Lug nut torque & warped rotors
01-09-2006, 05:49 AM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:33:23 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
>They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
>at 85, etc...
>
>having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
>torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
>should be better than that.
>
I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
tighten them.
You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
to break them loose.
--
Old Crow
'82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl"
'74 XLH chopper(somebody else's baby now)
BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM, DOF#51, DH#2
"There's only 1 RE"
wrote:
>That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
>They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
>at 85, etc...
>
>having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
>torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
>should be better than that.
>
I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
tighten them.
You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
to break them loose.
--
Old Crow
'82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl"
'74 XLH chopper(somebody else's baby now)
BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM, DOF#51, DH#2
"There's only 1 RE"
01-09-2006, 07:20 AM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
That takes the expression "bust a nut" to a whole new level! <G!>
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
That takes the expression "bust a nut" to a whole new level! <G!>
01-09-2006, 07:20 AM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
That takes the expression "bust a nut" to a whole new level! <G!>
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
That takes the expression "bust a nut" to a whole new level! <G!>
01-09-2006, 07:20 AM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
That takes the expression "bust a nut" to a whole new level! <G!>
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
That takes the expression "bust a nut" to a whole new level! <G!>
01-09-2006, 07:48 AM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fof4s19sng4qoksqnr2i54cs1guoinllgd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:33:23 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
> >They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
> >at 85, etc...
> >
> >having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
> >torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
> >should be better than that.
> >
>
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
This idea has some support in physics, where the difference between dynamic
and static friction (sometimes called "stiction") is well known. When you
are tightening a fastener, you are working to tension it against whatever is
being fastened, but also working against the dynamic friction "between the
nut and the wheel", in this case. Once you let go of it, additional force
is required to break it loose, because static friction is in all cases (that
I know of) greater than dynamic friction. This is true for a nut that has
just been tightened, but after you drive the vehicle a few miles and it has
had an opportunity to seat into the wheel, I suppose that the torque to
break it loose can be anything.
Earle
bottom posting now
news:fof4s19sng4qoksqnr2i54cs1guoinllgd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:33:23 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
> >They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
> >at 85, etc...
> >
> >having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
> >torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
> >should be better than that.
> >
>
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
This idea has some support in physics, where the difference between dynamic
and static friction (sometimes called "stiction") is well known. When you
are tightening a fastener, you are working to tension it against whatever is
being fastened, but also working against the dynamic friction "between the
nut and the wheel", in this case. Once you let go of it, additional force
is required to break it loose, because static friction is in all cases (that
I know of) greater than dynamic friction. This is true for a nut that has
just been tightened, but after you drive the vehicle a few miles and it has
had an opportunity to seat into the wheel, I suppose that the torque to
break it loose can be anything.
Earle
bottom posting now
01-09-2006, 07:48 AM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fof4s19sng4qoksqnr2i54cs1guoinllgd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:33:23 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
> >They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
> >at 85, etc...
> >
> >having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
> >torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
> >should be better than that.
> >
>
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
This idea has some support in physics, where the difference between dynamic
and static friction (sometimes called "stiction") is well known. When you
are tightening a fastener, you are working to tension it against whatever is
being fastened, but also working against the dynamic friction "between the
nut and the wheel", in this case. Once you let go of it, additional force
is required to break it loose, because static friction is in all cases (that
I know of) greater than dynamic friction. This is true for a nut that has
just been tightened, but after you drive the vehicle a few miles and it has
had an opportunity to seat into the wheel, I suppose that the torque to
break it loose can be anything.
Earle
bottom posting now
news:fof4s19sng4qoksqnr2i54cs1guoinllgd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:33:23 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
> >They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
> >at 85, etc...
> >
> >having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
> >torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
> >should be better than that.
> >
>
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
This idea has some support in physics, where the difference between dynamic
and static friction (sometimes called "stiction") is well known. When you
are tightening a fastener, you are working to tension it against whatever is
being fastened, but also working against the dynamic friction "between the
nut and the wheel", in this case. Once you let go of it, additional force
is required to break it loose, because static friction is in all cases (that
I know of) greater than dynamic friction. This is true for a nut that has
just been tightened, but after you drive the vehicle a few miles and it has
had an opportunity to seat into the wheel, I suppose that the torque to
break it loose can be anything.
Earle
bottom posting now
01-09-2006, 07:48 AM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
"Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fof4s19sng4qoksqnr2i54cs1guoinllgd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:33:23 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
> >They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
> >at 85, etc...
> >
> >having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
> >torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
> >should be better than that.
> >
>
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
This idea has some support in physics, where the difference between dynamic
and static friction (sometimes called "stiction") is well known. When you
are tightening a fastener, you are working to tension it against whatever is
being fastened, but also working against the dynamic friction "between the
nut and the wheel", in this case. Once you let go of it, additional force
is required to break it loose, because static friction is in all cases (that
I know of) greater than dynamic friction. This is true for a nut that has
just been tightened, but after you drive the vehicle a few miles and it has
had an opportunity to seat into the wheel, I suppose that the torque to
break it loose can be anything.
Earle
bottom posting now
news:fof4s19sng4qoksqnr2i54cs1guoinllgd@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:33:23 -0500, Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >That range means 'all' of them should be at 85 ft lb 'or' at 115 ft lb.
> >They must be the same, not one at 85 and the next at 115, then the next
> >at 85, etc...
> >
> >having some at 80 and some at 125 means it was not even slightly
> >torqued. Even a crappy torque stick (that will warp rotors for sure)
> >should be better than that.
> >
>
> I'm gonna say here that the torque required to break the lug nuts
> loose probably won't have any relation to the torque that was used to
> tighten them.
> You are having to overcome the friction between the nut and the wheel,
> to break them loose.
This idea has some support in physics, where the difference between dynamic
and static friction (sometimes called "stiction") is well known. When you
are tightening a fastener, you are working to tension it against whatever is
being fastened, but also working against the dynamic friction "between the
nut and the wheel", in this case. Once you let go of it, additional force
is required to break it loose, because static friction is in all cases (that
I know of) greater than dynamic friction. This is true for a nut that has
just been tightened, but after you drive the vehicle a few miles and it has
had an opportunity to seat into the wheel, I suppose that the torque to
break it loose can be anything.
Earle
bottom posting now
01-09-2006, 09:39 AM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
Spdloader wrote:
>
> Apparently you assume I was just making it all up.
>
> All the information I gave you was straight out of the manual from a
> Chrysler sponsored school, in order to receive my instructor certificate in
> brakes and front end, not that it makes me the authority on it, but the
> information never let me down when training my own techs.
>
Well, there we go right out of the horses mouth.
They (the $tealers) aren't even teaching the right way to fix the
vehicles so they get the perfect 'planned obsolescence' on repairs.
Just give it to the 'new' guy to do, heh heh heh, he can screw their
brakes and use the excuse he wasn't taught any better. "See, it says so
right in the book".
What a pile of total and utter crap!
'Waaaaay' back in the 70's we were even taught we had to use torque
wrenches on the new 'mag' and aluminum rims.
Car 'dealers' weren't known as outright thieves back then though and a
'service station' actually offered service.
Sorry, but....
My $0.02,
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Apparently you assume I was just making it all up.
>
> All the information I gave you was straight out of the manual from a
> Chrysler sponsored school, in order to receive my instructor certificate in
> brakes and front end, not that it makes me the authority on it, but the
> information never let me down when training my own techs.
>
Well, there we go right out of the horses mouth.
They (the $tealers) aren't even teaching the right way to fix the
vehicles so they get the perfect 'planned obsolescence' on repairs.
Just give it to the 'new' guy to do, heh heh heh, he can screw their
brakes and use the excuse he wasn't taught any better. "See, it says so
right in the book".
What a pile of total and utter crap!
'Waaaaay' back in the 70's we were even taught we had to use torque
wrenches on the new 'mag' and aluminum rims.
Car 'dealers' weren't known as outright thieves back then though and a
'service station' actually offered service.
Sorry, but....
My $0.02,
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
01-09-2006, 09:39 AM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
Spdloader wrote:
>
> Apparently you assume I was just making it all up.
>
> All the information I gave you was straight out of the manual from a
> Chrysler sponsored school, in order to receive my instructor certificate in
> brakes and front end, not that it makes me the authority on it, but the
> information never let me down when training my own techs.
>
Well, there we go right out of the horses mouth.
They (the $tealers) aren't even teaching the right way to fix the
vehicles so they get the perfect 'planned obsolescence' on repairs.
Just give it to the 'new' guy to do, heh heh heh, he can screw their
brakes and use the excuse he wasn't taught any better. "See, it says so
right in the book".
What a pile of total and utter crap!
'Waaaaay' back in the 70's we were even taught we had to use torque
wrenches on the new 'mag' and aluminum rims.
Car 'dealers' weren't known as outright thieves back then though and a
'service station' actually offered service.
Sorry, but....
My $0.02,
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Apparently you assume I was just making it all up.
>
> All the information I gave you was straight out of the manual from a
> Chrysler sponsored school, in order to receive my instructor certificate in
> brakes and front end, not that it makes me the authority on it, but the
> information never let me down when training my own techs.
>
Well, there we go right out of the horses mouth.
They (the $tealers) aren't even teaching the right way to fix the
vehicles so they get the perfect 'planned obsolescence' on repairs.
Just give it to the 'new' guy to do, heh heh heh, he can screw their
brakes and use the excuse he wasn't taught any better. "See, it says so
right in the book".
What a pile of total and utter crap!
'Waaaaay' back in the 70's we were even taught we had to use torque
wrenches on the new 'mag' and aluminum rims.
Car 'dealers' weren't known as outright thieves back then though and a
'service station' actually offered service.
Sorry, but....
My $0.02,
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
01-09-2006, 09:39 AM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Lug nut torque & warped rotors
Spdloader wrote:
>
> Apparently you assume I was just making it all up.
>
> All the information I gave you was straight out of the manual from a
> Chrysler sponsored school, in order to receive my instructor certificate in
> brakes and front end, not that it makes me the authority on it, but the
> information never let me down when training my own techs.
>
Well, there we go right out of the horses mouth.
They (the $tealers) aren't even teaching the right way to fix the
vehicles so they get the perfect 'planned obsolescence' on repairs.
Just give it to the 'new' guy to do, heh heh heh, he can screw their
brakes and use the excuse he wasn't taught any better. "See, it says so
right in the book".
What a pile of total and utter crap!
'Waaaaay' back in the 70's we were even taught we had to use torque
wrenches on the new 'mag' and aluminum rims.
Car 'dealers' weren't known as outright thieves back then though and a
'service station' actually offered service.
Sorry, but....
My $0.02,
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Apparently you assume I was just making it all up.
>
> All the information I gave you was straight out of the manual from a
> Chrysler sponsored school, in order to receive my instructor certificate in
> brakes and front end, not that it makes me the authority on it, but the
> information never let me down when training my own techs.
>
Well, there we go right out of the horses mouth.
They (the $tealers) aren't even teaching the right way to fix the
vehicles so they get the perfect 'planned obsolescence' on repairs.
Just give it to the 'new' guy to do, heh heh heh, he can screw their
brakes and use the excuse he wasn't taught any better. "See, it says so
right in the book".
What a pile of total and utter crap!
'Waaaaay' back in the 70's we were even taught we had to use torque
wrenches on the new 'mag' and aluminum rims.
Car 'dealers' weren't known as outright thieves back then though and a
'service station' actually offered service.
Sorry, but....
My $0.02,
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
