I put Nitrogen in my tires.

I read the first page of this thread and gave up, so I'll just throw my two, hopefully polite cents into it and leave it alone.

The only part that bothers me (aside from bickering) was a suggestion that you can check your tire every six months instead of at every fill up, which is inadvisable. Just because the stuff theoretically seeps through the sidewalls slower doesn't mean something sharp can't create a slow leak or a stem can't go bad and start leaking. You should still check them frequently. (Forgive me if you already addressed this.)

The only reason I could justify running nitrogen has nothing to do with pressure and everything to do with moisture. Plenty of water can build up over the life of a tire, to the point of sloshing around. Filling from a tank would eliminate that possibility.

I do wonder about the cost/benefit of isolating and compressing nitrogen vs. just checking and filling with air as necessary. There is some validity to the suggestion that you might come out behind the game rather than ahead. Shouldn't be too tough to figure out...

 

Beyond the secondary benefits discussed above about Nitrogen, there is absolutely no evidence that it improves your gas mileage.

We have pretty much concluded that the secondary benefits are not important to car operations. Therefore, I would conclude that it is a waste of money to put nitrogen into your tires.

Now, if someone (like Cosco) wants to put some into your tires for free, go ahead. We have definitely shown that it won't cause your tires any harm.

What is disturbing, is dealers using the Nitrogen spiel as a way to make you come into their store or to make more profits.... it's basic SNAKE OIL SALESMANSHIP.


Here is a link to an engineering forum discussing the same issue in more technical terms.
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=120996&page=1

 

Assuming your increase was due to the nitrogen. At 40 miles per gallon I could go 640 miles. 2mpg increase is 5% increase with my 40mpg. I would have to travel 12,800 miles to break even on the nitrogen fill. (12,800 X 5%=640). So with the kind of mileage I'm getting and my original tires only lasting about a year and 13,500 miles I don't think it's much of a savings for me. I'm glad it's working for you.

BTW If nitrogen does improve mileage why wouldn't all car manufacturers tires come already filled with it, and be recommended by them? It would seem like a cheap way to post higher mpg figures.

EDIT I was figuring gas at $2.50 a gallon. $40.00 would buy 16 gallons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jan 19 2007, 03:17 AM) [snapback]377633[/snapback]</div>

Your argument is bogus. In and earlier post in this thread you stated your mileage went up nearly 20% solely because of the nitrogen. UH Huh, sure. I suppose the magnets you put on your fuel line also helped too.

Plain and simple. If all automakers put nitrogen in their tires (at a very minimal cost, maybe 50 cents a car) then they could meet and exceed their CAFE requirements for years to come and sell lots more high margin SUV's to boot. But they don't...Hmm, must be some sort of conspiracy headed up by the oil companies...

Your argument just doesn't hold water, uh, nitrogen I mean...

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jan 19 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]377933[/snapback]</div>

Monkey boy??? Ok, look here PooPoo head...

I never could figure out why the automakers could not get that magical 20% extra on their fuel mileage averages as you did with nitrogen. It's because they didn't put nitrogen in their tires. Their loss, your gain!

Thanks for setting us straight. I wonder if the engineers at Ford, GM, Mercedes, Toyota, Mazda, VW, BMW, etc... have caught on yet. Shhhh, let's keep it our little secret.

PS. And I do have proof from a very well known member on this board that you do indeed have magnets on your fuel lines.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

Agreed, hijacking and steering into a building will be harder, but specifically bringing an airplane down "shoebomber" style I believe is still relatively simple. And I don't think it can be made difficult without impacting passenger flow and personal privacy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

I don't think so, and all we have to do is watch, because the people that hate us (numbers growing daily) will find ways. It doesn't take much - a spark in a fuel tank? If you'd have said before 9/11 that it was possible for terrorists to hijack several airliners and fly them into sky scrapers you'd have been laughed at, and I think you know this. More information will come out that will be laughed at, then happen. Aviation is trying to serve two masters, profit and safety, and you cannot serve both.

Also, you forgot one class of arms, guns. Are the areas around airports where a plane could be hit by a handgun or rifle completely secured? Of course not. You'd have to close down half the businesses at the airport and buy a huge amount of land. Not going to happen.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

This is a great debate topic, because I know that aviation desperately wants to keep GA looking "safe" even when it isn't. Ask yourself why you choose to fly a 172 around instead of drive. I can think of some reasons why I'd want to, 1) no "true" restrictions (can ignore TFR at your peril which may not matter) 2) come and go anytime I want 3) go anywhere 4) go *fast* (fun also) but what does a terrorist like about it? It can't be stopped with a barricade. Let your imagination run wild because the 9/11 commission decided that the tragedy was a result of "lack of imagination" which I think is partly true. What would 500 lb of TNT do crashed into a variety of large buildings? A hospital? A capitol building? A control tower? When you have scores of people who don't mind being human bombs, a small plane is a fantastic weapon.

And I'm relatively sure that 500 pounds of TNT with shrapnel would do a lot more than cause a few injuries, it would kill scores. It would also affect the national psyche. People would start to avoid large gatherings.

Now imagine 5 172s doing the same thing one after the other. Who's going to stop them? There are hundreds of unattended air strips.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

It's probably under consideration by a variety of terrorists.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

By all means, unless you're a really dumb terrorist, you'd go use a back country strip, not a busy GA airport.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

Oh I know what they're doing, and I know what the rhetoric is, and I know the "duty" of every god-fearing GA pilot, but I also know that lying to public serves only one special interest.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

I was speaking to all of aviation's profitability, not just the airlines.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

Nothing to do with security? Security was largely managed and overseen by the government before deregulation, then handed over entirely to the airlines. Creating TSA was simply taking the responsibility back because the administration knew that the airlines couldn't handle the security responsibility while at the same time pushing for more profit. Now tax payers pay for airline security directly (and massively) AND pay for the bailouts that keep the airlines afloat.

So much for a platform of less government...


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

It was actually a scenario spelled out by Brian Jenkins after the Beirut bombings. Anyone reading the news saw that Islamic extremists were perfectly happy to go on suicide missions. It was widely known in the US that airlines had lax security and that it was only a matter of time before they took advantage of it. I'm trying to remember the news cast I saw that on. Dateline? Nightline?60 minutes? One of them...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 15 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]376154[/snapback]</div>

Pearl Harbor wasn't predicted, there was intelligence in place that it was going to happen, and when. This is historical record. I'll try to dig out a history book if my kids haven't parked my garage shut again.

If we're going to turn this into blaming the sitting president, we could start a whole new website for this administration couldn't we? Bin Laden is still at large and we've invaded the wrong country for literally nothing resulting in the better part of a million dead people. For nothing. I was commenting on the airlines' responsibility since I really resent having their lack of security aid the terrorists, then be required to fork out 5 billion dollars to bail them out of something they allowed to happen. You've pointed out every other failure but the airlines'. Will you acknowledge the airline contribution?

Ultimately, even if we agree to disagree on the airlines' role in 9/11 and what appears to me as their lapse in moral judgement, we as Prius owners should share some common goals. Why do you own a Prius? Just to save a few bucks on gas, or to help wean the US from oil? Reduce greenhouse gases? Cruising jets place greenhouse gases at altitudes where they have the greatest impacts. Moving public transportation away from airplanes and towards high speed rail serves that goal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stepclimb @ Jan 18 2007, 09:13 PM)</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jan 19 2007, 01:17 AM) [snapback]377633[/snapback]</div>

Sorry TJ, Stepclimb is dead on correct. Your tire doesn't care if you have 40 psi of air, N2 or propane. The contact patch and amount of flex in tire, the things that modify rolling resistance, are completely a function of tire pressure, not the species of gas molecules in the tire. If you are seeing better gas mileage, then it's a result of something else.

So yes, you did waste a considerable amount of energy fractionally distilling N2 from air.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jan 25 2007, 12:40 AM) [snapback]380510[/snapback]</div>

Ok, me. Costco put it in my tires without even asking (it's free there) and I saw no difference other than my valves had green caps on them. I tried it and did not like it. I log all my fuel and mileage, maintenance etc and there was no trend in either direction after that. There are noticeable trends from cold temperatures, switch to winter blends of fuel, putting on a different kind of tire etc. but not from eliminating 21% O2 from the tire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveG @ Nov 12 2006, 03:04 PM) [snapback]347882[/snapback]</div>

I thought to get an accurate reading, tires should be checked cold.... i.e. 3 hrs after driving or in the early mornings?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jan 19 2007, 04:17 AM) [snapback]377633[/snapback]</div>

I don't disagree that nitrogen has advantages over putting air in your tires, but if you claim this an an experiment with reproducible results, you have to be very careful.

You claimed an improvement in mileage from between 40 and 45 MPG before nitrogen to 49 MPG after. Your experiment opens up the following questions :

Where's your control? In your previous fills with air where you got 40 and 45 MPG, what was the air pressure?

Suppose your chosen air pressure (air or nitrogen) is 40psi. Would there be any difference in MPG if you had an assured 40psi of air versus 40psi of nitrogen?

Your claims so far have been that your tire pressure is now more steady (not disputing that) and because of that, your mileage is up. It is with that point that I need clarification. Does that mean that previously with your air-filled tires, your tires were significantly underinflated, and that's why you were only getting 40 to 45MPG?

Furthermore, is there the possibility that the improvements in your fuel economy for your wife and yourself are due to driver skill improvement, and not just nitrogen alone? The longer you own the car, the more accustomed you become to the HSD, and how to get the best mileage from it. Maybe your wife is learning some techniques to driving her Prius. I use air in my tires and i consistently get 55+ MPG...

 

Every time I see this thread on the front page, I so want to start a thread

I Put Deuterium In My Windshield Washers

to go with it. Deuterium, why use plain old Dihydrogen Monoxide when
you can get your windshield Deuterium clean?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 25 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]380704[/snapback]</div>

I use deuterium in my warp core. Works great! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Jan 25 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]380693[/snapback]</div>

It's pointless to argue with the originator of this thread. He has claimed repeatedly his mileage has increased nearly 20% solely because of the nitrogen in his tires.
Funny, but even the automakers haven't caught on to it yet. I hope someone tells Ford, GM, Mercedes, Audi, VW, etc.... about the 20% mileage gains with nitrogen only. Bush never mentioned it in his State of the Union speech... To hell with switch grass, let's go nitrogen!

But alas, now I am told he puts magnets on his fuel lines. Well, when I learned about that... Hmm, I wonder how much that helps. What's next? A vortex generator in the air intake?

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Jan 25 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]380784[/snapback]</div>

Cognitive Dissonance is a powerful thing. You've paid the money for it, so it has to be good.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jan 25 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]380691[/snapback]</div>

For me it was brand new tires at Costco with their free Nitrogen, so I'm assuming it was as much 'pure' as you can get in without first applying an absolute vacuum to the tire on the rim sucking it flat. do not know if that qualifies as 'draining' all the air or not.

So, add me to the "Tried it and still think it's pointless, basically a scam, and an environmental detriment as well" list.

I guess that makes me 'qualified' to have an opinion, in addition to the extensive engineering and chemistry education.

Bottom line, as many have pointed out here before, moisture is the killer, not the particular gasses in the mix. If you put dry gas in the tire, whether it's Pure N2 or the mix we breathe, you get the same effect.