Questions about mounting & balancing new LT tires on new steel rims at home (match mounting marks, red dots, yellow dots, & spacers)

Mounted & balanced a set of tires for one of my kids' friends this weekend
formatting link
brand new steel wheels the kids bought (of unknown-to-me brand or size):
formatting link

Where I'd like to ask other adults for purposefully helpful advice so that
I can learn from your experience as this is my first ever mounting &
statically balancing new tires on a brand new set of steel wheels at home.
o Laufenn "G Fit as tires: 215/65R15 95H, TW=500, TR=A, TMP=A
1. These tires had both red (shape) & yellow (weight) dots:
formatting link
Where, AFAIK:
o red = uniformity point of maximum radial force variation of the tire
(i.e., difference between the highest & lowest weight points)
(aka the tires' point of maximum radial force and runout)
(aka the tires' high point)
to be aligned to the steel rim's point of minimum radial run-out
(i.e., to be aligned to the steel wheels' low point)
o yellow = the point of lightest weight of the tire
to be aligned with the valve stem on the wheel assembly
which represents the heaviest weight point of the wheel assembly
2. We followed the "red rules over yellow" maxim by marking the rim in
front where this white paint mark was on the back of each rim:
formatting link

3. But since the steel wheels were new, is _this_ mere paint dot on
the inside of each rim the actual match mounting indicator?
formatting link

4. Other than that white paint dot, we couldn't find low-point dimples
or scratches, or other indications on the steel wheels:
formatting link

5. So we simply matched the red tire mark to the steel rim white paint dot:
formatting link

6. In addition, the old wheels were quite different in size than the new,
where the new wheels were the stock size for this vehicle & the old
wheels were completely different in size, shape, & depth:
formatting link

7. But what was strange about the front axle, was this aluminum spacer:
formatting link

8. And what was even stranger about the rear axle was this steel and
aluminum spacer assembly:
formatting link

9. The boys asked me if they should keep or ditch the spacer, but I simply
didn't have a clue since I have never encountered such things before.
formatting link

10. I suspect they were needed perhaps due to the depth of the old wheels:
formatting link

11. Where the rear axle had a much thicker spacer than the front axle did:
formatting link

12. Where in the end, we opted to remove all the spacers on both axles:
formatting link

13. Where the original lug nuts on the front axle seemed to fit well on the
front lug bolts:
formatting link

14. But for the rear axle, the lug nuts that were holding together the
two-piece rear spacer seemed to fit the lug bolts better.
formatting link

In summary, what advice would you give if you have mounted and balanced
tires on new steel wheels at home?
NOTE: I've done SUV tires many times before, but on old steel wheels,
where, in the past, SUV tires were a pain to seal the bead as compared to
sedan tires, but the SUV tires were relatively easy to mount onto the steel
rims (as opposed to sedan tires on both steel & alloy wheels); whereas
these LT tires were the complete opposite of my prior SUV tire experience!
o These LT tires were a pain to get onto the rim, but,
o They sealed so trivially that it took _zero_ force to pop in the bead.
The fit was so tight that I literally popped the bead without any holding
of the tire whatsoever to seat the bead. It was _that_ tight on the rim.
NOTE: Dynamic balance test is free, where the kid reported zero vibration
at speed, but where I told him Costco will balance any wheel for around
five bucks a wheel (an extra 50 cents per wheel if they're on the vehicle),
so dynamic balance is assured due to two simple things:
a. The on-the-road dynamic balance test is always constant & free, and,
b. The Costco dynamic balance, if needed, is only five bucks per wheel.
We didn't need to dispose the old tires, but here in California, Costco
takes back worn carcasses for $1 each plus about 10% sales tax
(why there's a _second_ sales tax on tires is beyond my pay grade).
NOTE: I have a separate bead breaker, but we didn't need it for this job
because the kid kept the old wheels and tires.
Note: We didn't put steel clipon weights because you can't get lead weights
in California it seems, and besides, I couldn't find them when we needed
them, so we were stuck with ounce and half ounce stickon California
non-lead alloy wheel weights.
Note: We used the snap in (rubber boot) brass shielded tire valves because
the kids forgot to buy their own, so those were the only ones I have since
I used up all my bolt on 0.453" tire valves on the last mounting job.
Note: We used liquid dish detergent for lube, where these tires were super
tight, like I've never seen tires be (where I've mounted, oh, about 40
tires in the last handful of years, give or take a few tires).
Note: It's about $20 per wheel (plus usually around 3 to 7 bucks each for
disposal, plus around 3 to 4 bucks each for valves) for mounting and
dynamic balancing which we saved for this kid, in addition to taxes and
shipping, all of which was free since we bought out of state.
And of course, the local tire shops _never_ bother to match mount.
Reply to
Arlen Holder
If the spacers were fitted, they were fitted for a reason. If you are using the same rims, *use the spacers*. If you are fitting *new* rims that differ in any way from the original, measure them. The offset is the critical measurement. If the offset is different from factory, you will need spacers, If the offset is the same as factory rims, you shouldn't need spacers if the OEM didn't use them.
Those spacers server two purposes;
They centre the wheel over the bearings so that the bearings both share the load. You can shorten bearing life if you get this wrong. That said, some people use spacers, like those fitted to the rear, to increase rear track and don't care about the offset.
As well as the above, they give the desired steering offset so that *steering* operates as designed at the factory. This offset is *critical* to safe operation of the steering. This is a very complex topic so please do not dick about making decisions the consequences of which you do not comprehend.
Here is a good summary of stuff you *need to know*.
formatting link
These days rims are much better manufactured than in the past and match mounting isn't generally necessary.
Reply to
Xeno
:
Hi Xeno,
Thanks for taking the risk of responding as it's tough on Usenet to converse when it's just text and a bunch of snapshots.
As you noted, I'm also absolutely sure the spacers were there for a good reason, whether for sheer looks or because the clearly non-stock alloy wheels we took off were vastly different than the stock (aka factory spec) steel wheels we replaced them with.
I'm not too worried about not putting the spacers back because the new stock steel wheels fit fine without those spacers, where I was just wondering if a simple cheap Chevy pickup truck would ever have spacers in a stock situation in the first place.
Hi Xeno,
I love to learn the details where I'm sure there's a reason for everything.
The main question, really, is whether that "white dot" was the match mounting mark on the new steel rims, where I'm pretty sure if it is that they didn't consider match mounting not necessary when they put that dot there in the first place.
Nobody does that stuff for no good reason. They just don't. :)
I'm an old man, where you don't want to know how many times I've heard people say "oh, that bolt doesn't do anything", simply because they couldn't be bothered to replace all the bolts they took out.
If they're gonna bother putting a match-mounting mark on the wheels, and another corresponding mounting mark on the tires, then I'm gonna use them.
If they're not needed, particularly on new wheels and new tires, then they wouldn't put them there, IMHO. Although I am very familiar with the Tire Rack saying that nobody cares about match mounting anymore because they have dynamic balance machines which will compensate for anything.
We had to static balance - so it would seem to me that it's important to use as little weight as possible, where on one tire, we didn't need anything (but that was the tire with the red and yellow does 180 degrees apart).
Interestingly, the tires that needed the most balance weight were those where the red and yellow dots were off by about thirty to sixty degrees (or so).
Reply to
Arlen Holder
: >
Where it is most useful is for the OEMs at the factory when the car is assembled. That mark will not be on a rim for long unless it is etched or stamped in - and they often are. Back in the 70's Ford in this country had a really big issue with *tyres* on Falcons. Lots of vibes and no amount of balancing would fix it. At the dealer, we had a set of rims and tyres that were perfect in every way - a diagnostic tool with a Ford part number. If that sorted the issue, the tyres were tossed out and the rim runout checked with new tyres then fitted. Too much radial force variation in the OEM tyres. And it was badon the Falcon because that particular front suspension layout seemed overly sensitive to such things. I went on to work in GM dealerships so never knew if they had issues with subsequent models of Falcons.
Here's an idea. Mount up the rims on a wheel sans tyres, then get a dial indicator and check the vertical runout. That way you will *know* the extent of the runout, if any, and the location. Then see where it is in relation to the rim mark.
Rims generally do not suffer from balance issues. If anything, the rim will be in quite good balance *until* you mount the valve stem. The yellow balance match mounting is to compensate for the extra *mass* of the valve as it indicates the lightest point of the tyre. OEMs will use the red dot in preference as that is the radial force variation indicator. They will then use balance weights to sort out the balance issues. Since you have a new rim, you can use the red mark on the tyre and align it with the rim marker. In fact, that is the preference when fitting a new tyre on a new rim. Then proceed to balance and ignore the relative locations of each mark. Focus on red. Of course, you may end up with more balance weights this way but them's the breaks. Life is full of compromise and the auto industry is no exception.
That is quite understandable. The red and yellow dots indicate quite different things.
I suggest you watch a video on how tyres are manufactured. Very enlightening. Years ago I did a study tour of the Goodyear tyre factory and it explained a lot - especially how the tread was *rolled on*. You not only get mass variations but you also get flex variations and they can create issues you will never balance out. You should find a suitable video on youtube.
Reply to
Xeno
:
Hi Xeno,
I thank you for offering advice on Usenet because my goal is to learn.
Rest assured I know it's risky me asking (and you answering) this type of question on Usenet since a _lot_ of people have strongly held opinions, particularly on home & automotive repairs that they, themselves, _hate_ to do, where their opinions are then seemingly based on exactly zero (0) facts (since they themselves would never tackle even such a simple task as this is).
Hence I appreciate that you offered your advice, as I know both you and Clare, for example, have at least mounted and balanced tires yourselves.
Regarding factory tire mounting, I'm well aware that the Internet is rife with claims that the OEMs don't bother to dynamically balance brand new wheels and tires, although I don't really have that on a reliable source as yet.
Yup. I've posted pictures in the past of a "notch" in old steel Toyota rims, for example, where it's certainly obvious that this "white dot" in these brand new rims exists on all four wheels ... so I can only "assume" it's the match mounting mark to be aligned to the steel rim's point of minimum radial run-out (i.e., to be aligned to the steel wheels' low point)
Rest assured I had the kids scour the rims for any other marks though...
formatting link
Where the white paint dot was all we could find in _each_ of the rims.
formatting link
Thanks for that purposefully helpful suggestion Xeno.
I might try that on the next set of wheels, as I use a dial gauge all the time to check rotor runout (which some people incorrectly call 'warp'); where I have a bunch of dial gauges (e.g., to check piston TDC) which can be screwed into a jig of some sort to check the wheel runout off the car.
Thanks for that advice Xeno on the yellow (lightest point of the tire) mark, where almost all the past 60 or so tires I've had shipped to my house in the past few years (the first score of which I had others mount for me until I got sick of all the shortcuts I could clearly see they took) had _both_ the yellow and red mounting marks, where Clare apprised me long ago, as I recall, to mount the yellow mark to the heaviest point of the wheel assembly (which is presumed to be at the valve stem) if it's an old rim which doesn't clearly indicate any match mounting marks.
formatting link
What I've always found interesting is that both the red and yellow mark have been on almost all the consumer tires I've bought on the net, where I find it hard to believe they're all _also_ sold to OEMs.
So they must be putting these red marks on tires expecting them to be placed on _new_ rims by consumers, even if not by the OEMs themselves. Right?
Yup. That's exactly our logic.
Red (maximum radial force variation) rules over yellow (lightest weight) _if_ you have new steel wheels with point of minimum radial run-out (low point) match-mounting marks; otherwise, yellow rules over red where you can "assume" the valve stem is the heaviest spot on the steel wheel.
That's an interesting statement, Xeno!
At first I didn't understand why focusing on red (matching the maximum radial force variation of the tire to the low point of the rim) would result in more weight than if we focused on yellow (light point of the tire to the heavy point of the wheel), as, in the end, it's all based on F=ma & momentum, is it not?
Is it often the case, all other things being equal, that focusing on the red (minimizing radial force variation) versus focusing on the yellow (minimizing weight variation) results in lesser weights added overall?
I wasn't aware of that, where, if I think in terms of just weight, it makes inherent sense, but if I think in terms of force & momentum, I'm not so sure I comprehend the dynamics of why focusing on red (force variation) would result in more weight than yellow (weight variation).
I think I might have watched every "how things are made" video on the Internet, from Orange Juice to Tires. Rest assured I've seen how tires are made. :)
Yup. Seeing the steel belts being created and the rubber being vulcanized in layers is interesting to say the least!
Reply to
Arlen Holder
:
*Thanks for that helpful link to "wheel adapters" from Adapt It USA.*
formatting link
That's EXACTLY what the pickup truck _rear_ wheel adapters looked like! o Although the front adapters were _completely_ different!
formatting link
That link doesn't say _why_ anyone would do such a thing to a Chevy though. o It simply assumes you know why you would want such a thing on your axle!
formatting link
It doesn't tell us _why_ these things were on the axle in the first place. o Where I don't know the history of this truck as it wasn't mine.
And the kid who owned the old pickup only bought it recently himself. o Where he _hated_ the alloy rims & low-profile tires that we replaced.
formatting link
The main reason I asked for more information on why anyone would put such a thing on their axle is I've only replaced, fixed, mounted, and balanced about 40 tires at home in the past handful of years, where this is the first time I had run into these "wheel adapters".
So I was asking those who know more than I do why anyone would put such things on their vehicle in the first place.
Reply to
Arlen Holder
: >
More than I care to count - and that's why I don't bother nowadays.
In fact, you may find the OEMs are the *only ones* who do it.
The problem with radial force variation is that it isn't only runout that creates the issue. The joint in the tread layer at manufacture can become less elastic than the rest of the tread and that will cause a vibration. Happened to a work colleague some 40 years ago on his pickup. The vehicle had a nasty vibration and balancing didn't cure it. The dealer even went to the effort of *grinding* the tread so the tyre was perfectly round. No dice. A new set of tyres was the cure but the dealer and tyre company weren't happy.
Which is why a lot of tyre fitters don't bother. The white mark on the rim is no longer extant so they just fit according to the yellow balance mark.
OEMs will often get special sets made up. But then, they likely buy millions of them so purchasing power is much greater. All the tyres go through on the same line so I can't see why OEM tyres wouldn't be the same, with respect to match marks, as the aftermarket tyres.
Not necessarily. As I stated above, they all go through the same line and OEMs buy millions of tyres.
That is the logical approach. You can't balance out RFV by any other means than using the match marks - but you can compensate balance with more or less weights as required.
Depends on what the RFV marks are matching for. Resistance variation in the tyre rubber can create a semblance of runout in that it will create a vibration. There is a term for that resistance variation in the tyre rubber but is escapes me for the moment - oldtimers disease ya know.
The two points are not necessarily the same since they relate to two different aspects. You could have more or less, it just depends.
I suggest you look up the causes of radial force variation. It isn't limited to weight or runout.
Indeed. I'd never realized tyres were made that way until the factory visit. That said, it made it easier for me to visualise the problems that can arise in tyres when on vehicles, RFV being one such.
Reply to
Xeno
:
Hi Xeno, I get your math, and don't argue that the tire makers are putting both the red (force variation) and yellow (weight variation) dots, not caring at the time of manufacturer who the buyer is...
But these are "Laufenn" tires, which we selected because they were the best tire at the best price; but how many OEMs put "Laufenn" tires on at the factory?
I don't know, but it could be zero (although maybe Laufenn is a big brand somewhere; but personally I had never heard of Laufenn until these tires showed up in the back of the kid's pickup).
Googling, apparently the Chinese company, Hancook, makes Laufenn tires:
formatting link
manufactured in Indonesia:
formatting link
Thanks for hazarding an answer as I'm sure there's a _reason_ we match red to force variation and yellow to weight variation.
In general, I match yellow (light point of the tire) to the valve stem (heavy point of the rim), but this was my first brand new rim mount in about 40 home mounts over the past five or so years.
In summary, I love learning about this stuff as knowledge is fun in and of itself (e.g., I can choose a tire by what it says on the sidewall, and that feels good to be able to do).
It's also nice to help out the kids, where my rule was I'll help them get the tires mounted and balanced, but they had to do all the work, where they dinged up the rims a bit - but I don't think it's more than cosmetic, do you?
formatting link
Reply to
Arlen Holder
A lot, they just mark them with house brands. Hankook OEMs for a whole lot of companies, just like most of the other big tire outfits do.
They are the name Hankook uses on their lower-end products.
Hankook is a Korean company that has been in the tire business for many years. They aren't as big as Kumho but they are very big in the racing market today. They are very much not Chinese. --scott
Reply to
Scott Dorsey
:
Hi Scott,
Thanks for that information, where I appreciate the risk of posting, and where, I guess, tires can be an "oligopoly" much like automotive batteries seem to be, where out of hundreds of "brands", only a small number of actual manufacturers may be churning them out.
Not knowing how many tire companies sell in the USA, Wiki lists 68:
formatting link
that's for the entire world, and not tires sold only in the USA.
Thanks. I had never heard of Laufenn before, and, until today, I had never looked them up, where all marketing strives for a "good/better/best" lineup, mainly, IMHO, because people _love_ a number line and hence, marketing (IMHO) loves to give people a number line to choose from! :)
According to this article, the "number line" from marketing is: o Laufenn S FIT is an ultra-high performance summer tire; o Laufenn G FIT is an all-season tire; o Laufenn X FIT is for SUVs and light trucks; o Laufenn I FIT is Laufenn's version of a winter/snow tire (studded)
formatting link
This article claims they've been selling Laufenn in the USA since 2014: o Here's where Laufenn Tires come from and our opinion if they're any good.
formatting link
Where this is apparently the launch shill on November 4th, 2014: o Hankook launches no-frills Laufenn tire brand
formatting link
"Laufenn promises simple, sensible tires for less"
The kid bought the G Fit as online, where Laufenn says this about it:
formatting link
"The G FIT AS is the ideal choice for drivers looking for top-of-the-line comfort, All-Season performance and optimal fuel efficiency."
But you know how marketing is for consumer commodities such as tires are (IMHO).
The TireRack shill for the G Fit AS tires is here:
formatting link
"Laufenn tires are designed to be the sensible choice by delivering the fundamentals demanded to handle everyday driving needs and to inspire confidence by design...blah blah blah..."
SimpleTire only has a handful of ratings, which are good, but unhelpful:
formatting link
Thanks for that correction, where I got the "Chinese" from this quote: "This is not another run-of-the-mill Chinese brand" in the article cited above, but where I misread what they had meant!
In looking for a review that's not a shill, I found these, which "may" be reliable (but I'm not sure as it's always hard to find good tire reviews): o Consumer Reports: Laufenn tire reviews
formatting link
o Laufenn S FIT AS earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 50 at $109 o Laufenn X FIT HT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 68 at $120 o Laufenn X FIT AT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 66 at $126 o Laufenn I FIT earned a Consumer Reports overall score of 60 at $109 As is often the case with Consumer Reports, they didn't test the one tire we installed, which was the Laufenn "G Fit AS". :(
I found a Laufenn G Fit AS review here, but as you're well aware, tire reviews are classic for being almost worthless in many respects: o
formatting link
I'm sure you know this, but IMHO, tire reviews suffer from the same problems as most commodity reviews suffer from, like pork bellies (but that's a separate topic which we've covered before, where I know full well there are those who claim they have the full test spec sheet of all tires they've ever wanted to buy - but I don't believe that they do - they just bullshit - like lots of people do who write these tire reviews).
Reply to
Arlen Holder
:
Overall...
*Do you think $160 is a good deal that together we helped these kids attain*?
formatting link
Given the goal (always) is not only to learn for myself, but to also teach others, like these kids, how to select and buy their tires by the specifications and not by the marketing bullshit (in addition to teaching them how to do their own repairs, mounting & balancing at home)...
formatting link
Given I had never heard of Laufenn before, and given that I taught the kids how to purchase tires by specifications, & not by marketing bullshit...
formatting link
*Do you think these kids got a good deal with our help for these tires?* o Laufenn G Fit AS, sized P215/65r15 96H & model LH41
This is what the kids paid out of their pockets for the total task: o Tires = $160 (4 times $50 minus $40 VISA rebate card) o Tax = out of state o Shipping = free o Mounting = free o Valves = 'free' (they forgot to buy valves so I gave them mine) o Static balancing = free (includes free dynamic balance test) o Disposal = not needed as these tires were mounted on new rims
Do you think $160 total is a good deal that we helped these kids attain?
formatting link
Reply to
Arlen Holder
:
Hi Ed Pawlowski,
Thanks for that assessment, where all I ever care about are the facts. o All our decisions are to be based on facts - never on marketing bullshit.
The first set of facts we started with are printed on the driver door jamb: o
formatting link
I advised the kids to purchase nothing _less_ than those original specs! o GVWR = 4600/02087 LB/KG o GAWR FRT = 2500/01134 LB/KG o GAWR RR = 2700/01225 LB/KG o PAYLOAD = 1265/574 LB/KG o SBPL FRT = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X7JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA o SBPL RR = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X7JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA o SPBP SPA = P215/65R15, RTG = H, RIM = 15X6JJ, COLD = 35/240 PSI/KPA (Note the spare tire, underslung under the bed, is a different rim.)
The second set of facts we looked at for each tire to be considered: o Laufenn "G FIT AS", P215/65R15 96H LH41 $40 each, mounted & balanced o Load index = 96 (1,565 pounds, 710 kg) o Speed rating = H (130 mph, 210 km/h) o Treadwear = 500 o Traction = A o Temperature = A Where the lookups were based on well-known published tables such as:
formatting link
While the warranty never impacted our decision process (as that's just marketing positioning), Laufenn offers a treadlife warrnty on all their tires (although we can discuss that marketing bullshit later if we must).
What I care about are facts - not marketing or other bullshit. o I make decisions based on facts.
One other fact I have on treadlife is that Consumer Reports tested "similar" Laufenn tires (but not this specific "G Fit AS" tire).
formatting link
For example, CR tested treadwear & projected tread life as follows: o Laufenn X Fit AT = Projected tread life 75,000 miles based on CR's tests o Laufenn S Fit AS = Projected tread life 60,000 miles based on CR's tests
And, in fact, CR stated for all the tested Laufenn tires I could find: o "tested tread life exceeds warranty"
So I'm curious, Ed, what facts you know that CR & I don't seem to know?
To the point that they will last "maybe 10,000 miles", I simply ask for what facts you used to base that "maybe 10,000 miles" assessment upon?
Reply to
Arlen Holder
:
Ooops. Allow me to _instantly_ apologize to Ed Pawlowski!
I sent the WRONG post, as I had reconsidered what I wrote and had NOT intended to send that post (nor one I had written to Clare of similar ilk).
The problem was I had _expected_ Ed to be cynical, so I read into what he wrote _more_ than what he actually said.
Which means I broke my own rule of making decisions based ONLY on facts.
I apologize.
Ed - correctly - said I won't know for sure until the kid has driven on the tires for about 10,000 miles!
I apologize, openly, publicly, and honestly to Ed for misinterpreting what he said.
What Ed said was entirely apropos. o What I said, was not!
I apologize.
Reply to
Arlen Holder
:
Hi John T,
On the treadwear issue, what I deplore is that we really do not have any good FACTS on how long a tire will last in our definition of "normal use".
formatting link
I've struggled for years trying to figure out how to tell by facts how long a tire "should" last in normal use (or in our use, which may not be normal as this Toyota SUV shows:
formatting link
As Xeno has aptly described in other threads, "my" use of tires turns out to be unduly harsh, as this Lexus SUV shows:
formatting link
this BMW SUV shows:
formatting link
What Ed said about miles was appropriate, which is we won't really be able to tell until we look at the tires after, oh, about 10,000 miles or so, where this, for example, is camber scrub on a Toyota SUV tire after fewer than 1000 miles:
formatting link
Luckily, this kid lives in the flatlands of Silicon Valley, where the climate and terrain is so mild that he shouldn't get whatever the typical mileage should be for those particular tires, instead of what we get (in what turns out to be extreme use with respect to camber scrub issues):
formatting link
But what _is_ that typical mileage for those Laufenn tires? o We really do not have a lot of facts.
The only treadlife "fact" I have, for example, is the treadwear is 500.
One other fact is that Consumer Reports tested four of these Laufenn tires, but unfortunately not the one tire this kid bought, but where every one of the Laufenn tires Consumers Union tested exceeded the treadwear warranty, which, I agree, is a bullshit marketing figure, but which is 45,000 miles on these tires.
CR rated the Laufenn tires it did test at 60,000 & 75,000 miles, which, for me, would be heaven on earth as I don't get more than about 20K or 30K per in my use (admittedly with camber scrub & punctures doing almost all the damage).
formatting link
In summary, treadwear is an important fact to know, but, what FACTS do we have to predict treadwear given any particular new tire in our hands?
Reply to
Arlen Holder
: >
First, don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of them LASTING "maybe 10,000 miles." I said we may know then if it is a good deal and a lot of factors come into play aside from tread life. It may take that long to give a good assessment.
Like you, I deal with facts Tires lose air over time. How much? Materials and construction make a difference. Most will lose from 1 to 3 psi a month. Will these be in that range? You don't know. No facts here yet
Will they be subject to blowing out more or less if you hit a pot hole. Do you have a fact on that?
Traction on various road types and wet conditions. Do you have a fact on that? You only have a number based on standardized testing that may or may not be the same as your driving conditions.
Consumer Reports did tread life testing on similar tires. Good chance these will be similar. I will agree there.
How durable are they compared to others if you rub a curb? No facts on that either.
Are the quiet or noisy? Harsh or soft ride?
You may have the tire buy of the century or you may have a big turkey egg. You made an educated guess on a series of standardized testing but the result, like any tire, performance will vary depending on your particular use. Like I said, it will take some miles to find if they suit your needs well.
Reply to
Ed Pawlowski
:
Hi Clare,
I appreciate that you risked an opinion on the Laufenn tire quality.
I can't vouch for the durability of the tire, since the only specs that relate to durability are the load index and speed and temp ratings, all of which simply meet or exceed the original specs as printed on the door jamb.
formatting link
If _that_ OEM spec is "undersized", then, well, at least we exceeded it.
As for "wet traction", all we know is that it got an A for wet traction (but not an AA); but I don't think anyone would call an "A" terrible.
Would they? o The A indicates an asphalt G-Force of "above 0.47" (but below 0.54?). o The A indicates a concrete G-Force of "0.35" (but below 0.38?)
formatting link
Interestingly, compound matters for the test more than tread pattern: "Since this test evaluates a sliding tire at a constant 40 mph, it places more emphasis on the tire's tread compound and less emphasis on its tread design"
While I can clearly ascertain that feel these tires are of low quality, I see precious few actual facts that we can state about these tires which deserves such denigration, IMHO.
I'm not saying they're great tires - as I wouldn't know - and I never even heard of the brand until now - but I am saying that the specs appear to be just fine, as far as I can tell.
What else by way of facts do we have, other than the specs? o And the CR tests (which tested all but this one model of Laufenn tire).
Reply to
Arlen Holder

Site Timeline Threads

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.