What size nut goes onto a typical US passenger tire Schrader valve?

wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 08:06:15 -0500:

>>This one has a screwdrover-hook to remove and a screwdriver-funnel to
>>replace for example.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgDzZIop_uw
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l4pJNg9k0I
> pretty slick!! (the funnel type)

Last night I watched something like a score of tire-valve replacement
videos. One caveat is that a lot of videos use the same words for just
removing the inner schrader valve stem versus the complete removal and
replacement of the valve itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems they use basically these different
types of tools.

1. Traditional method:
2. Redneck method:
3. Fancy method:
4. Pro method:

*REMOVAL STYLES* AFAIK from my Youtube education last night:
1. The traditional method is apparently to cut the valve in half and
retrieve the pieces (sometimes tying a string to a screw and screwing that
screw into the inside of the ball on the inside of the rim if you haven't
removed the tire from the rim).

2. The redneck method is to simply band the valve stem from the ouside with
your finger until it breaks off and then just push the inside piece away
from the rim.

3. The fancy method is to use the hook part of the hook-and-funnel
combination, where you bend the valve to the side and shove a hook and
twist the hook until it catches on the inside hole and you pull the valve
out without needing to remove the bead.

4. The professionals seem to use a grooved levered long-handled tool that
screws onto the valve stem on the outside where the grooves seat on the rim
edge and they pop the valve out the front using sheer leverage force.


*INSTALLATION STYLES* AFAIK from my Youtube education last night:
1. The traditional method is apparently to place the valve loosely and then
screw on a small cheap 4-way crossbar tool on the outside and just pull it
through until it seats.

2. The redneck method is to use a nail as a substitute for your four-way
crossbar tool where you first remove the inside Schrader core and then you
shove a nail with the pointy side facing out through the valve tube, and
then you use vise grips to grab the nail and pull the valve out until it
seats.

3. The fancy method is to use the funnel part of the hook-and-funnel
combination, where you shove the valve forward into the rim until it seats.

4. The professionals seem to use that same grooved levered long-handled
tool that screws onto the valve stem on the outside where the grooves seat
on the rim edge and they push the valve in through the front using sheer
leverage force.

Is that a decent summary of the styles available to us for removing and
replacing a conventional rubber tubeless tire valve?

Steve W. wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 04:08:41 -0500:

> Easily. To remove the old one you just cut the inside section off. That
> keeps you from trying to reuse an old stem.
> Next take the new stem, coat it with either tire lube or some very soapy
> water and put it through the hole, then pull with the 4 way while moving
> your hand in a circle (not turning the valve). It will pull right into
> place.

Thank you for that advice as it's not obvious that the tiny $2 four-way
tool is good enough considering my searches found a bunch of tools for
removing and replacing automotive tubeless tire valve stems from
a. Cable pullers
b. Grooved hinged levers
c. Hook-and-funnel tools (these work without breaking the bead though)
d. And the inexpensive 4-way tool

I have the rubber and brass style but is it different for the style that
has metal nuts or similar?

Scott Dorsey wrote on 6 Dec 2016 16:45:21 -0500:

>>Assuming "Imperial" means "USA", that would mean I need a 32 TPI nut
>>somewhere between 0.271 inches and 0.305 inches in iD, but that doesn't
>>seem to be a standard size for a USA nut.
>
> Sure isn't, that's deliberate.

I keep seeing this *mix* of metric and what they seem to call "Imperial",
(which I guess is the USA?).

Are we really that imperial?

Anyway, I'm confused about this mix of metric and US measurements. I
realize that car tires have both at the same time but for different things.

For example, the P250/50R18 designation is a mix of units for different
measurements
1. P = passenger
2. 250 = millimeters of tread width
3. 50 = percent width being the height in millimeters
4. R = radial
5. 18 = diameter in inches

So they mix letters, percents, millimeters, and inches but each one
designates a different measurement.

Is it the same with the mix of units on the Schrader valve threads?
The reason I ask is that there are only two measurements:
1. Nominal diameter (thread root & thread crown)
2. Threads per measurement unit

Given there are only really two measurements on a valve stem nut selection,
I thought the two lines in the Wikipedia weren't a mix but just two ways of
measuring the same thing?

Aren't these two different measurements measuring the same thing?
1. Metric: 7.7 mm OD, 6.9 mm thread root, 0.794 mm pitch
2. USA: 0.305 in OD, 0.271 in thread root, 32 TPI pitch

Right?
That means it's *not* a mix.
It's just like measuring a 5/32 and 4mm bolt, where both use the same
wrech.

My question is:
Isn't the tire valve NOT a mix of measurement standards?

Leon Schneider wrote:
> wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 08:02:40 -0500:
>
>> Remove with a utility knife, install with the tool. Soap the stem
>> first.
>
> Thanks for confirming that the cheap tool works just fine.
>
> As you probably know, experience in choosing tools is everything because
> ometimes you don't want the cheap tool, and sometimes you do.
>
> It all depends, usually, on three basic things for all tools:
> 1. Use the cheap tool if it does the job well enough to do it right
> 2. Buy the expensive "finesse" tools if you do it a lot
> 3. The smaller and easier stored the tool, the better (for storage reasons)
>
> This 4-way cheap ubiquitous tool meets the standard tool's #1 and #3
> criteria, and since I'm not doing the job a lot, I don't need to meet the
> #2 criterion for "elegant" tools.

If you're going to be doing tens, hundreds, or thousands of wheels then
get the best tool that you can afford. Usually that means the most expensive.

Leon Schneider wrote:
> Ralph Mowery wrote on Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:59:24 -0500:
>
>> Yes, just lube it with something.
>>
>> They do make valve stems that instead of a friction fit that have a nut
>> on the outside so the valve stem fits on like a bolt.
>
> I have seen those nut-type valve stems in the stores, and I read while I
> looked this up that alloy wheels often use them.
>
> I have steel wheels so I'll use the rubber but is the procedure the same
> for the nut-type?
>
> Or do you just unscrew them and they fall out and you screw them and they
> go in (without any special tools)?

Some alloy wheels and all large trucks use the nut type.
They just unscrew, but they rarely need replacing unless obviously damaged.

Leon Schneider > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote on 6 Dec 2016 16:45:21 -0500:
>
>>>Assuming "Imperial" means "USA", that would mean I need a 32 TPI nut
>>>somewhere between 0.271 inches and 0.305 inches in iD, but that doesn't
>>>seem to be a standard size for a USA nut.
>>
>> Sure isn't, that's deliberate.
>
>I keep seeing this *mix* of metric and what they seem to call "Imperial",
>(which I guess is the USA?).
>
>Are we really that imperial?

No, Imperial measures are not the same as US measures. An Imperial pint is
0.57 litres, while a US liquid pint is 0.47 litres.

US measures, Imperial measures, and English measures are all different.

>So they mix letters, percents, millimeters, and inches but each one
>designates a different measurement.

That's how it goes. I've seen pressure gauges in pounds/cm2, even. We
live in that kind of world.

>Aren't these two different measurements measuring the same thing?
>1. Metric: 7.7 mm OD, 6.9 mm thread root, 0.794 mm pitch
>2. USA: 0.305 in OD, 0.271 in thread root, 32 TPI pitch
>
>Right?
>That means it's *not* a mix.

It depends how the original document specifies it. But you could think about
it either way if you were setting a lathe up.

>My question is:
>Isn't the tire valve NOT a mix of measurement standards?

I don't know, I haven't read the original specification document. It's
likely written in terms of ordinary US standards, given when and where it
came about.

It's not a standard SAE thread, but then there are an infinite number of
possible threads and only a very few of them are standard SAE threads.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 12/7/2016 12:33 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Leon Schneider > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote on 6 Dec 2016 16:45:21 -0500:
>>
>>>> Assuming "Imperial" means "USA", that would mean I need a 32 TPI nut
>>>> somewhere between 0.271 inches and 0.305 inches in iD, but that doesn't
>>>> seem to be a standard size for a USA nut.
>>>
>>> Sure isn't, that's deliberate.
>>
>> I keep seeing this *mix* of metric and what they seem to call "Imperial",
>> (which I guess is the USA?).
>>
>> Are we really that imperial?
>
> No, Imperial measures are not the same as US measures. An Imperial pint is
> 0.57 litres, while a US liquid pint is 0.47 litres.
>
> US measures, Imperial measures, and English measures are all different.
>
>> So they mix letters, percents, millimeters, and inches but each one
>> designates a different measurement.
>
> That's how it goes. I've seen pressure gauges in pounds/cm2, even. We
> live in that kind of world.
>
>> Aren't these two different measurements measuring the same thing?
>> 1. Metric: 7.7 mm OD, 6.9 mm thread root, 0.794 mm pitch
>> 2. USA: 0.305 in OD, 0.271 in thread root, 32 TPI pitch
>>
>> Right?
>> That means it's *not* a mix.
>
> It depends how the original document specifies it. But you could think about
> it either way if you were setting a lathe up.
>
>> My question is:
>> Isn't the tire valve NOT a mix of measurement standards?
>
> I don't know, I haven't read the original specification document. It's
> likely written in terms of ordinary US standards, given when and where it
> came about.
>
> It's not a standard SAE thread, but then there are an infinite number of
> possible threads and only a very few of them are standard SAE threads.
> --scott
>

Right and Schrader (1890-ish) predates SAE anyway. Prior
standards were UNC/UNF, before that NC/NF and before that
Whitworth 55 degree threads in an era when many
manufacturers of many things made up thread formats as they
went along.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:59:24 -0500, Ralph Mowery
> wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> RonNNN wrote on Tue, 6 Dec 2016 15:39:37 -0600:
>>
>> > 4-way valve stem tools cost less than $2. It amazes me why some people
>> > want to reinvent some things.
>>
>> Assuming the tire is off the rim, can I both remove an old valve and
>> replace it with a new valve using that cheap 4-way tool?
>
>Yes, just lube it with something.
>
>They do make valve stems that instead of a friction fit that have a nut
>on the outside so the valve stem fits on like a bolt.
>
I use "bolt in" stems on all of my vehicles now since I lost 4 stems
in one trip on my PT Cruiser. That was Kitchener to PEI and back.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:59:12 -0000 (UTC), Leon Schneider
> wrote:

>Ralph Mowery wrote on Wed, 7 Dec 2016 09:59:24 -0500:
>
>> Yes, just lube it with something.
>>
>> They do make valve stems that instead of a friction fit that have a nut
>> on the outside so the valve stem fits on like a bolt.
>
>I have seen those nut-type valve stems in the stores, and I read while I
>looked this up that alloy wheels often use them.
>
>I have steel wheels so I'll use the rubber but is the procedure the same
>for the nut-type?
>
>Or do you just unscrew them and they fall out and you screw them and they
>go in (without any special tools)?
You got'er Cotter. Just tighten with a socket wrench.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:59:34 -0000 (UTC), Leon Schneider
> wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote on 6 Dec 2016 16:45:21 -0500:
>
>>>Assuming "Imperial" means "USA", that would mean I need a 32 TPI nut
>>>somewhere between 0.271 inches and 0.305 inches in iD, but that doesn't
>>>seem to be a standard size for a USA nut.
>>
>> Sure isn't, that's deliberate.
>
>I keep seeing this *mix* of metric and what they seem to call "Imperial",
>(which I guess is the USA?).
>
>Are we really that imperial?

Imperial is referring to the british system, which you yanks have hung
onto with so much love since the revolution, and the britts have
pretrty much replaced with Metric.
>