Rear tire fill - your thoughts appreciated

[imarobot]

Well this thread went as well as could be expected….

I'll add this to my list of what to not ask about along with oil, filters, transmission fluid, grease ... I'm sure I'm missing a few

 

[rimguard]

Well if it is different, Rim Guard can reply and explain.

Your listing different things with water in it to show wild differences is meaningless. We know Windshield wiper fluid has alcohol, water and some very small amounts of additives. We know that Rim Guard has processed organic material (by-product of sugar beets) and ...... (probably the inherent water from the sugar beets and most likely added water). The water from the two is an apples to apples match.

Yanmar (no skin in the ballast choice) has a page about the different ballasts. They list Rim Guard and Windshield wiper fluid as non-corrosive (versus Rim Guard's post).

Liquid Ballast - YANMAR America Corporation

www.yanmartractor.com

Sorry, I was not receiving these notifications so I'm late to reply. I'm glad this point was brought up. You are correct that Rim Guard is a water-soluble solution.

The distinction, as user McMXi correctly pointed out, is that not all "water-based" solutions are the same.

• Plain Water is corrosive because it contains dissolved oxygen, which is the key driver of oxidation (rust).
• Chloride-based ballasts (like Calcium, Sodium or Magnesium Chloride) are also water-based, but the chloride ions are extremely aggressive and dramatically accelerate corrosion.
• Rim Guard's formula uses a beet juice byproduct which is non-corrosive and its natural properties do not promote oxidation.

Claiming a "water-based" product is non-corrosive isn't hollow, it's just like how engine coolant is water-based but contains inhibitors to prevent rust, whereas saltwater is water-based and aggressively causes rust. The specific ingredients, not just the water, define the corrosive properties.

 

[McMXi]

I am sure you will respond with more insults, but you will not be able to respond with facts.

I don't care what anyone uses in their tires. My arguments have nothing to do with the fact that windshield washer fluid was designed to clean windshields and that Rim Guard was designed to go into tires. The reason why I'm arguing here, and why I get into a number or arguments on this forum is that people repeatedly show that they're incapable of independent or intelligent thought. So many here simply aren't curious and seem to have no desire to learn. You do this repeatedly and it's fucking tedious. You clearly have never had a job where someone will pay you to think. I wouldn't pay you to be fertilizer since you'd probably screw that up too!

As for taking advice from a YouTuber. Another stupid statement from you but expected. Brian Cox is a YouTuber, Neil Degrasse Tyson is YouTuber and both have PhDs so the credentials of the person making the videos is significant. Pete from Just A Few Acres Farm had a career as a partner in a successful architectural company. He has proven to be intelligent, thoughtful, inquisitive and more, so I listen to what he has to say although I might not agree with everything he has to say.

 

[MapleLeafFarmer]

Wow….I thought ‘grease and oil” threads were tough to follow….

………………I don’t know if they put beet juice, salt water, Rim Guard, or "Yak Urine” in there.


Carry on gentlemen…...

this got a smile out of me this morning and my mind went squirrelly to a new Jeopardy question....

what stinks and stains your shop floor the worst during the rotting leaking process???
A) Yak Urine
B) Skunk spray
C) RimGaurd


cheers all

 

[rimguard]

I'm having a real hard time buying this one. Evapourating alcohol out of water is called "distillation" and requires a temperature of around 80°C or a Mongolian still or the addition of a high concentration of non-iodized salt. The distillate (alcohol) must be removed immediately because the two polar solvents will simply recombine rapidly on contact -- as when the liquid is splashed around by driving the tractor.

Of the 3, only the Mongolian still reflects conditions (temps of -5° to -10°C) that would reasonably be found in a tractor tire. And that doesn't vapourize the alcohol, it solidifies some of the water leaving the alcohol as a liquid. However it is highly inefficient and slow and at most will concentrate the alcohol to about 40% -- which is pretty much where the concentration of alcohol in WW fluid is right out of the bottle. So that ain't gonna happen in a tractor tire either.

As for evaporating through the rubber, even assuming you managed to heat your tractor tires up enough to break those pesky hydrogen bonds, the alcohol molecule's kinetic diameter is about 10% larger than nitrogen. The tires would have to stay that hot for years to have a measurable effect on the concentration.

Your product is denser, offering more ballast for the volume. That's it's advantage. Leave it at that and quit making up unbelievable stories based on junk science.

@torch, thanks for the detailed analysis of distillation and permeation. You are correct, and I apologize. My comment of "evaporation through the tire" was an oversimplification, so thank you for the correction.

The core issues we warn about with repurposing WWF for tire ballast are not based solely on permeation or distillation, but recommendations straight from the official safety bulletins from the tire industry's governing body (USTMA).

1. Flammability Risk: USTMA's official Tire Information Service Bulletin issues a clear WARNING: "Never, under any circumstance, introduce a flammable substance into a tire". They list "alcohol, methanol" (the primary component of WWF) as a source of these hazardous flammable vapors.
2. Tire/Rim Damage: The USTMA bulletin also warns that "solvent-based liquids" (which methanol is) "have a harmful effect on the tire, tube, flap and/or rim". This is the chemical damage we are concerned about that I eluded to earlier, their bulletin does not state the exact science behind this.

You are 100% correct that our product's density is a primary advantage over WWF, but being noncorrosive and nonflammable can not be understated. I hope this clarifies that our position is supported by USTMA.

 

[rimguard]

Sounds like you found a great solution for your needs.

I did notice that the SDS sheet that they provide on their site lists the contents as: 30-70% organic based components and the remainder is water (so 70-30% water). I would expect that Rim Guard is very similar.

@jyoutz @Elliott in GA
Very different. Rim Guard is approved for animal feed use and does not contain sodium chloride.

 

[jyoutz]

@jyoutz @Elliott in GA
Very different. Rim Guard is approved for animal feed use and does not contain sodium chloride.
View attachment 165181

But bio-ballast is non toxic and non- corrosive. That’s all that really matters.

 

[armylifer]

I’m using a product that is never mentioned in these discussions, but it’s a nice alternative. It’s made from corn and far less messy than Rimguard.

Bio-Ballast® - EnviroTech Services

envirotechservices.com

This stuff sounds like the first run from Popcorn Sutton's still. Just saying....

 

[Elliott in GA]

I don't care what anyone uses in their tires. My arguments have nothing to do with the fact that windshield washer fluid was designed to clean windshields and that Rim Guard was designed to go into tires. The reason why I'm arguing here, and why I get into a number or arguments on this forum is that people repeatedly show that they're incapable of independent or intelligent thought. So many here simply aren't curious and seem to have no desire to learn. You do this repeatedly and it's fucking tedious. You clearly have never had a job where someone will pay you to think. I wouldn't pay you to be fertilizer since you'd probably screw that up too!

As for taking advice from a YouTuber. Another stupid statement from you but expected. Brian Cox is a YouTuber, Neil Degrasse Tyson is YouTuber and both have PhDs so the credentials of the person making the videos is significant. Pete from Just A Few Acres Farm had a career as a partner in a successful architectural company. He has proven to be intelligent, thoughtful, inquisitive and more, so I listen to what he has to say although I might not agree with everything he has to say.

More insults - no facts, as expected. Of course as expected, RimGuard is water based as are other non-corrosive water based ballast products.

 

[Elliott in GA]

Sorry, I was not receiving these notifications so I'm late to reply. I'm glad this point was brought up. You are correct that Rim Guard is a water-soluble solution.

The distinction, as user McMXi correctly pointed out, is that not all "water-based" solutions are the same.

• Plain Water is corrosive because it contains dissolved oxygen, which is the key driver of oxidation (rust).
• Chloride-based ballasts (like Calcium, Sodium or Magnesium Chloride) are also water-based, but the chloride ions are extremely aggressive and dramatically accelerate corrosion.
• Rim Guard's formula uses a beet juice byproduct which is non-corrosive and its natural properties do not promote oxidation.

Claiming a "water-based" product is non-corrosive isn't hollow, it's just like how engine coolant is water-based but contains inhibitors to prevent rust, whereas saltwater is water-based and aggressively causes rust. The specific ingredients, not just the water, define the corrosive properties.

You seem to have misunderstood what I posted, but the essential question I asked has been answered - water based. My general point was that all non-corrosive water based ballast products would be acceptable solutions (though each would have pros and cons).

 

[McMXi]

More insults - no facts, as expected. Of course as expected, RimGuard is water based as are other non-corrosive water based ballast products.

What facts are you looking for? You can't comprehend that the classification of a product as being water-based says nothing about the corrosion potential of one solution over another. You seem to think that if two solutions are water based that means they're equivalent, but that's ridiculous. Sulfuric acid is water based just as sodium hydroxide is water based. Are they equivalent?

 

[Elliott in GA]

What facts are you looking for? You can't comprehend that the classification of a product as being water-based says nothing about the corrosion potential of one solution over another. You seem to think that if two solutions are water based that means they're equivalent, but that's ridiculous. Sulfuric acid is water based just as sodium hydroxide is water based. Are they equivalent?

Non-corrosive water based ballast compared to other non-corrosive water based ballast - that is all that was ever up for discussion.