On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 06:34:47 +0100, nestork
wrote:


;3304912 Wrote:

Ten bucks too much for you. That's fine. On a $1000 purchace, what is
$10.00??? Or even on a $600.00 purchace.

Clare...

The fact that the cost is small compared to a new set of tires really
isn't, and shouldn't be, the issue. The point is that paying $10 for
nitrogen in a new set of tires costing $600 is still a waste of $10, and
there's nothing good, admirable or even sexy about wasting anything,
even a lowly 1.7 percent. I would no more pay $10 to have nitrogen in
my tires than I would pay $20 to have a factory racing stripe painted
onto my car. In both cases I know I'm wasting my money, and my brain is
hard wired to avoid that.

In fact, a good arguement can be made AGAINST the use of nitrogen in a
car's tires. Having the driver of the car acutely aware that ordinary
air leaks out of the car's tires a tiny bit faster helps to ensure the
driver pays attention to his car's tires and their inflation pressure,
and that alone is worth more than $10 in fuel savings and longer lasting
tires. With nitrogen in the tires, vehicle owners may be more
complacent about looking at and paying attention to their tires because
with nitrogen in them, they may feel they don't need to pay as close
attention.

Bottom line here is that they should change the name from "Nitrogen" to
"Racing Air" and it'd probably sell like crazy. After all, everyone
knows that ordinary air is 78 percent nitrogen anyway. Racing air, on
the other hand, is obviously what high performance cars use, so it might
be worth the extra ten bucks in better performance.
The use of nitrogen inflation actually started with aircraft tires.
Where it DOES make a significant difference. EXTREME temperature and
pressure differences during every takeoff and landing.