nitrogen in car tires for better gas mileage ?

ben62670

heiney9 wrote: »

If done right no "extra" cost is incurred.

H9

This is where I fail. I don't get air unless I see, or feel that the air is low in the tires. This study has been beaten to death, but like 95% of the tires on the road today are under inflated. The under inflation does cause many of the problems that rat has so nicely copied, and pasted for us on page one.

Ben

heiney9

ben62670 wrote: »

This is where I fail. I don't get air unless I see, or feel that the air is low in the tires. This study has been beaten to death, but like 95% of the tires on the road today are under inflated. The under inflation does cause many of the problems that rat has so nicely copied, and pasted for us on page one.

Ben

I agree. I am a little anal about checking tire pressure only because I know it almost always leads to premature wear. When you are running a 45 series Summer rated tire that is very soft it makes a big difference in life expectancy if you run it while not properly inflated.

I run snow tires in the Winter and I'm constantly checking the inflation because those suckers are expensive and I want to get the longest most even wear out of them I can because that may mean the difference between getting an extra snow season or not.

It also seems the more high performance the tire is the more sensitive it is to over/under inflation while driving. I can always tell by how my car rides or steers if the tire pressure is low/high by ~3psi or so with Summer tires.

That being said I still wouldn't run Nitrogen at $7.95 a tire. If I could get it free then I'd run it for the hell of it.

H9

Jstas

heiney9 wrote: »

There is a reason race cars run pure Nitrogen rather than "typical" air. So far that's the only place, IMO, there is an advantage.

H9

What?

Maybe in some sanctioning bodies nitrogen is used but I was actually racing this past Sunday and NOBODY had nitrogen tanks on hand to fill tires with nitrogen. The closest thing to nitrogen was bonded with oxygen and getting squirted into engines. It was drag racing too where the added benefit of nitrogen not being susceptible to heat changes would be great overall.





You guys and your theories. :rolleyes:

heiney9

Jstas wrote: »

What?

Maybe in some sanctioning bodies nitrogen is used but I was actually racing this past Sunday and NOBODY had nitrogen tanks on hand to fill tires with nitrogen. The closest thing to nitrogen was bonded with oxygen and getting squirted into engines. It was drag racing too where the added benefit of nitrogen not being susceptible to heat changes would be great overall.





You guys and your theories. :rolleyes:

Your need to always be right.................when you're not is really annoying.

Not theory but a fact............ Straight form Nascar.com and I'm sure I could find other.

Is there anything you can put in a tire to stabilize the pressures? Certain elements are more stable over a wider range of temperatures. -- John Vrba

Great question, John. Most folks, myself included, assume NASCAR teams use the same ol' simple air in their race tires that we get from the pump beside the economy-size vacuum cleaner down at the BP for a quarter. That's not the case.

NASCAR teams use nitrogen to pressurize tires. Nitrogen -- the driest form of air NASCAR will allow teams to use -- contains no moisture and therefore cannot expand. Any moisture present in the tire was already there when the tire was mounted.



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Back at ya!

heiney9

Jstas wrote: »

I was actually racing this past Sunday and NOBODY had nitrogen tanks on hand to fill tires with nitrogen

Well I know several SCCA guys who race locally and use Nitrogen to inflate tires. It has it's benefits on the track.

H9

danger boy

so then i'm no longer an airhead, now I'm a nitrohead? :eek:

rskarvan

Jstas wrote: »

BTW, your second post mentions nothing about these astounding properties of nitrogen and its magical effects on rubber.

You are full of crap. My 2nd post specifically mentions "reduced tire oxidation".

heiney9

Here's another quote from Orion Motorsports-a racing organization.

Do I need Nitrogen?

The use of Nitrogen is cheap insurance. The problem with Nitrogen has been getting it. Until now we had to store compressed Nitrogen in air tanks. The capacity was just too small to really depend on having it available. This is about to change.

In co-operation with Ingersoll Rand, Orion/Pirelli will now have Nitrogen available at all national races. With the help of an on-board Nitrogen generator, we will be able to produce more than enough Nitrogen to fill every tire in the pit many times over. This will ensure all riders have access to it at all times. There will be a nominal fee but the performance value is well worth the cost.

H9

P.s. I can find hundreds more showing it's prevalent use in racing both amateur and professional. Perhaps you should try is Jstas. Rather than arguing about something you have only a very narrow view of. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not a very popular practice in racing.

danger boy

can i use it in my lawnmower tires so I get my lawn mowed faster?

heiney9

danger boy wrote: »

can i use it in my lawnmower tires so I get my lawn mowed faster?

If your lawn mower has inflatable tires rather than solid tires.............GO FOR IT. You'll be able to sit down and watch sports on Sunday much sooner running Nitrogen.

Joe08867

My brother in-law had the tires on his Expedition done. I went for a ride with him and he asked if I noticed anything about the truck.

I said it seemed like he had the shocks done or something to that effect.

He told me the only thing they did was fill his tires with Nitrogen. Now I do not know if the tires were inflated correctly when I rode in the truck previous to nitrogen but I did notice a difference.

ninerbj

This may be way off subject, but the "debate" over air and nitrogen reminds me of a lot of the cable debates that have taken place over the years here.
I would be interested in seeing how many people on this nitrogen for your tires bandwagon actually think cables make a difference and visa versa.
I'm not trying to pick a cable fight by any means...I would just be interested in the mind set and range of "believers".

An example would be to do some type of scientific study to see if a group of people that honestly believe that a power cord makes a sonic difference in their system, would be more likely (by sheer numbers) to want to believe in things like Bigfoot, UFO's, Ghost...stuff like that.

danger boy

maybe at PolkFest08 we can settle this once and for all.. that cables do make a difference..

agfrost

Anyone got any links from reputable sources for these "facts" about nitrogen? I teach chemistry and I don't claim to be an expert in the physical chemistry problems that are at the heart of this discussion.

But I don't buy some of the arguments I've heard here. Oxygen is a smaller atom than is nitrogen (75 pm vs. 73 pm for Nitrogen). Both gases exist as diatomic molecules (N2 and O2), but the N-N bond is a triple bond whereas the O-O bond is a double bond. The trend there is that the more bonds, the shorter the bond length. This suggests that oxygen should be the larger molecule.

The ideal gas law (PV=nRT) is generic for any gas (as long as the pressure isn't ridiculously high or the temperature ridiculously low) and states that the pressure of any gas is directly related to its temperature. I'd need to hear from a pretty damn good source to make me believe that pure N2 responds differently to temperature changes than does a mixture of ~79% N2, ~20% O2, ~1% other gases.

Another gas law that seems potentially applicable is Graham's Law of Effusion, which says that a lighter gas will seep through a tiny hole faster than a heavier gas. (That's why my son's cheapo balloon from the haircut place is on the ground after one night, since helium is the 2nd lightest gas) Nitrogen should leak out of a tire's pores faster than does oxygen, as N2 is 28 g/mol and O2 is 32 g/mol.

All of these aspects seem to me to show that N2 should actually be inferior to O2 as a tire filler. The one area that N2 is clearly superior to O2 is reactivity, which others have stated above. I think that oxygen's reactivity with the metal of the rim may be more important than its reaction with the tire itself, particularly over time at elevated temperatures. Raise your hand if you've ever had a problem with the seal on a tire mounted on an aluminum wheel.

If you're enough of a glutton for punishment to make it this far into this endless post, I'll say that I wouldn't be floored if there's some science beyond what I know that can explain some reason for N2 superiority, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was just the tire-mounting industry finding a way to introduce a fee that the banking industry would be proud of.

Jay

jdhdiggs

I personally love the thought that N2 is a bigger molecule that H2O, O2, CO2, etc... And that makes a difference. That, and getting around the whole PV=nRT thing... Very intriguing...

heiney9

Dry Nitrogen is virtually insusceptible to to the forces of heat and atmospheric pressure because it has no moisture in it. That's why Nascar, F1 and many other racing teams encourage the use of Nitrogen. In fact the FAA mandates it's use in certain types of airplanes for the landing gear tires.

I have no idea about the hype stating it saves fuel, extends life of rubber, etc. It does have a positive effect in one area and that's allowing much more consistent tire pressure when used in extreme heat and atmospheric fluctuations conditions; such as racing environments and high altitude airplane flights.

Now if it's improperly used to inflate a tire (meaning the tire already has moisture present or the process used adds moisture) then it becomes less and less effective at combating the effects of heat and atmospheric fluctuations on a tires ability to maintain a consistent pressure.

H9

Demiurge

Ford.

agfrost

heiney9 wrote: »

Dry Nitrogen is virtually insusceptible to to the forces of heat and atmospheric pressure because it has no moisture in it.

Do you have a link that explains this? I'm genuinely curious.

rskarvan

Agfrost.... Finally, someone that speaks from FACTS vs. fiction.

And, I am raising my hand because I have had problems sealing tires on Aluminum rims.

heiney9

agfrost wrote: »

Anyone got any links from reputable sources for these "facts" about nitrogen? I teach chemistry and I don't claim to be an expert in the physical chemistry problems that are at the heart of this discussion.

But I don't buy some of the arguments I've heard here. Oxygen is a smaller atom than is nitrogen (75 pm vs. 73 pm for Nitrogen). Both gases exist as diatomic molecules (N2 and O2), but the N-N bond is a triple bond whereas the O-O bond is a double bond. The trend there is that the more bonds, the shorter the bond length. This suggests that oxygen should be the larger molecule.

The ideal gas law (PV=nRT) is generic for any gas (as long as the pressure isn't ridiculously high or the temperature ridiculously low) and states that the pressure of any gas is directly related to its temperature. I'd need to hear from a pretty damn good source to make me believe that pure N2 responds differently to temperature changes than does a mixture of ~79% N2, ~20% O2, ~1% other gases.

Another gas law that seems potentially applicable is Graham's Law of Effusion, which says that a lighter gas will seep through a tiny hole faster than a heavier gas. (That's why my son's cheapo balloon from the haircut place is on the ground after one night, since helium is the 2nd lightest gas) Nitrogen should leak out of a tire's pores faster than does oxygen, as N2 is 28 g/mol and O2 is 32 g/mol.

All of these aspects seem to me to show that N2 should actually be inferior to O2 as a tire filler. The one area that N2 is clearly superior to O2 is reactivity, which others have stated above. I think that oxygen's reactivity with the metal of the rim may be more important than its reaction with the tire itself, particularly over time at elevated temperatures. Raise your hand if you've ever had a problem with the seal on a tire mounted on an aluminum wheel.

If you're enough of a glutton for punishment to make it this far into this endless post, I'll say that I wouldn't be floored if there's some science beyond what I know that can explain some reason for N2 superiority, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was just the tire-mounting industry finding a way to introduce a fee that the banking industry would be proud of.

Jay

Grahams Law is covered here: Just another POV that may or not be true.

http://www.getnitrogen.org/pdf/graham.pdf

heiney9

agfrost wrote: »

Do you have a link that explains this? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not sure if you are looking for "THE" authority but here are a few.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question594.htm

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/nascar5.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/tech/main1851979.shtml

http://www.worktruckonline.com/Article/Story/2007/09/What-You-Should-Know-About-Nitrogen-Filled-Tires.aspx

There are literally hundreds to thousands of articles, posts, etc. about Nitrogen. These are a few. Take it for what it's worth.

I personally won't be buying any Nitrogen. And the only hard benefit I can see is what I already mentioned about consistent tire pressure. There is a reason race cars use it and the FAA mandates it's use for certain high altitude planes.

All the rest is just like a cable debate.

H9

agfrost

Thanks for the link H9. At a glance, nothing in the article jumps out as being total BS, nor does it help me see exactly the issue at hand. As I suspected, the science involved appears to be beyond my training and expertise.

My guess on the whole matter? If those big names (F1, NASCAR, FAA) do it, I'm sure there's something to it. But those people are running much closer to the edge of the envelope than most of us are. I'm sure there's a law of diminishing returns that applies.

As several posters above have noted, monitoring your vehicles' tire pressures is probably sufficient and will yield the same results for zero cost.

But if my lawn mower can get through my lawn more quickly, then I'm on my way to the local Goodyear with a quickness...

Jay

heiney9

rskarvan wrote: »

Agfrost.... Finally, someone that speaks from FACTS vs. fiction.

And, I am raising my hand because I have had problems sealing tires on Aluminum rims.

So just because he puts out a bunch of heady terms and wordy sentences he is magically appointed the bringer of facts. :rolleyes:.

I have no issue with Agfrost because he probably understands the scientific aspect a little better than most but read the .pdf file I posted above and it refutes his interpretation of Grahams Law of Effusion.

Also keep in mind that .pdf is from the GetNitrogen website so take that FWIW too.

Not in anyway saying Agfrost is incorrect or doesn't make good points, but that doesn't mean he is the only one with facts and the rest of the posts are fiction.

Ron, do a little research and reading you'll become a much more well rounded person.

H9

dkg999

Nitrogen in the tires is so old school. If you knew anything about cars and motorcycles you would know that the red ones go faster :eek:

heiney9

agfrost wrote: »

My guess on the whole matter? If those big names (F1, NASCAR, FAA) do it, I'm sure there's something to it. But those people are running much closer to the edge of the envelope than most of us are. I'm sure there's a law of diminishing returns that applies.

Jay

Agree 100%! For typical consumer use it probably doesn't make sense beyond a conversation piece. I have been reading some trucking companies are seeing some benefits to longer lasting tires and reduced fuel costs but this is over very very large fleets of trucks that run hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles.

H9

tonyb

Man,this is worse than a cable debate.

agfrost

tonyb wrote: »

Man,this is worse than a cable debate.

Yeah, at least we get to listen to music when debating cables! Don't think I'll get as much pleasure out of doing some A/B'ing in my Sonata.



Jay

bobman1235

heiney9 wrote: »

So just because he puts out a bunch of heady terms and wordy sentences he is magically appointed the bringer of facts. :rolleyes:.9

His facts were also directly contradictory to 95% of Ron's earlier post. Figure that one out.

dkg999

We haven't even got to the use of nitrogen as an anti-oxidation prevention method for improving the sound of speaker cables :cool:

ben62670

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?