Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Lug\s+Torque\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Lug\s+Torque\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. RE: Lug Torque (score: 1): Author: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>; Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:22:09 -0700; Slow day at UCSD? You've got that right. School doesn't start until next week. Looks like after reading my post maybe you dozed off for a couple of days Allan. Can't say I blame you though. I think; /html/tigers/1999-09/msg00013.html (6,907 bytes)
2. Lug Torque (score: 1): Author: Lon Walters <lon@sedona.net>; Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:23:32 -0700; Saw the question and confirmation, agree that 45-50 lbs for a wheel lug seems mighty low to hold a wheel on...have been doing mine at 80 lbs. Is that way too tight? Is there a down side too this, mak; /html/tigers/1999-08/msg00479.html (6,579 bytes)
3. Re: Lug Torque (score: 1): Author: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>; Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 13:48:11 -0700; The question you pose; "Is there a down side too this, making the lug snap easier than it already does while motivating?" is an interesting one that I found myself mulling over a few years back in r; /html/tigers/1999-08/msg00480.html (10,473 bytes)
4. Re: Lug Torque (score: 1): Author: CoolVT@aol.com; Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:22:53 EDT; I saw some specs from an aftermarket wheel manufacturer. They listed the torque value based on the diameter of the stud. The Tiger's , according to them, should be at 40-50. Mark L.; /html/tigers/1999-08/msg00496.html (6,472 bytes)
5. RE: Lug Torque (score: 1): Author: "Allan Connell" <alcon@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:46:53 -0700; So, ah, Bob.....I guess what you are saying is that we should probably stick to 40-50 lbs. Of torque on our little 7/16 studs, right???? Slow day at the University or what?? Just funn'in ya Regards A; /html/tigers/1999-08/msg00506.html (11,005 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]