How do I decide if these five tires are holed too close to the sidewall?

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:32:45 -0500, FromTheRafters advised:

That's actually a good one. I'm a court officer, so, I have two more years before I can 're tire'.

But I do appreciate the joke.

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:47:29 -0800 (PST), [e-mail] 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 anything.

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.

Me? 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 alt.psychology newsgroups).

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).

[pfjw]

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?

Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

[Ed Pawlowski]

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 tires.

If cars are your hobby, it may be OK. For the average driver, it is silly.

[trader_4]

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.

[trader_4]

I wouldn't call that a blunt tool. Looks pointed to me.

IDK, they sure sell a lot of those plug kits to average Joes everywhere at Walmart to Auto stores. You think those people can't use them? Probably the majority of flats are from things the size of a small nail.

That a power tool doesn't come with the kit? That I've done a few flat fixes in 15 years and using the pointed reaming tool that comes with the $6 kit wasn't difficult? Even when I was a kid, working at a gas station, we plugged tires back then using nothing more than that type of reaming tool to enlarge the hole for the plug. Maybe now they have some power tool, IDK, but it's never been difficult, never been an issue for me by hand.

[Frank Baron]

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? Simple.

I check my facts.

That's it. 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 trump intuition.

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 them.

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 unsafe.

Does he supply a single fact to support his safety claims? Not one.

Can anything he says be believed? Probably not.

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 probable.

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.)

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:01:06 -0800 (PST), [e-mail] 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 states.

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.

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:46:49 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:

A lot of things look sharp, but aren't when you actually use them. I tried on a very small hole from the likes of a finishing nail or even maybe a wire as it was just a short length, but there was no way that tool was going to penetrate those steel belts and thick rubber by hand.

Just wasn't gonna happen.

I think that's why they make these carbide tire reaming bits:

It seems, from this ad, that bias ply uses different sizes carbide cutters:

Yup. That's the same tool. Seems to me, since they're so cheap, it would be cheaper to slice off the T-handle and use the reamer in a drill than to buy the 40-dollar purpose built reamers.

Although, one is designed to spin and the other designed to go straight up and down, so, it might not work as intended.

I think the purpose of the reamer is two fold: a. To create a uniform 1/4-inch minus 1/16th or 1/8th inch hole, and, b. To dull the edges of the sharp steel cords.

I have done five flats recently, and a few from the outside over the years, where the tool works most of the time. Everything depends on the size of the hole.

Seems to me, there's no way the pro shops use a hand reamer, so I need to look up what the shops use.

If you're stuck on the road, I agree completely that you are going to have to plug the tire from the outside since you don't have either the bead breaker and tire changer tool, nor a way to fill the tire with air (unless you carry a portable compressor).

So, you're not likely to plug a tire permanently from a roadside emergency bivouac. However, at home, you will have a drill.

I agree. For me, one out of 5 was difficult. 4 out of 5 worked fine with that reaming tool. Everything depends on the size of the hole.

I understand.

Luckily this REMA brochure says a drill bit should work fine, which I find hard to believe since half the problem is to dull the steel belts properly:

Interestingly that REMA brochure says to ream from the inside, but it doesn't say why. (I hate when DIYs tell you to do something odd and they don't explain why it matters.)

[Frank Baron]

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 incorrectly.

Those repeatedly incorrect tire changes were what prompted me to do it myself.

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 home).

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 repairable.

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 the math.

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 rec.autos.tech?

I would hope all of you are a cut above average. I know I am.

[My 2 Cents]

I've enjoyed watching you work towards a PhD in tire repair. We still haven't covered how to find slow leaks, how to seal the beads or porous alloy wheels. May I suggest when you retire you consider getting a job at a tire shop for a second career? And... another training film.

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:52:41 -0600, My 2 Cents advised:

I realize you're being condescending, but my question to you is what do you have against learning how to do a job correctly?

At the very least, I'll be more competent when I watch others do a repair for me, and at the very best, I'll be able to patch my own tires at my convenience at home.

In a different thread we covered how to reseat the beads in alloy wheels (and in steel wheels), and I don't know what you mean by "porous" alloy wheels.

The alloy wheels I did sealed perfectly.

A tire shop would drive me nuts because they don't know how to change tires so I'd be constantly teaching customers how to do the job right and they'd be constantly skimping because they want to get cars out the door.

So, any shop that charges per job would be no good to me because I take my time to educate the customer and to educate myself and to do the job right.

Heat vulcanizing and pipe torque wrenching at its finest!

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:55:50 -0500, Steve W. advised:

I thought nobody patched sidewalls, but this article says it's pretty common to cut out a section of sidewall and to vulcanize rubber to patch them in truck tire carcasses.

Knowing what not to repair

"injuries in the crown area that are larger than 3/8 of an inch as well as those located in the shoulder and sidewall must receive a section repair that requires additional time, tools and equipment not typically found in the average commercial tire dealership. Section repairs are most commonly associated with retread plants where the technicians are trained to use special tools to remove the damage and fill the void with raw rubber so it can be cured in a press or chamber. A large reinforced repair unit is also installed on the innerliner of the tire and the tread design is regrooved after the raw rubber has cured."

An interesting sidelight in that article is this quote about carbide bits: "You?ll never find the words ?hand-reamer? or ?drill bit? in any credible tire repair resource. A carbide cutter is specially designed to cut the damaged steel belt and body cables flush with the surrounding rubber. This stabilizes the area so the void can be filled with a cured rubber insert"

So the three tools I will get are the following:

1. Carbide bit (which cuts the steel belt and body cables flush)
2. Cone grinder bit (which has a better shape than a wire brush)
3. Flexible knife (which is better than the dremel disc cutter)

I'm learning as I analyze all the steps. Some day I will teach others, perhaps at the adult schools nearby.

[Ed Pawlowski]

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 morning.

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.

>

[Vic Smith]

snip

Well, since they've gone to gone to those mini-spares, I've never had to use one. I have seen them used, but that's pretty rare. It depends on where you live somewhat, and luck. I used to pick up more nail/screw punctures when I lived in Chicago 20 years ago. I plugged my last tire about 10-12 years ago. Drove into Just Tires with a slow leaker about 8 years ago and they fixed a nailed tire. Think it was 15 bucks then. Over the years I've plugged about 8 tires on the rim. A few times on the road. Every time it was a permanent fix. But I used quality plug kits.

[clare]

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 later. 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.

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 22:00:44 -0600, Vic Smith advised:

As I recall, I drove a rental with the mini spare all across Arizona. I must have put 1,000 miles on the thing, as it was bald by the time I returned it to Hertz.

I get a nail once a year. I have 5 tires in my possession right now, with nails or screws in them. It's pretty common out here.

The one bolt that was flat should have been caught early as it seems to have wedged in the tread and slowly worked its way through. An inspection might have caught that ahead of time.

As I recall, plugging a tire costs about as much as mounting and balancing, so, out here, that's $20 to $25 at the least. For the price of the plug tools, I can do it myself, since it doesn't take a brain surgeon to learn how to plug a tire.

You don't even have to balance afterward, if you mark where it came off and put it back the same way.

I bought two new external plug kits but I didn't want to open them since one is in the trunk of my car and the other in the wife's car. Once you open the glue, it's gone for example.

So I used an old plug kit for the 5 practice tires, Worked well enough to get the idea. Now that I've done it, I realize what tools would have made it easier and/or better.

The three tools I really want to get that will make the job better are: a. 3/16ths inch carbide bit b. Cone buffing wheel c. Flexible knife

So I've upped the tool-cost from $200 to $250 (give or take) for:

1. Breaking the bead
2. Mounting and dismounting the tire
3. Repairing the tire with a plug and patch
4. Balancing the wheel and tire assembly

I feel everyone who wants to should be able to do this at home, and the tools will take from two to four years to pay for themselves.

The knowledge learned lasts forever (or until Altzheimers kicks in).

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 23:14:20 -0500, [e-mail] 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 adults.

[Frank Baron]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 22:13:52 -0500, Ed Pawlowski advised:

I don't have TPMS and I only drive around 12 to 15k per year, but I get about 1 flat a year, on average and my tires last about two years on average.

Is that right? I have never seen a car that didn't come with a spare tire, although some come with cheap donuts instead of a real spare. Mine are 15 years old at the very least, so all mine have real spares.

Well, if you're off the highway, that's a different story 'cuz you can rest at a Starbucks; but if you're on the highway, then it's quicker to change the tire than it is to wait for AAA to change the tire.

Safety is a factor though, so, being towed off the highway to change the tire could be a factor though. I think, in California, towing off the highway is free, paid for by your taxes (I have to check that to be sure).

Sidewall holes are bad news.

I used to change my motorcycle tires myself. I don't know anyone who doesn't, but I guess some tire shops do bike tires.

[FromTheRafters]

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.