• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

For those who mount their own tires ... important!

pvd said:
1. assuming that the minimum balancing unit to be 7 grams is downright comical given the level precision we are talking about in this thread.
Click to expand...
you really need to work on your reading comprehension pete. i never said in any of my post that 7 grams was the minimum balancing unit. i said the blocks of weight we use come in 7 gram chunks, some people make them in 5 gram chunks, some 10, etc, etc... but the 1's we use come in 7. now this is not to say that this is the smallest unit we use. we use the smallest unit that makes the the static balance correct. i put slightly less than a quarter of said chunk on a wheel to get it correct this weekend, and i'm sure you realize that 25% of 7 grams is much less than 7 grams.


pvd said:
this being the case, of course, and you knowing this, you still felt the urgent need to come down on my post about basic
Click to expand...
my point was that you havn't the basic real world knowledge, thats aquired through countless hours of, well, working in the real world to be telling folks what it is that needs to be done with respect to a company that you have zero to do with.

pvd said:
your point was, not that what i said was wrong, but that you were jeolous that i posted something like that before you and for that you tried to bring me down. that is truely low.ology.
Click to expand...
my point was and still is that you don't know enough about the topic @ hand to profess any great knowledge about it. yeah "jeolous" thats it. right, spelling must working on spelling.

SO listen up eveyone pete is totally right and countless hours of racing and real world data collection won't stand in his way.

and dave there is no way i'm locking this thread....... if pete wants to have another name calling fit he can have it and i'll deal with it out of the matrix, where pete won't have his math or his keyboard to hide behind.
 
c'mon allan don't tease him he takes it all personal. i know you know what i'm talking about with this as you and i have talked and i've been 100% honest with you about what i've seen out in the AMA. you've listened and added it to your own data collection i'm just suprized that pete is so narrow minded that he won't reverse engineer the real world data into a good theory and change his original hypothesis.
 
its gonna be far from entertaining when somebody gets hurt......
 
elskipador said:
its gonna be far from entertaining when somebody gets hurt......
Click to expand...
Obviously, you're talking about some yahoo who misbalances his wheels and crashes...

Or...are you calling Pete out?

:confused
 
puhleeze dave you know me better than than that. i'm talking about a rider..... if i was talking about pete i wouldn't talk about it on the board.
 
i'm not being brutal.... i'm being truthful! if you aren't a AFM front runner and can't quailfy for a AMA event none of this really matters. so for 90% of the board it really doesn't matter one way or another. you working tomorrow dave? if not lets get together...
 
this is pretty sad. i feel like i am clapping with one hand. you know, to have a discussion like this, you really need to present a legitimate counter argument. over and over you cite that you are the expert and i am an idiot, without any 'real' proof that you are in fact right. you just say that 'this' is how you do it. you have not shown any data comparing results while the bike is going 'super duper fast', you have not shown any pictures or video showing a tire spinning up and the following poor results using the different techniques, you haven't shown any lab results on a dynamic balance, not even a proof as to why my math is wrong. all you have shown is a wheel that you had a hard time balacing. next time i have a hard time balancing a wheel, i'll take pictures too. wow.

the only arguement that you use over and over is, that since i am not you or alan, then i cannot possibly understand the enormouse complexities of balancing a tire.

you say 'pete is no engineer', i am not a formal engineer. i actually never got a degree. but i have 'been to the school of hard knocks', in fact, i am good enough to be instructing a credit course at SFSU, in the physics department, without a degree. by one of your previous examples, all your hero's in the paddock are barely high school graduates. but you have TWO college degrees and cannot costruct an argument that uses any valid logic.

this could be a really good thread if you learned some of the basics of what we were talking about, you may still be able to contribute something useful. these links may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/COM/com-a.html
 
So this is where they're keeping all the drama these days. I think you guys should have a "walk off." :twofinger

zoolander.jpg
 
Skippy wins!
I'm just a basic Carpenter with business skills. however in reading both posts and the whole real VS> science fight that is going on I will go with skippys idea it makes sense and seams to work. I haven't seen Maladin complaining about his tires for the last few years.
Both of you have your points but Skippy would be the one who works on my stuff if I had to pick!
 
Last edited:
elskipador said:
yeah the fact that the little yellow dot isn't always the lightest spot.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point.

Don't get me wrong, I can see your point about insurance and the "dot" being offset. I understand what you're talking about with balancing the rim and all, regarding tire spin resulting in "less unbalance". But that's not "manufacturer's advice". Again, unless I'm missing something, "manufacturer's advice" is to flat out tell you that the dot is the light spot, and imply that the heavy spot of your wheel is the valve. The original post suggested to modify the second half (the non-absolute half) of the manu's advice to a more "known" spot, that's all.

Of course, unless I missed something, none of the Michelin's I've been using for the past few years have any markings at all...

Another couple questions...have you ever found the "true" light spot of the tire and put it on the "true" heavy spot of the wheel? Have you ever pulled a tire off and remounted in a different location to verify the "true" tire light spot was actually the light spot? Why do you still put the dot on the valve stem? Just becasue you need a place to put it?

I'm certainly not proclaiming intellectual superiority, but I find it very hard to believe that the manu's light spot markings could be SO far off, apparently with some not-inconsequential consistency. I find it hard to believe that they would even *bother* to mark the tires if they were that far off so often--especially race tires, where due to wheel balancing the light spot is apparently irrelavant. Seems to me that--especially with street tires--having inconsistant dot markings could be quite a liability.
 
Just how does the manufacturer determine where this light spot is?

Do they mount the tire on a perfect rim, seat the bead and watch what happens?

If the quality control in determining this is even a little suspect, the bottom line is still mounting and balancing in a way that provides real world results that work. The racing tire that shakes at speed is a huge problem.
 
ALANRIDER7 said:
If the quality control in determining this is even a little suspect, the bottom line is still mounting and balancing in a way that provides real world results that work.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. And the technique in the original post provides real world results that do in fact work, 9 times out of 10 "better" than following the strict manu's advice.

I'm still not sold on the crappy quality control thing though.
 
What does a manufacturer do if they happen to produce a perfectly balanced tire? I'm sure it happens from time to time. Do they still put a dot on it? I would think it wouldn't be needed because then there is no light spot.
 
pvd said:
3. nobody has even mentioned the lateral position of the weights! in a true balance, the wheel must be balanced laterally as well as radially. this would mostly come into play in dynamic situations. but again, the tire master made no mention of this critical peice of information.
Click to expand...

it is a real shame that skippy refuses to address the issue of lateral balance. you would think that the top racers in the AMA would deserve such a service.

here is what michilin says about the wobble introduced when the wheel is out of lateral balance: http://www.michelinman.com/care/tip4.html

yokohama: http://www.yokohamatire.com/pdf/tsb-TireBalance-12803.pdf

it goes on. no answers.
 
I dont' think it's that he refuses to answer you, I think that it's more nobody cares what you are saying since you present in such a childish manner. Grow up and someone might listen. I'll trust someone with real world experience over a slide rule any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top