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

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).

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.

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...

Where the white paint dot was all we could find in _each_ of the rims.

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.

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!

*Thanks for that helpful link to "wheel adapters" from Adapt It USA.*

That's EXACTLY what the pickup truck _rear_ wheel adapters looked like! o Although the front adapters were _completely_ different!

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!

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.

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.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... this is OT ... but ... it looks fine to me. :( o For this URL:

Here's what it looked like in my default browser on Windows just now:

No popups, even after waiting ten minutes. o No awards either (drat, I didn't win any awards?) :)

Although, I don't think I've seen a popup in years since I happen to use only the best browsers, set up properly, for privacy & convenience. o Discussion of two different privacy-related browser philosophies

As many know, I post pictures to the net all the time. o So I'm all ears if you know of a _better_ photo-hosting site!

Please, if you know of a better picture site has this, let me know: a. No registration b. Free upload c. Permanent storage d. Removal link etc.

A suggestion for you is perhaps change your browser to a better one? o The best free Windows & Linux web browsers (with full download links!)

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.

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:

Apparently manufactured in Indonesia:

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?

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

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:

But 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)

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.

Where this is apparently the launch shill on November 4th, 2014: o Hankook launches no-frills Laufenn tire brand

"Laufenn promises simple, sensible tires for less"

The kid bought the G Fit as online, where Laufenn says this about it:

"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:

"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:

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

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

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).

Overall...

*Do you think $160 is a good deal that together we helped these kids attain*?

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)...

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...

*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?

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

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:

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).

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?

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.

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".

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:

As Xeno has aptly described in other threads, "my" use of tires turns out to be unduly harsh, as this Lexus SUV shows:

or this BMW SUV shows:

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:

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):

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).

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?

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.

Thank you

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.

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?)

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This affects _all_ tires though.

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

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

Unfortunately, the only facts we have are the specs.

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

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

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

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

But it's a lot better than absolutely nothing.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish we had more than just the specs that we have; but we just don't.

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

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

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

o Consumer Reports: Laufenn X Fit HT, overall score 68 (range 56 to 74)

o Dry braking = Very Good o Wet braking = Fair o Handling = Good o Hydroplaning = Very Good o Snow traction = Good o Ice braking = Very Good o Ride comfort = Very Good o Noise = Very Good o Rolling resistance = Very Good o CR Price = $120

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

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

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

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

Interestingly, I ran a CR comparison of Laufenn to Hancook scores: o 70 Hankook Winter i*cept evo2 o 70 Hankook Winter i*Cept iZ2 o 70 Hankook Ventus V12 evo2 o 68 *Laufenn X Fit HT* o 68 Hankook Dynapro HT o 66 Laufenn X Fit AT o 66 Hankook Dynapro HP2 o 66 Hankook Dynapro AT-M o 63 Hankook Kinergy PT o 60 Laufenn I Fit Ice o 57 Hankook Ventus S1 noble 2 o 56 Hankook I*Pike RW11 o 50 Laufenn S Fit AS

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

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

At least, not in the USA,

But this article below says Europe has noise specs! o Is noise really all the tire's fault?

"The ECE noise standards were first applied to OE tires on new vehicles beginning in 2004 and have expanded to all tires sold in Europe."

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

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

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

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

Googling, this may be apropos (depending on the reliability of the source) o The Fight Against Tire Noise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also these posts about tire noise in o

o