On 2/5/19 6:38 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2019 11:07:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

No BS from me. I think for most people it is silly to DIY when the
payback is measured in decades. I have no interest in doing it.

I'm not sure if you have an air of superiority or are just arrogant.
Its the way you come across though.

Hi Ed Pawlowski,

I'm allergic to bull****.
o Particularly from people who are afraid of doing the job themselves.

Hence, they have absolutely zero idea of what they're talking about.
o IMHO, they're all just like grade schoolers discussing Santa Claus, Ed.

Do you remember when Normal Schwarzkopf responded to a news reporter:
"Have you ever _been_ in a minefield?"
REFERENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci88go_rWYY

Some things, like changing tires at home, people are either afraid, or ill
informed, or they don't have the money for tools, or for storage, or they
don't want to get their hands dirty, or whatever, so they make up all sorts
of lame idiotic excuses for why they can't do something as trivial as
replace a tire at home.

I can replace a tyre with only a beadbreaker, a couple of tyre levers
and a rubber mallet and have done so more times than I care to count on
rims as varied as Morris Minis rims through to large tractor rims. It is
*not* a difficult task *if you know what you're doing* but it is one I
prefer not to do now that I am retired. What I can say is that I have
seen lots of tyres *damaged* beyond repair by halfwitted loons who
*think* they know how to change one.

The real answer is that everything they say is just pure bull****
o Because they've never even once done it in their entire lives.

I'd bet I've changed far more tyres than you've had hot dinners. And not
always with a beadbreaker on hand.

They're just spouting bull**** ... like that idiotic reporter was.
o I apologize if I'm too blunt and factual and honest for you.

If there is any bull**** being spouted here, odds on it would be you.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:15:22 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the abnormal 85-year-old trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Senile Rot about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:02:29 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

That¢s overstate, its better than nothing.

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Talking to yourself now, you clinically insane, 85-year-old, trolling,
senile pest?

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:00:46 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:


Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Static balancing is a waste of time.

Your shifting nyms time and again to avoid detection IS a waste of time, you
clinically insane, trolling, senile pest from Australia!

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On 3/5/19 8:26 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:15:22 +1000, Xeno, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rot Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the abnormal 85-year-old trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.



--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Fri, 3 May 2019 21:53:04 +1000, Xeno wrote:


You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.

Apologies, if you aren't. You post from Australia like he does and use the
same German NSP, though you use a different newsreader (or computer).

If you are not him, I'll find out. If you are him, I'll find it out, too.
;-)

On 3/5/19 11:17 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2019 21:53:04 +1000, Xeno wrote:


You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.

Apologies, if you aren't. You post from Australia like he does and use the

Born in 1952 and raised in Australia. I'm not quite as old as you think
I am.

same German NSP, though you use a different newsreader (or computer).

One of the few reasonable usenet access portals available, not
surprising more than one person uses it. I also rum Macs here and post
from an iPhone and iPad using a paid version of Newstap. You can easily
verify that.

If you are not him, I'll find out. If you are him, I'll find it out, too.
;-)

I am not and I have had the odd stoush with Rod.

HTH

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:28:08 -0400, Bod F wrote:

Roughly ten years ago (March 2009), I invested $200 in the S&P
500 and then took a nap.* Today that $200 has grown to ~$750..
.and I never broke a sweat or got my hands dirty.

Hi Bod F,

I've heard _every_ excuse there is from my own grandkids for why they can't
do their chores, where the simple fact is that _none_ of the excuses stand
scrutiny to even the most basic of logic.
o The real reason you don't DIY isn't the "investment" opportunities, but,
o The real reason you don't DIY is simply that you don't like the DIY.

Facts first; then rational adult logical deductions based on those facts.

o If simple fact & basic logic DESTROY your belief system in mere seconds
Q: What does that say about your belief system being wholly imaginary?

I completely understand the logic of what you say, although I also note
that ten years ago was just about the _bottom_ of the stock market, which
had slumped to that point in a way that had not happened since about 1929,
so the fact is that around ten years ago was an anomaly of sorts, where
that "starting point" date can be cherry picked by people selling you
375%-gain investment funds for the next fifty to hundred years to come,
since that's a classic cherry picking approach for false logic.

Even without that cherry-picked stock market crash starting point, the huge
logical issue with the stock-market example is that your argument equally
applies to _all_ DIY jobs you can think of.

While your logic holds true, it _equally_ applies to _every_ DIY job.

For example, your logic applies to that last brake job you did, and that
last cooling system overall, and that last spark plug replacement, and even
that last oil change you did, etc.

Don't get me wrong, if you actually enjoy wrestling old
dirty tires, knock yourself out but I'll stick to more
enjoyable hobbies.

FACTS first; then adult rational logic based on those facts...
o If simple fact & basic logic DESTROY your belief system in mere seconds
Q: What does that say about your belief system being wholly imaginary?

Worse than the fact your logic is irrespective of the DIY job, I can easily
_reverse_ your logic, and come up with a _better_ set of logic, that argues
you would have had _more_ money now, had you done your tires DIY then.

For example, there's a sale right now on Simple Tire tires:
https://simpletire.com/tire-deals

The sale is 10% off on all Toyo, Sumitomo, Hancook, Nitto, Nexen, etc,
tires, with additional 4-tire-set rebates of $60 to $80 on Bridgesone and
Hancook, Micky Thompson, Dick Cepek, etc., sets of tires, and no tax
charged at the sales origin plus free shipping.

Let's say you purchase 8 tires (one set for each vehicle), where you can
save, oh, let's say easily $400 (i.e., $50 per tire) on just the purchase
alone compared to that same purchase locally, let alone the additional $125
on installation.

That $500 you just saved today by this DIY process would be $1,875 ten
years from now using the same stock-market math you used above.

So you just argued EXACTLY what you _think_ you argued against!
o I simply noticed that your argument is completely illogical

However, if I destroyed your logic - that's now up to you to decide.

As an adult whose tools are FACTs + LOGIC...all I'm saying to you is...
o If simple fact & basic logic DESTROY your belief system in mere seconds
Q: What does that say about your belief system being wholly imaginary?
A: ? your response ?

On Sat, 4 May 2019 00:11:02 +1000, Xeno wrote:

You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.

Apologies, if you aren't. You post from Australia like he does and use the

Born in 1952 and raised in Australia. I'm not quite as old as you think
I am.

same German NSP, though you use a different newsreader (or computer).

One of the few reasonable usenet access portals available, not
surprising more than one person uses it. I also rum Macs here and post
from an iPhone and iPad using a paid version of Newstap. You can easily
verify that.

If you are not him, I'll find out. If you are him, I'll find it out, too.
;-)

I am not and I have had the odd stoush with Rod.

HTH

OK, sorry, then. I always get suspicious when a new (to me) nym appears, as
it often turns out it's the cantankerous idiot. LOL

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:15:22 +1000, Xeno wrote:

I can replace a tyre with only a beadbreaker, a couple of tyre levers
and a rubber mallet and have done so more times than I care to count on
rims as varied as Morris Minis rims through to large tractor rims.

Hi Clare,

Adults generally have no problem agreeing on both facts & resultant logic.

I agree with you that you have more experience than almost anyone on this
ng, where your experience dwarfs that of mine.

When I was a mere child, I couldn't understand why kids didn't fix their
own bikes, where I changed tubes using just a flathead screwdriver
(puncturing tubes in the process of course) and a bicycle pump.

Later, I couldn't find anyone to do motorcycle tires when I was in high
school, so I changed my own tires then (which were, in the beginning, also
tube type tires, of course), switching to a small compressor.

It was years before I 'graduated' to vehicle tires, where the process is
the same; the tools just went from a forty cent screwdriver for bikes, to a
four dollar set of bike irons, and now to a forty dollar HF tire changer,
and a 220VAC compressor.

*The fact is that it's _easy_ to change automotive tires at home.*

It is *not* a difficult task *if you know what you're doing* but it is
one I prefer not to do now that I am retired.

Hi Clare,

Adults generally have no problem agreeing on both facts & resultant logic.

I fully _agree_ with your logic, and I applaud you honesty, since almost
everyone who is posting is dishonest to themselves just as my grandkids are
dishonest when making up lame excuses for why they don't do their chores.

The simple fact is that almost everyone (if not everyone) who posted a lame
excuse for why they can't DIY, simply doesn't like the DIY.

I don't know why they can't be honest with themselves, when you and I are
honest with each other and to ourselves.

*The logic is that most people _hate_ changing automotive tires at home.*

What I can say is that I have
seen lots of tyres *damaged* beyond repair by halfwitted loons who
*think* they know how to change one.

I again agree with you, where I personally damaged the first old tire which
I had repaired with a patch plug, from my bimmer, to the point that I
literally "bent" the bead of the tire.

When I drove on it afterward, even though it was statically balanced, it
thumped ferociously, so I had to replace it with a new tire, and that was
when, I think, you first informed me of the "drop center" trick.

With that drop-center trick, the amount of force required to seat that last
bead is almost impossible (and, in fact, it bent the thick tire iron in the
HF tool).

Now, with the drop center comprehended, it takes a very easily manageable
force such that a wimpy teenage boy could, IMHO, easily change a tire with
the $40 HF crappy tool.


The real answer is that everything they say is just pure bull****
o Because they've never even once done it in their entire lives.

I'd bet I've changed far more tyres than you've had hot dinners. And not
always with a beadbreaker on hand.

Again, I agree with everything you say Clare, since I'm a reasonable adult
who simply loves facts, and who applies logic to those facts.

Most people who posted seem to believe in imaginary facts, and hence their
logic is all screwed up, simply because the main fact is that they don't
like to do the DIY (which is OK).

There are things I no longer enjoy doing too, such as washing the car,
where I sometimes pay others to wash my car, but, unlike most of the
posters to this thread, I am honest with myself that the real reason I
don't DIY wash my own car is that I don't like it.

I don't make up all sorts of idiotic lame excuses like the others did.

What you'll always hear from me is something that, I posit, is highly
unusual for Usenet, which is that I only speak facts and then I apply basic
adult logical reasoning to those facts.

Those who can't comprehend facts are the ones I disagree with.
o I don't disagree with you on almost anything, Clare.

That's because you also speak facts and you also are honest with yourself
in your logical deductions of why you don't DIY your own tires at home.

If there is any bull**** being spouted here, odds on it would be you.

Hi Clare,

I disagree with you on _that_ one logical deduction, where I can easily
_prove_ that your belief system in that statement is purely imaginary.

Bear in mind that it's trivial to prove your belief system imaginary.
o It only takes three simple words.

With those three simple words, your belief system is DESTROYED.
o Just as it's destroyed for people who claim the earth is flat.

If your belief system is DESTROYED so easily in seconds, Clare...
o What does that say about your belief system being wholly imaginary?

Imaginary belief systems have exactly _zero_ facts supporting them, Clare.

Hence, these 3 words prove your belief system wholly imaginary.
o Name just one

That is, if you actually believe I've spouted bull****, then you should be
able to find at least one cite in this thread where I've spouted bull****
and claimed it was fact.

Hence, the ADULT thing to ask you, if you believe I did so, is simply:
o Name just one instance where my material facts were "bull****"

HINT: You can't.
WHY NOT: Because I don't make **** up, Clare.
That's a fact.

--
NOTE: Most of what you said in this post that I responded to was factual,
and hence your logical deductions were reasonable from an adult standpoint;
but your last statement is clearly that of an imaginary belief system where
you can't name a _single_ fact that supports that imaginary belief system.

On Fri, 3 May 2019 14:56:29 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

Adults generally have no problem agreeing on both facts & resultant logic.

Yikes! That attribution to Clare was a faux pas for which I publicly
apologize.

In my hasty response to both Clare & Xeno, I mixed up the attribution,
where both the agreements and the disagreement with Xeno in the prior post
were accidentally, on my part, attributed to Clare.

I apologize for making that "thinko" mistake.

While my material facts are never wrong, I do make thinkos, which happens
on Usenet which is a casual medium that can't be easily corrected in situ.

So I _correct_ my attribution of both agreement & disagreement in the prior
post to XENO and not to Clare.

My humble apologies and plead nolo contendere.
Mea culpa.

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:02:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Hi Xeno,

Most people who posted to this thread, IMHO, have proven that they own
completely imaginary belief systems, where the logical proof is that their
ludicrous excuses instantly failed the simplest of the simple tests of any
belief system, which is the three words when someone declares an opion
o Name just one FACT from which that belief system is based upon.

Given these vehicles I'm working on are all about two decades old (give or
take), can you name just one FACT that supports your belief system stated
above?

I'm not saying your belief system is correct, nor am I saying it's not
correct, since you stated your belief system clearly, but you didn't state
even a single fact that backs up that strongly held belief system.

What FACT is your strongly held belief system actually based upon?

On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:00:46 +1000, Xeno wrote:

Static balancing is a waste of time.

What actual fact is your strongly held belief system based upon, Xeno?

"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 2/5/19 3:53 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"sms" wrote in message
...
On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
UPDATE:

Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years,
where
each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even
easier.

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Thats overstate, its better than nothing.

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Sure, but not something that needs to be avoided at all costs.
It can be better than nothing if say you are in the wilds of africa
or my country and there is no proper balancing available and it
will be a while till you can get to where proper balancing is available.

Arlen G. Holder wrote
Bod F wrote

Roughly ten years ago (March 2009), I invested $200 in the
S&P 500 and then took a nap. Today that $200 has grown
to ~$750.. .and I never broke a sweat or got my hands dirty.

I've heard _every_ excuse there is from my own grandkids for why
they can't do their chores, where the simple fact is that _none_ of
the excuses stand scrutiny to even the most basic of logic.

o The real reason you don't DIY isn't the "investment" opportunities, but,
o The real reason you don't DIY is simply that you don't like the DIY.

I do in fact love DIY and designed and built my own fancy passive
solar house from scratch on a bare block of land, unlike you.

The difference is that I am selective about what I DIY and
am not actually stupid enough to waste my time doing
stuff like static balancing my wheels when I can get a
much better result for free from an operation that has
the equipment that it makes no sense for me to buy.

And made an immense amount of money
on the stock market as well, DIYing that too.

"Arlen G. Holder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:15:22 +1000, Xeno wrote:

I can replace a tyre with only a beadbreaker, a couple of tyre levers
and a rubber mallet and have done so more times than I care to count on
rims as varied as Morris Minis rims through to large tractor rims.

Hi Clare,

That’s someone else entirely.

"Arlen G. Holder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 May 2019 14:56:29 -0000 (UTC), Arlen G. Holder wrote:

Adults generally have no problem agreeing on both facts & resultant
logic.

Yikes! That attribution to Clare was a faux pas for which I publicly
apologize.

In my hasty response to both Clare & Xeno, I mixed up the attribution,
where both the agreements and the disagreement with Xeno in the prior post
were accidentally, on my part, attributed to Clare.

I apologize for making that "thinko" mistake.

While my material facts are never wrong, I do make thinkos, which happens
on Usenet which is a casual medium that can't be easily corrected in situ.

So I _correct_ my attribution of both agreement & disagreement in the
prior
post to XENO and not to Clare.

My humble apologies and plead nolo contendere.
Mea culpa.

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Don’t make a mess of the carpet, do it outside so someone
can DIY the gore away with a pressure washer.

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:21:05 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Don¢t make a mess of the carpet, do it outside so someone
can DIY the gore away with a pressure washer.

Hi Rod Speed,

We go way back, mostly on the Apple newsgroups, where you rarely contribute
anything of value, and where you will _continue_ to waste everyone's time
with your incessantly childish worthless (and meaningless) drivel.

Must you _continue_ that trend here, on the repair groups?
o Can you simply act like an adult for once?

Please?

We're trying to discuss, as actual adults, the common task of changing
tires properly and effectively, which everyone who owns a cars does all
their lives.

If you have on-topic value to contribute, then please do contribute.
o If all you can do is play childish games, then please play elsewhere.

Thanks.

On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 11:36:21 AM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 2/5/19 3:53 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"sms" wrote in message
...
On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
UPDATE:

Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years,
where
each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even
easier.

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Thats overstate, its better than nothing.

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Sure, but not something that needs to be avoided at all costs.
It can be better than nothing if say you are in the wilds of africa
or my country and there is no proper balancing available


No proper balancing of tires? And yet the ignorant kangaroo humper
lectures us in America? ROFL We;ve had proper balancing of tires
available all across America for 50 years!







and it
will be a while till you can get to where proper balancing is available.

Some drunken drug crazed paranoid fool currently desperately cowering behind
Arlen G. Holder spewed just the **** that always
pours from the back of it when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it
always is.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 11:36:21 AM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 2/5/19 3:53 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"sms" wrote in message
...
On 4/29/2019 1:48 AM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
UPDATE:

Today I mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years,
where
each time I do this easy job, I learn new tricks to make it even
easier.

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

Thats overstate, its better than nothing.

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Sure, but not something that needs to be avoided at all costs.
It can be better than nothing if say you are in the wilds of africa
or my country and there is no proper balancing available

No proper balancing of tires?

Yep, some of us have to change a tire at times
with no proper balancing available at all because
in the wild of africa and my country and plenty
of others, there can be NOTHING, not even fuel,
for hundreds of miles at times.

reams of your irrelevant **** flushed where it belongs

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:08:24 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

I do in fact love DIY and designed and built my own fancy passive
solar house from scratch on a bare block of land, unlike you.

Hi Rod Speed,

I'm allergic to your bull****.
o Hence, I'll be blunt with you, Rod Speed.

In response to your worthless and childish boast above, as you know, you
asked on the net long ago how to set up a shared feed to your neighbor's
wifi where I spent a lot of time and effort purposefully helping you, even
though you're a well-known mostly worthless troll on the Apple newsgroups.

As a well-educated adult, I too can boast, like you just did, of many
things that I've done that you couldn't hope to even comprehend, Rod Speed,
given my multiple degrees and decades of experience at startups in the
Silicon Valley.

What I find disturbing about almost _all_ your posts, Rod Speed, is not so
much that you prove to own the brain of a child, but that you add not only
_zero_ technical value to almost every thread you post to, but your posts
actually add _negative_ value (as does this response to your worthless
boasts above).

The difference is that I am selective about what I DIY and
am not actually stupid enough to waste my time doing
stuff like static balancing my wheels when I can get a
much better result for free from an operation that has
the equipment that it makes no sense for me to buy.

Name just one.

Rod ... given you have almost always failed, in the past, to own a belief
system that could be backed up by even a _single_ cite, if your belief
system above of the free automotive balancing that everyone else can use
isn't completely imaginary, please cite a reference on the net that I can
check, which shows what you just claimed above.

After having purchased tires at the best price from Simple Tire...
*I'd love to find this "free" automotive dynamic balancing, Rod.*
o For myself - and for everyone here who reads your worthless drivel

Assuming, for the moment, that you actually own the brain of an adult, then
I simply ask you the same question I ask of myself, and all adults, who own
beliefs, since a belief system, IMHO, should be backed up by at least one
reputable fact.

Hence, if your belief system isn't completely imaginary, then simply...
o Name just one

And made an immense amount of money
on the stock market as well, DIYing that too.

Hi Rod Speed,

I'm allergic to your bull****.

If your belief system if this "free dynamic balancing" for automotive tires
is actually based on a single fact, Rod Speed, then, if you're an adult,
you should be able to back up that claim with at least a single cite that
bolsters your claims above, where I can:
o Buy tires online for the best price & have them shipped to me, and then
o Have them dynamically balanced, "for free", as you claim you do, Rod Speed.

This is the test of an imaginary belief system, Rod Speed.
o If your belief is not imaginary, then you'll pass this simple 3-word test.

If your belief system is based on an actual fact that you can cite, Rod:
o Name just one.

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:38:01 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Some drunken drug crazed paranoid fool currently desperately cowering behind
Arlen G. Holder spewed just the **** that always
pours from the back of it when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it
always is.

Jesus Christ, Rod Speed,
o Stop it.

Just stop.
o Stop proving that you're a mere child, Rod Speed.

Please.

What's interesting is that I don't even have to bother to dig up a cite
showing why it's a fact that you own the brain of a child, Rod Speed.

All I have to do is point to what you just wrote above.
o You prove me right by what you post Rod Speed.

Your posts add _negative_ value Rod Speed.
o As does my response to ask you to please stop wasting our time.

As such, this is my _last_ post to you in this thread, Rod Speed.
o I do that to _spare_ others the childish drivel you so very much enjoy.

On 5/3/2019 12:43 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:08:24 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

I do in fact love DIY and designed and built my own fancy passive
solar house from scratch on a bare block of land, unlike you.

Hi Rod Speed,

I'm allergic to your bull****.
o Hence, I'll be blunt with you, Rod Speed.


Learn to use your kill file and never see it again. Helps your allergy.

Some drunken drug crazed paranoid fool currently desperately cowering behind
Arlen G. Holder spewed just the **** that always
pours from the back of it when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it
always is.

Some drunken drug crazed paranoid fool currently desperately cowering behind
Arlen G. Holder spewed just the **** that always
pours from the back of it when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it
always is.

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:08:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



I do in fact love DIY and designed and built my own fancy pussy
solar house from scratch on a bare block of land, unlike you.

Not to forget the computer OS you helped to design, senile asshole! LOL

--
Senile Rot about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

On Sat, 4 May 2019 03:17:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Some drunken drug crazed paranoid fool currently desperately cowering behind
Arlen G. Holder spewed just the **** that always
pours from the back of it when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it
always is.

Did your idiocy just get exposed again, senile Rodent? LOL

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:21:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


My humble apologies and plead nolo contendere.
Mea culpa.

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

Don¢t make a mess of the carpet, do it outside so someone
can DIY the gore away with a pressure washer.

If you had ANY decency you would euthanize yourself, you abnormal
85-year-old senile pest!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:38:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Some drunken drug crazed paranoid fool currently desperately cowering behind
Arlen G. Holder spewed just the **** that always
pours from the back of it when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it
always is.

LOL Did your idiocy just get exposed again, senile Ozzietard?

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Sat, 4 May 2019 03:18:37 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Some drunken drug crazed paranoid fool currently desperately cowering behind
Arlen G. Holder spewed just the **** that always
pours from the back of it when its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it
always is.


Just stop proving that you are a mere child (in mind), you abnormal
85-year-old senile pest!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:19:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I can replace a tyre with only a beadbreaker, a couple of tyre levers
and a rubber mallet and have done so more times than I care to count on
rims as varied as Morris Minis rims through to large tractor rims.

Hi Clare,

That¢s someone else entirely.

He pointed that out himself ALREADY, senile asshole!

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On Sat, 4 May 2019 02:41:00 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Avoid static balancing at all cost.

That¢s overstate, its better than nothing.

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Sure, but not something that needs to be avoided at all costs.
It can be better than nothing if say you are in the wilds of africa
or my country and there is no proper balancing available

No proper balancing of tires?

Yep, some of us have to change a tire at times
with no proper balancing available at all because
in the wild of africa and my country and plenty
of others, there can be NOTHING, not even fuel,
for hundreds of miles at times.

reams of your irrelevant **** flushed where it belongs

NOBODY here was talking about Africa (not the spelling, senile idiot) or
Australia, you brain dead 85-year-old nutter!

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On 4/5/19 12:51 am, Peeler wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2019 00:11:02 +1000, Xeno wrote:

You think I'm Rod Speed? Now that's funny.

Apologies, if you aren't. You post from Australia like he does and use the

Born in 1952 and raised in Australia. I'm not quite as old as you think
I am.

same German NSP, though you use a different newsreader (or computer).

One of the few reasonable usenet access portals available, not
surprising more than one person uses it. I also rum Macs here and post
from an iPhone and iPad using a paid version of Newstap. You can easily
verify that.

If you are not him, I'll find out. If you are him, I'll find it out, too.
;-)

I am not and I have had the odd stoush with Rod.

HTH

OK, sorry, then. I always get suspicious when a new (to me) nym appears, as
it often turns out it's the cantankerous idiot. LOL

New nym? I've posted here previously.

Anyway, apology accepted.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 4/5/19 1:05 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:02:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Hi Xeno,

Most people who posted to this thread, IMHO, have proven that they own
completely imaginary belief systems, where the logical proof is that their
ludicrous excuses instantly failed the simplest of the simple tests of any
belief system, which is the three words when someone declares an opion
o Name just one FACT from which that belief system is based upon.

Given these vehicles I'm working on are all about two decades old (give or
take), can you name just one FACT that supports your belief system stated
above?

I'm not saying your belief system is correct, nor am I saying it's not
correct, since you stated your belief system clearly, but you didn't state
even a single fact that backs up that strongly held belief system.

What FACT is your strongly held belief system actually based upon?

A number of *facts* prime among them being my training and involvement
in the automotive industry as a mechanic since the 60s. First and
foremost, it's clear from what you have written that you do not
understand the concept of *dynamic unbalance* and the ramifications it
has for anyone doing a *static* balance. You make too many assumptions
based on your *limited* experience and minimal training.

First, assume a tyre with a heavy spot central to the centreline of the
tread. this tyre is only in static unbalance. This will cause only wheel
tramp, ie. the bouncing of the wheel and tyre assembly up and down and
should not have any effect on the steering (shimmy). This type of
imbalance can be statically balanced but it requires a little common
sense when applying balance weights. If you apply balance weights
incorrectly you can remove static unbalance but create dynamic unbalance.

Second, assume the same tyre but with the heavy spot over to one side of
the tread and away from the centreline. This tyre is not only in static
unbalance but it is also in *dynamic unbalance*. It will cause wheel
tramp but also steering shimmy. The issue here is that a static balancer
will not tell you which side of the tread area the heavy spot is, only
that it is on that side of the wheel/tyre assembly. That means that when
you add balance weights to the opposite side of the rim, you need to add
weights to both sides. You look at the counterweight needed, then halve
it and add half to each side of the rim opposite the heavy spot. Might
add, when carrying out a static balance you need to always use balance
weights on both sides of the rim at the light spot, even in cases that
are clearly only statically unbalanced, else you will potentially end up
with a dynamically unbalanced wheel. This type of dynamic unbalance can
only be reduced, on average, by 50% even if the static balance is
corrected 100%. The point here is that your steering joints will be
affected by the unbalance

Third, now assume a wheel that has two heavy spots, one each at opposite
points on the wheel diameter. To a static balancer, this wheel assy.
will be balanced producing no wheel tramp. However, assume one heavy
spot is located at the *outside* of the tread centreline and the other
on the opposite side located on the *inside* of the tread centreline.
The wheel is, if both heavy spots are of the same mass, will evince no
tramp but will show up as steering shimmy, the severity of which will
depend on the amount of imbalance and the distance it is located from
the tread centreline. It is caused by the two masses attempting to
alternately get to the centreline. Note too that the type of suspension
system and the steering geometry can play a significant role in the
sensitivity to unbalanced wheels.

So, of the 3 imbalance situations, a static balancer can fully address
the first and only partially address the second depending on the mass
location. In the case of the third imbalance situation, the static
balancer is totally useless. So, to ensure correct balancing over all
situations, a dynamic balancer is the only choice to be made.

As to the situation where, in the past, static balancers covered most
bases, what has changed today? It's simple really, older cars had narrow
tyres fitted to large diameter rims so less prone to dynamic unbalance
effects. Today's cars have much wider tyres so accentuating the
possibility of dynamic imbalance. Road speed with respect to wheel assy.
diameter plays a role in this. That brings me to truck wheel balancing.
Given the large diameter and relatively narrow section width of truck
wheels, static balancing is Ok for most cases. In these cases, on
vehicle balancing, usually of front wheels only, is carried out using
equipment like this;
https://www.bigwheels.net.au/on-vehicle-wheel-balancer
I have done this task many times since the late 60s when I first entered
the trade and I can attest to the efficiacy of this type of balancing
for truck wheels. That, however, was in the past and trucks now travel
at relatively high speeds so dynamic unbalance with consequent steering
shimmy has become an issue with truck wheel balancing. In this case you
*need* an off vehicle dynamic balancer like this;
https://www.bigwheels.net.au/off-vehicle-wheel-balancer

I must add too, just because you feel no vibration or shimmy from the
wheels doesn't mean no imbalance exists. What it means is that the
effect is not being transmitted through to you, the driver. The steering
and suspension may well be feeling the effects and this could cause
aggravated wear in suspension and steering joints. Power steering, for
instance, has an effect on nullifying road feedback. After all,
manufacturers adopted power steering on FWD vehicles in order to reduce
or nullify the effects of unwanted feedback, in this case torque steer.

What would you do if you had a vehicle that had a vibration in the front
through the suspension akin to wheel tramp? Let's assume you static
balanced the wheels with no luck. You checked the tyre for runout, the
rim for runout and the tyre to rim concentricity - all perfect. A spin
up on the dynamic balancer shows the wheels are perfectly balanced both
statically and dynamically yet that vibration in harmony with road speed
persists. Where do you go now? Balance is perfect, runout is perfect,
concentricity is perfect, what is left?




--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 4/5/19 1:05 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:02:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Hi Xeno,

Most people who posted to this thread, IMHO, have proven that they own
completely imaginary belief systems, where the logical proof is that
their
ludicrous excuses instantly failed the simplest of the simple tests of
any
belief system, which is the three words when someone declares an opion
o Name just one FACT from which that belief system is based upon.

Given these vehicles I'm working on are all about two decades old (give
or
take), can you name just one FACT that supports your belief system stated
above?

I'm not saying your belief system is correct, nor am I saying it's not
correct, since you stated your belief system clearly, but you didn't
state
even a single fact that backs up that strongly held belief system.

What FACT is your strongly held belief system actually based upon?

A number of *facts* prime among them being my training and involvement in
the automotive industry as a mechanic since the 60s. First and foremost,
it's clear from what you have written that you do not understand the
concept of *dynamic unbalance* and the ramifications it has for anyone
doing a *static* balance. You make too many assumptions based on your
*limited* experience and minimal training.

First, assume a tyre with a heavy spot central to the centreline of the
tread. this tyre is only in static unbalance. This will cause only wheel
tramp, ie. the bouncing of the wheel and tyre assembly up and down and
should not have any effect on the steering (shimmy). This type of
imbalance can be statically balanced but it requires a little common sense
when applying balance weights. If you apply balance weights incorrectly
you can remove static unbalance but create dynamic unbalance.

Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Second, assume the same tyre but with the heavy spot over to one side of
the tread and away from the centreline. This tyre is not only in static
unbalance but it is also in *dynamic unbalance*. It will cause wheel tramp
but also steering shimmy.

Again, not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

The issue here is that a static balancer will not tell you which side of
the tread area the heavy spot is, only that it is on that side of the
wheel/tyre assembly. That means that when you add balance weights to the
opposite side of the rim, you need to add weights to both sides. You look
at the counterweight needed, then halve it and add half to each side of
the rim opposite the heavy spot. Might add, when carrying out a static
balance you need to always use balance weights on both sides of the rim at
the light spot, even in cases that are clearly only statically unbalanced,
else you will potentially end up with a dynamically unbalanced wheel. This
type of dynamic unbalance can only be reduced, on average, by 50% even if
the static balance is corrected 100%. The point here is that your steering
joints will be affected by the unbalance

Third, now assume a wheel that has two heavy spots, one each at opposite
points on the wheel diameter.

Again, not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

To a static balancer, this wheel assy. will be balanced producing no wheel
tramp. However, assume one heavy spot is located at the *outside* of the
tread centreline and the other on the opposite side located on the
*inside* of the tread centreline. The wheel is, if both heavy spots are of
the same mass, will evince no tramp but will show up as steering shimmy,
the severity of which will depend on the amount of imbalance and the
distance it is located from the tread centreline. It is caused by the two
masses attempting to alternately get to the centreline. Note too that the
type of suspension system and the steering geometry can play a significant
role in the sensitivity to unbalanced wheels.

So, of the 3 imbalance situations, a static balancer can fully address the
first and only partially address the second depending on the mass
location.

But not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

In the case of the third imbalance situation, the static balancer is
totally useless. So, to ensure correct balancing over all situations, a
dynamic balancer is the only choice to be made.

As to the situation where, in the past, static balancers covered most
bases, what has changed today? It's simple really, older cars had narrow
tyres fitted to large diameter rims so less prone to dynamic unbalance
effects. Today's cars have much wider tyres so accentuating the
possibility of dynamic imbalance.

In theory. In reality even the cheapest new tires are unlikely to be a
problem.

Road speed with respect to wheel assy. diameter plays a role in this. That
brings me to truck wheel balancing.

He is talking about car tires, not trucks.

Given the large diameter and relatively narrow section width of truck
wheels, static balancing is Ok for most cases. In these cases, on vehicle
balancing, usually of front wheels only, is carried out using equipment
like this;
https://www.bigwheels.net.au/on-vehicle-wheel-balancer

I have done this task many times since the late 60s when I first entered
the trade and I can attest to the efficiacy of this type of balancing for
truck wheels. That, however, was in the past and trucks now travel at
relatively high speeds so dynamic unbalance with consequent steering
shimmy has become an issue with truck wheel balancing. In this case you
*need* an off vehicle dynamic balancer like this;
https://www.bigwheels.net.au/off-vehicle-wheel-balancer

I must add too, just because you feel no vibration or shimmy from the
wheels doesn't mean no imbalance exists. What it means is that the effect
is not being transmitted through to you, the driver. The steering and
suspension may well be feeling the effects and this could cause aggravated
wear in suspension and steering joints. Power steering, for instance, has
an effect on nullifying road feedback. After all, manufacturers adopted
power steering on FWD vehicles in order to reduce or nullify the effects
of unwanted feedback, in this case torque steer.

They actually did it to make the parking forces less of a problem.

What would you do if you had a vehicle that had a vibration in the front
through the suspension akin to wheel tramp?

Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Let's assume you static balanced the wheels with no luck. You checked the
tyre for runout, the rim for runout and the tyre to rim concentricity -
all perfect. A spin up on the dynamic balancer shows the wheels are
perfectly balanced both statically and dynamically yet that vibration in
harmony with road speed persists. Where do you go now? Balance is perfect,
runout is perfect, concentricity is perfect, what is left?

Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

On Sat, 4 May 2019 19:18:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the abnormal 85-year-old senile troll's latest troll****

Engaging in another auto-contradicting orgy again, you abnormal
auto-contradicting senile pest? BG


--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

Xeno wrote: "A number of *facts* prime among them being my training and
involvement in the automotive industry as a mechanic since the 60s."

Excellent read on the subject!

Any input on road-force tire balancing?

On 4/5/19 7:18 pm, Rod Speed wrote:


"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 4/5/19 1:05 am, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2019 20:02:29 +1000, Xeno wrote:

On a modern car it's a waste of time.

Hi Xeno,

Most people who posted to this thread, IMHO, have proven that they own
completely imaginary belief systems, where the logical proof is that
their
ludicrous excuses instantly failed the simplest of the simple tests
of any
belief system, which is the three words when someone declares an opion
o Name just one FACT from which that belief system is based upon.

Given these vehicles I'm working on are all about two decades old
(give or
take), can you name just one FACT that supports your belief system
stated
above?

I'm not saying your belief system is correct, nor am I saying it's not
correct, since you stated your belief system clearly, but you didn't
state
even a single fact that backs up that strongly held belief system.

What FACT is your strongly held belief system actually based upon?

A number of *facts* prime among them being my training and involvement
in the automotive industry as a mechanic since the 60s. First and
foremost, it's clear from what you have written that you do not
understand the concept of *dynamic unbalance* and the ramifications it
has for anyone doing a *static* balance. You make too many assumptions
based on your *limited* experience and minimal training.

First, assume a tyre with a heavy spot central to the centreline of
the tread. this tyre is only in static unbalance. This will cause only
wheel tramp, ie. the bouncing of the wheel and tyre assembly up and
down and should not have any effect on the steering (shimmy). This
type of imbalance can be statically balanced but it requires a little
common sense when applying balance weights. If you apply balance
weights incorrectly you can remove static unbalance but create dynamic
unbalance.

Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

Second, assume the same tyre but with the heavy spot over to one side
of the tread and away from the centreline. This tyre is not only in
static unbalance but it is also in *dynamic unbalance*. It will cause
wheel tramp but also steering shimmy.

Again, not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

The issue here is that a static balancer will not tell you which side
of the tread area the heavy spot is, only that it is on that side of
the wheel/tyre assembly. That means that when you add balance weights
to the opposite side of the rim, you need to add weights to both
sides. You look at the counterweight needed, then halve it and add
half to each side of the rim opposite the heavy spot. Might add, when
carrying out a static balance you need to always use balance weights
on both sides of the rim at the light spot, even in cases that are
clearly only statically unbalanced, else you will potentially end up
with a dynamically unbalanced wheel. This type of dynamic unbalance
can only be reduced, on average, by 50% even if the static balance is
corrected 100%. The point here is that your steering joints will be
affected by the unbalance

Third, now assume a wheel that has two heavy spots, one each at
opposite points on the wheel diameter.

Again, not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

To a static balancer, this wheel assy. will be balanced producing no
wheel tramp. However, assume one heavy spot is located at the
*outside* of the tread centreline and the other on the opposite side
located on the *inside* of the tread centreline. The wheel is, if both
heavy spots are of the same mass, will evince no tramp but will show
up as steering shimmy, the severity of which will depend on the amount
of imbalance and the distance it is located from the tread centreline.
It is caused by the two masses attempting to alternately get to the
centreline. Note too that the type of suspension system and the
steering geometry can play a significant role in the sensitivity to
unbalanced wheels.

So, of the 3 imbalance situations, a static balancer can fully address
the first and only partially address the second depending on the mass
location.

But not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

In the case of the third imbalance situation, the static balancer is
totally useless. So, to ensure correct balancing over all situations,
a dynamic balancer is the only choice to be made.

As to the situation where, in the past, static balancers covered most
bases, what has changed today? It's simple really, older cars had
narrow tyres fitted to large diameter rims so less prone to dynamic
unbalance effects. Today's cars have much wider tyres so accentuating
the possibility of dynamic imbalance.

In theory. In reality even the cheapest new tires are unlikely to be a
problem.

Seen on new tyres including those fitted to new vehicles.

Road speed with respect to wheel assy. diameter plays a role in this.
That brings me to truck wheel balancing.

He is talking about car tires, not trucks.

Balance a car wheel or a truck wheel, it's all pretty much the same
deal. The exact same principles are involved.

Given the large diameter and relatively narrow section width of truck
wheels, static balancing is Ok for most cases. In these cases, on
vehicle balancing, usually of front wheels only, is carried out using
equipment like this;
Â*Â*Â* https://www.bigwheels.net.au/on-vehicle-wheel-balancer

I have done this task many times since the late 60s when I first
entered the trade and I can attest to the efficiacy of this type of
balancing for truck wheels. That, however, was in the past and trucks
now travel at relatively high speeds so dynamic unbalance with
consequent steering shimmy has become an issue with truck wheel
balancing. In this case you *need* an off vehicle dynamic balancer
like this;
Â*Â*Â* https://www.bigwheels.net.au/off-vehicle-wheel-balancer

I must add too, just because you feel no vibration or shimmy from the
wheels doesn't mean no imbalance exists. What it means is that the
effect is not being transmitted through to you, the driver. The
steering and suspension may well be feeling the effects and this could
cause aggravated wear in suspension and steering joints. Power
steering, for instance, has an effect on nullifying road feedback.
After all, manufacturers adopted power steering on FWD vehicles in
order to reduce or nullify the effects of unwanted feedback, in this
case torque steer.

They actually did it to make the parking forces less of a problem.

They actually did it to make torque steer less of a problem with the
universality of PS on all FWD cars.

What would you do if you had a vehicle that had a vibration in the
front through the suspension akin to wheel tramp?

Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Seen it in new cars under factory warranty - when warranty was 12/12
and/or 12/20. The dealership in which I was working at the time had a
specific diagnosis method for it which isolated the issue immediately.

Let's assume you static balanced the wheels with no luck. You checked
the tyre for runout, the rim for runout and the tyre to rim
concentricity - all perfect. A spin up on the dynamic balancer shows
the wheels are perfectly balanced both statically and dynamically yet
that vibration in harmony with road speed persists. Where do you go
now? Balance is perfect, runout is perfect,Â* concentricity is perfect,
what is left?

Not something likely to be seen with a new tire and no ****ed wheel.

Seen it in new cars under factory warranty - when warranty was 12/12
and/or 12/20.



--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 4/5/19 7:40 pm, Peeler wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2019 19:18:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the abnormal 85-year-old senile troll's latest troll****

Engaging in another auto-contradicting orgy again, you abnormal
auto-contradicting senile pest? BG


See what I mean! ;-)

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)