Ultra-low pressure tubes for offroaders and other roughriders: Schwalbe ProCore

[Andre Jute]

For those of you who want to ride offroad as I ride on rough lanes (right through the potholes) on my Big Apples, here's the Schwalbe ProCore Tube that lets you do exactly that.
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/ie/en/schwalbe-procore-tube-set/rp-prod128958
The ouch!] price is for a pair of tubes.

Also at http://www.schwalbe.com/gb/pressereader/procore-a-revolution-in-mountain-biking.html Schwalbe says development of the tube was spurred by the availability of very wide rims. The system presupposes a bead to bead width of 23mm.

http://www.schwalbe.com/gb/pressereader/procore-a-revolution-in-mountain-biking.html?file=files/schwalbe/userupload/Presse/PROCORE/Procore-Querschnitt.jpg

As you can see at the graphic linked above, the tube consists of two tubes, with a special valve with a selector. The image tells the rest of the story: high pressure to keep the beed locked in, low pressure for riding.

According to the blurb:

***
Schwalbe ProCore Tube Set

Off road: Riding at lower pressure means better performance... but at the same time it increases the risk of failures. The limit so far is at about 20 psi, below which it's hardly possible to dare to ride normal MTB tires.

But nothing stays the same: In the future, air pressure can be controlled in the tire's double chambers. In the outer chamber, the air pressure is extremely low - ideal for maximum off road performance. In the inner chamber, directly on the rim, there is high air pressure - even a very strong impact cannot dent the rim edge. At the same time, the inner high-pressure system secures the tire onto the rim. "Burping", the dreaded loss of air at low pressure in conventional tubeless systems, is impossible.

Tire pressure can be reduced to a minimum 14 psi, thus providing a huge amount of grip.

Even on the roughest terrain tires "stick" to the ground.

The tire provides extremely sensitive cushioning.

Due to the extra cushioning and traction there is much better steering, braking and traction control.

No more risk of snake bites. The rims are extremely well protected from denting.

Even in the toughest conditions, significantly lighter tires can be used.

Excellent emergency running characteristics due to the internal high-pressure air chamber.

Procore can be used with any tubeless MTB tire.

Weighing ca. 200g (rider weight) per wheel. Compatible with all wheels regardless of brand. Internal rim width of 23mm. Series production is underway.

Sold as a set of 2 with all necessary components, in order to convert a complete bike. Later on components will also be individually available as replacement parts.

Set-Contents:
2 x PROCORE inner tires
2 x PROCORE special tubes
2 x Tubeless rim tapes
Doc Blue
Tire fitting aids.

Tyre Compatibilities:

Set 26" Art-No. 16610001
Set 27,5" Art-No. 16610002
Set 29" Art-No. 16610003

***

Enjoy.

Andre Jute

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-25 5:52 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
> For those of you who want to ride offroad as I ride on rough lanes
> (right through the potholes) on my Big Apples, here's the Schwalbe
> ProCore Tube that lets you do exactly that.
> http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/ie/en/schwalbe-procore-tube-set/rp-prod128958
>
>
The ouch!] price is for a pair of tubes.
>

Doesn't even list a price when called up here from the US. Which usually
means boutique pricing.

Anyhow, I simply put Sunlite tubes with 0.160" or about 4mm wall
thickness in my MTB tires, plus Mr.Tuffy MTB tire liners, plus a piece
of old tube over the tire liner. For a grand total expense of less than
$50 -> no more flats, nada, zip. The turf I am riding is often rather
bone-jarring. Like this:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/PineHill2.JPG

In consequence I did the same with my road bike by installing tube with
0.120 or 3mm wall thickness. Same result, the number of flats dropped to
zero. The reason why I still carry a patch kit and a pump is to help
oher riders.

What I found to be key is that the wall thickness goes all around. I
previously tried tubes which were only thicker towards the running
surface, only to have two goat head thorn penetrate through the side
wall when I leaned into a curve a bit much ... PSHHHEEEOOOOUUU.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Trte_003_lhp.jpg

A very nice side effect is that I no longer have to add air every week
but only every other month. Meaning when I suddenly have a package that
needs to go to a freight depot I can just hop on and ride.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Andre Jute]

You missed the point altogether, Joerg. It isn't about not getting flats; Schwalbe have plenty of other tyres that can do that. The price is 160 Euro for two tyres. So, you've saved 30 bucks per tyre -- big deal -- and gone without all the other benefits of a smoother ride that sticks the tire better to the track and lets you go faster. You should pay better attention to what I post, pal, unless you're scared of going faster, and are so hard-arsed you don't care about ride quality, in either of which cases I don't have anything to say to you. Unlike your chum Krygowski, I don't just waffle on for the sake of hearing my voice.

Andre Jute

Here my post is again, and your off-the-rails I'm-too-tough-to-pay-attention reply is below that.

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 1:52:10 PM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
> For those of you who want to ride offroad as I ride on rough lanes (right through the potholes) on my Big Apples, here's the Schwalbe ProCore Tube that lets you do exactly that.
> http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/ie/en/schwalbe-procore-tube-set/rp-prod128958
> The ouch!] price is for a pair of tubes.
>

[James]

Nice! Thanks for the tech.

--
JS

[Ralph Barone]

I've been installing slightly oversized tubes in the hopes that if the tube
doesn't have to stretch to conform to the inside of the tire, it won't leak
much if it gets punctured. So far, so good.

[AMuzi]

+1
Tube width has declined dramatically in that most are now
2/3 the label 'size' they once were.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Andre Jute]

In that case, perhaps you boys want to go another size or several oversize so as not only to reclaim lost ground, but to give yourselves headroom for taking the next step of on-edge handing and speed, achieved by lowering pressure.

That is what the Schwalbe ProCore Tube does, to the max, permitting 14psi pressure in the outer tube/inner tyre without inducing snake bite punctures.

I'm perfectly happy with the biggest Schwalbe tubes, Type 19A, and operate them down to 1.4 bar, 20psi without mishap, on very rough tarmac, not offroad. If I were suddenly to take up offroading, I would, having convinced myself of the multiple advantages and pleasures of low pressure balloon tyres in seven years on the Big Apples (1), certainly fit Schwalbe ProCore tubes.

Andre Jute
who can't imagine ever again being so masochistic as to ride on high pressure narrow tyres

(1) My famous article on the subject in it's most-read form is at
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=3798.0
together with a good deal of useful discussion by experts.

[Joerg]

Have you ever done any serious offroading? My bike dealer experienced it
with lower pressure tubeless: Tight corner, a bit fast, same for the
rider following him ... *PHOOF* ... rear tire now almost on the rim but
he could finish the race. The next guy wasn't so lucky ... *KABLAM* ...
WOP-WOP-WOP ... his tire came off the rim. That usually means a crash
although this guy here still managed to finish, something I would not
have dared:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUoCSzVmhhQ

> Andre Jute who can't imagine ever again being so masochistic as to
> ride on high pressure narrow tyres
>
> (1) My famous article on the subject in it's most-read form is at
> http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=3798.0 together
> with a good deal of useful discussion by experts.
>

Regards, Joerg
(who rides offroad at 55psi pressure and on road at 115psi)

--

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Andre Jute]

Yes, it is exactly to avoid these ignorant amateur experiments by people like you, and their inevitable results, that Schwalbe invented the double tube system in the Procore system. You really should read the information in the original post, and there is more on the linked pages. Or you could just look at the key picture I linked to, which shows that the inner *high pressure* tube holds the assembly to the bead, while the outer *low pressure* tube does the speed, roadholding and comfort business. Here is the link to the piccie again:
http://www.schwalbe.com/gb/pressereader/procore-a-revolution-in-mountain-biking.html?file=files/schwalbe/userupload/Presse/PROCORE/Procore-Querschnitt.jpg

But, of course, if you know better than Schwalbe, there's nothing further to be said to you.

Andre Jute

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-26 10:34 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> Yes, it is exactly to avoid these ignorant amateur experiments by

> people like you, and their inevitable results, ...


Obviously you seem to know nothing about offroad riding. There is
nothing experimental about it. It works.

[Andre Jute]

I'm confused, Joerg. If you agree with me, and with Schwalbe, then why are you regaling us with tales of how riders with unerinflated tyres came a cropper?

Andre Jute
Not that I mind any number of mountain bikers crashing and burning: http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/archives/993

[avag...@gmail.com]

I DUNNO ANDRE, the rig is heavy now


http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=innertubes

[John B.]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:04:51 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

With the same tires?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:52:37 PM UTC+1, avag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I DUNNO ANDRE, the rig is heavy now
>
>
> http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=innertubes

It's like Colin Chapman said, you can be comfortable and fast or you can pose as a weight weenie. Choose two our of three.

Andre Jute
Comfortable and fast

[avag...@gmail.com]

nnnnnnnn

u funny no ?

I didnah know Chapman designed for Porsche

off course there's a spectrum and late in the day or earlier there's a limit when you say M"""""""" the rig is heavy. Adding more decreases the threshold.
adding another 200 grams plus XXX? rolling resistance is moving off the standard routing.

I have several Colin stories but you'll need to see the film

[Clive George]

On 26/06/2015 18:04, Joerg wrote:

> (who rides offroad at 55psi pressure and on road at 115psi)

We ride the offroad tandem at around 50 psi with 2.1" tyres, and others
on the MTB tandem list I read considered that high. For MTB, lowering
the pressure will give more grip and a better ride, hence the popularity
of tubeless.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 2:07:20 AM UTC+1, avag...@gmail.com wrote:

>plus XXX? rolling resistance

***A wide, low pressure tyre has less rolling resistance than a high pressure narrow tyre.***
Everyone knows that, except apparently cyclists. The most recent comprehensive studies were conducted by the Deutschen Sporthochschule, Köln (Sports College of Cologne). You're such a Google expert, I'll leave you find your own link.

Andre Jute

[avag...@gmail.com]

lower pressure allows the less skilled the sensation of riding 'faster'

[avag...@gmail.com]

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn-

more contact is more resistance

I may have read you incorrectly.

more resistance eg Newton gives more control for some people

[Sir Ridesalot]

It's a heck of a lot harder to ride a bicycle with wide low pressure tires than it is to ride a bicycle with wide higher pressure tires. Ditto for narrow tires = the lower tthe pressure in the same tire the more effort it takes to keep it rolling. All you need to do to prove that is lower the pressure of any tire, ride it and then increase the pressure and ride that same route again.


Not to mention that riding on underinflated tires can be murder on the sidewalls.

Cheers

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-26 2:22 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 6:51:59 PM UTC+1, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2015-06-26 10:34 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> Yes, it is exactly to avoid these ignorant amateur experiments
>>> by people like you, and their inevitable results, ...
>>
>>
>> Obviously you seem to know nothing about offroad riding. There is
>> nothing experimental about it. It works.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> -- Regards, Joerg
>>
>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
> I'm confused, Joerg. If you agree with me, and with Schwalbe, then
> why are you regaling us with tales of how riders with unerinflated
> tyres came a cropper?
>

I do not agree with you in this matter and I also do not believe the
presented Schwalbe concept will become a commercial success. The
proposed outer pressure in this Schwalbe concept is way too low for
serious riding. You'll get flats galore, including sidewall gashes, and
on my 33mi singletrack trip yesterday the tire would have likely come
off. Because it's underinflated.

After the outer chamber has popped you can keep on riding on the Schalbe
but you'd soon wreck the works and, with the prices you stated, burn 80
Euros. Not gonna happen here.

Their 2nd link in your original post doesn't work today but they claim
it as a "revolution in mountain biking". IMHO it is not.

This stuff might work on some manicured city-folk racetrack and get you
the extra 2/10th of a second to win. But real mountain bikers have very
different goals: To cover dozens of miles and, most of all, to get there
without equipment breakdowns.

> Andre Jute Not that I mind any number of mountain bikers crashing and
> burning: http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/archives/993
>

That doesn't have anything to do with the topic. I ride offroad since
before mountain bikes were invented and I never tore up nature.

[Joerg]

No :-)

Currently with Intense Trail Taker tires at 55psi on the MTB and
Continental Gatorskin tires at 115psi on the road bike. Both with tubes
that have several millimeters sidewall thickness all around, not just at
the running surface.

[Joerg]

I also know people who ride 20-30psi. Those are the ones you constantly
see on the side of the trail fixing a flat. It is currently the main
reason why I carry a fix-it kit, to help others. But there have been
times where the pinch flats resulting from such low pressure were so bad
that the tube was toast.

The other problem is that valves shear off. The rider realizes an
emergency, slams on the brakes, the rim stops but the tire doesn't. I
got one rider home by cramming my spare 29" tube into his 26" tire. To
my surprise it worked.

Tubeless quickly loses its fun in the Western US because of this stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat%27s_head#/media/File:Acanthospermum_hispidum_seeds.jpg

The thorns can easily be 7-8mm long and have been known to occasionally
even flatten a car tire. I've tried slime for a while but it is not
match for those.

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-27 7:48 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 2:27:39 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 2:07:20 AM UTC+1, avag...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> plus XXX? rolling resistance
>>
>> ***A wide, low pressure tyre has less rolling resistance than a
>> high pressure narrow tyre.***

Where did you get that fairy tale from?


>> ... Everyone knows that, except

>> apparently cyclists. The most recent comprehensive studies were
>> conducted by the Deutschen Sporthochschule, Köln (Sports College of

>> Cologne). ...


Every kid knows that if you ride a car with underinflated tires the fuel
consumption goes up. Up, not down. Ask yourself, why would that be? Same
with other vehicles.

You're such a Google expert, I'll leave you find your own
>> link.
>>

That's rather lame. So you can't back up your claim here?

>> Andre Jute
>
> It's a heck of a lot harder to ride a bicycle with wide low pressure
> tires than it is to ride a bicycle with wide higher pressure tires.
> Ditto for narrow tires = the lower tthe pressure in the same tire the
> more effort it takes to keep it rolling. All you need to do to prove
> that is lower the pressure of any tire, ride it and then increase the
> pressure and ride that same route again.
>
>
> Not to mention that riding on underinflated tires can be murder on
> the sidewalls.
>

Exactamente. As is evidenced regularly on the trails around here.

The other effect on MTB is valve stem rip-out. When you hear the
telltale *PASHOOO* from somewhere in the hills that usually means there
went another valve. The patch kit won't help anymore, got to have a
spare tube.

[Andre Jute]

If you think you know better than Schwalbe, there's nothing more I can say to you, Joerg. Ciao.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Why don't you bring a bike 19mm high pressure tyres on one of my downhill lanes and we'll measure how far behind you are when you go down for the first time, and how far behind when your bike, or you, are damaged beyond continuing.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Yup, you can hear that on any street corner from a guy posing in lycra, labeled with the symbols of a team that has never heard of him, and real cool shades, leaning on a carbon bike that he "practices" on for races that he will never run. Apparently looking "cool" also makes him an engineering expert.

There is no arguing with street myth and the ignorance of "received wisdom".

Yo, Ridealot, thris thread isn't about underinflating tyres designed to be operated at high pressure, it is about inflating tyres designed specifically to operate at low pressues to the low pressures for which they are designed.

A low pressure balloon (i.e. a tyre of the correct width and properly designed flexible sidewalls mounted on the correct width of rim) has different shape of rolling patch to a narrow high pressure tyre and a lower rolling resistance at the same pressure, so you are simply wrong. But I don't expect you to believe me, or even to check my facts. If you're happier with the posers' street myth, go for it, but do it quietly, or your ignorance will return from cold, hard print to embarrass you.

Andre Jute
Slam bam the fax mam

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-27 11:22 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> If you think you know better than Schwalbe, there's nothing more I can say to you, Joerg. Ciao.
>

So you blindly trust companies? I don't. Ever. Sometimes people do know
better than companies. The classic example are "modern" bicycle rear
lights. Industry designers don't get it into their heads that a vehicle
must be recognized also from a 30 degree angle or more. That is one of
many examples.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/27/2015 2:27 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
> ***A wide, low pressure tyre has less rolling resistance than a high pressure narrow tyre.***
> Everyone knows that, except apparently cyclists.

Simplistic bullshit.

For a given width of tire and a given roughness of road surface, there
is an optimum pressure that will yield the easiest rolling. The
smoother the surface, the higher that pressure will be. But either
upward or downward deviation from that optimum will increase effective*
rolling resistance.

Similarly, for a given roughness of road surface, there is probably an
optimum tire width. Going too narrow can require excessive pressure to
prevent pinch flats. But for roads of suitable smoothness, a narrower
and higher pressure tire can certainly give lower rolling resistance
than a wider, softer tire.

And rolling resistance varies with tire construction as well. Many
wide, low pressure tires eat large amounts of energy as internal
friction. A short ride on a *-Mart bike should prove that.

I have no doubt that many cyclists choose rim widths and tire pressures
that are narrower and higher than optimum for their roads. But if some
newbie reading here were to take Jute's words seriously, they might end
up riding one of these http://www.fattireallterrainbikes.com/ on the
road, and wondering why they couldn't keep up with friends on bikes with
narrower tires.

[Yes, I know this response will enrage Jute. Oh well.]
--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/27/2015 3:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> For a given width of tire and a given roughness of road surface, there
> is an optimum pressure that will yield the easiest rolling. The
> smoother the surface, the higher that pressure will be. But either
> upward or downward deviation from that optimum will increase effective*
> rolling resistance.

I intended to explain the asterisk on "effective" rolling resistance.

One point of dispute in the past was related to this. Once it had been
demonstrated that super-narrow, super-high pressure tires were not
optimum for rougher asphalt (as opposed to smooth steel testing
surfaces), Jobst and perhaps others said that the increased drag
generated by the narrow tire was not actually rolling resistance.

If one defines rolling resistance as only the drag caused by energy loss
within the tire and tube, that would be correct. For an excessively
narrow and high pressure tire, most of the excess energy loss is
probably within the body of the cyclist - i.e. energy lost by internal
friction when muscle, fat, cartilage, etc. are shaken.

The problem, I think, is that lots of technical work on cycling tends to
ignore that energy loss. For example, Analytic Cycling has inputs for
rolling resistance that are used as part of speed calculations; but
AFAICT, there's no treatment of such bodily energy losses; and the
suggested figures for rolling resistance seem to come from smooth drum
testing, not from real-world asphalt.

Also, I think the picture is complicated - at least for rough roads - by
rider behavior and body makeup. I know I usually out-coast friends on
downhills. It may be that part of the reason is that I "suspend" my
body on the pedals, so my legs absorb most road shocks. Perhaps others
keep their butt planted firmly on the saddle, and endure more shaking
and energy loss than I do. And it seems likely to me that a person with
more (and softer) body mass would soak up more energy.

(Admittedly, I haven't bothered to test these potential effects.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-27 12:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

> I have no doubt that many cyclists choose rim widths and tire pressures
> that are narrower and higher than optimum for their roads. But if some
> newbie reading here were to take Jute's words seriously, they might end
> up riding one of these http://www.fattireallterrainbikes.com/ on the
> road, and wondering why they couldn't keep up with friends on bikes with
> narrower tires.
>

Yeah ... but ... those bikes sure turn heads!

A friend has two of them and I can't wait to take them out onto the
trail. To heck with all the wasted energy, it's free anyhow. Lost energy
can easily be replenished at the next pub that has an outdoor bar. It
should be fun.

Besides, rolling resistance isn't all. After installing motorcycle-rated
tubes which weigh around 1-1/2 lbs each I noticed that my average MTB
speed on road surfaces dropped by more than 1mph. One day I found out
why. The rear tire becomes noticeably warm when riding. But ... no flats
ever since and that's what counts.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>If one defines rolling resistance as only the drag caused by energy loss
>within the tire and tube, that would be correct. For an excessively
>narrow and high pressure tire, most of the excess energy loss is
>probably within the body of the cyclist - i.e. energy lost by internal
>friction when muscle, fat, cartilage, etc. are shaken.
>
>The problem, I think, is that lots of technical work on cycling tends to
>ignore that energy loss.

In my own experience, there is yet another energy-loss consideration.

I have a set of 28mm tires that I occasionally ride and they let me keep
up (more or less) with the roadies on a local bike/walking path. As
opposed to my usual 38's...

It's open-and-shut that I can go faster (1-2 mph... cruising at 17-18 vs
15-16) on the 28's at 80-90 PSI than I can on the 38's at 65-70 PSI when
on relatively smooth blacktop - at the same perceived effort level.

Problem is that the 28's beat me up. After an hour or two riding them I
am tired just from the jarring - especially through the arms/shoulders.

I suspect that more fit riders might not notice this because they are
putting out enough horsepower that most of their weight is borne by the
feet/pedals.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Sir Ridesalot]

Doesn't change the fact that any tire is easier to propell with a higher pressure than that same tire is with a lower pressure. Simple physics old boy.

Cheers

[Andre Jute]

Nah, you haven't read me incorrectly. You just failed to grasp what I told you because you're too slack to examine your ignorant preconceptions.

See, a high pressure narrow tyre has a long contact patch in line with the direction of travel. There is literally more of it in contact with the road, resisting, than of a balloon tyre, which has a contact patch that is also oval but lies across the fat tyre, perpendicular to the direction of travel, so that the incidence of contact and resistance is across the shortest diameter of the oval rather than the longest one. That's what accounts for the lower rolling resistance of the low pressure balloon than the high pressure narrow tyre.

It's easy to work out, if you know what you're talking about. Or you could have googled it in the links I directed you to yesterday with the referene to the Sports University of Cologne. There are piccies there for those with a reading comprehension shortfall.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Claudius Germanicus

[Andre Jute]

This is stupid beyond belief. I don't have time or patience to waste on you, Joerg. Go waste Krygowski's time; he has plenty.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Crap. See http://www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes.html. Slide down to the blue and green graph. Read it and weep: at the same 30W input you can choose a 37x622 tyre at 4 bar or a 60x622 tyre at a much more comfortable 2 bar. The general conclusion from the whole graph is that to overcome the same rolling resistance the low pressure balloon requires around 10W LESS than the high pressure narrower tyre.

The "simple physics" is the influence of the difference in contact patches between the two tyres, which I've already explained to you, and you've failed to grasp.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:08:33 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/27/2015 2:27 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> >
> > ***A wide, low pressure tyre has less rolling resistance than a high pressure narrow tyre.***
> > Everyone knows that, except apparently cyclists.
>
> Simplistic bullshit.
>
> For a given width of tire and a given roughness of road surface, there
> is an optimum pressure that will yield the easiest rolling.

But, Franki-boy, we are not talking about varying the pressure in a "given [fixed] width of of tyre", we're talking about a wide tyre with soft sidewalls and low pressure against a narrow hard case with high pressure. It look like you're big into simplistic bullshit, sonny. I wonder why that is.

> The
> smoother the surface, the higher that pressure will be. But either
> upward or downward deviation from that optimum will increase effective*
> rolling resistance.

That's the sort of railroad-minded teaching from third-rate schools that make their graduates unemployable. What about compound variations, sidewall construction variations, ambient conditions, etc, etc, etc, pages more? No effect? Surely you're practising simplistic bullshit again, Franki-boy.

> Similarly, for a given roughness of road surface, there is probably an
> optimum tire width.

You setting up as a fiction writer, Franki-boy. "Probably" is a good weasel word. And "optimum" too. Optimum for what?

> Going too narrow can require excessive pressure to
> prevent pinch flats.

"Fifty cents each way, cover my ass bet, please, Mister."

> But for roads of suitable smoothness, a narrower
> and higher pressure tire can certainly give lower rolling resistance
> than a wider, softer tire.

Outright, ignorant crap. This is no more than street corner gossip among the losers of cycling. Proper German engineers and researchers, not jumped-up welders like you, Frank Krygowski, have found that a correctly constructed and rimmed balloon of 60x622 inflated to 2 bar required around 10W less to roll as fast as a 37x622 tyre inflated to 4 bar, that is, to overcome the same friction.

> And rolling resistance varies with tire construction as well. Many
> wide, low pressure tires eat large amounts of energy as internal
> friction. A short ride on a *-Mart bike should prove that.

This is a thread about a purpose-designed low pressure tyre by the most respected bicycle tyre company in the world, derailed by idiots wanting to talke about running entirely different designs of tyres out of spec, and now we have the idiots' cheerleader, Franki-boy here, comparing new technology to Walmart bikes. You're an embarrassment to cyclists everywhere, Krygowski.

> I have no doubt that many cyclists choose rim widths and tire pressures
> that are narrower and higher than optimum for their roads. But if some
> newbie reading here were to take Jute's words seriously, they might end
> up riding one of these http://www.fattireallterrainbikes.com/ on the
> road, and wondering why they couldn't keep up with friends on bikes with
> narrower tires.

Don't blame me for your ignorance or your stupid exaggerations. I'm talking about balloon tyres purpose-designed to go fast onroad, and the thread is about balloon tyres purpose-designed to go fast downhill. You and the other obstuctive clowns want to talk about every other kind of unsuitable tyre. Throwing in snow tyres, as you do above, is bizarre and stupid.

> [Yes, I know this response will enrage Jute. Oh well.]

Nope, anger is wasted on a pissant peasant like you. I just don't understand someone who from personal animosity can so consistently tell lies on professional matters as you. Some of your points of ignorance I've demonstrated above would prevent you calling yourself an engineer in quite a few countries in Europe.

> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Christ, more of the same ignorance from Krygowski?

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 9:00:16 PM UTC+1, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> In my own experience, there is yet another energy-loss consideration.
>
> I have a set of 28mm tires that I occasionally ride and they let me keep
> up (more or less) with the roadies on a local bike/walking path. As
> opposed to my usual 38's...
>
> It's open-and-shut that I can go faster (1-2 mph... cruising at 17-18 vs
> 15-16) on the 28's at 80-90 PSI than I can on the 38's at 65-70 PSI when
> on relatively smooth blacktop - at the same perceived effort level.

Narrow tyres do have two advantages. One is the well-known aerodynamic effect of narrower tyres, which can be worthwhile over 20mph. The other is a lower weight which in turn bestows the advantage of better instantaneous acceleration, definitely worth having to a racer up to speeds around 20mph, after which this effect tails off. Racers are on narrow tyres for these two advantages (aero and acceleration) not because they ignorantly believe that narrower tyres have less rolling resistance at reasonable inflation pressures.

> Problem is that the 28's beat me up. After an hour or two riding them I
> am tired just from the jarring - especially through the arms/shoulders.
>
> I suspect that more fit riders might not notice this because they are
> putting out enough horsepower that most of their weight is borne by the
> feet/pedals.
> --
> Pete Cresswell

Nice summary, Pete. I like balloons because in sum total they are more efficient in an overall perspective: you ride more often, and further, if you're comfortable. (I don't belong to the Masochist School of Cyclists!)

Andre Jute

[avag...@gmail.com]

Andre, seriously are there nylon gears...but here whynot find the egregious adwords and give us a hyperling toward them...like we need to see this reasoning in the flesho....

[avag...@gmail.com]

nnnnnnnnnnnnn++++++++++++++

Andre, seriously are there nylon gears...but here whynot find the egregious adwords and give us a hyperling toward them...like we need to see this reasoning in the flesho....

uuuhuhuhuhuuhuh

if true, that sentence gives the fat tire factory a completely new position hereabouts...

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/27/2015 5:56 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 9:21:24 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that any tire is easier to propell with a higher
pressure than that same tire is with a lower pressure. Simple physics
old boy.
>

> Crap. See http://www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes.html. Slide down to the
blue and green graph. Read it and weep: at the same 30W input you can
choose
a 37x622 tyre at 4 bar or a 60x622 tyre at a much more comfortable 2 bar.

Read it and weep, indeed! The graph Jute cites shows precisely what Sir
claimed: the tires are easier to propel with higher pressure. If Jute
wants to argue, he should learn to understand graphs in hopes of
mounting better arguments.

Schwalbe's next graph and its attendant explanation does note that on
rough stone surfaces, the lower pressure tire can roll easier.
Unfortunately their explanation is rather poor, with no measurement of
roughness, etc.

As I said, for a given surface roughness, tire width, tire construction,
etc. there is an optimum pressure. It's certainly possible to overfill
one's tires for a particular surface. And on mountain bike rides, I can
remember deflating my tires significantly to deal with a railroad
ballast bed of 4" diameter rocks.

But Jute's citations happen to confirm Sir's statement. Jute could use
considerably more relentless rigor than he displays.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

This is a lie too far, even for Frank Krygowski. The poor man is so blinded by his personal vendetta that he tells an outright lie that anyone will be able to expose who visits the graph at http://www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes.html -- it's the graph with a green line above a blue line. Just in case there are more idiots here who cannot read a graph, or are so mired in their personal hatreds that they are willing to lie for them, here it is in text, from the same source:

***
"BALLONBIKERS ENJOY LOWER ROLLING RESISTANCE

"Balloonbike tires have a different shape contact area to a narrow tire, so less energy is lost and is thus completely opposite to what is popularly assumed: Balloonbike tires are wide, but nevertheless roll more easily than narrow, standard tires.

"A 60mm wide Balloonbike inflated to 2 bar rolls really easily and with a full suspension effect. Normal city or trekking bikes with 37mm standard tires need to be inflated to a hard 4 bar to achieve this rolling efficiency.

"At the same pressure the BIG APPLE rolls around 10 Watts lower, while the comfort of the BIG APPLE at 2 bar produces the same rolling resistance as a standard tire at 4 bar.

"In practice the advantages are greater than in theory: The suspension effect of wide tires smoothes out uneven roads, so the rider is protected from vibrations and thus saves energy."
***

This is absolutely the opposite of what Frank Krygowski claims. I find it hard to believe that Krygowski, who claims to be an engineer and a college teacher, can be quite this ignorant. The information on rolling resistance of narrow high pressure tyres and low pressure wide tyres has been in my book on prototype cars for over thirty years, and in several other texts as well. How can Krygowski not know something so fundamental? We must concluded that he lies deliberately, for his usual motive, that he just hates me unreasonably for being superior.

Andre Jute

[Sir Ridesalot]

If they roll so much easier why don't pro riders use them in the Grand Tours so they'd have a huge advantage over the poor saps riding the less efficient and far more punishing narrower and higher pressure tires?

Cheers

[Andre Jute]

Narrow tyres do have two advantages. One is the well-known aerodynamic effect of narrower tyres, which can be worthwhile over 20mph. The other is a lower weight which in turn bestows the advantage of better instantaneous acceleration, definitely worth having to a racer up to speeds around 20mph, after which this effect tails off. Racers are on narrow tyres for these two advantages (aero and acceleration) not because they ignorantly believe that narrower tyres have less rolling resistance at reasonable inflation pressures.

Racers ride on narrow tyres, which then have to be highly inflated to avoid snakebite punctures, for aero and acceleration, not for low rolling resistance.

But this thread isn't about road bikes on narrow tyres, or using unuitable tyres under inflated, it is about a tyre specially designed to ride down mountains faster by sticking better to an irregular trail through ultra-low inflation. Read my original post again. Like so many threads on RBT, this one has been derailed by idiots with reading comprehension issues.

Andre Jute

[Duane]

Weight and aerodynamics.

--
duane

[John B.]

I don't think that reality intrudes very deeply into Jute's world.
\
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

And here Slow Johnny crawls out of the woodwork to agree with the people who ignorantly believe that high pressure tyres have less rolling resistance than wide low pressure tyres. He doesn't misunderstand the argument because he hasn't read what I said -- but he feels justified in expressiing an opinion.

We should count up the ignorant fools on RBT, which after all is a tecnical conference:
Joerg
Ridealot
Daniels
Krygowski
Slowcombe

Anyone else want to be listed with the fools?

Andre Jute

[Sir Ridesalot]

Don't forget to add yourself to that list. Arrogant too.

Cheers

[avag...@gmail.com]

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/126/cache/glen-canyon-dam-arizona-colorado-river_12671_600x450.jpg

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/28/2015 2:05 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> And here Slow Johnny crawls out of the woodwork to agree with
the people who ignorantly believe that high pressure tyres have
less rolling resistance than wide low pressure tyres.

Sir Ridesalot said that increasing tire pressure lowers rolling
resistance. For a smooth enough road, that's certainly true.

Jute mockingly attempted a rebuttal by citing a graph; a graph that
showed precisely what Sir had claimed! Jute's now trying to reframe the
argument, to change the subject to conform to his claims. That's not
the sort of thing that wins debate competitions!

Nor is the childish name-calling Jute resorts to once he's made himself
look foolish. That only compounds the foolishness.

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

This is a thread about a low pressure tyre designed for the very rough surfaces on which mountainbikers race downhill. Some of us also have extensive experience of related low pressure balloons designed for tarmac or at least made roads, which in practice are never smooth and often pretty rough. But Frank Krygowski, contemptuously known here as Franki-boy for his constant dishonesty (of which this is a pretty transparent example), characteristically, irrelevantly wants to argue about mirror-smooth roads.

The graph I've been citing, at http://www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes.html, is constructed from data gathered in a major project by the Deutschen Sporthochschule Köln, a technical university that specializes in these matters. It shows the amount of power required to overcome the rolling resistance of two tyres on the test surface. One tyre is fat and designed for low pressure, one tyre is thin and designed for high pressure. In each case the tyre is used appropriately to its design intentions. The graphs shows that at any equal inflation the balloon tyre requires LESS power to overcome friction, i.e. has lower rolling resistance, than the thin tyre. Period. There is no possible contrary interpretation. All that is possible is to state the obvious logical corollary, perfectly obvious from the graph: for the same rolling resistance the thin tyre must be inflated to a higher pressure.

Turning now to Krygowski's lie below by which he tries to embarrass me. Krygowski claims that

> Sir Ridesalot said that increasing tire pressure lowers rolling
> resistance. For a smooth enough road, that's certainly true.

What Ridealot actually said was something rather different:

> Doesn't change the fact that any tire is easier to propell with a higher pressure than that same tire is with a lower pressure.

I don't see anything from Ridealot about the "smooth road" that Krygowski introduces in an effort to make an irrelevant argument. All I see is the context of a thread devoted to tubes for downhill mountain bikes, definitely not a smooth surface, and a remark from a well-known whiner about off-topic subject drift in RBT threads, Ridealot, which in the thread context of very rough surfaces is plain wrong. I stand by my response, which was:

> Crap. See http://www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes.html. Slide down to the
blue and green graph. Read it and weep: at the same 30W input you can
choose a 37x622 tyre at 4 bar or a 60x622 tyre at a much more comfortable 2 bar.

This is the good example of how Krygwoski twists and distorts the facts in an effort to entangle his "enemies" in totally spurious controversy. Frank-boy's complete post is below, not hacked about as he does to my posts so he can lie about what I said.

Take your "smooth road" and stick it where it hurts most, Frank Krygowski. It is irrelevant in this thread, as are you: you haven't contributed anything relevant yet, and most of us doubt that you can.

Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela

[Lou Holtman]

It is more complicated than that. All other things equal a wider tire has a
lower RR as a narrower tire, that is true because a wide short contact
patch is better than a narrow longer contact patch. But things are never
equal, at least the pressure should not be because a 40 mm wide tire at 6
bar gives a much more harsher ride than a 25 mm wide tire at 6 bar. Wider
tires should be ridden ar lower pressures and than the RR increases again.
--
Lou

[Andre Jute]

The other main thing that isn't equal is the surface you ride on.

Andre Jute

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/28/2015 12:51 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> The graph I've been citing, at http://www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes.html,
is constructed from data gathered in a major project by the Deutschen
Sporthochschule Köln, a technical university that specializes in these
matters.
It shows the amount of power required to overcome the rolling resistance
of two
tyres on the test surface. One tyre is fat and designed for low pressure,
one tyre is thin and designed for high pressure. In each case the tyre is
used appropriately to its design intentions. The graphs shows that at any
equal inflation the balloon tyre requires LESS power to overcome
friction, i.e.
has lower rolling resistance, than the thin tyre. Period. There is no
possible
contrary interpretation.

The graph also shows that for either tire, increasing air pressure
reduces rolling resistance. This is precisely what Sir Ridesalot
claimed; that raising air pressure reduces rolling resistance.

Here's the graph:
http://www.schwalbe.com/files/schwalbe/userupload/Images/specials/balloonbikes/en/grafik-1-en-1.jpg
It's ludicrous that Jute used this graph in an attempt to argue against
Sir on that particular point.

One possibility, I suppose, is that Jute is not capable of reading
graphs. Another possibility is that Jute is not capable of reading what
Sir wrote. A third possibility is that Jute made a mistake in one or
another of those ways, and now realizes his mistake, but is willing to
thrash wildly about with his arguments and insults in hopes his mistake
will be buried.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

An excellent example of Krygowski's juvenile debating tactics in the construction of one of his trolls. We're talking about a fat low pressure tube (inflated to 10psi or so...) on a very rough offroad surface, but Krygowski insists on invoking a narrow high pressure tyre on a mirror-smooth surface to prove me "wrong".

Feel better every time you prove somebody "wrong", do you then, Franki-boy?

Do you understand why the rest of us view these tactics of yours as equivalent to deliberate lying on professional matters?

Another thread totally derailed and ruined by the RBT scum.

Andre Jute

[Roger Merriman]

Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:

> On 2015-06-26 7:27 PM, Clive George wrote:
> > On 26/06/2015 18:04, Joerg wrote:
> >
> >> (who rides offroad at 55psi pressure and on road at 115psi)
> >
> > We ride the offroad tandem at around 50 psi with 2.1" tyres, and others
> > on the MTB tandem list I read considered that high. For MTB, lowering
> > the pressure will give more grip and a better ride, hence the popularity
> > of tubeless.
> >
>
> I also know people who ride 20-30psi. Those are the ones you constantly
> see on the side of the trail fixing a flat. It is currently the main
> reason why I carry a fix-it kit, to help others. But there have been
> times where the pinch flats resulting from such low pressure were so bad
> that the tube was toast.

50psi is on the high side for a CX bike, for a modern MTB with modern
tyres your it's massive over kill.
>
> The other problem is that valves shear off. The rider realizes an
> emergency, slams on the brakes, the rim stops but the tire doesn't. I
> got one rider home by cramming my spare 29" tube into his 26" tire. To
> my surprise it worked.
>
tyre slip can happen, but you really have to try, 20/30psi is perfectly
normal and shouldn't give tyre slip tube/tubeless, unless some other
factor comes into play.

> Tubeless quickly loses its fun in the Western US because of this stuff:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat%27s_head#/media/File:Acanthospermum_his
> pidum_seeds.jpg
>
> The thorns can easily be 7-8mm long and have been known to occasionally
> even flatten a car tire. I've tried slime for a while but it is not
> match for those.

sealent seems to work better tubless rather than tubed. all tyres can
puncture, clearly tubeless is difficult to pinch flat, though clearly
penetration punctures can.

Roger merriman

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Joerg:

>The other problem is that valves shear off. The rider realizes an
>emergency, slams on the brakes, the rim stops but the tire doesn't. I
>got one rider home by cramming my spare 29" tube into his 26" tire. To
>my surprise it worked.

Sounds like that might be part of the rationale for shaking the deflated
tube in a bag of talc before installing - preventing it from sticking to
the tire casing. I always do it, but never had much of an idea why...
--
Pete Cresswell

[John B.]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:57:49 +0100, ro...@sarlet.com (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

>Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-06-26 7:27 PM, Clive George wrote:
>> > On 26/06/2015 18:04, Joerg wrote:
>> >
>> >> (who rides offroad at 55psi pressure and on road at 115psi)
>> >
>> > We ride the offroad tandem at around 50 psi with 2.1" tyres, and others
>> > on the MTB tandem list I read considered that high. For MTB, lowering
>> > the pressure will give more grip and a better ride, hence the popularity
>> > of tubeless.
>> >
>>
>> I also know people who ride 20-30psi. Those are the ones you constantly
>> see on the side of the trail fixing a flat. It is currently the main
>> reason why I carry a fix-it kit, to help others. But there have been
>> times where the pinch flats resulting from such low pressure were so bad
>> that the tube was toast.
>
>50psi is on the high side for a CX bike, for a modern MTB with modern
>tyres your it's massive over kill.
>>
>> The other problem is that valves shear off. The rider realizes an
>> emergency, slams on the brakes, the rim stops but the tire doesn't. I
>> got one rider home by cramming my spare 29" tube into his 26" tire. To
>> my surprise it worked.
>>
>tyre slip can happen, but you really have to try, 20/30psi is perfectly
>normal and shouldn't give tyre slip tube/tubeless, unless some other
>factor comes into play.
>

Back in the day, when drag racing was becoming popular and "wrinkle
wall" (very low pressure) tires came into use tire slip was a problem.
Being rather "down to earth" folks in those days they just solved the
problem and went on about their business :-)

>> Tubeless quickly loses its fun in the Western US because of this stuff:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat%27s_head#/media/File:Acanthospermum_his
>> pidum_seeds.jpg
>>
>> The thorns can easily be 7-8mm long and have been known to occasionally
>> even flatten a car tire. I've tried slime for a while but it is not
>> match for those.
>
>sealent seems to work better tubless rather than tubed. all tyres can
>puncture, clearly tubeless is difficult to pinch flat, though clearly
>penetration punctures can.
>
>Roger merriman

--
cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

Frank enters the Fray !

yeah. Increasing pressure increase slipperiness or lack of grip or less friction.

this doesn't in every case or even every moment to the displeasure of many riders* , increase speed or energy expended.

same for decreasing pressure.

first off, there's a stability pressure front rear for the system. correct pressure ranges and proportions in front/back or even side to side woth 4 wheels. find the level and ratio stabilizes the system so energy is not wasted directing the system to stay on course wether straight of curving.

this is not what Swillbee is dealing with. Swill is allowing lower pressure riders an opportunity to eliminate snake bite when/from using low pressures.

If your looking to, and you would know this from immediate real time experience not hypojecture, to get more soft ground grip on surfaces with 4-5 inch and up drops, at 'speed' that is not slowin down, and not long uphills given the weight penalty then Swill may have a viable product in your area use age. right ?

but the weight penalty counters an hypojectural use in endure situations. I cannot FTLOM, imagine a ride path allowing the grip positive to out weight the weight negative. but then I assume you're stronger than I am so urine.
If ura large strong MTB endure rider with the right soil mix ?!

We assume Swillbee has field tested the idea coming up with appositive for manufacturing the concept. That is, riders were found enthusiastic abt the performance improvement over other tires. Over what other tires ? and on what ground. Swill could be 'kidding themselves' but Swill has the time and capital to go in odd, for a European, directions. Schwalbe, the german company was known for this and relatively successful in promoting pave stone road handling to a small legion of customers.

My snakebites were more mundane off Belgian Curbing riding Conti gumwall TT's with a Walmart load of mmmm 40 pounds rear rack. Snakebite even very cautiously using sloped rundowns to drives from sidewalks lead to snakebites.

This was thought of as a marketing design error from Conti and a poor choice of tire by me...for going to Walmart if definitely not for outback riding on good roads. Other riders complained abt gumwall vulnerabilsty...which is a low pressure parallel, in all riding situations.

If swill wants me back for another tire there's gona be a 15% weight reduction and a less friction factor for thei terrific tread designs. I assume Swoll has done this with the Marathon series so...

[James]

On 27/06/15 03:04, Joerg wrote:
> On 2015-06-26 9:43 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

>> In that case, perhaps you boys want to go another size or several
>> oversize so as not only to reclaim lost ground, but to give
>> yourselves headroom for taking the next step of on-edge handing and
>> speed, achieved by lowering pressure.
>>
>> That is what the Schwalbe ProCore Tube does, to the max, permitting
>> 14psi pressure in the outer tube/inner tyre without inducing snake
>> bite punctures.
>>
>> I'm perfectly happy with the biggest Schwalbe tubes, Type 19A, and
>> operate them down to 1.4 bar, 20psi without mishap, on very rough
>> tarmac, not offroad. If I were suddenly to take up offroading, I
>> would, having convinced myself of the multiple advantages and
>> pleasures of low pressure balloon tyres in seven years on the Big
>> Apples (1), certainly fit Schwalbe ProCore tubes.
>>
>
> Have you ever done any serious offroading? My bike dealer experienced it
> with lower pressure tubeless: Tight corner, a bit fast, same for the
> rider following him ... *PHOOF* ... rear tire now almost on the rim but
> he could finish the race. The next guy wasn't so lucky ... *KABLAM* ...
> WOP-WOP-WOP ... his tire came off the rim. That usually means a crash
> although this guy here still managed to finish, something I would not
> have dared:
>

Not the sharpest tool, are you Joerg?

--
JS

[James]

Joerg, do you understand that the Schwalbe invention effectively locks
the outer tyre bead to the rim? It has a very similar effect to
beadlock rims used for balloon tyres on four wheel drives. It is an
invention supposed to overcome precisely the problem you say there will
be - "the tire would have likely come off."

--
JS

Picking up the pieces after Andre lost patience. I've had a whole
weekend to recover!

[Lou Holtman]

That is also true. Another factor that complicates matters. A tire is a 'massive' compromise; comfort, rolling resistance, puncture resistance, grip in wet and dry conditions etc.

Lou

[James]

On 29/06/15 16:55, Lou Holtman wrote:

>
> That is also true. Another factor that complicates matters. A tire is
> a 'massive' compromise; comfort, rolling resistance, puncture
> resistance, grip in wet and dry conditions etc.
>

There is compromise in just about everything.

Exposed gears v/ IGH.
Battery lights v/ dynamo.
Clinchers v/ tubulars.
Pump v/ CO2.
Frame materials.
The list is extensive.

There is choice and pros and cons for just about every detail of a
bicycle. The trick being to find a combination that works for each of
us and where it doesn't, _we_ have to be prepared to compromise - like
slowing down in the wet or not taking rough roads, or not planning a
ride that would outlast our battery powered lights, or being prepared to
beg for someone else to loan a pump when we've run out of CO2.

--
JS

[John B.]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 21:18:38 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

I've always done that and I discovered that in some countries "Talc"
isn't necessarily talc. Apparently it is hazardous to breath, or some
such thing but I found that buying the cheapest stuff you could find
that you generally got actual talc. (Maybe poor folks don't breath ;-)

But I've taken tires off where the tube was literally stick to the
tire and it was a good enough bond that you had to expend some effort
to pull it free so I do think it is a good idea.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:14:59 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sometimes I even have to compromise with my wife :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Graham]

"John B." <johnbs...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dmd2pap2ukokq5gae...@4ax.com...

By preventing the tube from sticking to the tyre and allowing the two to slide freely one against the other it is claimed that there is a measurable reduction in rolling resistance. This is undoutably small but it is one of those cheap marginal gains I will willingly take!

Graham.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Lou Holtman]

To minimize this I have more than one bike ;-)

Lou

[Joerg]

My MTB rims are tubeless-ready and they don't have nearly the pedestal
width outlined in Schwalbe's drawings. Plus the tire bead is often
thicker than they depict. That can cause problems for the 4-6bar center
section to remain in place in an iffy situation.

But the real problem for most riders (except hardcore competition
riders) isn't the tire coming off the rim. It is the paper-thin side
walls. That plus really thin tubes (if not running tubeless) is the only
way to keep the rolling resistance low when running very low pressures.
I see the results of this on trails quite often. Sidewalls with multiple
"aneurysms", partial tears, gashes, only a matter of a few miles until
it pops. The tubeless guys are already constantly pumping up by then.

My idea of a fun ride is a very different one. I don't want to worry
about phssseeeoooouuu and with my fix (extremely thick tubes plus tire
liners) I don't have to :-)

Still looking for 29" tires with very thick sidewalls that aren't >$50 a
pop.

[Duane]

Not to discourage more than one bike but to minimize the choice about
the pump vs co2 I just carry both. <g> A small frame pump is useful to
inflate the old tube to find the hole and to inflate the new tube a bit
to form it.

James is right though about choices.

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-28 1:57 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-06-26 7:27 PM, Clive George wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2015 18:04, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>> (who rides offroad at 55psi pressure and on road at 115psi)
>>>
>>> We ride the offroad tandem at around 50 psi with 2.1" tyres, and others
>>> on the MTB tandem list I read considered that high. For MTB, lowering
>>> the pressure will give more grip and a better ride, hence the popularity
>>> of tubeless.
>>>
>>
>> I also know people who ride 20-30psi. Those are the ones you constantly
>> see on the side of the trail fixing a flat. It is currently the main
>> reason why I carry a fix-it kit, to help others. But there have been
>> times where the pinch flats resulting from such low pressure were so bad
>> that the tube was toast.
>
> 50psi is on the high side for a CX bike, for a modern MTB with modern
> tyres your it's massive over kill.

It is a modern MTB, Fuji Outland 1.5D. Not overkill, the MTB tire I use
are actually rated 60psi and there must be a reason why they do that.
Running at almost max has afforded me flat-free travel for a long time.
Yeah, the shaking is a bit worse but I rather handle that than fixing
flats all the time like other riders.

>>
>> The other problem is that valves shear off. The rider realizes an
>> emergency, slams on the brakes, the rim stops but the tire doesn't. I
>> got one rider home by cramming my spare 29" tube into his 26" tire. To
>> my surprise it worked.
>>
> tyre slip can happen, but you really have to try, 20/30psi is perfectly
> normal and shouldn't give tyre slip tube/tubeless, unless some other
> factor comes into play.
>

Seen many torn valves with people that ran this low in tire pressure.

>> Tubeless quickly loses its fun in the Western US because of this stuff:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat%27s_head#/media/File:Acanthospermum_his
>> pidum_seeds.jpg
>>
>> The thorns can easily be 7-8mm long and have been known to occasionally
>> even flatten a car tire. I've tried slime for a while but it is not
>> match for those.
>
> sealent seems to work better tubless rather than tubed. all tyres can
> puncture, clearly tubeless is difficult to pinch flat, though clearly
> penetration punctures can.
>

And that's the problem, punctures. We have goat head thorns and similar.
Yesterday I rolled over some weeds like that out of courtesy to the next
riders because they also gash your skin if you don't ride with boots. I
would have never dared to do that with tubeless wheels, they'd be flat
within a mile or so.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Trte_003_lhp.jpg

[Joerg]

That's standard practice but ... the contact surfes tube-tire is too
large. Then most modern talc isn't really talc but more like starch. Not
sure why, maybe talc is carcinogenic? Anyhow, over time it becomes sticky.

[Andre Jute]

In order to conserve the Earth's resources, I ride only one bike at a time.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 4:51:41 AM UTC+1, James wrote:

>I've had a whole weekend to recover!

What happened?

Andre Jute
It's a curious life being a cyclist

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:48:14 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
> My idea of a fun ride is a very different one. I don't want to worry
> about phssseeeoooouuu and with my fix (extremely thick tubes plus tire
> liners) I don't have to :-)
>
> Still looking for 29" tires with very thick sidewalls that aren't >$50 a
> pop.
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

So many of your posts were about stuff you constantly broke that many of us here figured that riding must be very stressful for you.

If you want really good quality tires you need to be willing to pay good money for them too. There's a reason that those inexpensive tires are inexpensive. If I was going out in the boonies where being stranded would be a big life-threatening risk I'd buy the very best tires I could and not worry that much about the expense. But if I'm just going for a casual off-road ride then I don't need the very best.

Cheers

[Duane]

The thing is you never know when you're going to need some level of
quality above cheap. We were in Champlain NY on Saturday and got to the
top of this hill around Beekmantown. Saw a sign that showed a hard
decent next 3 miles. When you're doing 70k/h you don't really want to
be wondering whether you should have bought your tires at the dollar store.

I can't advise Joerg what to do though. I have no experience with the
type of riding that he describes.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I have decent quality tires on all of my bicycles because I don't want to worry about a failure. However, many bicyclists I know who only ride their bicycles at slow speeds and not very far don't want to pay more for a better tire than they do for ttheir de0partment store tires. r do they realize how much less effort is required to propell a bicycle with decent tires than the same bicycle with dead-like cheap tires.

Fortunately for me it's only about 100 kilometres round trip from my place to MEC where I can buy very good tires for at least 50% less (often more)than I can get them here in town at the local bicycle shops. Plus the ride to MEC is a nice trip through the country.

Cheers

Cheers

[Duane]

MEC has decent tires. The one in Montreal is sort of a pain to get to
but they have free shipping over 50 bucks. I buy most of my tools
there. Things like back packs as well. I wouldn't advise their store
brand tubes though. They're less expensive but I've had a couple of
them split at the seam.

Personally, I like to support the LBS where possible. If I have some
issue, I can go into my favorite one on the way home from a ride and
they'll look at my bike for me on the spot. They'll even make me a cup
of coffee.

[Andre Jute]

I fit only the best, not because I'm spendthrift but because I'm too poor to fit crap six to ten times over the lifetime of the best gear. In my experience, over a few years the best gear invariably costs only 30% of cheap, usually fashionable, crap. It's an easy choice.

Andre Jute

[Clive George]

On 29/06/2015 15:48, Joerg wrote:

> But the real problem for most riders (except hardcore competition
> riders) isn't the tire coming off the rim. It is the paper-thin side
> walls. That plus really thin tubes (if not running tubeless) is the only
> way to keep the rolling resistance low when running very low pressures.
> I see the results of this on trails quite often. Sidewalls with multiple
> "aneurysms", partial tears, gashes, only a matter of a few miles until
> it pops. The tubeless guys are already constantly pumping up by then.

I think your "most riders" might well be wrong. Possibly riders on the
tracks you do, but you do keep telling us that the tracks you do are
different to anything else in the world.

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-29 9:10 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 12:03:19 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>> On 29/06/2015 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:48:14 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
>>>> My idea of a fun ride is a very different one. I don't want to
>>>> worry about phssseeeoooouuu and with my fix (extremely thick
>>>> tubes plus tire liners) I don't have to :-)
>>>>
>>>> Still looking for 29" tires with very thick sidewalls that
>>>> aren't >$50 a pop.
>>>>
>>>> -- Regards, Joerg
>>>>
>>>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>>>
>>> So many of your posts were about stuff you constantly broke that
>>> many of us here figured that riding must be very stressful for
>>> you.
>>>
>>> If you want really good quality tires you need to be willing to
>>> pay good money for them too.

I found that that does not guarantee performance. By performance I mean
mostly tread wear and even more so sidewall sturdiness.


>>> ... There's a reason that those
>>> inexpensive tires are inexpensive.


But not always a technical one. Consider Vee Rubber out of Thailand.
They make good tires that retail for less than 1/2 of the usual. I
believe one reason is that they operate their own rubber plantations.


>>> ... If I was going out in the

>>> boonies where being stranded would be a big life-threatening risk
>>> I'd buy the very best tires I could and not worry that much about
>>> the expense. But if I'm just going for a casual off-road ride
>>> then I don't need the very best.
>>>

It's not life-threatening. But as with trips in a car many of my MTB
trips require me to get from A to B in a planned amount of time. Like
one stretch where 3-1/2h trip time is normal but >4h would cause issues.

For example, I often use my MTB to get to meetings, like with a software
engineer. One should be on time, at least that's how I see it.

>>
>> The thing is you never know when you're going to need some level
>> of quality above cheap. We were in Champlain NY on Saturday and
>> got to the top of this hill around Beekmantown. Saw a sign that
>> showed a hard decent next 3 miles. When you're doing 70k/h you
>> don't really want to be wondering whether you should have bought
>> your tires at the dollar store.
>>
>> I can't advise Joerg what to do though. I have no experience with
>> the type of riding that he describes.
>

Mostly regular XC, very rough trails, with the occasional gnarly
downhill stretch where inexperienced riders might slip an "Oh s..t!".

> I have decent quality tires on all of my bicycles because I don't
> want to worry about a failure. However, many bicyclists I know who
> only ride their bicycles at slow speeds and not very far don't want
> to pay more for a better tire than they do for ttheir de0partment
> store tires. r do they realize how much less effort is required to
> propell a bicycle with decent tires than the same bicycle with
> dead-like cheap tires.
>
> Fortunately for me it's only about 100 kilometres round trip from my
> place to MEC where I can buy very good tires for at least 50% less
> (often more)than I can get them here in town at the local bicycle
> shops. Plus the ride to MEC is a nice trip through the country.
>

What's MEC?

Anyhow, my experience with MTB tires is that expensive does not
automatically mean better. I had Hutchinson Cobras on there initially
which cost around $55 a piece. On my usual trails their sidewalls were
being eaten up so fast that I had to retire both front and back before
the tread was through although the rear tread was almost done. Not
willing to plunk down that much for tires that barely last 500 miles I
found Thai tires for about a third of that price. To my surprise they
fare better. So unless I find something even better I will buy them
again when the last one is on there.

My bike dealer showed me a 29" tire that had serious sidewalls. I asked
him whether its tread would last more then 500mi upon which, being an
honest guy, he shook his head. It cost well over $80 so I didn't bite.

Walmart has their cheap 29" MTB equipped with no-name tire that do have
seriously thick sidewalls. However, they do not sell that same tire as
spares, for whatever reason. Does anyone know where to get these?

For 26" MTB the answer is very simple: Maxxis 1040N. Thick sidewalls,
very good tread pattern, quite durable, 12 bucks. On my old 26" MTB I
was unable to destory those. Why they do not produce these in 29" I
don't understand. I'd instantly buy a whole stack.

[Joerg]

I've had the same kind of rides elsewhere in the world. For example in
the German Rhine area as well as the eastern section of Belgium. Side
wall damage was a serious problem, even more so because back then
mountain bikes didn't really exist yet. Luckily, they didn't make most
tires with those paper thin walls like the Gatorskins I have on my road
bike. I love the performance of those Gatorskins and also the fact that
their running surface appears to be so sturdy. But on account of their
thin sidewalls I'll probably switch to a cyclocross tire once my
Gatorskin stash is used up.

[Joerg]

So when technical arguments run out you go ad hominem? That's rather
cheap and I would not have expected that from you.

[Andre Jute]

We're trying to hold a technical discussion about a tube system that locks the bead in by high pressure while providing all the benefits of ultra-low pressure in adhesion in the outer chamber.

You on the other hand are sending dozens of irrelevant posts about abusing tyres not designed for the job by running them out of spec at somewhat lower pressures, and having accidents. Then you libel a respected German company and a respected German technical institute as liars, on no evidence but your omnidiractional paranoia. That already makes you lower than dogshit underfoot with the thoughtful engineers here. You may think you're proving how macho you are, but all you're doing is ruining a worthwhile technical discussion. Check out how the forum sideshow clowns Krygowski and Daniels have marginalized themselves by such disruption tactics; is that what you want for yourself?

I've tried to give you a hint but you've proved as insensitive socially as you are clumsy on the bike. So let me be blunt:

Fuck off out of my thread; stop ruining it with these irrelevances. If you have nothing to contribute about my original subject, go "contribute" it in a thread of your own.

Andre Jute
Andre is never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela

[Duane]

MEC is a large warehouse coop type store that we have in Quebec and
Ontario. You can get the same quality there as a local shop for a lower
price. SirRidesalot isn't saying he's getting the cheapest, just that
he can get better quality stuff for a better price. This is often true
at MEC.

[Joerg]

> as liars, ...


Baloney. Quote me, right here and now. No blah-blah but a literal quote
with date and time.

[...]


>
> Fuck off out of my thread; ...


Nice tone. And where's your title of ownership of this here newsgroup?
Post it.

[...]

[Duane]

I have friends that do rides like you describe, mostly in winter here
when they get off the road bikes. But they don't seem to have the same
issues.

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-29 11:18 AM, Duane wrote:
> On 29/06/2015 1:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2015-06-29 9:10 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 12:03:19 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:

[...]

>>>>
>>>> The thing is you never know when you're going to need some level
>>>> of quality above cheap. We were in Champlain NY on Saturday and
>>>> got to the top of this hill around Beekmantown. Saw a sign that
>>>> showed a hard decent next 3 miles. When you're doing 70k/h you
>>>> don't really want to be wondering whether you should have bought
>>>> your tires at the dollar store.
>>>>
>>>> I can't advise Joerg what to do though. I have no experience with
>>>> the type of riding that he describes.
>>>
>>
>> Mostly regular XC, very rough trails, with the occasional gnarly
>> downhill stretch where inexperienced riders might slip an "Oh s..t!".
>>
>
> I have friends that do rides like you describe, mostly in winter here
> when they get off the road bikes. But they don't seem to have the same
> issues.
>

Not sure where you live but maybe you don't have goat head thorns in the
area. Those can frustrate mountain bikers to no end around here. Even
the occasional road biker, in areas where the thorns spill onto the
shoulder or where you have to do the occasional offroad mile with he
road bike. Like here, where there is no real alternative and you can
either walk the bike for a mile or ride, and it gets a bit rocky later:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.651015,-121.078402,3a,90y,264.34h,54.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2-kdwDkhkC6A5El6LANKAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Just as an example, this is considered a road out here:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Chapparal1.JPG

Typically the rocks are deeply embedded and won't move when hitting
them. They can slice through a tire side wall in milliseconds and that's
where I think the presented Schwalbe system will suffer the most.

[jbeattie]

<snip>

My brother is an old-guy MTB champ. He spends a bundle on his tires and has one for every condition -- drying mud, wet mud, sand, sand with some gravel, gravel with some sand, grass, rock, rotting animal flesh, etc. Buying tires is an issue, but not because they fail. It's an issue because he frets over every tread lug. When he comes down here to shop tax free at Universal, I have to remember to bring a magazine and a camp chair. The sales people hide in the back. "Well, what do you recommend for off-camber turns on a blend of hard pack, mud and some Piedmont gravel -- with clay in the upper banks -- on a Thursday." I go to the rack and get a ProRace. I'm done in 10 seconds. He races a lot, and a lot of downhill -- but unlike Joerg, his bike isn't always in the process of exploding.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

Cool :-)

> "Well, what do you recommend for off-camber turns on a blend of hard
> pack, mud and some Piedmont gravel -- with clay in the upper banks --
> on a Thursday." I go to the rack and get a ProRace. I'm done in 10
> seconds. He races a lot, and a lot of downhill -- but unlike Joerg,
> his bike isn't always in the process of exploding.
>

Mine doesn't explode much anymore lately. The first year I had numerous
serious material breakdowns and warranty issues which were very
professionally handled by the manufacturer and my bike dealer. For the
last half year it just works. Yeah, it has become loud, squeaky and
rattly but I guess that can be considered normal on a heavily used MTB.
Just like most offroad vehicles rattle. It took a while to find what
works best, for example to figure out that slime tubes are definitely
not the ticket to happiness for me.

[Duane]

I live in Quebec. No, I don't think there are any goat head thorns
around here. Bears and wolves maybe. A few caribou.

Like I said, the people that I know that ride MTB do it in the winter so
it's mostly ice and snow that they deal with hiding the stumps and
fallen trees. Things like that.

There's a lot of summer mountain biking here because the ski centers do
that when there's no snow for skiing. I expect some of the double black
diamonds that give me the creeps skiing on are probably intense with
MTBs. I don't do this. I ride on the roads when there's no snow and I
ski when there is.

[avag...@gmail.com]

That is also true. Another factor that complicates matters. A tire is a 'massive' compromise; comfort, rolling resistance, puncture resistance, grip in wet and dry conditions etc.

Jute's off course. Jute the heart patient ex drunk bon what in no way can use this tire. NO STEAM ! The 200 grams takes muscle, endurance.

ride the desert. off course but a day slo0gging thru sand then droping over ledges prob isn't the routing.

the idea works there but who needs it ? I get off and wlak a few hundred yards the hell with it.

whatcha gonna do run the Tuolumne ?

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
> On 29/06/15 16:55, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> >

> > That is also true. Another factor that complicates matters. A tire is
> > a 'massive' compromise; comfort, rolling resistance, puncture
> > resistance, grip in wet and dry conditions etc.
> >
>

> There is compromise in just about everything.
>
> Exposed gears v/ IGH.
> Battery lights v/ dynamo.
> Clinchers v/ tubulars.
> Pump v/ CO2.
> Frame materials.
> The list is extensive.
>
> There is choice and pros and cons for just about every detail of a
> bicycle. The trick being to find a combination that works for each of
> us and where it doesn't, _we_ have to be prepared to compromise - like
> slowing down in the wet or not taking rough roads, or not planning a
> ride that would outlast our battery powered lights, or being prepared to
> beg for someone else to loan a pump when we've run out of CO2.
>
> --
> JS

aaaaauuuuuuussssssss

now what ?

[Joerg]

Yesterday I accidentally startled a herd of deer. One of them was more
brazen and stopped in tall grass after 100ft, turned around and looked
at me. I stopped as well and we played a bit of hide and seek across the
distance for a while. They seem to have a sense of humor. That stuff
alone is priceless to me and makes MTB riding so much more fun versus
the road bike.

> Like I said, the people that I know that ride MTB do it in the winter so
> it's mostly ice and snow that they deal with hiding the stumps and
> fallen trees. Things like that.
>
> There's a lot of summer mountain biking here because the ski centers do
> that when there's no snow for skiing. I expect some of the double black
> diamonds that give me the creeps skiing on are probably intense with
> MTBs. I don't do this. I ride on the roads when there's no snow and I
> ski when there is.
>

That sound more like manicured tracks, prepared just for races or fun
riding. Out here some trails are actually used for commutes and errand
runs. 10-20 miles of singletrack and such. I use one of them to get to
Placerville or to a software engineer I network with. Towards the west I
have a choice, going by road bike on a county road (fastest) or take an
extra hour or so using the MTB via singletrack (way more fun). Then
there are bush roads like this:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/CoachLane1.JPG

The nice thing is that on an MTB you are actually faster than even the
most tricked out off-road vehicles, plus they often become stuck. Only
the guys on dirt bikes or on horseback are faster.

[...]

[Joerg]

On 2015-06-29 12:14 PM, avag...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> ride the desert. off course but a day slo0gging thru sand then
> droping over ledges prob isn't the routing.
>

Desert areas are actually where this Schwalbe system could excel. But
there my vehicle of choice would be a fat bike to begin with.

On gnarly MTB turf like what we have here, no dice IMHO.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 3:28:06 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

>
> That sound more like manicured tracks, prepared just for races or fun
> riding. Out here some trails are actually used for commutes and errand
> runs. 10-20 miles of singletrack and such. I use one of them to get to
> Placerville or to a software engineer I network with. Towards the west I
> have a choice, going by road bike on a county road (fastest) or take an
> extra hour or so using the MTB via singletrack (way more fun). Then
> there are bush roads like this:
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/CoachLane1.JPG
>
> The nice thing is that on an MTB you are actually faster than even the
> most tricked out off-road vehicles, plus they often become stuck. Only
> the guys on dirt bikes or on horseback are faster.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Don't you have any other images of those great trails you ride; other than the three stock images you keep posting?

Cheers

[Duane]

Yeah, on road bikes I mostly startle motor vehicles and they are less
amusing. <g>

>> Like I said, the people that I know that ride MTB do it in the winter so
>> it's mostly ice and snow that they deal with hiding the stumps and
>> fallen trees. Things like that.
>>
>> There's a lot of summer mountain biking here because the ski centers do
>> that when there's no snow for skiing. I expect some of the double black
>> diamonds that give me the creeps skiing on are probably intense with
>> MTBs. I don't do this. I ride on the roads when there's no snow and I
>> ski when there is.
>>
>
> That sound more like manicured tracks, prepared just for races or fun
> riding. Out here some trails are actually used for commutes and errand
> runs. 10-20 miles of singletrack and such. I use one of them to get to
> Placerville or to a software engineer I network with. Towards the west I
> have a choice, going by road bike on a county road (fastest) or take an
> extra hour or so using the MTB via singletrack (way more fun). Then
> there are bush roads like this:
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/CoachLane1.JPG
>

Why would you think that a ski trail in the summer is a manicured track?


You can google "single track mtb quebec" if you like. Anyway, I'm not
looking to get into a pissing contest with you about who has the most
dangerous MTB trails.

[Joerg]

Those are pictures I took myself but on longer trips I don't take my
camera. It's battery compartment is busted and tends to fall apart
because of the shaking. My cell phone is a Flintstonian model sans camera.

Someone made a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqa_fXf-DE

It's fairly easy except for stretches like at 2:10min. What gets the
material is when you ride it at 20mph and everything shakes. Here is the
trail coming back from Cronan Ranch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5cjAW_nrl4

This is about 1/2 mile from our house on the way out, with my old cheapo
MTB:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/PineHill1.JPG

I busted two rear axles in that area. Many of our trails aren't on maps.
They are legal since several years (no motorized vehicles though) but
hardly anyone knows about them.

[Joerg]

They can growl louder and devour more :-)

>>> Like I said, the people that I know that ride MTB do it in the winter so
>>> it's mostly ice and snow that they deal with hiding the stumps and
>>> fallen trees. Things like that.
>>>
>>> There's a lot of summer mountain biking here because the ski centers do
>>> that when there's no snow for skiing. I expect some of the double black
>>> diamonds that give me the creeps skiing on are probably intense with
>>> MTBs. I don't do this. I ride on the roads when there's no snow and I
>>> ski when there is.
>>>
>>
>> That sound more like manicured tracks, prepared just for races or fun
>> riding. Out here some trails are actually used for commutes and errand
>> runs. 10-20 miles of singletrack and such. I use one of them to get to
>> Placerville or to a software engineer I network with. Towards the west I
>> have a choice, going by road bike on a county road (fastest) or take an
>> extra hour or so using the MTB via singletrack (way more fun). Then
>> there are bush roads like this:
>>
>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/CoachLane1.JPG
>>
>
> Why would you think that a ski trail in the summer is a manicured track?
>

This is what I mean with manicured. Not that the trail isn't fun, it
certainly is. But building "helper structures" can even lead to crashes
as evidenced at the end of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGMafO8wzI4

>
> You can google "single track mtb quebec" if you like. Anyway, I'm not
> looking to get into a pissing contest with you about who has the most
> dangerous MTB trails.
>

Many of the ones I looked at are only one or a few kilometers. That to
me is a pure sports trail. But there are some in Quebec that look good.
However, the best trails are neither there nor in our area, the really
good ones are 50mi east of here at Lake Tahoe. Or even better, in Utah.
If I had my druthers I'd be living in Moab:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnUQf_kE6pw

[Andre Jute]

Sure thing. In a thread with Schwalbe's name in the headline, discussing a graph on a Schwalbe netsite, right next to the name of the originator of the data, the German Sports University, Cologne, here's a direct quote of what you were dumb and careless enough to commit to print:
***
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 7:44:03 PM UTC+1, Joerg wrote:
> On 2015-06-27 11:22 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > If you think you know better than Schwalbe, there's nothing more I can say to you, Joerg. Ciao.
> >
>
> So you blindly trust companies? I don't. Ever.
***

The data Schwalbe presents is clearly stated to be based on the work of the German Sports University, Cologne, so you libelled both of them, giving as a reason your omnidirectional paranoia, just as I said.

> [...]

Restoring what you cut, which contains my reasoning, which stands:

>... as liars, on no evidence but your omnidiractional paranoia. That already makes you lower than dogshit underfoot with the thoughtful engineers here. You may think you're proving how macho you are, but all you're doing is ruining a worthwhile technical discussion. Check out how the forum sideshow clowns Krygowski and Daniels have marginalized themselves by such disruption tactics; is that what you want for yourself?

>I've tried to give you a hint but you've proved as insensitive socially as you are clumsy on the bike. So let me be blunt:

>Fuck off out of my thread; stop ruining it with these irrelevances. If you have nothing to contribute about my original subject, go "contribute" it in a thread of your own.

Of all that, you quote only this:

> > Fuck off out of my thread; ...

With the pointless defensive comment:

> Nice tone. And where's your title of ownership of this here newsgroup?
> Post it.

I don't claim ownership of the newsgroup. For that stupidity, you must apply to Krygowski. But you should check who opened this thread and for what purpose: I did, and not for the purpose of discussing self-appointed wannabe macho assholes abusing components out of spec. You should also check how many other posters consider your irrelevant disruptions of this and other threads unwelcome.

Whatever is wrong with starting your own thread to discuss your adventures? Why ruin everyone else's threads with irrelevant material?

Andre Jute