Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[Section147]

Originally Posted by 1speedbike

All in all, nitrogen is a waste of money. Seriously.

OK. We get it. You're a chemist/scientist/otherwise geek of some sort. That's not a slam. But for you to spit out paragraph after
paragraph dismissing the facts that I posted (observed a better ride and better handling and my tires never needed additional
nitrogen, etc.) sounds, well, a bit haughty. I don't dispel your findings...don't automatically dispel mine. Science is swell, but it
ain't always the final word in the real world.

[1speedbike]

Originally Posted by Section147

OK. We get it. You're a chemist/scientist/otherwise geek of some sort. That's not a slam. But for you to spit out paragraph after
paragraph dismissing the facts that I posted (observed a better ride and better handling and my tires never needed additional
nitrogen, etc.) sounds, well, a bit haughty. I don't dispel your findings...don't automatically dispel mine. Science is swell, but it
ain't always the final word in the real world.

Or, as I said, placebo effect is strong. The American Cancer Society found that placebos actually improve symptoms and patient survival rates in 1/3 of cancer patients. It's very strong.

The real world works on rules of physics/science/chemistry/whatever. Things happen because of these rules. Your car is a marvel of engineering and works on the same principles that govern everything else in the universe; there is no magic. If you think you're getting benefits, that's fine, and I wasn't really even referring to you specifically (why did you think I was? I didn't remember you having posted about it and was thinking about OP mentioning he wasn't completely sold on or off it yet. I didn't mean to offend). I'm not trying to be a dick, and I certainly wasn't before, but I'm not trying to be haughty. I'm trying to provide people that haven't yet decided my own opinion, which is supported by fact, not anecdotal evidence.

[Zeros and ones]

Originally Posted by 1speedbike

Let's think about this logically...
-Nitrogen is the largest molecule in air so it doesn’t escape from your tires as easily as Oxygen or water vapor. Oxygen escapes up to four times faster and water vapor escapes up to 250 times faster, then Nitrogen alone.
No. More outright lies. How is N2 the LARGEST molecule in air? O2 is larger and weighs more. Water vapor (h2o) is slightly smaller, but exists in tiny quantities.

while your other points are correct.. this can be debated. Our tires are just a bunch of strands interlaced together to make a whole. When temperature rises our tires expand, hence when the strands stretch... they start to create holes.

Must also remember that forces of both oxygen atoms in O2 is much greater than N2 thus making O2 a smaller atom than N2 even though the weight of O2 is much more.

And if we look at Grahams Law of effusion we can say that O2 does leave the tire faster than N2.

This can also be backed up with Consumer Reports. They did a year long test about this particular issue. They took identical tires and filled them up to 30 psi. The test showed that the air filled ones lost 3.5 psi and the nitrogen lost 2.2.

Now I am not saying that nitrogen is better. I was only asking what others thought and putting down my observations.

A friendly debate or an exchange of thoughts and ideas is always healthy. This is how we all learn and grow.

[1speedbike]

Originally Posted by Zeros and ones

while your other points are correct.. this can be debated. Our tires are just a bunch of strands interlaced together to make a whole. When temperature rises our tires expand, hence when the strands stretch... they start to create holes.

Must also remember that forces of both oxygen atoms in O2 is much greater than N2 thus making O2 a smaller atom than N2 even though the weight of O2 is much more.

And if we look at Grahams Law of effusion we can say that O2 does leave the tire faster than N2.

This can also be backed up with Consumer Reports. They did a year long test about this particular issue. They took identical tires and filled them up to 30 psi. The test showed that the air filled ones lost 3.5 psi and the nitrogen lost 2.2.

Now I am not saying that nitrogen is better. I was only asking what others thought and putting down my observations.

A friendly debate or an exchange of thoughts and ideas is always healthy. This is how we all learn and grow.

Haha, yes I'm just trying to be friendly. Though I think I must point something out

Graham's law basically says that the rate of effusion for a gas is inversely proportional to the square root of its molecular weight... so if a molecule has a mass that's.. say.. 9 times more than another molecule of gas, it will actually diffuse 3 times slower. So, given than a molecule of oxygen gas is 15% more massive than a molecule of nitrogen gas, it should effuse/diffuse 3.something (root of 15%) SLOWER than nitrogen would. Plus, given that that 1% of air tends to be made of more massive elements (argon, etc), that would just escape even more slowly.

Though, I completely concede that there may be other factors at work here that I don't know about. I'm not an expert on this by any means, just trying to apply what I remember. Theoretically the more massive O2 molecules would escape ever-so-slightly slower. Even if it were reversed, that's a 3-4% change and doesn't account for what CR found.. so that's why I say there might be other things going on that I don't really know about.

[drewnel22]

Originally Posted by Section147

OK. We get it. You're a chemist/scientist/otherwise geek of some sort. That's not a slam. But for you to spit out paragraph after
paragraph dismissing the facts that I posted (observed a better ride and better handling and my tires never needed additional
nitrogen, etc.) sounds, well, a bit haughty. I don't dispel your findings...don't automatically dispel mine. Science is swell, but it
ain't always the final word in the real world.

Those aren't facts that your car rode and handled better. Did you put accelerometers and run any tests on a skid pad or track? I guarantee you if you drove 2 identical cars back-to-back with normal air in one and nitrogen in the other that you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. In your mind you "wanted" to feel a difference so your brain thought there was one.

[JimD]

The problem with the CR experiment, as with many CR experiements, is it was uncontrolled. There are too many variables in a mounted tire to say conclusively what difference nitrogen might make in the rate at which the tire pressure decreases. If they did 10 or 100 tires of each type, they might get some meaningful data (because the random variables of how much the fill valve leaks, how much the tire leaks around the rim, etc. will average out). CR is run by lawyers and is quasi science at best. It is about the only source of some test information in many cases, however, so I use it too.

Losing pressure more slowly might be the only concrete advantage of nitrogen and the difference is too small to be worth anything in the real world, IMHO. It might make you feel better to not check your tire pressure knowing they are filled with nitrogen but it is much more of an excuse than a good reason. 4% slower pressure loss is minor relative to the random variation in mounted tires.

Real science deals treats as data things that have been duplicated by another scientist. That is part of the peer review process. Subjective observations cannot be treated as data in a scientific context. For some subjects, that is the closest to data you can get, however (some areas of medicine, for instance) but in that case you need to do a blind test (subjects are ignorant of what they're getting) and use a large number of subjects. Then you have a chance of getting something meaningful. Areas of science where you cannot test hypotheses meaningfully (geology, for instance) are inherently more prone to error than areas like physics where you can normally test and prove hypotheses. Effect of nitrogen on tires seems like something emenently testable but I have seen no hard data backing up any claim other than, perhaps, that they lose pressure more slowly.

Jim

[SkinnyVT]

I thought runflats didn't need to be inflated, have I been doing it wrong all this time?

[1speedbike]

Originally Posted by SkinnyVT

I thought runflats didn't need to be inflated, have I been doing it wrong all this time?

LOL

[Section147]

Originally Posted by 10splaya22

I guarantee you if you drove 2 identical cars back-to-back with normal air in one and nitrogen in the other that
you wouldn't be able to tell a difference.

Wrong. I drove my wife's car back to back with my GTI almost daily and there was a difference. Not huge...but not
so subtle that anyone wouldn't be able to discern. What I can guarantee is that you're basing your opinion on "science"
...and as stated, that doesn't always cut it regardless of how the equations work out.

Originally Posted by 10splaya22

In your mind you "wanted" to feel a difference so your brain thought there was one.

Again, more bullshit. You're trying to tell me that it's impossible...that it's a "placebo effect", etc. I know how my cars
handle and this was a distinct "before and after" feel.

1speedbike: Apologies if I shot out of the gate at you. I didn't think you were trying to be a dick, etc. I understand
where you're coming from and I, for one, think there needs to be more spirited debate on these forums. Too many
thin-skinned posters, IMHO.
Anyway...

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by bmw1racer

Electrical engineer here... Yeah, I think it's a gimmick as well.

Second mechie checking in too. Ive never seen the point in Nitrogen fills

[Section147]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Second mechie checking in too. Ive never seen the point in Nitrogen fills

Well, we all know your opinion amounts to zero on these boards...

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Section147

Well, we all know your opinion amounts to zero on these boards...

too soon...

[pixelblue]

Originally Posted by Section147

What I can guarantee is that you're basing your opinion on "science"
...and as stated, that doesn't always cut it regardless of how the equations work out.


I, for one, think there needs to be more spirited debate on these forums. Too many
thin-skinned posters, IMHO.
Anyway...

I didn't know science was debunked but you can see why having a spirited debate with you may be difficult

[Section147]

Originally Posted by pixelblue

I didn't know science was debunked...

Point being, to some of you, if something can't be explained in a systematic or methodical way...it can't possibly exist. And that's OK.
You're just wired that way through no fault of your own. But every now and then you need to get your heads out of your theorems for
an instant, take a deep breath and accept that sometimes the shit doesn't add up! And occasionally - as hard as it may be to believe -
you just might be wrong.

[pixelblue]

Originally Posted by Section147

Point being, to some of you, if something can't be explained in a systematic or methodical way...it can't possibly exist. And that's OK.
You're just wired that way through no fault of your own. But every now and then you need to get your heads out of your theorems for
an instant, take a deep breath and accept that sometimes the shit doesn't add up! And occasionally - as hard as it may be to believe -
you just might be wrong.

just messing with you but seriously you must have some very sensitive hair like a spider on your ass to feel the difference between oxygen and nitrogen in your ride. should've become a test driver for an exotic brand

[Section147]

Originally Posted by pixelblue

should've become a test driver for an exotic brand

Well, that's still the plan...

[drewnel22]

Originally Posted by Section147

Wrong. I drove my wife's car back to back with my GTI almost daily and there was a difference. Not huge...but not
so subtle that anyone wouldn't be able to discern. What I can guarantee is that you're basing your opinion on "science"
...and as stated, that doesn't always cut it regardless of how the equations work out.

Again, more bullshit. You're trying to tell me that it's impossible...that it's a "placebo effect", etc. I know how my cars
handle and this was a distinct "before and after" feel.

If you had the exact same cars and you drove them back to back with different fill in the tires then you may have a point. But you are driving 2 different cars, how can you possibly compare the rides of the 2? The difference in ride is due to the different suspension set ups, wheel size, tire pressures, spring rates, damping, etc. There are way too many variables to say it was because of nitrogen in the tires.

Also, what were the tire pressures before and after? Having a higher pressure in the tire would stiffen up the feel and handle a little better. If they were the exact same then you could have a point.

Not trying to start a fight or anything I just don't see how you can say it was a difference 100% because of nitrogen.

[Section147]

Originally Posted by 10splaya22

But you are driving 2 different cars, how can you possibly compare the rides of the 2?

My bad. I skipped a point (from post# 4). I drove my GTI back to back and noticed a difference. It wasn't
new rubber, either. Had the tires bled and refilled w/nitrogen. Then my wife was offered the same service
at her Honda dealer and she also had it done. Both she and I noticed a difference. Both vehicles were at
recommended tire pressure before and after.

Originally Posted by 10splaya22

Not trying to start a fight or anything...

Neither am I. Just stated my experiences and others inferred it was impossible/I must be imagining things.
I'm simply calling bullshit on that...

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by GaryS

Hahaha



I think your tire pressure is lower now than it was before.

+Me.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Section147

OK. We get it. You're a chemist/scientist/otherwise geek of some sort. That's not a slam. But for you to spit out paragraph after
paragraph dismissing the facts that I posted (observed a better ride and better handling and my tires never needed additional
nitrogen, etc.) sounds, well, a bit haughty. I don't dispel your findings...don't automatically dispel mine. Science is swell, but it
ain't always the final word in the real world.

C'mon. No need to be testy.
Ok, so you were sold some tires full of air/nitrogen.
The post isn't a slam at you, it's just to add some facts for your benefit and for other who may be wondering the same thing.

Don't take it so personally. You aren't the first person to be sold on something, most of us in our lifetimes have bought into certain ideas that were proven to be false.
Just learn from it.

[bdoooh]

Definitely should be free..

[Section147]

Originally Posted by RPM90

You aren't the first person to be sold on something, most of us in our lifetimes have bought into certain ideas that were proven to be false.
Just learn from it.

Post 36, RPM...post 36. Nothing has been "proven to be false"...nothing. I haven't found you to be a patronizing smartass in the time I've been
here, no need for you to start now.