Xeno wrote:

>> If they come with the vehicle stock, then it's my observation that, in
>
> Look at the *target market*. The manufacturer will put on the vehicle
> what they think the public wants, not necessarily what is best for
> *all-round use.

You are correct in that my bimmer has wide tires and a lower profile ratio
while my Toyota has tall tires and a higher profile ratio, where both would
likely benefit from the substitution of wider tires & lower profile ratios.

However, my rule of thumb is the same as what the tire shops do though,
which is I never put on a "worse" tire (by the specs) than the OEM tire.

In practice, that means it's never of a thinner width, and it's never a
lower load range nor speed rating. The profile is up for grabs though,
although I don't mess with the ratio as it changes other things too much.

>> general, the choice by the manufacturer makes sense; but if they're
>> aftermarket choices, often, in my experience, they don't make sense.
>
> Manufacturers are *market driven*.

Yes. But we're talking _safety_ specifications, such as the load range.

A reputable tire shop will even refuse to put a tire of just a lower speed
rating than what the OEM tire was (ask me how I know this).

>> Like putting low-profile tires on a SUV.
>> That makes no sense from a performance standpoint.
>
> Low profile tyres make a lot of sense from a *highway* performance
> standpoint.

Hmmmm.... Are you sure? They make a difference in _steering_ of course.
But how does a low-profile tire help in "highway performance" overall?

> Low profile tyres make no sense at all in any sort of rough
> road/off road scenario. So, for an *SUV*, standard profile tyres are a
> better *compromise*.

Well, back to _steering_, which is what I think of the purpose of
low-profile tires, you don't _expect_ great steering response in a SUV or
pickup truck, and, you have a different suspension in SUVs and light trucks
(which, of course, is where low-profile tires have drawbacks).

To me, the purpose of low profile tires is quick steering, and for that,
they work fantastically well. But who is expecting quick steering out of a
pickup truck that is also expected to haul heavy loads over rough ground?

What else does a low-profile do fundamentally than provide quicker steering
response?

>>
>> It's a "fashion" statement just as the green dunce cap is on tires.
>
> Pretty much.

Yup.
But hey, I just looked at my own tire pictures, and look'it what I found!
<https://i.postimg.cc/7L8HPbtb/mount16.jpg>

Note: I used to mount yellow to valve stem and then red to valve stem.
--
Usenet is a team where every player tries to move the ball forward.

On 2022-05-02 11:13 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> If they come with the vehicle stock, then it's my observation that, in
>>
>> Look at the *target market*. The manufacturer will put on the vehicle
>> what they think the public wants, not necessarily what is best for
>> *all-round use.
>
> You are correct in that my bimmer has wide tires and a lower profile ratio
> while my Toyota has tall tires and a higher profile ratio, where both would
> likely benefit from the substitution of wider tires & lower profile ratios.
>
> However, my rule of thumb is the same as what the tire shops do though,
> which is I never put on a "worse" tire (by the specs) than the OEM tire.
>
> In practice, that means it's never of a thinner width, and it's never a
> lower load range nor speed rating. The profile is up for grabs though,
> although I don't mess with the ratio as it changes other things too much.

Wow.

So much wrong in just a few sentences.

>
>>> general, the choice by the manufacturer makes sense; but if they're
>>> aftermarket choices, often, in my experience, they don't make sense.
>>
>> Manufacturers are *market driven*.
>
> Yes. But we're talking _safety_ specifications, such as the load range.
>
> A reputable tire shop will even refuse to put a tire of just a lower speed
> rating than what the OEM tire was (ask me how I know this).

Given the the speed rating only matters if you actually drive at the
speeds involved...

>
>>> Like putting low-profile tires on a SUV.
>>> That makes no sense from a performance standpoint.
>>
>> Low profile tyres make a lot of sense from a *highway* performance
>> standpoint.
>
> Hmmmm.... Are you sure? They make a difference in _steering_ of course.
> But how does a low-profile tire help in "highway performance" overall?
>
>> Low profile tyres make no sense at all in any sort of rough road/off
>> road scenario. So, for an *SUV*, standard profile tyres are a better
>> *compromise*.
>
> Well, back to _steering_, which is what I think of the purpose of
> low-profile tires, you don't _expect_ great steering response in a SUV or
> pickup truck, and, you have a different suspension in SUVs and light trucks
> (which, of course, is where low-profile tires have drawbacks).
> To me, the purpose of low profile tires is quick steering, and for that,
> they work fantastically well. But who is expecting quick steering out of a
> pickup truck that is also expected to haul heavy loads over rough ground?

More things that you don't actually understand?

>
> What else does a low-profile do fundamentally than provide quicker steering
> response?

Do some research.

Maybe you'll figure it out.

>
>>>
>>> It's a "fashion" statement just as the green dunce cap is on tires.
>>
>> Pretty much.
>
> Yup. But hey, I just looked at my own tire pictures, and look'it what I
> found!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/7L8HPbtb/mount16.jpg>
>
> Note: I used to mount yellow to valve stem and then red to valve stem.

On 2022-05-02 10:59 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Larger wheels on high performance vehicles allow for larger brakes,
>>> and while larger brakes won't actually stop you any quicker for a
>>> single stop, their greater heat capacity will mean they fade less
>>> when doing multiple stops/slowings.
>>
>> Larger wheels with an overall larger diameter also negotiate potholed
>> roads better than smaller diameter wheels. As a person who owned the
>> original Minis with 10 inch wheels, I speak from experience.  ;-)
>
> Wow. I don't think I've ever owned smaller than about 14 inch wheels on any
> passenger auto, where I saw that Michael Trew had 12 inch wheels.
> The 14 and 15 inch wheels are a breeze to mount and balance compared to the
> stiffer sidewall larger SUV/LT tires in my humblest of experiences.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/DwnjgJY3/mount08.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/sfqPNcVc/mount13.jpg>
> <https://i.postimg.cc/kG1M7cLd/mount15.jpg>
> etc.
>
> There's a place for width (e.g., traction)

Wrong.

> and for low profiles (e.g.,
> steering)

And wrong.

> and for larger air pockets (e.g., suspension padding), etc.

And one out of three!

>
> I've found, in practice, that the OEM tires aren't a bad choice for
> starters, where going _up_ in width can often improve traction a bit, but
> going up in diameter or down in profile may or may not increase things
> enough to not decrease other things too much.

That's not even English.

On 2022-05-02 10:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> Larger wheels on high performance vehicles allow for larger brakes, and
>>>> while larger brakes won't actually stop you any quicker for a single
>>>> stop, their greater heat capacity will mean they fade less when doing
>>>> multiple stops/slowings.
>>>
>>> Eh, I don't know, I guess I'm biased.� I drive old beaters; most of
>>> my cars are pre-1990.
>>
>> I haven't had a pre-1990 car since 1995. Now I don't even want a pre
>> 2020 car.
>
> One disadvantage of the older cars in California is they have to do the
> smog test on a dyno, which, one by one, are dropping out of the market.
>
> In California, newer cars get a smog check by the OBDII sensor instead.

There is no such thing as an "OBDII sensor".

On 2022-05-02 10:33 p.m., Xeno wrote:
> On 3/5/2022 2:27 am, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-05-02 7:34 a.m., Michael Trew wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2022 9:48, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> Michael Trew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When you say a "static" balancer, do you mean a bubble balancer? I've
>>>>> seen some used shop equipment come up for sale on FB Marketplace and
>>>>> Craigslist before, still usually out of my preferred price range
>>>>> (cheap).
>>>>
>>>> The problem that anyone who has never worked on cars has with the term
>>>> "dynamic balancing" is they fall prey to the fear-based marketing.
>>>>
>>>> Harbor Freight also sells a crappy bead breaker tool, which isn't
>>>> designed
>>>> for larger tires, but which works for those bigger SUV tires if you
>>>> put a
>>>> wooden board on it to "extend" its base as you step on the board to
>>>> keep
>>>> the bead breaker from tipping backward on those larger diameter tires.
>>>
>>> Why is a tire larger than 18 inches ever necessary for a
>>> non-commercial vehicle?  I don't think I've ever had a vehicle (I've
>>> owned well over 30 vehicles) with a larger than 15 inch diameter
>>> tire.  That includes my F-150 and C10 trucks.  My '97 Chrysler LHS
>>> *might* have had 16" tires, at the largest.  I hate needlessly large
>>> modern trucks and SUV's.
>>
>> You mean a 15" diameter WHEEL, don't you?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> I'm kind of with you about needlessly large trucks, etc.
>>
>> My brother and I at one time each owned a RAM 1500, but mine was a
>> 1998, while his was a 2017 or 2018.
>>
>> The difference in size was startling.
>>
>> But larger wheels do have their place.
>>
>> Larger wheels on high performance vehicles allow for larger brakes,
>> and while larger brakes won't actually stop you any quicker for a
>> single stop, their greater heat capacity will mean they fade less when
>> doing multiple stops/slowings.
>
> Larger wheels with an overall larger diameter also negotiate potholed
> roads better than smaller diameter wheels. As a person who owned the
> original Minis with 10 inch wheels, I speak from experience.  ;-)
>

But that's not what we were talking about.

:-)

On 3/5/2022 4:13 pm, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>> If they come with the vehicle stock, then it's my observation that, in
>>
>> Look at the *target market*. The manufacturer will put on the vehicle
>> what they think the public wants, not necessarily what is best for
>> *all-round use.
>
> You are correct in that my bimmer has wide tires and a lower profile ratio
> while my Toyota has tall tires and a higher profile ratio, where both would
> likely benefit from the substitution of wider tires & lower profile ratios.
>
> However, my rule of thumb is the same as what the tire shops do though,
> which is I never put on a "worse" tire (by the specs) than the OEM tire.
>
> In practice, that means it's never of a thinner width, and it's never a
> lower load range nor speed rating. The profile is up for grabs though,
> although I don't mess with the ratio as it changes other things too much.
>
>>> general, the choice by the manufacturer makes sense; but if they're
>>> aftermarket choices, often, in my experience, they don't make sense.
>>
>> Manufacturers are *market driven*.
>
> Yes. But we're talking _safety_ specifications, such as the load range.
>
> A reputable tire shop will even refuse to put a tire of just a lower speed
> rating than what the OEM tire was (ask me how I know this).
>
>>> Like putting low-profile tires on a SUV.
>>> That makes no sense from a performance standpoint.
>>
>> Low profile tyres make a lot of sense from a *highway* performance
>> standpoint.
>
> Hmmmm.... Are you sure? They make a difference in _steering_ of course.
> But how does a low-profile tire help in "highway performance" overall?

Less sidewall flex therefore more directional steering. IOW, they reduce
the slip angles. Given the tyres perform 10% or more of the springing
function, lower profile tyres will ride more harshly than the standard
profile tyre.
>
>> Low profile tyres make no sense at all in any sort of rough road/off
>> road scenario. So, for an *SUV*, standard profile tyres are a better
>> *compromise*.
>
> Well, back to _steering_, which is what I think of the purpose of
> low-profile tires, you don't _expect_ great steering response in a SUV or
> pickup truck, and, you have a different suspension in SUVs and light trucks
> (which, of course, is where low-profile tires have drawbacks).
> To me, the purpose of low profile tires is quick steering, and for that,
> they work fantastically well. But who is expecting quick steering out of a
> pickup truck that is also expected to haul heavy loads over rough ground?

Disregarding pick up trucks, most SUVs never see even a *gravel road*
much less go off-road.
>
> What else does a low-profile do fundamentally than provide quicker steering
> response?

Looks cool - so they say.
>
>>>
>>> It's a "fashion" statement just as the green dunce cap is on tires.
>>
>> Pretty much.
>
> Yup. But hey, I just looked at my own tire pictures, and look'it what I
> found!
> <https://i.postimg.cc/7L8HPbtb/mount16.jpg>
>
> Note: I used to mount yellow to valve stem and then red to valve stem.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 3/5/2022 5:34 pm, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-05-02 10:33 p.m., Xeno wrote:
>> On 3/5/2022 2:27 am, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-02 7:34 a.m., Michael Trew wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2022 9:48, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>>> Michael Trew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you say a "static" balancer, do you mean a bubble balancer? I've
>>>>>> seen some used shop equipment come up for sale on FB Marketplace and
>>>>>> Craigslist before, still usually out of my preferred price range
>>>>>> (cheap).
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem that anyone who has never worked on cars has with the term
>>>>> "dynamic balancing" is they fall prey to the fear-based marketing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harbor Freight also sells a crappy bead breaker tool, which isn't
>>>>> designed
>>>>> for larger tires, but which works for those bigger SUV tires if you
>>>>> put a
>>>>> wooden board on it to "extend" its base as you step on the board to
>>>>> keep
>>>>> the bead breaker from tipping backward on those larger diameter tires.
>>>>
>>>> Why is a tire larger than 18 inches ever necessary for a
>>>> non-commercial vehicle?  I don't think I've ever had a vehicle (I've
>>>> owned well over 30 vehicles) with a larger than 15 inch diameter
>>>> tire.  That includes my F-150 and C10 trucks.  My '97 Chrysler LHS
>>>> *might* have had 16" tires, at the largest.  I hate needlessly large
>>>> modern trucks and SUV's.
>>>
>>> You mean a 15" diameter WHEEL, don't you?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> I'm kind of with you about needlessly large trucks, etc.
>>>
>>> My brother and I at one time each owned a RAM 1500, but mine was a
>>> 1998, while his was a 2017 or 2018.
>>>
>>> The difference in size was startling.
>>>
>>> But larger wheels do have their place.
>>>
>>> Larger wheels on high performance vehicles allow for larger brakes,
>>> and while larger brakes won't actually stop you any quicker for a
>>> single stop, their greater heat capacity will mean they fade less
>>> when doing multiple stops/slowings.
>>
>> Larger wheels with an overall larger diameter also negotiate potholed
>> roads better than smaller diameter wheels. As a person who owned the
>> original Minis with 10 inch wheels, I speak from experience.  ;-)
>>
>
> But that's not what we were talking about.
>
> :-)

You weren't, I was. And did.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

In article <t4q5sh$1sgh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Despite what nospam has claimed in the past, both of those are deeply
> related to what I call the "internal resistance" of the battery (although I
> am aware nospam has his own definition of what that means,

unlike you, who makes up stuff as he goes along, i use the established
engineering definition, which is a parameter that can be measured.

>
> In general, the internal resistance you want to be high for long-storage
> devices,

no.

> and you want it to be low for high current devices (e.g., the
> defibrillators I worked on in graduate school were all GE NiCad C-cells).

not just for high current demands.

but at least you somewhat understand that high current demands requires
low internal resistance, which means that when the internal resistance
increases due to age, it reduces the peak loads a battery can source.

In article <t4qlfl$34i$3@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-05-02 10:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > One disadvantage of the older cars in California is they have to do the
> > smog test on a dyno, which, one by one, are dropping out of the market.
> >
> > In California, newer cars get a smog check by the OBDII sensor instead.
>
> There is no such thing as an "OBDII sensor".

he's referring to emissions checks that are done by reading various
sensors in the vehicle via obd-ii, versus the older tailpipe checks,
sometimes done on a dyno and sometimes while idling in the inspection
bay, depending on the state.

if the sensors report no issues, the vehicle passes.

In article <t4q67i$1vfk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> I used to take them apart and marvel at the complexity of the insides.

they're made of glass, which means you could easily see what was
inside, *without* 'taking them apart', an odd way to describe smashing
the glass and potentially damaging the innards.

On 5/3/2022 1:33 AM, Xeno wrote:

<snip>

> Disregarding pick up trucks, most SUVs never see even a *gravel road*
> much less go off-road.

Not sure what country you're in, but that statement is untrue in the
U.S.. Where most vehicles, SUV or not, do drive on gravel roads on
occasion. Many trailheads for hiking involve gravel roads, i.e. "Head
south for 8 miles on House Rock Valley Road to the Wire Pass trailhead.
House Rock Valley Road is not paved, but it is usually passable in a
two-wheel drive vehicle as long as the car has a decent amount of ground
clearance." We did this hike, and while I was driving my Toyota 4Runner,
the majority of vehicles in the parking area were not 4WD off-road
vehicles, they were 2WD rental cars of various types.

Off-road is uncommon for most SUVs. There are also roads that are
unpaved but technically not "off-road" where a 4WD with high clearance
is necessary. I drove one of those once in my old Land Cruiser, and it
was harrowing
<https://www.dangerousroads.org/north-america/usa/998-lippincott-mine-road-usa.html>.

In California and Oregon, a lot of people buy 4WD SUVs, with all-season
tires, to avoid the requirement to put on tire chains in winter in the
mountains in the snow (occasionally chains are required even for 4WD
with snow tires, but if conditions are that bad then the road is usually
closed, I've only run into this two times, both times in National Parks).

In article <t4r9ca$99q$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Disregarding pick up trucks, most SUVs never see even a *gravel road*
> > much less go off-road.
>
> Not sure what country you're in, but that statement is untrue in the
> U.S.. Where most vehicles, SUV or not, do drive on gravel roads on
> occasion.

only on rare occasion do they drive on gravel roads, and for a small
number of owners. you're actually confirming what he said.

> In California and Oregon, a lot of people buy 4WD SUVs, with all-season
> tires, to avoid the requirement to put on tire chains in winter in the
> mountains in the snow (occasionally chains are required even for 4WD
> with snow tires, but if conditions are that bad then the road is usually
> closed, I've only run into this two times, both times in National Parks).

chains are only required because the majority of drivers there have no
idea how to drive in the snow, and for california, also the rain.

the traffic reports in california correlate with the weather. lots of
crashes, it must be raining.

On 2022-05-03 1:38 a.m., Xeno wrote:
> On 3/5/2022 5:34 pm, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-05-02 10:33 p.m., Xeno wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2022 2:27 am, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-02 7:34 a.m., Michael Trew wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/2022 9:48, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Trew wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you say a "static" balancer, do you mean a bubble balancer?
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> seen some used shop equipment come up for sale on FB Marketplace and
>>>>>>> Craigslist before, still usually out of my preferred price range
>>>>>>> (cheap).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem that anyone who has never worked on cars has with the
>>>>>> term
>>>>>> "dynamic balancing" is they fall prey to the fear-based marketing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harbor Freight also sells a crappy bead breaker tool, which isn't
>>>>>> designed
>>>>>> for larger tires, but which works for those bigger SUV tires if
>>>>>> you put a
>>>>>> wooden board on it to "extend" its base as you step on the board
>>>>>> to keep
>>>>>> the bead breaker from tipping backward on those larger diameter
>>>>>> tires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is a tire larger than 18 inches ever necessary for a
>>>>> non-commercial vehicle?  I don't think I've ever had a vehicle
>>>>> (I've owned well over 30 vehicles) with a larger than 15 inch
>>>>> diameter tire.  That includes my F-150 and C10 trucks.  My '97
>>>>> Chrysler LHS *might* have had 16" tires, at the largest.  I hate
>>>>> needlessly large modern trucks and SUV's.
>>>>
>>>> You mean a 15" diameter WHEEL, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> I'm kind of with you about needlessly large trucks, etc.
>>>>
>>>> My brother and I at one time each owned a RAM 1500, but mine was a
>>>> 1998, while his was a 2017 or 2018.
>>>>
>>>> The difference in size was startling.
>>>>
>>>> But larger wheels do have their place.
>>>>
>>>> Larger wheels on high performance vehicles allow for larger brakes,
>>>> and while larger brakes won't actually stop you any quicker for a
>>>> single stop, their greater heat capacity will mean they fade less
>>>> when doing multiple stops/slowings.
>>>
>>> Larger wheels with an overall larger diameter also negotiate potholed
>>> roads better than smaller diameter wheels. As a person who owned the
>>> original Minis with 10 inch wheels, I speak from experience.  ;-)
>>>
>>
>> But that's not what we were talking about.
>>
>> :-)
>
> You weren't, I was. And did.
>

No. The discussion wasn't about that.

On 2022-05-03 3:43 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <t4qlfl$34i$3@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-02 10:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> One disadvantage of the older cars in California is they have to do the
>>> smog test on a dyno, which, one by one, are dropping out of the market.
>>>
>>> In California, newer cars get a smog check by the OBDII sensor instead.
>>
>> There is no such thing as an "OBDII sensor".
>
> he's referring to emissions checks that are done by reading various
> sensors in the vehicle via obd-ii, versus the older tailpipe checks,
> sometimes done on a dyno and sometimes while idling in the inspection
> bay, depending on the state.
>
> if the sensors report no issues, the vehicle passes.

Oh, I know.

I just find it telling that HE didn't know.

:-)

On 2022-05-02 8:41 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Michael Trew wrote:
>
>> I'm posting from the rec.autos.tech NG which is cross-posted into this
>> thread; I'm not subscribed to the other two NG's anymore (never sub'd
>> to the android NG); I trimmed my list of NG's significantly.
>
> There are five fundamental common consumer operating system newsgroups:
> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux>

Linux? For consumers?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLLOLOLLLLOLOLOLLL

> <http://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.os.windows-10>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system>
>
> You can ask the exact same question of all five (assuming it's relevant,
> such as "does the Tor Browser work on your platform?) and you'll get an
> _adult_ response to three of the five.
>
>> I wouldn't relegate that behavior to just a specific NG, that's most
>> of Usenet these days (and people in general).  When the flame wars and
>> what not start, I tune out; it bores me.  I'm here for intelligent
>> discussion.
>
> Two of the five _always_ garner responses that were written by kindergarten
> children (e.g., from Lewis, Jolly Roger, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, et. al).
>
> As you've seen from the likes of Alan Baker & Lewis in this thread, they're
> incredibly ignorant - but - what makes them stand out is they think the
> little that they know is _all_ there is to know about every topic.
> The nospam iKook is different from those, as he actually knows "something",
> but he will _always_ defend every Apple flaw to the death, no matter what.
>
>
>>> You have LOTS of room for your tools in there. I can't tell if the
>>> floor is
>>> dirt or concrete, but you can do tire changing if you can find a flat
>>> spot.
>>
>> There are two wide doors, as shown.  It's about 64 ft wide, and 30
>> feet deep.  I reckon it's easily big enough to be a 6 bay garage, plus
>> extra room.
>
> Wow. That's great. That's a garage to die for! I love it!
> My brother has a professional lift which is one thing I _always_ wanted.
>
> Do you do any woodworking? That's a hobby that also takes up floor space.
>
>> The whole right side, I think with the junk shown in the photo, is a
>> concrete floor.  The left side is not; it's just dirt (but could be
>> concreted).
>
> Ah. Good for you. Once you have concrete, you can do a basic alignment.
>
> BTW, if you want advice in what tools to get for either the alignment or
> for the mounting and balancing of tires, just ask & I'll be helpful.
>
> I'm no good with alignment yet, but I have the "drop center" stuff figured
> out on tire mounting, which is a lesson learned the hard way the first time
> that it matters (e.g., for my bimmber's BBS wheels, it matters a _lot_).
>
>> Both sides are totally full of junk from the prior owners.
>
> Junk is only something one person valued that another person with a
> different set of skills, desires & needs doesn't see the value in yet. :)
>
>>  My step father and I bought it at sheriff's sale for back taxes for a
>> crazy cheap price, and we're cleaning it out.
>
> Good for you. Send me all the tools you don't want! :)
>
>>  I have a booth at a local antique mall, and what I feel like cleaning
>> has been sold down there. Lots of it is fit for a dumpster though.
>
> It's interesting how easy it is for any given person to clean out someone
> else's stuff. It's due to that value thing. They place a different value on
> the objects. Particularly on sentimental stuff.
>>> With respect to brakes, you know what I know, which is that they're
>>> one of
>>> the easiest jobs in automotive maintenance to do, and yet, I've heard of
>>> people spending upwards of _thousands_ to do a typical four wheel brake
>>> job!
>>>
>>> Are you aware of the cold/hot friction ratings printed on every
>>> passenger
>>> brake pad sold in the USA? I buy mine by that, and nothing else
>>> (other than
>>> fit, and price, of course). I get my rotors and calipers at CarID or
>>> RockAuto and I mic the rotors and drums before replacing them.
>>>
>>> Do you do similarly?
>>> And do you agree that, in general, brakes are pretty damn easy to do
>>> right?
>>
>> I was not aware of the friction ratings.
>
> OMG. If you buy your own brake pads & shoes, you need to know this, which I
> can help you learn. Bear in mind there are plenty of things that matter in
> brakes (like dust, noise, durability, etc.) but there's one thing that
> matters _most_, which is your cold/hot friction coefficient.
> <https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/disc-brake-pad-friction-codes-explained/>
>
>
> Luckily you can't get a bad brake pad (IMHO) in the USA, but you can
> instantly cut through all the bullshit advertising if you know how to buy
> them by their friction ratings.
> <https://idpartsblog.com/2019/04/11/what-do-brake-pad-friction-ratings-mean/>

Riiiight.

Because there couldn't POSSIBLY be any other differences between
different pads...

>
>
> I almost always call technical support and marketing for the brake pads I
> purchase (it started because I hated the dusting on the OEM Jurid/Textar so
> I contacted Akebono & PBR & Centric to find better replacements.
>
> Talking mano a mano with the technical guys was an eye opener, especially
> as they _all_ told me (in effect) that they can put a single grain of dust
> and if that single grain is copper or clay they instantly get to claim it's
> semi-metallic or ceramic. Those are all marketing gimmicks (IMHO).

Bullshit.

>
> What matters most to a brake pad is the cold/hot friction rating, which is
> why it's the law that it's written on every USA passenger vehicle pad.
> <http://www.safebraking.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-May-20112.pdf>
>
>
>> I'm usually just really easy on the brakes, and I buy what's cheap.
>
> Oh my! Don't do that. Buy inexpensive. Not cheap. What I mean by that is
> you can _easily_ get _better_ pads for less money than worse pads if you
> _know_ what you're looking for.

And what makes one pad "better" than another?

>
> Examples abound in the "what brake pad should I buy", just as those answers
> abound in every "what X should I buy", in that the marketing wolves prey on
> the moronic sheep who think "you get what you pay for", which is just
> stupid.
>
> You get what you get.
> How much you pay for it depends on how well they've marketed it to fools.
>
> Easily, a GREAT brake pad set should cost no more than about $25 per axle.

Bullshit.

>
> My rule of thumb on brake pads is the same as for tires, which is I never
> buy lower than the OEM specifications - and I often exceed OEM specs.

Which spec do you use for that rule for brake pads?

>
> For tires, that's things like the speed range & load range and the
> traction/treadwear/temperature specs, where for pads it's the cold/hot
> friction rating.

So is more better with cold/hot friction...

....or less?

>
> Fun fact: What do you think the friction rating is of steel on steel versus
> that of _many_ brake pads sold today (e.g., those with an EE coefficient)?

Why would I care?

This is just you doing that thing where you try to pretend you're smart
by making an allusion to something that doesn't matter.

Remember when you alluded to the idea that 9 volt batteries contained
AAA cells?

>
>> Many of these cars, I tire of in 6 months, and sell it and buy another
>> when I find a deal.
>
> Wow. That's a different use model than most I would think.
> I keep cars for decades (and yes, that's plural).
> The great thing about bimmers is you get to learn about them right away,
> while with Toyota's it takes you years before you learn how to replace
> things.

Why?

>> One could say "flipping", but it's hardly that; it's more of a car
>> buying problem -- I have too much fun with it.  I enjoy *not* having a
>> car payment, and I'd say I at least average out (sometimes I win,
>> other times I lose when buying/selling cars).
>
> Wow. I've _never_ sold a car in my life. I've always given them away.
>
> But of course, that's when they're decades old, so they generally go to the
> people who take them away for free or to kids as their first car.
>
> What I _love_ about owning old cars is that you don't fret when it gets a
> new scratch, where I've been to junkyards with cars piled five high and I
> think about how the first scratch made each owner cry when they were new.
>
>> Unfortunately, in my cold climate, sometimes a simple brake job is a
>> total PITA.
>
> Reminds me of when I replaced my tie rod ends, pitman arm, idler arm, and
> ball joints in the dead of winter back in upper New York state. I bought
> the parts by driving to the parts store, and the guy behind the counter
> ended up giving me two tie rod ends of the same side.
> It was my first experience with the need to check the parts _before_ you
> leave the auto parts store (and of course, this was before the Internet).
>
> I had to go back to the parts store, but this time riding a motorcycle in
> the snow, but what struck me was how nonchalant the guy was behind the
> counter.
> He didn't care that his mistake cost me all that agony and danger.
> The one nice thing about California where I live is the cast aluminum door
> handles don't break off in your hands when you open the car door in the
> morning!
>
>>  The Olds' wagon had the rotors *so* rusted onto the hubs that I
>> couldn't get them off anyhow.
>
> I've had drum brakes that wouldn't come off, even with heat and plenty of
> banging. It happens back east a lot.
>
>>  That goodness the neighbor brought his welding torch over, and got
>> 'em nice an hot until the 8 pound hammer got them off.
>
> Yup. Nothing a welding torch can't solve when the oxygen hits the hot iron!
> I have 220V and gas welding equipment myself, but I rarely do it nowadays.
>
>> I can't fathom spending that kind of money on a brake job.  A local
>> exhaust shop chargers $265 per axle to do the brakes on most cars, but
>> I still do it myself almost all times.
>
> Great pads are about $12 or so each and rotors can be gotten for $15 to $25
> each and a set of unloaded calipers can be obtained for around $30 each
> (after core refund).  Ask me how I know this.

nospam wrote:

>>> Disregarding pick up trucks, most SUVs never see even a *gravel road*
>>> much less go off-road.
>>
>> Not sure what country you're in, but that statement is untrue in the
>> U.S.. Where most vehicles, SUV or not, do drive on gravel roads on
>> occasion.
>
> only on rare occasion do they drive on gravel roads, and for a small
> number of owners. you're actually confirming what he said.

Even worse, it's my observation that most SUVs in the _very flat_ Silicon
Valley are 4WD, and almost _none_ of them ever get off the shoulder of the
road.

However, quite a few visit Tahoe to go skiiing... which is likely _why_
they added the 4WD option when new, as it often (but not always) negates
the need for chains as per whatever the CHP declares on the highways in bad
weather conditions.

In fact, habitually, the people stopping people let the 2WD vehicles go
through 'cuz most SUVs out here in California appear to be 4WD even as most
of California doesn't get snow or ice.

>> In California and Oregon, a lot of people buy 4WD SUVs, with all-season
>> tires, to avoid the requirement to put on tire chains in winter in the
>> mountains in the snow (occasionally chains are required even for 4WD
>> with snow tires, but if conditions are that bad then the road is usually
>> closed, I've only run into this two times, both times in National Parks).
>
> chains are only required because the majority of drivers there have no
> idea how to drive in the snow, and for california, also the rain.

Having grown up in upper NY state, I would agree with nospam that
California drivers can't even drive in the first rain, although it's
_different_ here in that the first rain is an oil slick since it doesn't
rain for about 10 months prior to that first rain.

It's funny, actually, in that first rain though, as it's like the first
snow in the middle states when they get an inch and the traffic is snarled.

Funny thing, in Tahoe they can get _feet_ of snow, and they're back in
business the next day, so it's all in the planning and equipment I guess.

> the traffic reports in california correlate with the weather. lots of
> crashes, it must be raining.

This is true. California is a funny state that way. Also if the power goes
out, a bird must have landed on one of the PG&E power lines.

Never say California isn't a wacky state 'cuz it is.

They never have to fight the weather like you need to do back east.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

nospam wrote:

>> On 2022-05-02 10:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> One disadvantage of the older cars in California is they have to do the
>>> smog test on a dyno, which, one by one, are dropping out of the market.
>>>
>>> In California, newer cars get a smog check by the OBDII sensor instead.
>>
>> There is no such thing as an "OBDII sensor".
>
> he's referring to emissions checks that are done by reading various
> sensors in the vehicle via obd-ii, versus the older tailpipe checks,
> sometimes done on a dyno and sometimes while idling in the inspection
> bay, depending on the state.
>
> if the sensors report no issues, the vehicle passes.

What's telling is that nospam's IQ is at least double that of Alan's.
And Alan's is around 40 where he disputes everything that _nobody_ else
would dispute - purely because that's the nature of people like that.

Most people would strive to _add value_.
But what Alan Baker strives for is to _subtract_ value from every post.

Each time Alan strives to subtract value, it's always for one reason.
Because Alan Baker's self esteem is (rightly so) in the toilet.

That's the _only_ reason Alan Baker posts to Usenet.
Just watch.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

On 2022-05-03 10:17 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> On 2022-05-02 10:52 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> One disadvantage of the older cars in California is they have to do the
>>>> smog test on a dyno, which, one by one, are dropping out of the market.
>>>>
>>>> In California, newer cars get a smog check by the OBDII sensor instead.
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as an "OBDII sensor".
>>
>> he's referring to emissions checks that are done by reading various
>> sensors in the vehicle via obd-ii, versus the older tailpipe checks,
>> sometimes done on a dyno and sometimes while idling in the inspection
>> bay, depending on the state.
>>
>> if the sensors report no issues, the vehicle passes.
>
> What's telling is that nospam's IQ is at least double that of Alan's.
> And Alan's is around 40 where he disputes everything that _nobody_ else
> would dispute - purely because that's the nature of people like that.

Says the guy who things there is a "OBDII sensor"...

nospam wrote:

> but at least you somewhat understand that high current demands requires
> low internal resistance, which means that when the internal resistance
> increases due to age, it reduces the peak loads a battery can source.

I was _wondering_ why you always disagree with what _everyone_ knows about
internal resistance of (real) current sources (theoretical ones aside),
until you made that statement above - which tells me why you hate facts.

I didn't say anything about internal resistance changing over time where
the fact becomes obvious by what you just said given you're always trying
to claim Apple has some super secret battery chemistry that _only_ kicks in
when phones need to be _secretly_ throttled.

This is despite your claim that Apple has a super secret battery chemistry
that only kicks in on certain iOS updates & on certain iPhones (but not
iPads) & which requires Apple to admit guilt in criminal courts, and to pay
over a billion in civil courts to not admit guilt (particularly about the
backdating of release notes that they lied about before they got caught)...

You're _always_ defending everything Apple, to the death, no matter what.
Because of that, you not only can't have a normal conversation on Usenet...

But you _never_ attempt to add value in any post.
All you do is strive to _subtract_ value.

This isn't even about Apple and yet you try to protect Apple from itself.
Stop it.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

On 2022-05-03 10:29 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> but at least you somewhat understand that high current demands requires
>> low internal resistance, which means that when the internal resistance
>> increases due to age, it reduces the peak loads a battery can source.
>
> I was _wondering_ why you always disagree with what _everyone_ knows about
> internal resistance of (real) current sources (theoretical ones aside),
> until you made that statement above - which tells me why you hate facts.
>
> I didn't say anything about internal resistance changing over time where
> the fact becomes obvious by what you just said given you're always trying
> to claim Apple has some super secret battery chemistry that _only_ kicks in
> when phones need to be _secretly_ throttled.
>
> This is despite your claim that Apple has a super secret battery chemistry
> that only kicks in on certain iOS updates & on certain iPhones (but not
> iPads) & which requires Apple to admit guilt in criminal courts, and to pay
> over a billion in civil courts to not admit guilt (particularly about the
> backdating of release notes that they lied about before they got caught)...
> You're _always_ defending everything Apple, to the death, no matter what.
> Because of that, you not only can't have a normal conversation on Usenet...
>
> But you _never_ attempt to add value in any post.
> All you do is strive to _subtract_ value.
>
> This isn't even about Apple and yet you try to protect Apple from itself.
> Stop it.

Dude... ...you're writing gibberish; raving about things no one has ever
claimed.

And making claims that are completely false.

On 5/3/2022 1:19, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> When I was a kid I did that, but once I got "flat spot" tires and another
> time a sidewall blew out, so I gave up on that when I was still in school.

I'm 27 years old, so I'm still allowed to use the "kid" excuse ;)

To be fair, tires have gotten far more safe and reliable over time. I
*have* recently driven on over 50 year old bias ply tires. The rubber
hardened up, and on a slick morning, I learned *really* quickly how fast
an old boat could skid (see picture of my back yard that I posted;
green-ish 1968 Ford Galaxie). I sold the car, so didn't bother with the
tires.

> Heh heh heh... if you only knew how far I wear my tread down (I start to
> "bat an eye" when I can see the cloth belts!) where I happen to know that
> the _dry_ traction increases as the tread wears down, so I'm with you on
> not worrying all that much about tires.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/JzvTyjKg/mount18.jpg>

I've run some down that far, but I really try not to. Many cars, I
don't keep long enough to see that. Of course, living in Ohio, I could
*never* drive something like that in the winter. I did buy a couple of
new tires for my current winter car (new tires are rare for me).

On 5/2/2022 23:41, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Michael Trew wrote:
>
> There are five fundamental common consumer operating system newsgroups:
> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.linux>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.os.windows-10>
> <http://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system>
>
> You can ask the exact same question of all five (assuming it's relevant,
> such as "does the Tor Browser work on your platform?) and you'll get an
> _adult_ response to three of the five.

I guess the Windows 7 groups don't count anymore. I'm still subscribed
to alt.windows7.general

> Wow. That's great. That's a garage to die for! I love it!
> My brother has a professional lift which is one thing I _always_ wanted.
>
> Do you do any woodworking? That's a hobby that also takes up floor space.

I'd love to have a lift, but the ceiling isn't high enough for the
standard 2 or 4 post professional lifts. I could get a scissor lift
that takes the car up a couple of feet, and I might do that at some point.

> BTW, if you want advice in what tools to get for either the alignment or
> for the mounting and balancing of tires, just ask & I'll be helpful.

I was looking at that harbor freight set that you posted. Looks like
one would need the balancer, manual changer, and the bead breaker?

> Oh my! Don't do that. Buy inexpensive. Not cheap. What I mean by that is
> you can _easily_ get _better_ pads for less money than worse pads if you
> _know_ what you're looking for.

By "cheap", I suppose I meant more inexpensive. I usually buy whatever
the lower cost set it at Auto Zone or a local auto parts shop. I've
bought flat out "cheap" pads on rockauto.com, and regretted it.

> Wow. I've _never_ sold a car in my life. I've always given them away.

Sign me up!! Lol. Ohio state doesn't have car inspection, so I buy
basically "give away" sub $700 cars, tinker with them, drive them until
I tire of them, and usually sell them for what I have into them. I've
owned at least 30 some cars (I'm in my 20's, for reference). I
currently have 10 in my possession, unfortunately.

> What I _love_ about owning old cars is that you don't fret when it gets a
> new scratch

Exactly. I have a couple of roads in town that are basically
off-roading, where bamboo and trees hang down. Dirt roads; boy are they
fun. One is rather steep. I'll run up in an old pickup truck with a
ladder rack on it (I always have to have one of those), and there will
be a collection of bamboo in the bed of the truck that the ladder rack
caught.

> Yup. Nothing a welding torch can't solve when the oxygen hits the hot iron!
> I have 220V and gas welding equipment myself, but I rarely do it nowadays.

He had a gas torch. I need me one of those!

> Great pads are about $12 or so each and rotors can be gotten for $15 to $25
> each and a set of unloaded calipers can be obtained for around $30 each
> (after core refund). Ask me how I know this.

How on earth do you find those prices?? I can't even get rotors turned
for that price!

> Fun fact: What's the one thing that did NOT happen to brake rotors when the
> average person vehemently claims that their "brakes warped"?

I've heard that it's usually built up brake pad material on the rotors.

Michael Trew wrote:

>> When I was a kid I did that, but once I got "flat spot" tires and another
>> time a sidewall blew out, so I gave up on that when I was still in school.
>
> I'm 27 years old, so I'm still allowed to use the "kid" excuse ;)

Oh wow. Most of "us" on Usenet were born before your parents were born! :)

> To be fair, tires have gotten far more safe and reliable over time.

Yup. Bias ply tires suck compared to radial ply tires for example.
And suspension systems have also improved.
Drive trains too.

When is the last time you had to replace a ball joint & tie rod end?
And how many u-joints have you had to replace in the past few years?

Probably none.
And yet we did that all the time "back in the day"...

Don't even get me started on winding our own alternator coils, or setting
dwell or timing or replacing points and condensers and adjusting carbs...

The good news is car maintenance & repair just gets easier over time.
(Just as the maxim of electronics getting better faster cheaper over time.)

> I *have* recently driven on over 50 year old bias ply tires. The rubber
> hardened up, and on a slick morning, I learned *really* quickly how fast
> an old boat could skid (see picture of my back yard that I posted;
> green-ish 1968 Ford Galaxie). I sold the car, so didn't bother with the
> tires.

Skids are fun, when they're done in the open fields.
We used to find a big parking lot back east and slide around in the snow.
Lot's of fun and it's a learning experience too.

One problem is sliding down a hill though, when it's all ice.
Almost nothing except studs or chains will help there at any speed anyway.

>> Heh heh heh... if you only knew how far I wear my tread down (I start to
>> "bat an eye" when I can see the cloth belts!) where I happen to know that
>> the _dry_ traction increases as the tread wears down, so I'm with you on
>> not worrying all that much about tires.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/JzvTyjKg/mount18.jpg>
>
> I've run some down that far, but I really try not to. Many cars, I
> don't keep long enough to see that.

Where it rains, it doesn't make any sense to wear the tread to the level
that I habitually wear it to. There's a reason for the "legal limit".

> Of course, living in Ohio, I could
> *never* drive something like that in the winter.

Yup. You'd be skiing on those slicks.
Here, in California, you get _more_ traction on the dry pavement.

But I don't do it for that reason.
I just do it because I'm not afraid of a worn tire like most people are.

> I did buy a couple of
> new tires for my current winter car (new tires are rare for me).

I really want you to check out Simple Tire for their prices.
<https://simpletire.com/types/passenger-tires>

Please pick a set of tires by size and tell me what the least expensive
tire is and then I can tell you whether it's a good deal or not given
whatever the OEM tire spec is for that vehicle.

I think you'll find that new tires are very often less expensive than you
think, simply because they're commodities that you can buy by the spec.

The mounting and balancing is almost free (you pay for a new valve every
few times and you pay for wheel weights every once in a while & that's it).
--
On Usenet you can find people who think the way you think about things.

On 5/2/2022 6:19 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 5/2/2022 12:22, sms wrote:
>> On 5/2/2022 7:34 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Why is a tire larger than 18 inches ever necessary for a
>>> non-commercial vehicle?
>>
>> Not really necessary, but they do improve handling and increase traction.
>>
>> Manual tire changers are not expensive. The ones from Harbor Freight are
>> sufficient for home use.
>>
>> The issue remains that static balancing should be avoided. Read
>> <https://e-quipfix.co.uk/wheel-balancing-101-static-vs-dynamic-wheel-balancing/>.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not many home mechanics are going to spend the money on a dynamic wheel
>> balancer, but it's extremely foolish to balance vehicle tires using a
>> static balancer.
>>
>> There's no upside to mounting your own tires when you then have to take
>> the them to somewhere that they can be properly balanced.
>
> Well, the upside that I see is saving money.  Most shops that
> mount/balance with their machine want to charge you $20+ per wheel these
> days.  I buy used tires where ever I can find them.
>
> For my Geo Metro collection, I have a huge pile of 12" tires in the
> garage, many as old as the 1990's.  At one point, I was trying to get
> rid of the oldest most rotted/cracked (but still somewhat decent) ones,
> and I was mounting them myself (not balanced) and putting them on the
> back of the car only, with a full size spare with me.  When I got sick
> of a flat or blowout every month or so, I eventually quit doing that.
>
> In short, what I'm saying... you and I are in a rather different world,
> vehicle-wise ;)

It doesn't matter whether the vehicle is old or new, you still should be
driving with properly balanced wheels.

On 5/3/2022 1:52, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> Larger wheels on high performance vehicles allow for larger brakes, and
>>>> while larger brakes won't actually stop you any quicker for a single
>>>> stop, their greater heat capacity will mean they fade less when doing
>>>> multiple stops/slowings.
>>>
>>> Eh, I don't know, I guess I'm biased.� I drive old beaters; most of
>>> my cars are pre-1990.
>>
>> I haven't had a pre-1990 car since 1995. Now I don't even want a pre
>> 2020 car.

Funny, I get annoyed with post 2000 cars. I'm quite irritated with my
2005 Hyundai Elantra. I don't like the hydraulic clutch, power windows,
larger A-pillars, etc, etc. I enjoy driving the '89 Olds wagon. Can't
wait to fix my '75 Dodge Dart. It needs a leaf spring replaced (Lord
knows how that broke), then it's back on the road.

> One disadvantage of the older cars in California is they have to do the
> smog test on a dyno, which, one by one, are dropping out of the market.
>
> In California, newer cars get a smog check by the OBDII sensor instead.

I live in Ohio, in a county with no emissions. No car inspections
either; I love it!