• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

tire weights

M

mellow yellow

Street Cruiser
Hi, does anyone know if car  and motorcycle wheel weights are the same? If not, can car weights be used on a motorcycle wheel. thanks :)
 
SOME auto wheel weights can be used with SOME motorcycle rims.  The most universal weights, of course, would be the stick on auto wheel weights.  THese can be used with reasonable success on almost any aluminum motorcycle rim that has a large enough flat area to stick em.

Woo Hoo! A Simple Machines forum.  Now we're talkin'.
 
You want to use the 1/4 oz sticky weights. They usually come in strips of 8 ea. (2 oz) and can be bought at most auto tire shops.
 
2linby said:
You want to use the 1/4 oz sticky weights. They usually come in strips of 8 ea. (2 oz) and can be bought at most auto tire shops.
Click to expand...

That's what I use. Use a little 3M adhesive remover first, and your good to go!
 
Gonna upset a few people here but when using DynaBeads there is no reason for tire weights.  >:D
 
Why would this bother us?  I mean if you want to waste your money on dynabeads then go for it....  >:D
 
Tim said:
Ahhh, but it is not a waste. So says my Nightawk for the last three years and now on Francis.
Click to expand...
Tim said:
Ahhh, but it is not a waste. So says my Nightawk for the last three years and now on Francis.
Click to expand...

Do you have a magnet on your fuel line?  Just askin'?  >:D >:D >:D ;D
 
I'm using dyna beads also. Well, I bought some ceramic blasing media cheap, same stuff. I have it in Shoodaben, and mounted up some tires this week for another connie with them. They seem to work fine. A fellow emailed me an explaination from a physicist that explains how they work; it has to do with an unbalanced tire rotating around a different balance center than the actual center of the tire. I'm in the "experimentation" phase, but have been satisfied so far.

  And I don't have magnets on the fuel line Chuck. I didn't have enough to put there; I used all the ones I had on my tinfoil intergalactic communications helmet  >:D . steve
 
Zorlac said:
They are similar in that they both have weight.  ;)
Click to expand...

Actually they have mass. Any object requires gravity to have weight and if the wheel is in motion, centripetal forces (those that draw all outside spinning object of mass around a central point of equal radii) will actually counterbalance the gravitation forces exerted on the object by the earth itself. Now this being said friction (the traction between the tire and the road or ground surface) is the primary force keeping the tire connected to the ground not gravity.  However this will only occur is the centripetal forces exceed the gravitational forces and or countermand the the frictional forces as stated.

Glad I cleared that up huh~!  ;)
 
2linby said:
Zorlac said:
They are similar in that they both have weight.  ;)
Click to expand...

Actually they have mass. Any object requires gravity to have weight and if the wheel is in motion, centripetal forces (those that draw all outside spinning object of mass around a central point of equal radii) will actually counterbalance the gravitation forces exerted on the object by the earth itself. Now this being said friction (the traction between the tire and the road or ground surface) is the primary force keeping the tire connected to the ground not gravity.  However this will only occur is the centripetal forces exceed the gravitational forces and or countermand the the frictional forces as stated.

Glad I cleared that up huh~!  ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree and object has to have mass to have weight - if there is no gravity then its weight is zero. It weight is still measurable because it has mass. If it has no mass then it has no weight - no mass = nothing/null.
 
croach1776 said:
2linby said:
Zorlac said:
They are similar in that they both have weight.  ;)
Click to expand...

Actually they have mass. Any object requires gravity to have weight and if the wheel is in motion, centripetal forces (those that draw all outside spinning object of mass around a central point of equal radii) will actually counterbalance the gravitation forces exerted on the object by the earth itself. Now this being said friction (the traction between the tire and the road or ground surface) is the primary force keeping the tire connected to the ground not gravity.  However this will only occur is the centripetal forces exceed the gravitational forces and or countermand the the frictional forces as stated.

Glad I cleared that up huh~!  ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree and object has to have mass to have weight - if there is no gravity then its weight is zero. It weight is still measurable because it has mass. If it has no mass then it has no weight - no mass = nothing/null.
Click to expand...

Oh boy Here we go!  Definitions as pulled from our friends at Wikipedia. Not entirely comprehensive, but enough so to make my case.

In physics, mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent: Inertial mass, active gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass. In everyday usage, Mass is often taken to mean weight, but in scientific use, they refer to different properties.

The inertial mass of an object determines its acceleration in the presence of an applied force. According to Newton's second law of motion, if a body of fixed mass m is subjected to a force F, its acceleration a is given by F/m.

A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field. If a first body of mass m1 is placed at a distance r from a second body of mass m2, each body experiences an attractive force F whose magnitude is


where G is the universal constant of gravitation, equal to 6.67×10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2. This is sometimes referred to as gravitational mass (when a distinction is necessary, M is used to denote the active gravitational mass and m the passive gravitational mass). Repeated experiments since the 17th century have demonstrated that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent; this is entailed in the equivalence principle of general relativity.

Special relativity shows that rest mass and energy are essentially equivalent via the well-known relationship (E = mc2). Mass is a conserved quantity. From the viewpoint of any single unaccelerated observer, mass can neither be created or destroyed, and special relativity does not change this understanding. However, relativity adds the fact that all types of energy have an associated mass, and this mass is added to systems when energy is added, and the associated mass is subtracted from systems when the energy leaves. In such cases, the energy leaving or entering the system, carries the added or missing mass with it, since this energy itself has mass.

On the surface of the Earth, the weight W of an object is related to its mass m by


where g is the Earth's gravitational field strength, equal to about 9.81 m s−2. An object's weight depends on its environment, while its mass does not: an object with a mass of 50 kilograms weighs 491 newtons on the surface of the Earth; on the surface of the Moon, the same object still has a mass of 50 kilograms but weighs only 81.5 newtons.

I rest my case.  >:D ;)
 
2linby said:
Zorlac said:
They are similar in that they both have weight.  ;)
Click to expand...

Actually they have mass. Any object requires gravity to have weight and if the wheel is in motion, centripetal forces (those that draw all outside spinning object of mass around a central point of equal radii) will actually counterbalance the gravitation forces exerted on the object by the earth itself. Now this being said friction (the traction between the tire and the road or ground surface) is the primary force keeping the tire connected to the ground not gravity.  However this will only occur is the centripetal forces exceed the gravitational forces and or countermand the the frictional forces as stated.

Glad I cleared that up huh~!  ;)
Click to expand...
I don't ride in zero G much and I bet he doesn't either.
 
I put Dyna beads in a new set of Pilot GT's this spring and almost 6000 miles later the balance still feels perfect and the tires show very little, if any wear.

I don't have magnets on my fuel line, but I do have a piece of foam in my airbox intake opening. ;D
 
I was shocked when the shop that I get to change my tires offered to use dyna beads.  The same guy refuses to put any tire on the C10 that is not radial.  He said he does not mind dealing with the beads and that they seem to work well.
 
I just wanted to say I also have Dyna Beads in my tires as well. I did notice a smother ride. Only have about 2000 miles with them but they were smoooooth miles  8)
 
Just for fun I checked the balance on my worn front D205 just before I replaced it, and yeah, it was out of balance but I didn't notice anything peculiar, even north of the ton.
That says to me that fractional gram balancing is a waste of time IMO.
Four quadrants and no spin on my balancer? Then I'm good to go!
 
Zorlac said:
I like lead, makes me stupid.
Click to expand...
Slingin' lead has a few problems.  Gettin' filled with lead has other drawbacks too.  As for Dynabeads, well, they're only good for bean bag chairs IMHO.  However, while I may have fallen out of one a time or two, I have never had a bean bag chair suffer a high speed imbalance.  My vacuum cleaner tells it different though, but don't listen to it... it sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top