no lube on auto fasteners?

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:09:15 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And it is easier to think Metric actually. When you have a 7/16th in
>>>wrench and you want the next size down, which do you reach for?
>>
>>3/8"
>>
>>
>>>When you have an 11 millimeter wrench and you want the next size down,
>>>which do you reach for. See?
>>
>>10 mm
>>
>>It is not as simple as you think. Originally there were not
>>metric wrenches in all whole millimeter sizes
>
>
> But that isn't the point. The point is you're working with Base 10
> numbers, and only have to move the decimal point without having to do
> mental interpolation.
>

To anyone used to the SAE system, it's just about that easy. The sizes
go up in 1/16" increments, then after 5/8" they go up in 1/8" increments
(generally speaking.) So if you are using a 3/8" wrench and you need a
larger wrench, add 1/16" to 3/8" (6/16) and you have 7/16. no problemo.

>
>>, but different
>>countries had different "standard sizes." Now there are
>>sizes in whole millimeters from 4 to 25 plus a couple of
>>half millimeter sizes thrown in for good measure (4.5 and
>>5.5 for sure). So to get from 0 to 25 mm you need at least:
>>
>>4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
>>18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (24 total)
>
>
> That is child's play.

Not exactly. If you are using a 11mm wrench and it's too small, you may
need either a 12mm or a 13mm depending on what you're working on.
Generally, though, only 10mm and 13mm are used for small automotive
fasteners, but ISTR some nut in the head of a Type 4 VW engine being an
odd in-between size across the flats (but standard German metric
thread.) I think it's the Japanese that most often use 12mm. You are
basically correct in that metric is theoretically more easy to use, but
incorrect in that it works out that way in practice. The problem is
that there's pretty much one set of standards for inch-sized fasteners
that is universally accepted (Whitworth, BS etc. notwithstanding - they
are pretty much completely obsolete by now) - you have two thread
pitches per diameter (UNC and UNF) and one hex size per diameter
(although there are some exceptions to this, they still are found in a
standard set of wrenches.) Metric, on the other hand, is still a
mishmash. Really, the fundamental problem is that there are too many
metric sizes both for threads and heads in use today. Ever try to find
a 7mm bolt (used on VW ball joints) in a hardware store when you need
one? A 6mm or 8mm maybe. Likewise a 1/4" or 5/16" is likely available
both in UNC and UNF. But 7mm is just a completely useless size, how
much extra weight and cost would be involved in using 8mm bolts?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:30:20 -0500, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:09:15 -0500, "C. E. White"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And it is easier to think Metric actually. When you have a 7/16th in
>>>>wrench and you want the next size down, which do you reach for?
>>>
>>>3/8"
>>>
>>>
>>>>When you have an 11 millimeter wrench and you want the next size down,
>>>>which do you reach for. See?
>>>
>>>10 mm
>>>
>>>It is not as simple as you think. Originally there were not
>>>metric wrenches in all whole millimeter sizes
>>
>>
>> But that isn't the point. The point is you're working with Base 10
>> numbers, and only have to move the decimal point without having to do
>> mental interpolation.
>>
>
>To anyone used to the SAE system, it's just about that easy. The sizes
>go up in 1/16" increments, then after 5/8" they go up in 1/8" increments
>(generally speaking.) So if you are using a 3/8" wrench and you need a
>larger wrench, add 1/16" to 3/8" (6/16) and you have 7/16. no problemo.
>
>>
>>>, but different
>>>countries had different "standard sizes." Now there are
>>>sizes in whole millimeters from 4 to 25 plus a couple of
>>>half millimeter sizes thrown in for good measure (4.5 and
>>>5.5 for sure). So to get from 0 to 25 mm you need at least:
>>>
>>>4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
>>>18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (24 total)
>>
>>
>> That is child's play.
>
>Not exactly. If you are using a 11mm wrench and it's too small, you may
>need either a 12mm or a 13mm depending on what you're working on.

so?

>Generally, though, only 10mm and 13mm are used for small automotive
>fasteners, but ISTR some nut in the head of a Type 4 VW engine being an
>odd in-between size across the flats (but standard German metric
>thread.)

Could very well be. I used to service a lot of German-made equipment.
I don't remember ever coming across a bolt that I didn't have a wrench
for.

> I think it's the Japanese that most often use 12mm. You are
>basically correct in that metric is theoretically more easy to use, but
>incorrect in that it works out that way in practice.

how is that

> The problem is
>that there's pretty much one set of standards for inch-sized fasteners
>that is universally accepted (Whitworth, BS etc. notwithstanding - they
>are pretty much completely obsolete by now) - you have two thread
>pitches per diameter (UNC and UNF) and one hex size per diameter
>(although there are some exceptions to this, they still are found in a
>standard set of wrenches.) Metric, on the other hand, is still a
>mishmash.

I've worked on both German and Japanese machines, and never was at a
loss for a proper fitting wrench. Then again, I will be the first to
admit that the German and Japanese use an _intense_ tool kit in the
field, weighing in at more pounds than one wants to carry or push on a
hand cart. And when you throw in * spare parts * that they also
carry, there is no fun whatsoever in moving their stuff around from
point A to point B. You don't see many older techs doing those field
repairs anymore. By the time you get to my age you're just too damn
worn out from schlepping that crap all around the country and planet.

Then the machines and parts weigh tons. You can't even move most of
them without an airbag lift or some weight-lifting types working
together. What a PIA.

> Really, the fundamental problem is that there are too many
>metric sizes both for threads and heads in use today. Ever try to find
>a 7mm bolt (used on VW ball joints) in a hardware store when you need
>one?

I am certain one of my former Bosses could reach into his hellbox and
produce a handful of them at your request. Then again, when I had to
go it alone ( rarely ) I could have stuff shipped to me Fed-X next day
air and I would pick it up at the closest airport. That was with the
Japanese. With the Germans, it was a good idea to keep in mind any
machine shops in the neighborhood, for just in case. Just in case you
needed some special part or welding or such.

> A 6mm or 8mm maybe. Likewise a 1/4" or 5/16" is likely available
>both in UNC and UNF. But 7mm is just a completely useless size, how
>much extra weight and cost would be involved in using 8mm bolts?
>
>nate

It wasn't unthinkable to drill out a hole the next size up and tap it
for the bolt you -did- have in your hellbox. Or sometimes the
customer himself would have a part that you needed. Each *plant* that
I visited would almost always have a pretty good workshop and a bunch
of expert technicians around to help out when the going got tough.

Lg

Lawrence Glickman > wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:22:50 GMT, aarcuda69062
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Lawrence Glickman > wrote:
>>
>>> hmmmm. There is something wrong there. There might have been a burr
>>> on the threads of the lug or nut. Now I am going to do what Nate and
>>> some others suggested ( next time I remove wheels ). I have taken a
>>> 1/2 13 tap and 1/2 13 die out of my tap and die kits, and I will run
>>> them up and through the threads to be sure there aren't any burrs that
>>> will give the torque wrench a false reading.
>>
>>If you're planning on doing this to your Sable, be advised, the
>>wheel stud threads are 12mmX1.5 pitch. The 1/2" die will only
>>make a mess of things.
>
>OK, you're right about the thread pitch. 1.5mm spot on.
>
>I've taken out my 12mm x 1.5mm tap and dies, but I'm going to look at
>that thread diameter ONE MORE TIME. As I said, there are two
>different lugs, and one of them just has a different size SPLINE so I
>think that is the only difference between them.
>Thanks for the heads up.
>Lg

Well call me a late to the party wise ass but the message this thread
sends to me is one should not put a die on a lug or a tap into a lug
nut unless you know exactly what you are doing and have the right
sizes. Otherwise you could end up taking off too much metal and one
guess what that will do to your nut retention! Hey if a wire
brushing isn't enough to get things spinning smoothly, get the
inspection mirror out and look for thread damage. If you can't find
any, I don't think taking out the tap and dies are the next step.

Jay

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:49:19 GMT, (JJ)
wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:22:50 GMT, aarcuda69062
> wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Lawrence Glickman > wrote:
>>>
>>>> hmmmm. There is something wrong there. There might have been a burr
>>>> on the threads of the lug or nut. Now I am going to do what Nate and
>>>> some others suggested ( next time I remove wheels ). I have taken a
>>>> 1/2 13 tap and 1/2 13 die out of my tap and die kits, and I will run
>>>> them up and through the threads to be sure there aren't any burrs that
>>>> will give the torque wrench a false reading.
>>>
>>>If you're planning on doing this to your Sable, be advised, the
>>>wheel stud threads are 12mmX1.5 pitch. The 1/2" die will only
>>>make a mess of things.
>>
>>OK, you're right about the thread pitch. 1.5mm spot on.
>>
>>I've taken out my 12mm x 1.5mm tap and dies, but I'm going to look at
>>that thread diameter ONE MORE TIME. As I said, there are two
>>different lugs, and one of them just has a different size SPLINE so I
>>think that is the only difference between them.
>>Thanks for the heads up.
>>Lg
>
>Well call me a late to the party wise ass

I could call you a lot of things, but it wouldn't change anything,
unfortunately....

> but the message this thread
>sends to me is one should not put a die on a lug or a tap into a lug
>nut unless you know exactly what you are doing and have the right
>sizes.

You're late to the party. We've already figured that out.

> Otherwise you could end up taking off too much metal and one
>guess what that will do to your nut retention! Hey if a wire
>brushing isn't enough to get things spinning smoothly, get the
>inspection mirror out and look for thread damage. If you can't find
>any, I don't think taking out the tap and dies are the next step.
>
>Jay

Wasn't it someone else's suggestion? I don't recall. This thread (
pun ) has gone on for so long, I don't remember who might have
suggested that.

Lg

Nate Nagel wrote:
> mishmash. Really, the fundamental problem is that there are too many
> metric sizes both for threads and heads in use today. Ever try to find
> a 7mm bolt (used on VW ball joints) in a hardware store when you need
> one? A 6mm or 8mm maybe. Likewise a 1/4" or 5/16" is likely available
> both in UNC and UNF. But 7mm is just a completely useless size, how
> much extra weight and cost would be involved in using 8mm bolts?
>
> nate
>

I've always wondered why the car companies (GM specifically because
that's what I own) seem to use 10x as many sizes of bolts as they really
need. I think they could save costs on assembly, parts stock and
warranty costs if they used more than QTY 1 of each bolt per car.
(ok, it's not really that bad, it sometimes just feels that way.)

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> There was a time, not long ago, when the Educational System in the USA
> was going to do --away-- with the English System. No more inches,
> yards, miles, etc. But they FAILED miserably. And the legacy *stuff*
> is still with us, and probably will be forever ( at least the rest of
> my lifetime, which could be measured in minutes and/or hours,
> depending on how I feel on any given day ).

Where I work, we are "metric." However every time I try to
work with the Chinese, I get inch designed parts converted
to metric dimensions to make us happy (who would design
something as 12.7 mm?). To be honest, except for making the
German, French, and few lofty intellectuals happy, I can't
really see any concrete advantage in making the switch to
the metric system. In the end it is just as arbitrary as the
traditional units systems. Having every thing in multiples
of ten sounds like a good idea, but can you quantify the
savings for this?

Ed

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:31:19 -0500, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>
>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>
>> There was a time, not long ago, when the Educational System in the USA
>> was going to do --away-- with the English System. No more inches,
>> yards, miles, etc. But they FAILED miserably. And the legacy *stuff*
>> is still with us, and probably will be forever ( at least the rest of
>> my lifetime, which could be measured in minutes and/or hours,
>> depending on how I feel on any given day ).
>
>Where I work, we are "metric." However every time I try to
>work with the Chinese, I get inch designed parts converted
>to metric dimensions to make us happy (who would design
>something as 12.7 mm?). To be honest, except for making the
>German, French, and few lofty intellectuals happy, I can't
>really see any concrete advantage in making the switch to
>the metric system. In the end it is just as arbitrary as the
>traditional units systems. Having every thing in multiples
>of ten sounds like a good idea, but can you quantify the
>savings for this?
>
>Ed

Sure. Significantly less than the price of going to war with
Sovereign Nations that present no real threat to us.

What can be easier than base10, where you just slide the decimal point
around? If it is just *arbitrary* and provides no read advantages,
why is it that the USA is the only country in the World that is still
using non-metric? The rest of the world is wrong and we are right?
Or maybe it is the other way around.

Standardization of measuring units will solve a lot of problems, as
has standardization of currency units in Europe. And now is the time
to do it, since our indigenous factory production is at an all time
low.

Most machinery coming into this country from abroad is metric anyhow.
You are aware that Japanese machines assemble the cell phones for
Motorola here in the US?

We can live with either system, but you know in any modern automobile
there is a mix of both metric and English units and this is what
causes some real problems when you are trying to work with fasteners.
Wasted time trying to find the right tool, I don't know quite how many
man hours that adds up to in lost productivity but it is enough to
register on a graph.

The International Space Station presented just such a problem when
docking between Russian (metric) and US (English) modules became
necessary. Just 1 of many examples.

Now that globalization has taken hold, I think standardization of
measuring units should become a top priority. It is bad enough that
currency units vary from country to country.

Another problem arises with military ordinance. You would think it
would be a good idea to standardize on metric or English, but still
they are mixed.

Lg

"Lawrence Glickman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:31:19 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>>> There was a time, not long ago, when the Educational System in the USA
>>> was going to do --away-- with the English System. No more inches,
>>> yards, miles, etc. But they FAILED miserably. And the legacy *stuff*
>>> is still with us, and probably will be forever ( at least the rest of
>>> my lifetime, which could be measured in minutes and/or hours,
>>> depending on how I feel on any given day ).
>>
>>Where I work, we are "metric." However every time I try to
>>work with the Chinese, I get inch designed parts converted
>>to metric dimensions to make us happy (who would design
>>something as 12.7 mm?). To be honest, except for making the
>>German, French, and few lofty intellectuals happy, I can't
>>really see any concrete advantage in making the switch to
>>the metric system. In the end it is just as arbitrary as the
>>traditional units systems. Having every thing in multiples
>>of ten sounds like a good idea, but can you quantify the
>>savings for this?
>>
>>Ed
>
> Sure. Significantly less than the price of going to war with
> Sovereign Nations that present no real threat to us.



Ain't that the truth!!!!

Just think if some of that money went into social programs and educations as
well!!!


>
> What can be easier than base10, where you just slide the decimal point
> around? If it is just *arbitrary* and provides no read advantages,
> why is it that the USA is the only country in the World that is still
> using non-metric? The rest of the world is wrong and we are right?
> Or maybe it is the other way around.
>
> Standardization of measuring units will solve a lot of problems, as
> has standardization of currency units in Europe. And now is the time
> to do it, since our indigenous factory production is at an all time
> low.
>
> Most machinery coming into this country from abroad is metric anyhow.
> You are aware that Japanese machines assemble the cell phones for
> Motorola here in the US?
>
> We can live with either system, but you know in any modern automobile
> there is a mix of both metric and English units and this is what
> causes some real problems when you are trying to work with fasteners.
> Wasted time trying to find the right tool, I don't know quite how many
> man hours that adds up to in lost productivity but it is enough to
> register on a graph.
>
> The International Space Station presented just such a problem when
> docking between Russian (metric) and US (English) modules became
> necessary. Just 1 of many examples.
>
> Now that globalization has taken hold, I think standardization of
> measuring units should become a top priority. It is bad enough that
> currency units vary from country to country.
>
> Another problem arises with military ordinance. You would think it
> would be a good idea to standardize on metric or English, but still
> they are mixed.
>
> Lg
>

That's a good argument there LG!!!!