How do I decide if these five tires are holed too close to the sidewall?
Yesterday, for practice in dismounting, patching, and remounting, I patched
these 5 tires above, which a friend and I had lying around.
For the purpose of this thread, we can ignore the tread wear since the
question is being asked about how to decide when a nail hole is too close
to the sidewall.
I guess the first question is *WHY* we can't patch next to the sidewall.
Is it that the patch won't hold? Why?
Is it that the patch will flex too much?
Or is it that the belts are damaged and they will break?
Thank you for the information as some were on the last tread groove (see
below how we patched it with a home-made plug patch.
Thank you for that advice because I wasn't sure at all how close you can
get to the sidewall for it to fail the patch test.
We patched this alloy-wheel 55-series tire where a flat-on-both-sides tiny
bolt (with no sharp edges whatsoever) had wedged itself into the last
groove, and eventually punctured the tire.
Here you see the tiny (now headless) bolt next to the puncture hole:
To properly patch that hole, we reamed the hole with this hand tool:
Using that hand tool, we probed the hole slant (it went in straight):
Then we grabbed this second hand tool & slobbered glue on the plug:
This is the plug sticking up on the outside of the 55-series tire:
To cut off the protruding plug, we failed trying the diagonal cutter:
We also failed with the flush dikes because the plug was too rubbery:
We ended up slicing it off with a utility knife but we learned how to slice
the plug off more neatly when we cut off the plug protruding on the inside:
The dremel tool metal blade cut off the plug flush with the inside wall:
Then we buffed with a wire wheel, where we learned that it would be much
nicer to have a "ball" shaped wire wheel because of the angles involved in
buffing away the outside rubber to expose the virgin rubber to the
Here is the buffed result before applying the patch over the plug:
After applying vulcanizing glue, we stitched down the patch:
Where this is what the final patch looked like:
Any advice you can provide will be helpful as the whole point was to learn
by doing, where already I'd do it differently the next time (e.g., I'd use
the dremel tool on both the inside and outside and I would get a roundish
wire brush that fit the inside of a tire better.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:38:23 -0500, Wade Garrett advised:
That's a good question which I don't know how to answer.
Thinking about it, I guess it's just that I hate to not be able to do
something that I *should* be able to do at home.
We should all be able to:
a. Mount and dismount a tire at home
b. Patch a tire at home
c. Balance a wheel at home
I patched all five tires, and learned a bunch about what tools would be
better (e.g., a roundish wire brush would be a dream come true to have).
Here I found that breaking the bottom bead on an alloy wheel 55-series tire
was tremendously easier than it was on the 75-series SUV steel-wheel tires
(but you notice how I positioned the purpose-built HF bead-breaking tool
with a board on one end and the HF tire changer on the other end):
Then I learned to mark the position of the valve since we'd normally be
re-using these tires and we would want the balance to be the same as it was
before (at least as a starting point):
Breaking the top bead was so easy that it doesn't need explanation:
Likewise, levering off the top bead from the alloy wheel was easy peasy:
Levering off the bottom bead from the alloy wheel was also very easy:
Then, it was time to plug and patch the hole, which, in this case, was made
by a bolt that was NOT sharp!
The bolt may have wedged into the groove and slowly punctured the tire:
Any advice you can provide (that is intended to be helpful) is welcome
because I always want to learn (but advice saying have it done at a shop is
not going to be helpful).
If I were the only driver on the planet, and never drove closer than 500 me
ters from another living creature, this discussion might be relevant at the
level of detail incurred so far.
But, I drive on crowded roads with other drivers who have lives of their ow
n. And the occasional school bus with a few dozen children on board.
And the occasional fluids-tanker or propane tanker with flammable and explo
sive materials on board.
So, here we are on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Speed Limit: 70). And my left
-front tire shatters on a curve. I start spinning into the other lane and w
affle a school bus into a gasoline tanker. *POOF*.
Turns out that the tire-removal, patching, balancing and re-installation we
re all mine, using Harbor Freight tools based on advice received in this ve
What is my ethical position? Pretty wretched in any case, and probably crim
It is very clear, at least to me, that this idiot in search of a village ha
s the ethics of a politician, the morals of an evangelical preacher and the
wisdom of a common housefly. And all this blather is about avoiding 'bad n
ews' and having to take responsibility for his actions. Why would I go to a
mechanic to align my vehicle, patch a tire or do any number of other fairl
y simple tasks? Because that mechanic is trained to see things that I do no
t. That mechanic (and ours are very, very good) will tell me what I need to
know whether I like it or not. And my mechanic DOES use the right tool for
the job, does not accept "good enough" and more.
Do not engage with this creature. It will ask and ask and ask the same ques
tion in many different ways and in many different venues until it gets the
answer it wants. And then it will take action based on that answer and take
those results out on the road with other innocents, hang the consequences.
I hope, when Horatio/Norman/John/frank is finally awarded his richly deser
ved, far-to-long delayed Darwin Award, it is a solo action and does not inv
olve group participation.
Melrose Park, PA
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:47:29 -0800 (PST), email@example.com advised:
The reason men here can *fix* things, is the same reason that men can build
airplanes and rockets and fly around the earth and to the moon.
The simple reason is that men who can "do stuff" pay attention to *detail*.
Specifically, without paying attention to detail, nobody can build or fix
Specifically, detail is required to *understand* how things work, where
those who can't handle such detail are doomed in many endeavors in life.
Worse, men (like you appear to be) who can't handle detail, are doomed to
make completely incorrect conclusions, since all you see is the top layer
of everything which is complex.
Since you only see the top layer, you see nothing of the detail underneath,
dooming you to ascribe causes to things which are just not the case.
In fact, you're forever doomed to make incorrect conclusions, simply
because you (apparently) lack the ability to handle detail (which is
required for comprehensive thought processes).
Um. OK. So do we all.
While you don't seem to be able to handle detail, you do seem to handle
fear very well.
The only reason you added that otherwise meaningless statement above was to
increase the fear, since *emotion* is what you feel given you are
apparently unable to comprehend detail.
What you're doing with that statement above is what all politicians do when
they want the masses to be mislead. You are working on pure emotion, hoping
your audience is, like you, unable to comprehend your lack of detail.
There should be an analysis upcoming of what caused the tire to "shatter".
In that analysis, I would expect detail from most men, but not from you.
From you, all I expect is upcoming emotion.
Your complete and utter lack of detail makes your entire argument moot.
What exactly caused your left-front tire to "shatter"?
You don't have a clue.
Therefore, all you have is emotion.
Again, you'd make a great politician because you lack detail and yet, you
ply emotion instead.
What I find amazing is that I have been responding to you, in line, where I
have ascribed the ethics and tactics of a politician to YOU.
I provide far too much detail and truth to be a politician.
That you use the word "blather" when detail was provided shows *exactly*
how your mind works.
Engineering detail is "blather" to you.
Hence, your only input is purely emotional.
Thank you for stating for yourself, exactly what I have surmised from your
very words, which is that you are incapable of handling detail.
You should recognize this inability to handle detail for what it is, which
is a disability I don't have. I have *plenty* of other disabilities mind
you (e.g., I go far too deeply into detail for my own good), so it is
cathartic for you to recognize that most of your technical conclusions will
be wrong, since you are operating on sheer emotion.
As long as you know your limitations, you won't be a danger to society.
I know mine - which is that I spend far too much time and energy on things
that are merely interesting in their myriad details.
This newsgroup seems to have *plenty* of political posts (for some odd
reason), so you should be happy here, as am I as there are few, but
existent engineering style posts also.
You are incapable of making that assessment because you lack the details
that I have which is critical in assessing whether a mechanic actually
performs the job correctly.
All you're operating on is intuitive emotion.
I'm pretty sure you're a Myers-Briggs highly intuitive person.
That's fine - but you're also a highly Judgmental person, which, put
together, makes all your *decisions* dangerous (but that's a topic for
Again, you operate on pure intuitive emotion, sans any valid facts.
That means your opinions are based on absolutely nothing concrete.
At best, you'll be 50% correct, although you'll be convinced that you are
100% correct since you are the one assessing yourself.
You do realize that you're operating, like a girl, on pure emotion, right?
This is a thread about how to properly repair a tire.
This newsgroup is apropos for such a discussion.
Your discussion is really apropos for a newsgroup titled more akin to
men.who.wear.ladies.pink.panties or some such rot. :)
Exactly. Detail scares you.
You really may be one who is better off in the psychology groups since you
seem to be *afraid* of detail, such that anyone who delves into detail
scares you so much that you actually fall to the depths of depravity to
stoop so low as to warn others that people may ask for detail on the
automobile and home and science repair newsgroups.
Your use of "it" shows your depravity indeed.
Therefore I discount you out of hand, for utter lack of detail.
You're the same kind of Myers-Briggs person who is highly intuitive and
highly judgemental, who actually thinks cell phones cause accidents
(without a shred of detailed reliable proof backing up your claims).
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 1:47:43 PM UTC-5, Frank Baron wrote:
Cell phones do not cause accidents. Fully agreed.
Guns do not kill people. Absolutely.
Idiot operators of both are the problem. Not the objects themselves.
Real Men are 100% responsible for their actions, and do not create risks for others on a whim or out of stubborn self-righteousness.
Real Men understand that there are things that require a level of care and expertise that a tool from Harbor Freight and advice from the internet (on an electronics group, no less) do not convey.
And as to distracted driving, you are flat out wrong.
I post over my real name and location. You do not. What are you (presumably a Real Man) afraid of?
Melrose Park, PA
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-5, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I don't think the issue ever was that cell phones cause accidents.
The issue was that people *using* handheld cell phones while driving have
accidents at a rate far higher than other drivers because they
are distracted. And I think that is a valid issue. I believe there
are other studies that even using a hands-free cell phone leads to
significantly higher accident rates.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:37:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:
I understand you completely.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
I think I'm telling you something you don't already seem to know though.
Everyone, including me, would *intuitively* say the same thing.
I can't disagree with the intuition.
I have intuition myself.
The difference between me and you is that I don't *trust* my intuition as
much as you seem to trust your intuition (and certainly, neither of us
trusts our intuition as much as pfjw trusts his intuition).
So what do I do that is different from you?
I check my facts.
I simply intuit (like you do); but I double check the facts.
Most people don't.
They can't handle the detail involved.
My intuition says that a cat stuck in a tree won't come down without the
fire department or some other rescue effort. But it's just not true when
you look at the facts.
My intuition says that a mountain lion in the woods would attack a human it
sees, but the facts show extremely few attacks. So intuition is trumped by
facts (for the most part, since some attacks do occur but not as many as
you would intuit).
My intuition says that the sun revolves around the earth, and if someone
didn't tell me otherwise, I'd still believe my intuition. But facts always
My intuition says that appeasement in politics should work, but facts show
that appeasement doesn't seem to work on most dictators; it just encourages
Intuition that is not supported by facts is just pure speculation.
For example, pfjw, who clearly is a highly-intuitive highly-judgmental
person (in Myers-Brigg's terms), feels, intuitively, that my repairs are
Does he supply a single fact to support his safety claims?
Can anything he says be believed?
Does *he* firmly believe everything he says?
Almost certainly he does.
Highly intuitive highly judgmental people are dangerous that way, if they
ever have power. They make decisions that they think are correct but which
are not supported by any facts.
I can show you an arbitrary non-real-world study that proves almost
anything that I want to prove, simply by limiting the variables in the
study, so, as you already know, we'd have to look at each study you claim
to prove your point to see what its limitations are.
If I set my mind to it, I can probably prove, for example, that cancer is
caused by almost anything I want to prove is carcinogenic.
However, the double check of the study is the real world.
In the real world, nobody on this planet has ever been able to prove any
correlation in the accident statistics overall that can be atributd to
cellphone use while driving.
In fact, since the accident rate is steadily decreasing in all states, with
or without enforcement of cellphone laws, the opposite may actually be true
(but I won't go that far).
In summary, you and I (and everyone else) would *intuitively* feel that
cellphones are an added distraction which should cause added accidents; but
the facts show otherwise.
Why is that?
Most morons posit a mysterious counteracting force, which is possible, but
they never provide any proof of this mysterious force, so, it's not
What's most likely, IMHO, is the simple model that says distractions while
driving abound. There are literally thousands of distractions in any daily
drive. Thousands upon thousands.
So, my hypothesis, which fits the model that accidents are just not
occurring due to cellphone use, is that adding one more distraction to an
already long list of distractions only adversely affects the bottom
percentiles of drivers - who - the fact seem to show - would have
distracted driving accidents no matter what.
While that model isn't proven by me, it fits the facts.
Your model doesn't fit the facts.
How do you reconcile that your model does not fit the facts?
(Hint: That will take intelligence & attention to detail, but not pure
intuitive judgemental emotion.)
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:01:06 -0800 (PST), email@example.com advised:
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but the fact is that no state in
the USA has seen any indication of accidents rising during the time that
cellphone ownership rose exponentially. The only thing that rose was
revenue from the tickets.
Guns are *designed* to kill people, which is why the framers of the
Constitution allowed everyone to have one, because they knew that tyranny
of government was a huge threat, hence it was the single-sentence second
amendment, which was unanimously accepted sans any argument from the
The second amendment is about government; it's not about dead babies.
Without the second amendment, there is (eventually) no government.
(At least not a democracy.)
Guns *do* kill people. The framers of the Constitution wanted people to
have that power to protect against tyrannical government.
1. Some people will have accidents no matter what. Others won't.
With or without cellphones. It makes no statistical difference.
2. Some people will kill other people. Others won't.
With or without guns. It makes no statistical difference.
These are simple facts.
You are operating on pure girlish emotions.
You apparently are unable to handle facts.
My patches are in accordance with REMA recommendations.
This is a quote about REMA guidelines:
"Since RMA guidelines reflect a unanimous consensus among the tire
companies, they are virtually indisputable from a legal perspective."
Since you seem to act like a little girl, seething with emotions sans a
single fact to back up your statements, tell me, what fact do you supply
that supports your premise that my repairs are unsafe?
You act like a little girl.
You supply absolutely zero facts.
You supply only unwarranted emotions.
You are driven by fear.
That's fine that you're driven by fear; but you don't belong here.
It's not a manyly attribute to be so driven by fear that you can't think
back up a *single* one of your statements with fact. Not a single one!
All you have is fear.
There you go again with your highly intuitive highly judgmental statements.
You aren't bothered by facts.
That's good in a way, because you are so weak minded that anyone can sway
you with any emotional argument, sans a single fact to back it up.
It's clear to all who can understand cold hard facts that accident rates in
the USA have not blipped a single bit during the entire time that cellphone
use sky rocketed. That's a fact.
I happen to know something about privacy that you don't.
I can't do that and have no desire to do so. In the past 20 years I can
think of three tires needing repair. My car came with roadside service
so I called the number and a guy comes and changes the tire for me. In
two cases, the tire was not repairable in the third, i drove it to a shop.
Economics is also a factor. The cost of the seup is much more than I
spent in tire repairs and that even included what I pay when buying new
If cars are your hobby, it may be OK. For the average driver, it is
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:27:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski advised:
I completely understand your sentiment.
I had the same sentiment earlier in my life.
Over time, it frustrated me to watch others perform tire changes
Those repeatedly incorrect tire changes were what prompted me to do it
Plus I like learning.
Wow. I seem to have at least one a year, and sometimes more (lately).
I canvassed the neighborhood, and we found one sedan with two punctures on
the same side of the vehicle (she's buying new tires as we speak so we may
repair hers for practice when they're dismounted at the shop and brought
If flats were as uncommon as you seem to feel they may be, then why hasn't
the spare tire gone the way of the dashboard oil pressure gage?
My wife has AAA. It makes her feel safe.
Truth is, if she has a problem, she calls me.
If I need the car towed home, where I have better tools, I call AAA.
So, we're in agreement. AAA is wonderful for towing.
I'm sure they're great for running out of gas.
And, perhaps for opening locked car doors (if possible nowadays).
I don't know any guy who would call someone else for something as simple as
changing a tire though. It almost takes longer to make the call to AAA than
it does to change the tire yourself. Even if it didn't, you'll be waiting
for the truck to arrive far longer than it takes to change the tire.
How long does it take you to change a tire anyway?
Yup. All the tires I fixed were not repairable due to the lack of tread.
Had the owners driven on the tires, the belts would be showing on the
inside, and hence they would not have been repairable.
Had the holes been at the edge of the steel belts, again, they would not
have been repairable.
Had the holes been larger than a quarter inch, they would not have been
However, except for treadwear, the tires I worked on were repairable, which
was the main question after all.
We already showed that out here, the cheapest shop is about $20 to $25 per
tire, so, that's $80 to $100 for a mount and balance. I'm sure a tire
repair is along the same lines of cost.
I've raised my tool estimate from $200 to $250 because I'm adding the cost
of the carbide reamer, the cone buffer, and an assortment of weights, in
addition to the separate stand-alone bead breaker.
So, using round easy numbers, at $25 per tire, it will take 10 tires to
recoup the investment, which we can double to 20 tires for a safe margin on
At an average of 4 tires every two years plus one flat every two years, for
a two-car family, that's a replacement or repair of 5 tires a year (which
is pretty much fitting my use model).
So it will take two to four years to recoup the investment in tools.
I have lots of tools that recouped their cost in the first use, and others
which took five or more years, so, that's just about in the range of
expected return on investment.
Is the average homeowner on alt.home.repair, or the average car driver on
I would hope all of you are a cut above average.
I know I am.
I drive about 22,000 miles a year and the worst case is to add some air
a couple of times. Present car has 25,000 miles and for the first time
I had to put air in one when the TPM went of when it was 7 degrees one
Ah, it pretty much has. Many cars have a can of air now.
It was dark, about 35 degrees and raining. Took the guy about a half
hout to show up and do the change. Meantime I shopped in Home Depot.
The first time was a dozen years ago. I ran over a body bolt and it
made a big hole in the sidewall. Car was about two months old. I took
the other car to work. Dealer came over, took the tire off and mounted
a new one, put it back. No idea how long it took them but I lost no
time. Had to pay for the tire, of course.
When I was a teenager driving a '53 Merc with either used tire or
recaps, I changed many tires. Found a better way.
In 44 years I've had 5 tires go flat "on the road" 3 of those on one
trip due to faulty valve stems (on the PT Cruiser on PEI), 1 due to a
cinder in the black hills of the Dakotas at -40 on the '69 dart, and
one on a sunday afternoon on the '63 Valiant (with no bumpers so I had
to jack it by the trunk lid.) I've had a few go flat on the driveway
that could be aired up and driven to the shop.
I've never had one damaged to the point it was not repairable due to
running flat. Both of the ones that failed flat on the road were down
low enough on tread that I ended up replacing the full set shortly
I'm a former auto mechanic and I won't "patch" a tire in the field
unless I have to.
I patched a lot as a kid on the farm (tube type on wagons) and bikes,
lawn tractors etc., and a LOT in the shop as a mechanic.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 23:14:20 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org advised:
Most of my flats have been slow leaks which gave me time to air them up and
get home, once they were noticed.
I almost never drive highway nowadays, so, my 15K miles is on side roads,
where there is some construction. I average something like 1 flat a year,
sometimes more, sometimes less.
Anyway, they wouldn't put spares in cars if flats didn't happen.
I did drive with a very low tire for about a mile. The tire was filled with
fluffy rubber shavings, and the belts inside were showing. So it was
stupid, in hindsight, to run them when they were flat.
Depends on what you call the field.
If I'm stuck in the middle of nowhere, it's getting an external plug if,
for whatever reason, the spare doesn't cut the mustard.
Yeah. I replaced my first bicycle tire using a screwdriver, and holed the
tube so many times I had to buy a new one. Kids learn by doing. So do
One time as I was crossing some railroad tracks, I heard my tire going
phtt phtt phtt phtt with every rotation. I pulled over and put on my
spare. Took the tire to a shop to see what happened and to get it
repaired if possible. The object which punctured the tire was found
inside, it was a spark plug.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.