On Aug 22, 7:30*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 22, 10:47*am, DougC wrote:



I'm wondering if it is possible that a rough estimate of necessary bead
strength could be determined for a given size tire. There is info online
about figuring wall strength of hoses and cylinders containing pressure,
but they don't deal with the situation of a tire--where the wall is
interrupted.

I've cut up a couple cheap cruiser tires and seen that for them (about
2.1" wide, with a max pressure of 40 PSI) that each of the beads is a
piece of cable with a total breaking strength of about 300 lbs. I could
just match that (even cheap tire beads very rarely fail at their rated
pressures) but it would be nice to know a rule of thumb when making
different-size tires.

*From what I have seen of tires I have on hand, the tire's overall
diameter has very little if anything to do with bead loads. I have a
pair of 1.5" wide Kenda Kwest 100 psi tires in 406mm and 559mm, and both
have the same width casings, and both beads measure right about the same
thickness (.118").

{-I am just measuring on the outside of the tire bead, rubber and all,
but anyway}

I also have a 2.3" 559 Big Apple (60 psi), and it is about 6.5" across
the casing, and the beads of it measure right about .150". The BA beads
feel quite stiffer than the Kwests as well.

So then-

1) assuming they have the same cross-section, a larger-diameter tire
(26") does not seen to need a thicker bead than a smaller-diameter tire
(20")

2) the overall tire pressure does necessitate a stronger bead as the
tire pressure increases, but-

3) the stress on the bead increases with the tire's cross-section more
than it does for the pressure (the BA's pressure is only 60% of the
Kwests, but the BA bead is still considerably thicker)

4) I am also wondering now what difference in rim width would make, as
you can get road 26" rims that are ~25mm wide, as well as cruiser 26"
rims that are 80mm wide. On the 80mm rim, not only does the tire's
internal volume increase, but the portion borne by the beads increases
as well.

Is this a problem that can even be estimated roughly, or would it
require 3-d modeling to figure out? It would seem to be fairly simple,
as the tire casing always expands into a circle (the cross-section of
the tire, that is...).

* ----------

Also when I went looking for such info online, I ran across a lot of
reports of people trying to use non-tubeless tires on tubeless rims.

It's pretty surprising (to me) how common it is for people to say that
the tubeless setups ride much better, but also how common the problem is
of a tire blowing off a tubeless rim and the bead being permanently
damaged from it (ruining the tire). Usually this seems to be with tires
that are not intended for tubeless use; I've already read that a lot of
tires not specified as tubeless are not warrantied for this purpose.

I've never seen these IRL as the first one came out right as I got rid
of the last MTB I had. I've already read a lot of accounts of it, but if
there's any websites that have a lot of pictures and explanations of the
different rims it'd be interesting to see.

Just for clarification, when you say "bead strength" or "stress on the
bead," you seem to be referring to the tensile force on the wire or
whatever material provides the reinforcement of the bead. Is that
correct? There is also the issue of the security of the interface
between rim and tire at the bead. Essentially, with a secure enough
bead "hook," the rim would serve in place of the tire bead. *By way of
further example, a tubular tire requires nothing but the tire itself
(no extra circumferential reinforcement) to withstand applicable
pressures.

DR

Usually sewn together although there was an East European tubular tyre
which relied on the gluing of the base tape and the tyre pressure upon
the rim to hold it together. I know people liked them, cheap, so
there must have been good experiences. Proper wires are the best way
to secure a wired-on tyre. The gist of it is in the name.