OK. I get the point that the 'balance' of the 'wheel' (not the new tire) may not be what it was originally.
But, a new wheel is off by 1.7 minus 0.57 ounces? That's how much a NEW wheel is off balance, right from the start (according to the reference PDF).
So, years later, the (now well used) wheel would have to be out of balance by an additional 1.7 ounces just to negate the whole point of the red dot (if I understand your premise correctly) before the tire even gets mounted.
Right?
Just to be clear. That question of "why not just measure the runout" wasn't from me. It was a verbatim quote from the PDF that we were pointed to. So it's not 'my' question. It was just a rhetorical question inside the PDF since the entire section was quoted by me verbatim.
Again. This was a direct quote inside the article. So, you'd have to ask 'them', not me (as this is well beyond my means to comprehend).
Again, just to be clear. You're actually responding to the authors of that paper. I didn't write it; I just quoted it verbatim.
pointless and misleading exercise. if you read one of my prior posts and my experience with this "aa" rating, you'll be switched on to the fact that it may be a flawed rating system.
how fast do you drive? you know this is a measure of hysteresis tolerance and nothing to do with external environment don't you?
you know this is directly contradictory to "traction" don't you?
why? what is the top speed of your vehicle?
do you carry heavy loads? a side wall with finer cordage can give a much more comfortable ride, and hold the tire in better shape than one with heavy cordage.
why would you even try???? people either buy on price, or they buy on performance. and guess what, there's no "high performance" tire worth a damn that's cheap. and there's no cheap tire that is "high performance". decide what end of the spectrum you want, then compare 3 or 4 in that range.
how can you tell??? is their grammar worse - than, usenet, posters?
translation: "experience doesn't help the indecisive".
You plug in your Make/Model to get the tires that fit. Then start looking at reviews until you find one where the reviewer is driving your car, or one similar. Then hit "more tire reviews for this vehicle." No sense reading a review by somebody driving an Explorer when you're driving an Accord, even if both are using the same tire. As I said, I've had good luck picking tires this way. Some reviews are crap. What's new? But I've always found thoughtful reviews talking about traction, cornering, etc. You can't shotgun it, and it takes some time.
Yep. For years I've had my new tires Hunter force balanced. Balanced once. Never needed to be balanced after that. I didn't pay attention to the dots and neither did the guy who balanced them. It's fine to read about the dots. But you learn nothing useful, since the machine makes all the calls.
that's assuming the weighting is simply tread rubber thickness variance. it's not.
so? you didn't quote it and then say you thought it was bunk. you didn't quote it and ask questions. you quoted it because you agreed with it and wanted to use it to try to support your argument.
they can't be bothered to make decent tires. [3 of the 4 michelins i have on one car didn't need weights.]
it's yet another marketing gimmick. like "synthetic" brake fluid appeals to people who "want the best". little knowing that /all/ brake fluid is "synthetic".
now, i'm not dismissing the dots entirely - they would be relevant if you were trying to do balancing the old fashioned way, putting the wheel in a stand and waiting for the heavy spot to rotate to the bottom. but seriously, who does that any more? and even if you have the wheel balanced for weight, it doesn't mean its round. you can perfectly balance a square wheel if you want. ever driven a tire that's prone to flat-spotting after a couple of days stationary?
there's /no point/. if the shop has a decent balancing machine, and they use it per the machine's instructions, neither you nor anyone else needs to read any pseudo-tech marketing waffle because the machine takes care of everything.
We are told that the customers write these....and your point is well taken.
In any tire series, you will find reviews that hate them and others that love them. Notice how many miles the tires have run that are being reviewed.
Look for a trend of opinion. If length of service is important, keep an eye on the reviews for "typical" service.
Finally, you make a choice and take your chances. Usually you get good tires.
I recently bought an expensive set of Michelins for my wife's Avalon from a national tire distribution chain. Drove it out and suffered on the road with SEVERE shudder. Brought it back the next day and they cheerfully rebalanced. EVERY tire was off balance. Lesson...depends upon who does the balancing and the knowledge and conscientiousness they use.
There are some brands of tires I wouldn't touchif they were free. You can figure it out by reading reviews at Tirerack, Discount Tire, or other stores.
I'm very sorry. And, I do appreciate your kind explanations. But I'm having trouble understanding.
The 1.7 ounces minus 0.57 ounces is all of the (aluminum) wheel (it's more for steel). That calculation has nothing (yet) to do with the tire.
I understood your point that an older wheel 'may' be out of balance but I don't understand your point above about tread rubber thickness variance since we're only talking about the wheel at this point.
All I'm asking is 'how much' you think a wheel will be out of balance (in order to negate the amount known to be out of balance from the start.
SF Man wrote in news:j3m5jt$eo$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
It's an incorrect point.
Used wheels, even if not perfect, are just fine and can be balanced as well as new wheels.
The "right way" is also the way I outlined in my first reply. I did not make all that up out of my pretty little head, I learned it the hard way, having had very many problems with vibration until I had the answers explained (and abundantly proven) to me by somebody who was very much NOT a monkey.
of course they are!!! what i'm saying, and what you're trying not to acknowledge, is that large bumps can cause them to change shape slightly, and that in turn changes their balance. a good quality balance machine, used properly, will take account of this. trying to use the original factory dots on a wheel that's been affected in this way is just myopic retardation.
er, no, "bent wheel" is what you measure with a gauge. bad ones, you don't even need the gauge.
what a ridiculous statement. no "man" can measure to fractions of a degree, fractions of a gram or fractions of a millimeter. that's why "man" /invented/ precision measuring devices. you've completely lost the plot on this one.
no, it's a correct point. of course wheels can be balanced just as well. [you can also literally balance a square wheel, if you made one.] they just won't be balance at the same rotational point because use inevitably means small bends, and those bends "shift the dot".
why waste time trying to make silk purses out of sows ears? just buy decent tires in the first place and take them to someone who has a decent balancing machine that does a much better job than any "dot" alignment. not only do you get tires that are round and that stay balanced, you get tires that don't get flat spots if parked for more than a couple of days, that drive well in the rain [continue to grip and don't hydroplane], and will stop you on a dime if a kid runs out in front of you. /none/ of those things are a "given" with mickey mouse cheapo tires, regardless of how you try to finesse their mechanical ugliness.
You have a good point there. If the tires were 'balanced' from the start, they wouldn't need the red dot, I suppose.
But, I wonder how many tires are truly balanced if almost every new tire I've seen has the red dot (or yellow).
Here I must disagree. The reason I don't 'think' it's a marketing gimmick is that very few people 'see' the red dot. In fact, I've asked at tire places, and the guys there never even saw it (even though it's on almost every tire). I don't think they play up the fact they have non-symetry in their tires.
Maybe that's the reason for the dots then. I'm sure there is a reason, I just don't know it (if the Hunter machine is as good as you say it is).
If I understand what you're saying, it's this:
- The Hunter machine can figure out where the STARTING point is for mounting
But, what I don't understand is that the Hunter machine is run only AFTER the tire is mounted.
By then, it's too late to determine the optimal starting point.
I've read the PDFs of the government test procedure for the wet traction rating.
formatting link
It doesn't seem pointless to me. It's flawed, like any test; but it's better than not having a rating. I just wish they had a dry traction rating also. :(
After reading the government PDF on the temperature test, I concluded, simplistically, that it's a measure of how much the tire heats up due to flexing twice on every revolution (which, inherently, takes speed into account). It has nothing (directly) to do with environmental temperatures.
The government PDF is here:
I've heard the wives tale (urban myth?) that a higher treadwear equals a tire with less traction; but looking at the wet traction numbers, that myth does not seem to bear any resemblence to the published numbers.
However, since there are unpublished numbers (e.g., dry traction, cornering traction, etc.), a longer-lasting tire 'may' have a bearing on traction.
But, if it does, I see no evidence that actually proves that out (however logical it may seem upon first inspection).
My mom told me that if I went outside without a hat I'd catch a cold - but the proof doesn't bear that out. It 'may' be the same with the old adage that a longer-lasting tire has less grip.
I don't know. But nothing I see says that other than people who say it all the times (just like people say that brakes warp when it's just not true
99% of the time).
This is a good point about the speed ratings. While I own a performance sedan, my personal top speed isn't much higher than a hundred miles per hour, so, you are wholly correct that speed rating isn't all that big of a deal.
That's another good point, this time about the load range. For load range, I guess, good enough is good enough. Take the GVWR and add the load and divide by four and that should be good enough. Right?
I agree with you that you need to narrow the field down to a handful of tires. I buy on price:performance. That means I get the highest performance for the lowest price.
The real problem is assessing performance. The reviews stink. And the numbers stink. So, that's why it's so hard to choose tires logically, by the numbers.
Most of us can tell, by the time we're around 50 years old, when someone is spouting from their derriere versus when they say something that is backed up by facts.
And, all of us know, by now, the power of the placebo effect.
The tire reviews are rife with people telling half the story, writing about a car different than yours, in weather and terrain different than yours, and without a shred of measured evidence and repeatability.
How many people who write those review actually MEAUSRE the things they spout? I'd bet 1% at best.
Unfortunately, that leaves 99% as sheer unsubstantiated hearsay or irrevelent (to your driving conditions and vehicle).
It's sad, but, it's difficult to buy tires logically because of the dearth of 'good' data.
I understand. They're better than nothing, and, if believable, they'd be tantamount to a recommendation by your best friend whom you trust.
But, sadly, I just don't see a whole lot of measurements in the Tire Rack reviews. Lots of opinion. But precious little verifiable fact.
Reminds me of when, long ago, I went to Sears for an alignment after doing my very first front suspension overhaul in my life. I watched the guy because I wanted to learn how he did it. I went to get a drink of water or two, but I never saw him do anything.
The next day, I brought it back, suspecting more and more and more as I drove away that he couldn't have done the alignement in the time it took me to fritter about a bit.
Lo and behold, every single spec was off by a lot when I had the manager retest it. I swore I'd never go to Sears ever again.
How many people go for an alignment and get nothing?
You can rest assured, I watch like a hawk the guys mounting my tires!
They took 2.75 ounces of lead, at the most (1.5 ounces in the least).
They did not use Hunter machines.
The mechanics had absolutely no interest in where the red dot goes (they threw away the printout I gave them 'cuz I walked back in, after I left, to see, making up a story about leaving my glasses). I saw the paper in the trash.
It's amazing. They didn't know anything about installing tires ... and didn't care to learn.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.