| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 04:58PM Ed Pawlowski actually said: > I've done wheel alignment in my garage What we don't want is advice from people who would never contemplate doing a camber measurement at home. We want advice from people who have actually checked camber at home: http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg All the advice from tlvp, for example, of why he would NOT to check his camber at home is and was already known before he posted anything. He added negative value to this thread. Since he would never do it, he has never thought about how to do it, and since he not only knows not how to do it, but more importantly, he has never done it, so his advice not to do it doesn't help anyone. He simply wasted everyone's time with his fear-filled response. Likewise, you waste everyone's time with your I-won't-tell-you response. If you're not going to tell anyone anything, then why bother responding? Besides, you only pretend to have done it, which is fine, but you playing make believe doesn't help anyone here. I knew all this would happen, because most people are utterly horrified at the mere thought of checking camber at home so I was trying to avoid having to respond to comments like yours and tlvp's which simply waste everyone's time. Based on these specs ( http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg) the measurement range is plus or minus 3 degrees to an accuracy of plus or minus one minute. If we can't achieve one minute of accuracy out of a mobile device, what *is* the accuracy thqt we *can* achieve out of a mobile device? |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 05:16PM amdx actually said: > the **** is the millimeters or inches, BUT, the quantity of millimeters > or inches depends on the length of l, as you can see the longer l the > larger **** will be. But the angle stays the same. Nice graphic! To your point, I completely agree that I'm utterly confused when it comes to "toe" angles. It was my mistake to ever bring in the concept of "toe" to this discussion because, while measuring toe with a tape measure at home is relatively easy (once the mechanical overhang problem is solved), *converting* the damn manufacturer's spec from angles to inches is the *confusion* I have. Here is the toe spec for a similar vehicle to mine: http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif Notice that the "total toe" spec is 0 degrees 14 minutes plus or minus 10 minutes. Also notice that the measurement accuracy for "total wheel toe" is also given in similar units of a measuring accuracy of plus or minus two minutes in a measuring range of plus or minus two degrees within a measuring range of plus or minus 18 degrees. http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg I admit I'm confused. My dilemma is understanding how to *measure* to that spec. |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 05:20PM > You REALLY need to study your high-school math. This off-topic confusion is all my fault. I should never have brought toe into this discussion because toe is easily done at home when you have specs that are in linear dimensions such as inches but not so easily understood when you have toe specs in angles. http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg Clearly I'm confused how to do the conversion. |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 05:25PM AMuzi actually said: > Sort of mixed units. But angles are the units that the manufacturer provides for toe while I'm almost certainly going to measure toe with a distance measurement. The manufacturer specifies the "total toe" as 0 degrees 14 minutes plus or minus 10 minutes: http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif The manufacturer specifies a "total toe" required accuracy of plus or minus 2 minutes in a measuring range of plus or minus two degrees with a total measuring range of plus or minus 18 degrees. http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg So this confusion is all my fault. Clearly I'm confused because the way I think of toe is linear, but the manufacturer specifies toe in angles, so I should not have brought up toe in the first place. Camber is simpler because the manufacturer specifies angles and the measurement is in angles. So we should stick with camber for this thread (because it's a simpler problem). |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Dec 09 12:26PM -0500 On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:14:34 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon >centerline of the bimmer or wheel to wheel but since they specify a >single-wheel toe, can I safely presume that the spec is to the *centerline* >of the vehicle? No you can not. Total toe iis the difference between the track at the front of the tire and the track at the rear of the tire. devided by 2. The specification on the Bimmer and most cars today is given as the toe PER SIDE, which theoretically is 1/2 of the total toe.. The toe per wheel is measured to the parallel longitudinal axis of the vehicle and is given per wheel to enable centering of the steering linkage so the car goes straight when the wheel is centered. The reason the measurements are given as an angle is because that is essentially what you are setting. You are setting the angular relationship between the wheel and the longitudinal axis of the car. A linear measurement is not an accurate specification because differen diameter wheels can be used on vehicles, and the displacement of the neasurement from the rolling axis of the tire affects the linear measurement, but not the angular measurement. If you are not using professional equipment and you are depending on calculated linear measurements the ONLY way to aproach the accuracy BMW is specifying is by extending the measurement to at least 3 feet, prefferably 6 to 10, and calculatinf the offset at that point. But I'm wasting my breath - You've been told this several times and it has not gortten through to you. Stop being a cheap-assed wannabee, find a good mechanic - and TRUST HIM. Pay him what the job is worth. If you can't afford to proain a bimmer, drive a bloody Chevy!! |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Dec 09 12:29PM -0500 On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:14:35 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon >Anyone can catalyze a reaction, but the catalyst remains unchanged. >That is, if I do that, I learn absolutely nothing. >I remain as uneducated as before. You can educate youself on what an alignment consists of, and understand what is involved, without doing it yourself. I think your problem is you have a fear of mechanics - an ingrained mistrust - combined with a very tight grip on your money (although how that goes along with driving a wiener wagon, I cannot for the life of me figure out) |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 09 12:34PM -0500 In article <o2epef$4s4$1@news.mixmin.net>, John Harmon > But angles are the units that the manufacturer provides for toe while I'm > almost certainly going to measure toe with a distance measurement. not if you want to do it correctly, you won't. |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 05:35PM > And the length of the studs/bolts gets critical - not to mention it > works best with 4 or 6 studs - not so good on odd numbers like the > common 5, or the less common 3 stud wheels. My plan (later) is to create some sort of test jig that bolts to the wheel. Sort of like this: http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg |
| clare@snyder.on.ca: Dec 09 12:36PM -0500 On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 16:58:31 -0000 (UTC), John Harmon >> I've done wheel alignment in my garage >What we don't want is advice from people who would never contemplate doing >a camber measurement at home. I've done it at home and on the side of the road. I've also done it hundreds of times with professional equipment. >We want advice from people who have actually checked camber at home: >http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg My advice is YOU will not measure it accurately enough, and camber isn't the only angle you need to check, and the other angles are more difficult to measure - with caster being virtually impossible for you to measure without proper equipment. >since he not only knows not how to do it, but more importantly, he has >never done it, so his advice not to do it doesn't help anyone. >He simply wasted everyone's time with his fear-filled response. And a fairly accurate response. >Likewise, you waste everyone's time with your I-won't-tell-you response. >If you're not going to tell anyone anything, then why bother responding? And I've told you >minute. >If we can't achieve one minute of accuracy out of a mobile device, what >*is* the accuracy thqt we *can* achieve out of a mobile device? It depends a whole lot on the mobile device, on the application you are using, and how you apply it. "design it in autocad, lay it out with a string, mark it with a crayon, and cut it with an axe" That about describes the accuracy of your approach. Is it POSSIBLE to be accurate in that scenario?? Of course, if you try often enough - but your repeatability is not going to be very good. |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 05:48PM > If you are going to measure the toe with a string, you may as well > forget about it. You can NOT get enough accuracy or repeatability to > determine if the toe is correct or not. This is good advice that a string won't be accurate nor repeatable enough for toe measurements. > that granular in your measurement you NEED to extend your measurements > 5 or 10 feet and measure with a goor steel tape measure, or extend the > displaced centerline accurately and measure with a steel rule. This home-alignment howto shows camber in degrees and toe in both degrees and in inches: http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignment.html The really good news is that the author suggests 0 degrees of camber, which, it seems to me on initial thought, should be the easiest of all angles to measure. > the simple tape measure will give you the total toe - which will be > double the specified toe per wheel, and will not tell you if you are > off-center. That same article shows how to get the individual wheel toe: http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignpics/align3.jpg Since this thread is all about practical advice, the great news is that the article offered the following pragmatic recommendation of: a. Zero degrees of camber for a street car b. Zero toe (or a smidge of toe of about 1/16" on each side for a total toe of 1/32") Both those zeroes should be relatively easy to measure with shop tools, are they not? |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 05:58PM > of one of those kraut-wagons that I think you are definitely being > penny wise and pound foolish trying to save $100 on the maintenance of > a late model Bimmer. Don't be such a cheap-ass. - or drive a Chevy. I have multiple vehicles. My japanese vehicle never breaks. My bimmer always breaks. I work on both of them just the same. > You want to know if anything is worn or bent - and measuring CASTER is > required as well to know. My vehicle has never been in an accident but that's not really the point because nobody will disagree with you that caster is part of an alignment equation, and, that caster comes before camber which comes before toe. This article shows that if you can measure camber, you can measure caster: http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignment.html Since my bimmer has no direct way to adjust caster, I'm skipping the non-adjustable caster (for now) to concentrate on camber. > You really don't have your head around the > concepts well enough to understand WHY an alignment check should be > done properly. I think that's an unfair statement that I don't understand why an alignment measurement needs to be correct but certainly I am confused about how to convert a toe specification that is given in degrees to a toe measurement which will be made in inches. What matters to an alignment check is simply that the manufacturer's stated accuracy is achieved. That accuracy, for my bimmer, is stated here: http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg > wrong just as well by simply driving the car. If you are not "in tune > with the car" the Bimmer is wasted on you --- (as it is on the vast > majority of Bimmer owners) The bimmer insult isn't really needed here since this is a technical question, but it's fair to say that what you're saying is that "alignment can be felt" but I would clarify that by adding "sometimes". I'm not sure if you can feel the difference, for example, between 2 degrees of negative camber in the rear wheels and 1 degree. Over time, your tires will tell you; but waiting the 5K miles for the tires to inform you of that difference is not a quick check by any means. :) |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 09 01:00PM -0500 In article <o2ercj$8g5$1@news.mixmin.net>, John Harmon > My japanese vehicle never breaks. buy another > My bimmer always breaks. sell it or give it away |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 06:14PM > The accuracy of the level application on my one phone is out bt over > 7 degrees. That is a simple "level" app.. This is the first indication of what's possible out of a mobile device in this thread, so I thank you for figuring out that your level app has an accuracy of plus or minus 7 degrees (if I understood you correctly). How did you find that out though? > determine if the rim is true to the spindle by checking the level with > the bar upright with the wheel turned 180 degrees to make sure the > reading is the same with the wheel turned. I agree that the jig attached to the wheel has to be exactly on target (within the stated accuracies, all of which add up). Here's an example of a camber jig for home use: http://i.cubeupload.com/XocXQ9.jpg Here's an even better camber jig setup for home use: http://i.cubeupload.com/J0UuYd.png > WITH CARE you can check your camber to a reasonably high level of > accuracy. To get the camber "normalized" you need to roll the car > back and forth a few feet so the car "settles" on it's suspension. This is good practical advice that you need to both roll the car back and forth to let it settle on the suspension, and you need to add slip plates under the wheels so that they slip nicely when adjusted. > professional setup uses a "slip plate" that allows the wheels to slide > in and out with little resistance. Normal procedure is to bounce the > car on the slip plates to "normalize" the suspension. This is also good advice to bounce the car and to use slip plates for measuring and adjusting toe so that the wheels move freely. http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/suspension/alignpics/align3.jpg > I've done it long pre-smart-phone using a simple bubble level to > verify the alignment was "close enough" afterr an accident in central > Africa severely damaged the front of my Peugeot. The really good news is that, like in your case, a simple bubble level might suffice simply because a decent rear camber spec is zero degrees anyway, which is the easiest angle to measure. http://i.cubeupload.com/J0UuYd.png In summary, what I've learned in the past day are a few things: 1. A practical value for rear camber is 0 degrees to a smidge negative 2. A practical value for toe-in is 0 inches to a smidge positive (inward) Both those are so close to zero that I can check that they are zero, and then I can tweak them to a "smidge" inward. But that is a different problem from checking them, which seems to be easily doable using a few common tools based on my googling today: http://www.tomhoppe.com/index.php/2009/02/cheap-digital-camber-gauge/ |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 06:17PM nospam actually said: >> But angles are the units that the manufacturer provides for toe while I'm >> almost certainly going to measure toe with a distance measurement. > not if you want to do it correctly, you won't. This article states that you can get as accurate at home as you need to: http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/wheels-tires/modp-1010-diy-wheel-alignment/ Here's how they measured toe-in, for example: http://image.superstreetonline.com/f/30286048+w+h+q80+re0+cr1/modp_1010_06_o%2bdiy_wheel_alignment%2bstring_box.jpg Notice they measured toe in linear measurements. |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 06:55PM > Total toe iis the difference between the track at the > front of the tire and the track at the rear of the tire. Ah! My bad. Thank you for that correction. Until you admonished me, I had previously thought total toe was just the toe of both wheels to the centerline added up. I stand corrected. So "total toe" is the difference between the tracking of the front of the tire and the rear of the tire (measured to centerline of the vehicle). > The specification on the Bimmer and most cars today is given as the > toe PER SIDE, which theoretically is 1/2 of the total toe.. Yes. > per wheel is measured to the parallel longitudinal axis of the vehicle > and is given per wheel to enable centering of the steering linkage so > the car goes straight when the wheel is centered. Thank you for this pragmatic advice that the toe per wheel is given so that we can keep the steering wheel centered while doing the job. > The reason the measurements are given as an angle is because that is > essentially what you are setting. Thank you because, when I read the next sentence, for the first time, I understood why toe is specified as an angle! > You are setting the angular > relationship between the wheel and the longitudinal axis of the car. Ah. Yes. This is true that the *angle* is the angle of the wheel to the centerline of the vehicle. It's a tiny angle which is very close to zero; but it's an angle for sure! Is this diagram I just made modified correct for that angle? http://i.cubeupload.com/rtvi9L.gif > diameter wheels can be used on vehicles, and the displacement of the > neasurement from the rolling axis of the tire affects the linear > measurement, but not the angular measurement. Ah. I see what you're talking about. Thanks for that pragmatic advice! Is this diagram that I just made showing what you just said? http://i.cubeupload.com/BzNqBY.gif > calculated linear measurements the ONLY way to aproach the accuracy > BMW is specifying is by extending the measurement to at least 3 feet, > prefferably 6 to 10, and calculatinf the offset at that point. I don't understand that statement. I was trying to draw what you said but I don't know which way to extend. In which direction do I extend the line? In front of the car? Or to the side? |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 07:02PM > Total toe iis the difference between the track at the > front of the tire and the track at the rear of the tire. devided by 2. Thank you for your pragmatic advice. Is this diagram I just made correct for total toe? http://i.cubeupload.com/kYxrgm.gif |
| kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey): Dec 09 02:04PM -0500 >My japanese vehicle never breaks. >My bimmer always breaks. >I work on both of them just the same. The japanese vehicle you can drive and drive without doing any maintenance and it won't break until all of a sudden everything fails. The BMW requires a lot of very specific maintenance, and you need to keep on top of that maintenance, and if you do not do it, it will break. But, you can drive it for a long, long time before everything fails. Maintenance is better than repairs any day, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 07:09PM > combined with a very tight grip on your money (although how that goes > along with driving a wiener wagon, I cannot for the life of me figure > out) I appreciate your advice. Here are the diagrams I made for toe based on your pragmatic advice. 1. This shows why toe is specified as an angle to the centerline: http://i.cubeupload.com/rtvi9L.gif 2. This shows why an *angle* is better than a distance specification: http://i.cubeupload.com/BzNqBY.gif 3. This shows that Total Toe is a distance while toe is an angle: http://i.cubeupload.com/kYxrgm.gif If that is correct, the only problem I have understanding in the spec is why the total toe is specified in angles when it should be the difference in the distance between the front and rear tracks to the centerline: http://i.cubeupload.com/RubZhV.gif http://i.cubeupload.com/cfaDWp.jpg |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 07:11PM nospam actually said: > buy another >> My bimmer always breaks. > sell it or give it away My japanese vehicle is sort of like Android; it just works. The bimmer is more like my iPad; it constantly can't do basic stuff. :) |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 07:16PM Ed Pawlowski actually said: > My reply is strictly based on the fact that you come across as an > arrogant prick telling poeple who may reply.. I understand your reply (which was that I sounded arrogant to you when I asked people who wouldn't be adding any value not to respond). And you must understand mine, which is that I was trying to prevent a huge waste of time becuase *most* people wouldn't dare contemplate checking their camber (or toe) at home. The problems with doing alignment at home stem first from *understanding* the specs, which it is clear, I'm still grasping. After the specs are understood, then the next problem is measuring the camber and toe. And the third problem is adjusting them. This thread is only about measuring them, but I agree, my confusion on toe angles slowed things down. |
| John Harmon <HarmonJohn@example.com>: Dec 09 07:40PM Scott Dorsey actually said: > and if you do not do it, it will break. But, you can drive it for a long, long > time before everything fails. > Maintenance is better than repairs any day, though. To put the difference more honestly, I've had both vehicles for more than 15 years each so I know their personalities well. The Toyota almost never breaks down, but when it does, the fix is generally simple and easy to do where parts are easy to find and relatively inexpensive. Yet, it doesn't handle as well (although it's a different type of vehicle altogehter). But here are the "problems" I've had with the Toyta: 1. The transmission shift lever uses idiotic plastic bushings (replaced 2x) 2. The sway bar used buna rubber bushings (replaced with poly bushings) 3. The electrical antenna keeps breaking (I finally gave up on it) 4. The torsion clutch pedal spring is stupid (replaced with linear spring) 5. The digital clock digits go out (gave up after fixing it twice) 6. The oil filter housing gasket leaks (fixed by replacing it) 8. The door opening mechanism failed (replaced with OEM) 9. The front shocks were toast within five years (replaced w Bilsteins) 10. The rear brakelight stopped working (sanded a few times & is now fixed) Plus assorted standard maintenance (belts, clutch, fluids, brakes, etc.). The bimmer constantly breaks down, but its handling is nice. However, it's important to know that the bimmer I have is the E39 which has about 20 items made like crap, where *everything* else is rock solid. So the twenty items made like crap on the E39 are, offhand: 1. The cooling system (mostly the idiotic plastic expansion tank) 2. The DISA valve (mostly an idiotic plastic flap pin) 3. The window regulators (two idiotic plastic rollers) 4. The Bosch ABS control module (an idiotic internal wire badly mounted) 5. The seats twist (idiotic sleeves on the many motor control cables) 6. Instrument cluster pixels die (idiotic pink stickytape connectors) 7. The headlight adjustment (idiotic plastic adjustment pins break) 8. AC control (idiotic FSU/FSR blows its mosfets time and time again) 9. CCV (aka PCV) (idiotic design creates mayonaise in cold weather locales) 10. Doors leak water (idiotic lack of glue in the vapor barrier adhesive) 11. Trunk wiring (utterly idiotic design has no concept of opening flex!) 12. Temperature (idiotic placement of the ambient temperature sensor) 13. Windshiled washer system (the entire design is idiotic) 14. Jack pads (idiotic lack of a center pin was replaced under TSB) 15. AC odors (idiotic lack of a way to vent collected water) 16. The cupholders (idiotic design can't be fixed - just throw it away) 17. Wood trim (idiodic material was never tested for lifespan) 18. Windshield molding (idiotic use of recycled rubber was a disaster) 19. Power steering leaks (idiotic design of the I6 hoses & V8 brackets) 20. The front shocks were toast within its first year (warranty fix) Plus assorted standard maintenance (belts, clutch, fluids, brakes, etc.). My summary, after owning both from new for over fifteen years each is that the BMW is a pain in the ass to repair whenever something does go wrong, and things go wrong a lot because BMW doesn't know how to design a complete car but the handling is phenominal and the engine is bulletproof. Meanwhile, the Toyota is a dream child to repair when something does go wrong (which is almost never) simply because Toyota knows something BMW doesn't know, which is how to design a complete vehicle. But all this is OT. |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Dec 09 11:41AM -0800 On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 10:01:12 AM UTC-5, amdx wrote: re now proven stupid, as well as being a true idiot. > Hey Peter, why all the hate? Hatred? That is an emotion that takes effort and requires knowledge of the actual target beyond the initial idiocy. Harmon/Alger is a troll whose sole purpose in life is to spin the wheels of the otherwise well-intentioned by inveigling them into meaningless discussions over processes that have no relevance in reality. Usually continued so long that the "horse" is not only dead, but skinned, flayed and flensed. He cannot read for content. As the processes over which he appears to be confused are rather obvious. Which means either one of two things: a) he is invincibly ignorant. b) he enjoys spinning peoples' wheels. Whether the former or the latter, he has no place in a reasonable discussion as he cannot be reasonably, nor engage in meaningful discussion. Again, the sharpest tool he should be allowed is a rubber spoon as he is clearly a danger to himself or others who may be victims of his ineptitude. I would have a great deal more respect for him were he to sign his real name. But that he changes it as often as he (likely) changes his socks is the certain indication of his status as a troll. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 09 02:46PM -0500 In article <o2evkp$hl2$1@news.mixmin.net>, John Harmon > > sell it or give it away > My japanese vehicle is sort of like Android; it just works. > The bimmer is more like my iPad; it constantly can't do basic stuff. only because you're too stupid to figure out how, particularly after people repeatedly explain to you exactly how. |
| Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>: Dec 09 03:34PM -0500 |
| billberrie1204@gmail.com: Dec 09 10:30AM -0800 Hello All, I'm new to this group. The above radio has a problem with AM reception. Signal strength is variable from unusable to normal listening volumn. I suspect the sanyo LA1851N am fm radio ic. I cannot find one in the surface mount package. I also could use a schematic. Can anyone help me with this? Thank You, Bill |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 2 topics"
Post a Comment