[shlbysvt]

In reading the Shelby Maintenance schedule under the GT500 insert for tires and wheels I noticed it was required that these aluminum wheels be retorqued at 100psi after 500 miles. I must say I have never done this before but felt if the manual says it should be done then so be it. Well to my surprise all lug nuts, except locking lugs, required at least 1/4 turn at 100psi. The significance of this may not be material, but I feel uneven torque on these wheels could be significant given the power we are dealing with. For those who have not done so you may want to give it a try. I used a SNAP-ON torqure wrench in which the calibration was currently certified, and is good to 150psi, for those who may have there doubts. I should mention that I did this procedure after 1100miles

 

[dsabldvt]

Nice to hear. I remember reading that too, but never thought twice about it. I just bought a torque wrench so I could tighten my locking lugs but never tried the others. I'll do that this evening. I have 1200 miles on mine now. If mine are loose I'll post it also.
Does anyone remember who it was that bought the after market chrome shelby GT500 wheels. I want to know where they got them, so if they fit I want one for a spare. Thanks.

 

[wingless]

That really torques me off...

Foot-pounds, ft-lbs, not psi.

Loosen first, with a standard wrench, then tighten with the torque wrench. Leave idle wrench stored at a low setting.

 

[shlbysvt]

That really torques me off...

Foot-pounds, ft-lbs, not psi.

Loosen first, with a standard wrench, then tighten with the torque wrench. Leave idle wrench stored at a low setting.

Sorry ft-lbs, not psi but you get the point. Mine was stored at the lowest setting as required by SNAP-ON and torqued at 50% setting as required by the instructions before going to 100 ft-lbs. SORRY CHARLEY! What do expect from a bean counter. I know when I am out of my element but have tinkered in my day and know how to use a torque and standard wrench for that matter.

 

[HorseTraderDave]

No problem svt...knew what you meant. Besides, if you want to get REALLY technical, it's pound-feet, not foot-pounds. Since torque is a force applied at a distance, the force is supposed to come first. Only mechanical engineers would know such a thing. lol.

Dave

 

[wingless]

My impression is that the Commutative Property of Multiplication still applies, or has that been repealed?

 

[HorseTraderDave]

My impression is that the Commutative Property of Multiplication still applies, or has that been repealed?

I'm not questioning the math. It's merely a technicality in what is called a "units convention" in engineering.

Dave

 

[wingless]

Yes, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, BIPM, has defined the convention for naming the SI units of torque as newton-meters, Nm.

But, it appears that the French were unwilling to touch non-SI units with a 3 meter pole.

So, even sites that document the SI convention lists both ft-lbf and lbf-ft as acceptable.

It may instead be that an author, professor or teaching assistant had elected to apply the French standard to domestic units. If so, that would be a mistake, infringing upon the freedoms essential to the US.

So, please feel free to provide a link, to a regulating body, that defines the convention as you’ve described.

 

[HorseTraderDave]

Yes, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, BIPM, has defined the convention for naming the SI units of torque as newton-meters, Nm.

But, it appears that the French were unwilling to touch non-SI units with a 3 meter pole.

So, even sites that document the SI convention lists both ft-lbf and lbf-ft as acceptable.

It may instead be that an author, professor or teaching assistant had elected to apply the French standard to domestic units. If so, that would be a mistake, infringing upon the freedoms essential to the US.

So, please feel free to provide a link, to a regulating body, that defines the convention as you’ve described.

I never mentioned a regulating body, I merely said it was a convention. In all of my engineering courses, it was taught that torque is a force applied at a distance, and that the units should reflect the order of the work being done. Since we are applying a force at a distance, and not a distance at a force, then the force units should come first. I'm on to other topics now...I did say this was only a technicality.

Dave

 

[wingless]

Foot-pounds, ft-lbs, not psi.

Besides, if you want to get REALLY technical, it's pound-feet, not foot-pounds. Since torque is a force applied at a distance, the force is supposed to come first. Only mechanical engineers would know such a thing.

My impression is that the Commutative Property of Multiplication still applies, or has that been repealed?

I'm not questioning the math. It's merely a technicality in what is called a "units convention" in engineering.

Yes, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, BIPM, has defined the convention for naming the SI units of torque as newton-meters, Nm.

But, it appears that the French were unwilling to touch non-SI units with a 3 meter pole.

So, even sites that document the SI convention lists both ft-lbf and lbf-ft as acceptable.

It may instead be that an author, professor or teaching assistant had elected to apply the French standard to domestic units. If so, that would be a mistake, infringing upon the freedoms essential to the US.

So, please feel free to provide a link, to a regulating body, that defines the convention as you’ve described.

I never mentioned a regulating body, I merely said it was a convention. In all of my engineering courses, it was taught that torque is a force applied at a distance, and that the units should reflect the order of the work being done. Since we are applying a force at a distance, and not a distance at a force, then the force units should come first. I'm on to other topics now...I did say this was only a technicality.

The information I provided continues to be corrected, as though it’s inaccurate, but no reference material has been provided to support those assertions.

This is contrasted with the links I’ve provided to the appropriate sources.

So, if lbf-ft is a correct engineering unit convention and ft-lbf is incorrect, then please provide a link that supports that contention.

 

[AC_Cobra]

this is a delete post. good day