Would we even be having this conversation if it weren’t for dollar signs in the eyes of nitrogen machine producers and in the eyes of tire shops?
The tire company trade rags are filled with pitches for nitrogen machines. The main theme of every pitch is increased revenue. Here’s the leading statement from one such trade rag (babco tools):
Nitrogen tire inflation is one of the fastest growing sources of new revenue for automotive service shops around the country.
All the trade rag descriptions about these machines emphasizes profits. I’ve yet to find one that claims it’s worth it for the end customer to actually purchase nitrogen for their tires.
Wow, I am really surprised that Consumer Reports found any measurable difference in pressure loss at all. 31 pairs of tires is a pretty good sample, I wonder what the standard deviation was among different tires in the sample?
I find myself speculating as to why there was a difference observed between the gases. The molecular diameter seems unlikely to cause a difference, and the molecular structure and polarity are virtually identical.
If I were to repeat this Consumer Reports test looking for bias, I would be careful to bleed down and refill the air tires using exactly the same procedure as was used for the nitrogen tires, on the chance that this exercise caused the valve or the tire bead to seat more securely.
Dagosa, In my opinion, deception and lying are pretty much the same thing. I realize that it is, unfortunately, very difficult to sell anything without playing games, but really now. I’m pretty much a right-leaning capitalist myself, but I detest having my intelligence insulted by deceptive hype. I will also say that I think Ralph Nader may have had some good points on the Corvair. I don’t think the rear-engine was the only issue. The biggie was the rear axle and suspension design, which in typical GM fashion, wasn’t corrected until the last year of production after a lot of people were killed in them, including a friend’s daughter.
I would agree that Ralph Nader’s time has come and gone. However, he filled a needed role to expose how dangerous many cars really were in the 50s, when no one else had the guts to do so.
Both the VW bug and the Corvair were dangerous designs. On the Corvair, on which I wrote an engineering thesis paper, the SOLID steering column started out just behind a flimsy front bumber and ended at a pointed steering wheel aimed at you chest. The front crush space was zilch, just an empty trunk an no frame. I did not adress the handling, but commented on the extreme importance of having vastlty different levels of air pressure in fron and rear tires, somehting an average Corvair owner might overlook.
Nader, a young lawyer, assumed incorrectly that GM was out to get the consumer by trying to sell a much lighter car for nearly the same money as a standard frame based car. He knew nothing of development and production costs, volume economics, etc.
GM tried to incriminate him and he sued and got $300,000 or so in damages.
In the end, we got driver and passenger protection, tires of adequate size, better bumpers, better brakes, seatbelts, and all those things that have steadily reduced the fatality and severe injury rates to 1/16 of what it was in the 50s. European car magazines at the time praised the US efforts to make cars safer and clamored to have VW and others follow suite.
But it took a US ex-marine in Canada, Phil Edmondston, to initiate the rust protection we now have by lanching the Rusty Ford suite which in 1976 resulted in mandatory perforation protection for all cars built in North America. We had a 1977 Colt, built in Japan in mid 1976, which had no rust protection, and the difference in corrsion rates was vast.
but good grief man, it’s the American way and they aren’t making any claim that is factually wrong, at least in the tire dealers I go to.
If you buy a bag of Cheetos, the advertising promises that it will taste like Cheetos. It doesn’t say that it will cure cancer or stimulate your brain and make you a genius. Nitrogen is being sold, in place of free air, claiming that it gives advantage over the free air, when it does not. “Capitalism deception” is lying no matter what spin you put on it.
As for it being the “American way,” perhaps you’re right, but that doesn’t mean it should continue to be so. I for one would rather my country not be known as “America, Land of the Free Market, Home of the Liars.”
Excellent post as usual, Doc, but I should point out that the design features that made the Beetle and the Corvair (disclaimer: I learned on '61 and '65 Corvairs and owned a '61 Beetle) so dangerous were very common on small cars in that era. Nader chose the Bug because of its omnipresence (and his desire for fame), but the book could just as well have been written about the 356 Porsche…except nobody would have cared. The Porsche shared the belly pan, the swing axle, the rear biased weight distribution…heck, it was almost a Beetle that sat on a hot plate too long.
@shadowfox
That Cheetos is even alowed on the market when it contains ingredients that i feel promote obesity, the biggest cost in the rise of healthcare for ALL of us is, I think it an affront to all citizens , and I see no comparison. Selling nitrogen is perfectly fine !
Now, if auto companies want to sell bogus extended warranties which do little or nothing to harm anyone’s health, I see no reason why tire companies can’t feel free to do the same or similar. I would be hard pressed to find many retailers who don’t promote their own goods on levels of deception ( including selling cars) that range from slightly disingenuous to down right lies. This imho, falls somewhere in between.
Regardless of what catagory it falls in, they are selling a product that DOES NO HARM ! IMHO, that should be the first and most important criteria for consumer protection. I make this distinction, and others do not.We aren’t here to keep everyone from being bilked out of a few dollars a year on a deceptive advertising on purchasing a product that does not harm ( no good, but no harm).
So, what is the alternative ? I definitely don’t want the govt. stepping in when no ones health is in jeopardy, and I definitely don’t want Nader types trampling on my right to freely stop at a tire store when my intent is to buy tires only, by picketing. My response is…I don’t care and chalk it up to free enterprise and freedom of speech Now, if anyone wants to take them to a civil court, make a case out of it and sue them for bilking you out of your precious twenty dollars a year, I support that right too.
@Docnick
I like your post. To me, it’s more about consumer safety then any thing else. You can’t mandate that all vehicles and products be completely safe. But, dealers and manufacturers should be mandated to provide information to consumers to allow them to make informed decisions when their safety is at stake when using the product. @doubleclutch
I hear where you are comming from. But, our role is one to inform and I feel we have all done justice to it. Buying nitrogen when a direct deposite to the owner’s son’s college fund would accomplish much more good is the message I would make. I just feel there is a fine line between what we should allow a business to do as far as deception is concerned. IMHO, the tire industry has not crossed that line. The FAA mandates that nitrogen be used in commercial aircraft tires. If the tire industry wants to take that mandate and run with it as a stepping point to make more money at no ones health or safety cost, I have no problem with it. It’s the part of capitalism that we should be informed about, but not control.
I definitely don't want the govt. stepping in when no ones health is in jeopardy,
I’m realistic enough not to be a Libertarian, and unless I am given the ability to right the wrongs that businesses might perpetrate against me, I want an entity in my corner to help keep them from wronging me. There are plenty of ways to make an honest buck that those seeking to make a dishonest one should not be allowed to prey on people who may not be expert in the subject of the sale.
As of now, advertising and the right to do so is protected under the first Amendment. The supreme court has not ruled that false and deceptive advertising, in and of itself, violates that freedom. There must be other factors involved inluding the violations of an individual rights in their pursuits. I don’t see that happening with nitrogen sales. Someone is deceiving to make money, but no one is getting hurt. Home mortgage eligibility, I get when the implications are so much greater.
To me, this is in the realm of consumer advocacy and being an informed buyer. If we passed a law that every bit of advertising had to be truthful and proven so, it would compromise the free enterprise system and make impossible getting very much out on the market.
In this day and age, if you can’t or won’t jump on line and get a variety of opinions on (just like OP has done) tires before you committ, you can expect to be taken advantage of and I for one will not feel bad about your loss.
So, on this issue, I am on the side of the libertarian. Let the free market deside if selling nitrogen in tires is acceptable.
The supreme court has not ruled that false and deceptive advertising, in and of itself, violates that freedom.
Where has it ruled that it does not? In fact the Court was careful in ruling about lying about military honors one purportedly received to be protected speech, to point out that the law would pass Constitutional muster if it narrowed to, for instance, make it illegal to lie about your military service in order to gain some “tangible benefit.” The Court has therefore made it quite clear in this, and other cases, that not all speech is protected, and that if it causes direct harm to someone or confers an unfair advantage onto someone, it may well not be protected.
After all, what’s the difference from a “free market” perspective between a guy getting a paying job under false pretenses by lying about having been awarded the Medal of Honor, and a guy getting a paid sale by lying about his product?
Further, there has not been, so far as I am aware, any court decision which absolves a company from civil liability in a false advertising claim. As false advertising claims are almost always dealt with civilly rather than criminally, I don’t really see what you’re driving at.
At any rate, you exhort us to jump online and get a variety of opinions, but then get upset when someone expresses the opinion that nitrogen in tires is BS. Note that I never asserted that people selling nitrogen for tires should be arrested. I simply said it was BS.
In light of your subsequent comments about freedom of speech, liberty, and gathering online opinions, I fail to see the point of your objection to my statement.
@shadowfox
I don’t know why you are convoluting lying about military honors on a job application ??? Lost me.
I guess you didn’t get my point about nitrogen. If someone isn’t willing to find out for themselves ( easy in this day and age) , I don’t worry about them being bilked…OP has found out; great.
Do you want to call it BS, fine. The same BS that goes on in a lot of adds concerning automobiles and auto repair and maintenance that prey upon the ignorance of the buying public. Been going on for eons and nitrogen is a newer version of it. BFD.
I prefer to put my indignation where it belongs, when people get hurt by lies and deception. This is trivial stuff, and no one is getting hurt…and not worth any more of either of our time. Besides, it’s a free market issue and will resolve itself over time, one way or another.
I don't know why you are convoluting lying about military honors on a job application ??? Lost me.
Well, I was trying to figure out what you were talking about with re: the Supreme Court, and that’s the closest case of “lying is freedom of speech, but is not necessarily covered if you use it to gain unfair economic advantage” that I could find.
And btw, “hurt” is a relative term. If someone making 8 bucks an hour needs tires and gets conned into paying $20 for this nitrogen crap, it’s gonna hurt.
Just to milk this a little further, when race track teams use it exclusively and when the FAA mandates it be used in airline tires, it would be tough to convince a judge in a civil court class action suit that you are deceiving the buyer out of $20 and creating physical harm.
You can bet a team of lawyers have past on the declaration of the attributes of this marvelous, inert gas. You can bet also, none of the lawyers and none of the executives who manage this tire sales chains…use it. They’re just happy to get a raise from it’s inclusion. $8 an hour and pays $20 ? I bet the guy has access to a smart phone and can find out for himself. If he doesn’t use it, or use the Internet access for free at his local library, I have no sympathy.
“Crap” is being kind…but Enron who bankrupt Caliornia on lies about power companies increasing rates to cover so called break downs and contrived down service while the Feds watched. Now, that hurt a few people for real. That’s crappola for real. (re., Smartest Guys in the Room"
Take that extra money you pay for Nitrogen filled tires and go buy you kids(s) a Christmas gift…if you do not have any kids or grandchildren then give the money to a charity…or better yet…fill you tires up with 100% helium so your car weighs less…LOL…Nitrogen…just another consumer rip off.
After a tire is mounted…how do you get all the air out before filling with nitrogen ? the tire bead has not seated so even if a vacuum pump is used would be a waste of time…
“when race track teams use it exclusively and when the FAA mandates it be used in airline tires”
Only to eliminate oxygen, prevent the tires from exacerbating fires. And maybe allow precision pressure control to a fraction of a psi, unnecessary for cars.
Are they committing a crime? No. Are they scamming consumers? Yes.
“This is trivial stuff, and no one is getting hurt”
How is paying money for something worthless, tens of dollars, trivial? How is somebody taking your money and giving nothing of value in return not hurting you? I’ll send you my address…
@texases
I hear you and I agree. It was just to show that they are NOT creating an unsafe situation. No harm, no foul. Of all the scams out there. I would argue that this one is pretty benign. So much so it’s laughable both in asking for it and for anyone to buy it.
One time a tire dealer salesman, while having my winter tire change over, asked me if I wanted nitrogen gas. I just said to him…" you know, you actually asked me that with a straight face ". We both had a good laugh. Most of these guys i know in these shops on salary, ask reluctantly and many say nothing until the customer mentions the sign advertisement for it.
Btw, the best use for pure nitrogen, might be for animal slaughter and capital punishment.
Only in planes over 75,000 pounds, only on braking wheels that don’t have a non-outgassing tire liner, it only has to be an inert gas, not nitrogen, and the reasons for it have nothing to do with air pressure loss and everything to do with not catching fire.
And airline tires are inflated to 200+psi. This means that the initial volume of air at 14.7psi becomes insignificant. It’s quite a bit larger of a percentage of the total mix when you only inflate to 35psi.
I’m a chemist. why pay for nitrogen in tires? there isn’t a weight difference and the argument that nitrogen won’t oxidize the inside of the tires is worthless when the outside is in “air/oxygen”. I have to read the other posts here but man, that is a waste of money and just plain stupid in my opinion. air has 21% oxygen and 77% nitrogen anyway.