OT: tires

the road noise is unbelievable .....bloody Mazda anyway ...

On 21/09/2019 13:25, T i m

Sigh. Still in denial T i m?

It was in a word, dire. But it was all that was available. So Yaris or no car. It wasn't as a dire as an Opel Mokka hire car.

It's a small two seater, and would lose too much boot space. I'd also rather the compact overall dimensions than make it bigger to make room for a spare wheel.

Which is why it is on a plate inside the door. Assuming you are using the correct tyres.

Must be some car if you can connect jump leads to a 700v power pack. I take it this comes from a country where H&S is ignored? The sort you favour post Brexit?

If you say so.

well its the maximum load so it isn't correct for most cars.

Clearly you haven't been following things.

Morgan?

Are plugs banned in the UK ? any proof ?

No, but te conseus seems to be (a) only applied fromn te inside and (b) only in the tread center and (c) a mushroom shped patcxh that cant blow out

Obviously this applies to road vehicles. I bought a puncture kit for my lawn tractor and it had full plug tools and materials

The mushroom is the key.

That makes them BSI compliant. The cap or head is treated with glue which bonds it to the inside of the tyre.

Still, there will always be those who insist on doing it their way- usually because they are too tight fisted and/or lazy to do a job properly.

Because it was designed by an engineer, quite possibly one from a major project, with safety implications and formal design techniques that he?d mastered successfully? Failure to do so would result in him being dismissed, probably kicking and screaming blaming others of course.

But in this case there is truth in what he says, all be it with massive caveats to the type of 'gunge' we are talking about.

I have experience of several types, from stuff that comes in a pressurised container and is designed to provide an *emergency* solution to allow you to limp home (containing some sort of latex or vinyl etc), to the heavier complex solutions that are designed to be installed in the tyre and be ready to plug any hole in the tread area, up to a specific size on a permanent basis.

As supplied by Continental tyres:

There is nothing stopping you then repairing the tyre using a traditional / approved process later on.

I have also experimented some 'ripoff' pre-treatment type 'gunge' for use on road vehicles and seen it fail miserably (it just didn't seal the leak even when over-dosed) so you really have to know the difference between 'the good stuff' and everything else.

I'm not suggesting the use of such as the replacement for a spare wheel (although I have on motorcycles because unlike my old Lambretta SX150 scooter, most motorbikes don't carry a spare wheel), but that in most straightforward cases (a small nail / screw) you wouldn't need to use your / a spare wheel. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Not stopping you, but requiring you to.

Even their data sheet includes "Upon discovering a puncture, a tyre specialist must promptly check the tyre."

Of course, they have to cover themselves and protect themselves from idiots who knowingly drive over something nasty that damages the tyre and not stopping to check just how much damage was caused (with or without any leak prevention).

I 'get' that you are simply quoting the rules but can you see how such a repair solution does have merits ITRW?

I don't need it sold or proved to me because I have seen and experienced it working many times ITRW and can apply a knowledgeable RW understanding of the situation to what I do.

Like I said, the rules aren't always up-to-date with technology, aren't the best or the safest for us, often just a 'catch all' to protect against the lowest common denominator (as with 'approved' motorcycle helmets).

I would much rather not have a puncture that causes a tyre to be run soft, at speed, potentially for a long time (motorways trip) repaired using an 'approved method' because of all the invisible damage that may have been done to the tyre carcass.

If *every* tyre that gets a puncture then get's thrown away then that makes some sense, but if repairs are allowed but only in a restricted range just because the current repair process doesn't work properly on (say) the shoulder, that doesn't. What also doesn't is that we ignore process that can and do work under such circumstances (and for mechanically / scientifically explainable and perfectly safe reasons).

On a more abstract note, how many more people will die because of the extra pollution created by re-processing tyres that are written off but actually perfectly useable (because of a pinhole puncture on the shoulder for example)?

Cheers, T i m

... including of separate settings?

Yes, understood, like a car can be modified to have hand controls or a chair lift onto the roof or in the back. I'm not suggesting that such a feature wouldn't be of benefit to you and your wife, just that it's an energy consuming luxury that we don't have in our houses or offices, why would we have / need it in our cars? The RW answer is that we don't *need* it like we don't need electric windows or central locking etc (but at least those aren't particularly energy inefficient, other than the extra weight and electrical load they put on the system and the energy (pollution) they cost to make and maintain (increased complexity) etc).

But the point was following on from the fact that we are being more and more cosseted / isolated from both the whole driving experience and the outside world, not a good thing if you have ever been a cyclist or motorcyclist for example.

This point is pretty obvious when you compare say a very basic Morris Minor that was doing 50mpg 40+ years ago and how car makers are still clawing to get those sorts of figures (in general) from our vehicles as they get bigger, heavier and more complex. (I know they are also safer and faster etc).

I wonder how many people *could* 'get away' with driving any one of the current straight petrol compact cars that are doing very good MPG's but *choose* to drive their massive tanks because they are 'safer' (not for those smaller cars they hit of course) or simply because they want to (without considering the environment)?

Don't get me wrong, the Sierra Estate we had was far from 'green' and would only do about 25mpg around town. On the flip side we did keep it

I can't remember the last time we drove into London (or any other big town) and have the luxury (being retired) of being able to avoid being on the road during the rush hour for the benefit of all. ;-)

I'll even (and have for ages) turn the engine off if I know I'll be stationary for some time (railway crossing or very slow traffic light junctions etc) and in spite of the new moves against vehicle idling, I regularly see vehicles doing such whilst waiting near railway stations and outside shops etc. ;-(

Do these people not get they too are breathing their own exhaust pollution?

Cheers, T i m

It may have merits as a *temporary* repair it is not a proper repair.

Your individual experience is the problem, it means you don't see the whole picture.

Epidemiology wouldn't get far if everyone based their thinking on personal experience.

You can't, an approved repair requires the internal inspection.

The gunk also requires the internal inspection and not just being left as a repair. You don't even know what is in the tyre that has been sealed. It could be a 10mm nail or a piece of metal 300 mm long. One would be safe(ish), the other could be doing more damage as you drive.

The repair process is the result of many years of practical use. They don't allow other methods because they have proven to be unsafe.

None if its done properly.