On 11/07/2014 12:59 PM, SMS wrote:
....

The ridiculous and overused Usenet retort of "show me a double-blind
study that absolutely proves that nitrogen is better than plain air"
fails the common sense test because that's not even the actual question.
The actual question is this: "is there a benefit to filling tires with a
gas that helps maintain proper tire pressure for a longer period of time?"
....
On 11/07/2014 12:59 PM, SMS wrote:
....

The ridiculous and overused Usenet retort of "show me a double-blind
study that absolutely proves that nitrogen is better than plain air"
fails the common sense test because that's not even the actual question.
The actual question is this: "is there a benefit to filling tires with a
gas that helps maintain proper tire pressure for a longer period of
time?"
....

That was _not_ the question raised here (at least by me). The question
here is whether there's sufficient evidence that N will, on its own,
actually accrue those benefits to the average consumer in absence of any
other change in behavior to a magnitude to be observable in a net return
on the bottom line. My contention is "not demonstrable".

I don't deny (and haven't) there is a physical basis behind using N; I
just don't believe it's a significant-enough effect for passenger car
tires and the ilk to be of any real value. I'm willing to be shown data
that actually can demonstrate it's so but I think the incremental change
is so small it would be essentially impossible to separate it from the
noise level.

Commercial/military aircraft, specialty applications such as racing,
maybe even restoration/vintage vehicles and the like are something else
again.

--