Is that thing about tire wear and penny still true

[supton]

Originally Posted By: totegoat
Les Schwab gave me a tire gauge when I asked for one.


They probably buy them by the bucket, as they likely get misplaced easily--and as such are pretty cheap to buy. Give away one periodically to a customer makes them look good, helps build trust with a customer. Just don't give away too many or everyone will want one.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
OK then, I have to get new snows next fall, anyway,(probably another set of those awesome Blizzaks) so absent a wearbar sighting, I'll replace them when I change out the snows next spring (two new sets of tires in five months. Ouch!)

So at the expense of topic drift, what do you recommend for my standard cab F-150? 235 75 17? I don't drive off-road, I believe in real snow tires rather than all-terrain or even all-season tires. In other words, my goals are price, wear and dry handling. I'm thinking General HTS. What do you guys think?


I've been happy with my Hankook iPikes, bought on sale ($500 for all four, something like that). However I don't think their dry handling is any good--I don't push it but I did keep narrow 255's on my truck. Deep tread, definitely meant for snow.. They didn't seem to wear badly after this winter, but then again I took them off early.

How many miles do you plan on doing? If you are doing (say) 5k/year then the tire is apt to age out before wear out. IIRC snow tires age faster than all seasons, as the softer rubber compound hardens as it ages.

 

[Ducked]

All this argy-bargy prompted me to measure my tread depth.

I have my worst tyres on the front, the way you're supposed to, though I've been thinking I should perhaps swap them to even-up wear.

I don't have any British or American coins handy and I doubt using small change (or anything) to measure tread depth is part of Taiwanese culture, so I used a vernier caliper.

Tyre Tread depth in mm, outer to inner, circumferential grooves

LHF 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2
RHF 4.1, 3.5, 3.0, 3.1 (different wear pattern maybe says something about tracking)

Though still well-legal, (In the UK. I don't know or care what the Taiwanese regulations are, if any, and Taiwanese certainly don't) that puts them at the edge for wet performance degradation on asphalt measured in UK tests (performance on concrete was worse.)

Exchange with the rears to even up wear conflicts with best-tyres-on-the-back dictum.

Alternatively, could get a part-worn match for my Chengshin spare, which is younger, with better tread (commercial van/light truck tyre so unfortunately relatively expensive), and run them on one axle, with the other 4 (Bridgestone) tyres on the other axle as a dry/wet season set.

Why should you snow birds have a monopoly on seasonal tyres?

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Ducked - you're confusing "legal minimum" with "good" and they're hardly ever the same.


Don't think I am. This is about balancing cost and risk.

Y'all seem to aspire to a more absolute standard of safety, but while you're spending the OP's money, you might bear in mind that you can't have it.

Counsels of perfection make for easy debating points, and, consistently implemented, will make your car as safe as is practical, but, however high the rental on your moral high ground, absolute safety, and the absolute moral superiority that could go with it, is only available if you don’t drive.

All cars, and all drivers, are unsafe.

In choosing to drive on old worn tyres its probably true that I’m accepting a degree of avoidable risk to myself and others. I also accept such avoidable risks by driving at all, and by driving an old car without, for example, ABS, airbags, exhaust catalyst, or current collision survival standards, as does anyone who drives an old car.

I might choose differently if I drove more, or closer to the edge. As it is, I did under 500 slow miles last year, and it’ll likely be less this year. If you did the UK average of 10.000 miles, (I'd guess the US average might be greater) my car has to be over 20 times more dangerous before I’m being less responsible than y'all, the Mothers of all Moral Motorists.

(Nothing like misquoting Saddam Hussein for winning hearts and minds)

I dunno. Perhaps it is over 20 times more dangerous. But I seem to have a bit of a margin to play with.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: supton


Tires may be more expensive than oil, but both are cheaper than a car.


Tyres aren't cheaper than MY car.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: supton


Tires may be more expensive than oil, but both are cheaper than a car.


Tyres aren't cheaper than MY car.


Fair enough. I wouldn't spend money to put tires onto your car either.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: supton


Tires may be more expensive than oil, but both are cheaper than a car.


Tyres aren't cheaper than MY car.


Actually, due to a new cash-for-clunkers scheme (50,000 TWD or about 1500 USD) that may no longer be true.

Downside (which is usually all there is to govt. automotive policy) is that'll make old cars even rarer here, so it'd be impossible to replace.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: supton


Tires may be more expensive than oil, but both are cheaper than a car.


Tyres aren't cheaper than MY car.


Fair enough. I wouldn't spend money to put tires onto your car either.

[censored]. I was hoping if I elicited enough sympathy and horror you just might, for the common good.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: supton
the older I get, the earlier I change tires.


The older I get, the less I have to lose.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: supton
the older I get, the earlier I change tires.


The older I get, the less I have to lose.


The older I get, the more I have to lose. I've been "investing" in my kids, and though I could never bear the thought of losing them at any age, as the years tick by I have spent more and more money (among other things) on them. Losing them because I wanted to eek out the last $10 of tire value... does not compute.

Not only that but my insurance deductible is like $500, and my vehicles are still >$5k, thus I still carry insurance. Even if I skip paying a body shop I will need to still spend a few hours banging out dents and then painting so as to prevent rust.

 

[Need4racin]

when the the tread is equal to the wearbar it needs replaced. if you rotate your tires you can get them worn pretty equal and see it clearly.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: supton
the older I get, the earlier I change tires.


The older I get, the less I have to lose.


The older I get, the more I have to lose. I've been "investing" in my kids, and though I could never bear the thought of losing them at any age, as the years tick by I have spent more and more money (among other things) on them. Losing them because I wanted to eek out the last $10 of tire value... does not compute.

Not only that but my insurance deductible is like $500, and my vehicles are still >$5k, thus I still carry insurance. Even if I skip paying a body shop I will need to still spend a few hours banging out dents and then painting so as to prevent rust.


Which illustrates how the cost/risk balance will vary with the individual situation and usage pattern, which was, like, the schwerpunkt of my gist.