says about tire match mounting & balancing
<https://www.yokohamatire.com/tires-101/advanced-information/match-mounting>
"To facilitate proper balancing, Yokohama places red and yellow marks on
the sidewalls of its tires to enable the best possible match-mounting of
the tire/wheel assembly. There are two methods of match-mounting Yokohama
tires to wheel assemblies using these red or yellow marks:

Uniformity (red mark)
"If the point of minimum radial run-out is not indicated on a wheel
assembly, the weight method of match-mounting should be used."

Weight (yellow mark)
"When performing weight match-mounting, the yellow mark on the tire,
indicating the point of lightest weight, should be aligned with the valve
stem on the wheel assembly, which represents the heaviest weight point of
the wheel assembly. "

This is exactly what you said, and the exact opposite of what I had said,
so I appreciate that you bring up that my memory was faulty.

Moving on for confirmation... I'll tackle a couple more hits & respond, but
I wanted to THANK YOU for bringing up the point that my memory was faulty,
which I APPRECIATE greatly!

I'm always beholden to facts as I abhor imaginary belief systems.

[Clare Snyder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 20:00:32 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:05:44 -0700, Sanity Clause wrote:
>
>> Should I mention that traditionally the red spot is the "high" point of
>> the tire, and would match with the "low" point of a slightly-not-round
>> wheel, and the yellow dot is the "light" part of the tire, and matches
>> with the "heavy" part of the wheel, usually where the valve is? Nah,
>> that would be mean. :)
>
>Hi Sanity Claus,
>
>I appreciate those comments, where, if you have a cite that backs up your
>belief system, I think it would be useful to all, as Usenet is designed to
>be a potluck picnic where each person adds value where they can.
>
>Without further cites, I'd just note offhand that we have a looooooooong
>thread on a.h.r, as I recall, on this topic of exactly what the red and
>yellow spots mean, which can be _different_ for each manufacturer (and
>which aren't always there).
>

IF thare there, they virtually ALWAYS have the same meaning - and
thee cheaper the tire the more critical it is. (in other words- HIGH
QUALITY tires don't have significant runout - OR significant
inballance. - so the significance of the match marks is less.

>For example, we've covered that the marks are generally most useful for
>brand-new wheels (where the original match mounting marks are still
>visible), and we've covered why the light spot is still generally the valve
>area (all else being equal, of course), even though there's an "additional"
>valve there, simply because the plug of missing steel is generally heavier
>than the rubber & brass valve despite the very many old intuitive wives
>tales to the contrary.
>
>I'm all about facts, where we've looked at the cites in the past to
>conclude that, in the absence of match-mounting marks on the wheel, the
>best course for a starting point mount at home is the red spot goes next to
>the valve if you have a red spot, and if you have only a yellow spot, as I
>recall, it goes opposite the valve (but I'd have to dig up the cites to
>doublecheck on that as most tires I've mounted have both the red and yellow
>so I only use the red mark as my starting point).

The yellow spot is the LIGHT spot of the tire - the red spot is the
point of MAXIMUM radial rounout - so you want to use the YELLOW spot
as your reference if there is no rim match indicator. Then it is up to
you to decide if you think the valve (metal or rubber) has more
inertial weight than the slug of metal missing from the rim, and
position it accordingly. Either way, the difference is pretty small -
but MIGHT make the difference between needing a 1/2 ounce weight and
not needing any at all.

>
>In summary, if you can back up your belief system with a cite, I'll read
>it, and if you want, I can dig up cites that back up my belief system since
>my belief system is never imaginary - my belief system is _always_ based on
>actual facts.
>
>If facts show I need to _change_ my belief system, then I'll change it.
>o But at the moment, the facts show the red dot goes next to the valve
>(for stock steel wheels, and for most manufacturers' tires)

https://www.motor.com/magazinepdfs/042008_09.pdf

Note IN PARTICULAR the botton left of page 38 and top right of page
39:
- If a tire does feature color dots on the
sidewall, one or two dots may be used.
A red dot indicates the tire’s radial runout high point. A yellow dot
indicates the tire’s point of least weight,from a balance standpoint.

It also states:

For decades, it was common practice
in the aftermarket to mount a tire so its
red dot aligned with the wheel’s valve
stem, since the valve stem area was normally
assumed to be the wheel’s lowest
point of radial runout. Aligning the tire’s
high point to the wheel’s low point (theoretically)
reduces or eliminates the
chance of developing a radial force variation
(RFV) in the tire/wheel assembly.
RFV (again, an issue of runout, not imbalance)
can cause a vibration that
might be mistakenly diagnosed as an
imbalance problem.
Times change. With the advent of
styled custom wheels, the valve stem location
may no longer indicate the
wheel’s low radial runout spot. In other
words, it may no longer be viable to assume
that aligning a tire’s red dot to the
wheel’s valve stem will address any potential
RFV issues.
Consequently, a procedure that was
once easy has now become complicated.
The only way to accurately matchmount
a tire to a wheel is to actually
measure tire and wheel runout. The end
goal remains the same: to align the tire’s
high point to the wheel’s low point. The
wheel itself can be easily checked for radial
runout by mounting it to a hub and
slowly rotating it while monitoring the
rim edge with a rigidly mounted dial
gauge.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:01:19 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> IF thare there, they virtually ALWAYS have the same meaning - and
> thee cheaper the tire the more critical it is. (in other words- HIGH
> QUALITY tires don't have significant runout - OR significant
> inballance. - so the significance of the match marks is less.

Hi Clare,

Thanks for that reference where I found some references literally _stole_
my pictures, which I take as a compliment! You'll recognize my tires, and
my tools in some of the references below, for example.

As I noted prior, I could have sworn that we used to mount the red dot next
to the valve stem for basic stock steel wheels, where I see you found one
of the old references which mentioned that practice of aligning the valve
stem to the red dot.

I found others which both confirm and deny that assumption, so I have some
homework to do to catch up on what I thought I had known so I hadn't
bothered to look it up recently until now.

For now, we'll assume the meaning of the two colored dots are described
here where "red" === "uniformity" and where "yellow" === weight.
<https://www.yokohamatire.com/tires-101/advanced-information/match-mounting>

Bear in mind each manufacturer can use different colors, or no dots as
explained here in this canonical Bridgestone summary:
<https://forums.redflagdeals.com/f-y-i-meaning-yellow-red-dots-tires-1378801/>

> https://www.motor.com/magazinepdfs/042008_09.pdf

> For decades, it was common practice
> in the aftermarket to mount a tire so its
> red dot aligned with the wheel’s valve
> stem, since the valve stem area was normally
> assumed to be the wheel’s lowest
> point of radial runout.

Given that reference which you kindly unearthed, I'm not sure which way to
go forward, bearing in mind these aren't custom wheels; they're plain jane
stock steel cheap wheels (but where I also work on the BBS alloy wheels).

> Consequently, a procedure that was
> once easy has now become complicated.

Here are the articles I'll read to make the decision, all over again,
whether to align the stem to the red or yellow dot, and/or to set up a jig
for checking the high point and low point in radial runout, although, at
home, it would be only static.

This is the canonical publication which no longer seems to exist:
<http://www.bridgestonetrucktires.com/us_eng/real/magazines/ra_v13_i1/PDF/ra_v13i1%20ask%20doc.pdf>

This seems to be a summary:
<https://forums.redflagdeals.com/f-y-i-meaning-yellow-red-dots-tires-1378801/>
Red dot === valve stem
Yellow dot === valve stem

o Mounting & custom wheel handling
<https://www.motor.com/magazinepdfs/042008_09.pdf>
Old method, red dot === valve stem
New method, yellow dot === valve stem

o Bridgestone Tires Red & Yellow Dots
<https://www.car-auto-repair.com/tires-balancebridgestone-tires-red-yellow-dots/>
Red dot === valve stem (red dot supercedes yellow dot)
Yellow dot === valve stem

o Yokohama mounting procedures
<https://www.yokohamatire.com/tires-101/advanced-information/match-mounting>
Red dot === not possible at home
Yellow dot === valve stem

o Tire Rack match mounting
<https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=17&>
This explains my comment about OE wheels & tires most needing the dots.

o Red & yellow dots
<https://www.tires-easy.com/blog/what-are-the-red-and-yellow-dots-on-my-tires/>
Yellow dot === heaviest spot
Red dot === lightest spot

o Continental "coloured dot" markings on car tyres
<https://blobs.continental-tires.com/www8/servlet/blob/554548/e3119edf9831c33103e5a771a0fe5717/download-coloured-dot-markings-data.pdf>
This one says there's no consistent color for weight but
that there is a consistent color for unifornity (red).

o Match mounting
<http://www.livjones.com/2014/04/match-mounting-red-dot-on-tires.html>
Red dot === valve stem (red dot supercedes yellow dot)
Yellow dot === valve stem

o Match mounting
<https://volvoreview.com/read/tire-mounting-red-yellow-dot>
Red dot === valve stem (red dot supercedes yellow dot)
Yellow dot === valve stem

My belief system is based on facts, where I've noticed that most people
seem to have imaginary belief systems, but where, when it's complicated,
then any belief system that works, is fine.

Hence, for now, I'm gonna stick with the old method of red dot === valve
stem, unless there is no red dot, and then yellow dot === valve stem,
unless we can unearth a definitive reference that soundly refutes those
above.

Thanks for keeping an open mind, as you're the only other one on this ng,
that I know of, who has actually mounted & balanced a car tire themselves.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:39:45 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> There is only one place in Ontario to buy Nokian Hak tires - KAL
> Tire.

Hi Clare,
I agree with your logic, since adults generally have no problem agreeing on
rational logic based on actual facts so if that's the only place you can
get your tires from that you want, then there's no way you're gonna save
even a penny trying to get them online.

But since I get them online, if I include the tire savings, see my rough
calculation below which comes out to over $1,000 saved in the past 5 years
assuming a nominal $100 tire.

> If I picked the tires up and took them home and installed them
> myself they would have cost the same as having them mounted and
> ballanced - which also gives me free repairs.
> Their normal install and spin balance is $15 each

Since I'm all about facts, I'm also very much all for basic math, where the
total cost includes things like tools, time, convenience, sales tax,
shipping, installation, repairs, and disposal.

One nice thing about SimpleTire is that, for most locales, they don't seem
to charge tax & shipping, which, if you know Tire Rack's shipping prices,
is huge (at something like $15 to $20 per tire, last I used them).

Out here, if you buy locally, you have to add about 10% to the price of the
tires without gaining you a single thing, for example. Plus, some charge up
to around $7.50 for disposal, and some won't let you dispose of the tires
yourself, so, again, the math depends on the outlet we're dealing with.

I love the suggestion that trader made which is that Costco will check my
balance for five bucks a tire, which is a good deal, IMHO, at least for me
to triple check the balance in that...
o I already static balance
o I already check dynamic balance on the road
o I can add a triple-check of a $5 dynamic balance to check my work

I'll do that, and snap pictures (if Costco will let me), to show that I've
done that, as even I'm interested in how close I got to the balance point.

Using roudabout math, on savings, I'd say the savings per tire can vary
greatly, but assuming a simple base of about $100 per tire, the sales tax
is about $10 here, and let's say we get an online competitive advantage of,
oh, let's be super conservative and peg it at only 10% but it could be huge
in my experience, simply due to the way competition works on highly
marketed commodities, so that's 20% minimum as a savings on obtaining the
tire where I live.

Then add the $15 (which is 15% of the price of a $100 tire keeping things
in percentages), but subtract the $5 for Costco balancing, and then add
another $5 for the valve stem and disposal (if they're added costs, which
they generally are), and we arrive at a roundabout figure of saving about
1/3 the price simply by buying online, mounting at home, and having Costco
triple-check the dynamic balance.

That 1/3 cost saving is a conservative estimate, IMHO, as the savings in
the price alone are often tremendous, based on what I've seen, although
many outfits will "match" Internet prices, but they don't match the sales
tax or the Costco $5 dynamic balancing that Trader so kindly & helpfully
unearthed.

> I still get my hands dirty - but on things more satisfying than fixing
> tires - or on things that save me more money

I don't disagree with your logic, where adults almost never have problems
comprehending logic when it's reasonable, as yours is.

You don't like changing tires at home, just like my grandkids hate doing
homework at home, and I hate doing my own taxes by hand on paper.

It's ok.

As long as we are honest about it, I have no beef with our logic.

My beef is generally with the people who make up excuses for why they can't
do something, when the real fact is that the're afraid or that they don't
have the skills (e.g., as you are well aware, doing an alignment will make
these people's brain burst from the calculations they have to perform since
the measurements you have are almost never in the units you can most easily
or accurately measure).

> If I had the equipment I used to have available to me, to able to do
> the job RIGHT (balancing for instance, or changing tires on my
> expensive alloys without damaging them) I might still do it - but a
> bubble balance does not meet MY standard for balancing, and a shitty
> "harbor fright" changer does not meet my requirements for cnanging
> tires on MY expensive alloy rims.

I also have expensive alloy rims, on my bimmer, where I would say that
there's almost zero chance that a homeowner is going to damage them using
the shitty HF tools that I'm talking about.

I could be wrong, but I certainly did my own wheels and I didn't see any
way that I could accidentally damage them unless I did something stupid
with steel (which, admittedly, is harder than the alloy).

For one, the shitty HF tools are flimsy, and for the other, a homeowner
will take his sweet time, where the worst thing I've ever seen done to my
alloy wheels is the red paint on a brand new HF tire mounting tool will
scrape off in flecks against the bead stop of the alloy wheel.

In fact, I can't find a _single_ cite on the net where someone has damaged
an alloy rim with the HF tools, where I can see tons of examples of people
doing alloy rims, so, while I am sure you can _always_ damage something if
you are clumsy about it, I can't imagine in a billion years damaging the
rims of my soft alloy wheels - and - quite to the contrary - I suspect
someone doing it at home does a far more gentle job than the guy getting
paid by the job to get it over with (don't ask me about my horror stories,
for example, of all the steps they skip in the shops).

> The few time "I" need to change and
> balance tires would never make owning the equipment "I" would want
> worth while - and the space requiredfor that equipment, as well as the
> money I would tie up for that equipment, is better used for other
> things.

This is a viable concern, where, again, rational logic is understood
instantly by all adults.
o You have to pay about $200 for the equipment, and,
o You have to mount it somewhere (although not permanently), and,
o You have to store that equipment forever.

Since the equipment is steel, and since I have plenty of room, I have my
mounter mounted to the sidewalk where I can remove it if I want to and box
it up such that it takes up no more room than a common car camping tent.

The bead breaker is just sitting there, outside, along with the tire ramps
and jack stands, all of which are steel so leaving them outside (in
California, where it never snows and only rains during the monsoon season),
works out just fine so storeage is zero problem for me.

As for the cost that you can do better things with, that argument fails
instantly, since the tools always turn out to be free, and even better, the
tools always pay for themselves, so there is no logical argument on costs
that anyone can make that fit basic adult math that don't end up with the
tools making money.

You almost certainly can make _more_ money with that $200 spent on the
tools, but they themselves will _always_ make money for you.

The only real problem is storage, which, for me, is outside where I have
far more cumbersome & finicky things (like a lawn mower, or leaf blower,
for example) to store.

> I don't use my lathe much either, but it's paid for and I use it for
> "fun" things - at least occaisionally. Same goes for my welder. Things
> that I CANNOT easily have someone else do for me the way I want them
> done, when I want them done, and for what I consider a "reasonable"
> price. - and I'll still have someone who is better at the job than me
> do it if it is something "critical". For instance, I don't TIG weld -
> just stick or gas - and a good friend of mine is a TIG artist. My 7
> inch lathe can't handle some jobs I want to do - so I either take it
> to one friend or another who have big lathes - - one much higher
> precision than the other - who also has a milling machine - either to
> collect a favor or to pay them to do the job.

I have both gas and electric welding equipment, which, I barely use.
Likewise, I have a grinder, which I sporadically use, about as often as I
use the mulcher. We all have tools that paid for themselves in the
first-time use that we _still_ have.

For example, you may recall that I bought a HF $150 (or so) transmission
jack when I did the clutch a few months ago. I don't know what to do with
that transmission jack, but it was free so I can't complain too much about
it.

I also have garage door winding bars, which only cost a couple of bucks,
but I keep them around becuase I might need them again, they store nicely,
and, as always, the tools were free.

Same with car ramps, wheel chocks, jack stands, etc., where almost all my
tools, if not all the tools, turned out to be free once you factor in the
savings of doing the job ourselves.

The one thing I haven't tried yet is alignment tools, where I really want
to get to that task again, since accurate electgronic tools are just
getting better and better, and, more to the point, most vehicles have less
and less things that you can adjust (e.g., my bimmer has only toe in the
front, and camber and toe in the rear and that's it).

You can add after-market stuff like camber plates in the front, but stock,
the only things you can align are the "ride height" normal setting (which
takes about 500 pounds of water mind you), and then you measure and adjust
those three things.

BTW, another reason for doing things at home is right in that statemnet
above, where how many alignment shops besides BMW dealers carries 500 pound
of weight just so they can do the alignment correctly?

> But I would NEVER mount a rare expensive alloy rim on that POS.

When you say "rare", that may change things, since there usually are a few
specks of red paint that end up on my alloy wheels from my bimmer, but I
have to ask you a basic question of what damage are you speaking about?

How can that HF bead breaker, tire mounter, or bubble balancer damage
anything?

The _only_ place I can see _any_ possible damage is when mounting and
dismounting the tire using the tire mounter, where the only force is on the
edge of the metal, where the worst I've ever seen is red paint flecks all
around the rim.

What kind of damage are you implying can happen with that tool?

> It works fine except when it doesn't.

My main point is that nobody is saying on the net that it doesn't work, and
neither am I.

With the three tools, I have been 100% successful with every tire I tried
from economy cars to my bimmer to the SUV.
o Bead breaker
o Tire mounter
o Static balancer

I agree with you that the tools are shitty, and I even showed you cites
backing up that claim since I'm always reasonable and logical in all that I
do.

The interesting thing is that people with really good mechanical skills
_still_ use the tools; they just modify them a bit, which is a testament to
how useful they really are, is it not?

> And eating garlic when you need penicillin can cost you your life

Ummmm... is that a fact? Or an old wives' tale?

Just in case that was a fact, I googled, but didn't find it as a fact.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=garlic+penicillin>

So maybe it was a joke?

My point was that if you balance a tire, then balancing it again doesn't
improve the balance, where if there isn't any vibration after the first
balance, you're not going to get less vibration in the second, third,
forth, figth, sixth, etc., repeat of the same task.

If you don't need dynamic balancing, you don't need it
o And if you need it, you need it.

My position has been that if you don't feel any vibration at speed, then
you don't need it, but if there are facts that show otherwise, I'm glad to
see them cited.

> Depending on the vehicle - YOU may not feel the dynamic inballance -
> but your tie-rod ends might. Dynamic inballance doesn't cause tramp -
> it causes shimmy - on rear wheels with a live axle it's not an issue -
> where on a sensitive independent front suspension it can be critical.

My position has been that if you don't feel any vibration at speed, then
you don't need it, but if there are facts that show otherwise, I'm glad to
see them cited.

I understand that a wheel may have imperceptible vibration, but I don't
know of any cites that reliably claim that this imperceptible vibration is
causing problems and therefore must be eliminated.

I've replaced tie rods, tie rod ends, ball joints, pitman arms, idler arms,
etc., where I am aware of the many joints in some kinds of steering systems
and suspensions.

Let's bear in mind that just driving down a bumpy road causes all sorts of
vibrations which cars handle day in and day out, right?

So if imperceptible vibrarions are causing problems, then I would just seek
a reliable cite that backs up that belief system.

Even so, Trader's valuable suggestion of the $5 balance at Costco negates
that worry instantly, so I think it's a red herring since I will check the
balance this third time (first static, second driving, and then third,
Costco), at least on the first few wheels so I can check out better how
well I'm doing with the static balance.

I'll snap pictures at Costco, if they'll let me (they've stopped me at
times, but now everyone has cell phones so maybe they're more tolerant than
they were of SLRs when I used to snap pictures of them installing my
tires).

> I don't know of a colmmecial tire shop that HAS a static balancer any
> more.

I agree with you, where about the only place I still see static balance is
for motorcycle tires, where, I must add, I don't know anyone who doesn't
mount their own motorcycle tires, since they're all differnet people (my
buddies are beemer riders though, which is a different class of rider than
the other two main types).

> If I'm going to get my hands dirty I'd rather do it on an engine (or
> even brakes) than on tires

I like that you are being honest that you don't like doing tires at home,
particularly on shitty equipment, which the HF stuff certainly is.

I am allergic to bullshit; but I accept rational logic instantly.

What I find satisfying about engine work or brakes is the same sense of
self reliance that I get from rotating and mounting and repairing tires and
wheels.

I do find brakes particularly satisfying though, mainly becuase they're so
astoundingly easy to do, coupled with the fact that the bimmer dealer often
charges some people a thousand bucks to do a simple four wheel brake job.

Likewise with a cooling system overhaul, which, if you know anything about
bimmers, is "scheduled maintenance" given the plastic crap they put in that
engine bay, particularly that shitty expansion tank.

What I find amazing is the trouble people go to to NOT get their hands
dirty, for example, on changing oil, a lot of bimmer owners use the
pressure method, where, for me, gravity works just fine even as it's a bit
dirtier in the long run.

As long as we're all honest about why we do or don't do a job, I'm ok with
that.

It's the ones who have _never_ mounted & balanced a tire/wheel assembly who
try to make outlandish excuses for why they can't do something even that
simple, is where I bother to disagree with folks - since I'm all about
facts and logical deductions based on those facts.

I _like_ being self sufficient; but I can understand that others will
simply pay others to do the work for them.

The suggestion by Trader seems to be the best compromise:
1. Save around 1/3 per tire by buying online
2. Mount & balance at home & test drive for a second balance check
3. If desired, pay Costco $5 per tire to triple check balance

Where others pay $115 at Costco for a $100 tire, I pay less than $75 out
the door (using the rough figures above). This adds up when you're doing 30
tires, for example, where the savings alone is well over $1,000 for those
five years of buying tires (or about $250 savings every year, but the first
year is for the equipment, so that goes positive only after the 2nd year).

[Clare Snyder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:13:12 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:01:19 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> IF thare there, they virtually ALWAYS have the same meaning - and
>> thee cheaper the tire the more critical it is. (in other words- HIGH
>> QUALITY tires don't have significant runout - OR significant
>> inballance. - so the significance of the match marks is less.
>
>Hi Clare,
>
>Thanks for that reference where I found some references literally _stole_
>my pictures, which I take as a compliment! You'll recognize my tires, and
>my tools in some of the references below, for example.
>
>As I noted prior, I could have sworn that we used to mount the red dot next
>to the valve stem for basic stock steel wheels, where I see you found one
>of the old references which mentioned that practice of aligning the valve
>stem to the red dot.
>
>I found others which both confirm and deny that assumption, so I have some
>homework to do to catch up on what I thought I had known so I hadn't
>bothered to look it up recently until now.
>
>For now, we'll assume the meaning of the two colored dots are described
>here where "red" === "uniformity" and where "yellow" === weight.
><https://www.yokohamatire.com/tires-101/advanced-information/match-mounting>
>
>Bear in mind each manufacturer can use different colors, or no dots as
>explained here in this canonical Bridgestone summary:
><https://forums.redflagdeals.com/f-y-i-meaning-yellow-red-dots-tires-1378801/>

OK - find any credible reference showing the use of yellow and red by
ANY other manufacturer where the colors are switched. ANY. I'm
throwing you the challenge. Remember - it has to be a CREDIBLE
reference - from someone who is guaranteed to know more about the
subject than you - in other words not a hobbyist - but someone
intimately familliar with the company involved.

Are you up for the challenge Mr Holder?
Not saying it isn't out there, or that you won't find it - but I've
never seen it. Mabee someone used green and orange, or white and
yellow, or white and red. - happy hunting.

[Clare Snyder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:39:00 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:39:45 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> There is only one place in Ontario to buy Nokian Hak tires - KAL
>> Tire.
>
>Hi Clare,
>I agree with your logic, since adults generally have no problem agreeing on
>rational logic based on actual facts so if that's the only place you can
>get your tires from that you want, then there's no way you're gonna save
>even a penny trying to get them online.
>
>But since I get them online, if I include the tire savings, see my rough
>calculation below which comes out to over $1,000 saved in the past 5 years
>assuming a nominal $100 tire.

I don't drive on $100 tires. Last tire I bought was $223.00 plus
disposal fee and HST.
The tires I put on my daughter's car were about $180 each - for 16
inch tires.

>
>> If I picked the tires up and took them home and installed them
>> myself they would have cost the same as having them mounted and
>> ballanced - which also gives me free repairs.
>> Their normal install and spin balance is $15 each
>
>Since I'm all about facts, I'm also very much all for basic math, where the
>total cost includes things like tools, time, convenience, sales tax,
>shipping, installation, repairs, and disposal.

Here in Ontario you pay a $3.30 eco " disposal" fee when you buy a
tire - and nothing when you get rid of it

>
>One nice thing about SimpleTire is that, for most locales, they don't seem
>to charge tax & shipping, which, if you know Tire Rack's shipping prices,
>is huge (at something like $15 to $20 per tire, last I used them).

And I can buy just about ANY tire locally for less than I can buy it
online, including the criminal shipping charges.Used to be I could get
a tire out of Quebec for less - with really cheap shipping. Them days
are GONE. (I never ordered any, but my son-in-law did)

>
>Out here, if you buy locally, you have to add about 10% to the price of the
>tires without gaining you a single thing, for example. Plus, some charge up
>to around $7.50 for disposal, and some won't let you dispose of the tires
>yourself, so, again, the math depends on the outlet we're dealing with.

Here it's 13% - and if the company does buisiness in Ontario they
have to charge that tax. 14.75% in Quebec. Only BC, Alberta, Sask and
the territories are lower - and shipping from any of them kills any
tax advantage unless I buy them while there on holliday.

>
>I love the suggestion that trader made which is that Costco will check my
>balance for five bucks a tire, which is a good deal, IMHO, at least for me
>to triple check the balance in that...
>o I already static balance
>o I already check dynamic balance on the road
>o I can add a triple-check of a $5 dynamic balance to check my work
>
>I'll do that, and snap pictures (if Costco will let me), to show that I've
>done that, as even I'm interested in how close I got to the balance point.
>
>Using roudabout math, on savings, I'd say the savings per tire can vary
>greatly, but assuming a simple base of about $100 per tire, the sales tax
>is about $10 here, and let's say we get an online competitive advantage of,
>oh, let's be super conservative and peg it at only 10% but it could be huge
>in my experience, simply due to the way competition works on highly
>marketed commodities, so that's 20% minimum as a savings on obtaining the
>tire where I live.

Are you checking your date codes on your "discount" online tires???
Any time I've found "discounted" tires around here they are AT LEAST
3 years old. (and Costco won't install if they are 37 months old - - )
)

That star hold-down isn't going to mar the center where it clamps it
down? You can buy a replacement for your bimmer from a scrap yard for
under $75 if you do screw it up. I looked for several years to find
the set of wheels on my truck - and even NEW ones are not available -
period. I wouldn't trust that shitty tire changer "finger" to keep the
wheel from turning without damaging the center of the wheel either.
The winter wheels are common enough - they were factory equipment on
at least 2 years of Ford Explorer - but finding GOOD ones is getting
harder every day

You won't buy any tire changer I would use on my wheels for $200. The
TSI Model# CH-22/23 is available in the USA from Northern Tool for
$499 and it is about the minimum standard I would accept. It's $680
with a floor plate. (and surprisingly, again, equivalent under a
different model numberavailable for less - about $400 Canadian
including shipping, plus 13% HST from ASC365 International)
My preference would be a swing-arm changer - best price I've seen is
about $1200 US plus shipping to Canada.

>
>Since the equipment is steel, and since I have plenty of room, I have my
>mounter mounted to the sidewalk where I can remove it if I want to and box
>it up such that it takes up no more room than a common car camping tent.
>
>The bead breaker is just sitting there, outside, along with the tire ramps
>and jack stands, all of which are steel so leaving them outside (in
>California, where it never snows and only rains during the monsoon season),
>works out just fine so storeage is zero problem for me.

Totally different up here in "the great white north"

>
>As for the cost that you can do better things with, that argument fails
>instantly, since the tools always turn out to be free, and even better, the
>tools always pay for themselves, so there is no logical argument on costs
>that anyone can make that fit basic adult math that don't end up with the
>tools making money.

They would take a long time to pay for themselves for me - I buy 2
good sets of tires for each vehicle about every 6 years - one set of
summers, and one of ice/snow. Even if I do my daughter's tires too it
takes a long time to pay for a $400 tire changer - and that's not
counting the ballancer.

That's all you can ADJUST - but not all you can BEND and need to
CHECK.

>
>You can add after-market stuff like camber plates in the front, but stock,
>the only things you can align are the "ride height" normal setting (which
>takes about 500 pounds of water mind you), and then you measure and adjust
>those three things.
>
>BTW, another reason for doing things at home is right in that statemnet
>above, where how many alignment shops besides BMW dealers carries 500 pound
>of weight just so they can do the alignment correctly?
>
>> But I would NEVER mount a rare expensive alloy rim on that POS.
>
>When you say "rare", that may change things, since there usually are a few
>specks of red paint that end up on my alloy wheels from my bimmer, but I
>have to ask you a basic question of what damage are you speaking about?
>
>How can that HF bead breaker, tire mounter, or bubble balancer damage
>anything?
>
>The _only_ place I can see _any_ possible damage is when mounting and
>dismounting the tire using the tire mounter, where the only force is on the
>edge of the metal, where the worst I've ever seen is red paint flecks all
>around the rim.
>
>What kind of damage are you implying can happen with that tool?

Wheel center - with that absolutely shitty and destructive hold down
spider - and the sloppy destructive pin that keeps the wheel from
turning on the machine.

>
>> It works fine except when it doesn't.
>
>My main point is that nobody is saying on the net that it doesn't work, and
>neither am I.
>
>With the three tools, I have been 100% successful with every tire I tried
>from economy cars to my bimmer to the SUV.
>o Bead breaker
>o Tire mounter
>o Static balancer
>
>I agree with you that the tools are shitty, and I even showed you cites
>backing up that claim since I'm always reasonable and logical in all that I
>do.

As a former professional mechanic, one thing I can NOT STAND is
shitty tools

>
>The interesting thing is that people with really good mechanical skills
>_still_ use the tools; they just modify them a bit, which is a testament to
>how useful they really are, is it not?

No, it's a testament to how cheap the guys are.

>
>> And eating garlic when you need penicillin can cost you your life
>
>Ummmm... is that a fact? Or an old wives' tale?

If you need penicillin to cure an infection and you just keep chewing
garlic, you are likely to die of the infection

>
>Just in case that was a fact, I googled, but didn't find it as a fact.
><https://duckduckgo.com/?q=garlic+penicillin>
>
>So maybe it was a joke?

Not a joke - just obvious logic. Doesn't matter if it is garlic,
asprin, or chocolate chip cookies. If you have a fatal condition that
requires a specific medication to cure it and you don't get the
medication - you are DEAD

>
>My point was that if you balance a tire, then balancing it again doesn't
>improve the balance, where if there isn't any vibration after the first
>balance, you're not going to get less vibration in the second, third,
>forth, figth, sixth, etc., repeat of the same task.
>
>If you don't need dynamic balancing, you don't need it
>o And if you need it, you need it.
>
>My position has been that if you don't feel any vibration at speed, then
>you don't need it, but if there are facts that show otherwise, I'm glad to
>see them cited.
>
>> Depending on the vehicle - YOU may not feel the dynamic inballance -
>> but your tie-rod ends might. Dynamic inballance doesn't cause tramp -
>> it causes shimmy - on rear wheels with a live axle it's not an issue -
>> where on a sensitive independent front suspension it can be critical.
>
>My position has been that if you don't feel any vibration at speed, then
>you don't need it, but if there are facts that show otherwise, I'm glad to
>see them cited.
>
>I understand that a wheel may have imperceptible vibration, but I don't
>know of any cites that reliably claim that this imperceptible vibration is
>causing problems and therefore must be eliminated.
>

It can cause accellerated wear to the steering linkage.

>I've replaced tie rods, tie rod ends, ball joints, pitman arms, idler arms,
>etc., where I am aware of the many joints in some kinds of steering systems
>and suspensions.
>
>Let's bear in mind that just driving down a bumpy road causes all sorts of
>vibrations which cars handle day in and day out, right?
>
>So if imperceptible vibrarions are causing problems, then I would just seek
>a reliable cite that backs up that belief system.
>
>Even so, Trader's valuable suggestion of the $5 balance at Costco negates
>that worry instantly, so I think it's a red herring since I will check the
>balance this third time (first static, second driving, and then third,
>Costco), at least on the first few wheels so I can check out better how
>well I'm doing with the static balance.

I "static ballanced" the front tires on the MG TD without any
equipment at all - just to get it "close enough" to know if the shake
I was getting was just a tire problem. Throwing a few weights at it so
it never stopped in the same position any more made it so it didn't
shage at 35MPH any more - it took about 55 - so I sent the wheels to
the shop and precision ballanced them. I was within an ounce of
perfect statically - without even a bubble ballancer - but WHAT A
DIFFERENCE with an accurate dynamic ballance.

>
>I'll snap pictures at Costco, if they'll let me (they've stopped me at
>times, but now everyone has cell phones so maybe they're more tolerant than
>they were of SLRs when I used to snap pictures of them installing my
>tires).
>
>> I don't know of a colmmecial tire shop that HAS a static balancer any
>> more.
>
>I agree with you, where about the only place I still see static balance is
>for motorcycle tires, where, I must add, I don't know anyone who doesn't
>mount their own motorcycle tires, since they're all differnet people (my
>buddies are beemer riders though, which is a different class of rider than
>the other two main types).
>
>> If I'm going to get my hands dirty I'd rather do it on an engine (or
>> even brakes) than on tires
>
>I like that you are being honest that you don't like doing tires at home,
>particularly on shitty equipment, which the HF stuff certainly is.
>
>I am allergic to bullshit; but I accept rational logic instantly.
>
>What I find satisfying about engine work or brakes is the same sense of
>self reliance that I get from rotating and mounting and repairing tires and
>wheels.
>
>I do find brakes particularly satisfying though, mainly becuase they're so
>astoundingly easy to do, coupled with the fact that the bimmer dealer often
>charges some people a thousand bucks to do a simple four wheel brake job.

And I'm appalled how many REALLY STUPID people think they can do
brakes - and TOTALLY screw things up and manage not to kill themselves
and/or someone else. Believe me - as a mechanic I've pretty much seen
it all!! And scrutineering at the Street Rod Nationals years ago you
wouldn't believe how BAD many of them were, mechanically - Brakes,
steering, suspension and controls. Some of them with $10,000+ paint
jobs - back in the eighties!!

>
>Likewise with a cooling system overhaul, which, if you know anything about
>bimmers, is "scheduled maintenance" given the plastic crap they put in that
>engine bay, particularly that shitty expansion tank.

I still can't figure out how anyone with a pinch of sense would EVER
buy a second Bimmer - particularly not a USED one.

>
>What I find amazing is the trouble people go to to NOT get their hands
>dirty, for example, on changing oil, a lot of bimmer owners use the
>pressure method, where, for me, gravity works just fine even as it's a bit
>dirtier in the long run.

To each his own I guess. I'd get sick of fixing a bimmer pretty quick.
Just like a VW/Audi or Porsche - or a Benz. Used to be they were
"quality" cars. Now they are just "prestige" cars or small pecker
compensators.

>
>As long as we're all honest about why we do or don't do a job, I'm ok with
>that.
>
>It's the ones who have _never_ mounted & balanced a tire/wheel assembly who
>try to make outlandish excuses for why they can't do something even that
>simple, is where I bother to disagree with folks - since I'm all about
>facts and logical deductions based on those facts.
>
>I _like_ being self sufficient; but I can understand that others will
>simply pay others to do the work for them.
>
>The suggestion by Trader seems to be the best compromise:
>1. Save around 1/3 per tire by buying online
>2. Mount & balance at home & test drive for a second balance check
>3. If desired, pay Costco $5 per tire to triple check balance
>
>Where others pay $115 at Costco for a $100 tire, I pay less than $75 out
>the door (using the rough figures above). This adds up when you're doing 30
>tires, for example, where the savings alone is well over $1,000 for those
>five years of buying tires (or about $250 savings every year, but the first
>year is for the equipment, so that goes positive only after the 2nd year).

Driving a Bimmer on $75 tires explains (at least partly) why you
need to change so many tires and puts the lie to your claim that it
isn't just because you are a cheapskate that you need to do everything
yourself. There isn't a tire you can buy for $75 that I'd EVER waste
the time or money to install on ANY of my vehicles - or my worst
enemy's Bimmer.

The cost to have my tires professionally installed and ballanced (or
what I pay the shop my brother used to own down the road to "borrow"
his changer or ballancer to do it myself) is a small percentage of the
cost of my quality tires - which are not "expensive" when spread over
5 or 6 years of driving.

I don't buy the most expensive tires - and I don't think I over-pay
for my tires - but I don't buy tires based on price - and don't buy -
or drive on - "cheap" tires.

When you buy the most expensive OR the cheapest - either way you are
paying too much - - - - -

[Clare Snyder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 02:22:10 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:39:00 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
><arling...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:39:45 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> There is only one place in Ontario to buy Nokian Hak tires - KAL
>>> Tire.
>>
>>Hi Clare,
>>I agree with your logic, since adults generally have no problem agreeing on
>>rational logic based on actual facts so if that's the only place you can
>>get your tires from that you want, then there's no way you're gonna save
>>even a penny trying to get them online.
>>
>>But since I get them online, if I include the tire savings, see my rough
>>calculation below which comes out to over $1,000 saved in the past 5 years
>>assuming a nominal $100 tire.
>
>I don't drive on $100 tires. Last tire I bought was $223.00 plus
>disposal fee and HST.
>The tires I put on my daughter's car were about $180 each - for 16
>inch tires.

Just checked - that was including tax, install and ballance. Small
tires (205 55 16) for Hyundai Elantra GT. - so $142 plus install,
disposal fee, and taxes. I guess that's about $106 US for the bare
tire.
The 235 70 16 tires on the Ranger and 225 70 17 on the Sorento cost
significantly more. Almost double.

[Clare Snyder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 03:40:32 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>

The Hyundai tire is the same as the base tire on a 325i Bimmer - so
I guess in Cali a $100 tire on a low end bimmer might make sense. On a
528i a 245 45 18 is going to be close to 3 times that price. (about
$405 Canadian and up plus tax and install)
Don't remember what Bimmer Arlen drives.

[devnull]

On 4/30/19 2:22 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
> Here it's 13% - and if the company does buisiness in Ontario they
> have to charge that tax. 14.75% in Quebec. Only BC, Alberta, Sask and
> the territories are lower - and shipping from any of them kills any
> tax advantage unless I buy them while there on holliday.

A true democrat would be happy to pay more tax knowing the proceeds go to support social programs for the lazy.

[devnull]

On 4/29/19 11:39 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> Since the equipment is steel, and since I have plenty of room, I have my
> mounter mounted to the sidewalk where I can remove it if I want to and box
> it up such that it takes up no more room than a common car camping tent.
>
> The bead breaker is just sitting there, outside, along with the tire ramps
> and jack stands, all of which are steel so leaving them outside (in
> California, where it never snows and only rains during the monsoon season),
> works out just fine so storeage is zero problem for me.

What if your municipality has a blight ordinance and you get a $500 fine for having unsightly junk stored in your yard?

[trader_4]

Woooah there Pilgrim. You have a vivid imagination. I never said any
of that, quite the opposite. I said that I'm not going to mount tires
at home myself, for many reasons, when I can get them mounted and dynamically
balanced at Costco for $15 a tire. Step three is really dumb,
screwing around mounting them at home, then pay $5 at Costco to get them
balanced, when you can get them mounted and balanced for $15, no fuss,
no muss.

[trader_4]

There is also the issue of how long a tire lasts. IDK if there is a
correlation between cost and life, but I can tell you that the last
Michelins went 100K miles, which surprised me. So, if you paid half
that and they went half or less than that, would that tire be a good
deal? I always look at reviews and ratings.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <ltVxE.535978$7C4.2...@fx33.iad>, dev...@127.0.0.1 says...

>
> A true democrat would be happy to pay more tax knowing the proceeds go to support social programs for the lazy.
>
>
>

A true democrat does not have a job that pays eonugh to be taxed if they
have a job at all. They are on the social program for the lazy.

[Rod Speed]

Ralph Mowery <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote
> dev...@127.0.0.1 wrote

>> A true democrat would be happy to pay more tax knowing
>> the proceeds go to support social programs for the lazy.

> A true democrat does not have a job that pays eonugh to be taxed
> if they have a job at all. They are on the social program for the lazy.

Bet that's not true of Bob F and I know
it wasn't true of Shadow before he retired.

Wasn't even true of Slick and Hitlary or Obama before
they got into politics either. Or JFK, LBJ, Carter etc.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:56:22 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> OK - find any credible reference showing the use of yellow and red by
> ANY other manufacturer where the colors are switched. ANY. I'm
> throwing you the challenge. Remember - it has to be a CREDIBLE
> reference - from someone who is guaranteed to know more about the
> subject than you - in other words not a hobbyist - but someone
> intimately familliar with the company involved.

Hi Clare,

We don't disagree.

o You're basing your belief system on your experience & knowledge
o I'm basing my belief system on my experience & current references

You have far more experience & knowledge than I do, Clare.
o My experience is the same as yours, which is red=uniformity, yellow=weight

I'm all about facts, where facts are funny just as adults are funny, in
that adults can easily agree on facts if they're presented logically.

Presenting facts logically, would you agree that both you and I have
_never_ seen any other colors than red === unifority, and yellow ===
weight, right?

OK. So we both agree that we have never seen it done any other way, right?

All I'm saying is that _some_ references "claim" that those aren't the only
colors and that those colors "may" mean whatever they mean to the specific
manufacturer.

For example, I _already_ provided two cites for those claims, Clare:
o So you have everything that I have already.

You don't have to _believe_ those cites
o But you do have to belief that they exist (which is all I'm saying).

Unfortunately, the canonical Bridgestone PDF is nowhere to be found...
<http://www.bridgestonetrucktires.com/us_eng/real/magazines/ra_v13_i1/PDF/ra_v13i1%20ask%20doc.pdf>
but we can assume this guy accurately copied it since people complained
that he copied it, where Bridgestone is said to say, very clearly:
"Does Every Tire Manufacturer Use The Same Marks?
Unfortunately, no. Some manufacturers do not mark their tires at all,
and *some use _different_ colors*.
<https://forums.redflagdeals.com/f-y-i-meaning-yellow-red-dots-tires-1378801/>

While standards can be different for USA tires, this Contenental Technical
Bulletin for the UK & Ireland says Continental sometimes uses "white" dots
and sometimes "yellow" dots, and even "blue" dots for the weight dot.
"Although there is a consistent red coloured dot identifying the tyres
'radial force variations first harmonic maximum',
*there is _no standard colour_ for the 'light static balance point'*
*Continental Tyres indicate [light static balance point] with a white dot*
*but it may be yellow or blue*"
<https://blobs.continental-tires.com/www8/servlet/blob/554548/e3119edf9831c33103e5a771a0fe5717/download-coloured-dot-markings-data.pdf>

The real question of import is where to put the tire on an old steel stock
wheel versus an old custom alloy wheel when mounting at home (and where the
original match mounting marks are likely obliterated), where the cite you
brought up says "it's confusing".

> Are you up for the challenge Mr Holder?
> Not saying it isn't out there, or that you won't find it - but I've
> never seen it. Mabee someone used green and orange, or white and
> yellow, or white and red. - happy hunting.

Hi Clare,

We don't disagree.
o And I already previously gave you the cites in the post you responded to.

Clearly both Continental & Bridgestone said the colors can differ.
o Just as clearly, both you and I have never seen them differ.

Both those are facts, Clare.
o You simply have to sort them out for yourself, as did I.

It's fine for you to state you don't believe the references
o Or if you state the references only apply to Europe & not to the USA

But you can't claim that my statements aren't based on those references.

We are both adults Clare, where I'm only stating what I've read in the
cites, which I proved above, which I proved _before_ you claimed that I
didn't prove that claim.

Whether or not the references are correct is a completely different issue,
Clare, where I, like you, have _never_ seen the red dot not mean uniformity
and the yellow dot not mean weight.

Rest assured, nobody has _ever_ seen me state material facts wrong on
Usenet, Clare, and I've posted for many (many) years.(See note 1).

That's because I don't say things are facts if they're not based on facts.

Hence, for every material fact you hear me write on Usenet
o You can rest assured I can find a cite backing up that fact.

Do you know anyone with as incredible a record on facts as I have Clare?
o HINT: My belief systems are based on facts that I can cite.

The real question of import is where to put the tire on an old steel stock
wheel versus an old custom alloy wheel when mounting at home (and where the
original match mounting marks are likely obliterated), where the cite you
brought up says "it's confusing".

In summary Clare, "some" references (particularly for European markets)
clearly claim that the colors can be different; but I agree with you that
both you and I have _never_ seen the dots in the USA mean anything but
o red === uniformity
o yellow === weight

--
(1) I'm human, so, I must have once or twice in many thousands of posts,
misstated a material fact, especially as Usenet is casual, but nobody can
find any material fact I've stated that was wrong (trust me, they've
tried), which you have to admit is pretty incredible for factual
credibility on Usenet.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 02:00:29 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

>
> Bet that's not true of Bob F and I know
> it wasn't true of Shadow before he retired.
>
> Wasn't even true of Slick and Hitlary or Obama before
> they got into politics either. Or JFK, LBJ, Carter etc.

Thread turns off topic, and you can bet that Rodent shows up to take
advantage of it! <tsk>

--
Senile Rot about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID: <g4jm5b...@mid.individual.net>

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 02:22:10 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> I don't drive on $100 tires. Last tire I bought was $223.00 plus
> disposal fee and HST.
> The tires I put on my daughter's car were about $180 each - for 16
> inch tires.

Hi Clare,
I'm all about facts, and simple math. :)
o And I buy based on specification.

It was a nominal price, just so we could calculate the percentages.
o You can change the $100 to $1,000 and we could still do the math.

If we change the nominal price, some costs will scale, like sales tax.
o Some costs don't scale, like mounting fees.

I typically buy by the specs that are molded into the tire, where I know
others buy by a variety of other means, which is their right.

For example, here's a sticker on a set of tires for a small economy car for
one of my kid's teenager, that I have had lying outside for a while waiting
for them to come over and leave the car here for me to change their tires.
P185/65R14 LOAD=86 SPEED=H TRACTION=A TEMPERATURE=A TREADWEAR=500
<https://i.postimg.cc/NjG3PBGm/mount11.jpg>

As you know, I buy tires just like I buy batteries or brake pads, which is
that I buy by what's molded into the sidewall, but I know many people do
not like buying by that method.

The problem I have with the way most people seem to select tires is that
it's not scientific based on statistics, where I agree as readily as anyone
that the data we _really_ want on tires, just isn't available to us in most
cases for all the tires we may be interested in.

> Here in Ontario you pay a $3.30 eco " disposal" fee when you buy a
> tire - and nothing when you get rid of it

You're lucky.

Here, in California, we pay multiple fees in addition to sales tax when
buying the tire, and multiple fees when disposing the tire, where I've seen
as low as $1 at Costco plus sales tax (which is strange since California
_already_ taxed the tire initially and we're not buying anything when we're
getting rid of a tire), but as high as $7.50 locally.

> And I can buy just about ANY tire locally for less than I can buy it
> online, including the criminal shipping charges.Used to be I could get
> a tire out of Quebec for less - with really cheap shipping. Them days
> are GONE. (I never ordered any, but my son-in-law did)

I agree that the Tire Rack prices I've seen for shipping of from $15 to $20
per tire are close to the "criminal" level, where for some strange reason,
my last few Simple Tire shipments had free shipping, in addition to 10% to
20% off on the tire's nominal price.

This thread isn't really intented to be about how to buy tires, where the
local shops seem to honor Internet prices anyway - but where the main
problem I see at "most" tire shops locally is their selection seems to be
limited.

> Here it's 13% - and if the company does buisiness in Ontario they
> have to charge that tax. 14.75% in Quebec. Only BC, Alberta, Sask and
> the territories are lower - and shipping from any of them kills any
> tax advantage unless I buy them while there on holliday.

Wow. Your tax is even _higher_ than California's sales tax! Yuck.

> Are you checking your date codes on your "discount" online tires???
> Any time I've found "discounted" tires around here they are AT LEAST
> 3 years old. (and Costco won't install if they are 37 months old - - )

I agree the Costco said they wouldn't install a 3 year old tire, where,
since I buy so many, I stock them at home, where I just snapped this
picture of just a half dozen of the tires I _still_ need to install.
<https://i.postimg.cc/gjYskcTK/mount10.jpg>

The date codes are the four-digit DOT number, which end in the week and
year, all of which are well within that 3-year time frame even though
they've been sitting at my house for quite some time waiting for me to
decide that the existing tires are worn enough to replace them.

What I'll do is the next time I order tires (it won't be long as I fix
tires for neighbors and relatives also), I'll check the four-digit date
code upon arrival.

> That star hold-down isn't going to mar the center where it clamps it
> down?

It's a good question of where damage "can" occur, where I fully agree with
you that the center piece needs "protection" if you care to keep it
pristine (just as it likely needs protection at a tire shop).

Here's a picture of the center hub hole of the spare tire:
<https://i.postimg.cc/q7Fgv1DD/mount12.jpg>

It's chewed up a bit, but I bought that fifteen-year-old bimmer used, and I
never bothered to look closely until now since it's hidden by the hubcap,
so we can't really say what gouged it, but it's covered by the hub anyway.
<https://i.postimg.cc/sfqPNcVc/mount13.jpg>

By the way, I'm _always_ quite reasonable, where I only speak facts and
then I discuss rational logica based on those facts.

The facts are that the HF tire-mounting tool is shitty.
The facts are that the HF tire-mounting tool can damage an expensive wheel.

Those are facts just like it's a fact that a chain saw can chop off your
hand or that a hammer can smash your finger blue.

What really matters isn't whether damage _can_ occur, but whether damage
_must_ occur, right?

To that end, I have one statement that agrees with you, and another
question that asks you about the professional setup.

Where I agree with you is that, without protection, the HF tool WILL likely
scratch the hub, but, if you place protection there, which I do, then it is
less likely to scratch the hub.

Notice, for example, that I used plastic lying around to create a soft
sandwich between the HF tool and the steel wheel at the hub area:
<https://i.postimg.cc/9QyHjMjL/mount14.jpg>

Also notice one of the HF modification videos I cited previously had a guy
machine a hub cone to use instead of the HF hub clamp.
<https://youtu.be/-OpmTfyeR7E?t=159>

The question I have for you is what do the pro's use so that they don't
damage the steel or alloy wheel?

> I wouldn't trust that shitty tire changer "finger" to keep the
> wheel from turning without damaging the center of the wheel either.

I agree that the "finger" is the WORST part of that shitty tire changer, in
that you need to balance it first, like balacing a pencil on the eraser
head pointing straight up, BEFORE you can place the tire, which, I must
add, takes both hands, so you need a third hand, UNDER the tire to get the
finger to go into a lug hole from the bottom.

That sucks.

One guy on the net simply removed the finger and replaced it with a bolt.
<https://youtu.be/-OpmTfyeR7E?t=229>

What I do is insert a piece of hose or pipe that sticks up higher so that
it's easier to put the tire on the finger.

You're astute, Clare, in that you _know_ the weaknesses of that shitty tire
changer.

Bear in mind, I am not saying it's not shitty.
o I'm simply saying it works.
o And, it pays for itself in a very short while

> The winter wheels are common enough - they were factory equipment on
> at least 2 years of Ford Explorer - but finding GOOD ones is getting
> harder every day

I've lived in snow zones where I don't regret California weather.
I've had door handles snap off on me in the winter back east! :(

People in Califronia don't know how easy life is out here for working on
cars.

> You won't buy any tire changer I would use on my wheels for $200. The
> TSI Model# CH-22/23 is available in the USA from Northern Tool for
> $499 and it is about the minimum standard I would accept.

Thanks for the suggestions for better home-use tire changers.
o Not only do I love facts - but - I also love tools.

I don't buy a tool unless it pays for itself, at least over time.
o In the end, most tools "make money" (or we wouldn't buy them).

For example, some day I'm going to add a "gas station" of sorts, where the
biggest problem is getting the gas delivered, and not the tools, which pay
for themselves in a few years.

If the tire changer costs $1,200, it might not pay for itself over time,
but the tools I have cost only $200, so they paid for themselves long ago.

One set of tools I'd love to buy, but I haven't been able to justify the
costs yet, are alignment measuring tools (for caster, camber, & toe) since
a "lifetime alignment" on any given vehicle is only about $175 or
thereabouts, so the alignemnet tools would have to be less than three or
four times that in order to pay for itself.

Another type of tool I can't justify that I'd love is a lift, where, the
problem is that I can still do the job with a floor jack, chocks, and 15"
6-ton HF jack stands.

I think the tire changer is like that, sort of.
o I can do the job with a floor jack, chocks, & jack stands
o Or, I can do the job with a lift

The lift will do the job easier - but the floor jack does the job.
(as long as I modify my actions by laying down on the ground)

Same here:
o Your $1,200 tool will do the job easier
o But the HF tool will do the job.
(as long as I modify my actions by using plastic protection)

If we had money like Jay Leno has money, _then_ we'd have some really nice
tools!

> Totally different up here in "the great white north"

I live in the mountains of California where we all have many acres so
nobody will mind that we leave our tools strewn about outside.

My tire changer, for example, is bolted to the sidewalk, and nobody has
complained even though it's been there for years, where, if I wanted to, I
could box it up for storage and it would take up the space of a camping
tent.

I set it up so that I could remove it if I needed to, since I set the
female half of the bolts in the concrete, but I never got a round tuit.

> They would take a long time to pay for themselves for me - I buy 2
> good sets of tires for each vehicle about every 6 years - one set of
> summers, and one of ice/snow. Even if I do my daughter's tires too it
> takes a long time to pay for a $400 tire changer - and that's not
> counting the ballancer.

As you can see, I have a half dozen tires to do when I get a round tuit.
<https://i.postimg.cc/gjYskcTK/mount10.jpg>

I go through about, on average, 5 tires a year or so, but I'm talking about
multiple vehicles since I do tires for the family & friends as a courtesy,
since I _like_ changing tires.

I think it's funny that many of the people who provide excuses for why you
can't change tires at home always seem to be people who have never even
once done it at home.

I've at least done it thirty times, and soon, thirty six times (I'm just
waiting for the tires to wear out so thinly that I need to replace them).

It's so _easy_ to change tires at home, and so cheap, that I find it
interesting how many people claim it can't be done, but they've never done
it (so how woudl they even know?).

> That's all you can ADJUST - but not all you can BEND and need to
> CHECK.

Hi Clare,
I understand the basics of aligment so I'm fully aware that you can check a
lot of things, but you can only adust a few things.

I admit I don't get a professional alignment as often as I should, where
all I'd want to do is check that which can be adusted.

If the car is being bought, or if it has been in an accident, that's a
completely different situation than simply checking the alignment just as
you check oil and the thickness of your brake pads.

What I need to get when I get in the mood are decent tools for alignment
checking (just caster, camber, & toe, and ride height, which is all that
you can adjust on the bimmer, for example).

Cost?

Given a lifetime alignment is around $175, it would seem to me that two to
four times that in cost would be a reasonable maximum realistic logical
amount to pay for decent tools.

> Wheel center - with that absolutely shitty and destructive hold down
> spider - and the sloppy destructive pin that keeps the wheel from
> turning on the machine.

I agree. Both those design features are shitty.

This guy eliminated both to get around those flaws.
<https://youtu.be/-OpmTfyeR7E?t=159>

I simply use protection.

> As a former professional mechanic, one thing I can NOT STAND is
> shitty tools

I do agree with you in that I can't stand shitty pliers, or shitty
screwdrivers, or even watching somone use a pair of pliers to remove a
screw, for example.

> And I'm appalled how many REALLY STUPID people think they can do
> brakes - and TOTALLY screw things up and manage not to kill themselves
> and/or someone else. Believe me - as a mechanic I've pretty much seen
> it all!! And scrutineering at the Street Rod Nationals years ago you
> wouldn't believe how BAD many of them were, mechanically - Brakes,
> steering, suspension and controls. Some of them with $10,000+ paint
> jobs - back in the eighties!!

I'm sure someone can screw up brakes, and even once, I put the drum brakes
on wrong myself, but it's not hard to do brakes, IMHO, particularly disc
brakes (where most of the jobs are simply replacing the pads and sensors).

I've written detailed tutorials on how to do brakes where I also check
runout and DTV and even that dreaded word, "warp", which we better not get
into as people get a hardon when I mention "warp" in the sense of a
parallel sides as in the warp of an engine block or head.

> I still can't figure out how anyone with a pinch of sense would EVER
> buy a second Bimmer - particularly not a USED one.

I have a few bimmers, and even a beemer, where I agree that they break a
lot, and mine are _all_ old, so they break even more.

One thing about bimmers is that if you own one, as opposed to, say, a
Toyota, is that you don't get to learn anything about the Toyota simply
because nothing breaks, but on the bimmer, you get to learn all about
VANOS, and CCV, and FSU, and DISA, etc. :)

> To each his own I guess. I'd get sick of fixing a bimmer pretty quick.
> Just like a VW/Audi or Porsche - or a Benz. Used to be they were
> "quality" cars. Now they are just "prestige" cars or small pecker
> compensators.

The sad thing on the bimmers is that once you replace these problematic
parts, the problem doesn't go away ... it just comes back later ... e.g.,
it's not uncommon to go through one or two Bosch ABS control modules, or
even three or four Sitronic FSUs or a few Behr expansion tanks, and even a
couple BMW CCVs, and certainly a few of those shitty Dorman window
regulators (Uro seems to make better nylon rollers), etc.

I agree with you that many parts suck on bimmers, but the engine itself is
bulletproof IMHO, as is the suspension.

> Driving a Bimmer on $75 tires explains (at least partly) why you
> need to change so many tires and puts the lie to your claim that it
> isn't just because you are a cheapskate that you need to do everything
> yourself. There isn't a tire you can buy for $75 that I'd EVER waste
> the time or money to install on ANY of my vehicles - or my worst
> enemy's Bimmer.

Hi Clare,
I'm not going to go down that road because I'm extremely well educated, and
I'm of at least average intelligence (if that), so I know that the price
you pay for something has nothing, per se, to do with how long it lasts.

You said so yourself, for example, with bimmers, Clare.
o Sometimes you get what you pay for, and sometimes, you don't.

Which means, you get what you get ... no matter what you pay for it.

We disagree, philosophically, on how to purchase things, which is fine, but
one thing I've learned is that most people are stupid when it comes to
buying things, but EVERYONE can comprehend a price.

So someone _thinks_ a five dollar bolt is better than a four dollar bolt.
o They don't know anything about bolts - but everyone knows price.

I've seen this all the time, Clare, where, for example, plenty of stupid
people think high-test gas is somehow (magically?) better than regular for
a car that's designed for regular, and it's just not.

It costs more.
o But that cost has nothing to do with whether it's better for that car.

There are _plenty_ of things you can buy (like Rolex watches, for example),
that cost more than, say, a Timex watch, but which don't tell time any
better.

Whenever I see someone buy by price, I ask them the specs, and they never
seem to comprehend the specs, e.g., for a car battery or for a tire, or for
brake pads, or for anything that has a spec.

You can buy 20 Watt Panasonic oval rear-reck 9-inch speakers from Toyota,
for example, at $300 each, or, you can go down to Frys and get far better
speakers for about $50 for the set. [Ask me how I know this.]

You can buy a flywheel locally for about $100 for a Toyota, or, you can buy
a flywheel from Toyota for around $700 as I recall, Clare.

An iPhone costs upwards of $1500 and yet a decent Android phone can be less
than half that price, Clare ... do you really think the iPhone is better
"just" because it costs more?

You can buy the blue viagra for, oh, I don't know, let's say $40 a pill,
or, you can buy the white generic stuff from the same manufacturer for, oh,
I think it might be about half that. Do you really think the white pill is
inferior to the blue pill just becuase it costs more?

Since you likely (apparently) may say yes to all those questions, I have to
simply say we disagree, philosophically, on what sets the price point of
things if you think that price sets the specification.

The specification is whatever the specification is.
o The price is whatever the price is.

I'm all about facts, and simple math. :)
o And I buy based on specification.

--
I'm allergic to bullshit since I lean toward factually based logic.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 04:37:01 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> Woooah there Pilgrim. You have a vivid imagination. I never said any
> of that, quite the opposite. I said that I'm not going to mount tires
> at home myself, for many reasons, when I can get them mounted and dynamically
> balanced at Costco for $15 a tire. Step three is really dumb,
> screwing around mounting them at home, then pay $5 at Costco to get them
> balanced, when you can get them mounted and balanced for $15, no fuss,
> no muss.

Hi Trader,
Your math is sound, where I agree with your logic.
o Adults have no problem agreeing on facts & basic logical deductions.

In addition, I want to say that I very much appreciate that you mentioned
that Costco now does non-Costco tires, which they didn't used to do (which
I confirmed at Costco afer I read your original post).

Hence, Usenet worked as a medicum for us to bounce ideas back & forth
o Where I appreciate that you brought value to the potluck picnic

I don't disagree that the $15 Costco mounting price makes wanting your own
tools less incentive by price alone, as, another advantage of the $15
Costco mounting is the free balance & rotation.

It's a lot less fun to go to Costo than to do it yourself
o But at those great prices, it's a lot harder on the home math. :)

Given the free rotation & balance, the $15 price isn't bad, I agree, and,
in fact, if I had known that five or so years ago when I calculated the
payback costs of the tire-changing tools, I might have given up on the
tire-changing tools, just like I have given up on having my own paint booth
and lift and alignment tools.

The main problem with Costco are the lines, but, the price is great.
o Costco might not put in brass tire valves - but you do get green air! :)

In summary, having Costco do the work is a lot less fun
o But it's a viable option for sure given they do non-Costco tires.

[Clare Snyder]

Around here they don't price match out-of-province pricing -
particularly if they are the only authorized reseller of a brand in
the province - - - and if they don't have a particular tire from a
manufacturer they handle they will get it in - unless it is a retailer
specific model. Major tire companies will make a tire for a major
retailer with the tire company name on it, but it is effectively a
"house brand tire"

>
>> Here it's 13% - and if the company does buisiness in Ontario they
>> have to charge that tax. 14.75% in Quebec. Only BC, Alberta, Sask and
>> the territories are lower - and shipping from any of them kills any
>> tax advantage unless I buy them while there on holliday.
>
>Wow. Your tax is even _higher_ than California's sales tax! Yuck.

That is a combination provincial sales tax and federal value added tax
(pst+gst=HST)

>
>> Are you checking your date codes on your "discount" online tires???
>> Any time I've found "discounted" tires around here they are AT LEAST
>> 3 years old. (and Costco won't install if they are 37 months old - - )
>
>I agree the Costco said they wouldn't install a 3 year old tire, where,
>since I buy so many, I stock them at home, where I just snapped this
>picture of just a half dozen of the tires I _still_ need to install.
><https://i.postimg.cc/gjYskcTK/mount10.jpg>
>
>The date codes are the four-digit DOT number, which end in the week and
>year, all of which are well within that 3-year time frame even though
>they've been sitting at my house for quite some time waiting for me to
>decide that the existing tires are worn enough to replace them.
>
>What I'll do is the next time I order tires (it won't be long as I fix
>tires for neighbors and relatives also), I'll check the four-digit date
>code upon arrival.
>
>> That star hold-down isn't going to mar the center where it clamps it
>> down?
>
>It's a good question of where damage "can" occur, where I fully agree with
>you that the center piece needs "protection" if you care to keep it
>pristine (just as it likely needs protection at a tire shop).

The hold-down at a tire shop is built to protect the rim, while that
star-shaped aboertion is designed to destroy rims.

>
>Here's a picture of the center hub hole of the spare tire:
><https://i.postimg.cc/q7Fgv1DD/mount12.jpg>

My wheel doesn't have a center cap that covers the nuts

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=4AF863078BEC01241ADA9A2CC98D6EAAA347648A&thid=OIP.320dgkDrlXZqCPgvhx2Z_wHaFi&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Ffe%2F1a%2Fc4%2Ffe1ac43e27152b789688854088f125ec--custom-trucks-ford-ranger.jpg&exph=468&expw=625&q=cayman+green+long+ranger&selectedindex=0&ajaxhist=0&vt=0
is my truck as it left the factory.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=CBB8E22D8E5CC16F1E60AD7AB94D7BC11EE43F06&thid=OIP.n7_begRvT6MCfO6hHfHG5wHaD1&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fordrangerforum.com%2Fmembers%2Fcaymanbluelongranger%2Falbums%2Fmy-1996-cayman-blue-ranger-xl-long-box%2F55135-ive-always-liked-torque-thrust-rims-so-when-i-found-set-would-fit-i-bought-them-reconditioned-them-16x8-235-60-16-coopers.jpg&exph=311&expw=600&q=cayman+green+long+ranger&selectedindex=59&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,6
is my truck on the current wheels.
It's a 23 year old truck that I bought used at age 16 (6 years ago)

The wheel is held down on most pro machines with a tapered cone, but
my favorite tire changer uses a rimplamp - and NOTHING EVER touches
the front face of the rim - either the bead edge or the center. It
will even change an old Citroen/peugeot/renault wheel with no center
hole - or a motorcycle wheel.

>
>> I wouldn't trust that shitty tire changer "finger" to keep the
>> wheel from turning without damaging the center of the wheel either.
>
>I agree that the "finger" is the WORST part of that shitty tire changer, in
>that you need to balance it first, like balacing a pencil on the eraser
>head pointing straight up, BEFORE you can place the tire, which, I must
>add, takes both hands, so you need a third hand, UNDER the tire to get the
>finger to go into a lug hole from the bottom.

IF ONLY that was the worst part - - -

If I had the space that's the first major tool I would buy - but up
here it doesn't work to put it on the patio - - -

I've changed more than 30 tires without any tire changer at all -
just a high-lift jack to break the beads and a set of tire spoons.

>
>> That's all you can ADJUST - but not all you can BEND and need to
>> CHECK.
>
>Hi Clare,
>I understand the basics of aligment so I'm fully aware that you can check a
>lot of things, but you can only adust a few things.
>
>I admit I don't get a professional alignment as often as I should, where
>all I'd want to do is check that which can be adusted.
>
>If the car is being bought, or if it has been in an accident, that's a
>completely different situation than simply checking the alignment just as
>you check oil and the thickness of your brake pads.

You don't have frost-boils (pot-holes) like we have up here that can
bend lower control arms or struts or spindles, throwing the alignment
off. Driving a twin beam Ranger it would take a real big one. (mabee
one like the one I straddled between Bobo and Banfora in Burkina where
we almost killed the pig that decided to stick his head out as we
passed over - - - -

>
>What I need to get when I get in the mood are decent tools for alignment
>checking (just caster, camber, & toe, and ride height, which is all that
>you can adjust on the bimmer, for example).
>
>Cost?
>
>Given a lifetime alignment is around $175, it would seem to me that two to
>four times that in cost would be a reasonable maximum realistic logical
>amount to pay for decent tools.
>
>> Wheel center - with that absolutely shitty and destructive hold down
>> spider - and the sloppy destructive pin that keeps the wheel from
>> turning on the machine.
>
>I agree. Both those design features are shitty.
>
>This guy eliminated both to get around those flaws.
><https://youtu.be/-OpmTfyeR7E?t=159>
>
>I simply use protection.

even condoms fail - - - -

>
>> As a former professional mechanic, one thing I can NOT STAND is
>> shitty tools
>
>I do agree with you in that I can't stand shitty pliers, or shitty
>screwdrivers, or even watching somone use a pair of pliers to remove a
>screw, for example.

cheap ratchets are another pet peave - or worn out Snap-offs.

>
>> And I'm appalled how many REALLY STUPID people think they can do
>> brakes - and TOTALLY screw things up and manage not to kill themselves
>> and/or someone else. Believe me - as a mechanic I've pretty much seen
>> it all!! And scrutineering at the Street Rod Nationals years ago you
>> wouldn't believe how BAD many of them were, mechanically - Brakes,
>> steering, suspension and controls. Some of them with $10,000+ paint
>> jobs - back in the eighties!!
>
>I'm sure someone can screw up brakes, and even once, I put the drum brakes
>on wrong myself, but it's not hard to do brakes, IMHO, particularly disc
>brakes (where most of the jobs are simply replacing the pads and sensors).
>
>I've written detailed tutorials on how to do brakes where I also check
>runout and DTV and even that dreaded word, "warp", which we better not get
>into as people get a hardon when I mention "warp" in the sense of a
>parallel sides as in the warp of an engine block or head.

And we have have to continue to dissagree on that chestnut - - -

>
>> I still can't figure out how anyone with a pinch of sense would EVER
>> buy a second Bimmer - particularly not a USED one.
>
>I have a few bimmers, and even a beemer, where I agree that they break a
>lot, and mine are _all_ old, so they break even more.
>
>One thing about bimmers is that if you own one, as opposed to, say, a
>Toyota, is that you don't get to learn anything about the Toyota simply
>because nothing breaks, but on the bimmer, you get to learn all about
>VANOS, and CCV, and FSU, and DISA, etc. :)

And there is no such thing as a "small problem" or a "simple problem"
with the weiner wagons either. I thouight British cars were bad 'till
I worked on French cars - and they are both a "piece of cake" compared
to the "high end" Krauts

>
>> To each his own I guess. I'd get sick of fixing a bimmer pretty quick.
>> Just like a VW/Audi or Porsche - or a Benz. Used to be they were
>> "quality" cars. Now they are just "prestige" cars or small pecker
>> compensators.
>
>The sad thing on the bimmers is that once you replace these problematic
>parts, the problem doesn't go away ... it just comes back later ... e.g.,
>it's not uncommon to go through one or two Bosch ABS control modules, or
>even three or four Sitronic FSUs or a few Behr expansion tanks, and even a
>couple BMW CCVs, and certainly a few of those shitty Dorman window
>regulators (Uro seems to make better nylon rollers), etc.
>
>I agree with you that many parts suck on bimmers, but the engine itself is
>bulletproof IMHO, as is the suspension.

What really "soured the milk" on BMW was when an apprentice of mine
went to change the camshaft on his 2002tii. Ovehead cam and it came
out the BACK of the head. He cut a hole in the firewall so he could
take it out underthe dashboard instead of having to pull the head
every time he tried a different profile. IIRC the head bolts were over
$200 back in 1980 and they pretty much had to be replaced every time
the head came off

>
>> Driving a Bimmer on $75 tires explains (at least partly) why you
>> need to change so many tires and puts the lie to your claim that it
>> isn't just because you are a cheapskate that you need to do everything
>> yourself. There isn't a tire you can buy for $75 that I'd EVER waste
>> the time or money to install on ANY of my vehicles - or my worst
>> enemy's Bimmer.
>
>Hi Clare,
>I'm not going to go down that road because I'm extremely well educated, and
>I'm of at least average intelligence (if that), so I know that the price
>you pay for something has nothing, per se, to do with how long it lasts.
>
>You said so yourself, for example, with bimmers, Clare.
>o Sometimes you get what you pay for, and sometimes, you don't.

You ONLY get what you pay for - and then only if you have the right
combination of luck and smarts.

>
>Which means, you get what you get ... no matter what you pay for it.
>
>We disagree, philosophically, on how to purchase things, which is fine, but
>one thing I've learned is that most people are stupid when it comes to
>buying things, but EVERYONE can comprehend a price.

ANd like I said - I don't buy on price - but I know the price of
oats. "if you want first quality oats, you need to be willing to pay
first quality price. If you are willing to settle for oats that have
already been through the horse, they come a little cheaper"

>
>So someone _thinks_ a five dollar bolt is better than a four dollar bolt.
>o They don't know anything about bolts - but everyone knows price.

But if that $4 bolt is a counterfeit grade 8 bolt, and the application
REQUIRES a grade 8 bolt, and production and distribution cost for a
real grade 8 bolt is $4.25, that $4 bolt MAY be the most expensive
bolt you ever bought. - and you know damned well if you have the right
smarts that you are not getting a quality legitimate grade 8 bolt for
that $4 (knowing the "real cost" of a grade 8 bolt is $4.25) unless
you KNOW WHY the bolt is available for $4. (like someone bought a
package of 5, only needing 4, and is happy getting $4 for the one
left-over bolt he will likely never need again - - - )

>
>I've seen this all the time, Clare, where, for example, plenty of stupid
>people think high-test gas is somehow (magically?) better than regular for
>a car that's designed for regular, and it's just not.
>
>It costs more.
>o But that cost has nothing to do with whether it's better for that car.

Unless it is. That car may have been DESIGNED (just bvarely) for
regular gas, but when the head gasket went 5 years ago the shop planed
the head 15 thou to straighten it out - and now the compression ratio
is 2 points above spec - and at one point over it starts to detonate
on a hot day. Or perhaps the engine has been "babied" and built up a
bit of carbon - and now it pings under load. If the engine does not
have adaptive spark (with a knock sensor) the car now NEEDS premium -
and even if it does have adaptive spark, it can really USE the extra
octane of premium.

ANd thenthere are the low compression engines that were not built to
run on ethanol blend gas. If, like here in Ontario, much of the
premium fuel is ethanol free - then using premium fuel is still
"better" for the car even tough it will run perfectly fine on 85
octane.

>
>There are _plenty_ of things you can buy (like Rolex watches, for example),
>that cost more than, say, a Timex watch, but which don't tell time any
>better.

But may keep keeping time for 60+ years, coompared to 5 or 10 for the
timex. The Rolex Tudor my Dad bought when I was a year old is still
working just fine for my brother - 65 years later. He could never keep
a Timex running for more than 6 months (something about his electrical
or magnetic make-up- I don't know - but we could get 2 Timex watches -
mine would work for 3 years and his would stop in 3-6 months)

>
>Whenever I see someone buy by price, I ask them the specs, and they never
>seem to comprehend the specs, e.g., for a car battery or for a tire, or for
>brake pads, or for anything that has a spec.

And the "specs" on a car battery don't tell you the important stuff -
like how long it will last, or when it will fail at -30. Knowing what
factory it was made in (only a few companies actually BUILD batteries
- regardless how many brand names there are) and which companies are
actually building quality batteries at that point in time (one company
makes the best this year - and it's the worst next year, for example)
is more important than what's printed on the label.
Canadian Tire used to have their AGM batteries made by Johnson
Controls, and they switched to Brad Penn?. Same spec. Same model.
Different colored plastic. One was a POS and the other was and still
is one of the best batteries you can buy - at any price.

The same goes for tires. The specs on the Uniroyal Zeta 40M tires, or
the Firestone 500s years back were pretty much top of the line - if
you bought by the spec you figured you had a more-than-adequate tire -
but they ended up being TOTAL CRAP.
The Shell tires we sold at the service station back when I worked at
the shell garage were made in Kitchener Ontario by Uniroyal - and we
had Uniroyal employees who could buy the Uniroyal tires at cost, come
to pay list for the Shell tire because they knew how they were built
and KNEW that they were built to a much higher standard than the
Uniroyal branded OEM tire.

Same with the Atlas tires when I worked at the ESSO station, They were
made by BFG in Kitchener - to a much higher standard than the BFG
"equivalent" tire. They were likely to balance out with under an ounce
total - while the "brand name" tire would be just as likely to take
over 2.

It gets a lot more complex now with "world sourcing" of tires and
other components

>
>You can buy 20 Watt Panasonic oval rear-reck 9-inch speakers from Toyota,
>for example, at $300 each, or, you can go down to Frys and get far better
>speakers for about $50 for the set. [Ask me how I know this.]

>
>You can buy a flywheel locally for about $100 for a Toyota, or, you can buy
>a flywheel from Toyota for around $700 as I recall, Clare.
>
>An iPhone costs upwards of $1500 and yet a decent Android phone can be less
>than half that price, Clare ... do you really think the iPhone is better
>"just" because it costs more?

Not "just because it costs more" - but if I want a phone that
connects directly to my hearing aids, I have only one choice. I HATE
apple products and their marketing - and there is no way they are
"worth" the extra cost - UNLESS I value the feature of directly
connecting to my hearing aids for handsfree calling, or streaming
music. Then they are "the only game in town" - and it gets hard to put
a price on it then. I choose to keep using my Blackberry OS10 phone
that can't even run most Android apps - with a bluetooth handsfree
unit in the truck. It connects fine to the UVO system in the Kia.
Yes, I could have bought different hearing aids - which might have
connected to an Android (or even - unlikely but possible - my
Blackberry) but I bought my hearing aids based on features and
performance that I felt I needed. They cost more than the 2 vehicles
that were on my driveway at the time - and have been worth every cent.

>
>You can buy the blue viagra for, oh, I don't know, let's say $40 a pill,
>or, you can buy the white generic stuff from the same manufacturer for, oh,
>I think it might be about half that. Do you really think the white pill is
>inferior to the blue pill just becuase it costs more?

Wouldn't know. Never needed it. Don't need a BMW "compensator"
either. -- - -

>
>Since you likely (apparently) may say yes to all those questions, I have to
>simply say we disagree, philosophically, on what sets the price point of
>things if you think that price sets the specification.
>
>The specification is whatever the specification is.
>o The price is whatever the price is.

And the spec is likely (or at least often) optimistic -
over-hyped."Trumped up".
The price is usually at least based on something (you are not
generally buying below cost) while specs can be pulled out of thin
air.

>
>I'm all about facts, and simple math. :)
>o And I buy based on specification.

And I buy based on value. (cost vs quality or cost/benefit)
The only time I've had "buyer's remorse" is when I paid too little.

[Clare Snyder]

The thing everybody is forgetting is REAL TIRE SHOPS and REAL AUTO
REPAIR SHOPS mount and balance tires for the same price - or very
close - and you CAN GET AN APPOINTMENT. If your time isn't worth
anything, and aggravation has no value, I guess standing in line at
Costco is a good option.

When I buy new tires I drop my rims off at the tire shop where I
bought the tires and pick them up a few hours later (ofter going to
Costco for a $1.50 sausage and drink and a $2 Ice Cream?).
Usually I buy my tires at seasonal change-over. When I put the snows
on I say "those summer tires are not going back on" - and to be sure I
buy the new summer tires and have them installed as soon as I get the
snows on. The summers then go up into the attic of the shed and I'm
all set for next year. Doesn't matter if the tire shop takes an hour
or a week to source, mount and balance the new tires. By the time I
put them back on next spring the sting of the cost of the new tires is
forgotten, and I'm a happy camper!!

[Clare Snyder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
wrote:


>

> And the "specs" on a car battery don't tell you the important stuff -
>like how long it will last, or when it will fail at -30. Knowing what
>factory it was made in (only a few companies actually BUILD batteries
>- regardless how many brand names there are) and which companies are
>actually building quality batteries at that point in time (one company
>makes the best this year - and it's the worst next year, for example)
>is more important than what's printed on the label.
> Canadian Tire used to have their AGM batteries made by Johnson
>Controls, and they switched to Brad Penn?

East Penn, actually

[danny burstein]

In <3v3ice9e38krd3ctp...@4ax.com> Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca> writes:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
>wrote:

>> Canadian Tire used to have their AGM batteries made by Johnson
>>Controls, and they switched to Brad Penn?

>East Penn, actually

>>. Same spec. Same model.
>>Different colored plastic. One was a POS and the other was and still
>>is one of the best batteries you can buy - at any price.

So if I route through Canada on my next trip,
what should I look for?


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Sanity Clause]

Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> Thanks for keeping an open mind, as you're the only other one on this ng,
> that I know of, who has actually mounted & balanced a car tire themselves.

"Themselves".
Does that mean only those who've done it in their driveway at home, or
does it also include the shop I've worked at for the last 12 years?

Either way, we normally use the yellow dot, not just because it's
"correct" in our little version of reality, but because everyone expects
it. Even if we miss by an inch or two, or the dot has worn off over time
(used tire), or if we get a tire brand that doesn't even use dots, the
balancer makes it all happy again. It's really not that critical.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:33:53 -0700, Sanity Clause wrote:

> "Themselves".
> Does that mean only those who've done it in their driveway at home, or
> does it also include the shop I've worked at for the last 12 years?

Hi Sanity Clause,
It means different things depending on the question that the person is
answering.

If the question is a technical question about the proper final result in
mounting tires, such as where the colored dots go with respect to the valve
stem (or match mounting marks, which are generally obliterated in older
wheels), then it's a question that the pros can answer.

But if it's a question about using a Harbor Freight shitty tool, it's
likely NOT a question anyone can answer who hasn't used the Harbor Freight
shitty tools.

I, for one, have used the Harbor Freight shitty tools, but most people who
are making up excuses for NOT doing tires at home, have NEVER done tires
anywhere, but even if they have, they've never done tires at home using the
HF shitty tools.

Having a pro try to answer those types of questions is sort of like having
a farmer in California try to answer why they urinate on their crops in
India.

Two different use models, where the farmer in California has all the latest
mechanization and irrigation and tractor-fed fertilization, while the
farmer in India pisses and poops on his crops to get them to grow.

Worse, most of the people responding, except maybe you, me, and Clare, have
_never_ in their entire lives mounted a tire at home using the shitty
equipment that we're discussing here - where maybe even you and Clare have
never done that.

Remembering that I'm allergic to bullshit, all those people making up those
outlandish excuses for why they can't do it are just like my grandkids
making up outlandish excuses for why they didn't do their homework.

The honest answer is that they don't like changing tires at home.
o All the rest is pure bullshit, IMHO, if they've never done it.

> Either way, we normally use the yellow dot, not just because it's
> "correct" in our little version of reality, but because everyone expects
> it.

I thank you for bringing up the fact that the yellow dot "can" be used,
where _most_ of the references Clare and I have been discussing say to use
it only if the red dot doesn't exist.

Sometimes facts are conflicting, where they seem to be conflicting here,
which is ok, as long as we're all aware that they conflict.

The facts come first, and then we deduce rational logic from those facts:
o Red is almost always the uniformity indicator
o Yellow is almost always the weight indicator
o Most cites (but not all say the red dot takes precedence over yellow
o Most cites (but not all) say to mount the valve stem to the dots in the
absence of match-mounting marks (which is almost always on older rims).

There's a confusing issue of weight of steel versus alloy, where it seems
that the presumed heavy spot moves 180 degrees between steel and alloy
because of the weight difference between the hole drilled for the valve,
and the valve itself.

> Even if we miss by an inch or two, or the dot has worn off over time
> (used tire), or if we get a tire brand that doesn't even use dots, the
> balancer makes it all happy again. It's really not that critical.

It's not _that_ simple, but it's close to that simple.
o The whole point is to minimize added weight by good initial placement

In summary, I do appreciate that you have experience, because other than
Clare, the posters who made up excuses have never changed a tire at home,
so their excuses were based on nothing material.

I've changed 30 tires at home, where I can say a few things:
1. I mount the red dot to the valve stem on both steel & alloy
(but maybe I should re-think that based on what you & Clare say).

2. I have never failed to mount a tire, from puny 15 inch tires to larger
17 inch tires, where the SUV tires are the hardest due to the sidewalls, I
think, which are designed for heavier loads.

3. I static balance, which I admit is basic, but which seems to work in
that I don't get perceptible vibration, but I like Trader's information
that Costco now dynamically balances tires for only five bucks, which is a
great deal.

So, moving forward, my plan is:
A. Buy tires at great prices online & have them shipped for free, to me.
B. Mount/Balance/Rotate/Repair them at home using HF shitty equipment.
C. If I feel vibration, then pay Costco $5 per tire to dynamically balance.

One question I'd like to ask you is whether you feel that an
_imperceptible_ vibration can cause damage?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:11:36 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> The thing everybody is forgetting is REAL TIRE SHOPS and REAL AUTO
> REPAIR SHOPS mount and balance tires for the same price - or very
> close - and you CAN GET AN APPOINTMENT. If your time isn't worth
> anything, and aggravation has no value, I guess standing in line at
> Costco is a good option.

Hi Clare,
I don't think there are _any_ shops that I've seen in the Silicon Valley
(other than Costco) which will do lifetime balance & rotation for $15 per
tire.

Most charge around $20 for a _one-time_ balance & rotation per tire.

And, _all_ the shops make you wait forever, in my experience, appointment
or no appointment.

That's one of the reasons doing it at home is so convenient.
o Lifetime balance & rotation, for free in the convenience of your own home
o No appointment
o No wait
o Free coffee, ice cream, and donuts (if the wife picked them up that is)
etc.

:)

> When I buy new tires I drop my rims off at the tire shop where I
> bought the tires and pick them up a few hours later (ofter going to
> Costco for a $1.50 sausage and drink and a $2 Ice Cream?).

The $1.50 Costco hotdog and soda deal is fantastic (IMHO), as is the pizza,
where I would agree with you that dropping off the rims and then picking
them up later is the better deal for sure on time management.

As always, adults have little problem agreeing on rational logic.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> The price is usually at least based on something

We disagree philosophically, where I completely understand your assumption
that if something is more expensive, it _must_ be better.

For me, if something is more expensive, it's just more expensive.
o The expense is an indication of the demand and nothing else.

Demand may or may not track with quality.

Of course, if everyone were _intelligent_, the demand might better match
quality, but the mere fact that advertising works means that the demand is
influenced by bullshit marketing, which has _nothing_ to do with quality.

In short, my philosophy is based on fact since I'm allergic to bullshit.
o You get what you get (which is whatever you can tell about what you get).
o You pay what other people pay (since the overall demand sets the price).

[Biff Tannen]

On 5/1/19 3:07 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> Most charge around $20 for a_one-time_ balance & rotation per tire.
>
> And,_all_ the shops make you wait forever, in my experience, appointment

> or no appointment.
>
> That's one of the reasons doing it at home is so convenient.
> o Lifetime balance & rotation, for free in the convenience of your own home
> o No appointment
> o No wait
> o Free coffee, ice cream, and donuts (if the wife picked them up that is)
> etc.

My HOA won't let me bolt tire changing/balancing equipment to the sidewalk . They would prolly frown on a hydraulic lift mounted in my driveway too.  And the air compressor and impact wrenches might bother the neighbors as well.  I guess I'll just have my
friendly neighborhood Ford dealer do my car maintenance.


But I am curious, how does your wife get free coffee, ice cream, and donuts?  WIC card?

[Biff Tannen]

On 5/1/19 3:07 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> We disagree philosophically, where I completely understand your assumption

> that if something is more expensive, it_must_ be better.

>
> For me, if something is more expensive, it's just more expensive.
> o The expense is an indication of the demand and nothing else.

Yah, there's no difference in quality between a Pooplan chainsaw at McLowes Depot and a Stihl Professional.

/sarcasm

[trader_4]

Yeah, save half an hour, then go home and have to spend that much time
anyway jacking up the car and putting the wheels on. Plus, most people
don't have another set of wheels to begin with and while the tires are
being mounted, you can be shopping at Costco, having your pizza, eating
their free food samples, etc.

[sms]

On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> UPDATE:
>
> Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years, where
> each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 5/1/2019 2:38 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:



>
> Worse, most of the people responding, except maybe you, me, and Clare, have
> _never_ in their entire lives mounted a tire at home using the shitty
> equipment that we're discussing here - where maybe even you and Clare have
> never done that.
>
> Remembering that I'm allergic to bullshit, all those people making up those
> outlandish excuses for why they can't do it are just like my grandkids
> making up outlandish excuses for why they didn't do their homework.
>
> The honest answer is that they don't like changing tires at home.
> o All the rest is pure bullshit, IMHO, if they've never done it.

No BS from me. I think for most people it is silly to DIY when the
payback is measured in decades. I have no interest in doing it.

I'm not sure if you have an air of superiority or are just arrogant.
Its the way you come across though.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 5/1/2019 3:07 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

>
> That's one of the reasons doing it at home is so convenient.
> o Lifetime balance & rotation, for free in the convenience of your own home
> o No appointment
> o No wait
> o Free coffee, ice cream, and donuts (if the wife picked them up that is)
> etc.
>
> :)

If your wife paid for them they are not free. I thought you only dealt
with facts.

[trader_4]

I'd add that I have mounted tires, many decades ago, in an auto garage.
We used a real tire mounting machine, bolted to the floor, that used
compressed air and a piston to break the bead. And a tool worked
around by hand to get the bead off the tire, and a device to help
squeeze tires that would not inflate after they were mounted. With
that setup, it wasn't bad. But I would not want to be doing it with
primitive tools from HF, not when I can get one mounted and balanced
for $15. Compare that to doing a brake job, where you typically don't
need special eqpt or eqpt that gets bolted to the floor. Brake job
at the stealership or a shop could be $500 to $1000 and you can do it
for $60. Now there the value proposition makes it logical to DIY.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <GEiyE.501318$cD4.3...@fx43.iad>, e...@snet.xxx says...

>
> > That's one of the reasons doing it at home is so convenient.
> > o Lifetime balance & rotation, for free in the convenience of your own home
> > o No appointment
> > o No wait
> > o Free coffee, ice cream, and donuts (if the wife picked them up that is)
> > etc.
> >
> > :)
>
> If your wife paid for them they are not free. I thought you only dealt
> with facts.
>
>

Where I have bought tires, I get about all of that but the food. Free
rotation, balance, and repairs to the tire. Also free flat fixing for
anyone in the family if they give them my telephone number. I can get
an appointment, or just drop in.

Many years ago I worked for Sears changing tires and changing oil and
plugs. They had an air operated changer that broke the beads and even
ran the thing that lifted the tire off and on the rim. Air jacks or
lifts and impact wrenches to take the rims off the cars. I would not
want to fight a tire with the HF tools no more than I change tires now.

[Rod Speed]

"sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:qac786$bs0$1...@dont-email.me...

That’s overstate, its better than nothing.

[trader_4]

+1

I said similar in another post.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 03:53:46 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

>>> Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years, where
>>> each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.
>>
>> Avoid static balancing at all cost.
>
> That’s overstate, its better than nothing.

LOL You just HAVE to auto-contradict. It's better for you than saying
nothing at all, you abnormal 85-year-old senile cretin!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1...@news.mixmin.net>

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 06:52:13 -0400, Biff Tannen wrote:

> Yah, there's no difference in quality between a Pooplan chainsaw at McLowes Depot and a Stihl Professional.

This is a philosophical discussion where my main point is that it's only
stupid people who tend to say "you get what you pay for".

They _want_ things to be as simple as a price.
o But it's not.

They _wish_ things to be as simple as a price.
o But it's not.

They actually _believe_ things to be as simple as a price.
o But it's not.

The real world is more complicated than they can possibly even imagine.
o It's only their brain which is simple

Simple like the brain of a child.
o Who still believes in Santa Claus.

The fact is that you can pay $300 for a Poulan at Sears (if you can find a
Sears) or $300 for a Husky at Lowes, where the price has nothing whatsoever
to do with how well that Craftsman works (which, we all know to have crappy
engines) versus the Lowe's Husky or the local landscape supply Stihl.

The price has nothing to do with how well the chainsaw works.
o Anyone who says otherwise is illogical, and generally ignorant, IMHO.

Certainly they _believe_ price tracks efficacy..
o But I can name plenty of examples where that's just not true.

For example, generic trucks versus name brand.
o Or, for example, Costco gas versus Chevron gas

The reason is simple, which is that the price is set by a variety of
factors, many of which are completely unrelated to efficacy.

For an obvious example, you can pay a lot for a specific red iPhone
o But it's no better (or worse) than any other similar iPhone

There are so many obvious examples that anyone who says "you get what you
pay for", is usually not a logical person.

They can't back up their own statements since it takes mere seconds to
prove them dead wrong.

If their entire belief system is DESTROYED in two seconds of facts...
o then their belief system is imaginary

It's like they believe in Santa Claus
o But two seconds of facts can destroy that imaginary belief system.

You can pay $20 for a shitty Fram oil filter
o Or you can pay $5 for a great Mann oil filter

The price is the price
o And the quality is the quality

Anyone who says "you get what you pay for" can't comprehend that
o The complexity of the actual facts is beyond their comprehension

It's actually terrifying how dumb most people really are.
o Anyone who says "you get what you pay for", is terrifyingly dumb (IMHO)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 20:07:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> For example, generic trucks versus name brand.
> o Or, for example, Costco gas versus Chevron gas

That was supposed to be "generic drugs" versus name brand.

Anyone who thinks that the price indicates the efficacy
o Probably still believes in Santa Claus

My only point in this is that it's only stupid people who say that "you get

what you pay for".

They _want_ things to be as simple as their brain works.
o They can't handle the complexity that the world isn't that simple.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 05:30:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> Yeah, save half an hour, then go home and have to spend that much time
> anyway jacking up the car and putting the wheels on. Plus, most people
> don't have another set of wheels to begin with and while the tires are
> being mounted, you can be shopping at Costco, having your pizza, eating
> their free food samples, etc.

Hi Trader,
I thank you for bringing up the fact that Costco now mounts non-Costo
tires, which changes the equation, and where I fully agree with your logic
that the extra two dollars Costco charges to remove and replace the wheel
from the vehicle is inconsequential in the scheme of things.

So I didn't note specifically the two dollars, which I agree with you that
most people would pay, where I simply assumed those two dollars you're
speaking about are in the noise level of the calculations.

Given everyone but three folks on this thread have likely _never_ done the
job at home, and even two of those three may never have done it "at" home,
most people are talking out of their ass when they make nonsensical lame
excuses for why they can't do anything at home that will get their hands
dirty such as something as trivially simple as mount and balance a tire.

Adding in the two dollars you seem to be complaining about, there are both
viable options for a homeowner who actually doesn't mind getting his hands
dirty.

OPTION 1:
1. Save about 1/3 the price purchasing online and then by mounting &
balancing at home (you can save hundreds of dollars per set).
2. If desired, pay $22 for Costco to triple-check the balance.
NOTE: The additional two dollars means you drive to Costco and leave the
vehicle with them for them to remove the wheels from the vehicle, check
your balance, give you a detailed report (if they'll do that for you), and
then put the wheels back on.

OPTION 2:
1. Save about 1/5 the price by purchasing online
2. Then drive to Costco to pay $60 for the lifetime balance & rotation

I agree with you, once we add the two dollars you were complaining about,
that both options are perfectly viable, where option 1 is more fun, but
option 2 isn't bad and works best for most of the folks here who are afraid
or who don't know how or who can't store the tools, or who complain that
the tools are shitty, etc. (all of which are simply lame excuses for the
simple fact that they don't like to get their hands dirty doing this type
of job, which is so easy to do that anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly
never done it at home themselves).

Most people who posted, save for two, have never likely changed a tire in
their entire life, which is why they're filled to the brim with those lame
excuses.

In short, I agree with you on the extra two dollars being worth it for
Costco to remove and replace the wheels on the vehicle when triple-checking
the balance, while you go shop or eat their $1.50 soda or $2 pizza.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> I said similar in another post.

Is it a fact that _nobody_ who has posted, except me, has actually _done_
the job "at" home, using home equipment?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 11:07:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> No BS from me. I think for most people it is silly to DIY when the
> payback is measured in decades. I have no interest in doing it.
>
> I'm not sure if you have an air of superiority or are just arrogant.
> Its the way you come across though.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

I'm allergic to bullshit.

o Particularly from people who are afraid of doing the job themselves.

Hence, they have absolutely zero idea of what they're talking about.
o IMHO, they're all just like grade schoolers discussing Santa Claus, Ed.

Do you remember when Normal Schwarzkopf responded to a news reporter:
"Have you ever _been_ in a minefield?"
REFERENCE: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci88go_rWYY>

Some things, like changing tires at home, people are either afraid, or ill
informed, or they don't have the money for tools, or for storage, or they
don't want to get their hands dirty, or whatever, so they make up all sorts
of lame idiotic excuses for why they can't do something as trivial as
replace a tire at home.

The real answer is that everything they say is just pure bullshit
o Because they've never even once done it in their entire lives.

They're just spouting bullshit ... like that idiotic reporter was.
o I apologize if I'm too blunt and factual and honest for you.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 08:17:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> for $15. Compare that to doing a brake job, where you typically don't
> need special eqpt or eqpt that gets bolted to the floor. Brake job
> at the stealership or a shop could be $500 to $1000 and you can do it
> for $60. Now there the value proposition makes it logical to DIY.

Hi Trader,

I'm allergic to bullshit.

Almost every lame excuse people made is just pure bullshit, Trader.
o I apologize for being blunt and honest with you

But almost every excuse people have said sounds like my kids explaining why
they can't mow the lawn, or why they can't take out the trash, Trader.
o It's almost complete bullshit what you just said, IMHO.

I trust that you _believe_ your own bullshit, so you're not lying.
o But it takes only seconds for me to prove it's bullshit, Trader.

I posit that if I can destroy your stated beliefs with a couple of facts
o Then your belief system is purely imaginary, Trader.

For example, as you must be aware, I've done my own brake jobs and clutch
and tire mounting, and CCV, and cooling system, etc., where the basic tools
are used for many jobs over time.

Yet, for each job, there are specific tools also.

Specifically to brake jobs, there _are_ special tools I've purchased
specifically for brake jobs, for example, which include a variety of mics
and calipers, dial-gauges, runout positioning blocks, and a variety of
spoons, spring clamps and pliers, spreaders, etc.

I don't make shit up, Trader, so if you want PHOTOS of all those tools,
I'll take them for you - but rest assured, brake jobs require you to
purchase tools that aren't often used just as much as tire mounting does.

So your statement just reeks of ignorant bullshit, Trader.
o I apologize if I'm being too honest and blunt and open with you.

The real reason you are making up these lame excuses is the same reason,
IMHO, that my grandkids tell me why they can't mow the lawn for their
parents.

You don't _like_ the job
o And that's ok.

Just please stop with the bullshit - that's all I ask of you.
o Just be honest.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 03:53:46 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>> Avoid static balancing at all cost.
>

> That┬ overstate, its better than nothing.

Hi Rod and Steve,

We go way back, mostly on the Apple newsgroups, where you know I speak
valid verifiable facts and that I don't make shit up and that I'm allergic
to bullshit from people who make claims out of their ignorant asses.

You both are well aware that, never once, in thousands of posts, have my
facts ever been materially wrong(1) since I simply don't make shit up.

If I said I did it, then I did it, and if I said it worked, then it worked.

In _my_ experience, with 30 tires, a good static balance appears to work
rather well by the measurement of lack of perceptible vibration at speed.

However, given the new information kindly supplied by Trader about the
Costco $22 triple check on balance, I'm going to take the next set of
wheels to Costco to ask them if they can triple-check my work.

Only then will we have the facts of how different the results are in the
specify set of tires tested.

--
(1) I'm human, so, I must have once or twice in many thousands of posts,
misstated a material fact, especially as Usenet is casual, but nobody can
find any material fact I've stated that was wrong (trust me, they've
tried), which you have to admit is pretty incredible for factual
credibility on Usenet.

[Tekkie®]

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...

They make Deka batteries also. Near Reading, PA.

Were they the good or bad ones?

--
Tekkie

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 04:32:36 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:

>In <3v3ice9e38krd3ctp...@4ax.com> Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca> writes:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
>>wrote:
>>> Canadian Tire used to have their AGM batteries made by Johnson
>>>Controls, and they switched to Brad Penn?
>
>>East Penn, actually
>
>>>. Same spec. Same model.
>>>Different colored plastic. One was a POS and the other was and still
>>>is one of the best batteries you can buy - at any price.
>
>So if I route through Canada on my next trip,
>what should I look for?

The current stock of eliminator AGMs will all be East Penn as the
change was made last year.I believe they have grey tops while the
inferior batteries had blue tops.
Not sure about the Nautilis marine AGMs which I believe are still
blue top.

[Vic Smith]

Sure, I have.

[Clare Snyder]

As stated previously - I've mounted tires with shitty equipment (not
Harbor Fright because they don't do business in Canada - but the same
cheap crap chinese changer is available here and friends have had
them. I refuse to use them.

I've changed tires with 2 "spoons" and a high-lift "handy-man" jack
and been less frustrated -- - and that's saying a LOT!!

>
>Remembering that I'm allergic to bullshit, all those people making up those
>outlandish excuses for why they can't do it are just like my grandkids
>making up outlandish excuses for why they didn't do their homework.
>
>The honest answer is that they don't like changing tires at home.
>o All the rest is pure bullshit, IMHO, if they've never done it.
>
>> Either way, we normally use the yellow dot, not just because it's
>> "correct" in our little version of reality, but because everyone expects
>> it.
>
>I thank you for bringing up the fact that the yellow dot "can" be used,
>where _most_ of the references Clare and I have been discussing say to use
>it only if the red dot doesn't exist.

No - you can't read. The information I supplied says there are two
ways to match mount a tire.Uniformity and weight. They say the red dot
(uniformity) is more important if it is there AND THE RIM IS MARKED
because you can't balance out an out-of-round condition. If the rim
mark is not there - either never marked or no longer obviously
visible, use the yellow. The yellow dot will MINIMIZE the amount ov
external weight required to balance the wheel. It also said how to
find the high spot on the rim.If there is no high spot on the rim
uniformity matching is both impossible and pointless.

>
>Sometimes facts are conflicting, where they seem to be conflicting here,
>which is ok, as long as we're all aware that they conflict.
>
>The facts come first, and then we deduce rational logic from those facts:
>o Red is almost always the uniformity indicator
>o Yellow is almost always the weight indicator
>o Most cites (but not all say the red dot takes precedence over yellow
>o Most cites (but not all) say to mount the valve stem to the dots in the
>absence of match-mounting marks (which is almost always on older rims).

Most forged alloy rims do not have uniformity markings and are
virtually "dead true" when spun. Most welded steel rims do have a high
spot that is affected by the weld in the rim - but after hitting a few
potholes the highspot is liable to be anywhere BUT where it was marked
due to different low spots being established. The weight distribution
doesn't change with the beating the rim takes on the road

Not saying it WILL but it CAN - as a lot of "shimmy" can be damped
out so it is not perceptible in the steering wheel, but the tie rods
still feel it.

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 07:07:18 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 22:01:00 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> The price is usually at least based on something
>
>We disagree philosophically, where I completely understand your assumption
>that if something is more expensive, it _must_ be better.

Never said that. You totally misunderstand. Higher cost does not
mean better. Many examples of that - but when the price is lower than
it should be you pretty much know there is something wrong.

>For me, if something is more expensive, it's just more expensive.
>o The expense is an indication of the demand and nothing else.

For you if it is less expensive it's a better deal. For me, unless I
KNOW why it's less expensive I assume it is just CHEAP. CHEAP
generally means inferior. Inexpensive isn't ALWAYS cheap, and isn't
ALWAYS inferior - but the general rule is if it looks too good to be
true it usually is.

>
>Demand may or may not track with quality.

In today's North America generally it doesn't. Low quality and high
demand seem to track more directly than high quality and high demand.

People seem to know all about the price of something, and nothing
about either the cost or quality.(value) - as Oscar Wilde put it " A
man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

>
>Of course, if everyone were _intelligent_, the demand might better match
>quality, but the mere fact that advertising works means that the demand is
>influenced by bullshit marketing, which has _nothing_ to do with quality.

Bullshit marketing, as you call it, is required to sell what people
don't need. Price pretty much sells everything else

>
>In short, my philosophy is based on fact since I'm allergic to bullshit.
>o You get what you get (which is whatever you can tell about what you get).
>o You pay what other people pay (since the overall demand sets the price).

Yet the demand for cheap crap drives the North American economy -
not the demand for high quality

[Clare Snyder]

For someone who claims to ba allergic to BS - - - - - - - - - -

[Clare Snyder]

Pot. Kettle. Black????

[Clare Snyder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 20:59:35 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 2 May 2019 03:53:46 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> Avoid static balancing at all cost.
>>
>> That┬ overstate, its better than nothing.
>
>Hi Rod and Steve,
>
>We go way back, mostly on the Apple newsgroups, where you know I speak
>valid verifiable facts and that I don't make shit up and that I'm allergic
>to bullshit from people who make claims out of their ignorant asses.
>
>You both are well aware that, never once, in thousands of posts, have my
>facts ever been materially wrong(1) since I simply don't make shit up.

Fact Check. You are starting to sound like Trump

[Clare Snyder]

Definitely the good ones

[thekma...@gmail.com]

trader_4 wrote: "And they dynamically balance them too, which you can't do at home"

I don't know if it's the same thing, but I insist on
'road-force balancing' whenever I replace, or
rotate my tires.

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 4:48:25 PM UTC-4, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2019 08:17:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:
>
> > for $15. Compare that to doing a brake job, where you typically don't
> > need special eqpt or eqpt that gets bolted to the floor. Brake job
> > at the stealership or a shop could be $500 to $1000 and you can do it
> > for $60. Now there the value proposition makes it logical to DIY.
>
> Hi Trader,
>
> I'm allergic to bullshit.

Then I hope you have an Epipen and you must need to use it frequently,
because you're full of it.

>
> Almost every lame excuse people made is just pure bullshit, Trader.
> o I apologize for being blunt and honest with you
>
> But almost every excuse people have said sounds like my kids explaining why
> they can't mow the lawn, or why they can't take out the trash, Trader.
> o It's almost complete bullshit what you just said, IMHO.
>
> I trust that you _believe_ your own bullshit, so you're not lying.
> o But it takes only seconds for me to prove it's bullshit, Trader.
>
> I posit that if I can destroy your stated beliefs with a couple of facts
> o Then your belief system is purely imaginary, Trader.
>
> For example, as you must be aware, I've done my own brake jobs and clutch
> and tire mounting, and CCV, and cooling system, etc., where the basic tools
> are used for many jobs over time.
>
> Yet, for each job, there are specific tools also.

Talk about BS, that's clearly BS. Many jobs only require common tools
like screwdrivers and socket wrenches that cover a very wide range of
work, are used frequently, are small, easy to store. A tire changing
apparatus that needs to be bolted to the floor, not so much.

>
> Specifically to brake jobs, there _are_ special tools I've purchased
> specifically for brake jobs, for example, which include a variety of mics
> and calipers, dial-gauges, runout positioning blocks, and a variety of
> spoons, spring clamps and pliers, spreaders, etc.

Well, bully for you. I've done brakes for years without having to buy
anything special. Most I've used that might be called "special",
is a micrometer to measure the caliper thickness and that also serves
many other purposes besides brakes. You're the kind of guy that over analyzes
everything. If some manual, somewhere said to use special tool XYZ,
you'd spend a week analyzing that, making posts and then run out and
buy it. I'd have the job done long before that.

>
> I don't make shit up, Trader, so if you want PHOTOS of all those tools,
> I'll take them for you - but rest assured, brake jobs require you to
> purchase tools that aren't often used just as much as tire mounting does.

My experience and that of countless others says otherwise.

>
> So your statement just reeks of ignorant bullshit, Trader.
> o I apologize if I'm being too honest and blunt and open with you.
>
> The real reason you are making up these lame excuses is the same reason,
> IMHO, that my grandkids tell me why they can't mow the lawn for their
> parents.
>
> You don't _like_ the job
> o And that's ok.
>
> Just please stop with the bullshit - that's all I ask of you.
> o Just be honest.

You're the one with all the BS, not a single person here agrees with you
that changing tires at home makes sense. Not a one. Nor have I ever
encountered anyone online or in real life that thinks it makes sense.
Clare is a retired mechanic, he told you similar. And as to BS,
twice now you've made posts in this thread, attributing things to me
that I never said. Once case, you said that "per Trader", we now know
the procedure is to mount and balance tires at home, then go to Costco
to have them dynamically balanced, if necessary". I never said that.
What I actually said
was that I'm not going to screw around mounting tires at home when I
can get them mounted and dynamically balanced at Costco for $15 a tire.
Then you just made another post, directed at me, where you yammer on
about some $2 extra charge at Costco. I have no idea what that's about,
I never said anything about either $2 or any extra charge.

[trader_4]

Woaaah there Pilgrim! There you go again. I have no idea WTF you're
talking about. I never posted anything here about a $2 extra charge at
Costco or anything about $2 period. One more time, what I said was that
it makes no sense to me to screw around changing tires at home when you
can get them mounted and dynamically balanced for $15 a tire at Costco.
And then when it was suggested that you can take wheels to Costco to
have the tires mounted instead of waiting, I said that makes no sense
to me either, because while you might save some time at Costco, you
then have the job back home of jacking up the car and changing the wheels.
That undoes any time savings, and now you have WORK to do too.
And most people don't have a spare set of wheels either. Geez, you drop
the car with the Costco tire people, you shop at Costco, take your time,
have a piece of pizza, check you mail on your phone, etc and it's done.
That is ALL that I said. And everyone else here has pretty much told
you the same thing.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 18:56:10 -0700 (PDT), thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

> I don't know if it's the same thing, but I insist on
> 'road-force balancing' whenever I replace, or
> rotate my tires.

As I said, I'm allergic to illogical bullshit.

While there are times where road force balancing is required, there are
certainly times when it's not required - and hence - a waste of duplicative
effort.

It's sort of like combing your hair a hundred times a day even though your
hair doesn't need combing, or sippering up your zipper when it's already
zippered up, or climbing stairs twice when you already climbed them, or
washing a windshield when it's already clean, or screwing a screw in over
and over again even though it'[s already screwed in, or shining your shoes
again even though they're already shiny, or eating a nice meal, then puking
it out, and then eating it again, and again, and again, or like carrying
around four umbrellas even though one would suffice, etc.

The point is simple:
o You either need it
o Or you don't.

If you don't need it then why insist on it?
o Or, put another way...how do you know you need it?

The real answer is that you just _think_ you need it.
o It's a classic FUD ploy that advertisers live and breathe

The gullible sheep fall for every marketing trick in the book.

I'm not saying RFB isn't a good thing when it's needed.
o I'm simply asking you how you know that you need it?

LOGIC QUESTION:
If you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, what do you think that
expensive Hunter RFB machine is going to gain you?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 01 May 2019 18:29:15 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

>>We disagree philosophically, where I completely understand your assumption
>>that if something is more expensive, it _must_ be better.
> Never said that. You totally misunderstand. Higher cost does not
> mean better. Many examples of that - but when the price is lower than
> it should be you pretty much know there is something wrong.

Hi Clare,
I agree with your statements above where adults generally have no problem
aggreeing first on facts, and then on rational logical deductions based on
those facts.

The facts are that _plenty_ of things don't match "performance" with
"price" (or whatever metric we want to match with price.

A classic example is, for example, high octane gasoline for a vehicle that
is running correctly that wasn't designed for it. Putting high-octane fuel
in that car won't gain the driver a single iota of anything valuable in
terms of performance.

It just cost more.
o It's not better gas.

Many people (idiots all) _think_ it's better gas.
o Do you know why they _think_ it's better gas Clare?

I do.

I've been running an experiment for _decades_, where I innocently ask the
person getting gas near me what's the difference between the ratings, where
I'm terrified of the answers I get. If you ever want any confirmation that
the vast majority of people are brain dead, just ask them what the
difference is between the various grades of gasoline, Clare.

While I'm sure you know the correct answer, the vast majority of people
I've asked that question of terrify me that they actually _believe_ the
bullshit they spew.

As you must be aware Clare, putting more expensive gas in your car results
in only one perceptable change, which is that it decreases your disposable
income.

It has no other effect where it takes me mere seconds to DESTROY the belief
system that 'you get what you pay for'.

You get what you get.
o What you pay for it is up to a host of other factors.

I do understand your point though that sometimes we need to be "wary" that
the price is just "too cheap", e.g., if gas were sold at $1 per gallon,
we'd wonder how on earth they can do that, so it might be a clue that
something is fishy.

> For you if it is less expensive it's a better deal.

Hi Clare,
Above you said I didn't understand you, and now I'm showing that you didn't
understand me, where that's normal for Usenet because it's a medium of just
words, where it takes a bit of clarification when the inference is
different from the implication.

Just as you felt I inferred incorrectly that you claimed "you get what you
pay for", where in reality, you were claiming that sometimes it's so cheap
that we have to question what it is that we're getting - I have to clarify
for you what I said.

I never once said "less expensive is a better deal".

I said you get what you get.
o And you pay what you pay.

The price has almost nothing to do with what you get, Clare, where I can
prove that time and again (e.g., compare a Fram oil filter with a Hengste
or Mann oil filter, as just one of a zillion examples).

Sometimes price tracks performance.
o Often it doesn't.

My point was _always_ very clear, Clare:

You get what you get.
o What you pay for that is a different equation altogether.

You know, for example that I buy by the specs.
o I buy batteries by the specs (which mean more than just amps & volts)
o I buy tires by the specs (which means more than just UTQG numbers)
o I buy gasoline by the specs (which means more than just octane ratings)
etc.

For you to infer that I implied that I buy by price is dead wrong.
o I buy by the specs - and I pay the lowest price for those best specs.

There are _many_ tradeoffs in buying by specs and then factoring in the
price, where each items has its own equation.

But I am on record as saying time and again that the PRICE is the LAST
thing you look at.

You first look at the specs; and then you factor in the price.

> For me, unless I
> KNOW why it's less expensive I assume it is just CHEAP. CHEAP
> generally means inferior. Inexpensive isn't ALWAYS cheap, and isn't
> ALWAYS inferior - but the general rule is if it looks too good to be
> true it usually is.

Hi Clare,
I have nothing against being wary if a price seems too good.

But really, if I pay $100 for a tire at Tire Rack, and if I pay $75 for
that exact same tire at Simple Tire, how on earth are you going to claim
that the tire is somehow (magically?) "better" just because I paid more for
it at one outlet than the other?

As always, you get what you get.
o What you pay for it is a different calculation altogether.

>>Demand may or may not track with quality.
> In today's North America generally it doesn't. Low quality and high
> demand seem to track more directly than high quality and high demand.
>
> People seem to know all about the price of something, and nothing
> about either the cost or quality.(value) - as Oscar Wilde put it " A
> man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

Hi Clare,
I've been on record for _years_ saying that PRICE is LAST.
o You first determine the desired specs that you need
(where word "spec" doesn't mean the bullshit from the marketing guys).

Then you find the _best_ items that meet your spec.

Lastly, you factor in the price.

It's the _intelligent_ way of doing things, Clare.
o IMHO, those who _start_ with price, are doing it backwards.

IMHO, most people can't fathom that the price has nothing per se to do with
the performance of the item, so they _think_ that the price tracks the
performance.

If I buy a BMW in California, and pay $10,000 more for it, and then if I
buy that same BMW in Nevada, and pay $10,000 less, it's still the same BMW.

Anyone who says "you get what you pay for", is an idiot, IMHO, Clare.
o You get what you get.

What you pay for it depends on a host of unrelated factors.

> Bullshit marketing, as you call it, is required to sell what people
> don't need. Price pretty much sells everything else

Hi Clare,
At least you seem to comprehend that marketing is in the business of
creating imaginary belief systems (e.g., like the need to have, oh, I don't
know, a tattoo, or the need to drink soda, or the need to use high octane
fuel (so your car "feels better"), etc.

Lots of this bullshit marketing is done for tires, for example, where women
are targeted especially wonderfully where I recall a commercial where a mom
is driving in the rain with kids in the back and all of a sudden a dog
crosses the wet road and she jams on the brakes, and then the commercial
says something like "Aren't you glad you're safe with Michelins" (or
whatever brand it was).

The commercial was complete and total bullshit Clare
o But that's what the gullible sheep fall for.

If advertising of imaginary belief systems didn't work, they wouldn't be
spending billions on advertising.

We unearthed, for example, long ago, as I recall, trade rags which
purported to claim to tell the tire shops how much money they would make by
convincing gullible customers to get RFB as a habit. (It might take a while
to dig up those cites, but that's what I recall when we last discussed this
topic.)

There was a guy in this very thread who was convinced that he _needs_ RFB
on all his tires, which is just total bullshit, Clare.

There are times when you need it, of course...
o And there are plenty of times when you don't.

The problem with balance, of course, is that it's not so easy to know when
you need it if you're not the person who mounted the tire, which, I agree,
complicates the decision due to the ignorance of the owner in that case.

>>In short, my philosophy is based on fact since I'm allergic to bullshit.
>>o You get what you get (which is whatever you can tell about what you get).
>>o You pay what other people pay (since the overall demand sets the price).
> Yet the demand for cheap crap drives the North American economy -
> not the demand for high quality

Hi Clare,
As you know, I buy tires by the reliable specs but, as you know, the specs
we _really_ want, are nearly impossible to get for every tire we're
considering.

Likewise, I buy brake friction materials by the spec, where, again, the
specs we really want simply don't exist.

You can buy some things by the specs, where you can be reasonably well
assured that the specs aren't a lie (e.g., gasoline), but there are plenty
of other things where the specs could easily be a lie (e.g., radio
transmitter EIRP or speaker 3dB frequency response).

Everything we buy has a _different_ set of specs and lack of specs, no
matter _what_ that object is, Clare.

My main point to the morons who claim 'you get what you pay for', is that
they _wish_ the world was as simple as a number line when it comes to
assessing quality.

But it's not.

If you buy a tree, it has a different spec than if you buy a tire which has
a different spec than if you buy a shoe which has a different spec than if
you buy a screwdriver which has a different spec than if you buy a
capacitor which has a different spec than if you buy a pair of jeans which
has a different spec than if you buy a starter motor which has a different
spec than if you buy a chalk board, etc.

In the end, those simpletons who _wish_ you could assess quality by the
price are spewing bullshit of their imaginary belief system just like two
small kids discussing Santa Claus are spewing the bullshit of an imaginary
belief system.

The maxim I follow when purchasing anything is this simple, Clare:
o I strive to look at the spec first - using price as the last metric.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 21:48:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> Woaaah there Pilgrim! There you go again. I have no idea WTF you're
> talking about. I never posted anything here about a $2 extra charge at
> Costco or anything about $2 period. One more time, what I said was that
> it makes no sense to me to screw around changing tires at home when you
> can get them mounted and dynamically balanced for $15 a tire at Costco.
> And then when it was suggested that you can take wheels to Costco to
> have the tires mounted

Hi Trader,
It's normal on Usenet, which is a delayed text-only medium, for
clarification to be needed when people are discussing things that they're
not aware of the math which is involved.

To clarify for you, that extra $2 (i.e., 50 cents per wheel) negates the
need for the wheels to need to be removed by the owner.

To clarify even further the price which I have posted many times after you
said that Costco mounts non-Costco tires:
o You can pay $5 per wheel if you hand Costco the wheel, or, better yet,
o You can pay $5.50 per wheel, if you leave the wheels on the car.

To clarify even further what I said from the beginning, if you pay this
fifty cents per wheel, Costco will remove the wheels from the vehicle and
put them back (essentially, it costs you a quarter for each operation).

At those prices, most people would logically opt to drive the car to
Costco, and _not_ drop off the wheels, which is what I have been trying to
tell you.

> instead of waiting, I said that makes no sense
> to me either, because while you might save some time at Costco, you
> then have the job back home of jacking up the car and changing the wheels.

Hi Trader,
I don't think you understood that the two dollars is in the noise level,
where it literally costs about twenty five cents per operation of removal
and reinstallation, which is so cheap as to be in the noise level.

So whether you drop off the wheels or you drop off the car, it's the same
price (essentially) either way.

Literally, the price is two dollars different, which isn't enough of an
impact, either way, for us to be discussing, don't you think?

Essentially, the price is the same whether you drop off the wheels or
whether you drop off the car, which is what I've been trying to get you to
comprehend in the last couple of posts.

I told you this when I first responded to your very helpful information
that Costco mounts non-Costco tires, so I'm not sure why we're _still_
hashing it out multiple times.

In summary, whether you drop off the tires or you drop off the car, it's
the same price (differing by only two bucks, which is in the noise level,
Trader, IMHO).

> That undoes any time savings, and now you have WORK to do too.

Again, whether you drop off the wheels, or whether you drop off the car,
it's essentially the same price.

> And most people don't have a spare set of wheels either.

Whether you drop off the wheels or you drop off the car, it's up to you,
since the price is essentially the same either way.

> Geez, you drop
> the car with the Costco tire people, you shop at Costco, take your time,
> have a piece of pizza, check you mail on your phone, etc and it's done.
> That is ALL that I said. And everyone else here has pretty much told
> you the same thing.

Hi Trader,
It's strange that you're telling _me_ that "everyone has told me the same
thing" when I was the one who told everyone here that the price is
essentially the same whether you drop off the car or whether you drop off
the tires.

If people are telling me that, then they're idiots, since I am the one who
called Costco and reported the prices.

So your claim that they're "telling me the same thing" is just more
bullshit on your part that is completely imaginary since I'm the one who
told _them_ the prices that Costco charges.

Let me re-iterate since you seem to be spewing total bullshit, not because
you're lying, but because you actually seem to honestly _believe_ the
bullshit you just spewed.

FACT:
1. You told me that Costco mounts non-Costco tires.
FACT
2. I called Costco and confirmed their prices for that work.
FACT:
3. I published the price that shows a puny $2 difference for whether you
drop off the car, or whether you drop off the tires.

LOGIC:
The two dollars is in the noise level, Clare, at least it is for me.
LOGIC:
For you to continually make a big deal of this puny two dollars means that
you have some other problem, Clare, because I clearly said it's in the
noise level multiple times Clare.
LOGIC:
It's complete bullshit for you to claim that others needed to "tell me"
about this obvious clear fact.

Let's just summarize that just because you are confused, doesn't mean that
I'm not factual and logical.

It simply means you're confused - and that confusion has nothing to do with
me since I presented the Costco price list very early on in this thread
Clare.

I assume you didn't read that Costco price list, or maybe you didn't
comprehend that Costco price list, or maybe you don't _like_ that Costco
price list (or whatever).

I can't tell you why you failed to comprehend something as simple at this
two dollars being in the noise level in terms of affecting a decision on
whether to drop off the wheels or the car.

In short:
o I'm allergic to bullshit
o I'm all about facts - and logical deductions based on those facts.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 01 May 2019 18:07:26 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> No - you can't read. The information I supplied says there are two
> ways to match mount a tire.Uniformity and weight. They say the red dot
> (uniformity) is more important if it is there AND THE RIM IS MARKED
> because you can't balance out an out-of-round condition.

Hi Clare,
This is an EXCELLENT clarifying point, that the red dot takes precedence
IF... if ... if ... if ... the rim is marked.

I very much APPRECIATE your clarifying point, since I have been using the
maxim that the red dot takes precedence over the yellow dot, but where the
RIM markings are hard to find in these older rims that have been in use for
decades.

> If the rim
> mark is not there - either never marked or no longer obviously
> visible, use the yellow. The yellow dot will MINIMIZE the amount ov
> external weight required to balance the wheel.

Hi Clare,

Again, I APPRECIATE this clarification, where I wish this thread was more
about how to properly mount and balance tires than about excuses for why
people don't like to properly mount and balance tires themselves.

What you're saying is that I need to modify my algorithm to something like
this:

1. If the red and yellow dots exist, and if there are no clear rim
markings, then mount by the yellow dot which is the "weight" dot.

> It also said how to
> find the high spot on the rim.If there is no high spot on the rim
> uniformity matching is both impossible and pointless.

I do have dial gauges, but I don't have a jig set up for checking
uniformity, particularly if spinning at speed is involved.

When you first mentioned this, I wasn't sure if you thought it could be
done at hand spun speeds.

Would you suggest the uniformity test be done at such hand-spun speeds?

> Most forged alloy rims do not have uniformity markings and are
> virtually "dead true" when spun. Most welded steel rims do have a high
> spot that is affected by the weld in the rim - but after hitting a few
> potholes the highspot is liable to be anywhere BUT where it was marked
> due to different low spots being established. The weight distribution
> doesn't change with the beating the rim takes on the road

This is another GREAT POINT that the weight distribution doesn't change,
over time, as much as the uniformity might.

Thanks for that logical deduction based on the facts.

>>One question I'd like to ask you is whether you feel that an
>>_imperceptible_ vibration can cause damage?
> Not saying it WILL but it CAN - as a lot of "shimmy" can be damped
> out so it is not perceptible in the steering wheel, but the tie rods
> still feel it.

Hi Clare,
Thanks for that suggestion that an imperceptible vibration "can" damage
things, where what data we really would want, but I don't think we have, is
what percentage of tires actually _needs_ a dynamic balance if the tire is
match mounted, and if a good static balance is performed, and if no
perceptible vibration is felt at speed.

It would be fantastic to find such numbers, but, as I recall, I looked in
the past, and what I found was mostly trade publications that tell owners
of the Hunter RFB equipment how to "make money" selling the service to
customers.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 06:33:55 -0700, sms wrote:

> Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Hi Steve,

The one problem with that statement is that, IMHO, nobody here really seems
to have viable facts for an accuratge percentage of wheels that actually
_need_ to be dynamically balanced when the match mounting and static
balance is done well and where there isn't any perceptible vibration at
speed.

Since you make the strong claim above, do you actually have any statistics
to help us understand what your belief system is actually based upon?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Wed, 01 May 2019 18:36:37 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> Fact Check. You are starting to sound like Trump

Hi Clare,

:)

Let's keep politics out of this since politics is one place where imaginary
belief systems abound, and, as you should know by now, I'm allergic to
bullshit, so you can imagine what I think of politicians who spew it.

[trader_4]

In short, I showed you twice now where you totally
misrepresented what I've said, that you attributed things to me that
I never said. And your dishonest methods continue,
you're off to another whole page about the $2 BS, explaining it
AGAIN to me. I didn't post a damn thing about $2. Never, nor do I
give a shit. Also, how you keep saying "Hi Trader", over and over,
while replying within one post, is just plain weird.

[mako...@yahoo.com]

its a DIY group

the guy likes to DIY his tires

more power to him.

is this really something we need to argue about

m

[Ed Pawlowski]

Why not skip the silly BS and tell us why it is not needed or how we can
tell if needed or not?

Give is facts, not the BS above. Instead of calling people gullible,
educate them.

[trader_4]

I don't care if he likes to DIY tires. I do care when he makes posts
attributing things to me that I never said. I simply said that it makes
no sense to me to change tires at home when you can get them mounted AND
dynamically balanced at Costco for $15. He turned that into a post
where he claimed, or strongly implied, that I had said
that the best procedure is to mount your tires at home, static balance
them, then go to Costco for dynamic balance if needed. And then he
made a post, replying to me, about some $2 charge at Costco, as if I'm
involved in that, when IDK what he's even talking about.

[trader_4]

I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling
any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of
options when mounting new tires:

no balancing
static
dynamic
RFB

I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
mostly useful if you're having a problem.

[thekma...@gmail.com]

trader_4 wrote: "I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of

options when mounting new tires:

no balancing
static
dynamic
RFB

I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
mostly useful if you're having a problem. "

I take it 'static' balance means the tire/wheel
is not spun to balance it?


As for RFB, I do it every time I rotate so
I KNOW there won't be any problems. ;)

[trader_4]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:23:43 AM UTC-4, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
> trader_4 wrote: "I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of
> options when mounting new tires:
>
> no balancing
> static
> dynamic
> RFB
>
> I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
> In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
> vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
> never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
> mostly useful if you're having a problem. "
>
> I take it 'static' balance means the tire/wheel
> is not spun to balance it?

Yes

>
>
> As for RFB, I do it every time I rotate so
> I KNOW there won't be any problems. ;)

Makes no sense, because balancing the tire/wheel assembly with RFB doesn't
have anything to do with which location on the car that it's installed on.
And once a tire is balanced, it should remain pretty much balanced,
unless something happens, like a weight falls off. But I would not be
re-balancing tires at rotation, unless I had a problem, eg vibration.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> I think he kind of did tell you how to know. He implied if you're not feeling
> any perceptible vibration, then you don't need it. There is a range of
> options when mounting new tires:
>
> no balancing
> static
> dynamic
> RFB
>
> I'm happy with dynamic when I get it done for $15 as part of mounting.
> In decades of driving and cars, never had a problem where there was
> vibration or anything else bad happening. It works for me. RFB, I've
> never had it offered or quoted, it's not that common. I'd see it as
> mostly useful if you're having a problem.

I agree with EVERYTHING Trader said above.
o Adults are funny that way

When people say logical things like Trader just did, they're easy to agree
with.

It's only when they make lame excuses for when the logic fails, just as the
logic of why my grandkids can't clean the bathroom always seems to fail.

If they simply admitted they don't like doing the job, it would be logical.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 08:45:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

>> As for RFB, I do it every time I rotate so
>> I KNOW there won't be any problems. ;)
>
> Makes no sense, because balancing the tire/wheel assembly with RFB doesn't
> have anything to do with which location on the car that it's installed on.
> And once a tire is balanced, it should remain pretty much balanced,
> unless something happens, like a weight falls off. But I would not be
> re-balancing tires at rotation, unless I had a problem, eg vibration.

Again, Trader is thinking logically where _this_ is the type of discussions
we should be having on a DIY repair group, IMHO.

IMHO, two things adults should have no problem agreeing with are:
a. Facts
b. Logic deduced from those facts.

It's when people don't comprehend facts, or when they deduce irrational
logic from those facts, when the BS starts flying, IMHO.

I'm allergic to BS; but I easily agree with logic Trader recently posted.

The key question that I don't have an answer for is WHAT PERCENTAGE of
mounts _need_ dynamic/rfb balancing after proper match mounting and static
balancing at home?

Folks may not remember, but we've been though this question before, where
the equation is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for a shop where rework is super
expensive, and where the customer pays for even unnecessary work.

For a shop to RECOMMEND RFB is assumed to be something that benefits them
in every way, but the question for us on a home repair group is whether RFB
benefits us when done _every_ time (at what tradeoff in wasted resources).

I don't recall ANYONE ever having presented any facts better than the ones
I unearthed (as I recall), the last time we discussed this topic, where I
found, as I recall, HUNTER MARKETING MATERIAL suggesting shops imduce all
customers to get RFB, whether they need it or not.

I think an analogy might be sort of like having a haircut forced upon you,
whether you need it or not.

The real issue is that I don't think we have the facts as to whether or not
we _need_ that RFB haircut if we already have our hair cut short such that
there's no perceptible vibration in the dynamic test by driving at speed
after match mounting and static balancing at home.

The logic is that cutting your hair twice in the same day doesn't gain you
anything if you don't need that second haircut; it simply costs you
unnecessarily if it's not actually needed.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 5/2/2019 1:34 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

> Again, Trader is thinking logically where _this_ is the type of discussions
> we should be having on a DIY repair group, IMHO.
>
> IMHO, two things adults should have no problem agreeing with are:
> a. Facts
> b. Logic deduced from those facts.
>

True. Why did you not answer my question about the cost of the "free"
snacks you spoke of. You said it was free, is that not a fact?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:44:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> True. Why did you not answer my question about the cost of the "free"
> snacks you spoke of. You said it was free, is that not a fact?

Hi Ed,

You mentioned that joke before where I didn't bother wasting everyone's
time responding to you that it was a simple sarcastic humorous dig that you
are attempting to make a mountain out of simply because _you_ don't like
that I pointed out that I speak facts and that I deduce rational logic from
those facts.

Whenever I say I speak facts, what always happens is that some idiot on the
net _tries_ to find my material facts wrong, where they end up wasting
everyone' time playing sill little semantic games where all they can find
is a typo, a thinko, or, in the case that you are playing your silly little
game attempting, a sarcastic joke that they attempt to twist out of
context.

Why can't we simply discuss the facts and merits here of a mounting DIY
without you repeatedly and constantly playing silly semantic games, Ed?

The facts are simple:
o Mounting & static balancing at home _can_ be done.
o The tools costs about $200 (albeit they're shitty tools - but they work)
o The storage, use, & cost of these tools is similar to other tools we own
etc.

The logic is also simple:
o Some people _enjoy_ doing a DIY at home; while others apparently hate it.
o Just be honest that you hate it - which is a perfectly logical feeling.

The facts are that you can DIY at home.
o The goal is a well-balanced wheel

Toward that goal, the logical sequence is simple for those who hate DIY:
o They go to Costco, for example, & spend $60, and the job is done

It's not a DIY - but the job is done, right?
o I don't argue with that logic since it's perfectly reasonable logic.

Adults are funny that way.
o I don't argue with your logic that you prefer NOT to DIY

I simply point out that the _reason_ many people don't DIY is that they
don't like DIY and not any of the other arguments that have been proposed,
because _all_ those other arguments fail simple basic logic tests.

If people _do_ wish to DIY at home, I suggest this simple logic:
o Buy online, mount & static balance at home (eat all the food you want)
o The next time you're on the highway, doublecheck for vibration
o If you feel vibration, head to Costco for an inexpensive triplecheck

If the fact is that you don't feel any vibration, and, if we "assume" that
imperceptible vibrations don't cause damage (which is an unknown at this
point), then the simple obvious most basic of all logic is that having your
hair cut twice in the same day buys you nothing, where, having a balanced
wheel rebalanced buys you nothing.

Cutting your hair again, when it's already cut, buys you nothing, Ed.

Since I'm all about facts, and logic deduced from those facts...
o Does anyone else see logical errors in that suggestion above?

[Tekkie®]

trader_4 posted for all of us...

>
> Then I hope you have an Epipen and you must need to use it frequently,
> because you're full of it.
>

Another expression I can latch on to. Thanks.

--
Tekkie

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 5/2/2019 2:12 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:44:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> True. Why did you not answer my question about the cost of the "free"
>> snacks you spoke of. You said it was free, is that not a fact?
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> You mentioned that joke before where I didn't bother wasting everyone's
> time responding to you that it was a simple sarcastic humorous dig that you
> are attempting to make a mountain out of simply because _you_ don't like
> that I pointed out that I speak facts and that I deduce rational logic from
> those facts.
>
> Whenever I say I speak facts, what always happens is that some idiot on the
> net _tries_ to find my material facts wrong, where they end up wasting
> everyone' time playing sill little semantic games where all they can find
> is a typo, a thinko, or, in the case that you are playing your silly little
> game attempting, a sarcastic joke that they attempt to twist out of
> context.
>
> Why can't we simply discuss the facts and merits here of a mounting DIY
> without you repeatedly and constantly playing silly semantic games, Ed?
>

You said it was free FACT is, it was not. See, very easy.

[Bod F]

On 5/2/2019 2:12 PM, Arlen G. Holder (aka Tire Whisperer) wrote:
> The facts are simple:

> o Mounting & static balancing at home_can_ be done.

> o The tools costs about $200 (albeit they're shitty tools - but they work)
> o The storage, use, & cost of these tools is similar to other tools we own
> etc.

Roughly ten years ago (March 2009), I invested $200 in the S&P 500 and then took a nap.  Today that $200 has grown to ~$750...and I never broke a sweat or got my hands dirty.

Don't get me wrong, if you actually enjoy wrestling old dirty tires, knock yourself out but I'll stick to more enjoyable hobbies.

[Grumpy Old White Guy]

Good catch, Ed.  Please pass the Epi-pen.

--
Get off my lawn!

[devnull]

On 5/2/19 2:12 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> Whenever I say I speak facts, what always happens is that some idiot on the

> net_tries_ to find my material facts wrong, where they end up wasting

> everyone' time playing sill little semantic games where all they can find
> is a typo, a thinko, or, in the case that you are playing your silly little
> game attempting, a sarcastic joke that they attempt to twist out of
> context.

Achoo! Achoo!

Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit.

[Xeno]

On 1/5/19 11:33 pm, sms wrote:
> On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>> UPDATE:
>>
>> Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years, where
>> each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.

>
> Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Static balancing is a waste of time.

--

Xeno


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

[Xeno]

On 2/5/19 3:53 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:qac786$bs0$1...@dont-email.me...

>> On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>>> UPDATE:
>>>
>>> Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years,
>>> where
>>> each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even easier.
>>
>> Avoid static balancing at all cost.
>

> That’s overstate, its better than nothing.

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

[Xeno]

On 2/5/19 6:38 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2019 11:07:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> No BS from me. I think for most people it is silly to DIY when the
>> payback is measured in decades. I have no interest in doing it.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you have an air of superiority or are just arrogant.
>> Its the way you come across though.
>
> Hi Ed Pawlowski,

>
> I'm allergic to bullshit.

> o Particularly from people who are afraid of doing the job themselves.
>
> Hence, they have absolutely zero idea of what they're talking about.
> o IMHO, they're all just like grade schoolers discussing Santa Claus, Ed.
>
> Do you remember when Normal Schwarzkopf responded to a news reporter:
> "Have you ever _been_ in a minefield?"
> REFERENCE: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci88go_rWYY>
>
> Some things, like changing tires at home, people are either afraid, or ill
> informed, or they don't have the money for tools, or for storage, or they
> don't want to get their hands dirty, or whatever, so they make up all sorts
> of lame idiotic excuses for why they can't do something as trivial as
> replace a tire at home.

I can replace a tyre with only a beadbreaker, a couple of tyre levers
and a rubber mallet and have done so more times than I care to count on
rims as varied as Morris Minis rims through to large tractor rims. It is
*not* a difficult task *if you know what you're doing* but it is one I
prefer not to do now that I am retired. What I can say is that I have
seen lots of tyres *damaged* beyond repair by halfwitted loons who
*think* they know how to change one.
>
> The real answer is that everything they say is just pure bullshit
> o Because they've never even once done it in their entire lives.

I'd bet I've changed far more tyres than you've had hot dinners. And not
always with a beadbreaker on hand.
>
> They're just spouting bullshit ... like that idiotic reporter was.
> o I apologize if I'm too blunt and factual and honest for you.
>
If there is any bullshit being spouted here, odds on it would be you.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:15:22 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal 85-year-old trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit>

...and much better air in here again!

--
Senile Rot about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID: <g4jm5b...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:02:29 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous

trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

>> That’s overstate, its better than nothing.
>
> On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Talking to yourself now, you clinically insane, 85-year-old, trolling,
senile pest?

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1...@news.mixmin.net>

[Peeler]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:00:46 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous

trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

>> Avoid static balancing at all cost.
>
> Static balancing is a waste of time.

Your shifting nyms time and again to avoid detection IS a waste of time, you
clinically insane, trolling, senile pest from Australia!

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID: <uV9lE.196195$cx5....@fx46.iad>

[Xeno]

On 3/5/19 8:26 pm, Peeler wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:15:22 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous
> trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:
>
> <FLUSH the abnormal 85-year-old trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit>
>

> ....and much better air in here again!
>
You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 21:53:04 +1000, Xeno wrote:

>>
> You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.

Apologies, if you aren't. You post from Australia like he does and use the
same German NSP, though you use a different newsreader (or computer).

If you are not him, I'll find out. If you are him, I'll find it out, too.
;-)

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:28:08 -0400, Bod F wrote:

> Roughly ten years ago (March 2009), I invested $200 in the S&P
> 500 and then took a nap.  Today that $200 has grown to ~$750..
> .and I never broke a sweat or got my hands dirty.

Hi Bod F,

I've heard _every_ excuse there is from my own grandkids for why they can't
do their chores, where the simple fact is that _none_ of the excuses stand
scrutiny to even the most basic of logic.
o The real reason you don't DIY isn't the "investment" opportunities, but,
o The real reason you don't DIY is simply that you don't like the DIY.

Facts first; then rational adult logical deductions based on those facts.

o If simple fact & basic logic DESTROY your belief system in mere seconds
Q: What does that say about your belief system being wholly imaginary?

I completely understand the logic of what you say, although I also note
that ten years ago was just about the _bottom_ of the stock market, which
had slumped to that point in a way that had not happened since about 1929,
so the fact is that around ten years ago was an anomaly of sorts, where
that "starting point" date can be cherry picked by people selling you
375%-gain investment funds for the next fifty to hundred years to come,
since that's a classic cherry picking approach for false logic.

Even without that cherry-picked stock market crash starting point, the huge
logical issue with the stock-market example is that your argument equally
applies to _all_ DIY jobs you can think of.

While your logic holds true, it _equally_ applies to _every_ DIY job.

For example, your logic applies to that last brake job you did, and that
last cooling system overall, and that last spark plug replacement, and even
that last oil change you did, etc.

> Don't get me wrong, if you actually enjoy wrestling old
> dirty tires, knock yourself out but I'll stick to more
> enjoyable hobbies.

FACTS first; then adult rational logic based on those facts...
o If simple fact & basic logic DESTROY your belief system in mere seconds
Q: What does that say about your belief system being wholly imaginary?

Worse than the fact your logic is irrespective of the DIY job, I can easily
_reverse_ your logic, and come up with a _better_ set of logic, that argues
you would have had _more_ money now, had you done your tires DIY then.

For example, there's a sale right now on Simple Tire tires:
<https://simpletire.com/tire-deals>

The sale is 10% off on all Toyo, Sumitomo, Hancook, Nitto, Nexen, etc,
tires, with additional 4-tire-set rebates of $60 to $80 on Bridgesone and
Hancook, Micky Thompson, Dick Cepek, etc., sets of tires, and no tax
charged at the sales origin plus free shipping.

Let's say you purchase 8 tires (one set for each vehicle), where you can
save, oh, let's say easily $400 (i.e., $50 per tire) on just the purchase
alone compared to that same purchase locally, let alone the additional $125
on installation.

That $500 you just saved today by this DIY process would be $1,875 ten
years from now using the same stock-market math you used above.

So you just argued EXACTLY what you _think_ you argued against!
o I simply noticed that your argument is completely illogical

However, if I destroyed your logic - that's now up to you to decide.

As an adult whose tools are FACTs + LOGIC...all I'm saying to you is...
o If simple fact & basic logic DESTROY your belief system in mere seconds
Q: What does that say about your belief system being wholly imaginary?
A: ? your response ?

[Xeno]

On 3/5/19 11:17 pm, Peeler wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019 21:53:04 +1000, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>
>> You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.
>
> Apologies, if you aren't. You post from Australia like he does and use the

Born in 1952 and raised in Australia. I'm not quite as old as you think
I am.

> same German NSP, though you use a different newsreader (or computer).

One of the few reasonable usenet access portals available, not
surprising more than one person uses it. I also rum Macs here and post
from an iPhone and iPad using a paid version of Newstap. You can easily
verify that.

>
> If you are not him, I'll find out. If you are him, I'll find it out, too.
> ;-)
>

I am not and I have had the odd stoush with Rod.

HTH