Re: "Google Wallet may be making a return" (and "Why is it so complex to add Covid-19 Vaccination Cards to the Apple Wallet?!)

[Andy Burnelli]

VanguardLH wrote:

> I'm the type that relies first on physical over electronic. That's why
> I have probably a couple hundred pounds of tools and emergency gear in
> my car rather than relying on calling AAA

I'm similar to Vanguard in that I rely on the confidence of self reliance;
however, we have wives and kids and grandkids, etc., who need that AAA card.

Personally, I've found that you can "share" the AAA card, as the only entity
that seems to care if it's "you" calling is AAA but not the truck driver who
arrives (he just wants to get paid by AAA in the end so he'll take anyone).
(at least in my experience anyway)

When a kid gets their first car, I generally gift them a "safety kit", which
contains, oh, offhand, from memory, the following dozen or so safety items:
1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
2. tire patch kit (external patch) & tire air + sealant canister
3. safety vest (I used to add flares & triangles but they suck)
3. HF analog VOM (you don't need a battery to check DC voltage)
5. 3x5 flash cards, duct tape & pencil in a ziplock bag (to leave a note)
6. vise grip & philips/flathead & compact wrench kit (bicycle kits work)
7. HD Husky 4-gauge 20-foot jumper cables (but they're a PITA to re-pack)
8. Costco landscape black plastic bags (to put on the wet ground if needed)
9. Portable cigarette lighter air pump (they actually do work surprisingly)
10. aforementioned spare (usually expired) AAA card (for sharing purposes)
11. sometimes an ice scraper & sometimes a quart of motor oil (for old cars)
12. Some kind of zippered strong cloth bag (I get them at the Goodwill)

Did I miss anything that you would highly recommend that's in your kit?
(It's always a balance of size versus likelihood of dire need of course.)

I used to add a halon fire extinguisher, paper maps, two flares with nails,
two foldable triangle reflectors, a spare phone & a spare camera, but each
of those turns out to be more trouble than it's worth, particularly the
flares (which crumble over time) and the reflectors (which blow away in the
wind if they're small enough to be convenient).

The _best_ thing to have in your kit, is the knowledge that you likely have,
and that I certainly have, of how each of the systems work in a vehicle
(drive train, starting & charging, cooling, steering, braking, etc.) in that
my cars, by design, are older than my children (who are married with kids),
since that's the last time I bought a new car and none of my vehicles have
_ever_ been to a mechanic (I even do alignment and tire mounting & balancing
at home) - but I would assume most people don't know what we know.

As an OT aside, I _love_ the inherent confidence that my deep knowledge of
"working on a car" gives us in terms of the ability to fix almost anything
at the point of failure (or, if it's unfixable, such as a broken axle, then,
in California, a 511 call will get you off the highway for free, and that
shared AAA card can get you five further miles for free, and then you pay
for whatever is left but at least you'll be safely off the highway).

The good news is cars are simpler to maintain now than ever before, just as
phones are better, faster, and far cheaper now than they've ever been.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

[Michael Trew]

On 4/23/2022 20:54, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> Personally, I've found that you can "share" the AAA card, as the only
> entity
> that seems to care if it's "you" calling is AAA but not the truck driver
> who
> arrives (he just wants to get paid by AAA in the end so he'll take anyone).
> (at least in my experience anyway)

Some drivers are more persnickety. I drive old beaters, and I usually
use a few of my AAA tows per year. It's well worth it to pay for the
middle tier of AAA with up to four 100 mile tows.

> When a kid gets their first car, I generally gift them a "safety kit",
> which
> contains, oh, offhand, from memory, the following dozen or so safety items:
> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)

Why no AAA batteries?

> Did I miss anything that you would highly recommend that's in your kit?
> (It's always a balance of size versus likelihood of dire need of course.)

I usually keep multiple car fluids on hand. Premixed gallon of coolant,
at least a quart of oil, and P/S fluid (maybe ATF). Of course, again, I
drive old cars, that tend to spring leaks.

> The _best_ thing to have in your kit, is the knowledge that you likely
> have,
> and that I certainly have, of how each of the systems work in a vehicle
> (drive train, starting & charging, cooling, steering, braking, etc.) in
> that
> my cars, by design, are older than my children (who are married with kids),
> since that's the last time I bought a new car and none of my vehicles have
> _ever_ been to a mechanic (I even do alignment and tire mounting &
> balancing
> at home)

I'd love to have a machine to mount and balance my own tires. I fix
most things on cars myself, and there is a satisfaction to that
(although it's also relevant to cheap/necessity for me).

[sms]

On 4/25/2022 8:18 AM, Michael Trew wrote:

<snip>

> I'd love to have a machine to mount and balance my own tires.  I fix
> most things on cars myself, and there is a satisfaction to that
> (although it's also relevant to cheap/necessity for me).

A static wheel balancer is pretty inexpensive but it's not really a good
idea to use one on tires that will be operated at high speed. A manual
tire changer is also pretty cheap, under $100. But by the time you pay
retail prices for the weights, and pay for the equipment cost, you'd be
able to pay for a lot of wheel balancing before you achieved a positive
ROI, and you would not have tires that are properly balanced after all
that. A dynamic wheel balancer is over $1000 for a very basic model from
China.

[Michael Trew]

I rarely drive over 60 MPH. I've mounted little 12/13 inch Geo Metro
wheels and just sent them without balancing at all before; so a cheap
one would be good enough for most of my purposes. I drive old beater
cars, and I currently own 10 (or 11?) of them.

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).

[Andy Burnelli]

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.

Just as with Apple marketing always aiming that people quaking in their
boots, so does tire & brake repair, replace, mount & repair marketing.

Dynamic balance is almost always not needed _if_... and the _if_ is what
matters, but luckily, the _if_ is (in my experience) almost all the time.

Needless to day, the _test_ for lack of dynamic balance is always free!

Just as I've (almost) never failed to solve computer issues, I've (almost)
never failed to solve car-repair issues (and my cars are _decades_ old!).

I've written tutorials for how to mount and balance your tires at home.

Out here, Harbor Freight sells a crappy tire dismount/mount tool which you
_must_ bolt to the ground, and then you remove the even crappier bead
breaker, and then it's an OK tool for tires up to around 18 inches.

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.

The Harbor Freight static balancer, which is also crappy, is just a bubble
balander so it doesn't matter as long as the wheel is placed centrally.

The only other tools needed to mount and balance your tires at home are
extra HF tire irons (for the larger SUV tires), vise grips (because the HF
3-foot-long round-bar tire iron twists in your hands on those larger
tires), a pair of dikes (to cut the old valve stem) and a valve core
removal twist driver (for removal & replacement of the valve cores).

It's helpful (but not required) to have a bead blaster, aka a bazooka.
--
Yes, you heard that right. Dynamic balance testing is _always_ free!

[Andy Burnelli]

Michael Trew wrote:

>> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
>
> Why no AAA batteries?

Logic. Sense. Practicality.
1. Most things that require AAA don't actually _need_ AAA (this is key!)
(The assumption that they're "smaller" very often is just not true.)
2. AAA cost about the same as AA which means they cost twice as much.
(another way to look at it is they last half as long)
3. Eliminating one battery size reduces the amount of storage in my
battery drawer of Costco sizes of D, C, AA, and 9V batteries.

Fun fact: Did you ever take apart a 9V battery cube?
(Guess what's inside.)

>> Did I miss anything that you would highly recommend that's in your kit?
>> (It's always a balance of size versus likelihood of dire need of course.)
>
> I usually keep multiple car fluids on hand. Premixed gallon of coolant,
> at least a quart of oil, and P/S fluid (maybe ATF). Of course, again, I
> drive old cars, that tend to spring leaks.

Understood. I have a shelf of all that (and more) where I'm a practical
guy, which means if brake fluid works as well or better than liquid wrench,
I store the brake fluid and not the liquid wrench on my garage shelves.

BTW, a _fantastic_ resource for an intelligent practical sensible guy who
tests all the automotive fluids against each other, is "Project Farm"
<https://www.youtube.com/c/ProjectFarm/>

Bear in mind, when it comes to falling prey to marketing, most people are
incredibly stupid. Automotive liquids are even worse than Apple on that.

> I'd love to have a machine to mount and balance my own tires.

I saw Steve's response, but just like you can't logically ask a thin person
how to lose a hundred pounds (because they really do not know how - they
simply "think" they do becasue they never had to actually do it), Steve is
dead wrong in _every_ sentence he said about it (and trust me, if Steve
said it correctly, I'd say he was right - but he's never done it himself).

For _years_ I've been documenting my, oh, it's well over sixty tires by
now, where I wrote a tutorial at the 40-tire mark long ago (I don't have
kids at home anymore that have cars to be fixed with them learning how).

The tools pay for themselves after only a couple of years of changing tires
on a multi-car family set of tires, where, luckily for us in the USA,
Harbor Freight sells a crappy tire tool for everything you need.

Notice what I said. Nobody loves HF tools - but - they work - and that's
what matters. Just as a home owner doesn't need a $100K Hunter alignment
rack, to properly balance your wheels/tires at home is trivial to do.

The "speed" thing Steve mentioned is bullshit since they're not properly
balanced if they cause vibration at any speed - where again - Steve falls
prey to the marketing of fear more than he falls prey to actual logic.

Dynamic balancing tests are _always_ free, and, after that, if you need
dynamic balancing, last I checked it costs $5/tire for that - but - I've
_never_ yet needed dynamic balancing (notice the word "need" there).

BTW, I'm logical and sensible, so if there is _anything_ I've suggested
above that you would like to understand the logic of, then just ask.

> I fix
> most things on cars myself, and there is a satisfaction to that
> (although it's also relevant to cheap/necessity for me).

I have never been to a mechanic in my life and I own cars for decades.

Just as with computers I fix everything myself using the tool that evolved
from being monkeys swinging from trees and having to gauge the distance to
the next branch and having to calculate how it will hold up, I've been able
to fix cars simply by making sensible sane choices (and, oh, by the way, I
have _two_ BMWs, one a K1200 and the other a 525, so you can't say that
they don't break a lot).

On the BMW forums, I'm a legend, but of course I go by a different nym.

[sms]

On 4/28/2022 7:34 PM, Michael Trew wrote:

<snip>

> When you say a "static" balancer, do you mean a bubble balancer?

Yes, something like
<https://www.harborfreight.com/portable-wheel-balancer-39741.html>.

Even at 60 MPH you really should be properly balancing your tires. At
Costco, mounting, lifetime-balancing, rotation, road hazard warranty,
and nitro-fill, is about $19.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-29 7:11 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Michael Trew wrote:
>
>>> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
>>
>> Why no AAA batteries?
>
> Logic. Sense. Practicality.
> 1. Most things that require AAA don't actually _need_ AAA (this is key!)
>   (The assumption that they're "smaller" very often is just not true.)

How is it you're so consistently an idiot about everything?

AAA batteries are 44.5mm tall by 10.5mm in diameter

AA batteries are 50.5mm tall by 14.mm in diameter.

AAA batteries are always physically smaller than AA batteries and
devices that are designed to take AAA batteries will pretty much NEVER
accept an AA battery.

> 2. AAA cost about the same as AA which means they cost twice as much.
>   (another way to look at it is they last half as long)

Wow. Wrong again!

> 3. Eliminating one battery size reduces the amount of storage in my
>   battery drawer of Costco sizes of D, C, AA, and 9V batteries.

And if you have devices that need AAA batteries?

>
> Fun fact: Did you ever take apart a 9V battery cube?          (Guess
> what's inside.)
>

Not AAA batteries.

Some do use cylindrical cells that are close in size to an AAAA battery,
but some 9-volt batteries don't have cylindrical cells in them at all.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-volt_battery#/media/File:9V_innards_3_different_cells.jpg>

You really are on a roll of ignorance today.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-29 6:48 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Michael Trew wrote:
>
>>>> I'd love to have a machine to mount and balance my own tires.  I fix
>>>> most things on cars myself, and there is a satisfaction to that
>>>> (although it's also relevant to cheap/necessity for me).
>>>
>>> A static wheel balancer is pretty inexpensive but it's not really a good
>>> idea to use one on tires that will be operated at high speed. A manual
>>> tire changer is also pretty cheap, under $100. But by the time you pay
>>> retail prices for the weights, and pay for the equipment cost, you'd be
>>> able to pay for a lot of wheel balancing before you achieved a positive
>>> ROI, and you would not have tires that are properly balanced after all
>>> that. A dynamic wheel balancer is over $1000 for a very basic model from
>>> China.
>>
>> I rarely drive over 60 MPH.  I've mounted little 12/13 inch Geo Metro
>> wheels and just sent them without balancing at all before; so a cheap
>> one would be good enough for most of my purposes.  I drive old beater
>> cars, and I currently own 10 (or 11?) of them.
>>
>> 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.

No, actually.

Static balancing is acceptable in some situations, but far from all.

>
> Just as with Apple marketing always aiming that people quaking in their
> boots, so does tire & brake repair, replace, mount & repair marketing.
>
> Dynamic balance is almost always not needed _if_... and the _if_ is what
> matters, but luckily, the _if_ is (in my experience) almost all the time.

And you don't describe the "_if_"

>
> Needless to day, the _test_ for lack of dynamic balance is always free!
>
> Just as I've (almost) never failed to solve computer issues, I've (almost)
> never failed to solve car-repair issues (and my cars are _decades_ old!).
>
> I've written tutorials for how to mount and balance your tires at home.

Of course you have!

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

>> When you say a "static" balancer, do you mean a bubble balancer?
>
> Yes, something like
> <https://www.harborfreight.com/portable-wheel-balancer-39741.html>.

As Steve noted, Harbor Freight sells crappy tools that get the job done.

Just as you can buy an expensive smartphone or a cheap one, and for the
most part, they both do exactly the same things (mostly) in the end...

For example, just as Google & Apple sell expensive tools, so does Lowes:
<https://www.lowes.com/pd/Tuxedo-Truck-Wheel-Balancer/1003140482>
<https://www.lowes.com/pd/Tuxedo-TC-950-with-Left-Side-Press-Arm/1003142130>

But it would take a typical homeowner a few lifetimes of changing tires at
home to offset the cost (& storage requirements) of such an expensive set.

Yet for the price of about three or four years of typical tire changing
(at least in twisty steep mountain roads which eat up tires due to downhill
inside-tire camber scrub as a rusult of the typical slight positive caster)
you can buy the cheap (but effective) Harbor Freight tire-changing tools.
<https://www.harborfreight.com/automotive/auto-maintenance-repair/tire-wheel.html>

Ask me how I know this (and yes, I _did_ write the tutorial for that too!).

It's (clever) Marketing's job to make most people pay to _feel_ safer.

Remember always that MARKETING scares the shit out of stupid people who
actually _believe_ that you can't "properly" mount & balance tires at home.

The only people who say that crap are those (a) selling you a service, or,
on Usenet, those (b) who have _never_ (ever!) done what they talk about.

Rest assured I _have_ mounted and balanced over sixty tires for a variety
of vehicles, up to and including 17 inch SUV tires (which are a bitch).

It's easy.
More importantly, it's easy to do properly.
Ask me how I know this.

HINT: If you've never done it, what you think you know... is wrong.
WHY? (easy) Because what you know is only what you're _told_ by marketing.
[Notice the parallels with the iKooks yet?]

As with Apple marketing, scaring the shit out of morons is how they make
all their money, where you don't need dynamic balancing if you don't need
it (and where the test for proper dynamic balance is _always_ free!).

> Even at 60 MPH you really should be properly balancing your tires.

As I said, the speed doesn't matter. There is only one "properly mounted
and balanced" tire result, just as there's only properly repaired tire
puncture... where the definition of "properly" includes _all_ valid speeds.

I doubt Steve has ever properly mounted & balanced car/SUV tires; I have.

> Costco, mounting, lifetime-balancing, rotation, road hazard warranty,
> and nitro-fill, is about $19.

Unfortunately for you, Steve doesn't know what he's talking about here.
(Remember, he's never done it. He's just going on the marketing claims.)

Nitro-fill is a gimmick, much like Apple's face-id is a marketing gimmick.

And the Costco "lifetime" deal is actually a farce, it turns out, where the
Lord knows I love Costco, but... they lied about that lifetime balancing,
at least in terms of our "extreme" use high up in the Santa Cruz mountains.

Xeno can explain in gory detail, but the simplest way to explain it is that
they don't count "extreme use" which, fun fact... it turns out that steep
mountain roads are (see aforementioned scrub radius tire wear issues).

While I love Costco for some things (I purposefully filled a hundred
gallons of their top-tier fuel for example just prior to the invasion),
they only sell certain brands (Goodyear, Bridgestone, etc.) where I get my
tires from SimpleTire (free shipping - which - for tires - is a lot!) so
that I can choose _any_ brand & model I want (TireRack is OK too).

The road hazard stuff is fine, but see the "extreme" use clause, and,
besides, once you can mount & balance tires at home, patch plugs are easy.

Did I mention yet that dynamic balance tests are _always_ free?

If, perchance, you fail the dynamic balance test, last I checked, Costco
will do a dynamic balance for $5 even on tires you didn't buy from them.

In summary, I love a good deal as much as anyone, but Costco isn't as good
as the marketing would have you believe they are - but I still love Costo.
--
Fun fact: Most people speak about things they've never done where _all_
their information is coming from what (clever) MARKETING has fed them.

[nospam]

In article <t4h9bt$ppi$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-04-29 7:11 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> >>> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
> >>
> >> Why no AAA batteries?
> >
> > Logic. Sense. Practicality.
> > 1. Most things that require AAA don't actually _need_ AAA (this is key!)
> >   (The assumption that they're "smaller" very often is just not true.)
>
> How is it you're so consistently an idiot about everything?

it is rather impressive, isn't it?

> AAA batteries are 44.5mm tall by 10.5mm in diameter
>
> AA batteries are 50.5mm tall by 14.mm in diameter.
>
> AAA batteries are always physically smaller than AA batteries and
> devices that are designed to take AAA batteries will pretty much NEVER
> accept an AA battery.

don't confuse the poor child.

he might think 'n' batteries are bigger yet.

> > 2. AAA cost about the same as AA which means they cost twice as much.
> >   (another way to look at it is they last half as long)
>
> Wow. Wrong again!

indeed.

> > 3. Eliminating one battery size reduces the amount of storage in my
> >   battery drawer of Costco sizes of D, C, AA, and 9V batteries.
>
> And if you have devices that need AAA batteries?

nothing a good lathe can't fix.

[sms]

One negative about Costco's tire center. lately, is that they are
understaffed. A couple of months ago, one tire on my wife's car blew out
and I took the wheel and tire there for replacement since it wasn't
repairable. It took about six hours to get the tire replaced. There was
no hassle about the road hazard coverage, though it's pro-rated based on
tread life. Another issue with Costco is that they only carry tires from
two manufacturers: Michelin/BF Goodrich and Bridgestone, but for most
people that's sufficient.

If you mount and balance tires yourself there's no warranty at all. If
you buy tires online from a place like Tire Rack there is no treadlife
warranty or road hazard coverage, only a warranty against manufacturer's
defects.

BTW, Costco has free nitrogen fill available outside their tire centers.
Most tire places charge extra for nitrogen fill. Nitrogen fill has a
couple of advantages, the main one being that since the nitrogen
molecules are larger the gas leaks out more slowly than tires filled
with plain air. Since many drivers never check their tire pressure, this
is a big plus!

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> How is it you're so consistently an idiot about everything?
>
> it is rather impressive, isn't it?

The iKooks can't ever formulate a sensible argument on ANY topic.

Why do you respond to Alan Baker?
His IQ (at about 4) is half of yours, where even that is not saying much.

Every time you respond to him (or to "Hank" or "Rod", et. al), then I have
to see their crap which is always them trying to prove they're smarter than
a brick.

>> AAA batteries are always physically smaller than AA batteries and
>> devices that are designed to take AAA batteries will pretty much NEVER
>> accept an AA battery.
>
> don't confuse the poor child.

The iKooks can't ever formulate a sensible argument on ANY topic.

It's not me who is confused.
You iKooks always fail in the basic "adult logic" compartment.
The AAA batteries are about half the size and about the same price as AA.

> he might think 'n' batteries are bigger yet.

The iKooks can't ever formulate a sensible argument on ANY topic.
For me, it's a better deal to buy devices that take AA instead of AAA.

>>> 2. AAA cost about the same as AA which means they cost twice as much.
>>>   (another way to look at it is they last half as long)
>>
>> Wow. Wrong again!
>
> indeed.

The iKooks can't ever formulate a sensible argument on ANY topic.

It's unusual to find small consumer devices which can't be designed for AA.
If you've never looked, you won't realize how accurate that statement is.

I'm not saying they can't make a smaller AAA device than an AA device.

I'm saying almost everything AAA you'd want to buy exists at about the same
size in AA - where then it's a better deal overall to use the AA batteries.

>
>>> 3. Eliminating one battery size reduces the amount of storage in my
>>>   battery drawer of Costco sizes of D, C, AA, and 9V batteries.
>>
>> And if you have devices that need AAA batteries?
>
> nothing a good lathe can't fix.

The iKooks can't ever formulate a sensible argument on ANY topic.

My point is that I strategically purchase parts that have the best bang for
the buck in terms of batteries, where I shun AAA in favor of AA, just as I
shun non-rechargeables in favor of rechargeables, and just like I shun C
cells in favor of D cells.

BTW, I used to work on defibrillators, where you'd be shocked at how
fantastically HEAVY a GE NiCad C cell truly was in those days.

The difference in weight, in those days, between a GE NiCad C cell and a
RadioShack NiCad D cell (which was just a C-cell inside a D-casing) was
like the difference in weight between a bowling ball and a feather.

The point being that the capacity is what matters most; not the size.

In summary, when I buy small'ish devices, such as headlamps or small
flashlights, I ignore the AAA offerings and only buy the AA offerings.

That has advantages and almost no disadvantages in my practical experience.
That you disagree is fine - but you need a sensible argument and yet, you
have none to supply.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect you don't own an adult brain, nospam.
--
The iKooks can't ever formulate a sensible argument on ANY topic.

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Why do you respond to Alan Baker?
> His IQ (at about 4) is half of yours, where even that is not saying much.

40

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

> One negative about Costco's tire center. lately, is that they are
> understaffed.

I agree with Steve in that I used to have Costco, Midas, Goodyear, etc.,
mount and balance my tires, even in the days I bought them from Tire Rack,
and they all take more time than you might think they should, from the time
you leave the house until the time you get back (which is what matters).

The Costco tire dept historically has had a long line, even at its opening
time, which was, as I recall, earlier than the store (back in the day).

> A couple of months ago, one tire on my wife's car blew out
> and I took the wheel and tire there for replacement since it wasn't
> repairable.

While this next statement delves into the concept of "proper", there are
common industry rules for what tires are repairable & what tires are not.
<https://www.tireindustry.org/tire-maintenance/tire-repair>

However...

If you repair your own tires, you can choose _how_ and _what_ to use, where
a professional will _not_ repair a tire "some" of those ways that you can.

An example is if there is any black dust inside the casing, even if there
is no other indicator, they won't repair the tire (for good reasons).

But you can.

There are _many_ other example, such as the number of existing patches, the
location of the puncture, the size and shape of the wound, the type of
existing patches, the tread depth, etc.

As a VERY COMMON EXAMPLE, a _lot_ of people use an _external_ repair for
punctures, especially when on the road - where the rules are that tire
cannot ever be repaird by a professional following the standard rules.

Yet you can repair it yourself (note that under the old rules it was
perfectly acceptable I'm told, but under the new industry rules it is not).

> It took about six hours to get the tire replaced.

While that's unusual, it couldn't take less than a "couple" of hours to get
your tires replaced anywhere, if you count the time from when you leave the
house to the time you return - which is the time that matters when you are
comparing it to doing it yourself - which would be from the time you start
to get dressed to the time you step out of the shower in terms of mounting
and balancing your own tires (there's also that free dynamic balance test).

> There was no hassle about the road hazard coverage, though it's pro-rated
> based on tread life.

The tread, actually the evenness of the wear, is the problem in mountains.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wTf1xnzJ/mount36.jpg> Cause for uneven tread wear

As I mentioned, Costco is a fine outfit. Reputable. Honest. Reliable.

But Steve doesn't live in the mountains. Essentially that guarrantee is
worthless if you live in the mountains. We've covered this many times on
the auto newsgroup (with scores of photos) so just trust me on this fact.
Santa Cruz Mts BMW <https://i.postimg.cc/g004XCLW/mount37.jpg>
Santa Cruz Mts LEXUS <https://i.postimg.cc/G3HWPtQg/mount39.jpg>
Santa Cruz Mts TOYOTA <https://i.postimg.cc/pT71cQZG/mount41.jpg>

> Another issue with Costco is that they only carry tires from
> two manufacturers: Michelin/BF Goodrich and Bridgestone, but for most
> people that's sufficient.

Ah. I mispoke. I'm surprised Steve didn't call me out on that
misrepresentation of fact. I knew Costco only carried two brands, but
offhand, I had one of them wrong. Steve is correct on the brands (AFAIR).

Bear in mind every year, at least once a year (ofen in August?) Costco has
a $100 off sale - which isn't any big deal as you can get better tires for
less - but if you're gonna go to Costco - then the sale could be good news.

> If you mount and balance tires yourself there's no warranty at all.

Actually that's wrong. The original tire warranty still remains in force.
The onus of documentation is up to you - that's all.

Bear in mind even Costco technically requires alignment documentation.

> If
> you buy tires online from a place like Tire Rack there is no treadlife
> warranty or road hazard coverage, only a warranty against manufacturer's
> defects.

Bullshit.

Remember my analogy that a thin person doesn't know how to lose 100 pounds
even as they _think_ they do... simply because they've never done it?

Well, Steve has never done what I've done which is buy tires from reliable
folks like Simple Tire, and wear them out "prematurely" (see the mountain
road argument as to why).

The reputable tire supply houses tires are covered by the original
manufacturer's warranty. It's no different than Costco's tire warranty I
would think (although we could compare the details at a later date).

> BTW, Costco has free nitrogen fill available outside their tire centers.

I wonder if Steve knows the answer to this question which I know the answer
to.

How do you _think_ Costco "gets" that nitrogen?
... Think about that...
... Think again...
... And again...

Where does Steve _think_ that "nigrogen" comes from that Costco uses?
HINT: It's not what you'd think.

> Most tire places charge extra for nitrogen fill.

Costco is great, but Nitrogen fill is a marketing gimmick much like Face ID
is a marketing gimmick.

It serves one main purpose which is to _differentiate_ their "air" from
someone elses' air. Nothing more than that.

Green caps are brilliant marketing ploys... but any _adult_ would realize
that the nitrogen in tires is a gimmick if they simply knew what it is.

Those green caps are no different than similar Apple marketing gimmicks.

> Nitrogen fill has a
> couple of advantages, the main one being that since the nitrogen
> molecules are larger the gas leaks out more slowly than tires filled
> with plain air. Since many drivers never check their tire pressure, this
> is a big plus!

It's a gimmick. It's not pure nitrogen in the first place, but even that
doesn't matter because the difference is essentially meaningless.

The whole point of the gimmick is to be able to differentiate just like
Apple's whole "environmental" stance is simply to "sound" different.

Hey... guess what... I'm more environmentally sound than almost all of you
most likely because I can eke out tires longer than you can under the same
conditions since I can repair more tires than you can for longer than you
can (given your shops won't repair what I can and do repair all the time).

One more thing that you GAIN by DIY maintenance & repair is that you can do
MORE of it ...again, that means that _uneven_ wear can be overcome simply
by _flipping_ the tires on the wheels (not all tires have non-directional
treads - but most do).

Here's a direct cut and paste from a previous post from years ago on that.

For example, in these steep curvy Santa Cruz Mountains roadways, we all
burn though front tires on their _outside_ edges
<https://i.postimg.cc/g004XCLW/mount37.jpg>
due to what Xeno & Clare have explained is likely camber scrub:
<https://i.postimg.cc/G3HWPtQg/mount39.jpg>
where the effect is noticeable on front tires in a few thousand miles
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zVxVHVx/mount40.jpg>
and, where close observation shows the effect in only hundreds of miles
<https://i.postimg.cc/pT71cQZG/mount41.jpg>
such that one side of the tire is worn while the other half is fine
<https://i.postimg.cc/G2rYpQnp/mount23.jpg>
and where frequent tire rotation only resolves half the problem
<https://i.postimg.cc/63Kc80x9/mount29.jpg>
Since the tire is still rotating in the same direction on the wheel.

While there are amelioration techniques that Xeno & Clare have outlined
such as lessening positive front caster, the wear is due to the un-natural
positive camber that the inside wheel takes on sharp turns:
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqHVb5gY/mount33.jpg>
such that the inside front wheel outside corner takes the brunt of it
<https://i.postimg.cc/hGvsXBjK/mount34.jpg>
meaning there's only so much you can play with in terms of home alignment
<https://i.postimg.cc/vZs6Vm3B/mount35.jpg>
given it's always going to wear the outside edge of the front tires
<https://i.postimg.cc/wTf1xnzJ/mount36.jpg>

The simplest solution, which most people never do, would be to FLIP the
wheels on the rim at the normal 5,000 mile rotation point.
<https://i.postimg.cc/26DfF8vq/mount02.jpg>

If you don't know how to flip a tire on the rim in a few minutes, you
likely won't do it, since it would cost $20 per rotation which is $100 just
to flip the tires (even Costco charges for flipping tires on the rim, even
if you bought the tires from them and had them initially mount them).

Since it would cost more than the tires to flip them every 5000 miles on
the rim, doing the work at home is not only fun and convenient, but, doing
the work at home means you will be saving tires from the landfill which is
the environmental friendly thing to do.

In summary, not only is it fun and convenient to DIY at home, but it
enables you to minimize the impact on the environment because you can do
things that few people would do if they couldn't do them easily at home.

[wasbit]

"Andy Burnelli" <sp...@nospam.com>" wrote in message
news:t4hl6o$s9i$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

>> Most tire places charge extra for nitrogen fill.
>
> Costco is great, but Nitrogen fill is a marketing gimmick much like Face ID
> is a marketing gimmick.
>
> It serves one main purpose which is to _differentiate_ their "air" from
> someone elses' air. Nothing more than that.
>
> Green caps are brilliant marketing ploys... but any _adult_ would realize
> that the nitrogen in tires is a gimmick if they simply knew what it is.

My green cap tire fill is way more better than your black cap tire fill.
If it wasn't way more better, why did they change the color of the cap?
--
Regards
wasbit

[Lewis]

In message <t4iigl$efs$1...@dont-email.me> wasbit <wasbit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Andy Burnelli" <sp...@nospam.com>" wrote in message
> news:t4hl6o$s9i$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

>> Costco is great, but Nitrogen fill is a marketing gimmick much like Face ID
>> is a marketing gimmick.

Oh look, mr ignorant dipshit is spouting off uniformed bullshit. Again.
Shocking.

> My green cap tire fill is way more better than your black cap tire fill.
> If it wasn't way more better, why did they change the color of the cap?

There are definite advantages to nitrogen filled tires, as 0.3 seconds
on your favorite search engine will reveal.

--
"I can't marry her; she's my friend!"

[Andy Burnelli]

Lewis wrote:

> In message <t4iigl$efs$1...@dont-email.me> wasbit <wasbit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Andy Burnelli" <sp...@nospam.com>" wrote in message
>> news:t4hl6o$s9i$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>
>>> Costco is great, but Nitrogen fill is a marketing gimmick much like Face ID
>>> is a marketing gimmick.
>
> Oh look, mr ignorant dipshit is spouting off uniformed bullshit. Again.
> Shocking.

It's always consistent that the iKooks don't own the IQ or education to
understand how marketing tries to differentiate what is, in essence,
nothing different.

The fact the iKooks fall for every marketing gimmick in the book is
literaly _why_ they're iKooks.

The iKooks are completely ignorant of all common marketing gimmicks.
They actually think these gimmicks are "real" advantages.

Who is that stupid?
More to the point, who is that ignorant?

For example, they've never read Consumer Reports in their entire lives.
*Should You Use Nitrogen in Your Car Tires?*
<https://www.consumerreports.org/tire-buying-maintenance/should-you-use-nitrogen-in-car-tires-a6260003694/>

>> My green cap tire fill is way more better than your black cap tire fill.
>> If it wasn't way more better, why did they change the color of the cap?
>
> There are definite advantages to nitrogen filled tires, as 0.3 seconds
> on your favorite search engine will reveal.

There is always some truth in marketing gimmicks - that's why they work.
But only on incredibly gullible people (which, sadly, is most people).

This is an important point to each of these newsgroups because stupid
people fall for every marketing gimmick in the book, where the auto
maintentenance industry and the smartphone industry is no exception.

The marketing powerhouses (e.g., Chevron & Apple) pay millions of dollars
to feed gullible fear-filled people with their propaganda such that people
like STeve actually _believe_ that "Techron", "Nitrogen", & "Face-ID" make
any difference at all in terms of performance, safety, & security.

Techron, for example, is merely a meaningless trademark, which was
originally used for "polyetheramines", which, for example, Costco gas has
in top-tier proportions (hence, Chevron gas is no better than Costco gas).

Likewise for nitrogen in tires, where there's nothing wrong with a slightly
higher percentage of nitrogen in your tires, but the benefits are
negligable in the real world.

Don't take that from me although if you know physics, chemistry, and
statistics, you could have figured it out on your own. Take it from CR:
*Should You Use Nitrogen in Your Car Tires?*
<https://www.consumerreports.org/tire-buying-maintenance/should-you-use-nitrogen-in-car-tires-a6260003694/>
Published May 11, 2019 | Updated October 15, 2021
"CR's tests show that using nitrogen is not worth the money
or inconvenience. This common pitch is compelling: Filling your car's
tires with nitrogen will reduce air loss, boost fuel economy, reduce
rolling resistance, and improve safety. [But] Testing conducted
independently by Consumer Reports and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration shows that the benefits are more theoretical
than practical."

They did a year-long study on 31 tire brands for their 16K mile treadwear
test using typical air-filled tires as the comparison in every test.
1. The loss of air pressure difference over an entire year was 1.3 psi
2. The presumed oxidation difference isn't even measureable
3. The miles per gallon presumed efficiency was also negligable
etc.

Yet, the marketing isn't a lie, per se so much as bullshit in practice.
There's a difference.

If people were intelligent... marketing gimmicks wouldn't work.
The fact they work, and that they work well, is troubling to me.

It's what's most troublesome to me when I converse with iKooks, for
example, for whom every marketing gimmick in the book works perfectly.

BTW, this is a _classic_ example of fear-based MARKETING working on
gullible people who are ill educated such that they fall for every
marketing trick in the book.

[sms]

Exactly!!

Seriously though, while I would not pay extra for nitrogen fill, since
it's included with tire installation at Costco, I'll take it.

Costco actually has a vested interest in using nitrogen because they
include a road hazard warranty at no extra cost, and because they
actually honor tread wear warranties (many tire stores will find any
excuse possible to avoid honoring warranties). Nitrogen fill means fewer
tires operating at low pressure and fewer warranty claims.

Andy can educate himself about nitrogen-fill for tires here:
<https://www.carsdirect.com/car-repair/using-nitrogen-for-tire-inflation-advantages--disadvantages>.

[AJL]

On 4/30/2022 8:36 AM, sms wrote:

> I would not pay extra for nitrogen fill

If you have to drive somewhere special to top up your tires you're
paying extra with your time and trouble. I do my (normal air) top-ups in
the comfort of my own garage...

> Costco actually has a vested interest in using nitrogen

Yup. They get you to come down to their store to fill up...

> because they include a road hazard warranty at no extra cost, and
> because they actually honor tread wear warranties

My tire dealer does that too. And no annual fee.

> Nitrogen fill means fewer tires operating at low pressure and fewer
> warranty claims.

If I get a puncture, nitrogen leaks out just like good old air. (And
BTW both my cars will warn me if a tire gets low. YMMV.) Otherwise I
seldom see more than a pound or two pound change when checking every
month and often no change at all...

[Andy Burnelli]

AJL wrote:

> If I get a puncture, nitrogen leaks out just like good old air. (And
> BTW both my cars will warn me if a tire gets low. YMMV.) Otherwise I
> seldom see more than a pound or two pound change when checking every
> month and often no change at all...

Consumer reports said the difference was 1.3 psi after an entire year.
That's at about the level of reproducibility of a typical crap tire gauge.

And that was for tires COMPLETELY inflated _multiple_ times at the start!

*Should You Use Nitrogen in Your Car Tires?*
<https://www.consumerreports.org/tire-buying-maintenance/should-you-use-nitrogen-in-car-tires-a6260003694/>

Nobody will completely deflate the tires a few times using nitrogen
_before_ they even begin to run the test, so it won't be even that.

It's [obviously] a gimmick.

Just like with Apple advertising, they want gullible people to believe that
the theoretical advantages are literally practical advantages in real use.

They're not.
Nobody in the world reputable has found _any_ realistic advantage.

And if they did, don't you think the fleets would use them?
FedEx doesn't. DHL doesn't. UPS doesn't. Nobody does.

The ones who do are racing cars, airplane tires, and other extreme uses.
But not for passenger vehicles operated at normal temperatures in the USA.

It's a marketing gimmick to differentiate their air from your air.

Steve and Lewis are swayed by marketing which speaks of what Consumer
Reports calls the "theoretical" advantages, which are so small as to be
unmeasurable in most cases and almost completely meaningless in the rest.

Since the theoretical differences do exist, the marketing isn't a lie.
Instead, it's a gimmick to differientate their air from your air.

And that's what marketing's job is do to.
To sell snow to an eskimo by claiming your snow is better than theirs.

[wasbit]

"sms <scharf...@geemail.com>" wrote in message
<news:t4jl2h$id0$1...@dont-email.me>...

The gov cares about passenger tire underinflation accident reduction.

The gov scoped their passenger car tire nitrogen study fifteen years ago.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-246R/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-246R.htm

This is a 2008 NHTSA report on nitrogen in passenger tires that resulted.

The Effects of Inflation Gas on Tire Laboratory Test Performance
https://www.solsticeforum.com/attachments/nhtsa-2008-0121-0002-1-1-pdf.14247/

Too technical for me.
What do you make of that gov study on a 95% nitrogen mandate in car tires?
--
Regards
wasbit

[Alan]

There are advantages to nitrogen...

...but for everyday driving, they're just not very important.

[Ken Olson]

I want to try nitrous oxide in mine.

--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

Слава Україні та НАТО

[Alan]

Ha! It is to laugh!

[Alan]

On 2022-04-29 2:27 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The tread, actually the evenness of the wear, is the problem in mountains.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/wTf1xnzJ/mount36.jpg> Cause for uneven tread wear

Wow. Basically everything drawn onto this image is wrong.

You're showing a car that is clearly up on a jack on the side we cannot
see to simulate the car rolling in a turn...

...but you're showing it rolling to the INSIDE, when in FACT...

(You remember you're all about "FACT", right?)

...cars roll to the OUTSIDE when they turn.

The inside tire in a turn typically rolls MORE than the car rolls as the
suspension geometry is usually optimized to make the camber of the more
heavily loaded outside tires as favourable as possible.

And while it is true that the inside "corner" of the inside tire will be
the part that is more loaded (and SOME of the tread near the OUTSIDE)
might be off the ground), the load is less, so it doesn't matter that much.

>
> As I mentioned, Costco is a fine outfit. Reputable. Honest. Reliable.
> But Steve doesn't live in the mountains. Essentially that guarrantee is
> worthless if you live in the mountains. We've covered this many times on
> the auto newsgroup (with scores of photos) so just trust me on this fact.
> Santa Cruz Mts BMW <https://i.postimg.cc/g004XCLW/mount37.jpg>

Sorry, but that wear pattern does NOT represent that the car is "well
maintained"

> Santa Cruz Mts LEXUS <https://i.postimg.cc/G3HWPtQg/mount39.jpg>

This doesn't inform very much but at least it's not a complete clusterfuck.

> Santa Cruz Mts TOYOTA <https://i.postimg.cc/pT71cQZG/mount41.jpg>

Mountains make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in how a tire wears.

> For example, in these steep curvy Santa Cruz Mountains roadways, we all
> burn though front tires on their _outside_ edges
> <https://i.postimg.cc/g004XCLW/mount37.jpg>
> due to what Xeno & Clare have explained is likely camber scrub:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/G3HWPtQg/mount39.jpg>
> where the effect is noticeable on front tires in a few thousand miles
> <https://i.postimg.cc/8zVxVHVx/mount40.jpg>
> and, where close observation shows the effect in only hundreds of miles
> <https://i.postimg.cc/pT71cQZG/mount41.jpg>
> such that one side of the tire is worn while the other half is fine
> <https://i.postimg.cc/G2rYpQnp/mount23.jpg>
> and where frequent tire rotation only resolves half the problem
> <https://i.postimg.cc/63Kc80x9/mount29.jpg>
> Since the tire is still rotating in the same direction on the wheel.

You are a perfect exemplar of the old adage:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool...

...than to speak and remove all doubt".

[Lewis]

The biggest advantage for me is that the tires hold the pressure much
better, so i don't have to go top-off the pressure.

The reasons to not do it are expense (I get my tires at Costco, I do not
pay extra for nitrogen and the tires are cheaper than other places) and
the amount of time it takes (irrelevant to me, I am not filling/bleeding
the tires).

But claiming it's a "marketing gimmick" is just more bullshit form the
raving pile of bullshit named Arlen.


--
Noble dragons don't have friends. The nearest they can get to the
idea is an enemy who is still alive. --Guards! Guards!

[Ken Olson]

If you're feeling down, get out your balloon!

[Thomas]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:57:59 PM, Alan wrote:

> Mountains make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in how a tire wears.

Do you know why twisty mountain roads cause abnormal tire wear on the
outside edges of the front inside tire on tight turns or not?

The only solution for an otherwise properly aligned wheel is to lessen
positive caster which decreases the increased camber on the tight turns.
https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/

When replying write in your own words what you understood of what I said.

[Andy Burnelli]

Lewis wrote:

> But claiming it's a "marketing gimmick" is just more bullshit form the
> raving pile of bullshit

Lewis has _never_ even once in his life ever read Consumer Reports.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect Lewis gets _all_ his information from marketing advertisements.
Instead of from reputable outfits.

Like Consumer Reports is.

FACT:

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 12:14 p.m., Lewis wrote:
> In message <t4jtr8$pig$2...@dont-email.me> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-04-30 3:30 a.m., Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <t4iigl$efs$1...@dont-email.me> wasbit <wasbit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Andy Burnelli" <sp...@nospam.com>" wrote in message
>>>> news:t4hl6o$s9i$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>
>>>>> Costco is great, but Nitrogen fill is a marketing gimmick much like Face ID
>>>>> is a marketing gimmick.
>>>
>>> Oh look, mr ignorant dipshit is spouting off uniformed bullshit. Again.
>>> Shocking.
>>>
>>>> My green cap tire fill is way more better than your black cap tire fill.
>>>> If it wasn't way more better, why did they change the color of the cap?
>>>
>>> There are definite advantages to nitrogen filled tires, as 0.3 seconds
>>> on your favorite search engine will reveal.
>
>> There are advantages to nitrogen...
>
>> ...but for everyday driving, they're just not very important.
>
> The biggest advantage for me is that the tires hold the pressure much
> better, so i don't have to go top-off the pressure.

But you should check tire pressures with some regularity anyway, so what
does it matter?

>
> The reasons to not do it are expense (I get my tires at Costco, I do not
> pay extra for nitrogen and the tires are cheaper than other places) and
> the amount of time it takes (irrelevant to me, I am not filling/bleeding
> the tires).
>
> But claiming it's a "marketing gimmick" is just more bullshit form the
> raving pile of bullshit named Arlen.

Oh, I know.

As it happens, I use nitrogen for my tires...

...on my racing car.

I do it more for practical purposes; it means I don't need to have a
compressor at the track. The racing tires in my class all bleed down
very quickly, so they need to be filled pretty much before each session.

[Andy Burnelli]

Ken Olson wrote:

>>>> What do you make of that gov study on a 95% nitrogen mandate in car
>>>> tires?
>>>
>>> I want to try nitrous oxide in mine.
>>>
>>
>> Ha! It is to laugh!
>
> If you're feeling down, get out your balloon!

That link supplied to the government PDF is a nice find because it shows
NHTSA found no practical advantage to nitrogen in tires, just as CR did.

It's a gimmick.

More to the point, only people with abnormally low IQ fall for paying extra
for air that has a visible green cap but which has no practical value.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 12:38 p.m., Thomas wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:57:59 PM, Alan wrote:
>
>> Mountains make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in how a tire wears.
>
> Do you know why twisty mountain roads cause abnormal tire wear on the
> outside edges of the front inside tire on tight turns or not?

Tight turns might cause wear (nothing to do with it being on a mountain)...

...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside tire...

...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
tires when turning)...

...and the outside edge is the least loaded portion of the least loaded
tire (see below for why).

>
> The only solution for an otherwise properly aligned wheel is to lessen
> positive caster which decreases the increased camber on the tight turns.
> https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/
>
> When replying write in your own words what you understood of what I said.

Typical values for caster on a road car are about 3-5 degrees. Even at 5
degrees and a steering lock of 45 degrees, the camber gained is:

0.55 * 45° = 2.475°

So if your tires are at -1° static camber (a typical value), the camber
will go to 1.475°...

...only if your car doesn't roll to the outside at all.

If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
probably still have negative camber.

And then there's the fact that small values of camber don't actually
cause much (if any) tire wear.

[Thomas]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 10:04:15 PM, Alan wrote:

> Tight turns might cause wear (nothing to do with it being on a mountain)...

How is the force on the front tires different when traveling or braking on
a level straight road from when traveling or braking on tight steep
downhill curves?

> ...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside tire...

Read the explanation again on the causes of outside front tire wear.
Write back in your own words what you understood from that explanation.

> ...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
> tires when turning)...

Write back in your own words why it matters most to the outside edge of the
inside front tire when traveling or braking on steep downhill curves.

> ...and the outside edge is the least loaded portion of the least loaded
> tire (see below for why).

Read the explanation again and write back what you learned about why the
outside edge of the inside tire has increased camber due to the forces.

>> The only solution for an otherwise properly aligned wheel is to lessen
>> positive caster which decreases the increased camber on the tight turns.
>> https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/
>>
>> When replying write in your own words what you understood of what I said.
>
> Typical values for caster on a road car are about 3-5 degrees. Even at 5
> degrees and a steering lock of 45 degrees, the camber gained is:
>
> 0.55 * 45° = 2.475°
>
> So if your tires are at -1° static camber (a typical value), the camber
> will go to 1.475°...
>
> ...only if your car doesn't roll to the outside at all.
>
> If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
> probably still have negative camber.
>
> And then there's the fact that small values of camber don't actually
> cause much (if any) tire wear.

Try again.

Explain in your own words why traveling and braking on tight steep downhill
slopes causes abnormal wear to the outside edge of the inside front tire.

It's in the explanation already provided. You missed it. Try again.

[Xeno]

For what its worth, using nitrogen in tyres is just another way to suck
people into a *regular subscription payment* when they top up their tyres.

--
Xeno


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

[Xeno]

On 1/5/2022 6:04 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-04-30 12:38 p.m., Thomas wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:57:59 PM, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> Mountains make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in how a tire wears.
>>
>> Do you know why twisty mountain roads cause abnormal tire wear on the
>> outside edges of the front inside tire on tight turns or not?
>
> Tight turns might cause wear (nothing to do with it being on a mountain)...

More likely to get the sharpest turns on a mountain road.

>
> ...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside tire...
>
> ...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
> tires when turning)...

Nothing to do with load transfer. Effect occurs even at low speeds.

>
> ...and the outside edge is the least loaded portion of the least loaded
> tire (see below for why).
>>
>> The only solution for an otherwise properly aligned wheel is to lessen
>> positive caster which decreases the increased camber on the tight turns.
>> https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/
>>
>>
>> When replying write in your own words what you understood of what I said.
>
> Typical values for caster on a road car are about 3-5 degrees. Even at 5
> degrees and a steering lock of 45 degrees, the camber gained is:
>
>  0.55 * 45° = 2.475°
>
> So if your tires are at -1° static camber (a typical value), the camber
> will go to 1.475°...
>
> ...only if your car doesn't roll to the outside at all.
>
> If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
> probably still have negative camber.

Think about KPI/SAI and its effect on camber in turns. You are only
thinking of camber gain in bump and/or rebound.

>
> And then there's the fact that small values of camber don't actually
> cause much (if any) tire wear.

[WaltS48]

On 4/30/2022 11:12 PM, Xeno wrote:
>> More to the point, only people with abnormally low IQ fall for paying extra
>> for air that has a visible green cap but which has no practical value.
>
> For what its worth, using nitrogen in tyres is just another way to suck
> people into a *regular subscription payment* when they top up their tyres.

It doesn't help the tires but it helps the tire provider's bottom line, or
they wouldn't bother to do it.

BTW, what did you think about the claim from somebody that steep twisty
mountain driving doesn't wear tires any more than driving on flat roads
does?

[Thomas]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:30:43 PM, Xeno wrote:

>> ...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside tire...
>>
>> ...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
>> tires when turning)...
>
> Nothing to do with load transfer. Effect occurs even at low speeds.

Does weight transfer to the front tires on a steep downhill turn have a
compounding wear effect over and above the increased camber based scrub
radius on the inside tire outside edge on those tight turns?

>> If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
>> probably still have negative camber.
>
> Think about KPI/SAI and its effect on camber in turns. You are only
> thinking of camber gain in bump and/or rebound.

Since kingpin angle (like castor angle) contributes to wheel camber
increases with increasing steering input at any speed or inclination, do
you think a slight decrease in positive caster might lessen the inevitable
camber scrub effect on the outside edge of the inside front tire on tight
turns?

Would the drawback be decreased stability on the bumpy level straights?

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 3:30 p.m., Xeno wrote:
> On 1/5/2022 6:04 am, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-30 12:38 p.m., Thomas wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 12:57:59 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mountains make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in how a tire wears.
>>>
>>> Do you know why twisty mountain roads cause abnormal tire wear on the
>>> outside edges of the front inside tire on tight turns or not?
>>
>> Tight turns might cause wear (nothing to do with it being on a
>> mountain)...
>
> More likely to get the sharpest turns on a mountain road.

And?

Let's speak accurately.

>>
>> ...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside
>> tire...
>>
>> ...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
>> tires when turning)...
>
> Nothing to do with load transfer. Effect occurs even at low speeds.

You've yet to demonstrate that the effect exists at all.

>>
>> ...and the outside edge is the least loaded portion of the least
>> loaded tire (see below for why).
>>>
>>> The only solution for an otherwise properly aligned wheel is to lessen
>>> positive caster which decreases the increased camber on the tight turns.
>>> https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/
>>>
>>>
>>> When replying write in your own words what you understood of what I
>>> said.
>>
>> Typical values for caster on a road car are about 3-5 degrees. Even at
>> 5 degrees and a steering lock of 45 degrees, the camber gained is:
>>
>>   0.55 * 45° = 2.475°
>>
>> So if your tires are at -1° static camber (a typical value), the
>> camber will go to 1.475°...
>>
>> ...only if your car doesn't roll to the outside at all.
>>
>> If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
>> probably still have negative camber.
>
> Think about KPI/SAI and its effect on camber in turns. You are only
> thinking of camber gain in bump and/or rebound.

Nope. You are utterly wrong.

I'm talking about all things that affect camber.

Look: I've been into vehicle dynamics for more than 40 years and have an
actual racing car where questions of camber gain are far more than academic.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 3:44 p.m., Thomas wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:30:43 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> ...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside tire...
>>>
>>> ...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
>>> tires when turning)...
>>
>> Nothing to do with load transfer. Effect occurs even at low speeds.
>
> Does weight transfer to the front tires on a steep downhill turn have a
> compounding wear effect over and above the increased camber based scrub
> radius on the inside tire outside edge on those tight turns?

Define your terms.

What is "increased camber based scrub radius" even supposed to mean?

>
>>> If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
>>> probably still have negative camber.
>>
>> Think about KPI/SAI and its effect on camber in turns. You are only
>> thinking of camber gain in bump and/or rebound.
>
> Since kingpin angle (like castor angle) contributes to wheel camber
> increases with increasing steering input at any speed or inclination, do
> you think a slight decrease in positive caster might lessen the inevitable
> camber scrub effect on the outside edge of the inside front tire on tight
> turns?

First demonstrate that any such effect exists.

[Thomas]

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 12:51:44 AM, Alan wrote:

> What is "increased camber based scrub radius" even supposed to mean?

The person I was asking already explained it to you as he's aware of the
effect that with a positive kingpin angle the outside wheel in a corner
will gain positive camber and the inside wheel will lose positive camber.

Let him answer the question.

[Alan]

No. It isn't, so I couldn't miss it.

But if you think the explanation is in anything provided so far...

...just quote it and provide the reference.

[Thomas]

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:25:14 AM, Alan wrote:

>> It's in the explanation already provided. You missed it. Try again.
>
> No. It isn't, so I couldn't miss it.
>
> But if you think the explanation is in anything provided so far...
>
> ...just quote it and provide the reference.

How could you keep missing the answer when it was explained to you multiple
times by multiple people?

It was explained to you by someone else already and it's in the explanation
of front tire wear on the outside edges that you already were to have read.
https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/

"When the camber setting becomes positive, the wheel tilts, putting more
pressure on the outside shoulder of its tire. Over time, as rubber scrubs
off faster on the one edge, the tire develops uneven wear."

I'm done with wasting my time with you if you can't get it after being told
three or four times.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 4:37 p.m., Thomas wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:25:14 AM, Alan wrote:
>
>>> It's in the explanation already provided. You missed it. Try again.
>>
>> No. It isn't, so I couldn't miss it.
>>
>> But if you think the explanation is in anything provided so far...
>>
>> ...just quote it and provide the reference.
>
> How could you keep missing the answer when it was explained to you multiple
> times by multiple people?

How is it that you can't quote where it was explained?

>
> It was explained to you by someone else already and it's in the explanation
> of front tire wear on the outside edges that you already were to have read.
> https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/
>
> "When the camber setting becomes positive, the wheel tilts, putting more
> pressure on the outside shoulder of its tire. Over time, as rubber scrubs
> off faster on the one edge, the tire develops uneven wear."

But the inside tire in a corner goes into NEGATIVE camber; both from the
roll of the vehicle to the outside AND because of the suspension moving
into droop.

>
> I'm done with wasting my time with you if you can't get it after being told
> three or four times.

I hate to pull an Arlen here, but should I collect up all the books I've
read on vehicle dynamics?

[Alan]

No one here that I saw used that phrase.

[Xeno]

The camber gain from KPI/SAI will always wear tyres more on the outside
edge during high or full lock turns. Mountain driving, with sharp
hairpin bends, will guarantee it. Even in normal city street driving,
camber gain will be prevalent and worse on the nearside tyre. If you
have a comprehensive understanding of steering and suspension design,
then it is quite an easy thing to visualise. Weber Auto, on You Tube,
did something on steering some time back and, IIRC, they explained the
aspect of KPI/SAI that causes the issue. It is not a well understood
issue, even in the trade, but is *one* of the reasons tyre rotation is
essential. Just turn your steering to full lock and look at the camber
angle of the *inside* wheel - camber gain will be very evident. The
effect is worse if the vehicle has wider low profile tyres.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 6:27 p.m., Xeno wrote:
> On 1/5/2022 8:33 am, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 4/30/2022 11:12 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>>> More to the point, only people with abnormally low IQ fall for
>>>> paying extra
>>>> for air that has a visible green cap but which has no practical value.
>>>
>>> For what its worth, using nitrogen in tyres is just another way to
>>> suck people into a *regular subscription payment* when they top up
>>> their tyres.
>>
>> It doesn't help the tires but it helps the tire provider's bottom
>> line, or
>> they wouldn't bother to do it.
>>
>> BTW, what did you think about the claim from somebody that steep twisty
>> mountain driving doesn't wear tires any more than driving on flat roads
>> does?
>
> The camber gain from KPI/SAI will always wear tyres more on the outside
> edge during high or full lock turns.

Quantify that gain...

...or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

> Mountain driving, with sharp
> hairpin bends, will guarantee it. Even in normal city street driving,
> camber gain will be prevalent and worse on the nearside tyre. If you
> have a comprehensive understanding of steering and suspension design,
> then it is quite an easy thing to visualise. Weber Auto, on You Tube,
> did something on steering some time back and, IIRC, they explained the
> aspect of KPI/SAI that causes the issue. It is not a well understood
> issue, even in the trade, but is *one* of the reasons tyre rotation is
> essential. Just turn your steering to full lock and look at the camber
> angle of the *inside* wheel - camber gain will be very evident. The
> effect is worse if the vehicle has wider low profile tyres.

Load matters too, sunshine.

And you have it backwards.

King pin inclination will reduce positive camber.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 6:27 p.m., Xeno wrote:

Just a little follow up:

'If we now compare the effects in Figs. 7.16 and 7.17, we can see that
if kingpin is introduced first, undesirable positive camber results from
steering but if castor is then added in, negative camber is introduced.
By including both camber and castor, the designer can have the benefits
of kingpin inclination but offset the disadvantageous camber gain. For
this reason, it is common to introduce approximately equal amounts of both.'

<https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/kingpins>

[Xeno]

On 1/5/2022 8:44 am, Thomas wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:30:43 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> ...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside tire...
>>>
>>> ...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
>>> tires when turning)...
>>
>> Nothing to do with load transfer. Effect occurs even at low speeds.
>
> Does weight transfer to the front tires on a steep downhill turn have a
> compounding wear effect over and above the increased camber based scrub
> radius on the inside tire outside edge on those tight turns?

Technically, it should *reduce* the effect but, given the typical speeds
where the tight turns are made, weight transfer will be minimal.
Besides, the effect of camber gain from the combination of KPI/SAI plus
Caster will far outweigh any camber gain from suspension bump or
rebound, especially in the case of vertical guide suspensions like
McPherson Struts.

>
>>> If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
>>> probably still have negative camber.
>>
>> Think about KPI/SAI and its effect on camber in turns. You are only
>> thinking of camber gain in bump and/or rebound.
>
> Since kingpin angle (like castor angle) contributes to wheel camber

The greatest effect comes from *King Pin Inclination*, or SAI as it is
known these days, but that effect is compounded by the *caster angle*.

> increases with increasing steering input at any speed or inclination, do
> you think a slight decrease in positive caster might lessen the inevitable
> camber scrub effect on the outside edge of the inside front tire on tight
> turns?

What you need to be aware of is that when you change the camber angle,
you have made no change to the *included angle*, that is designed in and
cannot be altered. So, if you reduce the camber, you will be
*increasing* the KPI/SAI which will, in turn, worsen the effect of
camber gain and, likely, negatively affect handling *stability*. It is
not wise to make changes to suspensions away from OEM specs unless you
know and understand the cumulative and compounding effects these changes
will have in other areas, the change to camber affecting KPI/SAI being
the perfect case in point.

>
> Would the drawback be decreased stability on the bumpy level straights?

It is quite possible but it would be hard to say given all manufacturers
use different suspensions each with compromises in different places.
Generally, any change from manufacturers specifications risks a
disruptive change in handling characteristics. My own take, I would say
yes.

[WaltS48]

On 5/1/2022 2:27 AM, Xeno wrote:
> The camber gain from KPI/SAI will always wear tyres more on the outside
> edge during high or full lock turns. Mountain driving, with sharp
> hairpin bends, will guarantee it. Even in normal city street driving,
> camber gain will be prevalent and worse on the nearside tyre. If you
> have a comprehensive understanding of steering and suspension design,
> then it is quite an easy thing to visualise. Weber Auto, on You Tube,
> did something on steering some time back and, IIRC, they explained the
> aspect of KPI/SAI that causes the issue. It is not a well understood
> issue, even in the trade, but is *one* of the reasons tyre rotation is
> essential. Just turn your steering to full lock and look at the camber
> angle of the *inside* wheel - camber gain will be very evident. The
> effect is worse if the vehicle has wider low profile tyres.

That's a nice summary.

I looked for the youtube you speak of but it's not one of these.

Weber Automotive Tire Care & Wheel Alignment
https://youtu.be/pUp8sJWeHE4

The Importance of Car Alignments | Weber Automotive
https://youtu.be/VqFyOlSdiik

Weber Automotive What is a Steering System and Why is it Important?
https://youtu.be/ztK5NPhNbOc

Maybe this one?

The Importance of Vehicle Suspension | Weber Automotive
https://youtu.be/VdUzoEbj8ww

The graphics are beautiful but they are too light on the detail.

[Xeno]

On 1/5/2022 9:41 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-04-30 4:37 p.m., Thomas wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:25:14 AM, Alan wrote:
>>
>>>> It's in the explanation already provided. You missed it. Try again.
>>>
>>> No. It isn't, so I couldn't miss it.
>>>
>>> But if you think the explanation is in anything provided so far...
>>>
>>> ...just quote it and provide the reference.
>>
>> How could you keep missing the answer when it was explained to you
>> multiple
>> times by multiple people?
>
> How is it that you can't quote where it was explained?
>
>>
>> It was explained to you by someone else already and it's in the
>> explanation
>> of front tire wear on the outside edges that you already were to have
>> read.
>> https://www.utires.com/articles/front-tires-wear-outside-edge-causes-solutions/
>>
>>
>> "When the camber setting becomes positive, the wheel tilts, putting more
>> pressure on the outside shoulder of its tire. Over time, as rubber scrubs
>> off faster on the one edge, the tire develops uneven wear."
>
> But the inside tire in a corner goes into NEGATIVE camber; both from the
> roll of the vehicle to the outside AND because of the suspension moving
> into droop.
>

Beg to differ, the inside wheel camber tends to go more positive in a
turn thus increasing camber gain. Just turn your wheels hard in one
direction whilst parked and you can see that effect. The effect will be
less on the *outside wheel*. You are thinking of higher speeds where
body roll becomes significant but sharp turns aren't possible at such
speeds and it is the slow speed sharp turns where camber gain becomes a
significant issue in tyre wear on the nearside wheel.

>>
>> I'm done with wasting my time with you if you can't get it after being
>> told
>> three or four times.
>
> I hate to pull an Arlen here, but should I collect up all the books I've
> read on vehicle dynamics?

I could do the same but I rely more on the fact that I am a motor
mechanic by trade, done more wheel alignments and steering repairs than
I care to remember, and taught steering and suspensions at a college for
20 years in the 80s and 90s.

FWIW, good texts on the topic are these;

Steering Handbook - Springer
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-05449-0

Chassis Handbook - Springer
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-8348-9789-3

I have both of the above texts, just wish they had been available when I
was teaching the topic - very comprehensive. I also wish I had completed
a mechanical engineering diploma I commenced in the 90s but work and
family pressures put paid to that. Bit off more than I could chew! :-(

[Andy Burnelli]

Xeno wrote:

> I could do the same but I rely more on the fact that I am a motor
> mechanic by trade, done more wheel alignments and steering repairs than
> I care to remember, and taught steering and suspensions at a college for
> 20 years in the 80s and 90s.

Before you waste too much time on Alan Baker, he's a moron. He has an IQ of
about 40 and, worse, he loves to disagree with _anything_ you can claim.

You can reference any number of links and he won't even _read_ them before
denying that they say what they say. Then he'll find some random link that
has a couple of the keywords, and he'll paste that verbatim, as if he wrote
it.

In short, the Alan Baker you're dealing with is a moron.
Everyone on the smartphone newsgroups already has him plonked.

Just so you know.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 7:06 p.m., Xeno wrote:
> On 1/5/2022 8:44 am, Thomas wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:30:43 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>>> ...but they won't cause it on the outside edge of the front inside
>>>> tire...
>>>>
>>>> ...as that tire is only lightly loaded (load transfers to the outside
>>>> tires when turning)...
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with load transfer. Effect occurs even at low speeds.
>>
>> Does weight transfer to the front tires on a steep downhill turn have a
>> compounding wear effect over and above the increased camber based scrub
>> radius on the inside tire outside edge on those tight turns?
>
> Technically, it should *reduce* the effect but, given the typical speeds
> where the tight turns are made, weight transfer will be minimal.
> Besides, the effect of camber gain from the combination of KPI/SAI plus
> Caster will far outweigh any camber gain from suspension bump or
> rebound, especially in the case of vertical guide suspensions like
> McPherson Struts.
>>>> If it rolls to the outside as a car ACTUALLY DOES, then the tire will
>>>> probably still have negative camber.
>>>
>>> Think about KPI/SAI and its effect on camber in turns. You are only
>>> thinking of camber gain in bump and/or rebound.
>>
>> Since kingpin angle (like castor angle) contributes to wheel camber
>
> The greatest effect comes from *King Pin Inclination*, or SAI as it is
> known these days, but that effect is compounded by the *caster angle*.

Wrong.

As I have already shown you.

[WaltS48]

On 5/1/2022 2:40 AM, Alan wrote:
> And you have it backwards.

The wear on twisty roads is to the outside edge of the front tires,
specifically due to increased positive camber on the inside front tire.

This increased positive camber on turns causes uneven tire wear on the
outside edge of the inside tire even on a properly aligned vehicle.

Read this.
https://www.quora.com/When-turning-I-see-there-is-a-plus-camber-in-a-vehicle-Why

"On most modern cars, when a wheel is turned with considerable lock, the
inner wheel takes on a positive camber. The KPI establishes something
called the scrub radius. The combination of these various angles affects
the wheel camber when steered. The inner wheel in a turn takes on positive
camber because the steering pivot is angled. By the same token, the outer
wheel takes on more negative camber."

The thrust force reality gets even more complicated when you read further.

"What appears to be positive camber is actually negative camber with
respect to the turning force. So it only looks like positive camber - in
fact it's really negative camber, because it's the inner edge of the wheel
that is leading in a turn."

[Thomas]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:41:06 PM, Xeno wrote:

> Beg to differ, the inside wheel camber tends to go more positive in a
> turn thus increasing camber gain. Just turn your wheels hard in one
> direction whilst parked and you can see that effect. The effect will be
> less on the *outside wheel*.

This is a photo of the added positive camber on the inside front wheel that
you are explaining happens during a slow speed sharp turn almost to lock.
https://carfromjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2-4-1024x683.jpg

That's from this discussion.
https://carfromjapan.com/article/driving-tips/steering-wheel-returns-to-center-after-turn/

[Alan]

You can beg all you want.

Does caster add camber when a wheel is steered outward (left for a right
wheel)? Yes.

Does king pin inclination oppose that change? Yup.

>>>
>>> I'm done with wasting my time with you if you can't get it after
>>> being told
>>> three or four times.
>>
>> I hate to pull an Arlen here, but should I collect up all the books
>> I've read on vehicle dynamics?
>
> I could do the same but I rely more on the fact that I am a motor
> mechanic by trade, done more wheel alignments and steering repairs than
> I care to remember, and taught steering and suspensions at a college for
> 20 years in the 80s and 90s.
>
> FWIW, good texts on the topic are these;
>
> Steering Handbook - Springer
> https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-05449-0
>
> Chassis Handbook - Springer
> https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-8348-9789-3
>
> I have both of the above texts, just wish they had been available when I
> was teaching the topic - very comprehensive. I also wish I had completed
> a mechanical engineering diploma I commenced in the 90s but work and
> family pressures put paid to that. Bit off more than I could chew!  :-(
>

Clearly...

...because you've definitely not figured out that KPI acts to reduce camber.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 8:16 p.m., Thomas wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:41:06 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>> Beg to differ, the inside wheel camber tends to go more positive in a
>> turn thus increasing camber gain. Just turn your wheels hard in one
>> direction whilst parked and you can see that effect. The effect will be
>> less on the *outside wheel*.
>
> This is a photo of the added positive camber on the inside front wheel that
> you are explaining happens during a slow speed sharp turn almost to lock.
> https://carfromjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2-4-1024x683.jpg

Yes: that wheel is in SLIGHTLY positive camber...

...when standing still.

Now: what happens when the vehicle is moving?

Are you capable of examining that question quantitatively?

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 8:05 p.m., WaltS48 wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 2:40 AM, Alan wrote:
>> And you have it backwards.
>
> The wear on twisty roads is to the outside edge of the front tires,
> specifically due to increased positive camber on the inside front tire.
>
> This increased positive camber on turns causes uneven tire wear on the
> outside edge of the inside tire even on a properly aligned vehicle.
>
> Read this.
> https://www.quora.com/When-turning-I-see-there-is-a-plus-camber-in-a-vehicle-Why
>
>
> "On most modern cars, when a wheel is turned with considerable lock, the
> inner wheel takes on a positive camber.

The inner wheel has camber gain from positive caster. No one is
disputing that.

> The KPI establishes something
> called the scrub radius.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong.

> The combination of these various angles affects
> the wheel camber when steered.

That's true but not helpful, because it fails to mention that normal
king pin inclination acts to cause camber loss and thus opposes the
effect of positive caster on the inside wheel of a turn.

> The inner wheel in a turn takes on positive
> camber because the steering pivot is angled. By the same token, the outer
> wheel takes on more negative camber."

Because caster and KPI combine to BOTH influence camber to the negative.

>
> The thrust force reality gets even more complicated when you read further.

"The thrust force reality"?

Do you have the slightest idea that you're talking gibberish?

>
> "What appears to be positive camber is actually negative camber with
> respect to the turning force. So it only looks like positive camber - in
> fact it's really negative camber, because it's the inner edge of the wheel
> that is leading in a turn."

That almost makes sense...

...but then you didn't write it.

[Thomas]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:06:02 PM, Xeno wrote:

>> Does weight transfer to the front tires on a steep downhill turn have a
>> compounding wear effect over and above the increased camber based scrub
>> radius on the inside tire outside edge on those tight turns?
>
> Technically, it should *reduce* the effect but, given the typical speeds
> where the tight turns are made, weight transfer will be minimal.
> Besides, the effect of camber gain from the combination of KPI/SAI plus
> Caster will far outweigh any camber gain from suspension bump or
> rebound, especially in the case of vertical guide suspensions like
> McPherson Struts.

Thank you for that helpful clarification. The inside wheel on a tight turn
goes from negative camber of a degree or half degree or whatever to
positive camber of a degree or half degree or whatever in the process of
negotiating that slow tight turn, which is a huge change in camber.

Here is a photo of that positive camber position in the middle of the turn.
https://carfromjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2-4-1024x683.jpg

That's from this discussion (on how the geometry affects turning effort).
https://carfromjapan.com/article/driving-tips/steering-wheel-returns-to-center-after-turn/

>> Since kingpin angle (like castor angle) contributes to wheel camber
>
> The greatest effect comes from *King Pin Inclination*, or SAI as it is
> known these days, but that effect is compounded by the *caster angle*.

Yes. The geometries all tie in together such that even a perfectly aligned
vehicle will prematurely wear the outside edge of the front tire on the
inside of a curve if they frequently negotiate slow speed tight turns.

Is that your understanding of the net result on premature tire wear as a
result of the suspension geometry changes if a vehicle negotiates hundreds
of slow speed tight turns daily?

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 8:45 p.m., Thomas wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:06:02 PM, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> Does weight transfer to the front tires on a steep downhill turn have a
>>> compounding wear effect over and above the increased camber based scrub
>>> radius on the inside tire outside edge on those tight turns?
>>
>> Technically, it should *reduce* the effect but, given the typical speeds
>> where the tight turns are made, weight transfer will be minimal.
>> Besides, the effect of camber gain from the combination of KPI/SAI plus
>> Caster will far outweigh any camber gain from suspension bump or
>> rebound, especially in the case of vertical guide suspensions like
>> McPherson Struts.
>
> Thank you for that helpful clarification. The inside wheel on a tight turn
> goes from negative camber of a degree or half degree or whatever to
> positive camber of a degree or half degree or whatever in the process of
> negotiating that slow tight turn, which is a huge change in camber.

But not nearly enough to cause significant tire wear.

Remember: most of the time, the tire is running in a straight line.

>
> Here is a photo of that positive camber position in the middle of the turn.
> https://carfromjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2-4-1024x683.jpg
>
> That's from this discussion (on how the geometry affects turning effort).
> https://carfromjapan.com/article/driving-tips/steering-wheel-returns-to-center-after-turn/
>
>>> Since kingpin angle (like castor angle) contributes to wheel camber
>>
>> The greatest effect comes from *King Pin Inclination*, or SAI as it is
>> known these days, but that effect is compounded by the *caster angle*.
>
> Yes. The geometries all tie in together such that even a perfectly aligned
> vehicle will prematurely wear the outside edge of the front tire on the
> inside of a curve if they frequently negotiate slow speed tight turns.
>

KPI opposes camber change on the inside wheel of a turn.

Caster is driving it positive: KPI is driving it negative.

And vehicle roll is driving it negative.

[Xeno]

On 1/5/2022 12:40 pm, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 5/1/2022 2:27 AM, Xeno wrote:
>> The camber gain from KPI/SAI will always wear tyres more on the
>> outside edge during high or full lock turns. Mountain driving, with
>> sharp hairpin bends, will guarantee it. Even in normal city street
>> driving, camber gain will be prevalent and worse on the nearside tyre.
>> If you have a comprehensive understanding of steering and suspension
>> design, then it is quite an easy thing to visualise. Weber Auto, on
>> You Tube, did something on steering some time back and, IIRC, they
>> explained the aspect of KPI/SAI that causes the issue. It is not a
>> well understood issue, even in the trade, but is *one* of the reasons
>> tyre rotation is essential. Just turn your steering to full lock and
>> look at the camber angle of the *inside* wheel - camber gain will be
>> very evident. The effect is worse if the vehicle has wider low profile
>> tyres.
>
> That's a nice summary.
>
> I looked for the youtube you speak of but it's not one of these.
>
> Weber Automotive Tire Care & Wheel Alignment
> https://youtu.be/pUp8sJWeHE4
>
> The Importance of Car Alignments | Weber Automotive
> https://youtu.be/VqFyOlSdiik
>
> Weber Automotive What is a Steering System and Why is it Important?
> https://youtu.be/ztK5NPhNbOc
>
> Maybe this one?

It was, I think, this Weber Auto Youtube Channel;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKfTe2WSAMc

It might not have been, was quite a while back and I have watched a lot
of videos in the intervening period. It was a *classroom situation* and
utilised a strut/knuckle assembly mounted in a vise and used to
demonstrate the camber gain when the wheel is turned to the lock, the
stub axle point further downward as the steering is swung away from
centre. It clearly shows the *lifting* of the vehicle which provides the
majority of the self centering of the steering, especially on cars with
a forward weight bias, ie. FWD.

>
> The Importance of Vehicle Suspension | Weber Automotive
> https://youtu.be/VdUzoEbj8ww
>
> The graphics are beautiful but they are too light on the detail.

Yeah, not much available on the net that adequately explains it all.

Even though I retired from teaching the topic at college level some 20
years ago, I still retain an interest in education hence scan videos
looking for good teaching material. John Kelly at WeberAuto YouTube
Channel is a good source of inspiration. I can just imagine the
preparation and planning he has put into his videos, after all, used to
do it myself. Back then, in the 80s and early 90s, I was heavily into
computer animation for educational purposes. Of course, that has all
been eclipsed by the numerous advances and developments in computers
since then. An example of my early graphics animation attempts;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9LEu6ClKS4

It was originally a slide tape program and my intention was to convert
it to live interactive video for use in CBT. It also needed rescripting
because there are a few logic errors/omissions in the original script
which annoyed me no end. I was in the process of rescripting it when
illness enforced my early retirement. Someone else took up the baton and
created a youtube video but didn't alter the original script, they just
used the slide tape audio direct. Most annoying. I still have all the
original animation masters archived here - somewhere.

[Xeno]

Yes, my understanding precisely. And my car has to negotiate a lot of
such tight turns on a daily basis, tighter to the left because we are in
RHD country, on the right for LHD country. That's why I use the terms;
nearside and offside rather than left side and right side. Anyway, the
outside of my left front tyre is always rearing the most, that's why I
need to rotate tyres regularly.

[Xeno]

KPI creates a positive camber change.

>
> Caster is driving it positive: KPI is driving it negative.
>
> And vehicle roll is driving it negative.
>
>> Is that your understanding of the net result on premature tire wear as a
>> result of the suspension geometry changes if a vehicle negotiates
>> hundreds
>> of slow speed tight turns daily?
>

[Xeno]

Misses the point of KPI/SAI. This video clip doesn't;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcZ63unEyU

[Alan]

In correct.

Draw a diagram of a steering axis with normal,
closer-to-the-the-vehicle-centre-at-the-top KPI and no caster at all.

Whichever direction you move the steering will cause the stub axle to
point downward.

[Alan]

On 2022-04-30 9:38 p.m., Xeno wrote:

> On 1/5/2022 1:16 pm, Thomas wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:41:06 PM, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>> Beg to differ, the inside wheel camber tends to go more positive in a
>>> turn thus increasing camber gain. Just turn your wheels hard in one
>>> direction whilst parked and you can see that effect. The effect will be
>>> less on the *outside wheel*.
>>
>> This is a photo of the added positive camber on the inside front wheel
>> that
>> you are explaining happens during a slow speed sharp turn almost to lock.
>> https://carfromjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2-4-1024x683.jpg
>>
>> That's from this discussion.
>> https://carfromjapan.com/article/driving-tips/steering-wheel-returns-to-center-after-turn/
>>
>
> Misses the point of KPI/SAI. This video clip doesn't;
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUcZ63unEyU
>

Wow.

That video gets so much wrong.

[Thomas]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 9:36:49 PM, Xeno wrote:

>> Yes. The geometries all tie in together such that even a perfectly aligned
>> vehicle will prematurely wear the outside edge of the front tire on the
>> inside of a curve if they frequently negotiate slow speed tight turns.
>>
>> Is that your understanding of the net result on premature tire wear as a
>> result of the suspension geometry changes if a vehicle negotiates hundreds
>> of slow speed tight turns daily?
>
> Yes, my understanding precisely. And my car has to negotiate a lot of
> such tight turns on a daily basis, tighter to the left because we are in
> RHD country, on the right for LHD country. That's why I use the terms;
> nearside and offside rather than left side and right side. Anyway, the
> outside of my left front tyre is always rearing the most, that's why I
> need to rotate tyres regularly.

Moving forward on that topic, I thank you for giving a rationale why it's
the nearside tire that wears its outside edge the most on twisty roads.

One confusion I still have is about the magnitude of the wear between the
nearside tire outside edge and the farside tire inside edge on a lock turn.

Knowing that the farside camber goes from negative to more negative, and
the nearside camber goes from negative to positive, aren't both tires at an
'extreme' camber when at the middle of the sharp curve?

If the magnitude of the farside negative camber was the same as the
magnitude of the nearside positive camber on those turns, wouldn't the wear
equal out over time given we can assume about equal number of left turns as
right turns?

I suspect that the magnitude of the positive camber on the nearside tire is
GREATER than the magnitude of the negative camber on the farside tire.

Is that the case?

[Xeno]

And, in so doing, increases camber to the positive. And you can *see*
this effect just by turning the steering to either lock! Well done,
you're learning something. Keep at it, you'll get there - eventually.

[Alan]

No! KPI makes camber go into the NEGATIVE.

[Xeno]

Oh dear, and I thought we were getting somewhere with your education.
Instead you are turning into a recalcitrant. Sad!

[Michael Trew]

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.

[Michael Trew]

On 4/29/2022 10:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Michael Trew wrote:
>

>>> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
>>
>> Why no AAA batteries?
>
> Logic. Sense. Practicality.

True, but some things, you can't help. Both my Roku box for the TV and
the DVD/VCR combo take AAA batteries. I didn't design the remotes; they
are what they are.

> Fun fact: Did you ever take apart a 9V battery cube? (Guess what's inside.)

No I haven't, but I looked it up. Looks like 6 little 1.5V batteries;
interesting.

> For _years_ I've been documenting my, oh, it's well over sixty tires by
> now, where I wrote a tutorial at the 40-tire mark long ago (I don't have
> kids at home anymore that have cars to be fixed with them learning how).
>
> BTW, I'm logical and sensible, so if there is _anything_ I've suggested
> above that you would like to understand the logic of, then just ask.
>
>> I fix most things on cars myself, and there is a satisfaction to that
>> (although it's also relevant to cheap/necessity for me).
>
> I have never been to a mechanic in my life and I own cars for decades.

I don't own any BMW's, but if you're bored enough, feel free to come
visit -- I've got a 6 car garage, and car projects for weeks! ;)

New Garage:

https://postimg.cc/mt2LFr46
https://postimg.cc/SjGQsMBM

Part of my mess:

https://postimg.cc/PL6yZdsR

There are several Geo Metros out of view, as well as an '89 Olds Cutlass
Ciera up on jacks. A neighbor torched off the rusted-on rotors, and I
need to finish the brakes and lower ball joints.

[Andy Burnelli]

The only reason for mentioning the rim diameter is that the HF bead breaker
tool has to be "modified" slightly for the larger diameter wheels on SUVs
and light trucks. That modification simply is to extend the base a few
inches so that the larger wheels lay on top of that now-extended base.

The way I easily extend the base is to put a long 10-inch-wide board over
the base, and I step on that inch-thick board to keep it from flipping up
when pressing down on the bead breaking lever. That works fine but I'm
aware others have elegantly welded length onto the HF bead breaker tool.

Still others have welded a longer arc onto the bead breaker arm, which,
someday, I may do myself - as it would make bead breaking easier to do.

Speaking of the length of the arc in bead breaking, that's the part that
does all the work, so it's critical, especially when slippery with dish
detergent. In fact, the short arc of the bead breaker "attachment" that
comes with the HF tire-removal tool is why I said the first thing you do is
not install it when you're setting up the tire mounting tool.

Part of the proper setup for the tire-mounting tool is in fastening it to
something solid, where most people attach it directly to the pavement, as I
do myself. I've seen others attaching it to a pallet or to a large piece of
plywood, which works if you need the portability but you then have to
always stand on that board the entire time you're removing the tire and
reinstalling it, which is a tap dance I don't want to bother with doing.

When you do the static balancing, there are the old-time advantages of
spending the time to do the job right, which, in my experience, the tire
shops do NOT bother to do.
<https://www.tyrebaydirect.com/wp-content/uploads/Red-dot-yellow-dot.png>

Notice this is an important advantage of DIY in that you will do they job
right. You have no idea whether the tire shop will bother to do the job
right. Of course, there is debate on the net as to what is right, but if
you don't know it, most (but not all!) wheels come with a marking on the
inside and most new tires come with red dots and/or yellow dots marked on
one side of the tire. I ran an experiment by driving by tire shops and
asking them what the dots mean, and almost none of the people there knew,
which, when I first asked, was a shocker.
<https://hollisbrothersauto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/tiredots.jpg>

It's like asking the guy selling you bolts what the bolt markings mean and
he doesn't know... that's when you learn that DIY is better because you
know more than the guy in the shop does about how to properly mount a tire,
even as he will have more experience in a week than you have in your life.

I am well aware that the rim markings get scraped away over time, and that
the yellow and/or red markings don't matter all that much to the guy in the
tire shop who has a dynamic balancing machine which tells him exactly where
and how much weight to put on each side, which compensates for any inherent
imbalance in the wheel and in the tire.

But since YOU are doing your own tires, you spend the time to find the
markings on the wheel (and to mark them with whiteout or nail polish so you
can find them in the future) and you spend the time to _properly_ adjust
the tire mount point onto the rim with respect to the valve stem _before_
you balance the tire.

In fact, what got me _started_ on doing my own mounting & balancing was
that I _never_ saw a single shop ever mount my own tires correctly. More
than once I pointed it out and they gave me the mounting for free (stories
were posted at the time in rec.autos.tech & alt.home.repair newsgroups).

I'm not saying the wheels will fall off the car, but I would make the claim
that nearly 100% of the tires mounted and balanced and installed by
professional shops are NOT done by the book (again, it may not matter if
the torque is wrong or if they pry off the BMW BBS hubcaps wrong of if they
don't put differential pressure in the front versus the rear tires, etc.,
but the fact that it's prevalent in my experience means it's likely
prevalent in all situations (people just don't know what's right).

I've even had to tell _them_ how to position the tires properly on the rim!

Bear in mind I don't know of any local stores which sell the typical crimp
on wheel weights, and, unfortunately, in California, you can't get lead
anymore (for better or for worse, I guess) so you can either use the
stick-on weights that HF sells, or you have to mail order them.

Never forget the dynamic balance test is always free anywhere in the world.

[Andy Burnelli]

AJL wrote:

>>> Nitrogen fill means fewer tires operating at low pressure and fewer
>>> warranty claims.
>
>>If I get a puncture, nitrogen leaks out just like my good old air...Otherwise I
>>seldom see more than a pound or two pound change when checking every
>>month and often no change at all...
>
> Update: Did the monthly tire pressure check this AM. They all went UP a
> pound or two since last month's check. Probably because the garage is
> getting hotter as we go from winter to summer. (I check them after they sit
> overnight.) Still easier than driving somewhere for nitrogen IMO. YMMV of
> course...

On the topic of marketing cleverly differentiating your air from theirs...
my point is always that morons fall for every marketing trick in the book.
*Nitrogen in Tires: A Complete Guide*
<https://www.autolist.com/guides/nitrogen-in-tires>
a. They Keep The Tire Pressure Better:
b. Effective in Hot Climates:
c. Improved Fuel Economy:
d. Increased Tread and Tire Life:
e. Cooler Tires:

Side note: As a general rule, any marketing claims that something does
everything, usually means it does absolutely nothing. (At least they didn't
add the classic "and more" when fabricating that dubious list of benefits.)

They have no education and a low IQ, so if it merely "sounds" scientific,
then, to these ill-educated low-IQ morons, it _is_ scientific (to them!).

Hence, you bring up a good adult point that the potential daily temperature
fluctuation can have a greater effect on PSI than the mere 1.3 psi measured
by Consumer Reports after an entire year in their testing regimen.

There's nothing wrong with nitrogen in tires, but what _adults_ need to
realize is it's simply a marketing gimmick. That Lewis fell for the
marketing gimmick hook line and sinker makes my point about the iKooks.

People who don't own adult comprehensive skills _infer_ exactly what
marketing messaging _wants_ them to infer, which is that the nitrogen
theoretical advantages over air actually matter in the real world.

There is no scientific study yet that I can find that says it does.
Yet, any moron can find marketing claims galore that it does.

The _reason_ it doesn't matter isn't in the theory, but in the facts.
a. The nitrogen Costco uses is only 95% (not 100%)
b. Even if it were 100%, oxygen then diffuses IN (yes, *IN*!)
c. The tires are not deflated completely before inflating
d. Where Consumers Union said you needed to fill multiple times
e. And then you have to find nitrogen to top it off each time
f. Where the total possible difference is round about a single PSI

What that green cap really means is someone fell for the marketing gimmick.
It's a dunce cap, of sorts, IMHO.

BTW, to always strive to add scientifically factual adult value to any
conversation on Usenet among peers, here's a rebuttal to the CR report:
*Nitrogen in Tires Consumer Reports Response*
<https://www.gonitrotire.com/nitrogen-tire-inflation-blog/nitrogen-in-tires-consumer-reports-response/>

Their rebuttal was fair, in my opinion, and yes, I _am_ well educated,
particularly in engineering and in the sciences.
--
BTW, I'm not against nitrogen in tires if you get it for free as I'm not
saying it harms anything. I'm just saying it's a marketing gimmick.

[sms]

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.

[Alan]

On 2022-05-02 7:51 a.m., Michael Trew wrote:
> On 4/29/2022 10:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>>>> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
>>>
>>> Why no AAA batteries?
>>
>> Logic. Sense. Practicality.
>
> True, but some things, you can't help.  Both my Roku box for the TV and
> the DVD/VCR combo take AAA batteries.  I didn't design the remotes; they
> are what they are.
>
>> Fun fact: Did you ever take apart a 9V battery cube? (Guess what's
>> inside.)
>
> No I haven't, but I looked it up.  Looks like 6 little 1.5V batteries;
> interesting.

But they're not AAA batteries as Arlen implies.

They're not even AAAA batteries (which are a rare, but real thing)

[Alan]

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.

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

>> 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.

Bear in mind this is an _adult_ discussion below, devoid of marketing BS.

There are scientific reasons what all these things do in terms of handling:
a. Wider tread
b. Lower profile
c. Larger diameter

If they come with the vehicle stock, then it's my observation that, in
general, the choice by the manufacturer makes sense; but if they're
aftermarket choices, often, in my experience, they don't make sense.

Like putting low-profile tires on a SUV.
That makes no sense from a performance standpoint.

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

> Manual tire changers are not expensive. The ones from Harbor Freight are
> sufficient for home use.

You need more than the tire changer since you need three different tools:
a. First, you need the bead breaker
b. Then, you need the manual tire changer
c. Then you should add a static balancer
All of which HF sells (and all of which I own), where the cost is offset
after a few years, depending of course on how many tires you fix, flip
rotate, and replace.

The other tools needed are a vise grip (because the HF tire mounting bar
twists in your hands, particularly when you have dish detergent around),
two extra HF tire-mounting irons (for the really tough jobs when you can't
get the lower bead into the deepest point of the rim), dish detergent spray
(for obvious reasons), a schrader valve screwdriver, a valve installation
lever (you don't need it for removal but for replacement), a valve filling
tool (sans the schrader valve) and, the one optional tool that's super
handy, a bead blaster (aka a bead bazooka) which saves a ton of time.
<https://youtu.be/KkSZrDg7ZOg>

For balancing, it's helpful to have the special tools for removal and
replacement of the clip-on weights, but normal hand tools suffice.

Likewise, it's helpful for patch plug repair to have a round buffer and
tire bead spreader, but, again, normal power tools such as wire brushes and
sandpaper drill fittings work just fine for home use.

Bear in mind motorcycles require slightly different tools.

> The issue remains that static balancing should be avoided. Read
> <https://e-quipfix.co.uk/wheel-balancing-101-static-vs-dynamic-wheel-balancing/>.

If you read that article, which I don't think Steve actually read, you can
see it says what I've been saying, which is just because the shop has the
tools doesn't mean the shop properly mounts and balances your wheels and
tires using those fancy tools.

This is a direct quote from Steve's link above:
As an engineer, I often attend to sites with reports of a faulty wheel
balancer. The general complaint is "... the machine needs calibrating",
and this diagnosis usually derived from frequent customer "comebacks"
or that operatives are repeatedly "chasing weights."

And although on some occasions the wheel balancer does actually have
an issue or requires calibration, you would be surprised how often
the issues come down to operator error. Which is bit disconcerting
to think about considering the number of wheels they have most
likely worked on previously."

While just as with nitrogen in tires I have no problem with the fact that
it's being done, for free... as I'm never saying that it does harm.

The problem I have is _charging_ people for the hokus pokus that they don't
need, where almost everyone who doesn't balance their own wheels like I do
wouldn't know that you _can_ get a perfectly good balance that way.

And never forget, the _test_ for dynamic balance is _always_ free.

The problem with people like Steve making proclamations that are based
_purely_ on glossy marketing brochures is that people like Steve have never
even once in their entire lives done what they say can't be done.

People like Steve who have never done it & yet who feel they completely
know how it can be done are therefore, almost always wrong as a result of
their lack of knowledge (and in their total trust in marketing gimmicks).

The "requirement" for a dynamic balance is a marketing gimmick.
The "test" for dynamic balance is _always_ free anywhere in the world.

Prove me wrong.

> 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.

Again, Steve has never done it while I have, and more to the point of
Steve's ignorance, Steve is only quoting MARKETING bullshit to back up his
claims.

I've got nothing against dynamic balancing, mind you (except that they do
it wrong in terms of proper initial positioning), but I also know that the
test for proper dynamic balance is _always_ free everywhere in the world.

I also know that if the vehicle fails that free dynamic balancing test,
then that _one_ wheel (isolating it is a bitch sometimes though) can be
brought to Costco in California for a $5 dynamic balance, last I checked.

And yes, Costco will do it even for tires they didn't mount (based on my
last check which, admittedly was years ago as I've always _passed_ the free
dynamic balance test after having mounted & balanced my own tires at home).

> 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.

Steve has _never_ mounted and balanced tires in his entire life.

I'm not asking Steve to start mounting and balancing tires himself; but I
am asking Steve to explain, with facts, and without quoting pure marketing
bullshit, why he feels that a proper dynamic balance can't be achieved at
home, particularly when the test for dynamic balance is always free, no
matter where you are in the world.

This is an _adult_ concept about adult comprehensive skills.

Can Steve (or anyone) bolster that belief system using scientific evidence
that does NOT come from some MARKETING outfit trying to sell dynamic
balancing?

Can he or not?
That is the adult question to ask.

I'll read _everything_ anyone posts to back up their claim that you can't
achieve proper balance of your wheels and tires at home.

[Andy Burnelli]

Michael Trew wrote:

> On 4/29/2022 10:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>>>> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
>>>
>>> Why no AAA batteries?
>>
>> Logic. Sense. Practicality.
>
> True, but some things, you can't help. Both my Roku box for the TV and
> the DVD/VCR combo take AAA batteries. I didn't design the remotes; they
> are what they are.

It's nice to know there are adults here who can speak rationally.

I agree that you can't help NOT get AAA battery requirements with some
things, where even switching those AAA batteries to rechargeable AAA
batteries won't work all the time (due to the slight difference in
voltage).

As an example, I have AAA and AA rechargeables where I have one AA ceiling
mounted light unit that refuses to work with rechargeables so I have to use
non-rechargeable batteries for that unit (in a high ceiling barn attic).

Luckily about the only AAA devices I had in the past have been slowly
phased out over time, although I agree that when it's in something like a
remote, you didn't likely choose the device based on battery practicality.

Bear in mind there's nothing wrong with the chemistry or size per se, but
my argument is simply that AA batteries provide more bang for the buck (at
typical prices) and that it's easier to stock fewer battery sizes and,
perhaps the most contentious claim - that most of the time what uses AAA
batteries is often large enough to have been able to be designed for AA.

If nobody bought units designed for AAA batteries, then they'd stop using
AAA batteries when AA works just as well (actually better in most cases).

>> Fun fact: Did you ever take apart a 9V battery cube? (Guess what's inside.)
>
> No I haven't, but I looked it up. Looks like 6 little 1.5V batteries;
> interesting.

I'm impressed that you looked it up as the iKooks on one of the ngs always
brazenly deny all facts they're unaware of, simply because they're unaware
of them.

I don't know anyone who has taken apart a typical 9V battery who wasn't
marvelled at the beauty and simplicity of how they achieved that voltage.

Me? My dad used to have a box of stuff he was throwing away which he'd
constantly replenish with things like motors, catchers mitts, shoes, etc.,
where I'd take apart everything he put in that box in order to learn how
they're made.

The first time I took apart a pair of high heel shoes I was impressed that
the heel was made out of maple - where I love woods - as I'd take apart old
furniture to get the walnut and oak and cedar to use in woodworking.

Taking apart a Radio Shack rechargeable D cell showed me that it was just a
rechargeable C cell inside (which is almost criminal) and taking apart a
six volt battery smelled something awful, but what's inside most of the 9V
batteries was an engineering marvel of voltage-adding simplicity indeed.
<https://youtu.be/L8nThJum77Q?t=75>

>> For _years_ I've been documenting my, oh, it's well over sixty tires by
>> now, where I wrote a tutorial at the 40-tire mark long ago (I don't have
>> kids at home anymore that have cars to be fixed with them learning how).
>>
>> BTW, I'm logical and sensible, so if there is _anything_ I've suggested
>> above that you would like to understand the logic of, then just ask.
>>
>>> I fix most things on cars myself, and there is a satisfaction to that
>>> (although it's also relevant to cheap/necessity for me).
>>
>> I have never been to a mechanic in my life and I own cars for decades.
>
> I don't own any BMW's, but if you're bored enough, feel free to come
> visit -- I've got a 6 car garage, and car projects for weeks! ;)

The problem with bimmers and beemers is that they handle well, but that's
about it. BMW knows how to make a drive train and suspension. But that's
about it.

Bimmers & beemers perform beautifully, but, a Toyota SUV is overall built
better (IMHO) because _all_ the systems are built well enough to not break.

> New Garage:
>
> https://postimg.cc/mt2LFr46

If someone bothers to post a link, I always look at it, where I love that
nice wide garage door and the fact you can store stuff in the rest of that
building (presumably). (What's that white stuff on the ground though?) :)

> https://postimg.cc/SjGQsMBM

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.
<https://youtu.be/CWdoTUCm5qw?t=354>

> Part of my mess:
>
> https://postimg.cc/PL6yZdsR

With all those cars, you too would benefit from the economies of scale that
mounting and balancing your own wheels/tires will garner you.

Plus you'd have the convenience of doing it in your pajamas at home.
<https://youtu.be/_fKOt1ylEiI>

> There are several Geo Metros out of view, as well as an '89 Olds Cutlass
> Ciera up on jacks. A neighbor torched off the rusted-on rotors, and I
> need to finish the brakes and lower ball joints.

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?

[Andy Burnelli]

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> On the BMW forums, I'm a legend, but of course I go by a different nym.

BTW, as an example, Scotty Kilmer (whom I have a love/hate relationship
with) actually stole one of my graphics for his tire balancing video! :)

I'll say no more, but the point is that I document tire mounting and
balancing at home so well on the various related forums that my graphics
almost always show up in a typical Google image search on the topic.

[Alan]

On 2022-05-02 11:30 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Michael Trew wrote:
>
>> On 4/29/2022 10:11, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>> Michael Trew wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1. HF magnetic light (AA only - I never buy AAA items - ever!)
>>>>
>>>> Why no AAA batteries?
>>>
>>> Logic. Sense. Practicality.
>>
>> True, but some things, you can't help.  Both my Roku box for the TV
>> and the DVD/VCR combo take AAA batteries.  I didn't design the
>> remotes; they are what they are.
>
> It's nice to know there are adults here who can speak rationally.
>
> I agree that you can't help NOT get AAA battery requirements with some
> things, where even switching those AAA batteries to rechargeable AAA
> batteries won't work all the time (due to the slight difference in
> voltage).

I remind everyone that you actually said this:

"1. Most things that require AAA don't actually _need_ AAA (this is
key!) (The assumption that they're "smaller" very often is just not true.) "

The assumption that AAA batteries are smaller than AA batteries is
ALWAYS true...

...because they are smaller.

>
> As an example, I have AAA and AA rechargeables where I have one AA ceiling
> mounted light unit that refuses to work with rechargeables so I have to use
> non-rechargeable batteries for that unit (in a high ceiling barn attic).

You talk such gibberish.

How could the light even tell that one battery was rechargeable and th
other not? Are the electrons a different colour?

:-)

>
> Luckily about the only AAA devices I had in the past have been slowly
> phased out over time, although I agree that when it's in something like a
> remote, you didn't likely choose the device based on battery practicality.
>
> Bear in mind there's nothing wrong with the chemistry or size per se, but
> my argument is simply that AA batteries provide more bang for the buck (at
> typical prices) and that it's easier to stock fewer battery sizes and,
> perhaps the most contentious claim - that most of the time what uses AAA
> batteries is often large enough to have been able to be designed for AA.

That's not what you bothered to say earlier.

>
> If nobody bought units designed for AAA batteries, then they'd stop using
> AAA batteries when AA works just as well (actually better in most cases).
>
>>> Fun fact: Did you ever take apart a 9V battery cube? (Guess what's
>>> inside.)
>>
>> No I haven't, but I looked it up.  Looks like 6 little 1.5V batteries;
>> interesting.
>
> I'm impressed that you looked it up as the iKooks on one of the ngs always
> brazenly deny all facts they're unaware of, simply because they're unaware
> of them.
> I don't know anyone who has taken apart a typical 9V battery who wasn't
> marvelled at the beauty and simplicity of how they achieved that voltage.

Do you even now what "battery" actually means in the context of electricity?

>
> Me? My dad used to have a box of stuff he was throwing away which he'd > constantly replenish with things like motors, catchers mitts, shoes,
etc.,
> where I'd take apart everything he put in that box in order to learn how
> they're made.
>
> The first time I took apart a pair of high heel shoes I was impressed that
> the heel was made out of maple - where I love woods - as I'd take apart old
> furniture to get the walnut and oak and cedar to use in woodworking.
>
> Taking apart a Radio Shack rechargeable D cell showed me that it was just a
> rechargeable C cell inside (which is almost criminal) and taking apart a
> six volt battery smelled something awful, but what's inside most of the 9V
> batteries was an engineering marvel of voltage-adding simplicity indeed.
> <https://youtu.be/L8nThJum77Q?t=75>

I notice you don't provide any support for your claim about a Radio
Shack D cell.

Not everyone has the tools or the inclination.

>
> 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.

And ignore that some pads are easier on rotors and drums...

[Alan]

Riiiiiiiiiight.

You know what would have been great there?

A Google image search...

[nospam]

In article <t4poav$ub1$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2022-05-02 11:30 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > As an example, I have AAA and AA rechargeables where I have one AA ceiling
> > mounted light unit that refuses to work with rechargeables so I have to use
> > non-rechargeable batteries for that unit (in a high ceiling barn attic).
>
> You talk such gibberish.

he does, but in this case, there is surprisingly a bit of truth.

> How could the light even tell that one battery was rechargeable and th
> other not? Are the electrons a different colour?

different voltages.

nimh/nicad rechargeable batteries have a nominal voltage of ~1.2v/cell,
alkaline batteries are ~1.5v/cell and non-rechargeable lithium
batteries are ~1.6v/cell.

recent devices normally work with all three types, especially if only
just one or two batteries is needed, where the difference in voltage is
small.

however, some older devices, especially ones that use several
batteries, may fail to function due to the lower voltage of nimh, or
possibly be damaged by the higher voltage of lithium batteries.

i have an old nikon flash that is designed to use six 1.5v alkaline
batteries (9v), but with nimh rechargeable batteries, it's only 7.2v,
which is enough of a difference so that the flash does not work at all.

> > I don't know anyone who has taken apart a typical 9V battery who wasn't
> > marvelled at the beauty and simplicity of how they achieved that voltage.
>
> Do you even now what "battery" actually means in the context of electricity?

he has photos of books about vacuum tubes/valves.

what more is there to know?

[Michael Trew]

On 5/2/2022 11:30, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> Notice this is an important advantage of DIY in that you will do they job
> right. You have no idea whether the tire shop will bother to do the job
> right. Of course, there is debate on the net as to what is right, but if
> you don't know it, most (but not all!) wheels come with a marking on the
> inside and most new tires come with red dots and/or yellow dots marked on
> one side of the tire. I ran an experiment by driving by tire shops and
> asking them what the dots mean, and almost none of the people there knew,
> which, when I first asked, was a shocker.
> <https://hollisbrothersauto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/tiredots.jpg>

Interesting, I've never seen these markings. Then again, I always buy
used tires, typically as cheap as I can find them. My favorite local
shop will sell you a used tire with decent tread, and mount/balance it
for a total cost of $30 (tire included). Of course, they don't have all
sizes, and I sometimes have to source my tires elsewhere. I don't bat
an eye at sidewall cracks unless I'm on for a 6+ hour road trip (always
keep a full-size spare).

[Michael Trew]

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 ;)

[Michael Trew]

On 5/2/2022 13:58, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> the one optional tool that's super
> handy, a bead blaster (aka a bead bazooka) which saves a ton of time.
> <https://youtu.be/KkSZrDg7ZOg>

Hehe, I've done this with lighter or brake fluid and a match a few times...

[Michael Trew]

On 5/2/2022 12:27, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-05-02 7:34 a.m., Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>> 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?

Yes.

> 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.

[Michael Trew]

On 5/2/2022 14:30, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> It's nice to know there are adults here who can speak rationally.
>

> I'm impressed that you looked it up as the iKooks on one of the ngs always
> brazenly deny all facts they're unaware of, simply because they're unaware
> of them.

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.

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.

> 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. 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).

Both sides are totally full of junk from the prior owners. 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. 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.

> 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. I'm usually just really easy
on the brakes, and I buy what's cheap. Many of these cars, I tire of in
6 months, and sell it and buy another when I find a deal. 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).

Unfortunately, in my cold climate, sometimes a simple brake job is a
total PITA. The Olds' wagon had the rotors *so* rusted onto the hubs
that I couldn't get them off anyhow. That goodness the neighbor brought
his welding torch over, and got 'em nice an hot until the 8 pound hammer
got them off. 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.

[Michael Trew]

I don't have any books on the matter, but I have an old vacuum tube
tester, and some equipment to restore old tube radios and televisions --
although that hobby has been side-lined for a long time.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> You talk such gibberish.
>
> he does, but in this case, there is surprisingly a bit of truth.

Why does anyone even bother to respond to Alan Baker who is an utter moron.

>> How could the light even tell that one battery was rechargeable and th
>> other not? Are the electrons a different colour?
>
> different voltages.

You'd think every _adult_ would already know this... but not Alan Baker.

> nimh/nicad rechargeable batteries have a nominal voltage of ~1.2v/cell,
> alkaline batteries are ~1.5v/cell and non-rechargeable lithium
> batteries are ~1.6v/cell.

For Alan Baker to so brazenly be so confident in his ignorance is classic.
I remember once he repeatedly insisted it's impossible to change the
newsreader header line, even after I showed him it could easily be done.
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/4AdaprOPM-g/>

Who is _that_ stupid but those who own DK lemon-juice bank robber brains.

Alan Baker is left of the DK quartile 1 where he thinks the little that he
does know, is _everything_ there is to know about rechargeable batteries.

> recent devices normally work with all three types, especially if only
> just one or two batteries is needed, where the difference in voltage is
> small.

This is a four battery unit which I bought from Costco and put in the barn.
It's a rare instance of where the slight voltage difference matters.

> however, some older devices, especially ones that use several
> batteries, may fail to function due to the lower voltage of nimh, or
> possibly be damaged by the higher voltage of lithium batteries.

I have never put _higher_ voltage AA/AAA cells in anything but your point
is valid that there likely exists AA/AAA cells that have higher voltages.

> i have an old nikon flash that is designed to use six 1.5v alkaline
> batteries (9v), but with nimh rechargeable batteries, it's only 7.2v,
> which is enough of a difference so that the flash does not work at all.

That's another instance of where the slight voltage difference matters.
Also, sometimes the battery chemistry matters to some devices, mostly with
respect to either instantaneous current output or long storage ability.

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, so I just state
that here for the intelligent people and not for nospam since all nospam
wants to do whenever I mention "internal resistance" is argue about it).

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

>>> I don't know anyone who has taken apart a typical 9V battery who wasn't
>>> marvelled at the beauty and simplicity of how they achieved that voltage.
>>
>> Do you even now what "battery" actually means in the context of electricity?
>
> he has photos of books about vacuum tubes/valves.

A great way to learn about things is to take them apart, where I used to
take apart TVs in the vacuum tube days to learn how they were made.

> what more is there to know?

iKooks ridicule people with an education simply because you don't have one.

[Andy Burnelli]

Michael Trew wrote:

>> what more is there to know?
>
> I don't have any books on the matter, but I have an old vacuum tube
> tester, and some equipment to restore old tube radios and televisions --
> although that hobby has been side-lined for a long time.

Like most of the older guys here, I learned about vacuum tubes when my Dad
would gather up a collection of them to take to the hardware store to test
on the machine.

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

Fun fact: What _direction_ does the glass initially fly when you hit the
front of an old TV in the middle of the glass face (to shatter it)?

[Andy Burnelli]

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>
<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/>

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

> 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.

> 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.

Always, always, always, I buy by the specs where I _never_ get lower than
OEM specs for any brake or tire repair; but luckily, you can't get a "bad"
pad or rotor or caliper in the USA if you follow good buying practices.

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

[Andy Burnelli]

Michael Trew wrote:

>> <https://hollisbrothersauto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/tiredots.jpg>
>
> Interesting, I've never seen these markings.

Well, if you don't mount and balance your own tires (note that Alan Baker
got pedantic on you I see from your response), then you won't ever need to
know about (a) match mounting marks on the _wheels_ and (b) the yellow &
red dots on _tires_ (both of which are used for proper mounting steps).

Fun Test: Go to any parking lot of a tire shop (like outside of Costco, for
example) and _look_ at how they did the match mounting of the dots to the
valves!

Almost always the match mounting mark is easy to find only on a _new_
wheel, which is why that's the first thing I highlight with nail polish the
first time I remove a wheel from a new car.

For new tires, the red and/or yellow paint marks are extremely visible.
Bear in mind each manufacturer "can" use them to mean different things, so
you "should" ask the manufacturer, where here's the Yokohama advice:
<https://www.yokohamatire.com/tires-101/maintenance-care-1/mounting-your-tires>

Here is the graphic that goes along with that Yokohama article:
<https://ytc-bm.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/mounting-red-yellow.jpg>

BTW, in the rare cases where I _select_ the actual tires I am going to buy,
I always ask to be allowed to choose them by date (yes, the date is stamped
on every tire just as it's stamped on every battery) and by the marks.

Here's the explanation for how to mount Bridgestone tires by the dots.
<https://www.car-auto-repair.com/tires-balancebridgestone-tires-red-yellow-dots/>

It's a healthy debate whether you want the marks to be diametrically
opposed versus clustered close together though - so if anyone out there
(Xeno?) has advice on which is a better tire, that would be nice to know.

Fun Fact: They use white dots sometimes, often in across-the-pond "tyres".
<https://blobs.continental-tires.com/www8/servlet/blob/554548/e3119edf9831c33103e5a771a0fe5717/download-coloured-dot-markings-data.pdf>

HINT: Europeans often do all the colors differently - did you ever wire a
German power cord to a US black/white/green electrical standard plug?

> Then again, I always buy
> used tires, typically as cheap as I can find them.

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.

> My favorite local
> shop will sell you a used tire with decent tread, and mount/balance it
> for a total cost of $30 (tire included).

Depending on the tire, a great quality _new_ tire doesn't cost more than
double that price, without the mounting and balancing of course.

Obviously it depends on the tire, as the bimmer takes tires that are around
a hundred bucks for OEM quality while the Toyota can take a $50 tire that
beats the OEM specs. Most people pay more than double that, but notice what
I say here which is most people believe all the marketing bullshit.

You _never_ get what you pay for. You get whatever it is that you get.
What you _pay_ for it depends on how well it's marketed to fools.

The reason is that the demand by those fools jacks up the price of that
tire, if it's the tire that you want. All this due to marketing.

Tires are a commodity. You buy them purely by the specifications.
And luckily, just as with brake pads, the specs are on the tire.
Same with batteries. The specs are what you buy things by.

Fun fact: What do _most_ people use to choose which tire or battery to buy?

> Of course, they don't have all
> sizes, and I sometimes have to source my tires elsewhere.

A tire is a tire is a tire. Brand doesn't matter. The specs matter.
<https://www.continental-tires.com/car/tire-knowledge/tire-basics/tire-markings>

For better-than-OEM tires, you should pay about, oh, depends on the tire,
but anywhere from about $40 to about $100 per tire (depends on the specs).

Check out the prices at Simple Tire on the Internet. If you give them your
email address, they constantly send you sales which drop the prices even
lower, and they almost never charge for shipping (which would be a lot).
<https://simpletire.com/>

These shops are extremely well connected to the tire mounting shops, so
they'll send the tires to ANYONE you want them to, and you get their
guaranteed price for mounting & balancing - and if they break the rules,
they get kicked out of the program (ask me how I know this).

Given tires are a safety item, I wouldn't recommend buying them used as you
just don't know if they ran them flat or if they sat flat for a long time.

What I do is buy the tire online by size first (as with shoes, if it
doesn't fit, it's useless) and then by load range (you can go up but not
down), and then by the speed rating (again, you can go up, but not down,
although going down isn't any big deal on speed ratings) and then finally
by the traction treadwear temperature rating (where temperature is speed by
another metric and hence it's the least important if you drive like a
little old lady, which is how I drive and I suspect you do too).

My recommendation? Stop buying used tires (only because of what you don't
know about them) and buy tires that you know what you're getting where I
just arbitrarily looked for tires for a Mitsubishi Lancer ES 2002 by
clicking the buttons, which came up with a 185/65R14 90H XL rated tire at,
oh wow, prices went up... at $64/tire for the Eco Dynamic

I would have expected a cheap car like that with tiny tires to be around
$50 so maybe prices recently went up, but Simple Tire _always_ has sales.

> I don't bat
> an eye at sidewall cracks unless I'm on for a 6+ hour road trip (always
> keep a full-size spare).

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>

Bear in mind the common characteristic of the Apple newsgroup is that they
shit in their pants on every possible fear that any marketing organization
can fill them with - so they make _all_ their decisions based on fear.

The iKooks would shit in their pants if they saw these tires on their cars!
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hx2Fw0dK/mount03.jpg>

Me? I'm like you. I _start_ to worry when I see _steel_ belts sticking out,
and, in fact, that's a warning to me to get new ties pronto. Since we have
a rainy season, I also try to replace bald tires before the rains.
<https://i.postimg.cc/0NGXktgp/mount59.jpg>

Otherwise, I don't worry about almost-bald tires in the summer months,
although they are slightly more susceptible to punctures when there's no
tread left. Ask me how I know. <https://i.postimg.cc/FzGQY92V/mount51.jpg>

[Xeno]

On 3/5/2022 3:58 am, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Bear in mind this is an _adult_ discussion below, devoid of marketing BS.
>
> There are scientific reasons what all these things do in terms of handling:
> a. Wider tread
> b. Lower profile
> c. Larger diameter
>
> 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.

> 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*.

>
> 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. 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*.

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

Pretty much.

[Xeno]

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. ;-)

[Xeno]

I haven't had a pre-1990 car since 1995. Now I don't even want a pre
2020 car.

[Andy Burnelli]

Me too!

Lighter fluid is hard to get out (unless you mean "charcoal lighter" fluid
which I've never tried)... but I've tried acetone (but the problem is the
lack of ability to "spray" it into the tire and what works best is MAF
cleaner spray (the one with the red six inch long delivery hose).

The Whooooomp! that happens when it's lit is amazing, isn't it!

The problem, of course, is the danger of getting a finger caught in that
where I use a kitchen lighter (the ones with the 10 inch long metal hose),
but I prefer the way that I do it now.

What I do is take an air gun and remove the screw-on pointy tip which
leaves just the threads which happen to be exactly the same as tire valve
threads! That's the trick you wouldn't know unless you tried it.

You can screw that air gun onto the empty tire valve after you've removed
the scharader valve and then you rubber band the gun trigger to always on.

Here is a picture of it where it works well to fill the tire to seat the
bead but sometimes it needs work to get the bead into the "drop center".
<https://i.postimg.cc/4yxSFpSp/mount57.jpg>

Fun fact: You'll _never_ stretch a tire onto the wheel to seat the bead if
you don't learn where the drop center is on the wheel. Ask me how I know.
--
Usenet is supposed to be where intelligent helpful kind-hearted people
discuss topics of mutual interest so that they learn from each other.

[Andy Burnelli]

Michael Trew wrote:

>> 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.

At $20 per wheel, it would take about ten wheels to cover your basic cost
for the HF tools if you can get them when they're (frequently) on sale.

For example, is my bubble balancer in action (note the red/yellow dots).
<https://i.postimg.cc/28JK2bFB/mount58.jpg>

And here is the mounting tool in action (always bolt it down!).
<https://i.postimg.cc/wvVrVw06/mount56.jpg>

And here is the bead breaking tool in action (it helps to bolt it down).
<https://i.postimg.cc/wxDM6L39/mount47.jpg>

> For my Geo Metro collection, I have a huge pile of 12" tires in the
> garage, many as old as the 1990's.

Holy crow. Twelve inches? Really? That's child's play. It would be _easy_
to mount those tires. You might be able to do it with hand tools alone.

> 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.

Well, one (perhaps dubious?) advantage of mounting and balancing your own
tires at home is you'll do tires that the shops will refuse to do.

That's both good and bad, of course, as they'll refuse to do a tire with
black dust inside, which you can make a decision as to whether you want to
use it. They'll refuse to repair a tire that's worn, where you can choose
to do so. And they "can" refuse to re-mount any tire that they failed (ask
me how I know this) so you're stuck with a wheel and tire separately after
you visit them for their "free flat repair".

Of course, there's also the convenience of doing it at home, and, for some,
the satisfaction of not being afraid to do it yourself (which I love).

> In short, what I'm saying... you and I are in a rather different world,
> vehicle-wise ;)

Most people buy cars every five or so years (usually not more than ten, I
would think). I used to be that way too, but no more. I like the confidence
I get from knowing everything about a car that comes with familiarity.
--
On Usenet you can often find people who know more than you do about any
given topic, although they have to also be purposefully helpful souls.

[Andy Burnelli]

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.

[Andy Burnelli]

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) and for low profiles (e.g.,
steering) and for larger air pockets (e.g., suspension padding), etc.

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.

As Xeno well knows, just as with changing the alignment specs, everything
is a tradeoff where a _lot_ of times people go for low-profile wide tires
purely for the look (e.g., it's ridiculous to put on a pickup truck).

To me, when I see tires on a vehicle that they don't belong on, I just see
that as the owner being stupid - but maybe others are impressed by that.

It's like when I see an iPhone owner with those silly looking red iPhones.