Sponsored by The Tire Rack

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by GewoW

If F1 uses it and has tested it...then I don't really think anyone has a claim against it.

Dave will have a claim against it, you can count on that... Just wait I am sure he is frantically searching the www and working on his rebuttal... tic toc

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by cssnms

You seem to know a lot about that Dave.

Guys, there is nothing magical here. I have no financial interest one way or another. I just do not like to see people buy into bullshit and marketing hype when physics can explain exactly what is happening. Just because some guy writes an article for a magazine does not mean he has an understanding of the principles of the actions taking place. I means he has bought into the hype.

Please read this. It is the result of an experiment conducted by an unbiased researcher. It is based upon science and has factual information; not speculation or hype:

http://home.comcast.net/~prestondrak..._tires_FAQ.htm

[GewoW]

Originally Posted by Dave IV

Guys, there is nothing magical here. I have no financial interest one way or another. I just do not like to see people buy into bullshit and marketing hype when physics can explain exactly what is happening. Just because some guy writes an article for a magazine does not mean he has an understanding of the principles of the actions taking place. I means he has bought into the hype.

Please read this. It is the result of an experiment conducted by an unbiased researcher. It is based upon science and has factual information; not speculation or hype:

http://home.comcast.net/~prestondrak..._tires_FAQ.htm

well how do you explain F1s use of it? when they test tires for years on end...?

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by GewoW

well how do you explain F1s use of it? when they test tires for years on end...?

You did not read the paper. It has valuable info, including this:

Why do race cars use nitrogen in their tires?


One commonly cited answer is that the pressure won’t vary as much with temperature. But as was demonstrated earlier, this is not the case; nitrogen’s pressure-vs-temperature curve is virtually identical to that of air, even air that isn’t completely dry. And the pressures aren’t that high (typically 20-40 psi), so fire/explosion safety isn’t a major concern. The best answer I’ve heard so far is that race teams already have bottles of dry nitrogen on hand for servicing suspension components; having a separate air compressor around for filling tires would be a redundant waste of space and money.



Not only that, but there may be a new reason soon, if not already, for the widespread use of nitrogen in race car tires, even among amateur racers: sponsorship from nitrogen vendors who want to be able to point to racers and say “see, they’re using it, you should too!”

[J BONE]

[ThunderMoose]

I am with Dave. Physics is with Dave.

[cssnms]

Attention Forum Members... This subject is closed, Dave from NJ has spoken. Disregard anything else you have read; well except for Dave's musings and what is commonly referred to as the "paper." The engineers at Formula 1 do not know what they are doing, it's all one big ruse paid for by the nitrogen dealers.

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by ThunderMoose

I am with Dave. Physics is with Dave.

Did you ever ask Dave what qualifies him to speak on the subject?

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by Dave IV

Guys, there is nothing magical here. I have no financial interest one way or another. I just do not like to see people buy into bullshit and marketing hype when physics can explain exactly what is happening.

So that we are all clear on your background and what qualifies you to speak on this subject... Are you a chemist, chemical engineer or physicist or are you simply placing all of your bets on that independent and professionally prepared reference you keep citing?

Please point out the "bullshit and marketing" from the Popular Mechanics article, Formula 1 website and or the Motor Sports Report? I guess they all must be in kahoots with the nitrogen industry!

Stop now you are starting to sound silly.

[walsh]

For an isochoric process (constant volume) the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, can be modified to become P2 = P1 (T2/T1). P1 and T1 are your original pressure and temperature. T2 is the new temperature outside (really inside the tire but its close enough). With those three you can solve for P2, which is the new pressure in your tire. The kind of gas doesn't matter. Therefore at ay given temperature the pressures of two different gases will be equal (only talking about this kind of process). If you want to see the derivation just let me know, its pretty simple.

However the molecular size of N2 is slight larger then O2. This means theoretically that O2 would permeate through the wall of the tire faster than N2. So if filling with air, which contains about 21% oxygen, that oxygen could permeate through the tire quicker than the nitrogen. This means you could lose tire pressure quicker with air than with nitrogen. I don't know how long the permeation process through the tire would take, and I don't feel like going through the calculations to figure it out. Depending on how often you check the pressure in your tires, enough time might not pass to allow for any significant permeation to occur. Also more air probably "leaks" out between the interface of the tire and the wheel where this doesn't entirely hold true.

There are the facts. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether its useful or not. Smart cap off, drinking cap on...

My qualification... I'm an aerospace engineer.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by cssnms

So that we are all clear on your background and what qualifies you to speak on this subject... Are you a chemist, chemical engineer or physicist or are you simply placing all of your bets on that independent and professionally prepared reference you keep citing?

Please point out the "bullshit and marketing" from the Popular Mechanics article, Formula 1 website and or the Motor Sports Report? I guess they all must be in kahoots with the nitrogen industry!

Stop now you are starting to sound silly.

My point here is that when a new technology or process is introduced which promises some improvement over the previous technology or process there should be some scientific explanation as to why it works and why it is truly an improvement.

Nothing in the Popular Mechanics, Formula F1 website, or Motor Sports Report cited any empirical evidence or scientific studies proving their claims.

The report I cited did scientifically, through controlled experimentation, prove that there is no difference between the change of pressure of nitrogen and air with respect to the change of temperature.

For what it's worth, I am an electrical engineer, employed by the nation's leading defense contractor. My wife is a chemist, with a specialty in product development, employed by one of the world's largest chemical companies.

The PV=nrT thing is just basic high school physics.