cancel
Showing results forย 
Search instead forย 
Did you mean:ย 

Foam in tires

Wind_River
Explorer
Explorer
Has anyone heard of or have foam sprayed in your TT tires? Dealer convinced a friend of mine this is the way to go because he will never have a flat tire.
2019 Ford F250 XLT Super Duty 4X4 6.7 Power Stroke
2004 Jayco Jay Flight 25RKS
Equal-i-zer Hitch, 3502 Ultra Fab Tongue Jack
Twin Honda 2000i w/parallel kit
40 REPLIES 40

OleManOleCan
Explorer
Explorer
DutchmenSport wrote:
Yes,
It's called Fix-a-Flat:



My tire man cusses a blue streak when someone brings in a flat with Flat Fix sprayed in it. They have to clean it up... That said I carry a can of it for emergencies when I'm not close to civilization. I used some one day in the rain, and that was when he told me to pass on Flat Fix.
(I'd rather hear him cuss than get out in a cold rain for a flat)

Huntindog
Explorer
Explorer
Jennifer Koper wrote:
How i can completely prevent flat tire repair?


Put the TT up on blocks and don't go anywhere.
Huntindog
100% boondocking
2021 Grand Design Momentum 398M
2 bathrooms, no waiting
104 gal grey, 104 black,158 fresh
FullBodyPaint, 3,8Kaxles, DiscBrakes
17.5LRH commercial tires
1860watts solar,800 AH Battleborn batterys
2020 Silverado HighCountry CC DA 4X4 DRW

Jennifer_Koper
Explorer
Explorer
How i can completely prevent flat tire repair?

And so far i know foam filling is a injection in a tire vs.

rbpru
Explorer
Explorer
I think the idea is using a product similar to fix a flat, which is supposed to spread over the inside of the tire, then seal a punctures when it happens.

I think this is where theory hits the cold light of reality.

I would be surprised if it was effective for more than a few months, otherwise ever car company would be bragging on their puncture proof tires.
Twenty six foot 2010 Dutchmen Lite pulled with a 2011 EcoBoost F-150 4x4.

Just right for Grandpa, Grandma and the dog.

CFerguson
Explorer
Explorer
Allow me to add one more point I realized while proofreading my post.

According to the N shysters, only O leaks out, so when our average tire above leaks again it is only possible to leak 5% of its contents. call it a 5% loss of 50# pressure to 47.5# which hardly anyone can notice. Meaning you probably never have to refill again. Or once more at most. IF the shysters are right about N not leaking. And that's not what happens in the real world.

CFerguson
Explorer
Explorer
OK, I will break my policy of never trying to educate those sheep who blindly believe others without any critical thinking that they should have been taught by at least their educators, if not their parents.

air is 78% N, 21% O (rounded for simplicity of those that hate math)
the average tire is about 10L. meaning (for those of you that hate math....and yes, I am using the metric system to laugh at those people) there is 7.8L of N and 2.1L of O in the average tire. if you want to argue that YOUR tire is a different volume, go ahead and do so but I will not do the math that you hate so much for you.

the shysters who sell N say 'N wont leak out like air will'.
running with that bit of 'wisdom', lets say you lose 20% of your tire volume before refilling with air. you can argue when YOU refill to your hearts content but I will not do the math for you if you start that whine.

so,that's a loss of .2 x 10L = 2L of air.
hmmmmmmmm. that number looks familiar. pretty close to 2.1L isn't it?
dang near already have pure N in that tire.
so the refill air contains (again) 21%O which is .21 x 2L = .42L of O
huh-oh, we now have a tire with less than 1/2L of O. so we added .42L O to the remaining .1L of O which is .52L of O in the tire after ONE REFILL. that's already a N content in the tire of 95%. imagine what TWO refill would do (actually you don't have to imagine, just DO SOME MATH...and I am not even going to try to explain how to set up this problem via calculus).

yes, there are small fractions of Ar, Ne, and CO2 and such in air but they amount to only something around .973%. if you want to do math with those components (and I bet you don't), you get to do them yourself.

It really does depress me that our culture has come to the point where they blindly follow someone without critical thinking or applying the Scientific Method in even the simplest manner. Or maybe its just that some folks prefer to argue and get a rise out of others. Sad if that's what your life has become.
Regardless, I am done with this thread and you, blocking you and ignoring this thread. It really does make me sad, so in that sense you may have accomplished what you wanted.

GrandpaKip
Explorer
Explorer
drsteve wrote:
The people who dismiss CR never seems to have data, or statistics, or much of anything other than "I disagree with these guys".

Thatโ€™s because CR trashed what they bought.
Kip
2015 Skyline Dart 214RB
2018 Silverado Double Cab 4x4
Andersen Hitch

drsteve
Explorer
Explorer
The people who dismiss CR never seems to have data, or statistics, or much of anything other than "I disagree with these guys".
2006 Silverado 1500HD Crew Cab 2WD 6.0L 3.73 8600 GVWR
2018 Coachmen Catalina Legacy Edition 223RBS
1991 Palomino Filly PUP

Bumpyroad
Explorer
Explorer
CFerguson wrote:
Bumpyroad wrote:
CFerguson wrote:
Bumpyroad wrote:


whine whine whine. where is the study/data showing that they were wrong in this instance. I have had a grudge against CR since 1960s. but again show us the data.
bumpy
No, seriously its more like Horse Laugh at those that didn't apply themselves in Science Class way back when.
Again (and I know itll sail high...again), Science Matters.


so does common sense.
and when are you coming up with a study showing otherwise? without that, all you have is blather.
P.S. incidentally, I got the Baush & Lomb science award in high school. ๐Ÿ™‚
bumpy LOL


I stopped long ago trying to educate people who refused to pay attention in school. You just stay there with common sense, I'll stay over here with Science.

And no, I do no believe you(or your school standards were suspect, or your retention powers are suspect...in which case I sincerely apologize for calling out your abilities). If you understand math and basic gas behavior laws, its LITERALLY a middle school level science problem to see how long it takes to get to 4 9's worth of nitrogen when starting with air.


reminds me of many years ago I remember reading an article by one of those scientist/mathematician/etc. types that proved that a bumble bee was incapable of flight.
but again, other than BS on this, has the CR data been questioned?
bumpy

CFerguson
Explorer
Explorer
Bumpyroad wrote:
CFerguson wrote:
Bumpyroad wrote:


whine whine whine. where is the study/data showing that they were wrong in this instance. I have had a grudge against CR since 1960s. but again show us the data.
bumpy
No, seriously its more like Horse Laugh at those that didn't apply themselves in Science Class way back when.
Again (and I know itll sail high...again), Science Matters.


so does common sense.
and when are you coming up with a study showing otherwise? without that, all you have is blather.
P.S. incidentally, I got the Baush & Lomb science award in high school. ๐Ÿ™‚
bumpy LOL


I stopped long ago trying to educate people who refused to pay attention in school. You just stay there with common sense, I'll stay over here with Science.

And no, I do no believe you(or your school standards were suspect, or your retention powers are suspect...in which case I sincerely apologize for calling out your abilities). If you understand math and basic gas behavior laws, its LITERALLY a middle school level science problem to see how long it takes to get to 4 9's worth of nitrogen when starting with air.

Bumpyroad
Explorer
Explorer
CFerguson wrote:
Bumpyroad wrote:


whine whine whine. where is the study/data showing that they were wrong in this instance. I have had a grudge against CR since 1960s. but again show us the data.
bumpy
No, seriously its more like Horse Laugh at those that didn't apply themselves in Science Class way back when.
Again (and I know itll sail high...again), Science Matters.


so does common sense.
and when are you coming up with a study showing otherwise? without that, all you have is blather.
P.S. incidentally, I got the Baush & Lomb science award in high school. ๐Ÿ™‚
bumpy LOL

Boband4
Explorer
Explorer
I have had foam filled tires in front loaders in a scrap yard and in UTVs. It is great for never flat in that environment. It adds a lot of weight and a lot of work ($$$) when they eventually have to be changed due to wear. It is also difficult to get them to balance, but that didnt matter in my low speed environment. When it came time for new loader and UTV I did not foam fill the tires. I decided it wasnt worth the cost.

CFerguson
Explorer
Explorer
Bumpyroad wrote:


whine whine whine. where is the study/data showing that they were wrong in this instance. I have had a grudge against CR since 1960s. but again show us the data.
bumpy
No, seriously its more like Horse Laugh at those that didn't apply themselves in Science Class way back when.
Again (and I know itll sail high...again), Science Matters.

drsteve
Explorer
Explorer
There's a difference between shooting tires full of Fix-A-Flat, and installing a Bib Mousse type foam insert.
2006 Silverado 1500HD Crew Cab 2WD 6.0L 3.73 8600 GVWR
2018 Coachmen Catalina Legacy Edition 223RBS
1991 Palomino Filly PUP