Re: floor jack

I just butt the ends and use a bit of electrical tape . You can usually tell when the bead starts holding pressure and pull the hose before the bead pops into place . A bicycle tire tube works well too ... if you can find the right size . I like your idea of screwing the air blower directly to the valve stem .

I always end up going back to Dunlop ... got a D404 100/90-19 sitting here awaiting install on the SportyTrike . I think the GeezerGlide is wearing Elite something or other .

Ah. I see. I didn't realize it was a circle. The diameter of the rim. Got it. I might try that next time as some beads are a bitch to seat.

You'll never fail. But you might cuss up a blue storm on some beads.

Here's a picture of the before and after using that method.

Before:

Luckily it's a tool everyone already has, so it's a freebie! The magic is the threads fit perfectly so they must be the same.

You seem to know your stuff but for the other people, they might think it's hard to get the schrader core back into the stem but it's actually easy.

One out of every ten or twenty cores gets away from you and goes airborne. But you learn to hold it with two fingers as you screw it back in while the air blow outward. Even if you let all the air out, the bead is already set.

Like I keep saying, it's no more or less complicated than baking a cake. :)

Duh. My bad. Those were both the same image.

Before:

After:

You'll notice I don't put a rubber band around the trigger so as to free up one hand. Sometimes I do rubber band the trigger. But this bead set so easily that I didn't need to bother. I held the tire with the other hand.

But some beads just won't seat as the air leaks out too fast. That's where your circular garden hose trick will come in handy.

Thanks for the ideas, as that's the whole point of this newsgroup.

Wonder what the OP uses as badgolferman has an orange Gold Wing as I recall. Mounting and balancing bike tires is a completely different story.

I forget what the OEM was on the Sportster. It was '97 after all and I'm getting senile. Maybe D401? iirc the rear still had tread at 17,000 and the front looked better. It was spring and I wanted to get it taken care of before summer or I probably could have gotten a couple of thousand more miles. They were referred as Dunrocks over at sportster.org. iirc,

I've run a couple of sets of D606s on the DR and they're a decent design for a DOT legal knobby, maybe leaning a little more towards the dirt.

With a DOT legal knobby balance is a moot point. The DR650 is a thumper too which adds a little more excitement. I definitely want a good balance job on the V-Strom and Sporty, particularly the V-Strom. There are V-twins and then there are V-twins.

Yeah, it's gone. I was wondering if the DIY vent kits would have some sort of 'can't ship to your address' thing too. I've got at least one 49 state bike and some 49 state firearms. Well, probably less than 49 on the latter.

I was amused when I ordered some magazines, 10 rd and 13 rd, from a California company. The shipment was split. The 10s one came from CA but the 13s came from NV. Apparently they couldn't have those evil high capacity mags in their warehouse.

I liked some parts of CA but since my brother died I have no reason to ever go there again.

On 17 Mar 2025 06:05:23 GMT, rbowman snipped-for-privacy@montana.com wrote

Yup. I was wondering if they'd ship me the DIY vent kits, and they did.

Mebbie' I should paint them red?

There are rules about everything out here. For example, in California you can't fill more than a six-gallon jug but mine are all five gallons.

Federally you can transport up to 600 pounds, which is about 100 gallons. Only in NY State is that limit lower (it's 25 gallons in very blue NY).

I'm guessing they sold out.

I used Dunlop Elite 4 for a while but had trouble with them cupping all the time. I switched to Bridgestone Exedra and have been very pleased with the wear, noise, handling since using Bridgestone. I got 12K on the front and 15K on the back, which for a 950 lb. motorcycle is quite good. I only have a choice of five brands for my bike, Dunlop, Bridgestone, Avon, Shinko, Metzeler.

Reminds me 25 years ago I met a drug addict in the hospital having toes removed because of gangrene. He was my age with similar upbringing but started work as a tree cutter and fell and injured his shoulder. That started him on morphine and led to his drug addiction.

I switched to Bridgestone Spitfires and they worked well. They're definitely not a high mileage touring tire though. 7000 on the rear was doing good. I probably didn't ride as sedately as I would on a 950 lb. bike.

No they don't. None of that is true.

Gas mowers have no emission controls and can belch as much CO, NOx and hydrocarbons as a CA car.

The amount of pollution generated by charging is nowhere near what you say. Can't be, since it depends on how the electric power was generated.

Li batteries are not thrown in the dump. It's recycled, as lithium and other metals are too valuable to waste.

We might just as credibly claim your source is trump campaign talking points.

Watch out for the sharks in your lawn!

Tell us again which side is anti-science?

Would you like to see creationism taught in schools?

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:17:30 -0700, Roger Rhino snipped-for-privacy@my.usa wrote

I welcome you proving it's not true but you have to be open minded. How are you counting the pollution from lithium mining & recycling?

That's wrong. In California, you can only use a mower that has been certified to meet California emissions. The carbs are non adjustable.

Of course, you can't buy them anymore so that's a moot point now.

I welcome you proving it's not true but you can't ignore pollution from mining and disposing of the extremely toxic chemicals in those batteries.

While there is pollution inherent in burning fossil fuels to create electricity, and pollution inherent in mining the copper for the motors, the major source of the twice as much pollution is in the lithium.

Nobody would to this except as a thought experiment, but for those who don't get the point that batteries pollute too, take an imagined situation where I spread out 6.5 gallons of gasoline onto the ground in the front yard, and I equally spread out one lawnmower battery of lithium in the back yard.

Which side of the house is more polluted?

Note I'm not saying that's exactly where the pollution is coming from, since "some" of the battery lithium is recycled - but most is not, and the mining is detrimental to the environment (just as oil drilling is).

The point is that the only way a law requiring lithium can possibly make sense to the people who made that law, is they ignored the real pollution.

Even if I ignore that you ignored that mining of lithium is sort of like an abortion. It's not a pretty sight but the liberals think it's very pretty, I still have to point out that about 1% of batteries is recycled.

Look it up. It's a maximum of 5% in the most progressive US states. Closer to 0% in most areas of the world.

The only way the argument works that lithium engines are NOT twice as polluting as gasoline engines is to ignore all the lithium pollution.

Which is not science. It's politics.

Nope. I don't care about Trump. I care about the science. Your claim that anyone who speaks about science must be a trump supporter is false.

It means you have no scientific argument. So you resorted to an ad hominem attack.

Why did you attack me simply for explaining battery science to you? I'd be glad to discuss the science as long as you stop attacking me.

I'll ignore that childish ad hominem attack, but I will note it's common for people who have no understanding of science to belittle people who do.

The liberals have implemented a law that mandates the use of lawnmower propulsion technology that pollutes twice as much as the old methods did.

While religion is a "bogus science" for people who can't comprehend science, the liberals have used the same "bogus science" to claim that lithium batteries (which are recycled at 1 to 5% at best) do not pollute.

I wonder what the liberals would say if I dumped a billion crushed lithium batteries on their nicely watered well manicured expensive front lawns?

When you're done with the insults, I'm willing to talk science with you.

Are you aware that lithium mining and disposal causes environmental pollution (because if you're not aware of that, then there is no hope for you to understand that batteries pollute twice as much as gasoline does).

I welcome you "proving" the claims you made. Your claims, your burden of proof. You snipped them all, so it doesn't look like you're going to do that.

I helped you out by pointing out the wrongitude of your statements. That doesn't obligate me to do your homework for you.

You should be explaining that, since you have already proclaimed that "battery powered lawn mowers pollute twice as much as gasoline powered lawn mowers".

CA is CA. The rest of us pollute to our hearts' content with gas mowers having carbs set to way too rich. Why, we'd even burn leaded gas if we could.

You made the claim, kemosabe. Something about 6 and a half gallons of gas worth. We know you've suddenly seen the light, as you snecked that one too.

And gas mowers are all organic and earth-friendly, and every time you mow there are birds singing and butterflies and the forests will echo with laughter.

No "science" there, just meaningless pitter-patter.

I welcome you to proving that. Ahem, etc.

Your best bet is alternative-fact websites.

None of which you have established, and you won't.

Accompanied by a bit of usenet huffery for good measure.

Science is more than just making assertions, you know.

I made no such statement. You invented that.

I said your assertion about law based on liberal politics is no more credible than if We asserted that your electric lawnmower factoids are trump campaign propaganda. See the diff, old buddy?

You shouldn't post when you're mad. It defocuses your brain.

Gosh dang, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

Do you mean ad hom attacks like, "liberals think it's very pretty" "liberals force others under penalty of law" "Liberals have no concept of reality."

Dude, that's a reference to a trump speech. You're calling Herr Uberfuehrer "childish". People get DoJ dogs sicced on em for less.

You should have started off with some science.

Still, I welcome your proving. Cite your sources and show your work.

Thanks!

Funny, isn't it, that you NEVER bring up the incredible pollution from drilling, pumping, transportation and especially refining oil products, and the endless spewing of petroleum gases from forever leaking refining facilities, pipelines, and improperly capped or sealed gas wells.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:14:10 -0700, Bob F snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote

Read what I wrote, where I already took into account all the factors. Both technologies pollute. They pollute differently. In different amounts.

The sum total that lithium pollutes twice as much as gas is well known. But pollution, per se, isn't my point.

My point is liberals creating laws without taking science into account.

Specifically my well-researched point is about liberals making laws punishable by force if I buy a gasoline lawn mower even though the lithium lawn mowers end up polluting twice as much as the gasoline mower pollutes.

You need to understand I'm not against lithium lawn mowers. I'm against the mandate (punishable by force) that I have to buy one.

If the mandate was based on science, it would be easier to accept. But lithium pollutes 2X as much as gasoline, so it's not based on science.

It's based on politics.

In effect, they punish me for polluting half as much as their law mandates.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 05:43:42 -0700, Roger Rhino snipped-for-privacy@my.usa wrote

No problem. But you have to cut it with the childish attacks on me.

First off, snipping is normal. Only trolls complain about snipping. Stop whining, and try to get to the point that lithium pollutes twice as much as gasoline, which is fine, as that's not my beef.

My beef is that the law, in effect, mandates that I be punished if I pollute half as much. My main point is this is what liberals do.

The liberals punish you for NOT polluting the way THEY want you to pollute.

I've already done the homework. It's long. Do you want to see it?

Remember, I've already done the science. You haven't even admitted that Lithium pollutes yet. Your claim there is 100% recycling is absurd.

And, it turns out, you'd use vented gas cans too. :->

Stop whining about snipping. That's the mark of a troll. Don't do that. You can read back and see what's there. You don't have to be told again.

You think that 6.5 gallons came up out of nowhere? I've done my homework. Do you want to see it?

Be warned, it's deep because it contains a lot of calculations. Will you understand those calculations when I give them to you?

Or will you continue to make ridiculous claims that lithium mining causes no pollution and that lithium recycling is 100% (which is simply absurd).

The fact that you constantly resort to unwarranted childish attacks shows you're not ready yet to discuss the science of the differences in pollution between one 60 volt, 11 amp hour Lithium-Ion battery, and 6.5 gallons of gasoline.

When you're ready, I'll show the homework that I've done for that science.

Until you're ready for the science, what good would it do when you are claiming there is no pollution from mining and the recycling is 100%?

Again and again, anyone who happens to know how to run calculations using scientific methods must be getting their opinions from "alternative" sites.

What is so bad about people who understand science that bothers you so? Every word from you is a childish attack because YOU don't know science.

Oh yes, I will. I've already done the math. Which is based on science.

Although I admit in all scientific honesty that it's difficult to assess on an equal basis the appreciable pollution caused by extracting & refining & burning 6.5 gallons of gasoline versus the appreciable pollution caused by extracting & refining & recycling one 60 volt, 11 amp hour mower battery.

I do my own math. Backed up by science. I can provide all the calculations. I've done the calculations assuming one flat acre of land mowed once a week, for six months out of the year using a front-wheel assist lawn mower (which is the type I use since I'm pretty old lately).

I calculated the pollution using a battery lawn mower versus gasoline. Are you ready for the science? Or do you want to continue to insult me?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Usenet huffery" but if you're going to try to insult me, at least do it with proper capitalization & words next time.

Funny you mention that I've done all the calculations, and you've done none, yet, you feel that you're qualified to dispute all the math.

Then don't bring up Trump when I talk science. They have nothing to do with each other, and the fact you don't know that, is kind of worrisome to me.

My statement was that the liberals made a law, punishable by force, that doesn't meet the standard of solid science. It's all pure politics.

Why should I be punished for polluting *half* as much as the liberals want?

I'm not mad. The fact you think I'm mad is a problem that you need to work on since I'm ready to give you the calculations, from cradle to grave (so to speak) between mining an equivalent amount of "lawn mower juice" for one acre of flat lawn using a front-wheel-assist push mower once a week for half the year, taking into account mining, generation, distribution, use, reuse and disposal until the 60 volt, 11 amp hour battery has exceeded its charge cycles, versus the equivalent amount of gasoline taking into account the same environmental pollution factors.

I wonder if you realize that it's not my brain which is "defocused" given that's how I think. Logically. Scientifically. Sensibly. Want the math?

You didn't hurt my feelings at all. Why do you think you could possibly have done so? Do you seriously think that by telling me that science is something only Trump supporters can employ that you hurt my feelings?

You made me feel sad, for sure. But sad because I can't communicate with someone who says that crap.

Well, let's look at each of those statements like a scientist, shall we? Is abortion pretty? Is it a choice? Is it a right? Is it homicide?

It turns out only one of those phrases is a scientifically valid option.

Well, let's look at the choices we have in terms of lawn mowers.

We know lithium pollutes twice as much as gasoline. Yet, the liberals have mandated that we can no longer buy gas mowers.

What happens to me if I decide to pollute HALF as much as liberals want? They punish me, right? Otherwise the law has no teeth, right?

Actually, I don't know what the punishment is, and whether it's to me or to the seller of the gas mower but the point is laws are punishable by force.

My statement was scientifically valid. In fact, for you to dispute that laws are punishable by force, is absurd.

Well, let's look at that statement, like a scientist might. Shall we?

My assertion is that the law mandates I buy an electric mower. My lawn is such that a power corded mower is out of the question. SO that means a battery. Specifically, for lawn mowers, a Lithium battery. Yes, I know there are plenty of other chemistries. But Li-Ion is normal.

Since the Li-Ion battery use pollutes twice as much as gasoline, and yet, since the law mandates I can no longer buy the gasoline mower, and since the law was made in the name of pollution, I assert the law has no basis in reality - which is easily shown to be a scientifically valid conclusion.

Now if your argument is that the law wasn't made by liberals, then you would have a scientifically valid objection to my statements.

Is your assertion that the law was made by conservatives?

I know what you're talking about but just because I'm well informed doesn't mean I get my science from Trump. I already told you I've already done the math. I took the pollution, from cradle to grave, for a typical lawn mower battery for its lifetime against the equivalent amount of gasoline for the same mowing of the same flat acre of lawn taking into account the science.

Have you run that calculation yourself?

I came up with approximately 4.32 ounces of gasoline per Lithium battery cycle as a reasonable approximation for typical comparative mower use.

What did YOU come up with?

I also assumed a dismal 20% efficiency for the gasoline engine and an estimated 42.5% overall efficiency to account for the losses from the power plant, through the transmission lines, and during the battery charging process all the while assuming a realistic 80% DoD per battery cycle.

What scientifically valid assumptions did you make for your calculations?

I haven't seen you even admit that there are environmental costs to mining and lack of recycling of lithium batteries - so what would you do with the science when I give it to you?

First, you have to show me you're ready for me to do the appreciable effort to present the calculations for the pollution caused by mowing one acre of flat land once a week for the duration of one battery (but taking into account multiple batteries, so it's amortized per battery) versus mowing that same acre under the same conditions with the equivalent amount of gas.

The first step you have to agree to, unless you wish to remain being unreasonable, is that mining, charging, and disposing of lithium has environmental costs too.

If agreeing to that fact is difficult for you, then you're not ready for the science. The next step is wholly up to you. Are you ready for science?