Two simple questions that came up when mounting tires at home

[Arlen G. Holder]

Two minor questions that came up today when I was showing an inquisitive
teen how to mount & balance his own tires for the car he recently got for
free from a neighbor.

1. The teen asked me why this slit in the typical air chuck...
<https://i.postimg.cc/43JN7rWw/valve02.jpg>

2. The kid asked me what the practical difference was between choosing
between two air valves, one for up to 65 psi and the other up to 80 psi for
a typical 30 to 40psi nominal economy car tire such as his are:
<https://i.postimg.cc/76Z6cp7b/valve01.jpg>

In both cases, I told the kid that I don't know the answers and that I'd
ask folks on this newsgroup who know more than I do about such things, so
I'll point the kid to this thread, when/if reasonable answers ensue.

I did hazard a guess that I suspect the slit in the chuck is perhaps to
"let air out", although I'm not sure why we'd want to do that except, I
guess, if we use the chuck as the air-release mechanism (similar to the
"nib" on the back of a typical pencil-type air pressure gauge).

Likewise, I told him that it doesn't seem to matter all that much which
pressure valve we use for his passenger car tires, AFAIK, where I like the
brass valve, which happens to handle higher pressure, but I didn't see that
it mattered for a passenger car, particularly since they were both
essentially the same price.

One happens to be a "bolt in" type while the other is "snap in", but I
didn't see that as a practical difference - do you, and one was slightly
shorter but only because O'Reillys didn't have the same lengths in stock
for the two types.

The specs on the back of the O'Reillys packages are:

XtraSeal 15-4600 Tire Valves 1-1/4" HP 0.453" TR600HP
o Max cold inflation pressure is 80 psi
o Rim thickness not to exceed 0.205" (5.2mm)

XtraSeal 15-4142 Tire Valves 1-1/2" HP 0.453" TR414
o Max cold inflation pressure is 65 psi
o Rim thickness not to exceed 0.156" (3.96mm)

[rbowman]

On 05/16/2019 08:26 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> 1. The teen asked me why this slit in the typical air chuck...
> <https://i.postimg.cc/43JN7rWw/valve02.jpg>

That's how you take it apart. The spring, plunger, and seal have to get
in there somehow.

[Clare Snyder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 02:26:00 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>Two minor questions that came up today when I was showing an inquisitive
>teen how to mount & balance his own tires for the car he recently got for
>free from a neighbor.
>
>1. The teen asked me why this slit in the typical air chuck...
> <https://i.postimg.cc/43JN7rWw/valve02.jpg>

For a tool to tighten the "face" of the chuck - - - - - -

>
>2. The kid asked me what the practical difference was between choosing
>between two air valves, one for up to 65 psi and the other up to 80 psi for
>a typical 30 to 40psi nominal economy car tire such as his are:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/76Z6cp7b/valve01.jpg>
>

READ!!!!! The "high pressure" valve is required for high pressure
rims which are .205" thick instead of .156".
Engineers - - - - - - - - - - - - -Overthink EVERYTHING and don't
bother reading specs??????

>In both cases, I told the kid that I don't know the answers and that I'd
>ask folks on this newsgroup who know more than I do about such things, so
>I'll point the kid to this thread, when/if reasonable answers ensue.
>
>I did hazard a guess that I suspect the slit in the chuck is perhaps to
>"let air out", although I'm not sure why we'd want to do that except, I
>guess, if we use the chuck as the air-release mechanism (similar to the
>"nib" on the back of a typical pencil-type air pressure gauge).

Not even close, Arlen - not even close.

>
>Likewise, I told him that it doesn't seem to matter all that much which
>pressure valve we use for his passenger car tires, AFAIK, where I like the
>brass valve, which happens to handle higher pressure, but I didn't see that
>it mattered for a passenger car, particularly since they were both
>essentially the same price.
>

The "high pressure" valve is likely to leak in a standardthickness
rim

>One happens to be a "bolt in" type while the other is "snap in", but I
>didn't see that as a practical difference - do you, and one was slightly
>shorter but only because O'Reillys didn't have the same lengths in stock
>for the two types.
>
>The specs on the back of the O'Reillys packages are:
>
>XtraSeal 15-4600 Tire Valves 1-1/4" HP 0.453" TR600HP
>o Max cold inflation pressure is 80 psi
>o Rim thickness not to exceed 0.205" (5.2mm)
>
>XtraSeal 15-4142 Tire Valves 1-1/2" HP 0.453" TR414
>o Max cold inflation pressure is 65 psi
>o Rim thickness not to exceed 0.156" (3.96mm)

Did you even LOOK at what you posted???????? READ IT AGAIN and you
won't need to ask STUPID questions!

Buy the CORRECT parts.

[Ed Pawlowski]

The slot is just like a slot in the head of a screw. It is used for
assembly, disassembly

The valve stem is for different rims. Typically truck rims are thicker
and heavier and tires have higher pressure.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 16 May 2019 19:59:35 -0600, rbowman wrote:

> That's how you take it apart. The spring, plunger, and seal have to get
> in there somehow.

Hi rbowman,

<slaps head!> That makes a LOT of sense!

o Here's what my old chuck looks like, with the slotted "head" taken apart.
<https://i.postimg.cc/qRRVJJ9d/valve03.jpg>

It's only two pieces (3 in total, including the body).
o I had never noticed that slot before as I've never needed to take it apart.

Thanks!

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 16 May 2019 23:02:22 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> READ!!!!! The "high pressure" valve is required for high pressure
> rims which are .205" thick instead of .156".

Hi Clare,

Thanks for the advice that the high-pressure valve "may" leak.

To be clear, certainly I fully _understood_ that if it was a high pressure
tire (like a truck tire), that higher-pressure tire with thicker rims would
_require_ the high-pressure valve, which handles both higher pressure and
thicker rims.

... but ... (see next section) ...

> The "high pressure" valve is likely to leak in a standardthickness
> rim

Since both would fit, the question was what the practical difference would
be in a passenger rim with passenger-tire pressures, which clearly the
lower-pressure valve and the higher pressure valve would "fit" ... (where
you answered that question by saying it "might leak" if the high pressure
"truck" valve was used in a low-pressure passenger tire situation simply
because the rim thickness is thinner than the max.

The mere fact the rim thickness is thinner than the max, in and of itself,
doesn't negate either tire valves, where I defer to your experience since
I've used both in the past on passenger car steel & alloy rims and haven't
had a leak at the valve yet.

> Did you even LOOK at what you posted???????? READ IT AGAIN and you
> won't need to ask STUPID questions!

Clare,
Of course I read and _completely_ understood what the package said.
o The package gave a MAXIMUM rim thickness & a MAXIMUM pressure.
o The package said nothing about a MINIMUM thickness & MINIMUM pressure.

That's why I asked the question, since clearly all the valves sold in that
O'Rielly's had maximums well above what this car rim & tire specify.

> Buy the CORRECT parts.

They _all_ appear to be the "correct" parts, in terms of meeting the spec
printed on the package, which is _only_ a maximum spec.

The minimum pressure & rim thickness spec isn't printed on the package.

The tire valve I _wanted_ didn't exist in the store, which was:
o 1-1/2" long brass valve of 0.453" diameter & at least 60psi cold pressure
fitting a rim of no more than 0.156" (3.96mm) thickness...
Which is what I _usually_ buy.

I had to do these tires with what the store had on hand, which is why I
bought both types, but where I put in the brass ones because I happen to
like long bolt-in brass valves over rubber valves - for no real reason
though - they just "seem" stronger.

Do you find, in your experience, that, all else being equal, that the brass
bolt-in valves hold up any better or worse than do the rubber press-fit
valves?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Thu, 16 May 2019 23:11:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> The slot is just like a slot in the head of a screw. It is used for
> assembly, disassembly

Thanks Ed,

Interestingly, there was no steel spring inside when I unscrewed the face.

There was just the screw-off face, the round body, and a "pin" that had a
rubber grommet around it (which must act as the "spring").
<https://i.postimg.cc/qRRVJJ9d/valve03.jpg>

> The valve stem is for different rims. Typically truck rims are thicker
> and heavier and tires have higher pressure.

What the package said was completely clear to me, which was only that it
specified only a MAXIMUM thickness and pressure.

I was asking about the unspecified MIMIMUM thickness and pressure, which, I
suppose, can only be garnered from experience.

In _my_ experience, admittedly only about 30-odd tires, I've used both
types in passenger car tires with nary a leak - but Clare says the brass
valve stem "might" leak in a thin rim, even though a minimum spec wasn't
specified on the package.

I would have gotten what I normally get, which is 1-1/2 inch brass 0.453"
diameter bolt in 60psi valves - but the store didn't have any and this was
an emergency mount and balance.

To be clear, the ones I normally get have TWO diameters, because they come
with two rubber grommets, one for 0.625" holes and the other grommet for
0.453" holes as shown in this photo from a prior mounting & balance:
<https://i.postimg.cc/qRG62LRT/valve04.jpg>

Notice, for example, in this photo there are TWO grommets where only one is
used, depending on how big the hole is:
<https://i.postimg.cc/C1ds75Z5/valve05.jpg>

Those are the valves I normally use - where in about 30-odd mounts,
I haven't had a valve leak yet.

The question wasn't ever about the maximums, since _all_ the valves sold in
that store had maximums well above this particular vehicle's spec - so -
based on the spec - EVERY valve "fits".

The question was about the minimums, which are unstated on the package.

[Biff Tannen]

So many decisions!

See, this is why I take my car to Wally's Service Station and have Goober do my tires.  It's just easier.

[rbowman]

The last one I took apart was a Harbor Freight dual head that had a few
more pieces. It wasn't curiosity I was trying to get it to work. The
solution was buying a real one from NAPA.

The HF compressor is still functioning although I removed the regulator
after it blew its guts out. The semi-engaged threads in the pot metal
body were not salvageable. The hose and connectors in the accessory pack
are functional.

I did find there are at least two styles of 1/4" male connectors. Of
course, I bought the wrong style.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 06:49:21 -0600, rbowman wrote:

> The last one I took apart was a Harbor Freight dual head that had a few
> more pieces. It wasn't curiosity I was trying to get it to work. The
> solution was buying a real one from NAPA.

Hi rbowman,

Thanks for that additional information, where I assume the "rubber grommet"
is the "spring" in this ancient Sears chuck from, oh, it has to be from the
1970's when I first did major body work and painted a car which is why I
bought that Sears 220VAC 20-gallan wheeled compressor in the first place.

The chuck doesn't work all that well lately, so I bought this new one to
replace it, where when we were replacing the chuck, the kid asked the
question, where I _encourage_ all intelligent people to not be afraid of
asking questions so that they learn (as do I), from the answers from more
knowledgeable people.

Hence I appreciate your experience that you relayed about HF tools.

My experience with HF is similar, in that there are 3 categories (IMHO):
o Outright crap that isn't worth a penny (e.g., their 100' air hoses)
o Stuff that's crap - but it's worth it (e.g., their tire mounting tools)
o Stuff that's ok - so it's a good deal (e.g., tire irons & wheel weights)

> The HF compressor is still functioning although I removed the regulator
> after it blew its guts out. The semi-engaged threads in the pot metal
> body were not salvageable. The hose and connectors in the accessory pack
> are functional.

Funny you mention the air compressor is still working, as mine is an
ancient circa 1970's 220VAC 20 gallon Sears air compressor, which is still
going strong (many hoses later).

My biggest problem is _finding_ air hoses that are good but not too
expensive. If anyone has a good source for them, let us all know.

I bought the HF yellow plastic coiled hose for short distances, which
sucked, as did the black rubber-coated reinforced vinyl 100' hose from HF.

> I did find there are at least two styles of 1/4" male connectors. Of
> course, I bought the wrong style.

That does drive me nuts that the quick connectors are of different styles,
where I only need one, and it's "whatever I've got", which is, I don't
remember, but which dates back to the 1970s when I first bought the air
compressor.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=different+air+hose+connector+types&ia=images>

We once went over the various styles, many years ago, on a.h.r, but I
forget offhand what our conclusion was as to the "right" kind to get.
<http://ramproducts.com/Industrial-Supply/products/4504/Shop_Air_Hose_Fittings>

I just want the kind of connector that fits "whatever I've already got"
although I _am_ interested in why they have the different types, where all
these differences are great, but it still has to fit what I've already got.
<https://www.ebay.com/gds/How-to-buy-Airline-Connectors-Fittings-and-Adaptors-/10000000205339869/g.html>

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 05:58:51 -0400, Biff Tannen wrote:

> So many decisions!
>
> See, this is why I take my car to Wally's Service Station and have Goober do my tires.  It's just easier.

Hi Bill Tannen,

My wife is much like you are, where all she wants to know about any home
DIY job or auto-repair DIY job ... is, just this:
o "Honey ... did you fix the damn thing yet?"

HINT: No sex until the rubber is match mounted & balanced properly! :)

Jokes aside, nothing about automotive or home DIY matters to her - except
"is it fixed yet?".

I've learned that if I even _tried_ to explain using even the slightest
amount of complexity about a home or auto DIY, her eyes go glassy and roll
in her head - and it's not that she can't handle details - since she has an
advanced degree in engineering - just like I do ... it's just that ... well
... um ... er ... ah ...
o *She just doesn't give a shit about home or automotive car repair* :)

You're apparently the same - which is fine - but many of us _love_ to
_learn_ about things that other people don't have a clue about.

For example, like almost everyone here, I too comprehend every spec molded
on a tire (since I care about tires) and on a brake pad, including the
tire's painted dots or the brake pad friction material and rating, where to
most people a tire or a brake pad is simply too complex mechanical voodoo.

IMHO, those people who consider tires and valves and friction materials too
complex for them to comprehend instantly become a marketing person's dream
since they only know the glossy material of what marketing people tell them
(which is almost complete bullshit). But that's all they know because they
don't care to know _anything_ about tires or friction materials.

And that's ok
o Ignorance is bliss to them.

Similarly it's the same with most people on tire chucks & tire valves.
o To most people, I suppose, tire chucks & valves ... "simply exist".

It's interesting that they likely don't even know what "Schrader" means for
example, as they're completely clueless about what we're talking about.
o And that's ok as ignorance clearly is bliss for most people.

They're often the same about many things, e.g., if I said there's no
appreciable "octane" in gasoline, they'd look at me with glassy eyes since
all their life, they _thought_ gasoline was "octane" (or at least had more
than a tiny percent of it) ... where if I ever once mentioned 2,2,4
tri-methyl pentane is what people refer to as "octane", they'd look at me
as if I was speaking Cyrillic to them - they're _that_ clueless about
basics of automotive terminology.

And that's ok.
o Ignorance is bliss to many people.

Me?
o I prefer to ask questions where I'm not afraid to admit I don't have all
the answers - and where I _love_ factual details about home & automotive
DIYs.

I learn from mounting tires; they don't learn anything when mounting tires.
o Their ignorance is their bliss - and that's ok.

I's their right to remain ignorant.
o However, I must state the super obvious that this is a home-repair and
auto-tech group which is "supposed" to "give a shit" about home-DIYs and
auto DIYs, AFAIK.

You don't have to give a shit about everything asked here ...
o But if your remark was intended to be condescending - it wasn't taken
that way - it was taken as simply "you don't give a shit" about the proper
mounting and balancing of tires - which _MANY_ people don't give a shit
about.

While _everyone_ on this ng has done the common "little" jobs like
batteries, alternator and starters, cooling systems, CCvs (aka PCR but
calling a CCV a PCR is understating the effort), exhaust systems, smog
repairs, brake jobs, fluid changes, ball joints, tie rods, struts and
shocks, window glass and regulators, DISA, FSU, CCV, VANOS, etc., for the
bimmer owners, oil pump gaskets, blower motors, etc....

Most people haven't done the "bigger" jobs at home yet ...
o Nor do they even want to do those "bigger" jobs at home, it seems.

And that's ok.

However ...

There's something strange that happens on this ng whenever we cover this
canonical half dozen typical automotive "bigger" jobs where only _some_
people (not all mind you - just some), make up all sorts of ridiculous
reasons why they _can't_ do the typical repair job (where they need to be
honest with themselves that they simply don't _like_ the job, in most
cases, IMHO):
1. Mounting tires & balancing wheels
2. Clutch & transmission overhaul
3. Measure & align caster, camber, & toe
4. Major body work & painting at home
5. Full-tank refueling at home
6. Engine overhaul at home

Me?
o I've done only _half_ those canonical common repair jobs at home.

So I admit I still have a _lot_ to learn!
o So I will keep asking questions, since I have 3 more of those jobs to go!

[Clare Snyder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 04:54:04 -0000 (UTC), "Arlen G. Holder"
<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 May 2019 23:02:22 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
>> READ!!!!! The "high pressure" valve is required for high pressure
>> rims which are .205" thick instead of .156".
>
>Hi Clare,
>
>Thanks for the advice that the high-pressure valve "may" leak.
>
>To be clear, certainly I fully _understood_ that if it was a high pressure
>tire (like a truck tire), that higher-pressure tire with thicker rims would
>_require_ the high-pressure valve, which handles both higher pressure and
>thicker rims.
>
>... but ... (see next section) ...
>
>> The "high pressure" valve is likely to leak in a standardthickness
>> rim
>
>Since both would fit, the question was what the practical difference would
>be in a passenger rim with passenger-tire pressures, which clearly the
>lower-pressure valve and the higher pressure valve would "fit" ... (where
>you answered that question by saying it "might leak" if the high pressure
>"truck" valve was used in a low-pressure passenger tire situation simply
>because the rim thickness is thinner than the max.

The standard valve seats tightli in the hole, against the inner rim
surface, and against the outer rim surface. The high pressure stem
would "float" in the hole. It MAY not leak - but I sure wouldn't bet
on it!!

>
>The mere fact the rim thickness is thinner than the max, in and of itself,
>doesn't negate either tire valves, where I defer to your experience since
>I've used both in the past on passenger car steel & alloy rims and haven't
>had a leak at the valve yet.
>
>> Did you even LOOK at what you posted???????? READ IT AGAIN and you
>> won't need to ask STUPID questions!
>
>Clare,
>Of course I read and _completely_ understood what the package said.
>o The package gave a MAXIMUM rim thickness & a MAXIMUM pressure.
>o The package said nothing about a MINIMUM thickness & MINIMUM pressure.
>
>That's why I asked the question, since clearly all the valves sold in that
>O'Rielly's had maximums well above what this car rim & tire specify.
>
>> Buy the CORRECT parts.
>
>They _all_ appear to be the "correct" parts, in terms of meeting the spec
>printed on the package, which is _only_ a maximum spec.

You overthink EVERYTHING. If the high pressure stem was "the right
one" for standard rims why the 7734 would they make 2 different stems
- particularly when they sell for the same price????

>
>The minimum pressure & rim thickness spec isn't printed on the package.
>
>The tire valve I _wanted_ didn't exist in the store, which was:
>o 1-1/2" long brass valve of 0.453" diameter & at least 60psi cold pressure
>fitting a rim of no more than 0.156" (3.96mm) thickness...
>Which is what I _usually_ buy.
>
>I had to do these tires with what the store had on hand, which is why I
>bought both types, but where I put in the brass ones because I happen to
>like long bolt-in brass valves over rubber valves - for no real reason
>though - they just "seem" stronger

. Bolt in is a LOT less critical of rim thickness, and I do not
believe they even make the 2 versions.

>
>Do you find, in your experience, that, all else being equal, that the brass
>bolt-in valves hold up any better or worse than do the rubber press-fit
>valves?

I install the bolt-in ones on my own vehicles. I guess that MAYBEE
says something???

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 13:34:18 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> The standard valve seats tightli in the hole, against the inner rim
> surface, and against the outer rim surface. The high pressure stem
> would "float" in the hole. It MAY not leak - but I sure wouldn't bet
> on it!!

Hi Clare,
Thanks for that advice that the "shorter" (in height) the inevitable rubber
grommet in the bolt-in type, the less change there might be of leakage.

I haven't mentioned this until now, but as an experiment, on the last set
of tires I mounted & balanced at home, I temporarily switched grommets from
the 0.453" to the 0.625" size to visually see what the difference might be.
<https://i.postimg.cc/4xjQV43s/valve06.jpg>

It's hard to tell from that crappy picture, but the larger grommet clearly
bulged outward, looking from the inside of the rim as that picture shows.

The end result, after match mounting, & during balancing, looks like this:
<https://i.postimg.cc/gjv3V3nW/valve09.jpg>

> You overthink EVERYTHING. If the high pressure stem was "the right
> one" for standard rims why the 7734 would they make 2 different stems
> - particularly when they sell for the same price????

Hi Clare,
What you're saying is to _assume_ the answer, which is fine, but where the
spec is what I go by in almost all cases, where, unfortunately, only the
MAXIMUM spec was written on the package.

Bearing in mind that the package I usually get has _both_ the 0.453" and
0.625" grommets, clearly _some_ of those valve stems are designed to fit
both sized holes.

Of course, there's NOTHING on the package itself that says what the MINIMUM
spec is, so, clearly, it has to be _assumed_ where I generally hate
assuming things because of the natural tendency to assume whatever you
_want_ the outcome to be.

BTW, at the store, I only had two choices:
1. Snap in - mostly rubber, or,
2. Snap in - mostly brass.
<https://i.postimg.cc/brH3z70k/valve10.jpg>

Of _those_ two, which would you prefer?
(I like the all brass bolt-in type - but they weren't available.)

> . Bolt in is a LOT less critical of rim thickness, and I do not
> believe they even make the 2 versions.

I'm a bit confused by what you said about not making the two versions since
I clearly use the bolt in 1-1/2" dual 0.453"/0.625 size all the time so I
am not sure what two versions you speak about.

I guess what you're implying is there is no "snap in" version for the
thicker rims, which, if that's what you're saying , that makes sense.

As for the bolt in versus the snap in, thanks for your advice that the bolt
in is less critical of rim widths.

I don't know why for sure, but I like the bolt-in types, but, I would
assume the snap-in types "might" be more flexible when rubbing against
curbs (where I size the length to be below the rim edges so that's less
likely to happen unless it's an odd-sized rock outcrop - which we do get
here in the mountains - but it's not often that a wheel rubs against them).
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZqBZsHZ6/valve07.jpg>

I use a straightedge as shown below to check that the valve is below
flush, where I like the valve to be as long as possible, but below flush:
<https://i.postimg.cc/mDsq3yrL/valve08.jpg>

> I install the bolt-in ones on my own vehicles. I guess that MAYBEE
> says something???

Thanks for stating that you like the bolt-in type, which is the kind I tend
toward myself. Those bolt-in types just "seem" better, where about the only
"difference" I can see offhand is twofold:
a. They may be less flexible if rubbed against than the snap-in types
b. They fit small & large rim holes, where I only need the 0.453" size

I guess a third difference is that, technically, they're removable, but I
can't imagine re-using them except in some kind of dire emergency.

[trader_4]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 1:00:09 PM UTC-4, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

>
> However ...
>
> There's something strange that happens on this ng whenever we cover this
> canonical half dozen typical automotive "bigger" jobs where only _some_
> people (not all mind you - just some), make up all sorts of ridiculous
> reasons why they _can't_ do the typical repair job (where they need to be
> honest with themselves that they simply don't _like_ the job, in most
> cases, IMHO):
> 1. Mounting tires & balancing wheels
> 2. Clutch & transmission overhaul
> 3. Measure & align caster, camber, & toe
> 4. Major body work & painting at home
> 5. Full-tank refueling at home
> 6. Engine overhaul at home
>
> Me?
> o I've done only _half_ those canonical common repair jobs at home.
>
> So I admit I still have a _lot_ to learn!
> o So I will keep asking questions, since I have 3 more of those jobs to go!

Here we go again...... BTW, how can one not like one of those jobs if
they haven't done them? And with the case of tire changing and alignment
we've gone through that here before at much length and there were plenty
of reasons beyond not liking it.

[rbowman]

On 05/17/2019 11:00 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> I just want the kind of connector that fits "whatever I've already got"
> although I _am_ interested in why they have the different types, where all
> these differences are great, but it still has to fit what I've already got.

I realize that there are criteria that result in different designs but
the engineer in me is offended when the main criteria seems to being
slightly different from the other company's design. I have a collection
of oil filter cap wrenches, all of which are almost, but not quite, the
same. Even if the filter itself is for the same applications the
different manufacturers have to march to their own drummer.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 14:34:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> BTW, how can one not like one of those jobs if
> they haven't done them?

There are people who like to learn and there are people who don't.
o And that's OK.

For example, here's a picture of 3 of my chucks - do you have any advice
for how to repair the oldest one, the one at the left, which, I _thought_
was simply missing a rubber grommet - but which seems to be missing a
spring (although, I've never taken it apart)?
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVPJC1Sy/valve11.jpg>

Only the brand new chuck, in the middle, has an actual spring.

Can you post a picture of the insides of your chucks, so we can compare?

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 18:33:44 -0600, rbowman wrote:

> I realize that there are criteria that result in different designs but
> the engineer in me is offended when the main criteria seems to being
> slightly different from the other company's design. I have a collection
> of oil filter cap wrenches, all of which are almost, but not quite, the
> same. Even if the filter itself is for the same applications the
> different manufacturers have to march to their own drummer.

Hi rbowman,

I agree with you that simply having a different size for no good reason
than to make it incompatible with others, is a marketing sham.

We should strive to not fall prey to those shams, where, I admit, I must
have a dozen different oil filter wrenches myself, from the cap type to the
strap type for my non-BMW vehicles (the bimmer has a different kind of oil
filter setup).

I just snapped this picture of my disassembled chucks, where you'll note
two things of related import.
<<https://i.postimg.cc/nVPJC1Sy/valve11.jpg>>

One is that only the middle (brand new) chuck even _has_ a spring, which
may be why I'm unhappy with the oldest chuck from the 1970s's when I bought
the compressor to paint my old Japanese sports car.

I have no idea where the spring went, where it's impossible that anyone
else has ever had possession of the chuck - so - maybe - perhaps - decades
ago - I may have taken it apart and somehow - perhaps - lost the spring?

I can't see the spring leaving on its own.

I could have sworn that I would have had the right sized spring in my box
of things, but a look there found everything but the right sized springs.
Since I take apart EVERYTHING that breaks, I am surprised I didn't save
more of the springs - but alas - I'll have to buy some since I see now that
the real problem with the chuck was that I didn't know how to repair it.
(And I hate waste - where I feel too many people waste our earth's limited
resources by throwing them out instead of fixing them.)

Anyway, the second thing is that the fittings I have on hand are from a
batch I bought from HF on sale perhaps a year or two ago, where the red
label says that they're "Industrial 1/4 inch Brass NPT M" fittings by a
company named "Kobalt" with a SKU of "8 79686 00455 4"

A google search finds this:
<https://partairtoolo.com/879686004554>

I guess that means my fitting "type" is "Industrial", whatever that tells
us.

Pretty much, that means I need to _only_ get "Industrial" fittings when I
need new ones, where the old ones don't ever wear out - but they seem to
hide with the socks.

[Clare Snyder]

Bolt in - yes. Pull-in rubber NO

>Of course, there's NOTHING on the package itself that says what the MINIMUM
>spec is, so, clearly, it has to be _assumed_ where I generally hate
>assuming things because of the natural tendency to assume whatever you
>_want_ the outcome to be.
>
>BTW, at the store, I only had two choices:
>1. Snap in - mostly rubber, or,
>2. Snap in - mostly brass.
><https://i.postimg.cc/brH3z70k/valve10.jpg>

>Of _those_ two, which would you prefer?
>(I like the all brass bolt-in type - but they weren't available.)

You wouldn't catch medead installing the HP (mostly brass) stem in a
standard steel automotive wheel, or the all rubber one in a HD truck
rim. Different horses for different courses

>
>
>> . Bolt in is a LOT less critical of rim thickness, and I do not
>> believe they even make the 2 versions.
>
>I'm a bit confused by what you said about not making the two versions since
>I clearly use the bolt in 1-1/2" dual 0.453"/0.625 size all the time so I
>am not sure what two versions you speak about.

They make 2 DIFFERENT snap in valve stems - one for thin rims
(standard) and one for thick rims (high pressure). They only make one
bolt-in - it works on standard and high pressure - and even both hole
sizes.

>
>I guess what you're implying is there is no "snap in" version for the
>thicker rims, which, if that's what you're saying , that makes sense.

No - you showed in your link the snap-in for thicker rims. The fact
that they DO make separate snap-ins for the two thicknesses means
something. The FACT that they do not need to make "separate" bolt-ins
for the 2 thicknesses also says something.

What I take from this is there is a NEED for 2 different snap-in stems
- so you NEED to use the right one. There is NO NEED for "separate"
bolt-ins - so they don't make them - and they can be used
"universally"

>
>As for the bolt in versus the snap in, thanks for your advice that the bolt
>in is less critical of rim widths.
>
>I don't know why for sure, but I like the bolt-in types, but, I would
>assume the snap-in types "might" be more flexible when rubbing against
>curbs (where I size the length to be below the rim edges so that's less
>likely to happen unless it's an odd-sized rock outcrop - which we do get
>here in the mountains - but it's not often that a wheel rubs against them).
><https://i.postimg.cc/ZqBZsHZ6/valve07.jpg>
>

The valve stem should NEVER protrude far enough to "catch" on
anything. That's why they make something like 6 different lengths of
"snap in" stems and at least as many "bolt in".

When I had 3 out of 4 rubber snap-in stems fail (crack and lose air)
within a week of each othe (while on a cross-country trip) when less
thana year old I decided to use bolt-ins from then on. The quality of
the mostly chinese produced snap-in stems is questionable (at best,
and to say the least)

>I use a straightedge as shown below to check that the valve is below
>flush, where I like the valve to be as long as possible, but below flush:
><https://i.postimg.cc/mDsq3yrL/valve08.jpg>
>
>> I install the bolt-in ones on my own vehicles. I guess that MAYBEE
>> says something???
>
>Thanks for stating that you like the bolt-in type, which is the kind I tend
>toward myself. Those bolt-in types just "seem" better, where about the only
>"difference" I can see offhand is twofold:
>a. They may be less flexible if rubbed against than the snap-in types
>b. They fit small & large rim holes, where I only need the 0.453" size
>

The BIG advantage is they are metal, not some unknown
"frankenrubber" that hardens and cracks from ultraviolet and ozone
exposure. Yhe disadvantage is they might be some kind of Chinese
"franken alloy" and corrode off in 6 months - - - - -

>I guess a third difference is that, technically, they're removable, but I
>can't imagine re-using them except in some kind of dire emergency.

You mean re-installable. Even frankenrubber snap-ins are removeable
- but like bolt-ins they are likely to come out in 2 peices. Unlike
frankenrubber, the 2 pieces CAN be re-assembled and re-used - at least
theoretically.

[Clare Snyder]

The spring from the old one is inside 1 or more tires, most likely.
The moisture in the airline rusted the spring away. Used to be, back
when those chucks cast an hour or more's wages, you could buy rebuild
kits for them. Now it's cheaper to replace with another chicrap chuck
than to rebuild.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:34:10 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> The spring from the old one is inside 1 or more tires, most likely.
> The moisture in the airline rusted the spring away. Used to be, back
> when those chucks cast an hour or more's wages, you could buy rebuild
> kits for them. Now it's cheaper to replace with another chicrap chuck
> than to rebuild.

Hi Clare,

THANKS for likely solving the mystery, which is most likely that the
missing spring simply rusted away, over time, which is likely as that chuck
has to be, oh, about 40 to 50 years old since I bought the compressor and
air tools to paint a rusted out Datsun in the 70's after taking a welding
class to learn how to weld on new rocker panels and after buying a sand
blaster to remove the old paint.

Interestingly, I still have _all_ those old tools, most of which were from
Sears in those days, where there's no way that air chuck has ever been out
of my control in those fifty years and I never needed a new one until now.

I think, over time, it just stopped working well, which is an indication
that you're fully correct that the spring merely rusted away in the last 10
or 20 years of those fifty years.

That _has_ to be what happened, where I _appreciate_ that you explained it!

THANKS!

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 22:29:03 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

> You wouldn't catch medead installing the HP (mostly brass) stem in a
> standard steel automotive wheel, or the all rubber one in a HD truck
> rim. Different horses for different courses

Hi Clare,
Thanks for that advice not to use those mostly brass plugin types, where I
noticed that the "mostly brass" plugin type I bought have an "HP"
designation (TR600HP) so I won't get those "high pressure" valves for car
tires again. Thanks!

That leaves, for the plugin types in an automotive steel wheel just the
plugin type that I also bought, which was the TR414.

> They make 2 DIFFERENT snap in valve stems - one for thin rims
> (standard) and one for thick rims (high pressure). They only make one
> bolt-in - it works on standard and high pressure - and even both hole
> sizes.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion, where we then have these choices for
steel standard wheels:
o Plugin of the size for thin steel (non-truck) wheels, or,
o Boltin of a size that fits both high & low pressure.

> No - you showed in your link the snap-in for thicker rims.

Thanks for clarifying as I hadn't realized there _was_ a snapin for the
thicker rims (I thought it was only for the two diameters).

Interestingly, O'Reilly's doesn't seem to have the specific 0.453" diameter
snapin tire valves online, but they have 7/16ths, which is close enough to
be the same thing, only I'm not sure why the math isn't more reasonably
close:
<https://www.oreillyauto.com/search?q=0.453+inch+tire+valve>

> The fact
> that they DO make separate snap-ins for the two thicknesses means
> something. The FACT that they do not need to make "separate" bolt-ins
> for the 2 thicknesses also says something.
> What I take from this is there is a NEED for 2 different snap-in stems
> - so you NEED to use the right one. There is NO NEED for "separate"
> bolt-ins - so they don't make them - and they can be used
> "universally"

Thanks for the clarification, where, more and more, I'm gonna strongly
consider buying, in bulk, the bolt-in type on the net and have a lifetime
supply (which, for me, at my age, would only be another fifty or so).

Looking at Autozon'e selection, they don't even seem to sell them:
<https://www.autozone.com/tire-repair-and-tire-wheel/tire-valve-stem>

> The valve stem should NEVER protrude far enough to "catch" on
> anything. That's why they make something like 6 different lengths of
> "snap in" stems and at least as many "bolt in".

I agree.

Napa seems to have them here for $4 each:
<https://www.napaonline.com/en/p/NTH90416>

I'm not sure the O'Reilly's price but I found it on my old package
as part number Xtra Seal Tire Valve, 15-416, 1-1/2" long metal bolt -in
which fits 7/16 and 5/8 inch holes ( UPC 639601541607).

> When I had 3 out of 4 rubber snap-in stems fail (crack and lose air)
> within a week of each othe (while on a cross-country trip) when less
> thana year old I decided to use bolt-ins from then on. The quality of
> the mostly chinese produced snap-in stems is questionable (at best,

> and to say the least).

Based on what you're saying, I'm gonna stick with the bolt ins from now on.
I can order them from O'Reilly for about three or four bucks each.
<https://tinyurl.com/boltintirevalve>

> The BIG advantage is they are metal, not some unknown
> "frankenrubber" that hardens and cracks from ultraviolet and ozone
> exposure. Yhe disadvantage is they might be some kind of Chinese
> "franken alloy" and corrode off in 6 months - - - - -

I'll stick with the brass type - where I'm happy with O'Reilly but I notice
I can get them online from plenty of places.
<https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Speedway-Steel-Bolt-In-Tire-Valve-Stems-Set-of-4,5479.html>

> You mean re-installable. Even frankenrubber snap-ins are removeable
> - but like bolt-ins they are likely to come out in 2 peices. Unlike
> frankenrubber, the 2 pieces CAN be re-assembled and re-used - at least
> theoretically.

Yeah. I suspect we'd need a new grommet but other than that, I guess
they're re-usable, but, who would bother for a four dollar part that if it
fails, can cost you. Not me. When I do a tire, I do it right, or at least,
as right as I know how to do it.

Thanks. Your advice helps cement my choice on the brass bolt-ins from now
on!