> highly advertised $125 baby saver tires that
> have 2% tread left on them because the owner is postponing for
> as long as he can the $600+ bill that he will faced for a new
> set of balanced/aligned baby savers tires

I suspect that a lot of people driving around on tires so bald the air
is showing are just ignorant of the importance of the things,
regardless of whether they have baby savers or loss leaders.

That having been said, I wonder how many people are shocked at how much
tires can cost these days -- especially if they bought a sports car or
high end luxury boat without thinking about the implications of
16-17-18" tires with a speed rating somewhere on the far end of the
alphabet. Just one more example of a subject that sometimes comes up:
how the quest for performance and/or long punchlists of luxury features
in cars is kinda floating away from reality...

I try to stick with tires that have holes no bigger than 15" diameter,
at least a 60-series distance from the tread. They may not be the best
way to indulge any autobahn, F1, or Baja 1000 fantasies that I haven't
yet outgrown, and might limit my choice of cars to what I can afford
anyway -- but decent tires are available for fifty or sixty bucks for
the grocery getters, with performance types still under a hundred.

And I have a fighting chance of getting at least a vaguely similar new
tire out in the boondocks if I scrag one on vacation, or replacing them
in this pay period if somebody fumbled a boxful of sheetrock screws at
a construction site on my commute, or one of those things that seem to
keep happening in the real world.

Your mileage, and that of your spare tire, may vary,
--Wile E. Quixote