Just mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years - saving over $400

On 4/5/19 7:40 pm, Peeler wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2019 19:18:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
> Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:
>
> <FLUSH the abnormal 85-year-old senile troll's latest troll****>
>
> Engaging in another auto-contradicting orgy again, you abnormal
> auto-contradicting senile pest? <BG>
>
>
See what I mean! ;-)

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Sat, 4 May 2019 20:17:55 +1000, Xeno wrote:

> Seen it in new cars under factory warranty - when warranty was 12/12
> and/or 12/20.

Hi Xeno,

I'm allergic to bull****, Xeno.

Kids talk about Santa Claus all the time, Xeno, as if he exists
o Where their beliefs are (just as yours are), based on their "experience".

Is the end result just what I predicted from you Xeno, after all?

Can you, or can you not cite a _single_ reliable reference that backs up
your claims, Xeno?

I can claim I climbed mount everest, Xeno.
o In fact, I can claim I climbed mount everest just last week, Xeno,
o Without oxygen
o And in sneakers.

Those claims are just as reliable as your claims, Xeno.
o Which is to say that they're not.

Just like kids own imaginary belief systems on how the Easter Bunny works
o You appear to own an imaginary belief system backed up by 0 facts

The fact is that people who own completely imaginary belief systems
always fail the simplest of the simplest of simple adult tests.

Name just _one_ reliable cite that backs up your beliefs, Xeno.
o Name just one

On Sat, 4 May 2019 09:48:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> Wow, what BS and false comparison. Xeno spent a lot of time giving an
> excellent explanation of the physics involved, it's not some fairy tale.

Hi Trader,

Let's act like adults please.
o Adults should be capable of separating bull****, from the facts

Where the main thing we need to know is the answer to the question
o What percentage of US passenger tires _need_ dynamic balance
o Particularly after a home DIY of matchmount/static balancing, plus
o A doublecheck of that static balancing with a dynamic drive

Let's act like adults, Trader...

Nobody ever said that a dynamic imbalance can't occur.
o Even after a good match mount & static balance
o And, particularly even after a doublecheck at speed

I repeat: Nobody ever said that dynamic balance can't occur
o Just like nobody said that shopping cart imbalances can't occur

But for Xeno to make those wide emphatic sweeping claims he made
o Is sort of like saying that all shopping carts need dynamic balancing

Sure, _some_ shopping cards need dynamic balancing
o But not all of them, Trader.

Perhaps not even most of them, Trader.
o Some of them do, but the question is how many need dynamic balancing
o After they've been match mounted, statically balanced, & checked at speed

Adults can handle concepts that have a bit of complexity to them.

If you don't comprehend this concept, then re-read my initial responses to
Xeno where your cite (see below) implies that you appear to own the
comprehension of a child, Trader.

Xeno's claim was a sweeping claim, based on pure bull****, Trader.
o All you're seeing from me is my allergic response to bull****

It's like me claiming that all shopping carts need dynamic balancing
o Simply because my experience is that they're wobbly once in a while

>> Name just _one_ reliable cite that backs up your beliefs, Xeno.
>> o Name just one
> That's a foolish challenge to issue. Do you really think there isn't even
> ONE reliable source, eg tire manufacturers or auto authorities, that say
> that tires should be dynamically balanced? Really?

Trader,

Do you own the comprehensive brain of an adult, or of a small child?

Nobody ever said that tires can't be dynamically unbalanced for Christ's
sake, even after match mounting at home, and even after subsequent static
balance at home, and even after subsequent dynamic tests at speed.

Just like nobody said that shopping carts can by dynamically unbalanced.
o The question is WHAT PERCENTAGE of mounts are dynamically unbalanced.
o After match mounting, static balancing, & dynamic tests at speed.

I'm allergic to unsubstantiated bull****, Clare.
o If Xeno's belief system is based on facts, he can pass this simple test:

Name Just One.

> I'll give you one. Michelin
> https://www.michelinman.com/US/en/help/faq.html
> Should my tires be balanced?
> Proper balancing is critical for optimal vehicle performance,
> especially at today's higher highway speeds.

Do you own the comprehensive mind of an _adult_ Trader?
o Do you even comprehend the stated problem set, Trader?

Nobody even once said that 'proper balancing' isn't what we're after.

> When tire and wheel assemblies are unbalanced, a vibration can result
> from wheel and assembly shimmy (shaking from side to side)
> or wheel assembly tramp (tire and wheel hopping up and down).
> Therefore, it is important that these assemblies are in both
> static and dynamic balance

Um... Trader. Everything you post is from the brain of a child.
o Nobody ever said that balancing wasn't important.

>
> And just for you:
> Can I mount my own tire on the wheel?
> Never try to mount your own tires.
> Tire mounting is a job for the people who have the proper equipment
> and experience. If you try to do it yourself, you run the risk of
> serious injury to yourself as well as possible damage to the tire
> and rim.

Um, Trader, do you even realize what you're proving?
HINT: You apparently own the mind of a child, Trader.

If Michelin says don't do what the pros do because you
"run the risk" of (whatever), then, well, then YOU won't do it.
o That's because you appear to own the mind of a child, Trader.

But adults can see that quote for what it actually is.
o Where adults can handle basic facts better than can small children.

> Try Google, they are there by the dozens.

Hi Trader,

Sigh. (This never ends)

That statement, just like _every_ statement from you, is terrifying in that
it clearly proves not only that you appear to own the cognitive skills of a
small child, but that you actually _believe_ that because Michelin said you
shouldn't do it, that you shouldn't do it.

Guess what.
o By the same logic, you shouldn't do many DIYs that pros do all the time.

In summary, every post from you, sadly, appears to indicate only that you
don't comprehend even the slightest bit of what the problem set entails.

Since the problem set is patently simple,
o The fact you don't comprehend it, is a bit terrifying.

Please try to comprehend the problem set:
o The question is what percentage of wheels _need_ dynamic balance
o After a good match mount, static balance, & pass on perceptible vibration

I don't think _anyone_ knows the answer to _that_ adult question, Trader.
o I admit, I don't know the answer either.

But it's pure bull****, IMHO, if someone claims it's _all_ wheels.

On 5/4/2019 12:16 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2019 20:17:55 +1000, Xeno wrote:
>
>> Seen it in new cars under factory warranty - when warranty was 12/12
>> and/or 12/20.
>
> Hi Xeno,
>
> I'm allergic to bull****, Xeno.
>

Xeno posted some very sensible information and he evidently has a lot of
experience. Your credibility keeps going down.

"Xeno" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/5/19 7:18 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Xeno" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 4/5/19 1:05 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:02:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On a modern car it's a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Xeno,
>>>>
>>>> Most people who posted to this thread, IMHO, have proven that they own
>>>> completely imaginary belief systems, where the logical proof is that
>>>> their
>>>> ludicrous excuses instantly failed the simplest of the simple tests of
>>>> any
>>>> belief system, which is the three words when someone declares an opion
>>>> o Name just one FACT from which that belief system is based upon.
>>>>
>>>> Given these vehicles I'm working on are all about two decades old (give
>>>> or
>>>> take), can you name just one FACT that supports your belief system
>>>> stated
>>>> above?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying your belief system is correct, nor am I saying it's not
>>>> correct, since you stated your belief system clearly, but you didn't
>>>> state
>>>> even a single fact that backs up that strongly held belief system.
>>>>
>>>> What FACT is your strongly held belief system actually based upon?
>>>>
>>> A number of *facts* prime among them being my training and involvement
>>> in the automotive industry as a mechanic since the 60s. First and
>>> foremost, it's clear from what you have written that you do not
>>> understand the concept of *dynamic unbalance* and the ramifications it
>>> has for anyone doing a *static* balance. You make too many assumptions
>>> based on your *limited* experience and minimal training.
>>>
>>> First, assume a tyre with a heavy spot central to the centreline of the
>>> tread. this tyre is only in static unbalance. This will cause only wheel
>>> tramp, ie. the bouncing of the wheel and tyre assembly up and down and
>>> should not have any effect on the steering (shimmy). This type of
>>> imbalance can be statically balanced but it requires a little common
>>> sense when applying balance weights. If you apply balance weights
>>> incorrectly you can remove static unbalance but create dynamic
>>> unbalance.
>>
>> Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.
>
> Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.
>>
>>> Second, assume the same tyre but with the heavy spot over to one side of
>>> the tread and away from the centreline. This tyre is not only in static
>>> unbalance but it is also in *dynamic unbalance*. It will cause wheel
>>> tramp but also steering shimmy.
>>
>> Again, not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed
>> wheel.
>
> Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

Bull****.

>>> The issue here is that a static balancer will not tell you which side of
>>> the tread area the heavy spot is, only that it is on that side of the
>>> wheel/tyre assembly. That means that when you add balance weights to the
>>> opposite side of the rim, you need to add weights to both sides. You
>>> look at the counterweight needed, then halve it and add half to each
>>> side of the rim opposite the heavy spot. Might add, when carrying out a
>>> static balance you need to always use balance weights on both sides of
>>> the rim at the light spot, even in cases that are clearly only
>>> statically unbalanced, else you will potentially end up with a
>>> dynamically unbalanced wheel. This type of dynamic unbalance can only be
>>> reduced, on average, by 50% even if the static balance is corrected
>>> 100%. The point here is that your steering joints will be affected by
>>> the unbalance
>>
>>> Third, now assume a wheel that has two heavy spots, one each at opposite
>>> points on the wheel diameter.
>>
>> Again, not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed
>> wheel.
>
> Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

Bull****.

>>> To a static balancer, this wheel assy. will be balanced producing no
>>> wheel tramp. However, assume one heavy spot is located at the *outside*
>>> of the tread centreline and the other on the opposite side located on
>>> the *inside* of the tread centreline. The wheel is, if both heavy spots
>>> are of the same mass, will evince no tramp but will show up as steering
>>> shimmy, the severity of which will depend on the amount of imbalance and
>>> the distance it is located from the tread centreline. It is caused by
>>> the two masses attempting to alternately get to the centreline. Note too
>>> that the type of suspension system and the steering geometry can play a
>>> significant role in the sensitivity to unbalanced wheels.
>>
>>> So, of the 3 imbalance situations, a static balancer can fully address
>>> the first and only partially address the second depending on the mass
>>> location.
>>
>> But not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.
>
> Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

Bull****.

>>> In the case of the third imbalance situation, the static balancer is
>>> totally useless. So, to ensure correct balancing over all situations, a
>>> dynamic balancer is the only choice to be made.
>>
>>> As to the situation where, in the past, static balancers covered most
>>> bases, what has changed today? It's simple really, older cars had narrow
>>> tyres fitted to large diameter rims so less prone to dynamic unbalance
>>> effects. Today's cars have much wider tyres so accentuating the
>>> possibility of dynamic imbalance.
>>
>> In theory. In reality even the cheapest new tires are unlikely to be a
>> problem.
>
> Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

Bull****.

>>> Road speed with respect to wheel assy. diameter plays a role in this.
>>> That brings me to truck wheel balancing.
>>
>> He is talking about car tires, not trucks.
>
> Balance a car wheel or a truck wheel, it's all pretty much the same deal.
> The exact same principles are involved.

But the next stuff isnt.

>>> Given the large diameter and relatively narrow section width of truck
>>> wheels, static balancing is Ok for most cases. In these cases, on
>>> vehicle balancing, usually of front wheels only, is carried out using
>>> equipment like this;
>>> https://www.bigwheels.net.au/on-vehicle-wheel-balancer
>>
>>> I have done this task many times since the late 60s when I first entered
>>> the trade and I can attest to the efficiacy of this type of balancing
>>> for truck wheels. That, however, was in the past and trucks now travel
>>> at relatively high speeds so dynamic unbalance with consequent steering
>>> shimmy has become an issue with truck wheel balancing. In this case you
>>> *need* an off vehicle dynamic balancer like this;
>>> https://www.bigwheels.net.au/off-vehicle-wheel-balancer
>>
>>> I must add too, just because you feel no vibration or shimmy from the
>>> wheels doesn't mean no imbalance exists. What it means is that the
>>> effect is not being transmitted through to you, the driver. The steering
>>> and suspension may well be feeling the effects and this could cause
>>> aggravated wear in suspension and steering joints. Power steering, for
>>> instance, has an effect on nullifying road feedback. After all,
>>> manufacturers adopted power steering on FWD vehicles in order to reduce
>>> or nullify the effects of unwanted feedback, in this case torque steer.
>>
>> They actually did it to make the parking forces less of a problem.
>
> They actually did it to make torque steer less of a problem with the
> universality of PS on all FWD cars.

Bull****.

>>> What would you do if you had a vehicle that had a vibration in the front
>>> through the suspension akin to wheel tramp?
>>
>> Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.
>
> Seen it in new cars under factory warranty

Seen on sweet **** all new cars in fact. Just another manufacturing ****up.

> - when warranty was 12/12 and/or 12/20. The dealership in which I was
> working at the time had a specific diagnosis method for it which isolated
> the issue immediately.
>>
>>> Let's assume you static balanced the wheels with no luck. You checked
>>> the tyre for runout, the rim for runout and the tyre to rim
>>> concentricity - all perfect. A spin up on the dynamic balancer shows the
>>> wheels are perfectly balanced both statically and dynamically yet that
>>> vibration in harmony with road speed persists. Where do you go now?
>>> Balance is perfect, runout is perfect, concentricity is perfect, what
>>> is left?
>>
>> Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.
>>
> Seen it in new cars under factory warranty - when warranty was 12/12
> and/or 12/20.

Seen on sweet **** all new cars in fact. Just another manufacturing ****up.

On Sun, 5 May 2019 05:36:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH more of the pathological idiot's troll****>

....and nothing's left!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID: >

On 5/5/19 3:46 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2019 09:48:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:
>
>> Wow, what BS and false comparison. Xeno spent a lot of time giving an
>> excellent explanation of the physics involved, it's not some fairy tale.
>
> Hi Trader,
>
> Let's act like adults please.
> o Adults should be capable of separating bull****, from the facts
>
> Where the main thing we need to know is the answer to the question
> o What percentage of US passenger tires _need_ dynamic balance
> o Particularly after a home DIY of matchmount/static balancing, plus
> o A doublecheck of that static balancing with a dynamic drive
>
> Let's act like adults, Trader...

Would be helpful if you followed you own recommendation.
>
> Nobody ever said that a dynamic imbalance can't occur.
> o Even after a good match mount & static balance
> o And, particularly even after a doublecheck at speed
>
> I repeat: Nobody ever said that dynamic balance can't occur
> o Just like nobody said that shopping cart imbalances can't occur
>
> But for Xeno to make those wide emphatic sweeping claims he made
> o Is sort of like saying that all shopping carts need dynamic balancing
>
> Sure, _some_ shopping cards need dynamic balancing
> o But not all of them, Trader.

Shopping cart wheel wobble has *nothing* to do with wheel balance and
everything to do with geometry, in particular caster trail. If you
understood car steering geometry you would realise this.
>
> Perhaps not even most of them, Trader.
> o Some of them do, but the question is how many need dynamic balancing
> o After they've been match mounted, statically balanced, & checked at speed
>
> Adults can handle concepts that have a bit of complexity to them.

Guess that's too much for you by the look of it.
>
> If you don't comprehend this concept, then re-read my initial responses to
> Xeno where your cite (see below) implies that you appear to own the
> comprehension of a child, Trader.
>
> Xeno's claim was a sweeping claim, based on pure bull****, Trader.
> o All you're seeing from me is my allergic response to bull****

My claim was based on a working lifetime in the motor industry, a claim
you cannot make since the sum total of your experience is 30 tyres and
that only with a static balancer.
>
> It's like me claiming that all shopping carts need dynamic balancing
> o Simply because my experience is that they're wobbly once in a while

See my *sweeping statement* above!
>
>>> Name just _one_ reliable cite that backs up your beliefs, Xeno.
>>> o Name just one
>> That's a foolish challenge to issue. Do you really think there isn't even
>> ONE reliable source, eg tire manufacturers or auto authorities, that say
>> that tires should be dynamically balanced? Really?
>
> Trader,
>
> Do you own the comprehensive brain of an adult, or of a small child?

Why do you ask that question when it is you who is being argumentative here?
>
> Nobody ever said that tires can't be dynamically unbalanced for Christ's
> sake, even after match mounting at home, and even after subsequent static
> balance at home, and even after subsequent dynamic tests at speed.

So why waste time static balancing when you will do it right first time
with a dynamic balance? No trial and error required.
>
> Just like nobody said that shopping carts can by dynamically unbalanced.
> o The question is WHAT PERCENTAGE of mounts are dynamically unbalanced.
> o After match mounting, static balancing, & dynamic tests at speed.

Most of them if the weights required to correct the imbalance is any guide.
>
> I'm allergic to unsubstantiated bull****, Clare.
> o If Xeno's belief system is based on facts, he can pass this simple test:
>
> Name Just One.
>
>> I'll give you one. Michelin
>> https://www.michelinman.com/US/en/help/faq.html
>> Should my tires be balanced?
>> Proper balancing is critical for optimal vehicle performance,
>> especially at today's higher highway speeds.
>
> Do you own the comprehensive mind of an _adult_ Trader?

He does, you do not.

> o Do you even comprehend the stated problem set, Trader?

He does, you do not.
>
> Nobody even once said that 'proper balancing' isn't what we're after.

Dynamic balancing *is* proper balancing. My point was that static
balancing is a waste of time because it cannot guarantee proper
balancing 100% of the time. It cannot guarantee it 50% of the time. I
have balanced more tyres on a dynamic balancer than I care to recall and
pretty much all required *dynamic balancing* due to unbalanced masses
being offset from the tread centreline. Had you *any* experience in the
industry with a dynamic wheel balancer you would know this to be true.
>
>> When tire and wheel assemblies are unbalanced, a vibration can result
>> from wheel and assembly shimmy (shaking from side to side)
>> or wheel assembly tramp (tire and wheel hopping up and down).
>> Therefore, it is important that these assemblies are in both
>> static and dynamic balance
>
> Um... Trader. Everything you post is from the brain of a child.
> o Nobody ever said that balancing wasn't important.

Balancing is important, dynamic balancing is the only way to do it properly.
>
>>
>> And just for you:
>> Can I mount my own tire on the wheel?
>> Never try to mount your own tires.
>> Tire mounting is a job for the people who have the proper equipment
>> and experience. If you try to do it yourself, you run the risk of
>> serious injury to yourself as well as possible damage to the tire
>> and rim.
>
> Um, Trader, do you even realize what you're proving?
> HINT: You apparently own the mind of a child, Trader.

He is making a statement that I would make having seen *idiots* do more
damage to their tyres/wheels through a lack of understanding of the
principles involved and a lack of the requisite training.
>
> If Michelin says don't do what the pros do because you
> "run the risk" of (whatever), then, well, then YOU won't do it.
> o That's because you appear to own the mind of a child, Trader.

The pros have been trained and have experience. That's what makes them
pros and why what they do *looks easy*.
>
> But adults can see that quote for what it actually is.
> o Where adults can handle basic facts better than can small children.
>
>> Try Google, they are there by the dozens.
>
> Hi Trader,
>
> Sigh. (This never ends)
>
> That statement, just like _every_ statement from you, is terrifying in that
> it clearly proves not only that you appear to own the cognitive skills of a
> small child, but that you actually _believe_ that because Michelin said you
> shouldn't do it, that you shouldn't do it.
>
> Guess what.
> o By the same logic, you shouldn't do many DIYs that pros do all the time.

The differences between a DIYer and a pro are training and experience.
>
> In summary, every post from you, sadly, appears to indicate only that you
> don't comprehend even the slightest bit of what the problem set entails.
>
> Since the problem set is patently simple,
> o The fact you don't comprehend it, is a bit terrifying.
>
> Please try to comprehend the problem set:
> o The question is what percentage of wheels _need_ dynamic balance
> o After a good match mount, static balance, & pass on perceptible vibration

It's the *imperceptible vibration* that causes issues, imperceptible
because modern cars are designed to isolate vehicle occupants from such
things. Because they are *imperceptible* to humans does not mean they do
not exist.
>
> I don't think _anyone_ knows the answer to _that_ adult question, Trader.
> o I admit, I don't know the answer either.
>
> But it's pure bull****, IMHO, if someone claims it's _all_ wheels.
>


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 5/5/19 2:16 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2019 20:17:55 +1000, Xeno wrote:
>
>> Seen it in new cars under factory warranty - when warranty was 12/12
>> and/or 12/20.
>
> Hi Xeno,
>
> I'm allergic to bull****, Xeno.

Then you should stop spouting it. Proximity and all that!
>
> Kids talk about Santa Claus all the time, Xeno, as if he exists
> o Where their beliefs are (just as yours are), based on their "experience".
>
> Is the end result just what I predicted from you Xeno, after all?
>
> Can you, or can you not cite a _single_ reliable reference that backs up
> your claims, Xeno?
>
> I can claim I climbed mount everest, Xeno.
> o In fact, I can claim I climbed mount everest just last week, Xeno,
> o Without oxygen
> o And in sneakers.
>
> Those claims are just as reliable as your claims, Xeno.
> o Which is to say that they're not.
>
> Just like kids own imaginary belief systems on how the Easter Bunny works
> o You appear to own an imaginary belief system backed up by 0 facts
>
> The fact is that people who own completely imaginary belief systems
> always fail the simplest of the simplest of simple adult tests.
>
> Name just _one_ reliable cite that backs up your beliefs, Xeno.
> o Name just one
>


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Sun, 5 May 2019 13:04:14 +1000, Xeno > wrote:

>On 5/5/19 3:46 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:

>>
>> Nobody even once said that 'proper balancing' isn't what we're after.
>
>Dynamic balancing *is* proper balancing. My point was that static
>balancing is a waste of time because it cannot guarantee proper
>balancing 100% of the time. It cannot guarantee it 50% of the time. I
>have balanced more tyres on a dynamic balancer than I care to recall and
>pretty much all required *dynamic balancing* due to unbalanced masses
>being offset from the tread centreline. Had you *any* experience in the
>industry with a dynamic wheel balancer you would know this to be true.
>>

Well, then. Arlen can just buy a dynamic tire balancer. In the meantime he can eat crow.

Xeno posted for all of us...


>
> It's the *imperceptible vibration* that causes issues, imperceptible
> because modern cars are designed to isolate vehicle occupants from such
> things. Because they are *imperceptible* to humans does not mean they do
> not exist.
>

Remember the on the car balancers with the strobe lights?

--
Tekkie