OT: tires

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Don't you read your handbook? If there are different pressured for light load/full load it will say so?

[T i m]

Why isn't it (ITRW)? Why isn't it in fact 'better' than what you consider a 'proper repair'?

It's not just my experience though, it's the combined experience of everyone who has used or evaluated the product and over many many years. You are basically arguing against something you don't really understand and so can't appreciate.

See above. Multiple experiences and science, not a just a blinkered adhesion to some potentially out-of-date rules (again, ITRW etc).

An inspection done by a 'tyre fitter' and without the ability to examine the internal construction of the tyre. Looking 'inside' shows little.

Yes, that's the 'official' recommendation but again, ITRW, anything it can seal is unlikely to present any more of a risk than your 'approved' repair.

So?

Ok, whilst 'possible', highly unlikely (again, because you don't fully understand how it works).

With an untreated tyre, anything that penetrates as far as the inside of the tyre to create a 'puncture', could well just sit there, especially if it doesn't actually cause a significant leak going round and round, potentially causing further damage as it does.

With a treated tyre that receives a puncture, any leak will allow sealant to pass down the side of the object, lubricating it and allowing it to come out easier.

If no puncture is caused, the object will stay there in both cases (so you are no worse off with the sealant).

Or not? If your 300mm long length of metal actually managed to make it inside the tyre, with an untreated tyre it would cause a puncture (possibly with very rapid deflation) and the object would likely sit inside the tread area, held there with centripetal force until you stop, where it will tumble about.

With a treated tyre you may not experience any deflation, or if the hole is too big to seal (or in the sidewall etc) the sealant would typically slow the deflation down, typically buying you time to get to a safe place. Also, the object is likely to remain 'stuck' inside the tyre and if not, lubricated so less chance of doing any further damage. It is likely to show an imbalance to alert you to there being a bigger issue.

And simple enough to do with little training or equipment.

More that there are no specific standards and therefore loads of cr*p on the market.

And how is that then?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'm not trying to suggest that any (good) gunk type solution is

100% perfect, just that in 'most cases' it wouldn't present any greater risk than if it wasn't there and would in many, reduce the risks from other factors (hard shoulder in the dark and rain).

[mm0fmf]

Your 50mpg seems a little optimistic. My memories of driving

1000cc/1300cc single carb basic cars of the 70s and early 80s was they were anything but economical compared with today's cars.

Figures from a Minor owner's website gives this:

"Having said that the Olyslager book on Minors (published 1965) quotes the following

constant 40 MPH speed returned: 948cc 39.5 MPG 1098cc 41.6 MPG

constant 50 MPH speed returned: 948cc 33.3 MPG 1098cc 35.7 MPG

Mean fuel consumption: 948cc 29.9 MPG 1098cc 31.3 MPG "

My wife's SEAT 1.4 Toca Estate with 84bhp, air-conditioning, electric windows, power steering and a huge amount of extra weight from crash strengthening, anti-intrusion beams and a plethora of airbags will achieve well over 55mpg at a constant 50 on a long trip. It has significantly lower pollution that a 60 year old design.

If you want to drive about in an old poverty spec car that's crude and relatively uncomfortable, be my guest. Having worked for a long time, I'm happy to waste my cash on cars laden with toys and creature comfort features. I'd hazard a guess my car better emissions figures too.

[invalid]

You don't know what damage has been done so that is enough for it to not be a proper repair.

I don't need anything else to show it isn't a proper repair.

[Richard]

<snip>

They do, but life is too short for most to worry about it.

[invalid]

We are talking about tyres and load rating not what the manual says.

I know the manual will specify different pressures and they are not related to the pressure at which the tyre can take its maximum load as long as it doesn't exceed the maximum pressure for the tyre.

[The Natural Philosopher]

They did a bit better on radial tyres I could get 50mpg+ out of an 1100 spitfire driven very gently

Yes

Who cares?

[T i m]

<snip>

Same applies to anything that goes into the tyre but doesn't cause any loss of pressure?

So you are happy to take the risk (ignoring the regs etc) on all the other instances where there would be no question that the sealant had done it's job and saved the day for the one obscure instance where damage was done (rather than just causing an air-leak etc) and the sealant was *also* able to completely block the leak?

Are you happy for your wife or child to be changing a wheel at the side of a busy road or in the middle of nowhere because of a hole made by a panel pin in the middle of the tread?

Cheers, T i m

[mm0fmf]

T i m does, he wrote so.

[Brian Reay]

Conversely, a panel pin remains in a tyre, sealed by the gunge, you drive on it, damaging the tyre, until it fails catastrophically on the motorway. Your use of gunge cases a serious accident, possibly causing multiple deaths. Just as likely.

[Tim+]

If you mean ?vanishingly small to the point of infinitely improbable?, I?d agree.

Tim

[T i m]

We know that mpg can very much be a function of how (and what sort of route) you drive.

All 'today's cars'?

Ok.

But not 100 mpg though. Not much progress in 40 years eh?

Of course ... unless you include the 'cost' of producing and re-cycling all that extra stuff, much of it isn't actually necessary to carry you from a to b (and I'm not talking the safety stuff here).

Why thanks! ;-)

Yup, your call as you say.

See above (re the pollution cost of creating a new and disposing of an old vehicle), plus the cost of maintaining / replacing all this complex stuff when it goes wrong.

But as you have already admitted, you concede that because you can afford such luxuries, you will. But hey, we need people like you taking the depreciation hit on such things so that people who would prefer to spend their cash elsewhere, can buy cheap cars when we need to. ;-)

Unfortunately, have knock that set's all the airbags off and you will need to buy a new one and we will all experience yet another hike to our insurance. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

And everone's life becomes shorter along with them?

As always, 'these people' don't consider the bigger picture till it happens to them.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Nope, more likely get's expelled, lubricated by the gunge.

As you would without the gunge if it didn't leak.

Really? Have you ever seen a nail or screw damaging a tyre further because it was left in?

Nope, you only need to know how a tyre is made to know that it's more likely to fail catastrophically when run soft because of a puncture than with a hole that has been repaired less intrusively than an 'approved repair'.

Nope, much less likely than an otherwise unnoticed puncture causes such an outcome.

No wonder you need TPMS systems. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

Quite, and overall, not having a minor puncture is far safer than having one and having to deal with the consequences (as they rarely happen when it's convenient).

It's also safer for the emergency services some put at risk because they 1) can't (or can't be bothered to) change the wheel themselves,

2) drive a vehicle that doesn't have a spare of any sort or 3) don't use gunge. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

I care on behalf of everone who suffers *needlessly*.

You may care less of course.

Cheers, T i m

[invalid]

As I said its not a proper repair and its you that doesn't get them fixed if the gunk seals it.

If you had any sense you would inspect thetyres regularly and have them fixed properly but no you rely on some gunk to seal a tyre with unknown damage permanently. This puts you and others lives at risk.

I just hope that if your tyre fails that you hit a stationary object like a tree and don't hit a coach or some other vehicle and kill someone else.

Even continental that you keep quoting say you should have a TPMS and check regularly (every week IIRC).

Its pointless arguing this with you as you are oblivious to what is wrong with your thought chain.

[invalid]

Yes I have.

I don't suppose you have because you don't have them repaired so never see the inside of you tyres.

[T i m]

No, that was a roadside recovery guy nearly being killed because of a puncture that could well have been avoided. But hey, as long as it's not you it doesn't matter right?

And you saying it isn't a proper repair doesn't make it so (ITRW).

Given that the gunk has *always* sealed it there is no if so nothing to fix.

I do ...

I do, using something that you obviously don't understand. If the tyre never leaks and never fails then how much better could you fix it?

Except, the chances are it wouldn't seal if a tyre had received such damage, as it didn't with three tyrewall damage incidences we have had. With the one I had, the tyre, still full of sealant was wrecked before I could come to a safe halt (the inner sidewall was cut on a steel post socket).

No more than an untreated tyre going flat slowly at speed.

And I hope your untreated tyre slowly deflating and blowing out or coming off the rim on a corner doesn't cause you or any of your family to hit me or mine. Or us running into you because you are parked up a country lane with a flat tyre that you wouldn't have had had the tyre been running sealant (or runflat etc).

I reference Continental as they supply a professional / commercial tyre that comes pre treated with similar stuff to what I use (and have used for many years). There are *millions* of cars out there without TPMS and probably as many drivers who *never* check their tyres.

Many a time I've told other drivers (at the lights etc) that they are running a low pressure tyre (some care, many don't). Maybe it wouldn't have gone soft in the first place, had it been treated with sealant?

There is nothing wrong with my thought chain, there is everything wrong with your argument that what you call a 'proper repair' can only be applied *AFTER* you have experienced a puncture and potential damage done to the inner carcass of the tyre, something that is unlikely to be spotted without anything other than an ultrasound test or X-Ray.

I bet you still insist on using leaded paint and cow gum ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Did you take pictures (that you could share)? Or maybe you aren't actually that interested in such things?

Only when I replace them at the end of their lives and puncture damaged (and sealed) or not, the insides are always fine. When there has been significant damage the hole was never fully sealed and the tyre had to be replaced, just as you would want / expect.

But hey, you know all about this stuff as you (and many people you know) have used it on all sorts of vehicles over the last twenty years ... oh that's right, you haven't have you!

Keep leading yer plumbing joints ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m