Disappointed with Accord after one Salt Exposure

[dlayman]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi
What's disappointing is that salt is still used on the roads...there are other non-corrosive chemicals they can use...quit destroying our vehicles!


Can they be used for the same price (or even close to the same price?) What are their external effects?

To be blunt, salt continues to be used because of the public's demand for bare roads in a short period of time. To do that, salt is the most cost effective means of doing so. If there were other products that met the public demand for bare pavement at the same cost, we'd have switched to it long ago. And you should patent whatever magic elixir you know about, because you would be a very wealthy man.

And I say that as part of a team that makes those decisions at my place of employment. We are charged with reducing the amount of salt we use for a variety of reasons (which we do by using pre-treatment on our onboard dispensers with vraious types of additives. Currently using a beet juice type product applied to the salt)

The reality is until the public changes its expectations for level of service in snow and ice removal, salt will continue to be used.


Urea can be used instead of salt and it's non-toxic. No idea about the cost, but even if it costs more, wouldn't it be worth the extra cost not to ruin everyone's vehicles?


You can BET there would be a huge outcry over the tax increase necessary to use a more expensive chemical, such as urea.

 

[MNgopher]

Originally Posted By: grampi


Urea can be used instead of salt and it's non-toxic. No idea about the cost, but even if it costs more, wouldn't it be worth the extra cost not to ruin everyone's vehicles?


Urea contains a boatload of nitrogen (which is why it is a main ingredient of fertilizer). Too much nitrogen and you burn the vegetation adjacent to the roadway (not that salt doesn't, but...). In addition, the nutrient loading from it adds to algal blooms in lakes and waterbodies, and is one of the main causes of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It can create ammonia when reacting with water, which isn't good for things in the water. When it goes in the groundwater, it can add to the nitrogen in the groundwater and cause issues for drinking water (which is becoming a huge issue for areas in the corn belt - caused by application of nitrogen containing fertilizers). On top of that, it doesn't work much past 20 degrees F, and has less than 1/2 the melting capacity of of salt. (True plain salt loses effectiveness as it gets colder, but is easily extended through pretreatments and other extenders to work at colder temps, just not as well). On top of that, it costs substantially more...

I'll grant that it is relatively non-toxic to humans and pets, and is easy on concrete and doesn't cause much corrosion...

Now, ask again why it isn't used everywhere instead of salt...

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
A guy at work has the start of rust on his 1 year old $70k Ford F350 diesel.

This is why I will never pay the premium price for a new vehicle while living in New England. The salt is ridiculous. People should learn to drive and buy snow tires. My friend's dad is a retired state DOT worker. He said they had to wear hazmat suits when loading the trucks with this stuff, and that the brake lines would rust out on plow trucks.


Yep, up in VT trucks like that are essentially totaled in 5 winters if they are used like plow trucks. I have seen 2011 F450's where the frame looked like it had been living on the bottom of LIS since new. The truck looked pretty but was essentially a plow pig, its not worth fixing.

Those guys must make a lot of money to be able to eat about $15k a year on a new F450 fully rigged.

Heck our city has dump trucks they never clean out that go for around $120k new and are more or less shot.

If I lived up north I'd lease a truck, I wouldn't buy it.


Oil it. My first F350 had plowed since it was new...it had also been undercoated when new. Result: after 10+ years, the frame was perfect.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: SatinSilver
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
I owned several Acuras and Hondas in Pennsylvania and never had a rust issue. I had a frozen brake caliper once from keeping an RL parked outside but never any rust.


From previous posts I believe the Accord in question sits outside all the time as well. As long as body panels aren't rusting away the OP is fine. I had a 10 yr old Accord that I kept clean and was rust free when I sold it. The car lived it's entire life in the rust belt.


You were lucky: my sister had two Civics and an Accord. The Accord blew up before it completely dissolved (though it was getting rusty), both Civics rotted to powder.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi
What's disappointing is that salt is still used on the roads...there are other non-corrosive chemicals they can use...quit destroying our vehicles!


Can they be used for the same price (or even close to the same price?) What are their external effects?

To be blunt, salt continues to be used because of the public's demand for bare roads in a short period of time. To do that, salt is the most cost effective means of doing so. If there were other products that met the public demand for bare pavement at the same cost, we'd have switched to it long ago. And you should patent whatever magic elixir you know about, because you would be a very wealthy man.

And I say that as part of a team that makes those decisions at my place of employment. We are charged with reducing the amount of salt we use for a variety of reasons (which we do by using pre-treatment on our onboard dispensers with vraious types of additives. Currently using a beet juice type product applied to the salt)

The reality is until the public changes its expectations for level of service in snow and ice removal, salt will continue to be used.


Urea can be used instead of salt and it's non-toxic. No idea about the cost, but even if it costs more, wouldn't it be worth the extra cost not to ruin everyone's vehicles?


I believe urea is corrosive.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi


Urea can be used instead of salt and it's non-toxic. No idea about the cost, but even if it costs more, wouldn't it be worth the extra cost not to ruin everyone's vehicles?


Urea contains a boatload of nitrogen (which is why it is a main ingredient of fertilizer). Too much nitrogen and you burn the vegetation adjacent to the roadway (not that salt doesn't, but...). In addition, the nutrient loading from it adds to algal blooms in lakes and waterbodies, and is one of the main causes of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It can create ammonia when reacting with water, which isn't good for things in the water. When it goes in the groundwater, it can add to the nitrogen in the groundwater and cause issues for drinking water (which is becoming a huge issue for areas in the corn belt - caused by application of nitrogen containing fertilizers). On top of that, it doesn't work much past 20 degrees F, and has less than 1/2 the melting capacity of of salt. (True plain salt loses effectiveness as it gets colder, but is easily extended through pretreatments and other extenders to work at colder temps, just not as well). On top of that, it costs substantially more...

I'll grant that it is relatively non-toxic to humans and pets, and is easy on concrete and doesn't cause much corrosion...

Now, ask again why it isn't used everywhere instead of salt...


For that matter, they could just put sand down...it doesn't melt the snow and ice, but you can safely drive on it...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi
What's disappointing is that salt is still used on the roads...there are other non-corrosive chemicals they can use...quit destroying our vehicles!


Can they be used for the same price (or even close to the same price?) What are their external effects?

To be blunt, salt continues to be used because of the public's demand for bare roads in a short period of time. To do that, salt is the most cost effective means of doing so. If there were other products that met the public demand for bare pavement at the same cost, we'd have switched to it long ago. And you should patent whatever magic elixir you know about, because you would be a very wealthy man.

And I say that as part of a team that makes those decisions at my place of employment. We are charged with reducing the amount of salt we use for a variety of reasons (which we do by using pre-treatment on our onboard dispensers with vraious types of additives. Currently using a beet juice type product applied to the salt)

The reality is until the public changes its expectations for level of service in snow and ice removal, salt will continue to be used.


Urea can be used instead of salt and it's non-toxic. No idea about the cost, but even if it costs more, wouldn't it be worth the extra cost not to ruin everyone's vehicles?


I believe urea is corrosive.


Everything I've read about it says it's non-corrosive...

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: grampi

For that matter, they could just put sand down...it doesn't melt the snow and ice, but you can safely drive on it...


You can however once the water melts over it turns back into ice again.....NH depends on folks buying alcohol (state owned), tourism(steeper taxes meals/lodging) and cigarettes that are slightly cheaper then neighbor states to keep its government well funded. Tourism the requirement is you can drive with FWD and near bald all-seasons and make it to ski hills or whatever winter activity that generates state revenue. You will see this if you happen to meander off a ski access road and find the salt/sanding seriously less. That is why you can survive in majority of NH winter tire free....Especially if wait an hour or so for plow/sander/salter to pass by.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: grampi

For that matter, they could just put sand down...it doesn't melt the snow and ice, but you can safely drive on it...


You can however once the water melts over it turns back into ice again.....


So what, when salt melts the ice, it is rinsed off the road and you have ice again, which has to be salted again...why not just continue to put down sand? It's harmless to vehicles and the environment, and is by the far the most cost effective...

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: grampi


Urea can be used instead of salt and it's non-toxic. No idea about the cost, but even if it costs more, wouldn't it be worth the extra cost not to ruin everyone's vehicles?


Urea contains a boatload of nitrogen (which is why it is a main ingredient of fertilizer). Too much nitrogen and you burn the vegetation adjacent to the roadway (not that salt doesn't, but...). In addition, the nutrient loading from it adds to algal blooms in lakes and waterbodies, and is one of the main causes of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It can create ammonia when reacting with water, which isn't good for things in the water. When it goes in the groundwater, it can add to the nitrogen in the groundwater and cause issues for drinking water (which is becoming a huge issue for areas in the corn belt - caused by application of nitrogen containing fertilizers). On top of that, it doesn't work much past 20 degrees F, and has less than 1/2 the melting capacity of of salt. (True plain salt loses effectiveness as it gets colder, but is easily extended through pretreatments and other extenders to work at colder temps, just not as well). On top of that, it costs substantially more...

I'll grant that it is relatively non-toxic to humans and pets, and is easy on concrete and doesn't cause much corrosion...

Now, ask again why it isn't used everywhere instead of salt...


For that matter, they could just put sand down...it doesn't melt the snow and ice, but you can safely drive on it...


We use sand here on the county roads and in subdivisions here in the southern central part of VA. The snow melts here on its own anyways in a couple days.

 

[TFB1]

So I guess my worrying about the rust on my '96 F-150 is all for naught???

 

[MNgopher]

Sand does not melt snow and ice. It does clog up storm sewers, deposits in downstream waterbodies, and accumulates in a big mess on the shoulder and eventually fills road ditches. It also results in more chips and dings in paint (I know, its not corrosive , right?) and windshields. On top of that, it can cause a considerable amount of dust if left on the road after the snow and ice is gone. (This is the reason that in many places street sweepers were out as soon as possible after the need for the sand was gone - Denver is a good example of where this was very common). It also can cause an adverse impact on traction after the snow and ice is gone. (Like driving on Marbles)

We do use sand in our arsenal. We use it in very cold conditions where any economical deicer will not work (generally when temps are (or will be shortly) well below zero. We also use it in freezing rain. In both cases, it is only a traction aid, and not a deicer in any sense.

It is definitely not a use it and forget it type of material. More of a use it, then start cleaning it up as soon as possible, then spend another few weeks cleaning it all up when the season is over. Cheap to put down, not so much on the backside.

However, if people drove cars properly equipped for conditions where the road was not down to a bare surface as quickly (like snow tires), limited use of sand would be much more practical.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I think this highlights that there just isn't an easy answer. As with most complex things in life, actually. Everything has trade-offs, and different materials just shift the risk from one place to the next. Such as urea with downstream water bodies and sand in storm sewers. We can make a proclamation that corrosion on our vehicles and bridges has to take priority. Others would disagree.

The best solutions are often in attempt to be at harmony with a variety of competing stakeholders. We can never make everybody happy at once, but open minds of good will can usually acknowledge and accept the thought process and considerations behind each product choice.

MNgopher, it sounds like you guys go out of your way to choose the best material for the situation. Hats off to you, and to all DOT crews out there, as they make the tough choices that affect us all.

 

[MNgopher]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I believe urea is corrosive.


It can be under some conditions. To the usual suspects like mild steel or steel reinforcing bar, no, particularly compared to traditional deicers like Salt (NaCl, MgCl, or CaCl).

It does not chemically attack concrete. It can however result in physical damage to concrete (as can all deicers) due to increased freeze/thaw cycling.

 

[MNgopher]

Hokiefyd has it exactly right. There is no silver bullet or magic elixir that is the magic solution to all our problems. Tradeoffs in every direction.

Personally (and this is the opinion of many of us in this line of work) is that we need to reset our expectation for level of service. The public has gotten accustomed to having bare pavement as quickly as possible after a snow/ice event. That allows them to get away without equipping their vehicle better for the weather conditions. Me, I own two 4x4 vehicles both equipped with snow tires in the winter.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Hokiefyd has it exactly right. There is no silver bullet or magic elixir that is the magic solution to all our problems. Tradeoffs in every direction.

Personally (and this is the opinion of many of us in this line of work) is that we need to reset our expectation for level of service. The public has gotten accustomed to having bare pavement as quickly as possible after a snow/ice event. That allows them to get away without equipping their vehicle better for the weather conditions. Me, I own two 4x4 vehicles both equipped with snow tires in the winter.


This I think is the very root cause. Personally I don't mind salt on the roads, provided that sane amounts are used. But for whatever reason, the expectation is to not have any snow on the roads whatsoever. This unrealistic expectation leads to insane amounts of salt used.

 

[IndyIan]

I guess the solution is to make cars less disposable and more corrosion proof.
But no manufacturer has stepped up and advertised a 20yr rustbelt car and not too many people are asking for one...

My thinking is that if I oil spray once a year I could make a car body last a good long time if I wanted too, but so far I haven't bothered as a 12 year old functional car is worth about 12 years of oil spraying.
In the future if I get a car I want to keep longer, I will spray it yearly and keep it in better shape.

 

[MNgopher]

Interestingly, our hands may be forced on the level of service issue.

Many waterbodies in this area are now reaching levels of salinity that are detrimental to aquatic life. The only way to fix the issue is to use less salt. Period. More and more waterbodies will end up on the EPA impaired waters listing for this issue as time goes on - unless we change our expectations.

 

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted By: Doog

If you don't want a car to rust move down South...

That, and keep it away from salt water near the coast.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Apply a small amount of anti-seize to each wheel stud and then use a rag or paper towel to burnish the antiseize into the threads. Wipe again with a paper towel. I do this when I first get a new vehicle and never have the problem you are seeing. I use the Eastwood aerosol corrosion inhibitor to cover all the places where rust shows up. Great product and it stays in place for years.