Now we all have to deal with endless variations of TPMS. I don't think that would have solved the Explorer issue. Would not have given a low tire light until down to 19.5 psi. Way too low for a fully loaded SUV pulling a boat with 20 psi in all 4 tires.
As If Nitrogen Filling Is Special?
- Thread starter Mr_Joe
- Start date
- Status
The TPMS on my '08 and '10 Hyundais suck. I had a rental '13 Altima that had a good set up. If a tire was low it showed which one. Then as you filled it would flash the headlights three times. When you go to the correct pressure the horn honked. Worked great in the dark when the wind was blowing snow.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The TPMS on my '08 and '10 Hyundais suck. I had a rental '13 Altima that had a good set up. If a tire was low it showed which one. Then as you filled it would flash the headlights three times. When you go to the correct pressure the horn honked.
Is this the one where it then played Edelweiss while the cuckoo called and the couple kissed?
Edelweiss
That may have been on a BMW, now that I think of it.
The TPMS on my '08 and '10 Hyundais suck. I had a rental '13 Altima that had a good set up. If a tire was low it showed which one. Then as you filled it would flash the headlights three times. When you go to the correct pressure the horn honked.
Is this the one where it then played Edelweiss while the cuckoo called and the couple kissed?
Edelweiss
That may have been on a BMW, now that I think of it.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Tyre inflation/emergency repair kits use (or used) butane, which seems pretty irresponsible considering the tyre might be re-inflated with air. Perhaps they've had their [censored] sued in the US by now and they've stopped that, though I havn't heard of it.
One just has to decide whether the benefits are worth it. Up here, with added cost and nuisance, absolutely not, at least for me. As for the repair in a can things, yep, that's been problematic before. I'm not sure how each jurisdiction does it, but there's usually a sticker of some sort to use to let the tire tech know what he's dealing with. Personally, I've never tried the stuff.
Thanks for the information, CapriRacer. I would have thought those pressures to be a little low. I had heard news stories at the time, too, about the issue of underinflation. And I have been a subscriber to C&D for many years, and have read the story that Wilhelm_D mentions.
I've done a lot of driving over the years and have had blowouts. I've never had any issue controlling the vehicle.
The TPMS on the Infiniti is extremely sensitive. It doesn't take much to set it off. In fact, going from a proper cold setting in my 10 C garage (33 psi) would result in the system going off if I was outside for a significant period in -20 C and colder.
Tyre inflation/emergency repair kits use (or used) butane, which seems pretty irresponsible considering the tyre might be re-inflated with air. Perhaps they've had their [censored] sued in the US by now and they've stopped that, though I havn't heard of it.
One just has to decide whether the benefits are worth it. Up here, with added cost and nuisance, absolutely not, at least for me. As for the repair in a can things, yep, that's been problematic before. I'm not sure how each jurisdiction does it, but there's usually a sticker of some sort to use to let the tire tech know what he's dealing with. Personally, I've never tried the stuff.
Thanks for the information, CapriRacer. I would have thought those pressures to be a little low. I had heard news stories at the time, too, about the issue of underinflation. And I have been a subscriber to C&D for many years, and have read the story that Wilhelm_D mentions.
I've done a lot of driving over the years and have had blowouts. I've never had any issue controlling the vehicle.
The TPMS on the Infiniti is extremely sensitive. It doesn't take much to set it off. In fact, going from a proper cold setting in my 10 C garage (33 psi) would result in the system going off if I was outside for a significant period in -20 C and colder.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Those of us who recall the alleged Audi "sudden acceleration" issue with 1982-1987 Audi 5000s or the recent incidents involving Lexus and Toyota sudden unintended acceleration recognize the issues: poor vehicle maintenance, unskilled drivers, and hysterical reactions which led to unnecessary deaths.
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
Those of us who recall the alleged Audi "sudden acceleration" issue with 1982-1987 Audi 5000s or the recent incidents involving Lexus and Toyota sudden unintended acceleration recognize the issues: poor vehicle maintenance, unskilled drivers, and hysterical reactions which led to unnecessary deaths.
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Traction
Now we all have to deal with endless variations of TPMS.
I don't
Just out of morbid curiosity, is it settable, so you can specify your own max and minimum pressures?
I ask because I usually run way over the manufacturers recommendation (think thats 30 psi for this car. I'm running 42) and if it didn't let you do that it'd [censored] me off quite a lot.
Now we all have to deal with endless variations of TPMS.
I don't
Just out of morbid curiosity, is it settable, so you can specify your own max and minimum pressures?
I ask because I usually run way over the manufacturers recommendation (think thats 30 psi for this car. I'm running 42) and if it didn't let you do that it'd [censored] me off quite a lot.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
In the real world systems, parts of systems, components, and people regularly fail.
Drivers who maintain their vehicles, which the majority of those who experienced blowouts on Explorers did not, who operate them within their design parameters, which many of those who were involved in accidents in Explorers did not, who are properly trained in the operation of their vehicles, which essentially all of those who were involved in accidents after blowouts were not, and who remain calm when faced with a driving emergency aren't generally killed when something fails.
The only place in the entire world where absolute liability is placed on the manufacturer for the results of the simple fact that nothing is perfect is the United States, and the tendency for media and attorneys to stir up public sentiment for corporate lynchings masks the simple fact that life is not perfect and all of us die.
The two areas of culpability in all of this seem in hindsight to be Firestone's failure to deal with a plant having quality problems and Ford's insistence in removing the entire safety cushion of tire inflation. Even though that may be true, and even if both corporations intended that vehicles experience blowouts, good drivers would not have died as a result.
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
In the real world systems, parts of systems, components, and people regularly fail.
Drivers who maintain their vehicles, which the majority of those who experienced blowouts on Explorers did not, who operate them within their design parameters, which many of those who were involved in accidents in Explorers did not, who are properly trained in the operation of their vehicles, which essentially all of those who were involved in accidents after blowouts were not, and who remain calm when faced with a driving emergency aren't generally killed when something fails.
The only place in the entire world where absolute liability is placed on the manufacturer for the results of the simple fact that nothing is perfect is the United States, and the tendency for media and attorneys to stir up public sentiment for corporate lynchings masks the simple fact that life is not perfect and all of us die.
The two areas of culpability in all of this seem in hindsight to be Firestone's failure to deal with a plant having quality problems and Ford's insistence in removing the entire safety cushion of tire inflation. Even though that may be true, and even if both corporations intended that vehicles experience blowouts, good drivers would not have died as a result.
Wilhelm,
I hope you won't think I am picking on you, but there is a subtlety in your post I'd like to explore.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
........The two areas of culpability in all of this seem in hindsight to be Firestone's failure to deal with a plant having quality problems..........
First, is the word "quality". One could divide quality into 3 different things:
a) Consistency from individual product to individual product. This is the normal usage of the word and in this case, this is NOT where Firestone had a problem.
b) For lack of a better term - Defects: Things that are there but shouldn't be (say, foreign material), and things that are supposed to there, but aren't (say, missing or components) Also, NOT the problem here.
c) Fitness of design: How well the design performs. This is where the issue is. Please note, that this includes processing, since that is part of the specifications (sort of like heat treatments of metals) - Specifically, the "pocket" design of the tread pattern vs the between belt edge wedge, and the processing of the rubber (different in the Decatur plant).
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
....... and Ford's insistence in removing the entire safety cushion of tire inflation........
Actually Ford CONTINUED the practice of having no cushion (also known as reserve). This was common practice for all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks (Please note, there was some upsizing for appearance that are an exception to this).
I'm not exonerating Ford, but I am pointing out that it wasn't a willful act on their part.
I should point out that the Explorer was a replacement for the Bronco II, which was an even worse design for rollover. It was taller, narrower, and had a sorter wheelbase.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
....... Even though that may be true, and even if both corporations intended that vehicles experience blowouts, good drivers would not have died as a result.
I don't think either company intended tires to blowout (blowout is not a good term for this situation - separation would be better), but I think that Firestone got caught out with a plant that wasn't kept up to date for processing (that's surprisingly common), and got caught out by a design quirk they didn't know had such a large effect.
At the time, improvements in tire durability were being made gradually and each improvement was getting more and more difficult and expensive to do. THAT particular plant and THAT particular design combined to make the situation stand out.
I hope you won't think I am picking on you, but there is a subtlety in your post I'd like to explore.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
........The two areas of culpability in all of this seem in hindsight to be Firestone's failure to deal with a plant having quality problems..........
First, is the word "quality". One could divide quality into 3 different things:
a) Consistency from individual product to individual product. This is the normal usage of the word and in this case, this is NOT where Firestone had a problem.
b) For lack of a better term - Defects: Things that are there but shouldn't be (say, foreign material), and things that are supposed to there, but aren't (say, missing or components) Also, NOT the problem here.
c) Fitness of design: How well the design performs. This is where the issue is. Please note, that this includes processing, since that is part of the specifications (sort of like heat treatments of metals) - Specifically, the "pocket" design of the tread pattern vs the between belt edge wedge, and the processing of the rubber (different in the Decatur plant).
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
....... and Ford's insistence in removing the entire safety cushion of tire inflation........
Actually Ford CONTINUED the practice of having no cushion (also known as reserve). This was common practice for all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks (Please note, there was some upsizing for appearance that are an exception to this).
I'm not exonerating Ford, but I am pointing out that it wasn't a willful act on their part.
I should point out that the Explorer was a replacement for the Bronco II, which was an even worse design for rollover. It was taller, narrower, and had a sorter wheelbase.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
....... Even though that may be true, and even if both corporations intended that vehicles experience blowouts, good drivers would not have died as a result.
I don't think either company intended tires to blowout (blowout is not a good term for this situation - separation would be better), but I think that Firestone got caught out with a plant that wasn't kept up to date for processing (that's surprisingly common), and got caught out by a design quirk they didn't know had such a large effect.
At the time, improvements in tire durability were being made gradually and each improvement was getting more and more difficult and expensive to do. THAT particular plant and THAT particular design combined to make the situation stand out.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CapriRacer
I hope you won't think I am picking on you ....
No more than usual.
Quote:
Actually Ford CONTINUED the practice of having no cushion (also known as reserve). This was common practice for all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks ....
As far as anyone has determined, all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks did not experience the failures that Ford did, not did all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks have engineering recommendations that strongly urged the company to raise the tire pressures. This is probably one of the reasons Ford was successfully sued before it wisely began settling cases while all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks were not.
Quote:
I'm not exonerating Ford, but I am pointing out that it wasn't a willful act on their part.
The appearance of wilfulness when there’s a document trail like that engineering recommendation is pretty compelling, as GM is finding out on their ignition switch recall. You’ve been on the engineering side in a manufacturing environment, so you understand that management makes choices between this and that. You also understand that it is often a choice between recommendations of engineering, marketing, and accounting.
Once management chooses between those conflicting recommendations, it’s a wilful act.
I think it would be fair to say that Ford did not will that people die.
Quote:
I should point out that the Explorer was a replacement for the Bronco II, which was an even worse design for rollover. It was taller, narrower, and had a sorter wheelbase.
It is the nature of the beast, the way the tail is on the cat. These are the inherent risks in all things mechanical, be it vehicle, gun, or appliance, that we assume when we purchase items. I object to the American legal viewpoint that manufacturers be held strictly liable for those sorts of inherent risks.
I hope you won't think I am picking on you ....
No more than usual.
Quote:
Actually Ford CONTINUED the practice of having no cushion (also known as reserve). This was common practice for all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks ....
As far as anyone has determined, all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks did not experience the failures that Ford did, not did all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks have engineering recommendations that strongly urged the company to raise the tire pressures. This is probably one of the reasons Ford was successfully sued before it wisely began settling cases while all manufacturers of SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks were not.
Quote:
I'm not exonerating Ford, but I am pointing out that it wasn't a willful act on their part.
The appearance of wilfulness when there’s a document trail like that engineering recommendation is pretty compelling, as GM is finding out on their ignition switch recall. You’ve been on the engineering side in a manufacturing environment, so you understand that management makes choices between this and that. You also understand that it is often a choice between recommendations of engineering, marketing, and accounting.
Once management chooses between those conflicting recommendations, it’s a wilful act.
I think it would be fair to say that Ford did not will that people die.
Quote:
I should point out that the Explorer was a replacement for the Bronco II, which was an even worse design for rollover. It was taller, narrower, and had a sorter wheelbase.
It is the nature of the beast, the way the tail is on the cat. These are the inherent risks in all things mechanical, be it vehicle, gun, or appliance, that we assume when we purchase items. I object to the American legal viewpoint that manufacturers be held strictly liable for those sorts of inherent risks.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Traction
Now we all have to deal with endless variations of TPMS.
I don't
Just out of morbid curiosity, is it settable, so you can specify your own max and minimum pressures?
I ask because I usually run way over the manufacturers recommendation (think thats 30 psi for this car. I'm running 42) and if it didn't let you do that it'd [censored] me off quite a lot.
On my Hyundai's the TPMS comes on around 25 lbs. Factory recommended pressure is 30-35 lbs. You can run over the factory settings without any problems with the TPMS.
Originally Posted By: Traction
Now we all have to deal with endless variations of TPMS.
I don't
Just out of morbid curiosity, is it settable, so you can specify your own max and minimum pressures?
I ask because I usually run way over the manufacturers recommendation (think thats 30 psi for this car. I'm running 42) and if it didn't let you do that it'd [censored] me off quite a lot.
On my Hyundai's the TPMS comes on around 25 lbs. Factory recommended pressure is 30-35 lbs. You can run over the factory settings without any problems with the TPMS.
A kid will set the local service station tire inflater for 100 psi to fill his skinny bicycle tires and then ride away.
The housewife, who looked at her left front tire and it "seemed" low, proceeds to pump it up without checking the previous setting. (She knows all tires take the same air anyway)
It either blows up in her face (I've watched that happen, I live next door to a service station) or later while driving on the freeway.
Should TPMS indicate 5 lbs over as well as 5 lbs under? Is the manufacturer not also responsible to insure the tires are not over-inflated as well as under-inflated?
Is the manufacturer "liable" for an over-inflation accident/failure?
The housewife, who looked at her left front tire and it "seemed" low, proceeds to pump it up without checking the previous setting. (She knows all tires take the same air anyway)
It either blows up in her face (I've watched that happen, I live next door to a service station) or later while driving on the freeway.
Should TPMS indicate 5 lbs over as well as 5 lbs under? Is the manufacturer not also responsible to insure the tires are not over-inflated as well as under-inflated?
Is the manufacturer "liable" for an over-inflation accident/failure?
Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
A kid will set the local service station tire inflater for 100 psi to fill his skinny bicycle tires and then ride away.
The housewife, who looked at her left front tire and it "seemed" low, proceeds to pump it up without checking the previous setting. (She knows all tires take the same air anyway)
It either blows up in her face (I've watched that happen, I live next door to a service station) or later while driving on the freeway.
Should TPMS indicate 5 lbs over as well as 5 lbs under? Is the manufacturer not also responsible to insure the tires are not over-inflated as well as under-inflated?
Is the manufacturer "liable" for an over-inflation accident/failure?
That goes back to the old argument of rigidly following the OEMs numbers regardless of tire construction or manufacturer.
I've always argued that the OEM numbers re for OEM tires.
A kid will set the local service station tire inflater for 100 psi to fill his skinny bicycle tires and then ride away.
The housewife, who looked at her left front tire and it "seemed" low, proceeds to pump it up without checking the previous setting. (She knows all tires take the same air anyway)
It either blows up in her face (I've watched that happen, I live next door to a service station) or later while driving on the freeway.
Should TPMS indicate 5 lbs over as well as 5 lbs under? Is the manufacturer not also responsible to insure the tires are not over-inflated as well as under-inflated?
Is the manufacturer "liable" for an over-inflation accident/failure?
That goes back to the old argument of rigidly following the OEMs numbers regardless of tire construction or manufacturer.
I've always argued that the OEM numbers re for OEM tires.
Just got my tires mounted at costco and they have the little green stem caps on them lol. HIDEOUS!!
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Just out of morbid curiosity, is it settable, so you can specify your own max and minimum pressures?
Mine isn't, at least not readily. I'm sure there are various hacks for the system, or different sensors that could be bought, but I've never looked that deeply. I do know that mine doesn't concern itself with overinflation. It only goes off with underinflation.
Papa Bear: Shhh! Don't let the lawyers hear you. I have to overinflate in the winter to keep the warnings off when the car goes outside. Don't spoil it!
Just out of morbid curiosity, is it settable, so you can specify your own max and minimum pressures?
Mine isn't, at least not readily. I'm sure there are various hacks for the system, or different sensors that could be bought, but I've never looked that deeply. I do know that mine doesn't concern itself with overinflation. It only goes off with underinflation.
Papa Bear: Shhh! Don't let the lawyers hear you. I have to overinflate in the winter to keep the warnings off when the car goes outside. Don't spoil it!
The only time I have had the low pressure warning was when I let all of the air out of the tire to remove it from the wheel ... in my living room. The car managed to pick it up while parked outside.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: Ducked
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
In the real world systems, parts of systems, components, and people regularly fail.
Drivers who maintain their vehicles, which the majority of those who experienced blowouts on Explorers did not, who operate them within their design parameters, which many of those who were involved in accidents in Explorers did not, who are properly trained in the operation of their vehicles, which essentially all of those who were involved in accidents after blowouts were not, and who remain calm when faced with a driving emergency aren't generally killed when something fails.
Hmm...A pitch for the primacy of pilot error, then.
I've never had a blowout or a sudden tread separation on a vehicle at speed, but I know that with a standard British drivers licence I'm not trained for such an eventuality, so I don't feel my failure to control it should let a manufacturer off the hook, if their actions or negligence significantly increased its probability.
I'm not trained for unintended acceleration either, but I coped OK when my entirely manual throttle cable jammed. That was one of the reasons I found it suspicious that a California Highway Patrol officer apparently failed to cope with a similar situation in his Lexus.
https://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=82442&start=10
Still do.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
In the real world systems, parts of systems, components, and people regularly fail.
Drivers who maintain their vehicles, which the majority of those who experienced blowouts on Explorers did not, who operate them within their design parameters, which many of those who were involved in accidents in Explorers did not, who are properly trained in the operation of their vehicles, which essentially all of those who were involved in accidents after blowouts were not, and who remain calm when faced with a driving emergency aren't generally killed when something fails.
Hmm...A pitch for the primacy of pilot error, then.
I've never had a blowout or a sudden tread separation on a vehicle at speed, but I know that with a standard British drivers licence I'm not trained for such an eventuality, so I don't feel my failure to control it should let a manufacturer off the hook, if their actions or negligence significantly increased its probability.
I'm not trained for unintended acceleration either, but I coped OK when my entirely manual throttle cable jammed. That was one of the reasons I found it suspicious that a California Highway Patrol officer apparently failed to cope with a similar situation in his Lexus.
https://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=82442&start=10
Still do.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: Ducked
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
In the real world systems, parts of systems, components, and people regularly fail.
Drivers who maintain their vehicles, which the majority of those who experienced blowouts on Explorers did not, who operate them within their design parameters, which many of those who were involved in accidents in Explorers did not, who are properly trained in the operation of their vehicles, which essentially all of those who were involved in accidents after blowouts were not, and who remain calm when faced with a driving emergency aren't generally killed when something fails.
Hmm...A pitch for the primacy of pilot error, then.
I've never had a blowout or a sudden tread separation on a vehicle at speed, but I know that with a standard British drivers licence I'm not trained for such an eventuality, so I don't feel my failure to control it should let a manufacturer off the hook, if their actions or negligence significantly increased its probability.
I'm not trained for unintended acceleration either, but I coped OK when my entirely manual throttle cable jammed. That was one of the reasons I found it suspicious that a California Highway Patrol officer apparently failed to cope with a similar situation in his Lexus.
https://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=82442&start=10
Still do.
I have had a blowout at freeway speeds - twice. I've never owned a vehicle with TPMS, so I had to rely on other cues. In both cases the results were less than dramatic. Just sort of a "whump whump" sound, but where the vehicle could still be reasonably controlled by letting off the accelerator and coming to a gentle stop. During the blowout I wasn't accelerating or making a sudden lane change, so I don't know what else might have happened had I reacted differently.
For both cases the tire was gone - shredded in several places but the overall tire still in one complete piece. Both were speed-rated tires - a Dunlop SP Sport D60A2 summer tire, and a Continental ExtremeContact DWS all-season. I believe both had a full nylon caps, so that may have been a factor in the tire remaining in one piece, even though it was clearly not capable of being repaired.
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: Ducked
A strangely selective summing up, giving the impression that there are/were no real problems with the systems involved, which my recollection/interpretation, and even your own account of the Explorer episode, suggests is not the case.
In the real world systems, parts of systems, components, and people regularly fail.
Drivers who maintain their vehicles, which the majority of those who experienced blowouts on Explorers did not, who operate them within their design parameters, which many of those who were involved in accidents in Explorers did not, who are properly trained in the operation of their vehicles, which essentially all of those who were involved in accidents after blowouts were not, and who remain calm when faced with a driving emergency aren't generally killed when something fails.
Hmm...A pitch for the primacy of pilot error, then.
I've never had a blowout or a sudden tread separation on a vehicle at speed, but I know that with a standard British drivers licence I'm not trained for such an eventuality, so I don't feel my failure to control it should let a manufacturer off the hook, if their actions or negligence significantly increased its probability.
I'm not trained for unintended acceleration either, but I coped OK when my entirely manual throttle cable jammed. That was one of the reasons I found it suspicious that a California Highway Patrol officer apparently failed to cope with a similar situation in his Lexus.
https://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=82442&start=10
Still do.
I have had a blowout at freeway speeds - twice. I've never owned a vehicle with TPMS, so I had to rely on other cues. In both cases the results were less than dramatic. Just sort of a "whump whump" sound, but where the vehicle could still be reasonably controlled by letting off the accelerator and coming to a gentle stop. During the blowout I wasn't accelerating or making a sudden lane change, so I don't know what else might have happened had I reacted differently.
For both cases the tire was gone - shredded in several places but the overall tire still in one complete piece. Both were speed-rated tires - a Dunlop SP Sport D60A2 summer tire, and a Continental ExtremeContact DWS all-season. I believe both had a full nylon caps, so that may have been a factor in the tire remaining in one piece, even though it was clearly not capable of being repaired.
Nitrogen doesn't get a pass from the "Ideal Gas Law." That means it expands at exactly the same rate as any other gas. There are two possible advantages to using nitrogen: 1. With no oxygen or water vapor there will be little opportunity for corrosion. 2. If there is water vapor, that could condense on a cool day and reduce the pressure in the tire. If there is liquid water in the tire when it heats up it could over-pressurize the tire.
Originally Posted By: redbone3
If there is liquid water in the tire when it heats up it could over-pressurize the tire.
Which is never a problem in agricultural tires with aqueous calcium chloride as ballast....
If there is liquid water in the tire when it heats up it could over-pressurize the tire.
Which is never a problem in agricultural tires with aqueous calcium chloride as ballast....
Originally Posted By: troberts
That was my conclusion after evaluating the cost of equipment to produce it in a shop and the pricing for customers. Yes, pure (hard to produce)nitrogen creeps through tire bladders at a slower rate than plain old air, it is dry and potentially reduces corrosion inside alloy wheels, and doesn't expand and contract as much with temperature changes. Thus, its use on airliners and race cars. Bleh... Dealers didn't like my conclusion since they're constantly trying to get the last dollar out of a car deal or maximize the intake from each service visit. I'm glad to be out of that war.....
Which is exactly why I pay for it for all of my vehicles. Some people might not think it's worth it and that that's fine. There is no question, however, that it has all of the advantages you mentioned. That, combined with lifetime (of ownership of the vehicles) refills for new tires, flat repairs and top offs makes it well worth it for me.
That was my conclusion after evaluating the cost of equipment to produce it in a shop and the pricing for customers. Yes, pure (hard to produce)nitrogen creeps through tire bladders at a slower rate than plain old air, it is dry and potentially reduces corrosion inside alloy wheels, and doesn't expand and contract as much with temperature changes. Thus, its use on airliners and race cars. Bleh... Dealers didn't like my conclusion since they're constantly trying to get the last dollar out of a car deal or maximize the intake from each service visit. I'm glad to be out of that war.....
Which is exactly why I pay for it for all of my vehicles. Some people might not think it's worth it and that that's fine. There is no question, however, that it has all of the advantages you mentioned. That, combined with lifetime (of ownership of the vehicles) refills for new tires, flat repairs and top offs makes it well worth it for me.
- Status
