PDA

View Full Version : Nitrogen Filled Tires



soupey
11-21-2006, 11:34 AM
soooo i got my tires swapped at Costco, they filled them up with nitrogen gas, green stem caps and all...

whats the deal with nitrogen? knowing my chemistry i kno that i wont run into any problems with N2 gas since its an extremely stable molecule....sooo...is there anything im overlooking? what advantages and disadvantages is there to using nitrogen rather than regular air?

Mitsu3000gt
11-21-2006, 11:37 AM
It's lighter and less likely to leak. Take it if you can get it, but some places charge you for it in which case IMO just use regular air.

s13>ae86
11-21-2006, 11:39 AM
with nitrogen in your tires it helps to preserve the inside of the tire and it makes a huge differance with gas milage. it also helps considerably with tire wear and you don't get that annoying fluxuation in hot and cold temps because its more dense the moicules are thicker. i know this because i work at canadian tire and we use nitrogen here as well smart choice for winter driving and strongly recomended

HHURICANE1
11-21-2006, 11:41 AM
Nitrogen is a larger molecule and won't leak out as fast. The trucking industry has been using it for years for this reason. It also won't carry as much water with it keeping the wheels from corroding. It is used in racing because it it doesn't expand like air and you are able to keep your tire pressures closer to what you set it at.

chris
11-21-2006, 11:45 AM
where do you refill your tires?

ogpog
11-21-2006, 11:57 AM
Anyway to fill up with n2 without going to cosco or Craptastic Tire?

Cword
11-21-2006, 01:41 PM
Land speed racers use nitrogen because it's dry, stable and does not promote rot in hard to obtain and rare tires.
Oxidization of the rubber compounds in tires is our tires biggest enemy.

bituerbo
11-21-2006, 01:46 PM
Fuck nitrogen, real racers use helium.

I have -4 pound rims nigga!

black_radiation
11-21-2006, 01:48 PM
I have 38" tires would this be at all beneficial to me? or just not really lol

ogpog
11-21-2006, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by black_radiation
I have 38" tires would this be at all beneficial to me? or just not really lol

It wouldnt do much. I ran 35's for a while, and just by how heavy those things are due to the diameter, thickness, and massive tread it wouldnt help with fuel economy in a noticiable proportion. But for the sake of your rubber compound, apparently its better for it.
Although I generally replace my tires before they start eating themself from the inside out.

black_radiation
11-21-2006, 01:54 PM
ahah yeah i know i wasnt looking for fuel economy... look what i drive lol, just wondered if it was a major benefit and it doesnt seem like it seeing as i change tires almost every year

ogpog
11-21-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by black_radiation
ahah yeah i know i wasnt looking for fuel economy... look what i drive lol

Hah, I feel you there. Try driving a Jeep YJ and only getting 12 mpg. Its like driving a Barn down the highway.

Rockski
11-21-2006, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by ogpog


Hah, I feel you there. Try driving a Jeep YJ and only getting 12 mpg. Its like driving a Barn down the highway.
or get the man version and get a TJ :D


my girlfriend got the nitrogen in the wheels when she got her 07 civic and the only feedback i got outta her is that its (like everybody said) supposed to stop the corrosion from the inside out.... and that your not supposed to (but can in a pinch) mix the air and nitrogen....:dunno:

soupey
11-21-2006, 03:50 PM
correct me if im wrong but isnt the atmospheric ratio of N2 to O2 approximately 4:1 anyways? so even if im using a regular compressor to put air into my tire...im putting mostly nitrogen into it....

are the tanks they use to fill up the tires with nitrogen 100% efficient? or does oxygen get in anyways?...

ogpog
11-21-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Rockski

or get the man version and get a TJ :D



The man version? They have been getting more comfy and have more options every year. The YJ and CJ both had windshield wipers that stayed up on the windshild (military style), the YJ has a great Gauge Cluster, less electronics, non reclinable seats (on most), No a/c or even face vents, two speakers, etc. And just as a tip, look at who is driving each model of jeep. I see 99% women inside of TJ's anyways, as its a bitch jeep.

kaput
11-21-2006, 06:58 PM
.

BlueFrenzy
11-21-2006, 07:26 PM
Soupey, you are correct in that atmospheric Nitrogen is about 78%. The other ~20 is oxygen. The remainder is random gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor.

The theory is that oxygen causes oxidation of the interior of your tires whereas nitrogen doesn't oxidize (duh). Oxidation can cause the tires to seep out more air. But the degree of oxidation from regular air is questionable and negligible (unless you plan to keep your tires for 100 years). So this theory for our purposes is not significant.

I believe that the "value" of nitrogen has more to do with the combined gas law and the fact that nitrogen is "dry" (doesn't contain all that crappy water vapor), rather than the seepage. With other gases in the mix, the pressure will vary more due to the different partial pressures that each gas exerts ... hence more fluxuation. With pure nitrogen, you can expect a predictable degree of fluctuation. So the only thing we really are concerned about here are the other gases present. You can fill your tires with pure Krypton, Neon, Xenon, Chlorine, etc if you really want ... and it'll be just as good as nitrogen.

The other point I want to make is that despite what some of the psuedo science guys say ... Nitrogen is SMALLER than oxygen. Nitrogen (N2) has a molar mass of 28g/mol, whereas oxygen (O2) has molar mass of 32g/mol. According to those who say nitrogen doesn't leak as much as oxygen, I say BS! If anything, nitrogen would diffuse out QUICKER than oxygen.

So to say that nitrogen is better is a half truth. If you can find a compressor that "dries" your air, then you will do just as well as pure nitrogen. The change in handling from nitrogen to regular air for us everyday drivers is negligible. For F1 guys, it matters but not us. Bottom line is that we don't gain anything significant from nitrogen ... the only people who gain are the companies who sell it to ignorant/gullible customers! If you get if for free ... that's great. If you paid for it ... well, to me your money is going up in air :)

ogpog
11-21-2006, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by BlueFrenzy


The other point I want to make is that despite what some of the psuedo science guys say ... Nitrogen is SMALLER than oxygen. Nitrogen (N2) has a molar mass of 28g/mol, whereas oxygen (O2) has molar mass of 32g/mol. According to those who say nitrogen doesn't leak as much as oxygen, I say BS! If anything, nitrogen would diffuse out QUICKER than oxygen.



Im sorry, but you are wrong. An N2 molecule is larger than an O2 Molecule. The kinetic diameter of N2 is 3.8 nm versus O2 at 3.64 nm.

SinisterProbeGt
11-21-2006, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by ogpog


Im sorry, but you are wrong. An N2 molecule is larger than an O2 Molecule. You cant just add their elemental masses together or else you come up with an incorrect answer. The kinetic diameter of N2 is 3.8 nm versus O2 at 3.64 nm.

Gas Actual MM
(g/mol)

N2 28.014

O2 31.999

N2O 44.013

Source (http://mattson.creighton.edu/MM/index.html)

Tik-Tok
11-21-2006, 07:41 PM
The only reason to use nitrogen in a car, is because it will have a more consistant pressure. It won't fluctuate nearly as much between -30*C and 30*C, and considering our chinooks, it's a good thing.

ogpog
11-21-2006, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by SinisterProbeGt


Gas Actual MM
(g/mol)

N2 28.014

O2 31.999

N2O 44.013

Source (http://mattson.creighton.edu/MM/index.html)

I didnt see it was molar mass used, and I also kindof whipped through it because its still wrong.

Once again, the kinetic DIAMETER of N2 is larger than that of O2.

BlueFrenzy
11-21-2006, 07:46 PM
^^^^Uhhh ogpog ... look at a periodic table genius. I hope you have at least high school chemistry ... because here is the explanation.

Nitrogen atomic number 7 ... that means it has 7 protons. It also contains 7 neutrons. Proton and neutron AMU = 1 ... meaning that nitrogens AMU is 14. Hence molar mass is 14 g/mol (7 protons and 7 neutrons)

Since nitrogen does not float around as an atom ... the molecule nitrogen is covalently bonded to another nitrogen with a triple bond (one sigma and two pi bonds). Nitrogen as a molecule is N2.

We established that the atom nitrogen has a molar mass of 14g/mol. What is the molar mass of N2 kids? I hope you say 28g/mol.

Oxygen atomic number 8 ... that means it has 8 protons. It contains 8 neutrons. Proton and neutron AMU = 1 ... meaning oxygen's AMU is 16. Hence molar mass is 16g/mol (8 protons and 8 neutrons)

Are you still sure oxygen is smaller? Let's keep going

Oxygen does not float around as an atom ... the molecule oxygen is covalently bonded to another oxygen with a double bond (one sigma and one pi bond). Oxygen as a molecule is O2.

Oxygen molar mass is 16g/mol. Hence oxygen molecule has molar mass of 32g/mol.

Anyway you slice it ... O2 will always be bigger than N2.

So tell me again how nitrogen is LARGER than oxygen?

speedracer
11-21-2006, 07:47 PM
Did you ask if they charge for air :angel: ?


Originally posted by Tik-Tok
The only reason to use nitrogen in a car, is because it will have a more consistant pressure. It won't fluctuate nearly as much between -30*C and 30*C, and considering our chinooks, it's a good thing.

That would be a good way to look at it ;)

BlueFrenzy
11-21-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by ogpog


I didnt see it was molar mass used, and I also kindof whipped through it because its still wrong. Despite you being correct about its weight (wow), the diameter of the molecule itself proves that N2 is actually a larger (and lighter, thats one of its ADVANTAGES).

Are you still kidding?

Nitrogen is smaller because it has one sigma and 2 pi bonds (triple bond). The pi bonds actually DECREASE the interatomic distance (distance btw each atomic center)

Oxygen only has one sigma and one pi bond (double)... the interatomic distance is GREATER than nitrogen

ogpog
11-21-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by BlueFrenzy
^^^^Uhhh ogpog ... look at a periodic table genius. I hope you have at least high school chemistry ... because here is the explanation.

Nitrogen atomic number 7 ... that means it has 7 protons. It also contains 7 neutrons. Proton and neutron AMU = 1 ... meaning that nitrogens AMU is 14. Hence molar mass is 14 g/mol (7 protons and 7 neutrons)

Since nitrogen does not float around as an atom ... the molecule nitrogen is covalently bonded to another nitrogen with a triple bond (one sigma and two pi bonds). Nitrogen as a molecule is N2.

We established that the atom nitrogen has a molar mass of 14g/mol. What is the molar mass of N2 kids? I hope you say 28g/mol.

Oxygen atomic number 8 ... that means it has 8 protons. It contains 8 neutrons. Proton and neutron AMU = 1 ... meaning oxygen's AMU is 16. Hence molar mass is 16g/mol (8 protons and 8 neutrons)

Are you still sure oxygen is smaller? Let's keep going

Oxygen does not float around as an atom ... the molecule oxygen is covalently bonded to another oxygen with a double bond (one sigma and one pi bond). Oxygen as a molecule is O2.

Oxygen molar mass is 16g/mol. Hence oxygen molecule has molar mass of 32g/mol.

Anyway you slice it ... O2 will always be bigger than N2.

So tell me again how nitrogen is LARGER than oxygen?

Do you not understand that heavier and larger are not the same things? This is simple fucking science buddy. N2 is KNOWN to be lighter, hence why people think it will make their car faster, but due to the actual kinetic DIAMETER of the molecules, N2 is a LARGER, not HEAVIER molecule. :devil:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EDIT~~~~~

I knew i wasnt wrong.
Heres a quote from an article on physorg.com :

"Like many chemists and engineers that don't deal with gas molecular size on a regular basis would probably presume, I mistakenly reasoned that this was hogwash because an O2 molecule should be larger than a N2 molecule based simply on molecular weight. But that is not the case.......I learned quite a bit from just a couple minutes of Googling the topic.

The kinetic diameter of N2 is, in fact, larger than O2 (3.8 nm versus 3.64 nm!) That is why carbon based mol sieves can preferentially remove O2 from an air stream, and why membrane based units (such as those made by Permea) work as well as they do. I had also mistakenly presumed that the N2 permeated the membrane preferentially, but what are referred to as the "fast gases" (O2, CO2, H2O) all permeate the membrane faster than does N2. The N2 remains on the high pressure side.

And since pressure loss from a tire would involve diffusion through a polymer matrix--functionally the same as a membrane--it seems that N2 may very well not leak as fast as does O2."

Right the fuck on. Keep on studying.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


PS: Here is the link if you would like ~ Here At Physorg.com (http://www.physorg.com/news73584032.html)

BlueFrenzy
11-21-2006, 07:51 PM
Alright ... I concede ... good point (as long as those bond distance are correct)

Still the end point is that you shouldn't pay for nitrogen in your tires

smontyLS1
11-21-2006, 08:00 PM
there is some serious chemical ownage going on here
n2 is used because it is dry and does not fluctuate with pressure.
would I run n2 if it costs money? not a chance, a 78% n2 mixture is free. I definitly would like to try using helium.

Question for you guys arguing about weight/mass/size of molecules and all that stuff
Why not use helium? if it was free.

ogpog
11-21-2006, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by BlueFrenzy
Alright ... I concede ... good point (as long as those bond distance are correct)

Still the end point is that you shouldn't pay for nitrogen in your tires


O2
Atomic radius 60 pm
Covalent radius 73 pm
Van der Waals radius 152 pm

N2
Atomic radius 65 pm
Covalent radius 75 pm
Van der Waals radius 155 pm

Im not new to Chem boi. The numbers above are from wiki, and also match my chem texts.

soupey
11-21-2006, 08:03 PM
scratch that

BlueFrenzy
11-21-2006, 08:04 PM
Helium would be great! Weight savings! But the mass savings that goes into your tires probably wouldn't matter that much for us regular folk.

BlueFrenzy
11-21-2006, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by ogpog



O2
Atomic radius 60 pm
Covalent radius 73 pm
Van der Waals radius 152 pm

N2
Atomic radius 65 pm
Covalent radius 75 pm
Van der Waals radius 155 pm

Im not new to Chem boi. The numbers above are from wiki, and also match my chem texts.

It's all good ... my mistake for just thinking theoretically in terms of orbitals and such and not looking at the physical data (duh!). Beyond has become grounds for sweet ass nerd arguments.

Cheers

sneek
11-21-2006, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by s13>ae86
with nitrogen in your tires it helps to preserve the inside of the tire and it makes a huge differance with gas milage. it also helps considerably with tire wear and you don't get that annoying fluxuation in hot and cold temps because its more dense the moicules are thicker. i know this because i work at canadian tire and we use nitrogen here as well smart choice for winter driving and strongly recomended

OUCH you work at Canadian Tire!

:D I get my tires changed at Costco as well, as long as it's free I am happy. Some places change $30 to fill your tires with nitrogen. I think it is because they have to make sure that there is no mositure inside the tire.

ogpog
11-21-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by BlueFrenzy
Helium would be great! Weight savings! But the mass savings that goes into your tires probably wouldn't matter that much for us regular folk.

Except for the fact that Helium (He) has a kinetic diameter of 2.6, which would allow it to seep out of your tires even easier than O2 would. Helium's diffusion rate through solids is almost three times that of normal air, although, it is less water soluble then any other gas known.


Originally posted by BlueFrenzy


It's all good ... my mistake for just thinking theoretically in terms of orbitals and such and not looking at the physical data (duh!). Beyond has become grounds for sweet ass nerd arguments.

Cheers

Its all productive. It lets us challenge our own knowledge and learn some things. Ive learned some crazy things from some of the individuals on here.

Good game ;)

djayz
11-21-2006, 09:03 PM
so have we come to a decision here...is nitrogen any different than air for the tire?

considering most people change their tires every 3 years do they really start falling apart from the inside out if you just use air?

i have tires on my van that are close to 8 years old and the only problem i see it exterior cracking but thats because it sat outside through all the seasons for a year and a half.

BlackArcher101
11-21-2006, 09:16 PM
When it comes down to it, using Nitrogen is just overkill for car tires. Any changes will be negligible and not very noticeable.
-Difference in final weight=hardly anything.
-Oxidation on inside of tire..... has this ever been a problem for anyone? Not me.
-Pressure variances.... to me this seems the only reason to use it, but also won't see much difference since air is already 78% nitrogen.
-Less leakage through the tire membrane? Shouldn't be a factor as well. I've had tires sit over a year only not to leak any air.
-I fail to see how it can save you any gas mileage at all. Tire is still at the same pressure with the same contact area.

It's just something brought over from aircraft use that somebody thought they could make some money off of. Now you see shops advertising it as a main point.

I believe the main use in aircraft was for it's stability at altitudes, it's inert, and perhaps for cooling. I'm going off memory though, so the cooling thing may be wrong (most likely).

BlueFrenzy
11-22-2006, 01:28 AM
^^^ I seem to remember as well that in the airline industry, there was concern that "wet" air (that containing water vapor) will condense and freeze while in high altitude ... leading to potential cracking and breakage (?!?!) of tire while landing.

Bottom line ... if it's free, go for it. If you pay for it, might want to reconsider.