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

On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:04:43 -0500, wrote:

>On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:35:20 -0000 (UTC), Leon Schneider
> wrote:
>
wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:57:20 -0500:
>>
>>> You got'er Cotter. Just tighten with a socket wrench.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>I wonder which is better *quality*?
>>
>>I suspect neither is better than the other.
>>
>>I would "guess" (ASSume) that the one with nuts is *heavier* (which is a
>>bad thing) and more expensive (another bad thing).
>>
>>I doubt it seals any better on a steel wheel (guessing again though).
>>
>>Does it seal better on an alloy wheel?
> The aluminum bolt ins are, if anything, only a few gramms heavier
>than the rubber ones. They do seal better on boyh steel and alloy
>because the rubber seal is compressed much more positively than the
>rubber stem, forming a VERY tight seal.They are a bit more expensive -
>I think I paid something like $1.50 each for the bolt-ins. Rubber
>ones are about $1.30 on e-bay and $2.00 at the tire shop - so it's
>pretty much a toss-up - and they last for years.
>
>Curb damage is not an issue with either if you use short stems - and
>with expensive alloy rims I stay well away from curbs anyway.
Sorry - I just checked again, and you can buy the chinese rubber
snap-ins for about $0.50 apiece on e-bay - if you don't care what
quality the rubber is.

Leon Schneider wrote:
> Paul in Houston TX wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:11:05 -0600:
>
>> 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.
>
> I appreciate the insight but you hit a sore point with me so please don't
> take my diatribe below personally - but I've heard too many people say what
> you just said, which I think is the wrong approach entirely.
>
> You don't approach a tool from a cost perspective; you approach a tool from
> the quality of results perspective.
>
> I realize you said "usually", so, I agree that you're already on board,
> when I say that choosing tool-quality by cost is entirely the wrong logic,
> but the other half of what you said is the correct logic, which is to use
> the best tool if you need it.
>
> Whether or not it is expensive is completly meaningless (most people simply
> *assume* expensive stuff is better becuase it's a simple number and they
> can handle numbers but they can't handle myriad technical details when
> comparing two different tools).
>
> For example, a 100K dollar alignment system may not be any more accurate
> than a $500 alignment system, but it does stuff that the shop needs, e.g.,
> it allows dumber people to operate it and it allows hands-free measurements
> and it allows cars to be easily ramped on and off and it allows printing of
> the results, etc.
>
> None of that has any bearing on the quality of the results and all of that
> raises the expense of the machine such that the local morons down the
> street think you have to buy an alignment tool for 100K dollars just to get
> a "good" alignment.
>
> You can get a good alignment for probably 100 dollars in tools, and
> certainly for 500 dollars in tools; but it won't have all that time-saving
> stuff (where for a mechanic, time is money).
>
> In contrast to your point, it may very well be that a $100 cellphone gets
> you as good an alignment as a $100K alignment tool.
>
> The only thing that matters is the quality of the results.
> The cost of the tool isn't a factor in the quality of the results.
>
> To the point, I'm not positive yet because I haven't done it, but I would
> bet that the quality of results from using a nail inside the tire valve
> when seating it is as good as the quality of results from using that $25
> grooved swivel-head lever tool just as the quality of results when removing
> the valve with a utility knife is probably as good as the quality of
> results when using that fancy tool.
>
> PS: I didn't aim this *at* you, but at the team becuase too many people use
> "cost" of things as a "quality" measurement - and it's never the case.
> People just use "cost" because they don't understand quality but they
> understand numbers such as numbers of dollars. But it's the wrong way of
> looking at tools (it's a factor though).

That was a good analysis. Thank you.
My thoughts were from a mechanics viewpoint. I no longer do that work but
did for many years professionally.
What I found was that a $3 wrench would last one or two uses but a similar
$20 wrench would last a life time. I still have my Proto, Snap-On, and Mac
after 40 years and they still work fine. The cheap Chinese junk lasts a week at most.
Poor quality steel, poor quality manufacturing, but they look splendid when first
purchased. I will continue to buy the best if I intend on keeping them.
I buy Chinese junk for use at remote locations for a few days and then
give it away or throw away before I fly home.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 21:35:23 -0000 (UTC), Leon Schneider
>
>You can get a good alignment for probably 100 dollars in tools, and
>certainly for 500 dollars in tools; but it won't have all that time-saving
>stuff (where for a mechanic, time is money).
>
>In contrast to your point, it may very well be that a $100 cellphone gets
>you as good an alignment as a $100K alignment tool.

There is a cellphone alignment tool? I have done the string and measuring
tape thing (and generally been more satisfied with it than I have been by
sending it to shops with expensive tools operated by high school kids),
but I'd be willing to spend a couple hundred dollars to do a better job.
Tell me more!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:42:10 -0600, Paul in Houston TX
> wrote:

>Leon Schneider wrote:
>> Paul in Houston TX wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:11:05 -0600:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I appreciate the insight but you hit a sore point with me so please don't
>> take my diatribe below personally - but I've heard too many people say what
>> you just said, which I think is the wrong approach entirely.
>>
>> You don't approach a tool from a cost perspective; you approach a tool from
>> the quality of results perspective.
>>
>> I realize you said "usually", so, I agree that you're already on board,
>> when I say that choosing tool-quality by cost is entirely the wrong logic,
>> but the other half of what you said is the correct logic, which is to use
>> the best tool if you need it.
>>
>> Whether or not it is expensive is completly meaningless (most people simply
>> *assume* expensive stuff is better becuase it's a simple number and they
>> can handle numbers but they can't handle myriad technical details when
>> comparing two different tools).
>>
>> For example, a 100K dollar alignment system may not be any more accurate
>> than a $500 alignment system, but it does stuff that the shop needs, e.g.,
>> it allows dumber people to operate it and it allows hands-free measurements
>> and it allows cars to be easily ramped on and off and it allows printing of
>> the results, etc.
>>
>> None of that has any bearing on the quality of the results and all of that
>> raises the expense of the machine such that the local morons down the
>> street think you have to buy an alignment tool for 100K dollars just to get
>> a "good" alignment.
>>
>> You can get a good alignment for probably 100 dollars in tools, and
>> certainly for 500 dollars in tools; but it won't have all that time-saving
>> stuff (where for a mechanic, time is money).
>>
>> In contrast to your point, it may very well be that a $100 cellphone gets
>> you as good an alignment as a $100K alignment tool.
>>
>> The only thing that matters is the quality of the results.
>> The cost of the tool isn't a factor in the quality of the results.
>>
>> To the point, I'm not positive yet because I haven't done it, but I would
>> bet that the quality of results from using a nail inside the tire valve
>> when seating it is as good as the quality of results from using that $25
>> grooved swivel-head lever tool just as the quality of results when removing
>> the valve with a utility knife is probably as good as the quality of
>> results when using that fancy tool.
>>
>> PS: I didn't aim this *at* you, but at the team becuase too many people use
>> "cost" of things as a "quality" measurement - and it's never the case.
>> People just use "cost" because they don't understand quality but they
>> understand numbers such as numbers of dollars. But it's the wrong way of
>> looking at tools (it's a factor though).
>
>That was a good analysis. Thank you.
>My thoughts were from a mechanics viewpoint. I no longer do that work but
>did for many years professionally.
>What I found was that a $3 wrench would last one or two uses but a similar
>$20 wrench would last a life time. I still have my Proto, Snap-On, and Mac
>after 40 years and they still work fine. The cheap Chinese junk lasts a week at most.
>Poor quality steel, poor quality manufacturing, but they look splendid when first
>purchased. I will continue to buy the best if I intend on keeping them.
>I buy Chinese junk for use at remote locations for a few days and then
>give it away or throw away before I fly home.
Skinned knuckles are worth more than a couple bucks. You don't have
to spend big bucks on Snap-On tools to get decent tools. - and you
don't need to buy knuckle-busters to get "reasonably priced" tools.

In Canada we are never far from a "Canadian Tire" store and they
almost always have something decent on sale that will do the job
without breaking either the bank or your knuckles.

wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:06:20 -0500:

> Just make sure the repair is done properly. Anything bigger than a
> nail hole I consider to be NOT REPAIRABLE on today's radial tires.
> (and I spent many years in the auto repair and tire businesses)

I do have one question about that tire repair but this is probably not the
thread for it.

But since you brought it up...

1. Here is my patch kit on top of the holed tire.
http://i.cubeupload.com/TE6Td2.jpg
2. One question I have is what's the difference between a "radial" patch
and a patch that doesn't *say* it's radial?
http://i.cubeupload.com/0Q8NO3.jpg
3. Here is the hole from a screw, shown from the inside of the tire
http://i.cubeupload.com/8XKp9m.jpg
(yes, I know the rubber chafed from driving on it for a mile when low)
4. Here is the final picture of the patch
(yes, I know that the t-shaped patch would have been better)
http://i.cubeupload.com/JWrrfh.jpg

I have a bunch of technical questions, but before I ask them, I do know
that the tire is toast and that the t-shaped patch would have been better.

The only reason I didn't put in the t-shaped patch was that I didn't feel
like reaming out the hole, since the hole was so tiny I could barely get
that tent-pole stringing wire through it that you see in this pictu
http://i.cubeupload.com/8XKp9m.jpg

My *technical* questions are the following:

1. What the heck is the difference between the patches in the patch kit
labeled "radial" and the very similar looking patches not labeled radial?

2. Would a drill work as a reamer? Those hand tools are a bear to use.

3. Where can I get more tubes of that cement? It always seems that these
are single-use only (no matter how large they are) because when I need
them, they're always dried up.

Paul in Houston TX wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:42:10 -0600:

> That was a good analysis. Thank you.

I appreciate that you didn't take my rant personally as it is a diatribe
I've given often, which is that quality and cost are two different things,
and they are essentially unrelated.

A perfect example, by the way, is the cost of fruits when they're NOT in
season. The cost is high when the quality sucks and the cost is low when
the quality is good.

Same with airfare. The cost is low when nobody is flying (i.e., the quality
is high) and the cost is high when everyone is flying (i.e., the quality is
low).

My point is that price bears no direct relationship to quality but people
*use price* as a substitute for the quality metric.

> My thoughts were from a mechanics viewpoint. I no longer do that work but
> did for many years professionally.

I can't help but agree that if you change tire valves all day, every day,
the cost of the tool doesn't matter one bit. What matters is how well the
tool helps you do the job fast and efficient.

Therefore, since cost isn't at all a concern, the *price* of that tool will
likely be high (because of the lack of downward pressure on pricing). Also
that tool may have a lot of engineering in it to eke out the last iota of
speed and efficiency in removing and replacing valves.

But that type of speed and efficiency doesn't generally play a role in
backyard mechanic metrics. For a backyard mechanic, it could well be that
storage costs outweight tool-quality metrics, for example.

> What I found was that a $3 wrench would last one or two uses but a similar
> $20 wrench would last a life time. I still have my Proto, Snap-On, and Mac
> after 40 years and they still work fine.

I agree. My Craftsman wrenches were bought in the 70s and they're still the
same now as they were then. I'm glad I bought them. Same with my floor jack
and 6-ton jack stands, having gone through very many lesser quality
versions over the years (most of which failed at some point).

> The cheap Chinese junk lasts a week at most.

You say cheap but what you mean is low quality.
Low quality junk only lasts a week at most.
I agree with that concept.

For example, I never buy those yellow-and-black screwdrivers they sell in
grocery stores. They all suck, right? But my point isn't that they suck
because they're cheap.

My point is that they suck because they suck.
That they suck has nothing whatsoever to do with the price.

They suck at any price.

> Poor quality steel, poor quality manufacturing, but they look splendid when first
> purchased. I will continue to buy the best if I intend on keeping them.
> I buy Chinese junk for use at remote locations for a few days and then
> give it away or throw away before I fly home.

Again, junk sucks because it's junk.
It matters not what price you paid for it.

My only beef is that people *think* price is an indicator of quality.
It is not.

Quality is an indicator of quality.
But that takes technical thought to figure out quality.

People use price (which is just a number) as a substitute for technical
merit.

wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:08:56 -0500:

> I have long held to the position "never buy the cheapest or the most
> expensive, because you will be overpaying for either one"

While that makes sense from a general sense, one of my beefs with people is
that they can't handle technical detail, so they grasp at straws to
something (anything) that they can handle.

Anyone can handle numbers.

So they buy a battery, for example, by "warranty" for heaven's sake!

It's so easy for them to "compare" a battery that has a warranty of, say,
12 months versus a warranty of, say, 24 months, that they grasp at straws
thinking that the warranty defines the difference between teh batteries.

Likewise, they buy tires by warranty, which is ridiculous to say the least.

When they have *nothing* else that they know to compare things, then they
compare by *price* (which is just as ridiculous).

Price is only one of very many factors. Often price is meaningless.

For example, the price paid for one airline seat can be double the price
paid for the one next to it. The price paid for a tomato at one store can
be double the price of another tomato. The price paid for a valve stem on
the ern could be ten cents versus the price I paid, which is something like
five or six bucks.

In all those cases, the price is NOT an indication of quality.
Quality is an indication of quality.

But most people are so stupid that all they can do is compare prices.

I'm not saying you are such a person but it's a long-time beef with me that
teh dumber the person, the more they think that price equates to quality.

It doesn't.
Quality equates to quality.

But that takes brains to assess.

wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:53:48 -0500:

> and the inch, foot, mile, fehrenheit temperatures, lbs and ounces and
> tons (as compared to tonnes)and a whole lot of other measurements you
> did NOT change.. Your fluid measure was changed to short-change the
> brits.

Until this very moment, I had alays thought a tonne was just a British
spelling of ton!

wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:59:25 -0500:

> I had 4 stems crack and loose air on the trip. They were all nice
> short stems less than a year old, installed with the new tires by the
> tire shop. It ends up they were crappy chinese crap stems, but 4 for 4
> is BAD. I have alloy rims for summer and winter wheels on the truck -
> all with bolt-ins. I have bolt-ins on the summer alloys for the
> Tautus. I bought a set of used snows on alloys for the Taurus this
> fall. They stiull have the rubber cores, but I have a set of bolt-ins
> sitting in the wings - ready to go in.

Depending on the year, I saw a recall on about 6 million of the most common
valve stems for that exact problem.

The manufacturer even reimbursed people for new tires.

It's an NHTSA recall.

wrote on Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:12:53 -0500:

> Sorry - I just checked again, and you can buy the chinese rubber
> snap-ins for about $0.50 apiece on e-bay - if you don't care what
> quality the rubber is.

The problem with price is that you can get anything for any price in that i
paid about $2 each for the four valve stems I bought where on the net
they're probably 20 cents each.

My point on price is that the stems are exact the same quality at two
dollars as they are for twenty cents.

What you're paying for is not the quality of the valve stems, and, it
seems, from my experience, you almost never (if ever) get good quality
stuff at a auto parts store (where I bought mine).