So if it's silly, why does every tire shop in existence and automakers at the factory do dynamic balancing. Mazda themselves in a service bulletin recommend that wheels be balanced on a dynamic road-force balancer.
Its not a matter of important or not important. A wheel assembly is a 'rotor'; when dynamically balancing a rotor you're assuming its ridgid. The problem is a wheel assembly in the real world is flexible.
The idea of dynamically balancing wheels was theorized as early as the
1940's. However at the time, bias ply tires were just too floppy.
With the advent of radial tires, tires got stiffer and things became a bit more practical.
The push to use electronic balancers in the 80's, was really a matter of productivity for shops. A spin balancer is both easier to learn and can pump out tires in a fraction of the time.
The push for dynamic balancing was a matter of differentiation and 'advancement' thanks to electronics.
If you read some of the first dynamic balancer patents they read:
Accurate balancing of any rotating body requires that it be free from the effects of external forces such as may be produced by its own rotating drive mechanism. Thus, if a tire and wheel is properly mounted on a rotatable axle or shaft of a wheel balancing machine, accurate measurements of imbalance can only be taken if the wheel and tire is not subjected to external disturbances, such as externally generated vibrations, if the axle itself is properly balanced in smooth accurate bearings, and if the rotational driving means cannot impart any vibration or other disturbances to the rotating shaft.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4489607A/en
Now, what external forces exist in the real world?
Camber:
Weight of the vehicle:
Centrifugal forces: notice distortion at speed.
Heat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=272zDtbhK48
Because of all these factors, when in real world use, any dynamic balance weight can cause its own inbalance when the rotor is 'distorted'.
This is one of the primary points behind 'road-force' balancers. However again, road-force balancers can only take into account weight distortion, but not the others.
The wider your wheel tire is, the more important dynamic balance is.
Thats untrue, most wide racing tire MFG (some of the widest) recommend only static balancing:
If you even want to go down the road of dynamically balancing a tire, its a matter of rigidity, not width. If anything, its more a matter of the tire being low profile/hard compound.
If you need anecdotal evidence (which I dont care for much, but its important to some):
On modern vehicle dynamic balancing is critical. The bubble balance suggestion is just about ridiculous.
The bubble balance is ok for a 50’ Chev pickup or trailer tire.......after that it has very little value on a modern vehicle.
The number one tire complaint is steering wheel vibration, nibble, quiver or seat bottom vibration all relating back to tire balance. Then there’s the next level spin balance as mention is radical force which related to the tire stiffness and harmonic vibrations.
The classic tire balance issue is the steering wheel “nibbles” are 57-62 mph. Fixing that issue with a bubble balance is only by random luck. Then if the it vibrates at 57-62 and repeats at 74-77 your likely facing a harmonic with a the bubble balance is totally useless in the process of fixing it.i
The high quality modern spin balance can easily get the dynamic balance to 5 grams.
This has gotten way off topic.
CEMB manual would be light years beyond bubble balance....is it as good as a Hunter probably not.
I have used a Snap on manual spin balancer with decent success in a DIY setting.
Yes I have a bubble balancer.........it's way more decor than a useable tool.
Reference above. Particularly, when thinking about the 'criticalness' of dynamic balancing, and the 'high quality' ability to balance a flexible rotor dynamically.
Stop using those cheapo challenger style bubble balancers. Those are all out of China (harbor freight, Ranger, etc).
The bubble site on those, unless you're using a magnifying glass is only good for an average static balance.
Look at the size difference between those and a proper vintage balancer:
Sorry, but you do not know WTF you are talking about. The only way for that to be possible would be if you strapped weights to the rotating assembly. And a LOT of weight at that, because weight close to the shaft has less effect than weight further out.
Think about it inversely: if the sensors and calculations are happening on the part of the shaft that moves the least. Any wear on that end would have the most effect on the readings and calculations.
Also, relax a bit, telling people they dont know what they are talking about or saying WTF or BS, doesn't strengthen your points in the least. It comes off as some sort of superiority complex.
There is nothing wrong with a healthy debate, even if we end up agreeing to disagree.
