Like you, I used to do more stuff myself. Now I do "deferred maintenance". :)
What you just said is the real reason most people don't mount their own tires and align their suspension. Over a decade, it would cost only $800 for two cars' mounting, and $1000 for alignments.
You can make more than that by not taking the appreciable time that it would take to just LEARN how to do mounting and alignments.
My only beef with that sentiment is that people don't tell the truth to themselves when they say that the reason they don't do it is the cost of the tools.
The reason is, as you said, that they have better things to do. And that's ok.
This is true. It's why people do crossword puzzles. For me, I get a sense of empowerment. I enjoy the freedom and convenience of fixing a flat, for example, at home. So, if the tire is low, I limp home and fix it. And when I put it back on, I feel safe and satisfied.
Absolutely. This is the real reason most people don't align and mount. It's because they have better things to do. All I'm asking is for people to be truthful to themselves.
We're both old men so I don't have to explain that price is an indication of demand only whereas quality may or may not correspond to demand.
Certainly higher-quality food, for example, would be in demand, but, it's well known in the grocery business that when fruits and vegetables are plentiful, the price goes down and the quality goes up.
When it's off season, or if there was a drought, the price goes up and the quality goes down.
My main argument is that anyone who says "you get what you pay for", hasn't thought the problem set through.
You actually get what you get, and you pay what *others* are willing to pay (since the masses set the price ... you don't set the price).
My hypothesis is that those who use price as a major indicator of quality are generally those who don't understand that which they are buying.
They use a number as an indicator of quality only because two numbers are easy for them to measure against (whereas cold cranking amps and amp hours are harder for them to compare for two reasons).
- Technical specs need to be understood, in and of themselves
- Technical specs often need to be balanced against one another
I may be wrong - but that's my theory.
I can't disagree. Look at how much off-season fruits and vegetables cost.
If we somewhat equate "value" to "quality", we can note that the quality of fruit goes down in the off season, and yet the price goes up.
The quality goes down as the price goes up simply due to supply and demand, where individuals don't get to determine either the supply nor the demand.
As an individual, you either pay that price - or you don't pay that price.
If there are enough people who pay that price, the price stays high.
If there aren't enough people to pay that price, the supply either disappears, or the price goes down.
So, the price isn't any indicator of quality nor value. It's merely an indicator of aggregate demand.
You have a good point which is that for every dollar increase in price, you often get exponentially less increase in value.
So, for example, a one hundred dollar car has a certain price:performance ratio, but a two hundred thousand dollar car probably doesn't have a 2:1 price:performance ratio. It's probably far less than 2:1.
Is it just me, or do we get fewer flats nowadays? I remember, as a kid, that I got flats in my bias-ply tires rather frequently. Now I only get about one or two flats a year.
I find that where I drive has a lot to do with flats. Where I live there is a bunch of new construction, and lots of remodeling and landscaping.
Personally, I think nuts and bolts fall off the truck, but I can't prove that.
My wife has AAA which I'm ok with since it makes her feel good. Truth be known, she calls me and I take care of the problem.
But she feels safer knowing they'll tow her or give her gas or jump her car or fix a flat, or jimmy her locks, or whatever it is that they do.
I even once called them because I parked on a hill in what turned out to be mud and my RWD sedan couldn't back out and I couldn't go forward as the nose was buried into the hillside.
So I called her AAA, and they took it even though I'm not female. I don't think the driver of the tow truck cares, as long as he gets paid. He pulled me out of that mud (sideways!) and I drove off intact.
So AAA has its merits.
Now we get to the point of deciding how to buy a tire! What matters is what matters to you.
But we can assume, as you did, that wet straightline traction is critical.
For the size you mentioned, you'd probably never want to ever go below A, and you'd almost certainly want AA. A = above 0.47g on wet asphalt, above 0.35g on concrete AA = above 0.54g on wet asphalt, above 0.38g on concrete
The treadwear rating also gives you an average dry friction coefficient using the formula that the average dry friction coefficient is 2.25 divided by the treadwear rating raised to the 0.15 power.
Actually, the specs do tell you how well constructed the tire is.
The load range tells you very much how well constructed the tire is. The speed rating tells you that also. Also the XL designation (aka the ply rating) tells you that. As does the temperature rating.
While Goodyear & Michelin marketing people must hate intelligent thinkers like you and me, I have to agree with you that brand name, for tires, is meaningless.
Just as there are no bad brake pads sold in the US, there are no bad tires sold in the USA.
The specs that must be printed on friction materials tells you what you need to know, and the specs that must be embossed into the tire sidewall tell you what you need to know.
There are just various levels of good.
My selection process is as easy as simple math, but my purely logical selection process requires technical knowledge sufficient to understand the specs printed on the sidewall of every tire.
I didn't look at the sidewall specs of all those tires, but my process would be the same with choosing your tire as with choosing mine.
A. There are no absolutes when tradeoffs are involved, but generally:
- I would compare everything against the OEM tire spec!
- That is, any tire that meets OEM specs goes on the short list.
- And any tire that fails any of the OEM specs, is tossed out.
B. Then I would rate highest what I care about most.
- If that is wet traction, then I'd put the AA tires on top.
- But if that was treadwear, I'd put the 500s above the 100s.
- If it was price, then the cheapest OEM-spec tire would be on top.
One by one, I'd rank the tires in the order of the specs I care about. Assuming it was wettraction/treadwear/price, then I would rank like this: a. AA 500 $150 b. AA 400 $100 c. A 500 $75
There is rarely an exact tie, but if there were an exact tie, then I'd make the decision based on other factors, such as warranty or the smile on the salesman's face, or whatever the "soft" tie-breaker criteria may be.
The problem where most people give up is how to rank those three criteria above on "value".
As you noted, making the value tradeoffs are the bitch here.
For example, I can see myself choosing *any* of those sample tires, based on those value tradeoffs. a. AA 500 $150 has the best wet traction & the best treadwear b. AA 400 $100 has the best wet traction & is a lot cheaper c. A 500 $75 is a lot cheaper and has good wet traction & treadwear
If this was my wife's car, I'd probably choose "a" but if it was mine, I'd probably choose "c"; but my point is that you only look at tires that meet or exceed OEM specs, and then you list the tires by teh specs YOU care about most.
Then you make tradeoffs based on the specs.
The point is that you don't make those tradeoffs based on brand, sidewall color, tread pattern, boy-racer reviews, dealer recommendations, etc., since most people are looking for someone else to tell them how to buy tires, where, my premise is that the sidewall tells you everything you need to know.