wrote:

I'm an electrical engineer - but this has nothing to do with that.

Maybe it does in the sense that you want things down to the gnat's
ass.

I can't please everyone with the details, but I do appreciate learning from
others who have the intelligence to understand and convey the details
better than I do.

Good enough for what it's for is a common measure in my world. I've
changed a few tires over the years and never had a torque wrench.

I wouldn't think of not using a torque wrench, but, I did watch a dozen
videos last night on how to /calibrate/ the torque wrench.

The problem is not in twisting the calibration mechanism, but in having a
known good standard. A lot of the calibration videos use the Harbor Freight
$40 Item #68283 "digital torque adapter", which seems like a neat tool if I
didn't already have a bunch of old-style torque wrenches already.
http://manuals.harborfreight.com/man...8999/68283.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjEP1KMBbAY

Since my old-style "made in usa" (so you know it's old!) Craftsman torque
wrench is likely still accurate, I can use that as my calibration standard.

None
has ever fallen off or the rim wallowed out.

There's value to doing a job right, in and of itself.

For example, when you choose a tire, you choose it by the specifications,
and then when you mount it, you mount the red or yellow dots (depending on
the brand) next to the valve stem, and you clean and statically balance the
wheel sans tire, and then you mount the tire by the dots, and then you
statically balance the assembly (often it takes no weight) and then you
take it for a drive at speed for your dynamic balance test (almost never do
you feel any vibration that would indicate a dynamic imbalance at speed).

Same with repairing a puncture, where we all have successfully plugged a
hole from the outside with the rope plugs, which aren't approved by the RMA
but we all know that method to work just fine.

I get pleasure out of the method of marking the tire (so that I don't
change the balance), breaking the bead with the HF bead-breaking tool, and
then dismounting the tire with a different HF tire mounting tool, then
marking the location of the injury from the inside, removing the offending
protruding nail (or whatever), honing the hole from the outside to 1/4 inch
standard size (or whatever was chosen), buffing the inside area to remove
non-sticky layers, applying the cement and waiting for it to get tacky,
applying the cement to the patchplug and then pulling it through with
pliers, rolling down the patchplug from the inside from the centerline
outward to force out air pockets, and snipping off the protruding metal
tip, and then covering the inside area with the blacktop formula (whatever
that black gunk is made up of).

After that, if desired, I replace the valve stem, and then I remount the
tire on the marks made prior to dismounting, and then, after setting the
bead at about 60psi (whatever it takes to pop) and airing up the tire to
40psi, I doublecheck static balance, and if necessary, I rotate the tires
on the vehicle or put it back where it was, making sure to torque the lug
nuts evenly to 85 foot pounds.

Some people get pleasure in doing things the "right" way; others don't care
to.

There was a time when someone changing a flat was a common sight.
Tires would last about 20,000 miles.

I get a flat about once every couple of years, where it's almost always a
screw (dunno why but it is). If flats used to be more common than they are
now, you'll have to explain to me why.

If it's true that flats are less common now than before, than the natural
question to ask is:
a. Are tires more resistant to punctures now (what with steel belts)?
b. Or are screws and nails less prevalent on the roadways nowadays?

It has to be one of the above if it's true that flats are less common now
on radials than they were in the olden days of bias-ply tires.