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

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:47:29 -0800 (PST), advised:

> If I were the only driver on the planet, and never drove closer than
> 500 meters from another living creature, this discussion might be
> relevant at the level of detail incurred so far.

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).

> But, I drive on crowded roads with other drivers who have lives of
> their own. And the occasional school bus with a few dozen children on
> board. And the occasional fluids-tanker or propane tanker with flammable
> and explosive materials on board.

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.

> 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 waffle a school bus into a gasoline tanker. *POOF*.

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.

> Turns out that the tire-removal, patching, balancing and re-installation
> were all mine, using Harbor Freight tools based on advice received in this
> venue.

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.

> What is my ethical position?
> Pretty wretched in any case, and probably criminal.

Again, you'd make a great politician because you lack detail and yet, you
ply emotion instead.

>
> It is very clear, at least to me, that this idiot in search of a village
> has the ethics of a politician, the morals of an evangelical preacher
> and the wisdom of a common housefly.

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.

> And all this blather is about avoiding 'bad news' 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 fairly simple tasks?

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.

> Because that mechanic is trained to see things that I do not.

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.

> That mechanic (and ours are very, very good) will tell me what I need
> to know whether I like it or not.

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).

> And my mechanic DOES use the right tool for the job, does not accept
> "good enough" and more.

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.

> Do not engage with this creature.

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.

> [real men] will ask and ask [for detail] in many different ways

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 1:47:41 PM UTC-5, Frank Baron wrote:

> 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).

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.

http://stoptextsstopwrecks.org/tagge...MaAieL8P8H AQ

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

> On 12/21/2016 12:15 PM, Frank Baron wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:38:23 -0500, Wade Garrett advised:
>>
>>> > Gotta' ask....what is your ongoing fascination with tire
>>> > dismounting/mounting/repairing ;-)
>> 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 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.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:37:19 -0800 (PST), trader_4 advised:

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.)

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:27:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski advised:

> I can't do that and have no desire to do so.

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.

> In the past 20 years I can
> think of three tires needing repair.

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 car came with roadside service
> so I called the number and a guy comes and changes the tire for me.

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?

> In
> two cases, the tire was not repairable in the third, i drove it to a shop.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

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.

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

> I won't patch a sidewall on a passenger vehicle but on something like a
> tractor, loader or skidder I don't have a problem using a chunk of live
> rubber and vulcanizing it in, I've even stitched some together and
> patched them. Toss a tube in to hold the air if needed.

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
http://www.moderntiredealer.com/arti...-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.

On 12/22/2016 8:29 PM, Frank Baron wrote:

>> In the past 20 years I can
>> think of three tires needing repair.
>
> Wow. I seem to have at least one a year, and sometimes more (lately).

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.



>
> 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?

Ah, it pretty much has. Many cars have a can of air now.



> 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.

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.
>

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 01:29:43 +0000 (UTC), Frank Baron
> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:27:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski advised:
>
snip
>
>> In the past 20 years I can
>> think of three tires needing repair.
>
>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?
>

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.

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

>On 12/22/2016 8:29 PM, Frank Baron wrote:
>
>>> In the past 20 years I can
>>> think of three tires needing repair.
>>
>> Wow. I seem to have at least one a year, and sometimes more (lately).
>
>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.
>
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>Ah, it pretty much has. Many cars have a can of air now.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>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
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.

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

> 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.

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.

> 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 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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 a
a. 3/16ths inch carbide bit
b. Cone buffing wheel
c. Flexible knife
http://i.cubeupload.com/3G9xsg.jpg

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).