| |
Main
Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:06:44
From: zencycle
Subject: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
I just read an article where Mr. Brandt claims that road tire glue
adds significant rolling resistance to a high-end tubular wheel/tire
combination as compared to a high-end clincher tire/rim combination.
Is there empirical data available to support this claim? Any
dissenting opinions?
No flaming please, I'm looking into a high-end wheelset, and would
like to be sure before I spend $1500+.
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 01:18:05
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 27, 10:10 am, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> > > > tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the
> > > > market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted their
> > > > thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
>
> > > If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which have
> > > too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say that your
> > > theory is flawed.
>
> > Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> > chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I have
> > been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
>
> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding sewups?
> ;-)
Surely "hidebound traditionalist" refers to people
who simply refuse to give up on their precious
leather handlebar wrap.
Someone who rides nothing but handmade frighteningly
expensive A. Dugast sewups would be, by RBT convention,
a silkbound traditionalist.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:40:59
From: Mike Krueger
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 26, 1:51 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1185375166.596953.154...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike Krueger <skuba...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Repairing my own tubulars is not something I would be comfortable
> > doing,
>
> That's much like saying "adjusting my own saddle position is not
> something I would be comfortable doing."
Not the same thing at all. I know guys who will pay a LBS to fit-kit
their positions on their bikes, or even adjust the limit screws on
their derailleurs if their shifting goes out of whack. They pay
someone else to replace a chain or a spoke. These guys spend half as
much on a high-end bicycle as I would be willing to spend on a new
car.
When it comes to buiding up my bikes from bare frames and components,
and repairing and maintaining them as necessary, I am completely self-
sufficient. The only thing I don't have the tools to do is press in a
headset, which needs only to be done once in the lifetime of a frame
(thank you, Chris King) or lace a wheel from scratch (my buddy has
personally hand-built 2,500 wheels, so I leave it to him). Other than
that, I can do it myself.
However, repairing tubulars, with the cutting and the patching and
the stitching and the re-adhering the base tape just doesn't appeal to
me. For the time and effort required, I would rather just stick on a
new tire.
In the real world, with the ups and downs of my investments, plus what
I spend on property taxes and maintenence of my home, medical care and
insurance, and even food, the cost of buying a few new tubular tires
every year is not going to impact me financially.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:06:14
From: Mike Krueger
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 26, 10:51 am, vc_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Mike Krueger wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 9:52 am, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> > Repairing my own tubulars is not something I would be comfortable
> > doing,
>
> You might consider using Tire Alert for the low mileage flats. I did
> this recently for some CX's that had defective valve stems. Very good
> quality and service.
>
> Thanks for the Probikekit.com tip.
>
> Greg Hall
I used Tire Alert several times to retube punctured tubulars. In my
experience, the adhesive that they used to attach the new base tapes
to the casings was not strong enough, so that if it punctured again,
and I attempted to remove the tire from the rim, the casing would peel
away, but the base tape would separate and stay firmly stuck to the
rim. This made changing tubulars on the road much too difficult.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 07:51:06
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Mike Krueger wrote:
> On Jul 25, 9:52 am, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> Repairing my own tubulars is not something I would be comfortable
> doing,
You might consider using Tire Alert for the low mileage flats. I did
this recently for some CX's that had defective valve stems. Very good
quality and service.
Thanks for the Probikekit.com tip.
Greg Hall
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 04:07:45
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 25, 10:59 pm, "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote in messagenews:o6lfa3dr848m6vvruojqk6htturniaiqgd@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:28:56 -0700, "* * Chas"
> > <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> > >"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote in message
> > >news:9lbea31lofr3afdaqvtrnu89gnhp8t83o3@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:21:53 -0700, "* * Chas"
> > >> <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >I just picked up a NOS set of Campy sewup wheels with 36H Victory
> > >Strada
> > >> >rims, SS Spokes and SR hubs for $100.
>
> > >> >I need to respoke the rear wheel from 15g to 14g and I'll be set.
>
> > >> Set for what? That's a pretty bizarre wheel set - what's it's
> > >> purpose?
>
> > >> --
> > >> JT
>
> > >Brand new standard sewup wheels from the 1980s - 4x 15g stainless
> spokes
> > >with vintage Campy Victory Strada rims and low flange Super Record hubs
> > >(steel axles).
>
> > >Nothing bizarre, the only thing strange is the 15g spokes front and
> rear,
> > >probably built for a light rider.
> > They are bizarre in 2007 -- especially since they are not new in the
> > sense that have to work on them.
I ran a GL330 rear w/ 32 15ga spokes for many years without a problem.
Perhaps you should just make sure the tension is proper and balanced
and give 'em a whirl. IIRC, the Victory Strada will tolerate a higher
tension level than a GL330, so I think the prospects are good.
>
> > Those were sturdy all-around racing wheels back in they. Now they are
> > way behind the times for racing and for other uses there is no point
> > to tubulars + you will respoke them?
>
> > I don't see the point at all.
> > --
> > JT
>
> To go on one of my mid 1980s retro bikes that I ride....
>
> Non veho carbo carbonis fiber
>
> EX VATICAN - VIDI EGO TACITUS VENI
>
> Chas.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 00:41:04
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 25, 4:36 pm, Michael Press wrote:
>
> Thin walled, thin tread clinchers with no tread.
Huh? "Smooth" for "no"?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:20:27
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
> Michael Press wrote:
>> Thin walled, thin tread clinchers with no tread.
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Huh? "Smooth" for "no"?
Semantics.
I understood that to mean Yes a rubber cover over the casing but No 3d
pattern molded in that rubber.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 16:17:39
From: Camilo
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 25, 7:15 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>
> The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure propellor-head
> foolishness. ...
I like the visual, but am wondering if propellorhead refers to
aeronautical engineers or buys wearing beanies with propellors on the
top?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:30:44
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:17:39 -0700, Camilo <campascual@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Jul 25, 7:15 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure propellor-head
>> foolishness. ...
>
>I like the visual, but am wondering if propellorhead refers to
>aeronautical engineers or buys wearing beanies with propellors on the
>top?
Boys wearing beanies with propellors on the top - antiquated slang for what'd
now be an uber-dork.
Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 08:49:31
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:jubha3lhfk7s6st530a4uqvmut4n9s0896@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:17:39 -0700, Camilo <campascual@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 25, 7:15 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure
propellor-head
> >> foolishness. ...
> >
> >I like the visual, but am wondering if propellorhead refers to
> >aeronautical engineers or buys wearing beanies with propellors on the
> >top?
>
> Boys wearing beanies with propellors on the top - antiquated slang for
what'd
> now be an uber-dork.
>
> Ron
Computer geeks.....
Chas.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 16:28:53
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article
<a4Wdnfu905DTXzXbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:jubha3lhfk7s6st530a4uqvmut4n9s0896@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:17:39 -0700, Camilo <campascual@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Jul 25, 7:15 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure
> propellor-head
> > >> foolishness. ...
> > >
> > >I like the visual, but am wondering if propellorhead refers to
> > >aeronautical engineers or buys wearing beanies with propellors on the
> > >top?
> >
> > Boys wearing beanies with propellors on the top - antiquated slang for
> what'd
> > now be an uber-dork.
> >
> > Ron
>
> Computer geeks.....
Knew a guy whose company business card gave his title as
Chief Propellor Head
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 11:10:50
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-026C14.16285329072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article
> <a4Wdnfu905DTXzXbnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> > "RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:jubha3lhfk7s6st530a4uqvmut4n9s0896@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:17:39 -0700, Camilo <campascual@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Jul 25, 7:15 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure
> > propellor-head
> > > >> foolishness. ...
> > > >
> > > >I like the visual, but am wondering if propellorhead refers to
> > > >aeronautical engineers or buys wearing beanies with propellors on
the
> > > >top?
> > >
> > > Boys wearing beanies with propellors on the top - antiquated slang
for
> > what'd
> > > now be an uber-dork.
> > >
> > > Ron
> >
> > Computer geeks.....
>
> Knew a guy whose company business card gave his title as
>
> Chief Propellor Head
>
> --
> Michael Press
I had one card that said: "Greetings, I'm the SOB from the main office
with ALL the answers" and another that gave my title as "Tool Pimp".
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 21:11:40
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"Camilo" <campascual@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1185405459.753658.26430@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 7:15 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure
propellor-head
> > foolishness. ...
>
> I like the visual, but am wondering if propellorhead refers to
> aeronautical engineers or buys wearing beanies with propellors on the
> top?
>
Microsoft bikers...
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 20:44:58
From: zencycle
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 25, 2:19 pm, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com > wrote:
> In article <DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vn...@comcast.com>, * * Chas
>
> <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> > I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
> > the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
> > There are a few clinchers that come close to the feel of sewups but none
> > that match them.
>
> What clinchers would those be? Thanks.
I would venture a guess it had more to do with the wheels than just
the tires. A sew-up combination is generally speaking lighter than a
typical clincher set-up, and climbing is where you feel this the most,
you'll get a much more responsive feel with being harsh. Over the
years, I've ridden some pretty crappy sew-ups, much worse than the
average 'performance' clincher. These days, tire technology has come
so far that pro-tour professionals are willing to race a high end
clincher because there is not enough of a difference to cover the fact
that a sponsor will pay them to ride the clinchers. If it were enough
of a difference, you'd see them turning the offer down.
I should stop, I'm talking my self out of the tubular wheelset I'm
looking at.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 21:10:38
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"zencycle" <zencycle@bikerider.com > wrote in message
news:1185396298.755170.14400@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 2:19 pm, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > In article <DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vn...@comcast.com>, * * Chas
> >
> > <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
> > > I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time
since
> > > the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when
climbing.
> > > There are a few clinchers that come close to the feel of sewups but
none
> > > that match them.
> >
> > What clinchers would those be? Thanks.
>
> I would venture a guess it had more to do with the wheels than just
> the tires. A sew-up combination is generally speaking lighter than a
> typical clincher set-up, and climbing is where you feel this the most,
> you'll get a much more responsive feel with being harsh. Over the
> years, I've ridden some pretty crappy sew-ups, much worse than the
> average 'performance' clincher. These days, tire technology has come
> so far that pro-tour professionals are willing to race a high end
> clincher because there is not enough of a difference to cover the fact
> that a sponsor will pay them to ride the clinchers. If it were enough
> of a difference, you'd see them turning the offer down.
>
> I should stop, I'm talking my self out of the tubular wheelset I'm
> looking at.
>
Yes, it's the lighter weight that makes climbing and accelerating easier.
Light weight flywheels on race cars.
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 17:33:37
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:10:38 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>Yes, it's the lighter weight that makes climbing and accelerating easier.
>Light weight flywheels on race cars.
>
>Chas.
but lighter flywheels don't have the rotational inertia of heavy
flywheels, so you get better acceleration of the motor but a rougher
idle and rougher running when you're not pushing the rpms.
Based on this, I predict that you will lack stability when coming down
the hill at lower speeds and just won't ride as smoothly as the
clincher boys.
(Whaaaat...it makes as much sense as most other stuff I see on the
USEnet :-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 16:01:31
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article
<1gmha35n6a1be5o1b6n233pqad7juujrp8@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:10:38 -0700, "* * Chas"
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, it's the lighter weight that makes climbing and accelerating easier.
> >Light weight flywheels on race cars.
> >
> >Chas.
> but lighter flywheels don't have the rotational inertia of heavy
> flywheels, so you get better acceleration of the motor but a rougher
> idle and rougher running when you're not pushing the rpms.
>
> Based on this, I predict that you will lack stability when coming down
> the hill at lower speeds and just won't ride as smoothly as the
> clincher boys.
>
> (Whaaaat...it makes as much sense as most other stuff I see on the
> USEnet :-)
It's twaddle, but it is not great twaddle.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:07:30
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"zencycle" <zencycle@bikerider.com > wrote in message
news:1185396298.755170.14400@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 2:19 pm, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> In article <DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vn...@comcast.com>, * * Chas
>>
>> <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>> > I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
>> > the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
>> > There are a few clinchers that come close to the feel of sewups but
>> > none
>> > that match them.
>>
>> What clinchers would those be? Thanks.
>
> I would venture a guess it had more to do with the wheels than just
> the tires. A sew-up combination is generally speaking lighter than a
> typical clincher set-up, and climbing is where you feel this the most,
> you'll get a much more responsive feel with being harsh. Over the
> years, I've ridden some pretty crappy sew-ups, much worse than the
> average 'performance' clincher. These days, tire technology has come
> so far that pro-tour professionals are willing to race a high end
> clincher because there is not enough of a difference to cover the fact
> that a sponsor will pay them to ride the clinchers. If it were enough
> of a difference, you'd see them turning the offer down.
>
> I should stop, I'm talking my self out of the tubular wheelset I'm
> looking at.
>
Is that the $1500+ set you're were thinking of?
-tom
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:30:04
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 25, 9:57 am, "Tom Nakashima" <t...@slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
> "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote in messagenews:DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
> > the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
> > Chas.
>
> They feel different to you when you're climbing?
> As I recall, they felt the same, whether climbing or riding flats.
O.K., that's it. I am going to re-build my sew-ups and try them again
to see if they are magical. The last two times I rode sew-ups was ten
years ago in my waning days of masters racing. I flatted both times,
which really pissed me off. In one race, I was thrown in with the
1/2s and, of course, got shelled on a long climb. Neutral support
drove by waiving. I flatted. Waaaaah. I sat around with a corner
marshal in the middle of nowhere until the course was closed. Not
that I never flatted on clinchers, but two out of two races on sew-ups
soured me. They also did not seem that magical at the time -- or at
least not magical enough to save an old man from certain shelldome. --
Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:59:39
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message
news:1185384604.182179.131150@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 9:57 am, "Tom Nakashima" <t...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> "* * Chas" <verktygj...@aol.spamski.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
>> > the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
>> > Chas.
>>
>> They feel different to you when you're climbing?
>> As I recall, they felt the same, whether climbing or riding flats.
>
> O.K., that's it. I am going to re-build my sew-ups and try them again
> to see if they are magical. The last two times I rode sew-ups was ten
> years ago in my waning days of masters racing. I flatted both times,
> which really pissed me off. In one race, I was thrown in with the
> 1/2s and, of course, got shelled on a long climb. Neutral support
> drove by waiving. I flatted. Waaaaah. I sat around with a corner
> marshal in the middle of nowhere until the course was closed. Not
> that I never flatted on clinchers, but two out of two races on sew-ups
> soured me. They also did not seem that magical at the time -- or at
> least not magical enough to save an old man from certain shelldome. --
> Jay Beattie.
>
Jay, funny that you mentioned one of the last time you rode sew-ups,
you got two flats. The same happened to me about 15 years ago. I just got
done changing a flat of a tubular with a spare I had.
I was coming home from Mt. Hamilton riding through the East Side of San
Jose. Rode about 2 miles and got another flat on the tire I just installed.
I remember picking out the thorn. I only carried one good spare tubular,
and I was too lazy and tired to patch the flat with the needle kit, so I
took Bus 22 which runs 35 miles from San Jose to Palo Alto...in my cycling
spandex. I hadn't taken the bus since I was in grade school, so I handed
the driver a $20 bill. He laughed and told me to just get on. Made it home
ok without doing a Ned Beatty imitation of a squealing pig from some of the
stares I got on that bus, but it was enough to get me to change to
clinchers.
-tom
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 11:15:41
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:44 -0000, zencycle <zencycle@bikerider.com > wrote:
>I just read an article where Mr. Brandt claims that road tire glue
>adds significant rolling resistance to a high-end tubular wheel/tire
>combination as compared to a high-end clincher tire/rim combination.
>Is there empirical data available to support this claim? Any
>dissenting opinions?
>
>No flaming please, I'm looking into a high-end wheelset, and would
>like to be sure before I spend $1500+.
The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure propellor-head
foolishness. The comparison of glues is even worse.
Ride the clincher if the convenience is an issue, or sewups if it isn't.
There really is a reason the pro peloton has stuck with sewups even when it
conflicts with a sponsor's product line. Around here you'll get all sorts of
weird conflicting stories, that pro's just ride what their given, unless the
subject is tires then they'll say that the pro's are morons who just ride
according to superstition and lore. Ignore it and ride what works and feels good
for you.
Ron
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:37:02
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:ropea3ht1bnpqqik3f9p6k5jek4lhel7i4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:44 -0000, zencycle <zencycle@bikerider.com>
wrote:
>
> >I just read an article where Mr. Brandt claims that road tire glue
> >adds significant rolling resistance to a high-end tubular wheel/tire
> >combination as compared to a high-end clincher tire/rim combination.
> >Is there empirical data available to support this claim? Any
> >dissenting opinions?
> >
> >No flaming please, I'm looking into a high-end wheelset, and would
> >like to be sure before I spend $1500+.
>
> The resistance measurements between sewup and clincher are pure
propellor-head
> foolishness. The comparison of glues is even worse.
>
> Ride the clincher if the convenience is an issue, or sewups if it isn't.
>
> There really is a reason the pro peloton has stuck with sewups even when
it
> conflicts with a sponsor's product line. Around here you'll get all
sorts of
> weird conflicting stories, that pro's just ride what their given, unless
the
> subject is tires then they'll say that the pro's are morons who just
ride
> according to superstition and lore. Ignore it and ride what works and
feels good
> for you.
>
> Ron
Sewups are great if you live in an area where you don't have problems with
goatheads or get a lot of flats with clinchers.
I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
There are a few clinchers that come close to the feel of sewups but none
that match them.
I've run my sewups at 85 to 90 PSI and never had any problems except
occasional flats from goatheads.
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:19:33
From: Luke
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com >, * * Chas
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
> the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
> There are a few clinchers that come close to the feel of sewups but none
> that match them.
What clinchers would those be? Thanks.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 21:08:15
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote in message
news:250720071419339248%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
> In article <DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, * * Chas
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> > I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time
since
> > the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
> > There are a few clinchers that come close to the feel of sewups but
none
> > that match them.
>
> What clinchers would those be? Thanks.
Panaracer Paselas have a nice light bouncy feel at 90PSI. I rode big fat
Clement cotton Paris-Robaix sewups most of the time, occasionally Del
Mundos or the lighter Paris-Robaix silks. I kept my sewups at 85-90PSI.
Guys running at 100 or higher PSI always had flats.
Chas.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 14:36:26
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article
<250720071419339248%lucasiragusa@rogers.com >,
Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > wrote:
> In article <DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com>, * * Chas
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> > I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
> > the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
> > There are a few clinchers that come close to the feel of sewups but none
> > that match them.
>
> What clinchers would those be? Thanks.
Thin walled, thin tread clinchers with no tread.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:57:32
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote in message
news:DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
> the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
> Chas.
They feel different to you when you're climbing?
As I recall, they felt the same, whether climbing or riding flats.
-tom
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 13:44:18
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing. But
> OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
> product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
> CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs....
There is a small, but oh so vocal; group that claims the LP is the
best consumer medium for sound reproduction. They are more rabid in
the defense of the LP's sound quality than jim beam is of the
durability of pre-built Mavic wheels. Consider yourself warned.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 19:47:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1185741858.809695.293760@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > ... Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of
> > marketing. But OTOH we find that the market does winnow things
> > down to the better product. For example, replacing the LP album
> > and cassette tapes with CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs....
>
> There is a small, but oh so vocal; group that claims the LP is the
> best consumer medium for sound reproduction. They are more rabid in
> the defense of the LP's sound quality than jim beam is of the
> durability of pre-built Mavic wheels. Consider yourself warned.
Yes, I am aware of that- not to mention tube versus solid state
amplification. My other avocation is playing guitar and the tube amp
versus solid-state guitar amp debate is similarly lethal- as well as
whether preamp versus power stage distortion is better in tube amps.
This newsgroup is genteel compared to many.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 17:59:01
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:44:18 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> ...
>> Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing. But
>> OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
>> product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
>> CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs....
>
>There is a small, but oh so vocal; group that claims the LP is the
>best consumer medium for sound reproduction. They are more rabid in
>the defense of the LP's sound quality than jim beam is of the
>durability of pre-built Mavic wheels. Consider yourself warned.
Vinyl is vastly better than cassette or 8-track, not as convenient as CD but
comparable if not better in sound quality. All of that pales compared to reel to
reel tape. That's the real medium for audio enjoyment.
Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 06:21:00
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <m73qa3593li7do89d37mq8df3p9o3gat0l@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:44:18 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Tim McNamara wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing. But
> >> OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
> >> product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
> >> CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs....
> >
> >There is a small, but oh so vocal; group that claims the LP is the
> >best consumer medium for sound reproduction. They are more rabid in
> >the defense of the LP's sound quality than jim beam is of the
> >durability of pre-built Mavic wheels. Consider yourself warned.
>
> Vinyl is vastly better than cassette or 8-track, not as convenient as CD but
> comparable if not better in sound quality. All of that pales compared to reel
> to
> reel tape. That's the real medium for audio enjoyment.
>
> Ron
I'll see your reel-to-reel and raise you 192 khz 24-bit samples direct
from the hard drive they were mixed on, played through studio monitors
if you must, but in-ear monitors for best price-performance. :)
The irony, of course, is that DVD-A and SACD arrived, with their
all-but-indisputable best-ever consumer audio experience, just in time
to disappear into a sea of indifference as people started choosing
lossy-compressed audio as their preferred medium.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 14:01:31
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> ...
>> Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing. But
>> OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
>> product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
>> CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs....
>
> There is a small, but oh so vocal; group that claims the LP is the
> best consumer medium for sound reproduction. They are more rabid in
> the defense of the LP's sound quality than jim beam is of the
> durability of pre-built Mavic wheels. Consider yourself warned.
don't put words in my mouth tom. i /do/ foam at the mouth, but any
particular wheel brand is low down the list. brinelling, "stress
relief", fatigue, anisotropy and fantasies about "wheel strength
increases with increasing spoke tension" are much more likely to get the
sputum bubbling.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 18:59:32
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:57:32 -0700, "Tom Nakashima"
<tom@slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
>
>"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
>news:DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
>> the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
>> Chas.
>
>They feel different to you when you're climbing?
>As I recall, they felt the same, whether climbing or riding flats.
Yeah, I rode tubulars a lot in the late 1980s and still use them
occassionally and can't notice any difference in feel.
The rims are lighter (especially for aero rims), they resist pinch
flats better and can be ridden more easily when flat.
Other than that I don's see the difference.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 17:36:00
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sep 1, 7:40 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> I haven't seen any.
You're a day (or so) late and a dollar short.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 18:04:55
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 8, 11:13 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 7, 4:19 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> CRAP! I had the slip.angle.wet backwards. It's measured from
> vertical, not horizontal, so -->LOWER<-- slip.angle.wet implies better
> traction. The rain tires generally do have better traction than plain
> tires.
You mean it's measured from horizontal, right? So a tire
with a high slip.angle.wet of 60 slips when the wheel is
at 60 deg to the ground, or 30 deg to the vertical. That
would be poor traction performance.
The tires have slip.angle.wet of about 45 to 60 and the
rain tires have lower slip.angle.wet. The values of
45 to 60 are why I think it's measured from the horizontal.
If the test approximates real conditions, 45 deg from
vertical is outrageously good in the wet. I don't think
you can lean a bike over at 60 deg from vertical even in
dry weather without sliding out.
Ben
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 12:25:52
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 8, 8:58 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote:
> The "CotonTech+" looks like a very high performance tyre in that case.
> Expensive, too.
http://www.fm-boyaux.fr/index.htm
I had figured out that the angle was measured from vertical last
February but forgot to make a specific note of it in my data file. I
did notice that that there was a surprising difference between the
Vittoria Rubino Pros in 23mm and 25mm sizes, so I sought one out to
buy. It wasn't until my ride this afternoon that I looked down and
realized I had a 25 on, so I went back to look at the article.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 11:13:31
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 7, 4:19 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote:
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 5:24 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
> >> What is the meaning (and the units) for each axis? Here are my guesses...
>
> >> Slip.angle.wet is the angle (in degrees) at which the tyre slips in some
> >> cornering simulation. Higher slip.angle.wet implies better traction.
>
> >> Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
> >> some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
> >> resistance.
>
> > Yup, and yup.
CRAP! I had the slip.angle.wet backwards. It's measured from
vertical, not horizontal, so -- >LOWER<-- slip.angle.wet implies better
traction. The rain tires generally do have better traction than plain
tires.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 14:58:22
From: dvt
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 7, 4:19 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 5:24 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>>>> What is the meaning (and the units) for each axis? Here are my guesses...
>>>> Slip.angle.wet is the angle (in degrees) at which the tyre slips in some
>>>> cornering simulation. Higher slip.angle.wet implies better traction.
>>>> Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
>>>> some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
>>>> resistance.
>>> Yup, and yup.
>
> CRAP! I had the slip.angle.wet backwards. It's measured from
> vertical, not horizontal, so -->LOWER<-- slip.angle.wet implies better
> traction. The rain tires generally do have better traction than plain
> tires.
The "CotonTech+" looks like a very high performance tyre in that case.
Expensive, too.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:13:16
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt (TIOOYK) vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 7, 7:44 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> >> I suspect it's some sense of linguistic
> >> embarassment that keeps Americans from becoming acquainted with languages
> >> other than English, but the USA is pretty multilingual these days.
> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > I think it's more a state of linguistic isolation. However, to the
> > degree that the USA is becoming multilingual, it is really more
> > bilingual with Latin American Spanish, which won't help that much in
> > translating a French article. My children when they were in private
> > school were taught French from pre-K on, because, I think, it is
> > considered the modern classic language, the contemporary equivalent of
> > Latin.
>
> Huh.
> I thought it was because there aren't qualified Latin teachers.
I don't know about in general but the schools where they were taught
French also had Latin and it was required in 6-8th grade.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:09:49
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt (TIOOYK) vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 7, 7:07 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1186524137.517222.146...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 1:27 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> > > I suspect it's some sense of linguistic embarassment that keeps
> > > Americans from becoming acquainted with languages other than
> > > English, but the USA is pretty multilingual these days.
>
> > I think it's more a state of linguistic isolation. However, to the
> > degree that the USA is becoming multilingual, it is really more
> > bilingual with Latin American Spanish, which won't help that much in
> > translating a French article.
>
> IIRC the last census showed that English and Spanish were the most
> common languages spoken in US homes, with everything else lagging far
> behind. But I suspect there is a lot of regional variation. Locally we
> have a sizeable Spanish speaking population, but we have pretty large
> communities of Hmong and Somalis in particular.
>
> > My children when they were in private school were taught French from
> > pre-K on, because, I think, it is considered the modern classic
> > language, the contemporary equivalent of Latin. In public schools now
> > they are being taught no foreign language, and we're in Fairfax
> > County, generally considered to be one of the best school districts
> > in the US.
>
> Not having kids, I didn't know that public schools have scaled back on
> languages. Is that pretty universal? I suppose it's maybe another
> consequence of schools focusing their curriculum on training kids to
> pass the NCLB tests rather than actually educating them.
There are some elementary schools in Fairfax County where foreign
language is taught, including immersion schools, but they are
exceptions. Foreign language is available starting from 7th grade,
which misses the period when kids benefit the most from exposure to a
foreign language. A large number of schools have an ESL focus. In
general Fairfax County schools are pretty well funded, so I'm not sure
to what degree that enters into the picture.
My kids go to GT centers so there is not a huge amount of time spent
on training them for the tests but even that is probably a waste,
since they are not at risk for failing them. The GT kids help the
average, so they try to squeeze extra points out of them as well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 15:02:17
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt (TIOOYK) vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 6, 1:27 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> I suspect it's some sense of linguistic
> embarassment that keeps Americans from becoming acquainted with languages
> other than English, but the USA is pretty multilingual these days.
I think it's more a state of linguistic isolation. However, to the
degree that the USA is becoming multilingual, it is really more
bilingual with Latin American Spanish, which won't help that much in
translating a French article. My children when they were in private
school were taught French from pre-K on, because, I think, it is
considered the modern classic language, the contemporary equivalent of
Latin. In public schools now they are being taught no foreign
language, and we're in Fairfax County, generally considered to be one
of the best school districts in the US.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:44:31
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt (TIOOYK) vs. Tire Glue
|
> "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> I suspect it's some sense of linguistic
>> embarassment that keeps Americans from becoming acquainted with languages
>> other than English, but the USA is pretty multilingual these days.
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> I think it's more a state of linguistic isolation. However, to the
> degree that the USA is becoming multilingual, it is really more
> bilingual with Latin American Spanish, which won't help that much in
> translating a French article. My children when they were in private
> school were taught French from pre-K on, because, I think, it is
> considered the modern classic language, the contemporary equivalent of
> Latin.
Huh.
I thought it was because there aren't qualified Latin teachers.
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> In public schools now they are being taught no foreign
> language, and we're in Fairfax County, generally considered to be one
> of the best school districts in the US.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:07:52
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt (TIOOYK) vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186524137.517222.146720@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Aug 6, 1:27 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
> > I suspect it's some sense of linguistic embarassment that keeps
> > Americans from becoming acquainted with languages other than
> > English, but the USA is pretty multilingual these days.
>
> I think it's more a state of linguistic isolation. However, to the
> degree that the USA is becoming multilingual, it is really more
> bilingual with Latin American Spanish, which won't help that much in
> translating a French article.
IIRC the last census showed that English and Spanish were the most
common languages spoken in US homes, with everything else lagging far
behind. But I suspect there is a lot of regional variation. Locally we
have a sizeable Spanish speaking population, but we have pretty large
communities of Hmong and Somalis in particular.
> My children when they were in private school were taught French from
> pre-K on, because, I think, it is considered the modern classic
> language, the contemporary equivalent of Latin. In public schools now
> they are being taught no foreign language, and we're in Fairfax
> County, generally considered to be one of the best school districts
> in the US.
Not having kids, I didn't know that public schools have scaled back on
languages. Is that pretty universal? I suppose it's maybe another
consequence of schools focusing their curriculum on training kids to
pass the NCLB tests rather than actually educating them.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 14:54:07
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 6, 11:24 am, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote:
> Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
> some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
> resistance.
Interesting that this testing, which shows tubulars with the best rr
uses a rollout test, presumably on a real bicycle, while all the
others showing clinchers as better seem to use a smooth stationary
drum. Just another factor in the confusion. Wonder how Le Cycle glued
the tires.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:24:30
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 7, 4:19 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote:
> There is a group of 4-6 tyres with low cost and high rollout in your
> chart. Maybe the article would be worth the price if I could translate
> enough French to figure out which tyres made up that group.
Doesn't take much French to read a table. However, I would think that
price and RR aren't the only variables one should consider. There are
lots of interesting little oddities one can discover if one reads the
tables.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:21:18
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 7, 10:58 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> > As I said, the real lesson is that the distributions overlap so it
> > doesn't make much sense to talk about tubulars vs. clinchers. One must
> > specify which tubular, and which clincher. Perhaps surprisingly, many
> > "plain" tires show better wet traction than many "rain" tires.
>
> > BTW:http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle2.png
>
> Really [On the overlap question] ???
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
> Your second plot suggests I'm not
> right about the weight, but that maybe price is
> the direct correlative. There are no cheap
> icky tubulars any more, so maybe that leaves the
> remaining tubies at the high price/low RR end of
> the spectrum.
There is, however, an expensive icky tubular:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle3.png
> BTW, nobody's ever answered the implied question in
> the title, "Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue." I will
> offer a guess: Tire glue is stickier at first, but
> Jobst is more difficult to peel off once applied
> to a subject.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 01:58:27
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 6, 1:52 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 6, 5:24 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> > What is the meaning (and the units) for each axis? Here are my guesses...
>
> > Slip.angle.wet is the angle (in degrees) at which the tyre slips in some
> > cornering simulation. Higher slip.angle.wet implies better traction.
>
> > Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
> > some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
> > resistance.
>
> Yup, and yup.
>
> As I said, the real lesson is that the distributions overlap so it
> doesn't make much sense to talk about tubulars vs. clinchers. One must
> specify which tubular, and which clincher. Perhaps surprisingly, many
> "plain" tires show better wet traction than many "rain" tires.
>
> BTW:http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle2.png
>
> Price is more highly correlated with RR than with wet traction.
Really [On the overlap question] ???
When I look at the first plot, I see that
the tires highest in rollout are mostly tubulars,
although the distributions do overlap as you say.
Also the rain tires tend to be low in rollout.
I would have guessed that this was not something
intrinsic to tubular vs clincher, but an effect of
weight. (I was guessing the tubulars are more likely
to be fancy light tires that have little rubber and
low RR, while rain tires are probably heavier and
have high RR). Your second plot suggests I'm not
right about the weight, but that maybe price is
the direct correlative. There are no cheap
icky tubulars any more, so maybe that leaves the
remaining tubies at the high price/low RR end of
the spectrum.
BTW, nobody's ever answered the implied question in
the title, "Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue." I will
offer a guess: Tire glue is stickier at first, but
Jobst is more difficult to peel off once applied
to a subject.
Ben
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 13:52:19
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 6, 5:24 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu > wrote:
> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> What is the meaning (and the units) for each axis? Here are my guesses...
>
> Slip.angle.wet is the angle (in degrees) at which the tyre slips in some
> cornering simulation. Higher slip.angle.wet implies better traction.
>
> Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
> some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
> resistance.
Yup, and yup.
As I said, the real lesson is that the distributions overlap so it
doesn't make much sense to talk about tubulars vs. clinchers. One must
specify which tubular, and which clincher. Perhaps surprisingly, many
"plain" tires show better wet traction than many "rain" tires.
BTW:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle2.png
Price is more highly correlated with RR than with wet traction.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 10:19:24
From: dvt
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 6, 5:24 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>> What is the meaning (and the units) for each axis? Here are my guesses...
>>
>> Slip.angle.wet is the angle (in degrees) at which the tyre slips in some
>> cornering simulation. Higher slip.angle.wet implies better traction.
>>
>> Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
>> some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
>> resistance.
>
> Yup, and yup.
Thanks for the answer.
> As I said, the real lesson is that the distributions overlap so it
> doesn't make much sense to talk about tubulars vs. clinchers. One must
> specify which tubular, and which clincher. Perhaps surprisingly, many
> "plain" tires show better wet traction than many "rain" tires.
>
> BTW:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle2.png
Ahhh, the ChungChart!
> Price is more highly correlated with RR than with wet traction.
That is interesting, isn't it?
There is a group of 4-6 tyres with low cost and high rollout in your
chart. Maybe the article would be worth the price if I could translate
enough French to figure out which tyres made up that group.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 13:37:33
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt (TIOOYK) vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 6, 7:27 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> And finding a girl to help translate the more
> difficult stuff.
AKA "a bedside dictionary."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:14:51
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 4, 5:06 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1186178848.334099.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> > > That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> > > specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
> > > fitted to curves, etc.
>
> > Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
> > says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
> > tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
> > {tubulars
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 12:36:22
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186204491.041545.125560@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 4, 5:06 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <1186178848.334099.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
> >
> > > > That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> > > > specification of what tires were measured, the data points have
> > > > not been fitted to curves, etc.
> >
> > > Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What
> > > it says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different
> > > groups of tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to
> > > treat all {tubulars
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:07:28
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
> fitted to curves, etc.
Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
{tubulars
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:06:45
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186178848.334099.3520@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
> >
> > That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> > specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
> > fitted to curves, etc.
>
> Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
> says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
> tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
> {tubulars
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:41:01
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:07:28 -0000, rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
>On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>>
>> That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
>> specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
>> fitted to curves, etc.
>
>Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
>says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
>tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
>{tubulars
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 05:45:21
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 2, 1:17 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
>
> >>>> Here's some recent research:
>
> >>>>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>
> >>>> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
> >>>> than the best tubular:
>
> and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last year, where they
> showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and tubular, half were of each
> type. I can't recall the order, etc., but it's in my earlier posting. The
> print magazine has the full detailed testing.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 13:18:34
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com > writes:
>>> Here's some recent research:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers
>>> better than the best tubular:
>> and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last year, where they
>> showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and tubular, half were
>> of each type. I can't recall the order, etc., but it's in my
>> earlier posting. The print magazine has the full detailed testing.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
That graph is a great scatter plot but the axes do not make clear what
was being measured and under what conditions.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 11:24:12
From: dvt
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Robert Chung wrote:
> On Aug 2, 1:17 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last year, where they
>> showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and tubular, half were of each
>> type. I can't recall the order, etc., but it's in my earlier posting. The
>> print magazine has the full detailed testing.
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
What is the meaning (and the units) for each axis? Here are my guesses...
Slip.angle.wet is the angle (in degrees) at which the tyre slips in some
cornering simulation. Higher slip.angle.wet implies better traction.
Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
resistance.
At the risk of raising Sandy's ire, the link to the test source [1]
doesn't help me. Even if I ordered the back issue, I wouldn't be able to
understand it since I can't read French.
1. http://www.lecycle.fr/sommaire.php?num=360
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:27:58
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt (TIOOYK) vs. Tire Glue
|
Dans le message de news:f97ees$1bmu$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu,
dvt <dvt+usenet@psu.edu > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 1:17 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>>> and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last year, where they
>>> showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and tubular, half were
>>> of each type. I can't recall the order, etc., but it's in my
>>> earlier posting. The print magazine has the full detailed testing.
>
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> What is the meaning (and the units) for each axis? Here are my
> guesses...
> Slip.angle.wet is the angle (in degrees) at which the tyre slips in
> some cornering simulation. Higher slip.angle.wet implies better
> traction.
> Rollout is the distance (units are anyone's guess) the tyre rolls in
> some sort of coast down test. Higher rollout implies lower rolling
> resistance.
>
> At the risk of raising Sandy's ire, the link to the test source [1]
> doesn't help me. Even if I ordered the back issue, I wouldn't be able
> to understand it since I can't read French.
No offense taken. However, working as a lawyer all over the world, mostly
with petro engineers, they talk across languages when data is before them.
They also tend to gain a little foreign vocabulary on the way. The numbers,
as you may note in Robert's chart, are pretty indicative of what is being
discussed, and your inferences of what they mean will let you have an easy
time with the print article. I suspect it's some sense of linguistic
embarassment that keeps Americans from becoming acquainted with languages
other than English, but the USA is pretty multilingual these days.
Another reason to get the mag - they do very nice ride itineraries, so if
you happen to fall into a plane coming here, you have a leg up on some nice
routes. Especially the Hard Hill that is now a monthly feature. Reading
kilometres and percentages, while looking at pictures can make for fun
reading and learning. And finding a girl to help translate the more
difficult stuff.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******
La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:49:53
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186145121.051689.89960@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 1:17 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> Here's some recent research:
> >
> > >>>>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
> >
> > >>>> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers
> > >>>> better than the best tubular:
> >
> > and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last year, where they
> > showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and tubular, half were
> > of each type. I can't recall the order, etc., but it's in my
> > earlier posting. The print magazine has the full detailed testing.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
fitted to curves, etc.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:54:46
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 2, 10:24 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1186051467.765809.290...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> > advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
> > the relative importance of these variables.
>
> The relative importance is the key issue. Is a .001 or .003 difference
> in Crr worth worrying about? I would very much tend to doubt it.
Me, too. However, we don't have any idea what the difference really
is, or if we do, the evidence suggests that it is much more than that.
Jobst's own research suggests that the difference between track and
the road glues of that error was such that it made the difference
between clincher and tubular = zero. The effect of tread patterns on
tire rr is well documented and significant; wouldn't you expect voids
in glue to cause a similar effect? It was also clear that the effect
of a smooth drum compared to a more representative road surface was
quite significant in increasing the variance among car tires.
> > Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
> > here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
> > with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
> > anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
> > generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
> > give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
> > they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
> > why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
> > testing they have done and why they generally still continue to
> > choose tubulars.
>
> Or if they've (the teams) done any testing. Pro cycling is the original
> home of myth and lore in our sport. Some of it has panned out (for
> example, lower rolling resistance with hard track glues compared to soft
> road glues was one bit of myth and lore that appears to have been
> correct) and some of it has not.
So they test everything else, but for some reason they don't test
tires' rr? All the time in wind tunnels, just to give it back by dumb
tire selection, with millions of dollars at stake. That's also a
pretty implausible hypothesis to me.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:21:11
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186066486.373963.68050@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com >,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Aug 2, 10:24 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <1186051467.765809.290...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> > > advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will
> > > establish the relative importance of these variables.
> >
> > The relative importance is the key issue. Is a .001 or .003
> > difference in Crr worth worrying about? I would very much tend to
> > doubt it.
>
> Me, too. However, we don't have any idea what the difference really
> is, or if we do, the evidence suggests that it is much more than
> that. Jobst's own research suggests that the difference between track
> and the road glues of that error was such that it made the difference
> between clincher and tubular = zero. The effect of tread patterns on
> tire rr is well documented and significant; wouldn't you expect voids
> in glue to cause a similar effect?
No. Well, I wouldn't automatically expect that voids in the glue would
have a similar effect to the effects of tread patterns in terms of
magnitude. It seems to me that the mechanism of energy loss would be
quite different. However I could be all wet on this and it wouldn't be
the first time.
> It was also clear that the effect of a smooth drum compared to a more
> representative road surface was quite significant in increasing the
> variance among car tires.
>
> > > Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are
> > > many here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that
> > > the pros with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing
> > > to do anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and
> > > who generally have instantly available mechanical support, are
> > > going to give up the watts that these tests suggest they are
> > > giving up when they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to
> > > make claims about why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we
> > > really don't know what testing they have done and why they
> > > generally still continue to choose tubulars.
> >
> > Or if they've (the teams) done any testing. Pro cycling is the
> > original home of myth and lore in our sport. Some of it has panned
> > out (for example, lower rolling resistance with hard track glues
> > compared to soft road glues was one bit of myth and lore that
> > appears to have been correct) and some of it has not.
>
> So they test everything else, but for some reason they don't test
> tires' rr? All the time in wind tunnels, just to give it back by dumb
> tire selection, with millions of dollars at stake. That's also a
> pretty implausible hypothesis to me.
Well, just going on the reportage. I've read about pro teams doing wind
tunnel testing. I've never read about pro teams doing rolling
resistance testing. Plus, the differences between similar tires are
pretty small but the differences between TT positions is fairly large.
They may just choose to put their resources where they'll get the best
paybacks for their investment: doping and aerodynamics.
I am always reminded of the Miguel Indurain story. Apparently he was
actually more aero in the drops on his road bike than on his TT bike. So
they trundle him off to the wind tunnel, rearrange his position and find
they can take lots of time off a long TT. He says, "that's very nice.
But I couldn't actually pedal the bike in that position."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 03:44:27
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 28, 1:32 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >>Dear SM,
>
> >>Here's some recent research:
>
> >>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>
> >>RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
> >>than the best tubular:
>
> >>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>
> >>RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>
> >>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>
> >>Cheers,
>
> >>Carl Fogel
>
> >a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
> >b. Single data points do not a survey make
>
> If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
> some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the least
> you could do is show the better research that you supposedly know
> about.
However, that doesn't mean that you can't criticize the research that
shows clinchers have better rolling resistance. As I have stated
repeatedly, glue and gluing technique may be important uncontrolled
variables. By Jobst's own research, track glue causes the difference
between tubulars and clinchers to disappear; it follows that
differences in road glues could also cause differences in rr. Jobst
dismisses this by saying it's impossible, but has no data to prove it.
I have also suggested that voids in the glue could contribute to rr in
a way analogous to how voids in rubber tread contribute to rr on
tires. Again, according to Jobst, impossible, not even worth
considering, but no one has tried to quantify how the difference
between a tightly glued tire and a loosely glued tire affects rr. It
also seems likely that matching the tire to the rim is another
important variable in reducing squirm of a tubular tire. Finally, I
referenced a test done with car tires that showed with certainty that
the smooth roller drums similar to those used in all of the bicycle
tire rr research that I have seen significantly exaggerates
differences between tires when compared to testing on drums that more
closely resemble actual road surfaces.
The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
the relative importance of these variables.
Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
testing they have done and why they generally still continue to choose
tubulars.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 12:40:45
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Someone sniped anonymously:
>>>> Here's some recent research:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>>> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers
>>>> better than the best tubular:
>>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>>>> RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>>> a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>>> b. Single data points do not a survey make
>> If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
>> some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the
>> least you could do is show the better research that you supposedly
>> know about.
I think the evidence is there in the data.
> However, that doesn't mean that you can't criticize the research
> that shows clinchers have better rolling resistance. As I have
> stated repeatedly, glue and gluing technique may be important
> uncontrolled variables. By Jobst's own research, track glue causes
> the difference between tubulars and clinchers to disappear; it
> follows that differences in road glues could also cause differences
> in RR.
I think you'd better consider what "road glue" is. If you consider
the reason why road and track glue differ, it is the need to change a
tire in the days of yore, when racers had to change tires and now when
those who insist on using tubulars in other than supported races.
That required pressure sensitive glue, one that remains tacky and from
which a tire can be manually separated. That hasn't changed in the
last half century and back when this was a common method, chemists
spent much time developing adhesives for the purpose. No new glues
that fit the description have been made to fill that task.
One should be aware that pressure sensitive glues are also all
thermally sensitive and soften with increased temperature. Therefore,
braking heat presents a major problem as well. Those who remain
tubular tire advocates definitely have not descended winding steep
roads. Locally cyclists who are not aware of these hazards have
crashed fatally when losing a front tire, their crash being attributed
to excessive speed by the police who did not note that the rim was on
the ground as the rider left the road into the adjacent ravine. This
is a problem for clinchers as well but not nearly as much.
> Jobst dismisses this by saying it's impossible, but has no data to
> prove it. I have also suggested that voids in the glue could
> contribute to RR in a way analogous to how voids in rubber tread
> contribute to RR on tires. Again, according to Jobst, impossible,
> not even worth considering, but no one has tried to quantify how the
> difference between a tightly glued tire and a loosely glued tire
> affects RR. It also seems likely that matching the tire to the rim
> is another important variable in reducing squirm of a tubular
> tire. Finally, I referenced a test done with car tires that showed
> with certainty that the smooth roller drums similar to those used in
> all of the bicycle tire RR research that I have seen significantly
> exaggerates differences between tires when compared to testing on
> drums that more closely resemble actual road surfaces.
Grasping at straws won't get you anywhere useful. You say all this as
though you never put any of this to a test. In the days when most
bikies rode tubulars here in the Santa Cruz Mountains, we had years of
hundreds of miles of experience of slipping tires, tires whose base
tape wore out from creep, in some cases causing casing failure
(blowouts). The implication is that there were no scientific
observations made over these years and only one type of glue tried.
That is gratuitously mistaken.
> The bottom line is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
> the relative importance of these variables.
I think you can see from the magnitude of the RR difference that there
is no room for that proposition. Even cut in half, the difference
would still be significant for time trials, the reason why track glue
was used. No one even has a tube of track glue today or knows why it
was ever used. Ask yourself what benefit track glue might have if
there were no RR advantage.
> Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
> here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
> with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
> anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
> generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
> give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
> they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
> why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
> testing they have done and why they generally still continue to choose
> tubulars.
This is not a debate! If you talk to those who ride tubulars, their
belief is based on reasonable evidence. Good tubulars are lighter,
have thinner casings and tread that naturally have lower RR than a
heavier tires and tubes. That is not disputed. It is the glue that
is the culprit. The data has been collected by self verifying means
and the difference between track glue and road glue has been there for
roughly 100 years. Your tone suggests a faith in tubulars that is not
supported by evidence. You needn't use denigrating terms to advance
your point of view, especially if you have any evidence to the
contrary.
I haven't seen any.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 18:22:33
From: Zog The Undeniable
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> This is not a debate! If you talk to those who ride tubulars, their
> belief is based on reasonable evidence. Good tubulars are lighter,
> have thinner casings and tread that naturally have lower RR than a
> heavier tires and tubes.
Isn't the real benefit with tubs that the *rims* are much lighter,
because the outer wall of the box section is, in fact, the outside of
the rim? A box section clincher rim has to have all this, plus a bead seat.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 15:59:24
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:22:33 +0100, Zog The Undeniable <hrothgar19@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>> This is not a debate! If you talk to those who ride tubulars, their
>> belief is based on reasonable evidence. Good tubulars are lighter,
>> have thinner casings and tread that naturally have lower RR than a
>> heavier tires and tubes.
>
>Isn't the real benefit with tubs that the *rims* are much lighter,
>because the outer wall of the box section is, in fact, the outside of
>the rim? A box section clincher rim has to have all this, plus a bead seat.
That's a benefit.
I think it's mostly the effectiveness of the tire at providing rim protection
and a good ride. The ratio of effective to overall volume in a sewup is so great
that there's really nothing you can do in the design of a clincher that can
match it.
Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 10:56:00
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:44:27 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
>On Jul 28, 1:32 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> >>Dear SM,
>>
>> >>Here's some recent research:
>>
>> >>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>
>> >>RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
>> >>than the best tubular:
>>
>> >>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>>
>> >>RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>>
>> >>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>>
>> >>Cheers,
>>
>> >>Carl Fogel
>>
>> >a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>> >b. Single data points do not a survey make
>>
>> If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
>> some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the least
>> you could do is show the better research that you supposedly know
>> about.
>
>However, that doesn't mean that you can't criticize the research that
>shows clinchers have better rolling resistance. As I have stated
>repeatedly, glue and gluing technique may be important uncontrolled
>variables. By Jobst's own research, track glue causes the difference
>between tubulars and clinchers to disappear; it follows that
>differences in road glues could also cause differences in rr. Jobst
>dismisses this by saying it's impossible, but has no data to prove it.
>I have also suggested that voids in the glue could contribute to rr in
>a way analogous to how voids in rubber tread contribute to rr on
>tires. Again, according to Jobst, impossible, not even worth
>considering, but no one has tried to quantify how the difference
>between a tightly glued tire and a loosely glued tire affects rr. It
>also seems likely that matching the tire to the rim is another
>important variable in reducing squirm of a tubular tire. Finally, I
>referenced a test done with car tires that showed with certainty that
>the smooth roller drums similar to those used in all of the bicycle
>tire rr research that I have seen significantly exaggerates
>differences between tires when compared to testing on drums that more
>closely resemble actual road surfaces.
>
>The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
>advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
>the relative importance of these variables.
>
>Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
>here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
>with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
>anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
>generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
>give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
>they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
>why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
>testing they have done and why they generally still continue to choose
>tubulars.
I consider it enough to examine the result of the testing. Even tremendously
powerful sponsors with enough money to bribe a rider into pedalling a stack of
bricks will tolerate the rebranding of a tubular with his company name for the
sponsored teams. That's one hell of a statement.
I'm surprised the bigger tire companies haven't taken an approach more like auto
racing and just paid the UCI to mandate clinchers.
Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 09:24:52
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186051467.765809.290960@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
> the relative importance of these variables.
The relative importance is the key issue. Is a .001 or .003 difference
in Crr worth worrying about? I would very much tend to doubt it.
> Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
> here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
> with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
> anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
> generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
> give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
> they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
> why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
> testing they have done and why they generally still continue to
> choose tubulars.
Or if they've (the teams) done any testing. Pro cycling is the original
home of myth and lore in our sport. Some of it has panned out (for
example, lower rolling resistance with hard track glues compared to soft
road glues was one bit of myth and lore that appears to have been
correct) and some of it has not.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:28:15
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:44:27 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>However, that doesn't mean that you can't criticize the research that
>shows clinchers have better rolling resistance. As I have stated
>repeatedly, glue and gluing technique may be important uncontrolled
>variables. By Jobst's own research, track glue causes the difference
>between tubulars and clinchers to disappear; it follows that
>differences in road glues could also cause differences in rr. Jobst
>dismisses this by saying it's impossible, but has no data to prove it.
>I have also suggested that voids in the glue could contribute to rr in
>a way analogous to how voids in rubber tread contribute to rr on
>tires. Again, according to Jobst, impossible, not even worth
>considering, but no one has tried to quantify how the difference
>between a tightly glued tire and a loosely glued tire affects rr. It
>also seems likely that matching the tire to the rim is another
>important variable in reducing squirm of a tubular tire. Finally, I
>referenced a test done with car tires that showed with certainty that
>the smooth roller drums similar to those used in all of the bicycle
>tire rr research that I have seen significantly exaggerates
>differences between tires when compared to testing on drums that more
>closely resemble actual road surfaces.
>
>The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
>advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
>the relative importance of these variables.
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about and are
writing long-windedly to obscure that.
Well done.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:28:15 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>>The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
>>advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
>>the relative importance of these variables.
>
>In other words, you don't know what you are talking about and are
>writing long-windedly to obscure that.
>
>Well done.
If your only goal is to throw flames, then you've done a great job.
But, that's not at all what he said or summarized.
He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
issue in the tests. Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is
a major point: Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild
advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage. A retro
grouch like me might select tubulars just for the sake of tradition
and a gut feel that we like the way they ride, but those guys tend to
be a little more scientific these days.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:12:09
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>
>He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
>issue in the tests.
There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
another.
> Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is
>a major point: Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild
>advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
>great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage.
There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 04:45:54
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:12:09 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>>on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>
>There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
>because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
>shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>
I don't believe the original supposition included that specifier (road
or track).
>>In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>>measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
>>issue in the tests.
>
>There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
>another.
Sorry, suggesting that we can _assume_ that there would be a linear
relationship between resistance against a smooth surface and
resistance against a road simulated surface is so far outside of
scientific that I'm not even sure how to comment.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 13:04:18
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
someone sniped anonymously:
>>> He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>>> on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>> There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
>> because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
>> shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>>
> I don't believe the original supposition included that specifier (road
> or track).
>>> In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>>> measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
>>> issue in the tests.
>> There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
>> another.
> Sorry, suggesting that we can _assume_ that there would be a linear
> relationship between resistance against a smooth surface and
> resistance against a road simulated surface is so far outside of
> scientific that I'm not even sure how to comment.
Oh! Can you explain what you believe causes RR? Until now it has
been elastomeric hysteresis (rebound of rubber not being the same a
compression). That the cords of a tire casing being fully encased in
elastomeric binders and the tube and tread being rubber, RR is well
understood. For that reason tire tests are performed on smooth steel
drums that cause the casing, tread and tube to flex consistently.
If you insist on a rough surface, how rough? How do you then compare
tires?
Your statement suggests there are mysterious unrecognized causes for
these losses. As was mentioned, adding surface roughness affects
tires equally except that patterned tread squirms more than slick
tread and causes even greater differences between tires but does not
change the order
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html
In the RR curves I listed, the curves are a family of nearly identical
curves, one being the multiple of the next, except that the one with
tread patterns do not fall off as much with higher inflation pressure.
and cause slight differences in slope.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:39:22
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:45:54 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:12:09 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>>>on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>>
>>There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
>>because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
>>shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>>
>
>I don't believe the original supposition included that specifier (road
>or track).
>
>>>In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>>>measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
>>>issue in the tests.
>>
>>There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
>>another.
>
>Sorry, suggesting that we can _assume_ that there would be a linear
>relationship between resistance against a smooth surface and
>resistance against a road simulated surface is so far outside of
>scientific that I'm not even sure how to comment.
That seems to be word of the local oracles, that whatever advantage causes one
tire to have a lower rr on a smooth roller compared to another would only be
enhanced by road roughness. When questioned they sputter.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 06:40:43
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:45:54 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:12:09 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>>>on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>>
>>There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
>>because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
>>shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>>
>
>I don't believe the original supposition included that specifier (road
>or track).
The tires in most of those charts were road tires. But if you want,
I'll give you that point - with shellac it's possible tubulars are
faster. So what? As far as I know, no one ever uses that on the road.
So big deal - you win that one.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 13:17:23
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Dans le message de
news:1186051467.765809.290960@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net <SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net > a réfléchi,
et puis a déclaré :
> On Jul 28, 1:32 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear SM,
>>
>>>> Here's some recent research:
>>
>>>> http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>
>>>> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
>>>> than the best tubular:
>>
>>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>>
>>>> RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>>
>>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>> a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>>> b. Single data points do not a survey make
>>
>> If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
>> some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the least
>> you could do is show the better research that you supposedly know
>> about.
>
> However, that doesn't mean that you can't criticize the research that
> shows clinchers have better rolling resistance. As I have stated
> repeatedly, glue and gluing technique may be important uncontrolled
> variables. By Jobst's own research, track glue causes the difference
> between tubulars and clinchers to disappear; it follows that
> differences in road glues could also cause differences in rr. Jobst
> dismisses this by saying it's impossible, but has no data to prove it.
> I have also suggested that voids in the glue could contribute to rr in
> a way analogous to how voids in rubber tread contribute to rr on
> tires. Again, according to Jobst, impossible, not even worth
> considering, but no one has tried to quantify how the difference
> between a tightly glued tire and a loosely glued tire affects rr. It
> also seems likely that matching the tire to the rim is another
> important variable in reducing squirm of a tubular tire. Finally, I
> referenced a test done with car tires that showed with certainty that
> the smooth roller drums similar to those used in all of the bicycle
> tire rr research that I have seen significantly exaggerates
> differences between tires when compared to testing on drums that more
> closely resemble actual road surfaces.
>
> The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
> the relative importance of these variables.
>
> Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
> here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
> with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
> anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
> generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
> give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
> they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
> why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
> testing they have done and why they generally still continue to choose
> tubulars.
You're not wrong, although maybe cheap. Not the entire world's knowledge in
online, and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last year, where they
showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and tubular, half were of each
type. I can't recall the order, etc., but it's in my earlier posting. The
print magazine has the full detailed testing. There are also other mentions
in this forum of German testing, which I vaguely recall.
To believe Brandt is to believe in stasis and prevarication. I sent him the
print version of tire testing, and he acknowledged receipt. Even if in
French, the figures are universal, and he should know how to read them.
But it doesn't really matter. Leave well enough alone. Everyone will ride
what they think is better, cheaper, longer-lasting, more pragmatic,
prettier, etc.
--
Sandy
-
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of non-knowledge."
- Edward O. Wilson
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:48:41
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <46b1bd43$0$1921$426a34cc@news.free.fr >,
"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:1186051467.765809.290960@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net <SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net> a réfléchi,
> et puis a déclaré :
> > On Jul 28, 1:32 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Dear SM,
> >>
> >>>> Here's some recent research:
> >>
> >>>> http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
> >>
> >>>> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
> >>>> than the best tubular:
> >>
> >>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
> >>
> >>>> RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
> >>
> >>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
> >>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>
> >>>> Carl Fogel
> >>
> >>> a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
> >>> b. Single data points do not a survey make
> >>
> >> If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
> >> some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the least
> >> you could do is show the better research that you supposedly know
> >> about.
> >
> > However, that doesn't mean that you can't criticize the research that
> > shows clinchers have better rolling resistance. As I have stated
> > repeatedly, glue and gluing technique may be important uncontrolled
> > variables. By Jobst's own research, track glue causes the difference
> > between tubulars and clinchers to disappear; it follows that
> > differences in road glues could also cause differences in rr. Jobst
> > dismisses this by saying it's impossible, but has no data to prove it.
> > I have also suggested that voids in the glue could contribute to rr in
> > a way analogous to how voids in rubber tread contribute to rr on
> > tires. Again, according to Jobst, impossible, not even worth
> > considering, but no one has tried to quantify how the difference
> > between a tightly glued tire and a loosely glued tire affects rr. It
> > also seems likely that matching the tire to the rim is another
> > important variable in reducing squirm of a tubular tire. Finally, I
> > referenced a test done with car tires that showed with certainty that
> > the smooth roller drums similar to those used in all of the bicycle
> > tire rr research that I have seen significantly exaggerates
> > differences between tires when compared to testing on drums that more
> > closely resemble actual road surfaces.
> >
> > The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> > advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
> > the relative importance of these variables.
> >
> > Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
> > here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
> > with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
> > anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
> > generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
> > give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
> > they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
> > why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
> > testing they have done and why they generally still continue to choose
> > tubulars.
>
> You're not wrong, although maybe cheap. Not the entire world's knowledge in
> online, and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last year, where they
> showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and tubular, half were of each
> type. I can't recall the order, etc., but it's in my earlier posting. The
> print magazine has the full detailed testing. There are also other mentions
> in this forum of German testing, which I vaguely recall.
>
> To believe Brandt is to believe in stasis and prevarication. I sent him the
> print version of tire testing, and he acknowledged receipt. Even if in
> French, the figures are universal, and he should know how to read them.
>
> But it doesn't really matter. Leave well enough alone. Everyone will ride
> what they think is better, cheaper, longer-lasting, more pragmatic,
> prettier, etc.
What is the experimental configuration for the Le Cycle
tests? Do they provide rolling resistance numbers over
several tire inflation pressures for each tire?
The test results I have seen show that road glue
dissipates constant power, independent of tire
pressure. I ran tubulars for a while and liked them.
The rim tape does chafe the rim bed, the powdered Al
showing up as black smudge.
I think most of the heat in these discussions is less a
result of the test numbers, than interpretations of
what the numbers prove.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:56:04
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Dans le message de
news:rubrum-058F9F.10484002082007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <46b1bd43$0$1921$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:1186051467.765809.290960@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
>> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net <SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net> a
>> réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> On Jul 28, 1:32 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Dear SM,
>>>>
>>>>>> Here's some recent research:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>>>
>>>>>> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers
>>>>>> better than the best tubular:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>>>>
>>>>>> RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>>>>
>>>>>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>>> Carl Fogel
>>>>
>>>>> a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>>>>> b. Single data points do not a survey make
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
>>>> some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the
>>>> least you could do is show the better research that you supposedly
>>>> know about.
>>>
>>> However, that doesn't mean that you can't criticize the research
>>> that shows clinchers have better rolling resistance. As I have
>>> stated repeatedly, glue and gluing technique may be important
>>> uncontrolled variables. By Jobst's own research, track glue causes
>>> the difference between tubulars and clinchers to disappear; it
>>> follows that differences in road glues could also cause differences
>>> in rr. Jobst dismisses this by saying it's impossible, but has no
>>> data to prove it. I have also suggested that voids in the glue
>>> could contribute to rr in a way analogous to how voids in rubber
>>> tread contribute to rr on tires. Again, according to Jobst,
>>> impossible, not even worth considering, but no one has tried to
>>> quantify how the difference between a tightly glued tire and a
>>> loosely glued tire affects rr. It also seems likely that matching
>>> the tire to the rim is another important variable in reducing
>>> squirm of a tubular tire. Finally, I referenced a test done with
>>> car tires that showed with certainty that the smooth roller drums
>>> similar to those used in all of the bicycle tire rr research that I
>>> have seen significantly exaggerates differences between tires when
>>> compared to testing on drums that more closely resemble actual road
>>> surfaces.
>>>
>>> The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
>>> advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will
>>> establish the relative importance of these variables.
>>>
>>> Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
>>> here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
>>> with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
>>> anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
>>> generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
>>> give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
>>> they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
>>> why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know
>>> what testing they have done and why they generally still continue
>>> to choose tubulars.
>>
>> You're not wrong, although maybe cheap. Not the entire world's
>> knowledge in online, and I referenced Le Cycle's testing in the last
>> year, where they showed that of the top ten tires, clincher and
>> tubular, half were of each type. I can't recall the order, etc.,
>> but it's in my earlier posting. The print magazine has the full
>> detailed testing. There are also other mentions in this forum of
>> German testing, which I vaguely recall.
>>
>> To believe Brandt is to believe in stasis and prevarication. I sent
>> him the print version of tire testing, and he acknowledged receipt.
>> Even if in French, the figures are universal, and he should know how
>> to read them.
>>
>> But it doesn't really matter. Leave well enough alone. Everyone
>> will ride what they think is better, cheaper, longer-lasting, more
>> pragmatic, prettier, etc.
>
> What is the experimental configuration for the Le Cycle
> tests?
Only from memory - they run tires at 8 bars on the same wheels (obviously,
one for tubs and one for clinchers). Smooth steel drum. Accelerate to set
speed and time the roll to zero.
> Do they provide rolling resistance numbers over
> several tire inflation pressures for each tire?
I think they did that for a few tires, especially with rain tires.
> I think most of the heat in these discussions is less a
> result of the test numbers, than interpretations of
> what the numbers prove.
Yeah, mostly it's a rehash of "I believe this, so do as I do." If rr were
the only thing to consider, I'd probably have other tires. Or do
maglevitation. Tucked, of course.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:28:52
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:59:32 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:57:32 -0700, "Tom Nakashima"
><tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
>>news:DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time since
>>> the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when climbing.
>>> Chas.
>>
>>They feel different to you when you're climbing?
>>As I recall, they felt the same, whether climbing or riding flats.
>Yeah, I rode tubulars a lot in the late 1980s and still use them
>occassionally and can't notice any difference in feel.
>
>The rims are lighter (especially for aero rims), they resist pinch
>flats better and can be ridden more easily when flat.
>
>Other than that I don's see the difference.
They're lighter, run lower pressure and don't flat as much - otherwise they're
no better. Right.
Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 07:34:19
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > writes:
> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gm3oa393ifmbprq153sntp058g44tdlt87@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:46:58 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Then why do they sell so many SUV's in southern CA and urban areas
>> when 4wd is not needed or even used?
>>
> Any SoCal SUV that gets off of a paved surface is immediatly taken to be
> washed.
The same aversion to a little dirt is seen with many cyclists.
--
Joe Riel
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:48:00
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <irbha3dkohr8odak23f1uc7a3fumfnlbff@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:59:32 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:57:32 -0700, "Tom Nakashima"
> ><tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
> >>news:DvidnZlM1dZu5jrbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>>
> >>> I just started riding sewups again about 2 weeks ago - first time
> >>> since the mid 1990s. I forgot how nice they feel, especially when
> >>> climbing. Chas.
> >>
> >>They feel different to you when you're climbing? As I recall, they
> >>felt the same, whether climbing or riding flats.
> >
> >Yeah, I rode tubulars a lot in the late 1980s and still use them
> >occassionally and can't notice any difference in feel.
> >
> >The rims are lighter (especially for aero rims), they resist pinch
> >flats better and can be ridden more easily when flat.
> >
> >Other than that I don's see the difference.
>
> They're lighter, run lower pressure and don't flat as much -
> otherwise they're no better. Right.
Tubulars aren't enough lighter to be noticeable to me. At 210 lbs, 115
PSI is about as low as I can go with any tire up to 25 mm wide- tubular
or clincher- without risking bottoming out the rim on bad surfaces.
"Don't flat as much" was never my experience with tubulars. I found
them far more likely to flat than clinchers. Tubulars are harder to
pinch flat, but I found them much easier to puncture. They are much
more time consuming to repair and can't readily be patched on the road
in case you have a bad day and run out of spares. Tubulars are a pain
in the ass to mount and much less safe on mountain roads requiring a lot
of braking. I've never seen a clincher rolled off a rim, but I've seen
it happen to tubulars.
Tubulars are a legacy technology. They are the hobbitoid ass hatchets
of tires. Maybe we should call tubular users "tubbits."
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 14:04:41
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 9, 12:52 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 9, 3:04 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > You mean it's measured from horizontal, right? So a tire
> > with a high slip.angle.wet of 60 slips when the wheel is
> > at 60 deg to the ground, or 30 deg to the vertical. That
> > would be poor traction performance.
>
> > The tires have slip.angle.wet of about 45 to 60 and the
> > rain tires have lower slip.angle.wet. The values of
> > 45 to 60 are why I think it's measured from the horizontal.
> > If the test approximates real conditions, 45 deg from
> > vertical is outrageously good in the wet. I don't think
> > you can lean a bike over at 60 deg from vertical even in
> > dry weather without sliding out.
>
> Ugh. This is why I was confused. They didn't change the angle of the
> bike: the bike was held vertically and they tilted a slab of wet
> asphalt relative to it.
Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I shall
move the earth.
Ben
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 00:52:54
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 9, 3:04 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Aug 8, 11:13 am, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 4:19 pm, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >>>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> > CRAP! I had the slip.angle.wet backwards. It's measured from
> > vertical, not horizontal, so -->LOWER<-- slip.angle.wet implies better
> > traction. The rain tires generally do have better traction than plain
> > tires.
>
> You mean it's measured from horizontal, right? So a tire
> with a high slip.angle.wet of 60 slips when the wheel is
> at 60 deg to the ground, or 30 deg to the vertical. That
> would be poor traction performance.
>
> The tires have slip.angle.wet of about 45 to 60 and the
> rain tires have lower slip.angle.wet. The values of
> 45 to 60 are why I think it's measured from the horizontal.
> If the test approximates real conditions, 45 deg from
> vertical is outrageously good in the wet. I don't think
> you can lean a bike over at 60 deg from vertical even in
> dry weather without sliding out.
>
> Ben
Ugh. This is why I was confused. They didn't change the angle of the
bike: the bike was held vertically and they tilted a slab of wet
asphalt relative to it.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 11:02:44
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 4, 7:36 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> > > > > That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> > > > > specification of what tires were measured, the data points have
> > > > > not been fitted to curves, etc.
>
> > > > Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What
> > > > it says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different
> > > > groups of tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to
> > > > treat all {tubulars
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 21:44:54
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Dans le message de
news:1186250564.145971.87190@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com <rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :
> On Aug 4, 7:36 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>>
>>>>>> That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
>>>>>> specification of what tires were measured, the data points have
>>>>>> not been fitted to curves, etc.
>>
>>>>> Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What
>>>>> it says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different
>>>>> groups of tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to
>>>>> treat all {tubulars
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 2, 7:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:44:27 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
> >The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> >advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
> >the relative importance of these variables.
>
> In other words, you don't know what you are talking about and are
> writing long-windedly to obscure that.
In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only ones
who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell us that we
don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy brings up some
stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW here). Criticizing
research does not in any way require that you do research or cite
other research that addresses the criticisms that you are making. The
criticisms stand on their own. The variables I pointed out are
uncontrolled and unexplored, and until they are, no one can say they
know whether clinchers really have fundamentally better rr than
tubulars. Period.
> Well done.
Thanks, even if you did miss or purposely distort he point.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 19:13:00
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only ones
>who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell us that we
>don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy brings up some
>stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW here). Criticizing
>research does not in any way require that you do research or cite
>other research that addresses the criticisms that you are making. The
>criticisms stand on their own.
The research is firm, the speculation you made is not. If you want to
stick with the speculation, go ahead. In all probablility, you're
wrong. Not certainly wrong, but almost certainly wrong.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 06:59:05
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 29, 10:19 pm, "Kerry Montgomery" <kamon...@teleport.com > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185733641.139408.306710@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 10:03 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > - on why Americans buy stupid motor vehicles -
>
> >> I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over
> >> normal
> >> cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for
> >> me. I
> >> haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
>
> > This is partially what got us where we are today. Some buy an
> > Expedition to see over all the Explorers, than others buy Excursions
> > to see over all the Expeditions. And then come the Hummers.....
>
> > So it goes. :-(
>
> And then comes this:http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/112_news040921_inational...
> Kerry-
Good Gawd!!! It "outHummers" a Hummer! Is there no end to this utter
stupidity?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 00:23:59
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 29, 8:03 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>
> I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
> cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
> haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
Dude,
If SUVs are sold on functionality and not image, why are
there people with soccer-mon-o-phobia who will buy an SUV
but not a minivan?
In the meantime, I think you'd be happy with a periscope.
Or, this car combined with a heads-up display:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/01/take-a-look-at-the-vehicle-thats-taking-a-look-at-you/
Ben
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 11:27:21
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 29, 10:03 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
<snipped >
- on why Americans buy stupid motor vehicles -
>
> I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
> cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
> haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
This is partially what got us where we are today. Some buy an
Expedition to see over all the Explorers, than others buy Excursions
to see over all the Expeditions. And then come the Hummers.....
So it goes. :-(
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 03:19:02
From: Kerry Montgomery
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1185733641.139408.306710@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 29, 10:03 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> - on why Americans buy stupid motor vehicles -
>>
>> I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over
>> normal
>> cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for
>> me. I
>> haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
>
>
> This is partially what got us where we are today. Some buy an
> Expedition to see over all the Explorers, than others buy Excursions
> to see over all the Expeditions. And then come the Hummers.....
>
> So it goes. :-(
>
>
And then comes this:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/112_news040921_inational/photo_01.html
Kerry
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 09:38:14
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"RonSonic" (who?) anonymously wrote:
> ...
> I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
> cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
> haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again....
So you selfishly choose to block the view of people who drive more
sensible vehicles (for anything but cargo hauling)?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 05:59:49
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"still me" who? wrote:
>
> What king of glue did they use ?
^^^^
"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective."
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 19:05:20
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1185627589.983387.61320@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> "still me" who? wrote:
> >
> > What king of glue did they use ?
> ^^^^
>
> "I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
> collective."
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
"You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together".
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 21:30:53
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:48:00 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
>Tubulars are a legacy technology. They are the hobbitoid ass hatchets
>of tires. Maybe we should call tubular users "tubbits."
Seems to me that clinchers are a fairly old technology too. It's not
that clinchers are new or innovative, just _good_ clinchers are new
and innovative.
Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just like
the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime time,
but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them primitive cave
men stuck behind the curve.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:38:48
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > writes:
> [...] Considering the lengths that they [pro teams] go to for a mild
> advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
> great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage.
David Millar might have preferred that staff at Saunier Duval-Prodir
spent little less lab time sniffing out subtle advantages of tubular
glues and a little more testing the durability of TT wheels.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 07:04:14
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 29, 10:25 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>> If the products are of equal efficacy, then it doesn't matter which
> >>> one they buy. Any of them are the "best" product. In those cases,
> >>> market forces have driven the manufacturers to producing products
> >>> that are basically a level playing field. People make their
> >>> decision based on the range of products readily available to them;
> >>> few people have time to research and compare and to methodically
> >>> winnow down the field to one or two prime candidates. They've got
> >>> jobs and kids and other things to do, so they get as close as they
> >>> can. Over time, though, there is a strong tendency to
> >>> self-correction in the market. It's basically a Darwinian process.
> >> Darwinian? Maybe in days of yore, no longer.
> > still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Explain to me why Fram oil filters are #1 in the market, when they
> >> are known to those who do research on the subject to be the worst
> >> design? Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most
> >> business class servers. Tell me why we weren't using 64-bit Alpha
> >> chips years ago when they clearly blew the doors off Intel's legacy
> >> handicapped 32 bit offerings? Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy
> >> a Hummer (if you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to
> >> before answering that question).
>
> >> Or here's a biker one for you: Tell me why all those guys were
> >> running Campy derailleurs when the Simplex Super LJ blew it away,
> >> even winning the TDF shortly after its introduction?
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > Let's stick to the bicycle topic. Simplex sowed its own death with the
> > Prestige derailleurs. Simple as that. And SunTour blew Simplex's SLJ
> > out of the water. The end result there is instructive- due to a series
> > of business missteps, SunTour went the way of the dodo, but its superior
> > derailleur design lives on, adopted by Campagnolo and Shimano.
>
> Yes that is what happened. Suntour's Slant Parallelogram gave better
> shifting with less manufacturing cost at every level. As with Hummers,
> some riders were happy that you knew they spent more for their Record
> than you did for your Suntour.
The rationale I heard most often was:"The Suntour might shift better
when it's new, but my Campy NR will last forever". Crappy shifting
forever, what a bargain!
>
> Both Shimano and Campagnolo incorporate Lucien Juy's Simplex dual-spring
> design and the Suntour Slant Paralellogram to this very day.
>
And the incorporation of *both* dual-spring pivots and a slant
parallelogram are what makes modern RDs what they are. IMO, Simplex
tends to get short shrift in this.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 03:48:53
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 29, 1:04 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most business
> class servers.
Because you had to buy the hardware from DEC, while Unix
turned out to be adaptable to several different platforms.
There is a lesson in there somewhere about open standards.
Also, back in the day, people used to buy VAXes and run
Unix on them, which suggests that not everybody agreed
with your idea about what was best for their particular
applications. Sometimes, the "technically superior"
alternative is harder to define than you think.
Ben
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:59:17
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:48:53 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>Because you had to buy the hardware from DEC, while Unix
>turned out to be adaptable to several different platforms.
But that was just an architectural question. "The" chip to use and the
architecture of it was an open war for a long time. DEC was ahead
quite a few times. Companies could have built on DEC's architecture
and licensed their software. It was clearly superior. But, this proves
the point. DEC didn't know dick about selling or business.
Technological superiority, marketing incompetence.
Same goes for "Macs". I don't know that they are far superior, I do
know they are at least equal to MS-Windows. Yet MS dominates that
market. Why? Technological superiority of MS-Windows? No way. But,
regardless of the reason (lots of theories), MS and Intel won the war
despite technology that wasn't as good.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 14:30:30
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"still me" wrote:
> ...Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy a Hummer (if
> you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to before answering
> that question)....
They work for the Ministry of Silly Vehicles.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 17:52:32
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:30:30 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>"still me" wrote:
>> ...Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy a Hummer (if
>> you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to before answering
>> that question)....
>
>They work for the Ministry of Silly Vehicles.
Want to brag about how much they spend on gas?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 20:59:07
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ma3ia39o71a13v8g48acpdu1a3s98dli3g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:48:00 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Tubulars are a legacy technology. They are the hobbitoid ass hatchets
> >of tires. Maybe we should call tubular users "tubbits."
>
> Seems to me that clinchers are a fairly old technology too. It's not
> that clinchers are new or innovative, just _good_ clinchers are new
> and innovative.
>
> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just like
> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime time,
> but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them primitive cave
> men stuck behind the curve.
>
Tubular and clincher tires were both developed about the same time, around
the 1880s to 1890s. There were standard roadster style bikes up through
the 1940s that used tubular tires.
The owner of the shop where I worked had several of these bikes that used
large cross section sewups that were 28"-29" in diameter.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <ma3ia39o71a13v8g48acpdu1a3s98dli3g@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:48:00 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Tubulars are a legacy technology. They are the hobbitoid ass
> >hatchets of tires. Maybe we should call tubular users "tubbits."
>
> Seems to me that clinchers are a fairly old technology too. It's not
> that clinchers are new or innovative, just _good_ clinchers are new
> and innovative.
"Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that time
not in the US.
> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just like
> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime
> time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them
> primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just about
only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:41:02
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 9:39 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1186138053.758017.62550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.co=
m,
> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net <SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net> a r=E9fl=
=E9chi,
> et puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 6:13 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only ones
> >>> who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell us that
> >>> we don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy brings up
> >>> some stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW here). Criticizing
> >>> research does not in any way require that you do research or cite
> >>> other research that addresses the criticisms that you are making.
> >>> The criticisms stand on their own.
>
> >> The research is firm, the speculation you made is not. If you want
> >> to stick with the speculation, go ahead. In all probablility, you're
> >> wrong. Not certainly wrong, but almost certainly wrong.
>
> > I'm not speculating, I'm crticizing. The research is _not_ firm, and,
> > as I survey some data I hadn't seen before, it is becoming apparent
> > that it is all over the place. Some data out there is showing 5+ watt
> > differences between the best tubulars and clinchers, while other
> > shows .5 watts or less. And we still don't know whether the glue could
> > have been adjusted to close that final tiny gap. Furthermore, latex
> > tubes were used with all the clinchers that beat the tubulars, so if
> > you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher than using
> > a top tubular. I would still like to see the data Sandy is referencing
> > because it apparently raises further questions about this "firm
> > research".
>
> > I don't know how I can be wrong. I'm basically asking questions. If
> > they were answered and the data still showed definitively that I'm
> > losing 10-20 watts on the road by using tubulars, I would make the
> > investment to change to clinchers..
>
> Hey guys - you're having an empty conversation. There is NO research that
> has been referred to. What has been referred to is product testing.
> Sometimes by a manufacturer, sometimes by a third party, and sometimes,
> seldom, by an academic.
>
> The research is done before manufacture. And decisions, based on researc=
h,
> economics, product feasibility, marketability, all happen before the stuff
> gets to the stores. So far as I recall, no prototypes or variants were
> tested. None of them were researched. Product testing. Like finding out
> if you prefer Mom's brownies to the ones your girlfriend made with herbs.
You're arguing semantics. The "product testing" qualifies as research;
whether it qualifies as a strict application of the scientific method
is a different argument. Brownie preference is also research, probably
under the heading of social science, but maybe could also be applied
hedonism.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:34:19
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Dans le message de
news:1186170062.455057.279960@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net <SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net > a réfléchi,
et puis a déclaré :
> On Aug 3, 9:39 am, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:1186138053.758017.62550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
>> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net <SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net> a
>> réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 6:13 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only
>>>>> ones who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell
>>>>> us that we don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy
>>>>> brings up some stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW
>>>>> here). Criticizing research does not in any way require that you
>>>>> do research or cite other research that addresses the criticisms
>>>>> that you are making. The criticisms stand on their own.
>>
>>>> The research is firm, the speculation you made is not. If you want
>>>> to stick with the speculation, go ahead. In all probablility,
>>>> you're wrong. Not certainly wrong, but almost certainly wrong.
>>
>>> I'm not speculating, I'm crticizing. The research is _not_ firm,
>>> and, as I survey some data I hadn't seen before, it is becoming
>>> apparent that it is all over the place. Some data out there is
>>> showing 5+ watt differences between the best tubulars and
>>> clinchers, while other shows .5 watts or less. And we still don't
>>> know whether the glue could have been adjusted to close that final
>>> tiny gap. Furthermore, latex tubes were used with all the clinchers
>>> that beat the tubulars, so if you're using clinchers with butyl
>>> tubes, your rr is higher than using a top tubular. I would still
>>> like to see the data Sandy is referencing because it apparently
>>> raises further questions about this "firm research".
>>
>>> I don't know how I can be wrong. I'm basically asking questions. If
>>> they were answered and the data still showed definitively that I'm
>>> losing 10-20 watts on the road by using tubulars, I would make the
>>> investment to change to clinchers..
>>
>> Hey guys - you're having an empty conversation. There is NO
>> research that has been referred to. What has been referred to is
>> product testing. Sometimes by a manufacturer, sometimes by a third
>> party, and sometimes, seldom, by an academic.
>>
>> The research is done before manufacture. And decisions, based on
>> research, economics, product feasibility, marketability, all happen
>> before the stuff gets to the stores. So far as I recall, no
>> prototypes or variants were tested. None of them were researched.
>> Product testing. Like finding out if you prefer Mom's brownies to
>> the ones your girlfriend made with herbs.
>
> You're arguing semantics. The "product testing" qualifies as research;
> whether it qualifies as a strict application of the scientific method
> is a different argument. Brownie preference is also research, probably
> under the heading of social science, but maybe could also be applied
> hedonism.
That gives a healthy boost upwards towards anecdotal evidence. Which is
exactly what the product testing (you like research, OK, have it your way)
is, but in an associated sampling. It's not really semantics. It's a
fundamental difference, instrumented more, but not what one should call
research, actually.
--
Sandy
-
Darwinism, born in ideological struggle, has never escaped from an intimate
reciprocal relationship with worldviews exported from and imported into the
science. No one challenges the claim that evolutionary theory has had a wide
effect on social theory. It is a cliché of cultural history that the
explanation of evolution by natural selection served as an ideological
justification for laissez-faire capitalism and the colonial domination of
the lesser breeds without the law
- Richard Lewontin
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 2, 6:13 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
>
> >In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only ones
> >who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell us that we
> >don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy brings up some
> >stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW here). Criticizing
> >research does not in any way require that you do research or cite
> >other research that addresses the criticisms that you are making. The
> >criticisms stand on their own.
>
> The research is firm, the speculation you made is not. If you want to
> stick with the speculation, go ahead. In all probablility, you're
> wrong. Not certainly wrong, but almost certainly wrong.
I'm not speculating, I'm crticizing. The research is _not_ firm, and,
as I survey some data I hadn't seen before, it is becoming apparent
that it is all over the place. Some data out there is showing 5+ watt
differences between the best tubulars and clinchers, while other
shows .5 watts or less. And we still don't know whether the glue could
have been adjusted to close that final tiny gap. Furthermore, latex
tubes were used with all the clinchers that beat the tubulars, so if
you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher than using
a top tubular. I would still like to see the data Sandy is referencing
because it apparently raises further questions about this "firm
research".
I don't know how I can be wrong. I'm basically asking questions. If
they were answered and the data still showed definitively that I'm
losing 10-20 watts on the road by using tubulars, I would make the
investment to change to clinchers..
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:39:36
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Dans le message de news:1186138053.758017.62550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net <SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net > a réfléchi,
et puis a déclaré :
> On Aug 2, 6:13 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only ones
>>> who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell us that
>>> we don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy brings up
>>> some stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW here). Criticizing
>>> research does not in any way require that you do research or cite
>>> other research that addresses the criticisms that you are making.
>>> The criticisms stand on their own.
>>
>> The research is firm, the speculation you made is not. If you want
>> to stick with the speculation, go ahead. In all probablility, you're
>> wrong. Not certainly wrong, but almost certainly wrong.
>
> I'm not speculating, I'm crticizing. The research is _not_ firm, and,
> as I survey some data I hadn't seen before, it is becoming apparent
> that it is all over the place. Some data out there is showing 5+ watt
> differences between the best tubulars and clinchers, while other
> shows .5 watts or less. And we still don't know whether the glue could
> have been adjusted to close that final tiny gap. Furthermore, latex
> tubes were used with all the clinchers that beat the tubulars, so if
> you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher than using
> a top tubular. I would still like to see the data Sandy is referencing
> because it apparently raises further questions about this "firm
> research".
>
> I don't know how I can be wrong. I'm basically asking questions. If
> they were answered and the data still showed definitively that I'm
> losing 10-20 watts on the road by using tubulars, I would make the
> investment to change to clinchers..
Hey guys - you're having an empty conversation. There is NO research that
has been referred to. What has been referred to is product testing.
Sometimes by a manufacturer, sometimes by a third party, and sometimes,
seldom, by an academic.
The research is done before manufacture. And decisions, based on research,
economics, product feasibility, marketability, all happen before the stuff
gets to the stores. So far as I recall, no prototypes or variants were
tested. None of them were researched. Product testing. Like finding out
if you prefer Mom's brownies to the ones your girlfriend made with herbs.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 07:14:05
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>so if
>you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher than using
>a top tubular.
And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept the
tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
Another flaw in the research.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 2, 6:12 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
> >on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>
> There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
> because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
> shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
You're missing the point. The point is that if there is a difference
between shellac and other glues, why not amont road glues? In fact
there is a difference between Conti and Mastik in some of the data
referenced by Fogel. It follows that without quantifying this
variable, you don't really know whether the glue that is used for
tests is optimal.
> >In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
> >measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
> >issue in the tests.
>
> There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
> another.
Again, you miss the point: the evidence is that smooth drums
exaggerates differences. Reporting a wattage difference between tires
based on smooth drum testing is misleading.
> > Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is
> >a major point: Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild
> >advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
> >great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage.
>
> There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
But none that outweigh rr for a supported pro, IMO.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 13:12:52
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
someone snipes:
>>> He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an
>>> effect on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the
>>> survey's done.
>> There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
>> because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
>> shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not
>> used.
> You're missing the point. The point is that if there is a
> difference between shellac and other glues, why not amont road
> glues? In fact there is a difference between Conti and Mastik in
> some of the data referenced by Fogel. It follows that without
> quantifying this variable, you don't really know whether the glue
> that is used for tests is optimal.
So your point is that glue doesn't affect RR or what is it? How much
better a glue that can be used for road riding (change of tire) is not
in your assessment as I see it, so why not use hard glue and be done
with it?
>>> In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>>> measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a
>>> major issue in the tests.
>> There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and
>> not another.
> Again, you miss the point: the evidence is that smooth drums
> exaggerates differences. Reporting a wattage difference between
> tires based on smooth drum testing is misleading.
Oh! Explain what a smooth drum does to exaggerate differences and how
this adversely affects tire evaluation?
>>> Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is a major point:
>>> Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild advantage, it
>>> seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in great depth
>>> and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage. There are
>>> advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
> But none that outweigh RR for a supported pro, IMO.
The "IMO" doesn't get you off the hook. How about elaborating on the
reasons for this "outweigh"?
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:43:00
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
>On Aug 2, 6:12 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>> >on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>>
>> There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
>> because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
>> shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>
>You're missing the point. The point is that if there is a difference
>between shellac and other glues, why not amont road glues? In fact
>there is a difference between Conti and Mastik in some of the data
>referenced by Fogel. It follows that without quantifying this
>variable, you don't really know whether the glue that is used for
>tests is optimal.
>
>> >In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>> >measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
>> >issue in the tests.
>>
>> There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
>> another.
>
>Again, you miss the point: the evidence is that smooth drums
>exaggerates differences. Reporting a wattage difference between tires
>based on smooth drum testing is misleading.
>
>> > Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is
>> >a major point: Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild
>> >advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
>> >great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage.
>>
>> There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
>
>But none that outweigh rr for a supported pro, IMO.
Not according to a vast number of pro's and their sponsors. Do you really think
Michy would put up with rebranded Dugasts on his team if the advantages weren't
real? He'd be goin' medieval on they' asses. And don't think that 'cause he's
always smiling that he wouldn't.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 07:12:58
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>> There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
>
>But none that outweigh rr for a supported pro, IMO.
Hahaha then what about shellac? Why isn't it in common use for
supported pros?
You're just talking out your butt.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 07:12:05
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>You're missing the point. The point is that if there is a difference
>between shellac and other glues, why not amont road glues?
There probably is -- a tiny, tiny difference.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 07:11:51
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>> There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
>
>But none that outweigh rr for a supported pro, IMO.
LOL.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 12:06:43
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>"Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that time
>not in the US.
You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
>> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
>> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just like
>> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime
>> time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them
>> primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
>
>A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
>Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just about
>only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the best
product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of your
cave man like attitude.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 00:55:26
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Jul 30, 12:59 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:48:53 -0000, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org"
>
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >Because you had to buy the hardware from DEC, while Unix
> >turned out to be adaptable to several different platforms.
>
> But that was just an architectural question. "The" chip to use and the
> architecture of it was an open war for a long time. DEC was ahead
> quite a few times. Companies could have built on DEC's architecture
> and licensed their software. It was clearly superior. But, this proves
> the point. DEC didn't know dick about selling or business.
> Technological superiority, marketing incompetence.
It wasn't clearly superior to everybody. I mean,
it's not like the BSD Unix sales force outwrestled
the DEC VMS sales force, yet people bought VAXes
and ran BSD on them. That's my point - there's not
always a consensus on "clearly superior."
> Same goes for "Macs". I don't know that they are far superior, I do
> know they are at least equal to MS-Windows. Yet MS dominates that
> market. Why? Technological superiority of MS-Windows? No way. But,
> regardless of the reason (lots of theories), MS and Intel won the war
> despite technology that wasn't as good.
Well, you won't get any defense of MS from me.
Though back when Windows 9x was young, Macs were
more expensive, and MacOS was not yet OS X (which
is "clearly superior" to previous Mac OS, and IMHO
to Windows). MS and Intel won for a number of a
reasons, and price was one. There are still
alternatives, though; Mac and Unix/Linux have not
gone the way of Simplex or Betamax, for very good
reasons.
Anyway, did you know that one of the chief architects
of Windows NT was a VMS guru? If you shift IBM by
one letter, you get HAL from 2001, everybody knows
that. But if you shift VMS by one letter, you get WNT.
I always wondered about that.
Ben
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 16:18:56
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:55:26 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>Anyway, did you know that one of the chief architects
>of Windows NT was a VMS guru? If you shift IBM by
>one letter, you get HAL from 2001, everybody knows
>that. But if you shift VMS by one letter, you get WNT.
>I always wondered about that.
Yes, Dave Cutler. But, while there are some similarities that started
back in the NT days, they ignored a lot of the basic foundation blocks
of VMS and any good architecture. The biggest one was their failure to
simply make programs run in their own isolated space in the hardware.
Much of that was due to DOS legacy/compatibility which MS was
unwilling to give up.
Unfortunately, they then magnified that by carrying the lack off
segregation over into the software end, where it's still a free for
all with programs running where ever they want, whenever they want.
Most of this is due to MS's own plans to "integrate everything" in
terms of software. It makes their cross application programming
easier, but leads to the spaghetti natured POS we have today.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 14:04:04
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article
<0inua3d74puub6e66a9bit0uob6npligr2@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:55:26 -0000, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, did you know that one of the chief architects
> >of Windows NT was a VMS guru? If you shift IBM by
> >one letter, you get HAL from 2001, everybody knows
> >that. But if you shift VMS by one letter, you get WNT.
> >I always wondered about that.
>
> Yes, Dave Cutler. But, while there are some similarities that started
> back in the NT days, they ignored a lot of the basic foundation blocks
> of VMS and any good architecture. The biggest one was their failure to
> simply make programs run in their own isolated space in the hardware.
> Much of that was due to DOS legacy/compatibility which MS was
> unwilling to give up.
>
> Unfortunately, they then magnified that by carrying the lack off
> segregation over into the software end, where it's still a free for
> all with programs running where ever they want, whenever they want.
> Most of this is due to MS's own plans to "integrate everything" in
> terms of software. It makes their cross application programming
> easier, but leads to the spaghetti natured POS we have today.
Yonks ago I had a DOS machine and a manual. When I
first wrote a terminate and stay resident routine. I
wanted to write it in a way to be a good citizen. It
was impossible to write a TSR routine that was polite.
I could not defend myself against any other code, and I
could not guarantee that I would not clobber somebody
else. What a waste. This crap is everywhere and nobody
knows how crappy it is, no idea, none, nada.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:53:10
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <rnnja393lh6bamgfhlao6emet1ql3n4q18@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >"Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
> >time not in the US.
>
> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
Lord, dude, do your own research. There have been high quality
clinchers available for at least that long, even prior to WWII. Hard to
find a good clincher in the US until about 1975, since we were a mutant
backwater of cycling from about 1910 until the 1970s "bike boom." But
good clinchers were readily available in Europe where cycling was taken
seriously. If you think of the US as the center of the universe- as
most Americans do- then you'll have an inaccurate picture.
> >> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
> >> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just
> >> like the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for
> >> prime time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider
> >> them primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
> >
> >A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
> >Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just about
> >only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
>
> The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the
> best product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of
> your cave man like attitude.
LOL. Again with the casting of aspersions. The "market" that the
conservatives love so dearly does indeed eventually manage to find the
best products for the job. Just ask the CEO of General Motors. Because
they offer no significant superior benefits and have major drawbacks,
tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the market- hidebound
traditionalists who haven't adjusted their thinking to reflect current
reality, mostly.
Clinchers offer easier installation and removal, easier repairability,
lower cost, lower rolling resistance (not having the glue hysteresis
problem), and a much wider variety of tires.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:50:12
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 11:43 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >On Aug 2, 6:12 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
> >> >on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>
> >> There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
> >> because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
> >> shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>
> >You're missing the point. The point is that if there is a difference
> >between shellac and other glues, why not amont road glues? In fact
> >there is a difference between Conti and Mastik in some of the data
> >referenced by Fogel. It follows that without quantifying this
> >variable, you don't really know whether the glue that is used for
> >tests is optimal.
>
> >> >In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
> >> >measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
> >> >issue in the tests.
>
> >> There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
> >> another.
>
> >Again, you miss the point: the evidence is that smooth drums
> >exaggerates differences. Reporting a wattage difference between tires
> >based on smooth drum testing is misleading.
>
> >> > Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is
> >> >a major point: Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild
> >> >advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
> >> >great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage.
>
> >> There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
>
> >But none that outweigh rr for a supported pro, IMO.
>
> Not according to a vast number of pro's and their sponsors. Do you really think
> Michy would put up with rebranded Dugasts on his team if the advantages weren't
> real? He'd be goin' medieval on they' asses. And don't think that 'cause he's
> always smiling that he wouldn't.
I think I have miscommunicated with you. I am suggesting that the pros
may have several reasons for rebranding Dugast tubulars, but that I
believe that rr is probably the primary one. If I were a pro I would
live with all the supposed other disadvantages of clinchers if I could
gain 10 watts by switching to them. 10 watts is huge at that level, or
any level of competition. But pros are not doing that, they are
rebranding tubulars.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 05:17:14
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 6:12 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
>
> >> There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.
>
> >But none that outweigh rr for a supported pro, IMO.
>
> Hahaha then what about shellac? Why isn't it in common use for
> supported pros?
Are you sure that it's not, at least in some circumstances? Do you
think the pro teams would publish the fact that they are using shellac
for TT bikes or anywhere else? You would be very hard pressed to
provide evidence that makes the case that shellac is _not_ in common
use by the pros, let alone not used at all, unless you could point to
a UCI rule prohibiting it in road racing.
Besides, you're really not being logical. The fact that shellac
improves rr of tubulars over the commonly used road glues of 30 years
ago says nothing about the comparative rr between contemporary racing
clinchers and tubulars.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:33:51
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:17:14 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>Are you sure that it's not, at least in some circumstances? Do you
>think the pro teams would publish the fact that they are using shellac
>for TT bikes or anywhere else?
I'm not sure but I look at that stuff kind of stuff online and
(rarely) in person a lot -- have had a pro world champion in my apt,
ridden with pro nat champs, etc. and a couple of my buddies used to
get tons of hand-me-down stuff from arguably the top domestic pro
team. I try to keep my eyes open and never heard nor read about that.
Seen some weird stuff that was not obvious in my day (steel fork on a
team OCLV frame is an example).
I haven't been at a top-level TT though .
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 05:06:11
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 6:12 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:35:00 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
>
> >You're missing the point. The point is that if there is a difference
> >between shellac and other glues, why not amont road glues?
>
> There probably is -- a tiny, tiny difference.
Speculating, are we? According to one set of data the difference
between Conti and Mastik One is bigger than the difference between the
best tubulars and the best clinchers- using the same test methodology.
You're picking your data to support a conclusion you already reached.
If you _really_ were to consider _all_ the data, the best conclusion
is that it's hard to draw conclusions.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:31:00
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:06:11 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>According to one set of data the difference
>between Conti and Mastik One is bigger than the difference between the
>best tubulars and the best clinchers-
Where?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:38:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <rnnja393lh6bamgfhlao6emet1ql3n4q18@4ax.com>,
> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
>>> time not in the US.
>> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
>
> Lord, dude, do your own research. There have been high quality
> clinchers available for at least that long, even prior to WWII. Hard to
> find a good clincher in the US until about 1975, since we were a mutant
> backwater of cycling from about 1910 until the 1970s "bike boom." But
> good clinchers were readily available in Europe where cycling was taken
> seriously. If you think of the US as the center of the universe- as
> most Americans do- then you'll have an inaccurate picture.
bullshit. euro clinchers sucked until the elan. nobody raced them.
just like here, tubulars were the only serious game in town.
>
>>>> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
>>>> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just
>>>> like the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for
>>>> prime time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider
>>>> them primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
>>> A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
>>> Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just about
>>> only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
>> The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the
>> best product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of
>> your cave man like attitude.
>
> LOL. Again with the casting of aspersions. The "market" that the
> conservatives love so dearly does indeed eventually manage to find the
> best products for the job. Just ask the CEO of General Motors. Because
> they offer no significant superior benefits and have major drawbacks,
> tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the market- hidebound
> traditionalists who haven't adjusted their thinking to reflect current
> reality, mostly.
>
> Clinchers offer easier installation and removal, easier repairability,
> lower cost, lower rolling resistance (not having the glue hysteresis
> problem), and a much wider variety of tires.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:52:47
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:53:10 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>LOL. Again with the casting of aspersions. The "market" that the
>conservatives love so dearly does indeed eventually manage to find the
>best products for the job. Just ask the CEO of General Motors.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The market finds the best
sold/marketed and the trendiest products, it doesn't always find the
right products.
> Because
>they offer no significant superior benefits and have major drawbacks,
>tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the market- hidebound
>traditionalists who haven't adjusted their thinking to reflect current
>reality, mostly.
No, more likely they are just too difficult for the general public to
understand with their feeble brains (like many other superior
products).
>Clinchers offer easier installation and removal, easier repairability,
>lower cost, lower rolling resistance (not having the glue hysteresis
>problem), and a much wider variety of tires.
- I can install a tubular in less time, without any tools, and without
having to toy with a tube and tire while I do it.
- tubulars have lower rolling resistance, see the research
- tubulars are easier to change on the road, and easier to carry as a
complete spare package
- there's lots of different sneakers to choose from too - doesn't mean
I won't wear sandals.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 06:54:20
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 4:26 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1186170196.382793.280...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 11:06 am, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > > SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net writes:
> > > > [...] I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes in their
> > > > clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
> > > > people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking
> > > > about why he uses butyl tubes.
>
> > > It's practical; with butyl tubes you don't have to pump the tires
> > > up everyday.
>
> > Of course it's practical. But based on the data it could also be
> > undercutting his (implied) assertion that his clinchers have better
> > rr than my tubulars.
>
> You seem to misunderstand Jobst's conclusions, SSTW. His stated
> conclusion was that the tubulars had lower inherent rolling resistance
> than the clinchers, but that the hysteresis losses caused by the glue
> resulted in higher net rolling resistance. Look at the shape of the
> curves from the data and you'll see why that conclusion is actually
> fairly obvious.
No, I understand that perfectly well, hence my upthread emphasis on
understanding the impact of the glue on the overall rr. When I talk
about the assertion that "clinchers have better rr than tubulars",
that is shorthand for the assertion that "clinchers have better rr
than tubulars as commonly used on the road with any road glue that
provides the stickiness that is necessary for removing tires if you
flat."
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 06:48:15
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 4:23 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1186144017.413271.14...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 6:14 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >so if you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher
> > > >than using a top tubular.
>
> > > And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept
> > > the tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
> > > Another flaw in the research.
>
> > Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
> > using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to
> > those using top tubulars. It's that simple.
>
> But it's not that simple, since various bits of research do not provide
> clear concordance.
>
> > People are not generally lowering their tire pressure to make
> > themselves go slower, but I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes
> > in their clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
> > people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about
> > why he uses butyl tubes.
>
> They hold air better is the reason Jobst gave, IIRC. However, tests
> conducted by Jan Heine at Bicycle Quarterly suggested that latex tubes
> were slower than butyl tubes, which is contrary to lore.
Fogel cited research that compared rr of the same tire with latex and
butyl. The latex was significantly better but not hugely so.
Nevertheless a bigger difference than between the best tubulars and
clinchers. But what you're saying brings us back to my original point
in this thread: there's too much uncontrolled variation in this stuff
for anyone to be standing on the data and insisting that they have all
the answers, which brings me to another point I've tried to make
before about this ng: everyone seems to be so damn certain that they
know THE TRUTH. No shades of gray are found here.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:43:16
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 11:06 am, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com > wrote:
> SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net writes:
> > [...] I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes in their clinchers
> > and think they are still assured of better rr than people on
> > tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about why he uses
> > butyl tubes.
>
> It's practical; with butyl tubes you don't have to pump the tires up
> everyday.
Of course it's practical. But based on the data it could also be
undercutting his (implied) assertion that his clinchers have better rr
than my tubulars.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:26:12
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186170196.382793.280480@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com >,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Aug 3, 11:06 am, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net writes:
> > > [...] I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes in their
> > > clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
> > > people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking
> > > about why he uses butyl tubes.
> >
> > It's practical; with butyl tubes you don't have to pump the tires
> > up everyday.
>
> Of course it's practical. But based on the data it could also be
> undercutting his (implied) assertion that his clinchers have better
> rr than my tubulars.
You seem to misunderstand Jobst's conclusions, SSTW. His stated
conclusion was that the tubulars had lower inherent rolling resistance
than the clinchers, but that the hysteresis losses caused by the glue
resulted in higher net rolling resistance. Look at the shape of the
curves from the data and you'll see why that conclusion is actually
fairly obvious.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 08:06:41
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net writes:
> [...] I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes in their clinchers
> and think they are still assured of better rr than people on
> tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about why he uses
> butyl tubes.
It's practical; with butyl tubes you don't have to pump the tires up
everyday.
--
Joe Riel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 17:26:00
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Joe Riel wrote:
> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net writes:
>
>> [...] I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes in their clinchers
>> and think they are still assured of better rr than people on
>> tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about why he uses
>> butyl tubes.
>
> It's practical; with butyl tubes you don't have to pump the tires up
> everyday.
With light butyl tubes you do.
Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 05:26:57
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 6:14 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
>
> >so if
> >you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher than using
> >a top tubular.
>
> And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept the
> tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
> Another flaw in the research.
Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to those
using top tubulars. It's that simple. People are not generally
lowering their tire pressure to make themselves go slower, but I bet a
lot of people are using butyl tubes in their clinchers and think they
are still assured of better rr than people on tubulars. I seem to
remember Jobst himself talking about why he uses butyl tubes.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:34:19
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:26:57 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
>using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to those
>using top tubulars.
Dude, I'm being sarcastic. I know that.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:23:50
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1186144017.413271.14100@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:14 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> > wrote:
> >
> > >so if you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher
> > >than using a top tubular.
> >
> > And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept
> > the tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
> > Another flaw in the research.
>
> Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
> using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to
> those using top tubulars. It's that simple.
But it's not that simple, since various bits of research do not provide
clear concordance.
> People are not generally lowering their tire pressure to make
> themselves go slower, but I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes
> in their clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
> people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about
> why he uses butyl tubes.
They hold air better is the reason Jobst gave, IIRC. However, tests
conducted by Jan Heine at Bicycle Quarterly suggested that latex tubes
were slower than butyl tubes, which is contrary to lore.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 13:24:56
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > writes:
>>>> so if you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your RR is higher
>>>> than using a top tubular.
>>> And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept
>>> the tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
>>> Another flaw in the research.
>> Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
>> using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to
>> those using top tubulars. It's that simple.
> But it's not that simple, since various bits of research do not provide
> clear concordance.
>> People are not generally lowering their tire pressure to make
>> themselves go slower, but I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes
>> in their clinchers and think they are still assured of better RR than
>> people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about
>> why he uses butyl tubes.
> They hold air better is the reason Jobst gave, IIRC. However, tests
> conducted by Jan Heine at Bicycle Quarterly suggested that latex tubes
> were slower than butyl tubes, which is contrary to lore.
I don't believe that is possible, other factors being held constant.
Where did the extra energy go? That butyl rubber has greater losses
than latex has been known for a long time. That latex tubes are
generally thinner than butyl is also known. I think there was a major
error in that test.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:13:02
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:23:50 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <1186144017.413271.14100@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 6:14 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >so if you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher
>> > >than using a top tubular.
>> >
>> > And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept
>> > the tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
>> > Another flaw in the research.
>>
>> Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
>> using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to
>> those using top tubulars. It's that simple.
>
>But it's not that simple, since various bits of research do not provide
>clear concordance.
>
>> People are not generally lowering their tire pressure to make
>> themselves go slower, but I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes
>> in their clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
>> people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about
>> why he uses butyl tubes.
>
>They hold air better is the reason Jobst gave, IIRC. However, tests
>conducted by Jan Heine at Bicycle Quarterly suggested that latex tubes
>were slower than butyl tubes, which is contrary to lore.
Dear Tim,
Tests conducted by Al Morrison show that Michelin latex tubes reduced
the RR in three different tires when compared to light butyl tubes
from Torelli, Specialized, and Bontrager. Details of testing are at
the top of the pdf. The latex vs. butyl table is about the middle of
the pdf.
Here are condensed results:
Latex vs. Butyl Tube RR Tests
Velo Flex Pave tire, used, ~500 miles
Butyl 0.00376 Torelli Extra Light Butyl Tube
Latex 0.00317 Michelin latex tube
latex tube reduced RR 16%
***
Vittoria Open Corsa EVO CX, used, ~40 miles
Butyl 0.00307 Specialized Turbo Butyl Tube
Latex 0.00261 Michelin latex tube
latex tube reduced RR 15%
***
Schwalbe Ultremo, used
Butyl 0.00335 Bontager SL Butyl Tube
Latex 0.00322 Michelin latex tube
latex tube reduced RR 4%
http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf
For what it's worth, reducing RR from 0.00307 to 0.00261 for the
defaults on the calculator below reduces the 300-watt 10-km time from
15.7750 minutes to 15.6907 minutes, 0.0843 minutes, or 5.06 seconds
http://austinimage.com/bp/velocityN/velocity.html
Reducing RR from 0.00335 to 0.00322 for the same 300-watt 10-km ride
reduces the time from 15.8268 minutes to 15.8027, 0.0261 minutes, or
1.45 seconds.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:41:27
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <5qpka35pq0ali2r25d3v7k4nnpsusftblq@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:53:10 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >LOL. Again with the casting of aspersions. The "market" that the
> >conservatives love so dearly does indeed eventually manage to find
> >the best products for the job. Just ask the CEO of General Motors.
>
> Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The market finds the best
> sold/marketed and the trendiest products, it doesn't always find the
> right products.
That's the cry of people who want to use something different- like us
Mac owners. We claim our favorite niche product is superior and that
the market is deluded. But the truth is that those product might be
superior for us for reasons that are not shared by the majority of
people buying that class of products.
As for tubulars- if they really were superior they'd at least be
something other than a niche market. But they aren't. Clinchers
probably outsell tubulars 1000:1, maybe 10,000:1.
> >Because they offer no significant superior benefits and have major
> >drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the
> >market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted their
> >thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
>
> No, more likely they are just too difficult for the general public to
> understand with their feeble brains (like many other superior
> products).
Yeah, see, there ya go. That's how the faithful explain it away- by
assuming they have superior intelligence and better judgment, and that
the majority of people are just idiot lemmings following the crowd.
It's just snobbery and elitism, deigning not to fall among the ordinary.
And that's all it is.
> >Clinchers offer easier installation and removal, easier
> >repairability, lower cost, lower rolling resistance (not having the
> >glue hysteresis problem), and a much wider variety of tires.
>
> - I can install a tubular in less time, without any tools, and
> without having to toy with a tube and tire while I do it.
Then you're under-gluing your tubulars. I can change a tube and be back
underway in 2-3 minutes without rushing. With correct technique there's
no "toying" and I don't end up with sticky fingers. That's plenty quick
enough.
> - tubulars have lower rolling resistance, see the research
Yes, dude, see the research. Tubulars as tested (e.g., glued to a rim)
have higher rolling resistance than many clinchers.
> - tubulars are easier to change on the road, and easier to carry as a
> complete spare package
LOL, what bullshit. I've watched too many guys thump home on a flat
tire after they punctured for a second time (or a third, in the case of
those people who carry two spare tubulars).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 13:09:10
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:41:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>That's the cry of people who want to use something different- like us
>Mac owners. We claim our favorite niche product is superior and that
>the market is deluded. But the truth is that those product might be
>superior for us for reasons that are not shared by the majority of
>people buying that class of products.
There are always people who will use a non-mainstream product, for a
variety of reasons. That does not change the fact that the market does
not choose the best products over time, it often chooses the best
"sold" or trendiest product.
You used automobiles earlier. Lets go there: why do so many people
drive SUV's? They lack space, they suck gas, they are the worst
handling passenger vehicle in daily driving and definitely in an
emergency situation. Yet every other vehicle on the street seems to be
an SUV these days. Please explain how the market has chosen the best
product.
>Yeah, see, there ya go. That's how the faithful explain it away- by
>assuming they have superior intelligence and better judgment, and that
>the majority of people are just idiot lemmings following the crowd.
>It's just snobbery and elitism, deigning not to fall among the ordinary.
>And that's all it is.
The fact is that people who do research do often make better decisions
- or at least they make their decision based on facts instead of hype
or trendiness. Witness the SUV.
Again, the (mass) market does not always choose the best product.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 19:09:40
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:hiema3t5pnscddch1odhqb910uh97o5kom@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:41:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
<snip >
>
> You used automobiles earlier. Lets go there: why do so many people
> drive SUV's?
>
<snip >
Why? Could it be the size of or lack of a male member?
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 13:46:58
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <hiema3t5pnscddch1odhqb910uh97o5kom@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:41:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >That's the cry of people who want to use something different- like
> >us Mac owners. We claim our favorite niche product is superior and
> >that the market is deluded. But the truth is that those product
> >might be superior for us for reasons that are not shared by the
> >majority of people buying that class of products.
>
> There are always people who will use a non-mainstream product, for a
> variety of reasons. That does not change the fact that the market
> does not choose the best products over time, it often chooses the
> best "sold" or trendiest product.
Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing. But
OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs
> You used automobiles earlier. Lets go there: why do so many people
> drive SUV's? They lack space, they suck gas, they are the worst
> handling passenger vehicle in daily driving and definitely in an
> emergency situation. Yet every other vehicle on the street seems to
> be an SUV these days. Please explain how the market has chosen the
> best product.
You're oversimplifying the situation and generalizing inaccurately.
The rise in popularity of SUVs had several factors behind it. One was
ridiculously cheap gas, so the poor mileage really didn't matter.
Another was the perceived benefits of 4WD (here in Minnesota, that is a
realistic consideration for many). A third was the utility of a station
wagon. A fourth was the perceived greater safety of a large, heavy
vehicle. A fifth was the benefit of height and improved view of the
road in urban traffic. All in all, for many buyers the SUV was the best
product and hence they bought them peaking in, it seems from Googling
about for a while, the year 2000.
Throughout the past 40 years, including the so-called dominance of the
SUV, the best selling vehicles in the US were small cars- the Toyota
Corolla (32,000,000), the Volkswagen Beetle (21,500,000). US passenger
car registrations outnumber SUV and pickup trucks together at nearly
2:1. However, the Ford F Series pickup trucks are the best selling line
of vehicles in the US, especially in rural areas.
But what's happened now? The conditions have changed and thus the
parameters for the best product for the job have changed. Gas prices
are 50% or more greater than they were five years ago. People are
understanding the peak oil issue and planning ahead for this. The
rollover issue was brought to widespread public notice by the Ford
Exploder debacle. Also the sheer cost of many SUVs finally became an
issue. People are now making different choices, catapulting smaller and
efficient cars into the market lead.
> >Yeah, see, there ya go. That's how the faithful explain it away- by
> >assuming they have superior intelligence and better judgment, and
> >that the majority of people are just idiot lemmings following the
> >crowd. It's just snobbery and elitism, deigning not to fall among
> >the ordinary. And that's all it is.
>
> The fact is that people who do research do often make better
> decisions - or at least they make their decision based on facts
> instead of hype or trendiness. Witness the SUV.
>
> Again, the (mass) market does not always choose the best product.
Geez, you must be one of those hated Godless liberals to have such
little faith in the market. :-D Must be due to your belief that
"people are stupid" (cf. _Wizard's First Rule_).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 04:11:55
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:46:58 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing.
At what magical point in time do we declare that the market has chosen
the best product?
>But
>OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
>product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
>CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs
You're confusing technological innovation with marketing driven
selection. Otherwise you would have had to write "beta-max" above
instead of "VHS".
>
>The rise in popularity of SUVs had several factors behind it. One was
>ridiculously cheap gas, so the poor mileage really didn't matter.
SUV's continued to sell vigorously with gas prices climbing. We all
considered $1/gallon too much, but SUV's sold like hot cakes when we
passed that and continued to sell as gas prices rose.
>Another was the perceived benefits of 4WD (here in Minnesota, that is a
>realistic consideration for many).
Then why do they sell so many SUV's in southern CA and urban areas
when 4wd is not needed or even used?
>A third was the utility of a station wagon.
Not for anyone who looked in the back at the feeble amount of space
and the high liftover.
>A fourth was the perceived greater safety of a large, heavy
>vehicle.
Not after all the bad publicity concerning rollovers and the high CoG
issues.
>A fifth was the benefit of height and improved view of the road in urban traffic.
I've never heard an SUV driver mention that as a reason for
purchasing.
>All in all, for many buyers the SUV was the best
>product and hence they bought them peaking in, it seems from Googling
>about for a while, the year 2000.
BS. It was the trendiest product. All of the factors you mentioned,
with the exception of 4WD that 9 / 10 SUV drivers don't even know how
& when to use, would be better met by a minivan. So, tell me why they
bought the SUV instead of the mini-van?
Your "better product" theory doesn't hold water.
>Geez, you must be one of those hated Godless liberals to have such
>little faith in the market. :-D Must be due to your belief that
>"people are stupid" (cf. _Wizard's First Rule_).
People aren't stupid but many are ignorant. Manu are highly influenced
by the tidal wave of advertising by manufacturers. They still make
many more decisions based on slick marketing and who has the best
campaign instead of the best product. Crest out sells other
anti-cavity toothpastes 2:1. Why? Marketing and name recognition, not
a better product, all the leading brands have equal anti-cavity
protection. There are a thousand other examples of marketing and sales
driving product takeover as opposed to the "better" product.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 10:43:39
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <gm3oa393ifmbprq153sntp058g44tdlt87@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:46:58 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing.
>
> At what magical point in time do we declare that the market has
> chosen the best product?
>
> >But OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the
> >better product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette
> >tapes with CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs
>
> You're confusing technological innovation with marketing driven
> selection. Otherwise you would have had to write "beta-max" above
> instead of "VHS".
I deliberately left out the BetaMax, which lost out because it was a
single-souce product unlike VHS and because it was more expensive,
choosing instead the more apropos example. We're still talking about
clinchers and tubulars, despite your red herring attempts to divert the
discussion.
> >The rise in popularity of SUVs had several factors behind it. One
> >was ridiculously cheap gas, so the poor mileage really didn't
> >matter.
>
> SUV's continued to sell vigorously with gas prices climbing. We all
> considered $1/gallon too much, but SUV's sold like hot cakes when we
> passed that and continued to sell as gas prices rose.
As you note, "continued." They no longer sell like hot cakes because
the market conditions have changed.
> >Another was the perceived benefits of 4WD (here in Minnesota, that
> >is a realistic consideration for many).
>
> Then why do they sell so many SUV's in southern CA and urban areas
> when 4wd is not needed or even used?
I bought my Bronco II in 1988 and live in an urban area. We do
occasionally get snowfalls > 1 foot and I bought it specifically for the
4WD capability. I owned that vehicle for 13 years and never got stuck
in the snow with it. Winters have changed dramatically in the past few
years, however, and we haven't had cold temperatures or a snowfall
worthy of the name in five years. My 1990 Volvo is perfectly adequate
to the current conditions.
I haven't been to SoCal in 26 years, and when I was there back in 1981 I
never got farther south than San Luis Obispo. Few SUVs lots of spendy
sports cars. I've never seen so many Porsches and Ferraris and the like
in one area.
> >A third was the utility of a station wagon.
>
> Not for anyone who looked in the back at the feeble amount of space
> and the high liftover.
My Bronco II- a small SUV that was a friggin' lemon- could hold three
people and three bikes inside, which was something I couldn't do with
any other car I have owned.
> >A fourth was the perceived greater safety of a large, heavy vehicle.
> >
>
> Not after all the bad publicity concerning rollovers and the high CoG
> issues.
Not after the Ford Exploder and the Firestone tire debacle, no, although
a lot of people still clung to the notions that (1) "they wouldn't sell
them if they weren't safe" and (2) bigger vehicles are safer. Beliefs
die hard. And that was the beginning of the downturn in SUV sales.
> >A fifth was the benefit of height and improved view of the road in
> >urban traffic.
>
> I've never heard an SUV driver mention that as a reason for
> purchasing.
It's one I hear. It's also given as one of the reasons for buying a
pickup truck. I noticed a significant difference back when I went from
a small Japanese car to the Bronco II in terms of how much farther I
could see down the road. After I junked the Bronco II in 2001 and
bought my Volvo the decreased visibility was really very noticeable.
> >All in all, for many buyers the SUV was the best product and hence
> >they bought them peaking in, it seems from Googling about for a
> >while, the year 2000.
>
> BS. It was the trendiest product. All of the factors you mentioned,
> with the exception of 4WD that 9 / 10 SUV drivers don't even know how
> & when to use, would be better met by a minivan. So, tell me why they
> bought the SUV instead of the mini-van?
I've already covered that, dude. One interesting thing I noted was how
much the SUV owners I knew liked their vehicles. Two, three four years
later they still really liked them. The change came when gas hit $3.00
per gallon and it cost $80 to fill the tank once a week. Now almost all
of them have sold their SUVs and replaced them with smaller more
fuel-efficient cars because SUVs are no longer seen as the best product
for their needs.
> Your "better product" theory doesn't hold water.
We're obviously not going to reach an accord on this.
> >Geez, you must be one of those hated Godless liberals to have such
> >little faith in the market. :-D Must be due to your belief that
> >"people are stupid" (cf. _Wizard's First Rule_).
>
> People aren't stupid but many are ignorant. Manu are highly
> influenced by the tidal wave of advertising by manufacturers. They
> still make many more decisions based on slick marketing and who has
> the best campaign instead of the best product.
Yeah, you're basically still saying that people- and the market place-
are stupid. Perhaps you'd prefer "gullible" to "stupid."
> Crest out sells other anti-cavity toothpastes 2:1. Why? Marketing and
> name recognition, not a better product, all the leading brands have
> equal anti-cavity protection. There are a thousand other examples of
> marketing and sales driving product takeover as opposed to the
> "better" product.
If the products are of equal efficacy, then it doesn't matter which one
they buy. Any of them are the "best" product. In those cases, market
forces have driven the manufacturers to producing products that are
basically a level playing field. People make their decision based on
the range of products readily available to them; few people have time to
research and compare and to methodically winnow down the field to one or
two prime candidates. They've got jobs and kids and other things to do,
so they get as close as they can. Over time, though, there is a strong
tendency to self-correction in the market. It's basically a Darwinian
process.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 20:04:23
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:43:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>If the products are of equal efficacy, then it doesn't matter which one
>they buy. Any of them are the "best" product. In those cases, market
>forces have driven the manufacturers to producing products that are
>basically a level playing field. People make their decision based on
>the range of products readily available to them; few people have time to
>research and compare and to methodically winnow down the field to one or
>two prime candidates. They've got jobs and kids and other things to do,
>so they get as close as they can. Over time, though, there is a strong
>tendency to self-correction in the market. It's basically a Darwinian
>process.
Darwinian? Maybe in days of yore, no longer.
Explain to me why Fram oil filters are #1 in the market, when they are
known to those who do research on the subject to be the worst design?
Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most business
class servers. Tell me why we weren't using 64-bit Alpha chips years
ago when they clearly blew the doors off Intel's legacy handicapped 32
bit offerings? Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy a Hummer (if
you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to before answering
that question).
Or here's a biker one for you: Tell me why all those guys were running
Campy derailleurs when the Simplex Super LJ blew it away, even winning
the TDF shortly after its introduction?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 22:12:28
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> If the products are of equal efficacy, then it doesn't matter which one
>> they buy. Any of them are the "best" product. In those cases, market
>> forces have driven the manufacturers to producing products that are
>> basically a level playing field. People make their decision based on
>> the range of products readily available to them; few people have time to
>> research and compare and to methodically winnow down the field to one or
>> two prime candidates. They've got jobs and kids and other things to do,
>> so they get as close as they can. Over time, though, there is a strong
>> tendency to self-correction in the market. It's basically a Darwinian
>> process.
still me wrote:
> Darwinian? Maybe in days of yore, no longer.
>
> Explain to me why Fram oil filters are #1 in the market, when they are
> known to those who do research on the subject to be the worst design?
> Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most business
> class servers. Tell me why we weren't using 64-bit Alpha chips years
> ago when they clearly blew the doors off Intel's legacy handicapped 32
> bit offerings? Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy a Hummer (if
> you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to before answering
> that question).
>
> Or here's a biker one for you: Tell me why all those guys were running
> Campy derailleurs when the Simplex Super LJ blew it away, even winning
> the TDF shortly after its introduction?
For that matter, why buy new clothing when thrift stores sell at $2 to
$10 per garment? To some that's a bargain, to others unacceptable.
These are much more complex questions than you imply.
p.s. in my quick, low car I can't see over much at all. Still like it.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 20:02:41
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:12:28 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>For that matter, why buy new clothing when thrift stores sell at $2 to
>$10 per garment? To some that's a bargain, to others unacceptable.
>
>These are much more complex questions than you imply.
The point exactly! Technological superiority is not the "one" deciding
factor!
>p.s. in my quick, low car I can't see over much at all. Still like it.
Me too. I just swear at all the idiots driving SUV's when they're in
front of me and pass them when I have the chance (still getting better
mileage than them whilst opening the throttle wide).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 03:56:44
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:kgrpa3dp9df8cciqkc4ojhahq3ae2u1av2@4ax.com...
> Explain to me why Fram oil filters are #1 in the market, when they are
> known to those who do research on the subject to be the worst design?
> Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most business
> class servers. Tell me why we weren't using 64-bit Alpha chips years
> ago when they clearly blew the doors off Intel's legacy handicapped 32
> bit offerings?
The concepts of "good enough" and "cheaper" haven't really entered your
consciousness, have they. Which is a pity, because they're quite important
for real-world engineering.
cheers,
clive
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 19:51:54
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <kgrpa3dp9df8cciqkc4ojhahq3ae2u1av2@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:43:39 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >If the products are of equal efficacy, then it doesn't matter which
> >one they buy. Any of them are the "best" product. In those cases,
> >market forces have driven the manufacturers to producing products
> >that are basically a level playing field. People make their
> >decision based on the range of products readily available to them;
> >few people have time to research and compare and to methodically
> >winnow down the field to one or two prime candidates. They've got
> >jobs and kids and other things to do, so they get as close as they
> >can. Over time, though, there is a strong tendency to
> >self-correction in the market. It's basically a Darwinian process.
>
> Darwinian? Maybe in days of yore, no longer.
>
> Explain to me why Fram oil filters are #1 in the market, when they
> are known to those who do research on the subject to be the worst
> design? Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most
> business class servers. Tell me why we weren't using 64-bit Alpha
> chips years ago when they clearly blew the doors off Intel's legacy
> handicapped 32 bit offerings? Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy
> a Hummer (if you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to
> before answering that question).
>
> Or here's a biker one for you: Tell me why all those guys were
> running Campy derailleurs when the Simplex Super LJ blew it away,
> even winning the TDF shortly after its introduction?
Let's stick to the bicycle topic. Simplex sowed its own death with the
Prestige derailleurs. Simple as that. And SunTour blew Simplex's SLJ
out of the water. The end result there is instructive- due to a series
of business missteps, SunTour went the way of the dodo, but its superior
derailleur design lives on, adopted by Campagnolo and Shimano.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 22:25:42
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> If the products are of equal efficacy, then it doesn't matter which
>>> one they buy. Any of them are the "best" product. In those cases,
>>> market forces have driven the manufacturers to producing products
>>> that are basically a level playing field. People make their
>>> decision based on the range of products readily available to them;
>>> few people have time to research and compare and to methodically
>>> winnow down the field to one or two prime candidates. They've got
>>> jobs and kids and other things to do, so they get as close as they
>>> can. Over time, though, there is a strong tendency to
>>> self-correction in the market. It's basically a Darwinian process.
>> Darwinian? Maybe in days of yore, no longer.
> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Explain to me why Fram oil filters are #1 in the market, when they
>> are known to those who do research on the subject to be the worst
>> design? Tell me why we're not using Vax-VMS, instead of Unix, on most
>> business class servers. Tell me why we weren't using 64-bit Alpha
>> chips years ago when they clearly blew the doors off Intel's legacy
>> handicapped 32 bit offerings? Tell me why anyone, anywhere, would buy
>> a Hummer (if you haven't been in one and driven it, you need to
>> before answering that question).
>>
>> Or here's a biker one for you: Tell me why all those guys were
>> running Campy derailleurs when the Simplex Super LJ blew it away,
>> even winning the TDF shortly after its introduction?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Let's stick to the bicycle topic. Simplex sowed its own death with the
> Prestige derailleurs. Simple as that. And SunTour blew Simplex's SLJ
> out of the water. The end result there is instructive- due to a series
> of business missteps, SunTour went the way of the dodo, but its superior
> derailleur design lives on, adopted by Campagnolo and Shimano.
Yes that is what happened. Suntour's Slant Parallelogram gave better
shifting with less manufacturing cost at every level. As with Hummers,
some riders were happy that you knew they spent more for their Record
than you did for your Suntour.
Both Shimano and Campagnolo incorporate Lucien Juy's Simplex dual-spring
design and the Suntour Slant Paralellogram to this very day.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 02:34:01
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:51:54 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
>Let's stick to the bicycle topic. Simplex sowed its own death with the
>Prestige derailleurs. Simple as that.
So you admit that it's not the superior product that wins and you
admit that it's a marketing image that won.
You just lost your argument.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 23:28:10
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <9bjqa35t1mv1dlh0h6d93b8orkauqid1q8@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:51:54 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >Let's stick to the bicycle topic. Simplex sowed its own death with
> >the Prestige derailleurs. Simple as that.
>
> So you admit that it's not the superior product that wins and you
> admit that it's a marketing image that won.
Desperate much?
The massively inferior Simplex Prestige derailleur tainted all of
Simplex's products and doomed the company- one of the consequences of
making an inferior product. I remember yanking off hundreds of those
POS derailleurs off bikes into the 80s and replacing them back in my
wrenching days. Lots of bikes came with Prestige derailleurs; no bikes
came spec'd with SLJ derailleurs at any bike shop I worked at from
1976-1985. The Prestige was such a crappy product that no one wanted to
touch the SLJ; the SLJ also lost out because while it was better than
Campy, it was inferior to Sun Tour. Sun Tour and then Shimano were the
standard.
Simplex Prestige derailleurs were spec'd on many bikes and they were a
nightmare. As a result, the SLJ derailleurs were spec'd on few. At the
same time, Sun Tour came along with a superior product to Campy,
Shimano, Simplex, Huret, etc. and pretty much dominated the market.
They screwed up in several ways (see Frank Berto's "Sunset for Sun
Tour") especially with indexing, and when the lost patent protection on
the slant parallelogram derailleur they were rapidly supplanted in the
market by Shimano. Shimano did a much better job of developing indexed
shifting with some key improvements to the Sun Tour design, as well as
packaging their products to benefit modern assembly line manufacturing
(addressing multiple markets simultaneously).
Failing to keep up with the times nearly put Campagnolo out of business,
until Campy finally came to their senses and developed good indexing and
adopted the slant parallelogram. They were like the GM of bicycling,
resisting change and technological improvement and ultimately paying a
steep price. Campy also had to learn to accommodate the needs of
manufacturers if they wanted to keep any of the OEM market. Their
success was marginal as Shimano still clobbers Campy at all levels of
the market.
> You just lost your argument.
If "winning" the "argument" is important to you, by all means believe
that you have won. Your grasp of bicycle history is little better than
your understanding of market forces. You've missed the point and the
obvious facts time and time again, but there's nothing I can do to help
that. Further discussion is a waste of energy.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:49:24
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:28:10 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
>> You just lost your argument.
>
>If "winning" the "argument" is important to you, by all means believe
>that you have won. Your grasp of bicycle history is little better than
>your understanding of market forces. You've missed the point and the
>obvious facts time and time again, but there's nothing I can do to help
>that. Further discussion is a waste of energy.
You've missed the point. I understand bicycling history in that period
well enough, despite your cheap insults concerning that and your self
centered view that only your facts matter.
The point is, as you admit, that (almost) no one bought Simplex due to
company image, despite a superior product. Portions of their design
ideas appeared later adopted by others with better marketing and
better image and became main stream.
It's not all about the technology, and the technologically superior
product does not always win. It's about selling the product, and
Simplex lost. There are lots of examples of superior products losing
out to better image and sales.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 17:46:00
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <aqfsa315enl26l5k9dmkpolq7n45c12st5@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:28:10 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> You just lost your argument.
> >
> >If "winning" the "argument" is important to you, by all means
> >believe that you have won. Your grasp of bicycle history is little
> >better than your understanding of market forces. You've missed the
> >point and the obvious facts time and time again, but there's nothing
> >I can do to help that. Further discussion is a waste of energy.
>
> You've missed the point. I understand bicycling history in that
> period well enough, despite your cheap insults concerning that and
> your self centered view that only your facts matter.
>
> The point is, as you admit, that (almost) no one bought Simplex due
> to company image, despite a superior product. Portions of their
> design ideas appeared later adopted by others with better marketing
> and better image and became main stream.
My point must not have been as clear as I thought. The reason that the
Simplex SLJ didn't get spec'd on US bikes had nothing to do with its
superiority vis a vis Campy. The bleedover of the incredible
inferiority of the Prestige derailleur was certainly one contributor,
and one that might have been overcome, but the Simplex killer was the
rise of the Sun Tour slant parallelogram derailleur which was
technologically superior. Sun Tour dominated the OEM market because its
products were better. That's what killed Simplex in the US market.
Without Sun Tour the SLJ might have stood a chance but we'll never know.
FWIW, in the last two years of its mainstream life cycle, Sun Tour also
adopted the spring loaded upper pivot design for its rear derailleurs.
I believe but am not completely certain that they followed Shimano's
lead in this. Campy resisted adopting both the spring loaded upper
pivot as well as the slant parallelogram for a surprisingly long time.
> It's not all about the technology, and the technologically superior
> product does not always win. It's about selling the product, and
> Simplex lost. There are lots of examples of superior products losing
> out to better image and sales.
But Simplex did not lose out to an inferior product (Campy). It lost
out to a superior product (Sun Tour). Indeed, the rise of superior
quality Japanese bicycles severely damaged European bike and component
manufacturers in the US market. Simplex, Huret, Peugeot, Motobecane and
Campy were all on the ropes in just a couple of years and Raleigh just a
few years later- only its sheer size protected it for a while. Ross,
Huffy and Schwinn all ended up succumbing over time.
FWIW, we may be talking at a bit of cross purposes. I am not asserting
that the market always chooses the most technologically superior
product, unless that superiority is head and shoulders above its
competition. I am asserting that the market chooses the best product
for its needs (and because needs are not uniform, there may be a
multimodal distribution in the buying pattern; also needs change over
time). There are multiple parameters for "best" including utility,
price, availability, applicability to needs, etc. Mountain bike A may
be technologically superior to road bike B, but if you're going to race
crits you're going to buy road bike B.
I am also not asserting that the market is instantaneous in selecting
the best product. It might take 10 years for the market to winnow out
the inferior products, and of course inferior products can be improved.
I am also not asserting that the market is immune to the effects of
marketing. Marketing has a measurable effect but generally a temporary
one. The market is also prone to fads, which typically wear off rapidly
but can be very lucrative if exploited well.
None of this explains the sales of Britney Spears CDs. On that topic I
would have to admit defeat!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 11:03:42
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 04:11:55 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:46:58 -0500, Tim McNamara
><timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>Temporarily that can be true, thanks to the effects of marketing.
>
>At what magical point in time do we declare that the market has chosen
>the best product?
>
>>But
>>OTOH we find that the market does winnow things down to the better
>>product. For example, replacing the LP album and cassette tapes with
>>CDs, replacing VHS tapes with DVDs
>
>You're confusing technological innovation with marketing driven
>selection. Otherwise you would have had to write "beta-max" above
>instead of "VHS".
Egad, that one, again. The problem with beta was cost and software availability.
Yes, we have customers who still use their betamax machines. Shame they couldn't
buy or rent anything to watch on them.
After Beta comes the Dvorak keyboard layout as the next bogus example.
>>
>>The rise in popularity of SUVs had several factors behind it. One was
>>ridiculously cheap gas, so the poor mileage really didn't matter.
>
>SUV's continued to sell vigorously with gas prices climbing. We all
>considered $1/gallon too much, but SUV's sold like hot cakes when we
>passed that and continued to sell as gas prices rose.
>
>>Another was the perceived benefits of 4WD (here in Minnesota, that is a
>>realistic consideration for many).
>
>Then why do they sell so many SUV's in southern CA and urban areas
>when 4wd is not needed or even used?
Very often that was included as part of the package whether you needed it or
not. A lot of people were willing to accept the added cost and weight for the
other advantages offered.
>>A third was the utility of a station wagon.
>
>Not for anyone who looked in the back at the feeble amount of space
>and the high liftover.
Only has to be "enough" space. I can't fit my bikes or music gear in a sedan,
but in even the tiny little Bronco II it all fits beautifully. (not at the same
time) One man's "high liftover" is another's "don't have to stoop for it."
>>A fourth was the perceived greater safety of a large, heavy
>>vehicle.
>
>Not after all the bad publicity concerning rollovers and the high CoG
>issues.
Which was of course publicity, not an actual problem for a competent, reasonably
mature driver. Most of the negative statistics were driven by 20 year olds in
Suzuki Samurais.
>>A fifth was the benefit of height and improved view of the road in urban traffic.
>
>I've never heard an SUV driver mention that as a reason for
>purchasing.
I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
>>All in all, for many buyers the SUV was the best
>>product and hence they bought them peaking in, it seems from Googling
>>about for a while, the year 2000.
>
>BS. It was the trendiest product. All of the factors you mentioned,
>with the exception of 4WD that 9 / 10 SUV drivers don't even know how
>& when to use, would be better met by a minivan. So, tell me why they
>bought the SUV instead of the mini-van?
>
>Your "better product" theory doesn't hold water.
It does, but in the sense of many thousands of individual decisions rather than
the big all encompassing decision that you are trying to make. You've evaluated
the evidence and concluded that SUV's aren't best for everyone - but that isn't
how buying decisions are made.
>>Geez, you must be one of those hated Godless liberals to have such
>>little faith in the market. :-D Must be due to your belief that
>>"people are stupid" (cf. _Wizard's First Rule_).
>
>People aren't stupid but many are ignorant. Manu are highly influenced
>by the tidal wave of advertising by manufacturers. They still make
>many more decisions based on slick marketing and who has the best
>campaign instead of the best product. Crest out sells other
>anti-cavity toothpastes 2:1. Why? Marketing and name recognition, not
>a better product, all the leading brands have equal anti-cavity
>protection. There are a thousand other examples of marketing and sales
>driving product takeover as opposed to the "better" product.
You're on sounder ground with the toothpaste example.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 23:19:12
From: Jay Hill
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
RonSonic wrote:
> I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
> cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
> haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
Hey Einstein, "normal cars" are trucks and SUVs now, because of the
knuckle-dragging thinking you're using.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 12:46:06
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:42 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
>cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
>haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
That figures - you strike me as the type of person who wants a big
vehicle, other road users be damned.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 11:34:15
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:06 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:42 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look over normal
>>cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in vehicle choice for me. I
>>haven't owned a short car in over 20 years and simply won't again.
>
>That figures - you strike me as the type of person who wants a big
>vehicle, other road users be damned.
My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any definition.
It is taller than normal cars. I like that. I also like that what little space
there is in it is a good fit for the things I carry. I rarely haul more than one
other person and I can carry either enough bikes and gear for a day or enough
amplifier and guitar for a night or enough repairs to make a pickup and delivery
worthwhile. It doesn't burn much gas for a brick shaped object and has been
reliable for me.
As for the escalation described by another, I don't feel any need to have
something larger. I also don't feel bad about it being called an SUV nor am I
bothered by the trial lawyers trying to create a revenue stream.
If you choose to drive something in which you are uncomfortable then you have
chosen your own damnation. One does not need a big car or truck to drive like a
jerk and inconvenience others. I have neither the large vehicle nor the bad
attitude. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for your problems in traffic.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 17:00:13
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <v90sa3lpj1km71blaebvdob8ntjaun8v2m@4ax.com >,
RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:06 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:42 -0400, RonSonic
> ><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look
> >>over normal cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in
> >>vehicle choice for me. I haven't owned a short car in over 20 years
> >>and simply won't again.
> >
> >That figures - you strike me as the type of person who wants a big
> >vehicle, other road users be damned.
>
> My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any
> definition. It is taller than normal cars. I like that. I also like
> that what little space there is in it is a good fit for the things I
> carry. I rarely haul more than one other person and I can carry
> either enough bikes and gear for a day or enough amplifier and guitar
> for a night or enough repairs to make a pickup and delivery
> worthwhile. It doesn't burn much gas for a brick shaped object and
> has been reliable for me.
I had one of those 1988-2001. While what you say about its utility was
also true for me, it was the worst POS lemon of a vehicle I have ever
owned. It cost me $13,000 to buy new and I think I paid damn near that
much in repairs over the years.
Being a cheap bastard, I have owned three cars in 29 years. A 1981
Plymouth Arrow mini-pickup (cheap but well-made and very reliable,
except it was horrible in the snow), the 1988 Bronco II (lemon but good
in the snow) and a 1990 Volvo 240 (bought used in 2001). The latter is
the best car I have ever owned and I fully expect to get 250,000-300,000
miles out of it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 08:58:24
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:00:13 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <v90sa3lpj1km71blaebvdob8ntjaun8v2m@4ax.com>,
> RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:06 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:42 -0400, RonSonic
>> ><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I will never willingly own a vehicle that does not allow me to look
>> >>over normal cars in traffic. That is a very important factor in
>> >>vehicle choice for me. I haven't owned a short car in over 20 years
>> >>and simply won't again.
>> >
>> >That figures - you strike me as the type of person who wants a big
>> >vehicle, other road users be damned.
>>
>> My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any
>> definition. It is taller than normal cars. I like that. I also like
>> that what little space there is in it is a good fit for the things I
>> carry. I rarely haul more than one other person and I can carry
>> either enough bikes and gear for a day or enough amplifier and guitar
>> for a night or enough repairs to make a pickup and delivery
>> worthwhile. It doesn't burn much gas for a brick shaped object and
>> has been reliable for me.
>
>I had one of those 1988-2001. While what you say about its utility was
>also true for me, it was the worst POS lemon of a vehicle I have ever
>owned. It cost me $13,000 to buy new and I think I paid damn near that
>much in repairs over the years.
>
>Being a cheap bastard, I have owned three cars in 29 years. A 1981
>Plymouth Arrow mini-pickup (cheap but well-made and very reliable,
>except it was horrible in the snow), the 1988 Bronco II (lemon but good
>in the snow) and a 1990 Volvo 240 (bought used in 2001). The latter is
>the best car I have ever owned and I fully expect to get 250,000-300,000
>miles out of it.
I'll be ready for another, more competent vehicle soon, myself. I like the B2
"package" but this one is getting old and as you mention they were mostly
trouble from the get go. This was a lucky one which only makes it the best of a
bad breed. If it had the engine and drivetrain from my old Chevy Astro (bigger
than I needed) I'd probably love it forever.
I basically believe in driving them 'til they drop. I don't see spending money
on mundane land transportation.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 16:20:03
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:58:24 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>I basically believe in driving them 'til they drop. I don't see spending money
>on mundane land transportation.
I drive them for a long time too - but I still choose something that's
more fun than "mundane land transportation". Might as well enjoy those
hours behind the wheel.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 14:43:07
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <a8oua3918n64lse1a5aqtptvskcenfti0b@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:58:24 -0400, RonSonic
> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I basically believe in driving them 'til they drop. I don't see
> >spending money on mundane land transportation.
>
> I drive them for a long time too - but I still choose something
> that's more fun than "mundane land transportation". Might as well
> enjoy those hours behind the wheel.
Is that possible? I detest driving, but then I live in an urban area
with incredibly badly designed and badly maintained roads populated
(probably like everywhere else) with far too many people whose driving
skills barely extend beyond starting the car and putting in in "drive."
I just try to choose cars that make driving less miserable- enjoying
driving is too much to hope for.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2007 19:59:30
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <a8oua3918n64lse1a5aqtptvskcenfti0b@4ax.com>,
> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:58:24 -0400, RonSonic
>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I basically believe in driving them 'til they drop. I don't see
>>> spending money on mundane land transportation.
>> I drive them for a long time too - but I still choose something
>> that's more fun than "mundane land transportation". Might as well
>> enjoy those hours behind the wheel.
>
> Is that possible? I detest driving, but then I live in an urban area
> with incredibly badly designed and badly maintained roads populated
> (probably like everywhere else) with far too many people whose driving
> skills barely extend beyond starting the car and putting in in "drive."
> I just try to choose cars that make driving less miserable- enjoying
> driving is too much to hope for.
Hope Tim wasn't driving on the I-35 westbound bridge a few minutes ago:
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_re_us/minnesota_bridge_collapse_13;_ylt=AmXHRxyn1.Zh.w7kOqJ.WU9saMYA >.
Yikes! At least there were no cyclists on the bridge.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2007 22:11:38
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <46b12078$0$24196$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <a8oua3918n64lse1a5aqtptvskcenfti0b@4ax.com>,
> > still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:58:24 -0400, RonSonic
> >> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I basically believe in driving them 'til they drop. I don't see
> >>> spending money on mundane land transportation.
> >> I drive them for a long time too - but I still choose something
> >> that's more fun than "mundane land transportation". Might as well
> >> enjoy those hours behind the wheel.
> >
> > Is that possible? I detest driving, but then I live in an urban
> > area with incredibly badly designed and badly maintained roads
> > populated (probably like everywhere else) with far too many people
> > whose driving skills barely extend beyond starting the car and
> > putting in in "drive." I just try to choose cars that make driving
> > less miserable- enjoying driving is too much to hope for.
>
> Hope Tim wasn't driving on the I-35 westbound bridge a few minutes
> ago:
No, thank you, I wasn't. In fact at that time I was sadly driving the
body of my cat, who died at home about 1/2 hour before, to the vet and
found out about the bridge collapse when I got home. It sort of put my
grief over my cat into some perspective.
The news from the bridge collapse has been both horrible and utterly
astounding. The bridge, which is more than a 1/4 mile span with about
500 feet of it being across the river proper, collapsed about 65 feet at
6:05 PM while filled with bumper to bumper traffic. From 50-100
vehicles are thought to have been on the bridge. One vehicle was a
school bus with about 60 kids on board; that section of the bridge
collapsed onto land. Other drivers and cyclists passing nearby were
able to get the kids off the bus and off the bridge- with only
relatively minor injuries despite the long fall.
> Yikes! At least there were no cyclists on the bridge
No, but there are popular cycling trails on either side of the
Mississippi River than pass directly under the bridge. Sections of the
bridge collapsed onto both trails, but at this point there are thus far
no reports of injuries of cyclists or pedestrians on the trails. There
were bicyclists pitching in to the initial rescue efforts.
I hope that nobody here has anyone they know that was caught up in this
horrible tragedy.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Aug 2007 21:49:27
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:43:07 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>Is that possible? I detest driving, but then I live in an urban area
>with incredibly badly designed and badly maintained roads populated
>(probably like everywhere else) with far too many people whose driving
>skills barely extend beyond starting the car and putting in in "drive."
>I just try to choose cars that make driving less miserable- enjoying
>driving is too much to hope for.
Sure. Drive a small, nimble car, and enjoy dodging the idjits.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 16:49:03
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:v90sa3lpj1km71blaebvdob8ntjaun8v2m@4ax.com...
> My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any
> definition.
Say what?
How does it compare in size and weight to say a golf - a medium size car?
How about to a little car?
I suspect the answer is it is big. Not necessarily huge, but big.
cheers,
clive
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 17:14:08
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <46ae086d$0$1618$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net >,
"Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote:
> "RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:v90sa3lpj1km71blaebvdob8ntjaun8v2m@4ax.com...
>
> > My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by
> > any definition.
>
> Say what?
>
> How does it compare in size and weight to say a golf - a medium size
> car? How about to a little car?
>
> I suspect the answer is it is big. Not necessarily huge, but big.
Mine fit in a standard US "compact car" parking space with no problems.
It was not as long than my Volvo 240- which in its day was considered a
medium size car in the US. The Bronco II was not quite as much of a
land yacht as most SUVs, but still posed the problem of restricting the
line of sight for following drivers. I was rear-ended several times in
the Bronco II and never in any other vehicle. Note there was the Bronco
and the Bronco II, the latter being a smaller vehicle than the former.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Bronco_II
The wheelbase was 94 inches (2.39 m) and width was 68 inches (7.73 m).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 15:50:28
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:49:03 +0100, "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk >
wrote:
>"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:v90sa3lpj1km71blaebvdob8ntjaun8v2m@4ax.com...
>
>> My gas-powered vehicle (as mentioned) is a Bronco II. Not big by any
>> definition.
>
>Say what?
>
>How does it compare in size and weight to say a golf - a medium size car?
>How about to a little car?
A Golf is not a medium sized car. A more reasonable comparison would be a Ford
Taurus, it weighs no more is not as wide or long, but is taller. Roughly 65
inches wide, and 13' long according to my tape measure. A Golf will not carry a
Marshall half-stack and guitars and kit. So it really isn't much of a
comparison. Here's a representative specimen:
http://autopixx.de/bilder/autopixx-de-1163847623-92.jpg They don't all end up
that way, but enough of them to get people talking.
Okay, maybe a Golf is medium sized in your neighborhood. I just saw your email
address.
>I suspect the answer is it is big. Not necessarily huge, but big.
Hmmm, now we're down to some strict usage problems here. Perhaps by some
definitions it is indeed "big." I will choose to stand by the statement though
and insist that may phrasing is accurate within reasonable rhetorical limits.
>
>cheers,
>clive
Cheers,
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 00:31:29
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:gm3oa393ifmbprq153sntp058g44tdlt87@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:46:58 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
> Then why do they sell so many SUV's in southern CA and urban areas
> when 4wd is not needed or even used?
>
Any SoCal SUV that gets off of a paved surface is immediatly taken to be
washed.
Why sonny boy, the real reason I bought this here SUV is because it makes
me feel "MANLY". It adds 3" to my ego!
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:52:47 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
[snip]
>- tubulars have lower rolling resistance, see the research
Dear SM,
Here's some recent research:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
than the best tubular:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 07:16:27
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 5:31 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:06:11 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
>
> >According to one set of data the difference
> >between Conti and Mastik One is bigger than the difference between the
> >best tubulars and the best clinchers-
>
> Where?
The same
http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf
However, I misremembered the data. It was Conti vs Mastik but on
different tires. The real point of the comparison was the aging of the
glue, which over the course of two months decreased the rr of the
Mastik glued tire by slightly more than one watt. That seems to
further support my suggestion that any rr comparison of tubulars needs
to carefully control the gluing technique, and that any comparison of
tubulars against clinchers requires additionally as the first step
that testing be done to discover the optimal glue and gluing technique
for best rr.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:17:43
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:16:27 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>t any comparison of
>tubulars against clinchers requires additionally as the first step
>that testing be done to discover the optimal glue and gluing technique
>for best rr.
...that is safe.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 07:15:01
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Aug 3, 5:33 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:17:14 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
> wrote:
>
> >Are you sure that it's not, at least in some circumstances? Do you
> >think the pro teams would publish the fact that they are using shellac
> >for TT bikes or anywhere else?
>
> I'm not sure but I look at that stuff kind of stuff online and
> (rarely) in person a lot -- have had a pro world champion in my apt,
> ridden with pro nat champs, etc. and a couple of my buddies used to
> get tons of hand-me-down stuff from arguably the top domestic pro
> team. I try to keep my eyes open and never heard nor read about that.
> Seen some weird stuff that was not obvious in my day (steel fork on a
> team OCLV frame is an example).
>
> I haven't been at a top-level TT though .
Did you ever just ask a pro mechanic what type of glue they use?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:17:00
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:15:01 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net
wrote:
>On Aug 3, 5:33 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:17:14 -0700, SocSecTrainWr...@earthlink.net
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Are you sure that it's not, at least in some circumstances? Do you
>> >think the pro teams would publish the fact that they are using shellac
>> >for TT bikes or anywhere else?
>>
>> I'm not sure but I look at that stuff kind of stuff online and
>> (rarely) in person a lot -- have had a pro world champion in my apt,
>> ridden with pro nat champs, etc. and a couple of my buddies used to
>> get tons of hand-me-down stuff from arguably the top domestic pro
>> team. I try to keep my eyes open and never heard nor read about that.
>> Seen some weird stuff that was not obvious in my day (steel fork on a
>> team OCLV frame is an example).
>>
>> I haven't been at a top-level TT though .
>
>Did you ever just ask a pro mechanic what type of glue they use?
No.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 13:51:45
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
>>>> Are you sure that it's not, at least in some circumstances? Do
>>>> you think the pro teams would publish the fact that they are
>>>> using shellac for TT bikes or anywhere else?
>>> I'm not sure but I look at that stuff kind of stuff online and
>>> (rarely) in person a lot -- have had a pro world champion in my
>>> apt, ridden with pro nat champs, etc. and a couple of my buddies
>>> used to get tons of hand-me-down stuff from arguably the top
>>> domestic pro team. I try to keep my eyes open and never heard nor
>>> read about that. Seen some weird stuff that was not obvious in my
>>> day (steel fork on a team OCLV frame is an example).
>>> I haven't been at a top-level TT though .
>> Did you ever just ask a pro mechanic what type of glue they use?
> No.
I asked many riders and mechanics over the years why they used track
glue and none could tell me, that information having apparently been
lost in dead time during WWII, after which bicycle racing was no
longer held a leading interest in sports. The answers I got did not
make sense but were often repeated, just like the reasons given for
holes in brake disks found mainly on cars that suggest racing
abilities.
Tire tests done by IRC for Avocet (the curves shown below), finally
answered for me what the effect of track (hard) glue was. When I saw
these curves, it was obvious what caused the poorer performance of the
two tubulars among these tires, known of good performance in
durability, cornering and light weight. I might have come upon this
otherwise just from the wear characteristics of tubular tire base tape
that in some cases wore through to the casing from movement.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:19:11
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:0quka3hk3i36frgmlpo5oe4092d449t0qp@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:52:47 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >- tubulars have lower rolling resistance, see the research
>
> Dear SM,
>
> Here's some recent research:
>
> http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>
> RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
> than the best tubular:
>
> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>
> RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>
> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Carl,
There are no "best" tubulars any more.... ;-(
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>Dear SM,
>
>Here's some recent research:
>
>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>
>RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
>than the best tubular:
>
>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>
>RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>
>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
b. Single data points do not a survey make
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 14:32:28
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Dear SM,
>>
>>Here's some recent research:
>>
>>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>
>>RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
>>than the best tubular:
>>
>>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>>
>>RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>>
>>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>b. Single data points do not a survey make
If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the least
you could do is show the better research that you supposedly know
about.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 18:39:44
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:32:28 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>>>Carl Fogel
>>
>>a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>>b. Single data points do not a survey make
>
>If you are going to tell someone to see the research, and then have
>some research shown to you that differs with your opinion, the least
>you could do is show the better research that you supposedly know
>about.
You're too late. Carl already beat me silly with a left right
combination. I had to resort to the glue decoy!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:41:57
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <1p0la314tkimjtcg1bcdiliiu38jq55cgv@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >Dear SM,
> >
> >Here's some recent research:
> >
> >http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
> >
> >RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
> >than the best tubular:
> >
> >http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
> >
> >RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
> >
> >http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Carl Fogel
>
> a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
> b. Single data points do not a survey make
Straws do not a flotation device make.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:52:26
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>Dear SM,
>>
>>Here's some recent research:
>>
>>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>
>>RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
>>than the best tubular:
>>
>>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>>
>>RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>>
>>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>b. Single data points do not a survey make
Dear SM,
Please give a link to the research that you wanted us to read,
presumably highly objective and containing more than the 18 clinchers
and 12 tubulars that you describe as single data points.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:01:38
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:52:26 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:44:00 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:06 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>Dear SM,
>>>
>>>Here's some recent research:
>>>
>>>http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>>
>>>RR of best clincher was 0.0038, with the first six clinchers better
>>>than the best tubular:
>>>
>>>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>>>
>>>RR of best tubular was 0.0049 at
>>>
>>>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Carl Fogel
>>
>>a. Highly subjective in their tire selection.
>>b. Single data points do not a survey make
>
>Dear SM,
>
>Please give a link to the research that you wanted us to read,
>presumably highly objective and containing more than the 18 clinchers
>and 12 tubulars that you describe as single data points.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
For the curious, here's another rolling resistance tests. The top 5
clinchers tested better than the best tubular here:
http://biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
A new Dugast Speed Silk, for example, placed in the middle of the pack
of ~50 tires, with some duplication (wider and narrower, new and old),
~16 tubulars.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 12:50:16
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:01:38 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>For the curious, here's another rolling resistance tests. The top 5
>clinchers tested better than the best tubular here:
>
>http://biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
>
>A new Dugast Speed Silk, for example, placed in the middle of the pack
>of ~50 tires, with some duplication (wider and narrower, new and old),
>~16 tubulars.
What king of glue did they use ?
:-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 12:32:11
From: dvt
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> The "market" that the
> conservatives love so dearly does indeed eventually manage to find the
> best products for the job.... Because
> they offer no significant superior benefits and have major drawbacks,
> tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the market- hidebound
> traditionalists who haven't adjusted their thinking to reflect current
> reality, mostly.
If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which have too
little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say that your theory
is flawed.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 11:58:18
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu >, dvt <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > The "market" that the conservatives love so dearly does indeed
> > eventually manage to find the best products for the job.... Because
> > they offer no significant superior benefits and have major
> > drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the
> > market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted their
> > thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
>
> If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which have
> too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say that your
> theory is flawed.
Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I have
been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 09:23:18
From: dvt
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
> wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> The "market" that the conservatives love so dearly does indeed
>>> eventually manage to find the best products for the job.... Because
>>> they offer no significant superior benefits and have major
>>> drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the
>>> market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted their
>>> thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
>> If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which have
>> too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say that your
>> theory is flawed.
> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I have
> been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
I rode with a LBS owner this weekend, after the conversation quoted
above. He referred to his shop as "Hybrid Central" and explained that
the largest-selling style of bike is the hybrid by a wide margin.
Hybrids often have long chain stays and space for wide tyres, and they
are commonly used as road-going bikes.
I think I was wrong in saying that most "modern bike frames... have too
little tyre clearance and too short chainstays." Perhaps market forces
are choosing a more sensible bike design than I thought. I would prefer
to see them with caliper brakes and drop bars, but you can't have it all.
Before Chalo airs his flat bar crusade, I'll share my little story... I
switched my commuter bike (~8 miles/day round trip) to a flat bar a few
months ago. I dislike it -- it's uncomfortable all the time. It hurts my
hands if I ride it too much. I find myself putting my thumbs above the
bar to alleviate some of the discomfort, and now that I've been
watching, I see lots of other flat bar riders do the same. When I get
some time this fall/winter, I'll go back to the drop bars.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Everyone confesses that exertion which brings out all the powers of body
and mind is the best thing for us; but most people do all they can to
get rid of it, and as a general rule nobody does much more than
circumstances drive them to do. -Harriet Beecher Stowe, abolitionist and
novelist (1811-1896)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:46:36
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <f8koo0$1g8k$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu >, dvt <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
> > <dvt+usenet@psu.edu> wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> >>> The "market" that the conservatives love so dearly does indeed
> >>> eventually manage to find the best products for the job....
> >>> Because they offer no significant superior benefits and have
> >>> major drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment
> >>> of the market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted
> >>> their thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
>
> >> If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which
> >> have too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say
> >> that your theory is flawed.
>
> > Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> > chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I
> > have been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
>
> I rode with a LBS owner this weekend, after the conversation quoted
> above. He referred to his shop as "Hybrid Central" and explained that
> the largest-selling style of bike is the hybrid by a wide margin.
> Hybrids often have long chain stays and space for wide tyres, and
> they are commonly used as road-going bikes.
>
> I think I was wrong in saying that most "modern bike frames... have
> too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays." Perhaps market
> forces are choosing a more sensible bike design than I thought. I
> would prefer to see them with caliper brakes and drop bars, but you
> can't have it all.
Good points. I tend to look at the bicycling world through the lens of
my preferences and the type of products I use, which does not include
hybrids. I therefore hadn't even thought of them and was only thinking
about road (racing) bikes, which resulted in my not even thinking twice
about your comments. But of course hybrids and mountain bikes have lots
of clearance for wide tires and in many cases fenders, too.
> Before Chalo airs his flat bar crusade, I'll share my little story...
> I switched my commuter bike (~8 miles/day round trip) to a flat bar a
> few months ago. I dislike it -- it's uncomfortable all the time. It
> hurts my hands if I ride it too much. I find myself putting my thumbs
> above the bar to alleviate some of the discomfort, and now that I've
> been watching, I see lots of other flat bar riders do the same. When
> I get some time this fall/winter, I'll go back to the drop bars.
I agree 100%. IMHO flat bars are torture devices not handlebars. My
hands start to go numb within a couple of blocks on flat bars.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 19:42:09
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:46:36 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
>I agree 100%. IMHO flat bars are torture devices not handlebars. My
>hands start to go numb within a couple of blocks on flat bars.
I'm starting to agree with that. I set up a vintage bike with suitably
vintage flat bars for my short afternoon exercise jaunts. Numbness is
already a problem. I like the feel otherwise when riding, but it may
return to drops very soon.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 17:23:39
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <ljfsa31p3o8duou3o6h9j28njaa1khl170@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:46:36 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >I agree 100%. IMHO flat bars are torture devices not handlebars.
> >My hands start to go numb within a couple of blocks on flat bars.
>
> I'm starting to agree with that. I set up a vintage bike with
> suitably vintage flat bars for my short afternoon exercise jaunts.
> Numbness is already a problem. I like the feel otherwise when riding,
> but it may return to drops very soon.
I dunno why it happens. It's been consistent since I bought my first
mountain bike (a Mongoose with those bullhorn bars). I'm not sure if
it's just that I am so adapted to road bars that the position change
just causes problems, or if the hand position impinges nerves, or what.
Is it some change in position that affects my cervical disk problem
causing numbness? Is it that flat bars put more pressure on the nerve
to my little and ring fingers that's worse than with drop bars?
I know people who can't stand drop bars and love flat bars. It's a good
thing that there are options! That also reflects on something left
unmentioned in our earlier discussion, which is that it is possible that
there may not be a single "best" product to triumph in the market.
What's best for me may not be what's best for someone else. In those
cases you see multimodal distributions.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:10:16
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > The "market" that the conservatives love so dearly does indeed
> > > eventually manage to find the best products for the job.... Because
> > > they offer no significant superior benefits and have major
> > > drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment of the
> > > market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted their
> > > thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
> >
> > If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which have
> > too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say that your
> > theory is flawed.
>
> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I have
> been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding sewups?
;-)
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:43:05
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
> > <dvt+usenet@psu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > > The "market" that the conservatives love so dearly does indeed
> > > > eventually manage to find the best products for the job....
> > > > Because they offer no significant superior benefits and have
> > > > major drawbacks, tubulars have been relegated to a tiny segment
> > > > of the market- hidebound traditionalists who haven't adjusted
> > > > their thinking to reflect current reality, mostly.
> > >
> > > If you apply that thinking to modern bike frames, most of which
> > > have too little tyre clearance and too short chainstays, I'd say
> > > that your theory is flawed.
> >
> > Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> > chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I
> > have been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
>
> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding
> sewups? ;-)
At some point hidebound traditionalism takes a back seat.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:51:01
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote in message
news:8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
>> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
>>
>> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
>> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I have
>> been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
>
> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding sewups?
> ;-)
>
> Chas.
>
>
Timmy, pinned in the corner...
Gosh these guys can be brutal!
-tom
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 19:45:20
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <f8dba5$ptv$1@news.Stanford.EDU >,
"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
> news:8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> > news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
> >> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
> >> <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
> >>
> >> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> >> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I
> >> have been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
> >
> > If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding
> > sewups? ;-)
>
> Timmy, pinned in the corner...
Mighty big corner, then.
> Gosh these guys can be brutal!
Huh? We haven't gotten anywhere near brutal. Playful badinage is all
we've gotten up to.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 18:07:12
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <f8dba5$ptv$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
>> news:8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>>> news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
>>>> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
>>>> <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
>>>> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I
>>>> have been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
>>> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding
>>> sewups? ;-)
>> Timmy, pinned in the corner...
>
> Mighty big corner, then.
>
>> Gosh these guys can be brutal!
>
> Huh? We haven't gotten anywhere near brutal. Playful badinage is all
> we've gotten up to.
ok, let's step it up. you're a fucking retard timmy. "There have been
high quality clinchers available for at least that long, even prior to
WWII." that's underinformed ignorance spewing from the undereducated
and incapable.
[wait, now timmy the retard will now seek refuge in "general" tires, not
the subject matter, tires that can effectively replace tubulars.]
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:16:50
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:aJGdnbE2JLZcCzfbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <f8dba5$ptv$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> > "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
> >> news:8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
> >>>> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
> >>>> <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
> >>>> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I
> >>>> have been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
> >>> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding
> >>> sewups? ;-)
> >> Timmy, pinned in the corner...
> >
> > Mighty big corner, then.
> >
> >> Gosh these guys can be brutal!
> >
> > Huh? We haven't gotten anywhere near brutal. Playful badinage is all
> > we've gotten up to.
>
> ok, let's step it up. you're a fucking retard timmy. "There have been
> high quality clinchers available for at least that long, even prior to
> WWII." that's underinformed ignorance spewing from the undereducated
> and incapable.
>
> [wait, now timmy the retard will now seek refuge in "general" tires, not
> the subject matter, tires that can effectively replace tubulars.]
>
JB has resorted to name calling when all else fails... To bad this
conversation has drifted away from debate to whatever.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 13:25:27
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <HP-dnXYparFrXzfbnZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:aJGdnbE2JLZcCzfbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > In article <f8dba5$ptv$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
> > > "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> > >>> news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
> > >>>> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
> > >>>> <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern
> > >>>> standard) chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires...
> > >>>> but then, as I have been informed many times, I am a hidebound
> > >>>> traditionalist.
> > >>> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding
> > >>> sewups? ;-)
> > >> Timmy, pinned in the corner...
> > >
> > > Mighty big corner, then.
> > >
> > >> Gosh these guys can be brutal!
> > >
> > > Huh? We haven't gotten anywhere near brutal. Playful badinage
> > > is all we've gotten up to.
> >
> > ok, let's step it up. you're a fucking retard timmy. "There have
> > been high quality clinchers available for at least that long, even
> > prior to WWII." that's underinformed ignorance spewing from the
> > undereducated and incapable.
> >
> > [wait, now timmy the retard will now seek refuge in "general"
> > tires, not the subject matter, tires that can effectively replace
> > tubulars.]
> >
>
> JB has resorted to name calling when all else fails... To bad this
> conversation has drifted away from debate to whatever.
"All else fails" regularly for jim. That's why I don't bother to read
his blather any more. jim is displaying that he is ignorant of cycling
history and that he knows nothing about brands such as Barreau and
Wolber, both of whom made high quality clincher in 700 and 650 sizes
prior to WWII. There's no need to resort to generalities when we have
specifics for reference.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 12:07:14
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <HP-dnXYparFrXzfbnZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:aJGdnbE2JLZcCzfbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <f8dba5$ptv$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
>>>> "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
>>>>>>> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
>>>>>>> <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern
>>>>>>> standard) chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires...
>>>>>>> but then, as I have been informed many times, I am a hidebound
>>>>>>> traditionalist.
>>>>>> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding
>>>>>> sewups? ;-)
>>>>> Timmy, pinned in the corner...
>>>> Mighty big corner, then.
>>>>
>>>>> Gosh these guys can be brutal!
>>>> Huh? We haven't gotten anywhere near brutal. Playful badinage
>>>> is all we've gotten up to.
>>> ok, let's step it up. you're a fucking retard timmy. "There have
>>> been high quality clinchers available for at least that long, even
>>> prior to WWII." that's underinformed ignorance spewing from the
>>> undereducated and incapable.
>>>
>>> [wait, now timmy the retard will now seek refuge in "general"
>>> tires, not the subject matter, tires that can effectively replace
>>> tubulars.]
>>>
>> JB has resorted to name calling when all else fails... To bad this
>> conversation has drifted away from debate to whatever.
>
> "All else fails" regularly for jim. That's why I don't bother to read
> his blather any more. jim is displaying that he is ignorant of cycling
> history and that he knows nothing about brands such as Barreau and
> Wolber, both of whom made high quality clincher in 700 and 650 sizes
> prior to WWII. There's no need to resort to generalities when we have
> specifics for reference.
seeking refuge and straying off topic as predicted. retard.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:43:01
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
* * Chas wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:aJGdnbE2JLZcCzfbnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <f8dba5$ptv$1@news.Stanford.EDU>,
>>> "Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:8M6dnUeM54kkuzfbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:timmcn-8E73DB.11581827072007@news.iphouse.com...
>>>>>> In article <f8d6mb$qgq$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt
>>>>>> <dvt+usenet@psu.edu>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. My own bikes have steel frames, long (by modern standard)
>>>>>> chainstays, plenty of clearance for wide tires... but then, as I
>>>>>> have been informed many times, I am a hidebound traditionalist.
>>>>> If your a "hidebound traditionalist", how come your not riding
>>>>> sewups? ;-)
>>>> Timmy, pinned in the corner...
>>> Mighty big corner, then.
>>>
>>>> Gosh these guys can be brutal!
>>> Huh? We haven't gotten anywhere near brutal. Playful badinage is all
>>> we've gotten up to.
>> ok, let's step it up. you're a fucking retard timmy. "There have been
>> high quality clinchers available for at least that long, even prior to
>> WWII." that's underinformed ignorance spewing from the undereducated
>> and incapable.
>>
>> [wait, now timmy the retard will now seek refuge in "general" tires, not
>> the subject matter, tires that can effectively replace tubulars.]
>>
>
> JB has resorted to name calling when all else fails... To bad this
> conversation has drifted away from debate to whatever.
>
> Chas.
>
>
bullshit's ok, but spade-calling's not? ridiculous.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 11:11:48
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
>>> time not in the US.
> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Lord, dude, do your own research. There have been high quality
> clinchers available for at least that long, even prior to WWII. Hard to
> find a good clincher in the US until about 1975, since we were a mutant
> backwater of cycling from about 1910 until the 1970s "bike boom." But
> good clinchers were readily available in Europe where cycling was taken
> seriously. If you think of the US as the center of the universe- as
> most Americans do- then you'll have an inaccurate picture.
-snip-
You're calling a Michelin Fifty 'good'?!??!?. Adequate maybe.
Before the Michelin Elan, the Vittoria Record was a handmade cotton
'open tubular' with kevlar bead. Horrendously expensive but good, only a
year or two before the Elan - - Elan which only succeeded with Mavic's
Type E rim as Mr Beam notes.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 05:56:24
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
still me wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that time
>> not in the US.
>
> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
he can't - he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
the first truly good clincher was the michelin elan in the mid/late
70's. mavic released their "module e" rim to go with it. the
distinguishing feature was the interlock between the tire bead and the
rim lip. prior to that, your only decent option was tubular.
>
>>> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
>>> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just like
>>> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime
>>> time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them
>>> primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
>> A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
>> Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just about
>> only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
>
> The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the best
> product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of your
> cave man like attitude.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:33:20
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:55udndIsberkdjTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> still me wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
> > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
time
> >> not in the US.
> >
> > You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
>
> he can't - he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
>
> the first truly good clincher was the michelin elan in the mid/late
> 70's. mavic released their "module e" rim to go with it. the
> distinguishing feature was the interlock between the tire bead and the
> rim lip. prior to that, your only decent option was tubular.
>
>
>
> >
> >>> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
> >>> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just
like
> >>> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime
> >>> time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them
> >>> primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
> >> A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
> >> Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just about
> >> only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
> >
> > The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the best
> > product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of your
> > cave man like attitude.
> >
Michelin Elans were some of the worst modern tires made. The main problem
was the thin "hair net" material they used for casings. Elans had very
thick gum rubber colored sidewalls that held the tire together. The
sidewalls would blow out or the casings failed at the tread/sidewall
joint.
They came out in the mid 1970s and were an early attempts to produce high
pressure performance clinchers that would replace sewups. Elans came in
700x19c and 27x3/4" sizes.
Elans were designed to fit the narrow Mavic E, 20 mm wide clincher rims
that had a hook bead retaining lip that the molded rubber bead fit into.
They required a special thin tube that would balloon out around the valve
stem and leak with some of the early narrow rims. Later, Super Champion
brought out their Gentleman model rims.
Both of these rims were the approximate width of sewup rims so you could
interchange between tubulars and clinchers without having to adjust your
brakes.
We stopped selling Elans because we had so many problems with them.
About 1976 or 1977 Wolber introduced their W20 tires in 700x20c and
27x3/4" sizes. They were much better than the Elans because they used a
strong fine pitch cotton casing.
Vittoria made some sewup like clinchers around that time too. That had
coarse pitch cotton casings which easily failed with the first nick in the
sidewalls. I tried them once they were real junk!
IRC had high pressure 27x1" tires for standard rims. They had the
reputation for blowing of the rims because there was no hook bead to keep
them on. They also had a very narrow ridge in the center of the tread
intended to reduce rolling resistance by reducing the size of the contact
patch. This was OK as long as you were riding straight and upright. They
were dangerous when trying to corner with any kind of sand or gravel on
the road.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:21:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
* * Chas wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:55udndIsberkdjTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> still me wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
>>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
> time
>>>> not in the US.
>>> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
>> he can't - he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
>>
>> the first truly good clincher was the michelin elan in the mid/late
>> 70's. mavic released their "module e" rim to go with it. the
>> distinguishing feature was the interlock between the tire bead and the
>> rim lip. prior to that, your only decent option was tubular.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
>>>>> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just
> like
>>>>> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime
>>>>> time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them
>>>>> primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
>>>> A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
>>>> Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just about
>>>> only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
>>> The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the best
>>> product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of your
>>> cave man like attitude.
>>>
>
> Michelin Elans were some of the worst modern tires made.
really? i thought they were great. i never had a problem with them.
and they were a good deal better than the fat, heavy stuff that preceded
them.
> The main problem
> was the thin "hair net" material they used for casings. Elans had very
> thick gum rubber colored sidewalls that held the tire together. The
> sidewalls would blow out or the casings failed at the tread/sidewall
> joint.
i think you forget what garbage other clinchers were at that time. the
elan was far and away the best when it came out. as you say, others
quickly followed, but the elan's hook bead was a true innovation and the
basis for all modern clinchers.
>
> They came out in the mid 1970s and were an early attempts to produce high
> pressure performance clinchers that would replace sewups. Elans came in
> 700x19c and 27x3/4" sizes.
>
> Elans were designed to fit the narrow Mavic E, 20 mm wide clincher rims
> that had a hook bead retaining lip that the molded rubber bead fit into.
> They required a special thin tube that would balloon out around the valve
> stem and leak with some of the early narrow rims. Later, Super Champion
> brought out their Gentleman model rims.
>
> Both of these rims were the approximate width of sewup rims so you could
> interchange between tubulars and clinchers without having to adjust your
> brakes.
>
> We stopped selling Elans because we had so many problems with them.
>
> About 1976 or 1977 Wolber introduced their W20 tires in 700x20c and
> 27x3/4" sizes. They were much better than the Elans because they used a
> strong fine pitch cotton casing.
>
> Vittoria made some sewup like clinchers around that time too. That had
> coarse pitch cotton casings which easily failed with the first nick in the
> sidewalls. I tried them once they were real junk!
>
> IRC had high pressure 27x1" tires for standard rims. They had the
> reputation for blowing of the rims because there was no hook bead to keep
> them on. They also had a very narrow ridge in the center of the tread
> intended to reduce rolling resistance by reducing the size of the contact
> patch. This was OK as long as you were riding straight and upright. They
> were dangerous when trying to corner with any kind of sand or gravel on
> the road.
>
> Chas.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:14:21
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:EeidneYM2JKSETfbnZ2dnUVZ_rSinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> * * Chas wrote:
> > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> > news:55udndIsberkdjTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >> still me wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
> >>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
> > time
> >>>> not in the US.
> >>> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of
old.
> >> he can't - he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
> >>
> >> the first truly good clincher was the michelin elan in the mid/late
> >> 70's. mavic released their "module e" rim to go with it. the
> >> distinguishing feature was the interlock between the tire bead and
the
> >> rim lip. prior to that, your only decent option was tubular.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
> >>>>> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just
> > like
> >>>>> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime
> >>>>> time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them
> >>>>> primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
> >>>> A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
> >>>> Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just
about
> >>>> only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
> >>> The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the
best
> >>> product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of your
> >>> cave man like attitude.
> >>>
> >
> > Michelin Elans were some of the worst modern tires made.
>
> really? i thought they were great. i never had a problem with them.
> and they were a good deal better than the fat, heavy stuff that preceded
> them.
>
> > The main problem
> > was the thin "hair net" material they used for casings. Elans had very
> > thick gum rubber colored sidewalls that held the tire together. The
> > sidewalls would blow out or the casings failed at the tread/sidewall
> > joint.
>
> i think you forget what garbage other clinchers were at that time. the
> elan was far and away the best when it came out. as you say, others
> quickly followed, but the elan's hook bead was a true innovation and the
> basis for all modern clinchers.
>
>
> >
> > They came out in the mid 1970s and were an early attempts to produce
high
> > pressure performance clinchers that would replace sewups. Elans came
in
> > 700x19c and 27x3/4" sizes.
> >
> > Elans were designed to fit the narrow Mavic E, 20 mm wide clincher
rims
> > that had a hook bead retaining lip that the molded rubber bead fit
into.
> > They required a special thin tube that would balloon out around the
valve
> > stem and leak with some of the early narrow rims. Later, Super
Champion
> > brought out their Gentleman model rims.
> >
> > Both of these rims were the approximate width of sewup rims so you
could
> > interchange between tubulars and clinchers without having to adjust
your
> > brakes.
> >
> > We stopped selling Elans because we had so many problems with them.
> >
Elans were garbage from the beginning until the end!!!!
We had to replace just about every single Elan tire on new bikes that came
with them and most of the ones we sold as replacements.
We sent riders who had to have them to the 2 bike shops down the street
and even they eventually got tired of messing with Elans.
Maybe YOU where in an area were there weren't good clinchers available
during the time of the Elans. For example, IRC High Pressure tires were
much better than Elans if you didn't run them over 90 PSI.
We imported Wolber tires. They made some nice clinchers using "long
staple" Egyptian cotton casings. Wolber introduced their W20 tires to
compete against the Elan tires. Have you ever seen or used these tires?
I still have a set of 700x28c W28 Wolbers on my touring bike. They have
about 5000+ miles on them and ride just fine. The gum rubber sidewalls are
a little dry and cracked but the treads and casings are still good. The
bonding tape covering the casings over the steel bead wire was much better
than that used on later high performance tires like those sold by
Specialized and Avocet.
The idea behind the 20mm wide tires and rims was two fold; one, to provide
performance tires for the average rider that had somewhat the feel of
sewups and two to provide cycling enthusiasts with clinchers that they
could swap out with their sewup wheels and not have to make any
adjustments.
The narrow tires and rims were not created in a vacuum. They were being
used in Europe for at least a year before they came to the US. They were
the combined effort of a number of tire and rim makers not just Michelin
and Mavic.
The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a new
idea. I liked Super Champion rims much better than Mavic rims. They were
better made.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 21:41:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
* * Chas wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:EeidneYM2JKSETfbnZ2dnUVZ_rSinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:55udndIsberkdjTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
>>>>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
>>> time
>>>>>> not in the US.
>>>>> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of
> old.
>>>> he can't - he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
>>>>
>>>> the first truly good clincher was the michelin elan in the mid/late
>>>> 70's. mavic released their "module e" rim to go with it. the
>>>> distinguishing feature was the interlock between the tire bead and
> the
>>>> rim lip. prior to that, your only decent option was tubular.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Clincher users are the equivalent of the Geico cave men - very
>>>>>>> primitive and just catching up with the evolutionary curve. Just
>>> like
>>>>>>> the Geico cave men, they keep telling us they're ready for prime
>>>>>>> time, but most of us aren't buying it. We still consider them
>>>>>>> primitive cave men stuck behind the curve.
>>>>>> A nice try, but the realities of the market tell a different tale.
>>>>>> Tubulars are a tiny niche in the tire market these days. Just
> about
>>>>>> only the tubbits still ride'em. :-)
>>>>> The "market" as oft discussed here, is a not an indication of the
> best
>>>>> product for the job. Your simple analysis is an indication of your
>>>>> cave man like attitude.
>>>>>
>>> Michelin Elans were some of the worst modern tires made.
>> really? i thought they were great. i never had a problem with them.
>> and they were a good deal better than the fat, heavy stuff that preceded
>> them.
>>
>>> The main problem
>>> was the thin "hair net" material they used for casings. Elans had very
>>> thick gum rubber colored sidewalls that held the tire together. The
>>> sidewalls would blow out or the casings failed at the tread/sidewall
>>> joint.
>> i think you forget what garbage other clinchers were at that time. the
>> elan was far and away the best when it came out. as you say, others
>> quickly followed, but the elan's hook bead was a true innovation and the
>> basis for all modern clinchers.
>>
>>
>>> They came out in the mid 1970s and were an early attempts to produce
> high
>>> pressure performance clinchers that would replace sewups. Elans came
> in
>>> 700x19c and 27x3/4" sizes.
>>>
>>> Elans were designed to fit the narrow Mavic E, 20 mm wide clincher
> rims
>>> that had a hook bead retaining lip that the molded rubber bead fit
> into.
>>> They required a special thin tube that would balloon out around the
> valve
>>> stem and leak with some of the early narrow rims. Later, Super
> Champion
>>> brought out their Gentleman model rims.
>>>
>>> Both of these rims were the approximate width of sewup rims so you
> could
>>> interchange between tubulars and clinchers without having to adjust
> your
>>> brakes.
>>>
>>> We stopped selling Elans because we had so many problems with them.
>>>
>
>
> Elans were garbage from the beginning until the end!!!!
>
> We had to replace just about every single Elan tire on new bikes that came
> with them and most of the ones we sold as replacements.
>
> We sent riders who had to have them to the 2 bike shops down the street
> and even they eventually got tired of messing with Elans.
so why didn't i have any problems with them then? i thought they were
great.
>
> Maybe YOU where in an area were there weren't good clinchers available
> during the time of the Elans. For example, IRC High Pressure tires were
> much better than Elans if you didn't run them over 90 PSI.
i think you've just illustrated why the elan/mod e solution was so
successful. it was the hook bead that made high pressure reliable tires
possible - with performance approaching that of tubies. prior to that,
clinchers were a distant second.
>
> We imported Wolber tires. They made some nice clinchers using "long
> staple" Egyptian cotton casings. Wolber introduced their W20 tires to
> compete against the Elan tires. Have you ever seen or used these tires?
maybe, i don't recall. istr hutchinson and clement. then i used tubies
and elans. there were no hook bead rims or tires that took advantage of
them prior to the elan.
>
> I still have a set of 700x28c W28 Wolbers on my touring bike. They have
> about 5000+ miles on them and ride just fine. The gum rubber sidewalls are
> a little dry and cracked but the treads and casings are still good. The
> bonding tape covering the casings over the steel bead wire was much better
> than that used on later high performance tires like those sold by
> Specialized and Avocet.
good for you. and elan/mod e was still the first hook bead setup.
>
> The idea behind the 20mm wide tires and rims was two fold; one, to provide
> performance tires for the average rider that had somewhat the feel of
> sewups and two to provide cycling enthusiasts with clinchers that they
> could swap out with their sewup wheels and not have to make any
> adjustments.
you said that before and i didn't disagree.
>
> The narrow tires and rims were not created in a vacuum. They were being
> used in Europe for at least a year before they came to the US. They were
> the combined effort of a number of tire and rim makers not just Michelin
> and Mavic.
don't believe that to be correct. michelin/mavic collaborated on that
project and were first to market. others followed, but they did not lead.
>
> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a new
> idea.
it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was it
used so that it was "not a new idea"?
> I liked Super Champion rims much better than Mavic rims. They were
> better made.
good for you.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 13:11:41
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:41:34 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>>
>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a new
>> idea.
>
>it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was it
>used so that it was "not a new idea"?
Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
bead!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 13:02:26
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a new
>>> idea.
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was it
>> used so that it was "not a new idea"?
still me wrote:
> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
> bead!
All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead tires on
steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic E were a
new 21mm _application_.
As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing the
caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable 'breakthroughs'
for success, not really new ground technically.
'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride are
properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true 'clincher', those
are hooked, a hundred year old design.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 12:06:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a new
>>>> idea.
>
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was it
>>> used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>
> still me wrote:
>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>> bead!
>
> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead tires on
> steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic E were a new
> 21mm _application_.
>
> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing the
> caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable 'breakthroughs'
> for success, not really new ground technically.
>
> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride are
> properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true 'clincher', those
> are hooked, a hundred year old design.
but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire in
the last 50 years that was using it?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 22:24:04
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a
>>>>> new
>>>>> idea.
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was
>>>> it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>> still me wrote:
>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>> bead!
> A Muzi wrote:
>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead tires
>> on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic E were
>> a new 21mm _application_.
>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing
>> the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable
>> 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground technically.
>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride
>> are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true 'clincher',
>> those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
jim beam wrote:
> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire in
> the last 50 years that was using it?
The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became our
1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge. The cheaper ones of my
youth were literally one thickness of steel, lipped over crudely at the
tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of styling and degree, not of concept.
Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side when
Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that market
segment until Elan.
Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on a
1950s Huffy steel rim.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:00:02
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not
>>>>>> a new
>>>>>> idea.
>
>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was
>>>>> it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>
>>> still me wrote:
>>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>>> bead!
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead tires
>>> on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic E were
>>> a new 21mm _application_.
>>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing
>>> the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable
>>> 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground technically.
>>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride
>>> are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true
>>> 'clincher', those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire in
>> the last 50 years that was using it?
>
> The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became our
> 1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge.
with respect, they look more like "we gotta roll the edge to remove the
sharpness, and can't roll it outwards 'cos of the brake, so we'll roll
it inwards where it's out of sight" to me. the extent of the roll
varied from rim to rim. and the tires of that era weren't hooked to
take advantage of it either afaict. what the elan/mod e system did was
define a specific standard for the hooking interface on both the rim and
tire
> The cheaper ones of my
> youth were literally one thickness of steel, lipped over crudely at the
> tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of styling and degree, not of concept.
>
> Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side when
> Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that market
> segment until Elan.
>
> Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on a
> 1950s Huffy steel rim.
a 700c hook bead tire will mount on a 700c non-hooked rim too.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 21:30:10
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
jim beam wrote: t'isn't
> A Muzi wrote: t'is
jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not
>>>>>>> a new
Whoops, Here's the link:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/GOODYEAR.JPG
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 21:28:53
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
>>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not
>>>>>>> a new
>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was
>>>>>> it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>>>> bead!
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead
>>>> tires on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic
>>>> E were a new 21mm _application_.
>>>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing
>>>> the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable
>>>> 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground technically.
>>>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride
>>>> are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true
>>>> 'clincher', those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire in
>>> the last 50 years that was using it?
> A Muzi wrote:
>> The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became
>> our 1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge.
>> jim beam wrote:
> with respect, they look more like "we gotta roll the edge to remove the
> sharpness, and can't roll it outwards 'cos of the brake, so we'll roll
> it inwards where it's out of sight" to me. the extent of the roll
> varied from rim to rim. and the tires of that era weren't hooked to
> take advantage of it either afaict. what the elan/mod e system did was
> define a specific standard for the hooking interface on both the rim and
> tire
> A Muzi wrote:
>> The cheaper ones of my youth were literally one thickness of steel,
>> lipped over crudely at the tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of styling
>> and degree, not of concept.
>> Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side
>> when Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that market
>> segment until Elan.
>> Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on a
>> 1950s Huffy steel rim.
jim beam wrote:
> a 700c hook bead tire will mount on a 700c non-hooked rim too.
Man, that was a real search!
Here's the 1972 Chicago Cycle Supply catalog page for Goodyear tires:
Note the lower left "Lightweight Tires" are supplied for both
straight-side and hook bead rims. The "Eagle 134" is made in 1-3/4 size
only for straight-side rims.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 21:23:55
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:28:53 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>>>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not
>>>>>>>> a new
>>>>>>>> idea.
>
>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was
>>>>>>> it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>
>>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>>>>> bead!
>
>>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead
>>>>> tires on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic
>>>>> E were a new 21mm _application_.
>>>>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing
>>>>> the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable
>>>>> 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground technically.
>>>>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride
>>>>> are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true
>>>>> 'clincher', those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire in
>>>> the last 50 years that was using it?
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became
>>> our 1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge.
>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>> with respect, they look more like "we gotta roll the edge to remove the
>> sharpness, and can't roll it outwards 'cos of the brake, so we'll roll
>> it inwards where it's out of sight" to me. the extent of the roll
>> varied from rim to rim. and the tires of that era weren't hooked to
>> take advantage of it either afaict. what the elan/mod e system did was
>> define a specific standard for the hooking interface on both the rim and
>> tire
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> The cheaper ones of my youth were literally one thickness of steel,
>>> lipped over crudely at the tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of styling
>>> and degree, not of concept.
>>> Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side
>>> when Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that market
>>> segment until Elan.
>>> Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on a
>>> 1950s Huffy steel rim.
>
>jim beam wrote:
>> a 700c hook bead tire will mount on a 700c non-hooked rim too.
>
>Man, that was a real search!
>
>Here's the 1972 Chicago Cycle Supply catalog page for Goodyear tires:
>
>Note the lower left "Lightweight Tires" are supplied for both
>straight-side and hook bead rims. The "Eagle 134" is made in 1-3/4 size
>only for straight-side rims.
Dear Andrew,
From a 1946 Schwinn catalog: "Rims: New Schwinn hook bead type."
http://www.trfindley.com/flschwinn_1941_1950/1946_05.jpg
***
From a 1939 Schwinn catalog: "SCHWINN STEEL RIM: New design, light and
strong, drop center, Schwinn hook bead type, 26x1&1/4". For use with
Schwinn Zephyr tires only."
http://www.trfindley.com/flschwinn_1893_1940/1939_17.jpg
***
Lots more Schwinn catalogs:
http://www.trfindley.com/pg_schwinn_cats.htm
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 01:49:35
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:23:55 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:28:53 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not
>>>>>>>>> a new
>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>
>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was
>>>>>>>> it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>>
>>>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>>>>>> bead!
>>
>>>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead
>>>>>> tires on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic
>>>>>> E were a new 21mm _application_.
>>>>>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without ditzing
>>>>>> the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the desirable
>>>>>> 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground technically.
>>>>>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys ride
>>>>>> are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true
>>>>>> 'clincher', those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire in
>>>>> the last 50 years that was using it?
>>
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became
>>>> our 1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge.
>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>> with respect, they look more like "we gotta roll the edge to remove the
>>> sharpness, and can't roll it outwards 'cos of the brake, so we'll roll
>>> it inwards where it's out of sight" to me. the extent of the roll
>>> varied from rim to rim. and the tires of that era weren't hooked to
>>> take advantage of it either afaict. what the elan/mod e system did was
>>> define a specific standard for the hooking interface on both the rim and
>>> tire
>>
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> The cheaper ones of my youth were literally one thickness of steel,
>>>> lipped over crudely at the tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of styling
>>>> and degree, not of concept.
>>>> Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side
>>>> when Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that market
>>>> segment until Elan.
>>>> Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on a
>>>> 1950s Huffy steel rim.
>>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>> a 700c hook bead tire will mount on a 700c non-hooked rim too.
>>
>>Man, that was a real search!
>>
>>Here's the 1972 Chicago Cycle Supply catalog page for Goodyear tires:
>>
>>Note the lower left "Lightweight Tires" are supplied for both
>>straight-side and hook bead rims. The "Eagle 134" is made in 1-3/4 size
>>only for straight-side rims.
>
>Dear Andrew,
>
>From a 1946 Schwinn catalog: "Rims: New Schwinn hook bead type."
>
>http://www.trfindley.com/flschwinn_1941_1950/1946_05.jpg
>
>***
>
>From a 1939 Schwinn catalog: "SCHWINN STEEL RIM: New design, light and
>strong, drop center, Schwinn hook bead type, 26x1&1/4". For use with
>Schwinn Zephyr tires only."
>
>http://www.trfindley.com/flschwinn_1893_1940/1939_17.jpg
>
>***
>
>Lots more Schwinn catalogs:
>
>http://www.trfindley.com/pg_schwinn_cats.htm
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
And over on nostalgic.net . . .
***
From a 1937 Firestone bike tire ad: "Fit straight side or hook type
rims."
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/187.htm
***
From the upper left of a 1938 Firestone bike tire ad: "Designed to fit
either straight side or hook type rims." [A bit boastful.]
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/194.htm
***
From the lower right of a 1939 Firestone bicycle tire ad: "Fits
straight side and hook type rims." [Now the tire just fits, no
boasting about design.]
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/473.htm
***
From the lower left a 1940 Firestone bike tire ad: "Fits hook type or
straight side rims." [This year, they cunningly reversed the
phrasing.]
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/196.htm
***
From a 1937 National Dayton bicycle catalog: "Rims: chromium hook
type."
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/441.htm
***
A 1954 Evans-Colson catalog showing a hook-bead rim:
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/482.htm
***
Just for the hell of it (no mention of hook bead) . . .
"Rims: Choice of Lobdell cement type armored rims, rock maple enclosed
in chromimum steel, or enameled all steel clincher type rims."
The 1930 Hawthorne bike ad goes on to explain that the same bike with
the all-steel clinchers costs $41, while the rock-maple tubular rim
armored with chrome steel is only $37. (The wooden rim had a
http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/ScannedLit/1930+Hawthorne+Page+1%2Ejpg
Here's a 1936 diagram and description of the armored Lobdell wooden
rim:
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/676.htm
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 19:53:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really
>>>>>>>> not a new
>>>>>>>> idea.
>
>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else
>>>>>>> was it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>
>>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>>>>> bead!
>
>>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead
>>>>> tires on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin Elan/Mavic
>>>>> E were a new 21mm _application_.
>>>>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without
>>>>> ditzing the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the
>>>>> desirable 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground
>>>>> technically.
>>>>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys
>>>>> ride are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true
>>>>> 'clincher', those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire
>>>> in the last 50 years that was using it?
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became
>>> our 1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge.
>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>> with respect, they look more like "we gotta roll the edge to remove
>> the sharpness, and can't roll it outwards 'cos of the brake, so we'll
>> roll it inwards where it's out of sight" to me. the extent of the
>> roll varied from rim to rim. and the tires of that era weren't hooked
>> to take advantage of it either afaict. what the elan/mod e system did
>> was define a specific standard for the hooking interface on both the
>> rim and tire
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> The cheaper ones of my youth were literally one thickness of steel,
>>> lipped over crudely at the tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of
>>> styling and degree, not of concept.
>>> Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side
>>> when Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that
>>> market segment until Elan.
>>> Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on a
>>> 1950s Huffy steel rim.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> a 700c hook bead tire will mount on a 700c non-hooked rim too.
>
> Man, that was a real search!
>
> Here's the 1972 Chicago Cycle Supply catalog page for Goodyear tires:
>
> Note the lower left "Lightweight Tires" are supplied for both
> straight-side and hook bead rims. The "Eagle 134" is made in 1-3/4 size
> only for straight-side rims.
>
i stand corrected. you have to admit though - not exactly a high sales
volume item, unlike the elan and its multitude of successors which now
dominate the market.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 22:55:03
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really
>>>>>>>>> not a new
>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else
>>>>>>>> was it used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>>>>>> still me wrote:
>>>>>>> Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a
>>>>>>> hook
>>>>>>> bead!
>>>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>>> All through the fifties, USA 'lightweights' ran 1.375 hook bead
>>>>>> tires on steel hooked rims. Not a new concept. Michelin
>>>>>> Elan/Mavic E were a new 21mm _application_.
>>>>>> As *Chas* wrote, one was finally able to swap wheels without
>>>>>> ditzing the caliper adjustments. That and styling were the
>>>>>> desirable 'breakthroughs' for success, not really new ground
>>>>>> technically.
>>>>>> 'Hook Bead Tire/Rim' is _much_ older than E/Elan. What you guys
>>>>>> ride are properly called 'wire-on' tires. If you look at a true
>>>>>> 'clincher', those are hooked, a hundred year old design.
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> but it was not /used/ until elan/mod e. can you name any rim/tire
>>>>> in the last 50 years that was using it?
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> The American steel decimal series, both 1.375 and what later became
>>>> our 1.75/2.125 -559 MTB tires, were all hooked edge.
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>> with respect, they look more like "we gotta roll the edge to remove
>>> the sharpness, and can't roll it outwards 'cos of the brake, so we'll
>>> roll it inwards where it's out of sight" to me. the extent of the
>>> roll varied from rim to rim. and the tires of that era weren't
>>> hooked to take advantage of it either afaict. what the elan/mod e
>>> system did was define a specific standard for the hooking interface
>>> on both the rim and tire
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> The cheaper ones of my youth were literally one thickness of steel,
>>>> lipped over crudely at the tire edge. Elan's a breakthrough of
>>>> styling and degree, not of concept.
>>>> Other series, notably all 27-inch and 700C, were all straight-side
>>>> when Elan debuted. In that you're right - no hook beads in that
>>>> market segment until Elan.
>>>> Look at the lip on the edge of an MTB tire. It will mount nicely on
>>>> a 1950s Huffy steel rim.
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> a 700c hook bead tire will mount on a 700c non-hooked rim too.
jim beam wrote:
>> Man, that was a real search!
>> Here's the 1972 Chicago Cycle Supply catalog page for Goodyear tires:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/GOODYEAR.JPG
>> Note the lower left "Lightweight Tires" are supplied for both
>> straight-side and hook bead rims. The "Eagle 134" is made in 1-3/4
>> size only for straight-side rims.
jim beam wrote:
> i stand corrected. you have to admit though - not exactly a high sales
> volume item, unlike the elan and its multitude of successors which now
> dominate the market.
I don't know that.
Mass-market bikes were about 2/3 of the bike market then as now but the
volume bikes were mostly -590 straight side as I recall. 'Hook-bead'
26x1.75 and 2.125 were a niche item until 'mountain bikes'. Yes they
were around, and a budding mechanic had to learn the difference between
26x1-3/4 straight-side and 26x1.75 hook-bead, but volume? Maybe not so
much.
Elan certainly was a significant thing. If not an entirely new design,
surely it had wide effect.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 11:49:02
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:11:41 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:41:34 -0700, jim beam
><spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a new
>>> idea.
>>
>>it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was it
>>used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>
>Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>bead!
Dear SM,
Just glance at your 1916 Morley Brothers catalogue, which offers
hooked clincher rims.
G&J (Gormully & Jeffery) #280 rim is a good choice:
http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/morley/24.jpg
American Wood Rim's #306 is typical:
http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/morley/37.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:29:56
From:
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:49:02 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:11:41 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:41:34 -0700, jim beam
>><spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The real advantage was in the hook bead rims which was really not a new
>>>> idea.
>>>
>>>it wasn't in use for cars or bikes or motorcycles. where else was it
>>>used so that it was "not a new idea"?
>>
>>Oh man, now Carl is going to pull out something from 1886 with a hook
>>bead!
>
>Dear SM,
>
>Just glance at your 1916 Morley Brothers catalogue, which offers
>hooked clincher rims.
>
>G&J (Gormully & Jeffery) #280 rim is a good choice:
>
>http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/morley/24.jpg
>
>American Wood Rim's #306 is typical:
>
>http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/morley/37.jpg
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
And for those who prefer European rims, "The Data Book" has some
examples from 1911-1912 on page 36:
http://i19.tinypic.com/4zegtwp.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:03:36
From: still me
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:33:20 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>
>Elans were designed to fit the narrow Mavic E, 20 mm wide clincher rims
>that had a hook bead retaining lip that the molded rubber bead fit into.
>They required a special thin tube that would balloon out around the valve
>stem and leak with some of the early narrow rims. Later, Super Champion
>brought out their Gentleman model rims.
How specific is this rim to the Elan tire? Will a "modern" clincher
hook into these rims comfortably ?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 17:26:13
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue - Michelin Elans
|
still me wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:33:20 -0700, "* * Chas"
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
>> Elans were designed to fit the narrow Mavic E, 20 mm wide clincher rims
>> that had a hook bead retaining lip that the molded rubber bead fit into.
>> They required a special thin tube that would balloon out around the valve
>> stem and leak with some of the early narrow rims. Later, Super Champion
>> brought out their Gentleman model rims.
>
> How specific is this rim to the Elan tire?
at the time of launch, the two were specific to each other and there was
nothing else like them. since then, basically all narrow clinchers [and
rims] have used the same hook bead pattern, so having set the standard,
elan/mod e specificity disappeared.
> Will a "modern" clincher
> hook into these rims comfortably ?
yes.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 06:44:47
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:55udndIsberkdjTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> still me wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that time
>>> not in the US.
>>
>> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of old.
>
> he can't - he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
>
> the first truly good clincher was the michelin elan in the mid/late 70's.
> mavic released their "module e" rim to go with it. the distinguishing
> feature was the interlock between the tire bead and the rim lip. prior to
> that, your only decent option was tubular.
>
I'll go with the Specialized Turbo foldable (1978) as the first truly good
clincher.
Dr. John Dunlop (1845 or so) developed the pneumatic tire, actually coined
the word "pneumatic" George Schrader took it a step further
with a better valve system. Tim might have been right when he added the "+"
to the 60 years.
History of Bicycle Tire link:
http://www.everybicycletire.com/Encyclopedia/History.aspx
-tom
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:00:00
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue
|
In article <f8cssf$aol$1@news.Stanford.EDU >,
"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:55udndIsberkdjTbnZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > still me wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:57:20 -0500, Tim McNamara
> >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Good" clinchers have been available for 60+ years. Most of that
> >>> time not in the US.
> >>
> >> You'd have to provide some evidence of good clinchers in days of
> >> old.
> >
> > he can't - he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
Oh, are you still here, jim?
> > the first truly good clincher was the michelin elan in the mid/late
> > 70's. mavic released their "module e" rim to go with it. the
> > distinguishing feature was the interlock between the tire bead and
> > the rim lip. prior to that, your only decent option was tubular.
Nah, good clinchers were available decades before that. Just not in the
US where Schwinn developed proprietary sizes and mediocre tires.
Barreau's very high quality clinchers in France, for example, which were
introduce prior
|
|
