XPost: alt.home.repair, rec.autos.driving   
   From: arlenholder@anyexample.com   
      
   In response to what Ed Pawlowski  wrote :   
      
   > It may take that   
   > long to give a good assessment.   
      
   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.   
      
   > Like you, I deal with facts,   
      
   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.   
      
   > 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   
      
   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.   
      
   > Will they be subject to blowing out more or less if you hit a pot hole.   
   > Do you have a fact on that?   
      
   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.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   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.   
      
   > Consumer Reports did tread life testing on similar tires.  Good chance   
   > these will be similar.  I will agree there.   
      
   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.   
      
   > How durable are they compared to others if you rub a curb?  No facts on   
   > that either.   
      
   Yup. But again, we don't have that fact on _any_ tire.   
      
   > Are the quiet or noisy?  Harsh or soft ride?   
      
   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.)   
      
   > 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.   
      
   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.   
   --   
   Usenet is a place for adults to gather to politely discuss technical stuff.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)