What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:06:26 AM UTC+1, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:28:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever..

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty
crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter..
Who knew?

I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most
of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a cup of coffee.. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a victim of marketing. When I bought my first serious roadbike I had the choice between 3 saddles: junk, crap and doesn't fit.....

Lou

Yet, Brooks was marketing saddles in 1888. A saddle that even today
people pay rather astonishing amounts of money to own and ride.
The B-17 was introduced in the 1890's and is still marketed today.
That is nearly 130 years that folks have been buying that particular
saddle which would seem to indicate that it is not considered as
"junk, crap and doesn't fit".


Cheers,
John B.

I my case Brook saddles were and are in the 'doesn't fit' category but that is no problem now. I have much more choice now that I had 30 years ago.

Lou

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:39:34 -0800, lou.holtman wrote:


Why is marketing a bad thing? Every company in the West has a marketing
department. That is how it works. Every product you have in your house
has been marketed and advertised at some moment. The people I refer to
as dinosaurs question always the choice of people for bicycle parts in
this case they consider as 'not detectable improvements',
'insignificant', 'less reliable' 'too expensive', 'not needed' and they
are victim of marketing and that is what bothers me from time to time.
Most of the times the net outcome of all the efforts of the marketing
departments is that people have more choice and that is a good thing in
my opinion. If the marketing department make a bad decision the product
will disappear in the end. In this discussion there are people that
really benefit from tubeless tires.

If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On 1/15/2019 9:25 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 02:29:58 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:33:24 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades.
(My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no
matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders.
While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in
some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I
doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are.
Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized
tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only
slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC,
pretty
crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to
work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to
mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys
that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years),
and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene
with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which
inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that
most
of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT
needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was
more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at
times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went
back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and
tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a cup of coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack
on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL
VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent
derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the
Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my
downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're
Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to
shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group
riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for
different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to
give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a
victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question. Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

Maybe I'm too deeply mired in my own cynicism, but I always thought that
most folks knew to discount 99% of marketing. Sure, there's a sucker
born every minute, but are you meeting a lot of them?

Again, intended as a serious question.

Mark J.


Re Bicycle Magazines. It seems to me that "way back when" bike
magazines used to have articles that actually told one something. The
first time I was actually told the best way to set up a road bike,
i.e. how far back and how high to set the seat for best results, was
in a magazine.

I remember one of their recommendations was to always to wear a tee
shirt under your jersey. This allowed the jersey to slide on your tee
shirt rather than on your skin and would help to prevent road rash :-)
Now, they seem to be a series of product evaluations thinly masked as
"tests" that always seem to glorify the product being tested.


Cheers,
John B.

I would be much more likely to buy something advertised in those magazines
if at least one review per issue said "This product is crap. We can't in
good conscience advise that you buy it."

Alternatively, if "Every product is great!", then why do I need to read the
reviews in the magazine?

There used to be a magazine that tested everything under the sun. I
can't for the life of me remember the name of it but someone will.
Anyway, I used to read and believe everything that they printed until
one issue tested a .22 cal. target rifle and condemned it as it was
only a single shot. Not knowing, I guess that most .22 (rifle) target
shooters at that time only loaded one round at a time :-)


Consumer Reports, who famously rated several three speed
bicycles (Huffy, Murray Ohio, Rollfast etc) then ranked the
Raleigh Sports unacceptable because the brakes were overly
responsive.

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

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:39:34 -0800, lou.holtman wrote:


Why is marketing a bad thing? Every company in the West has a marketing
department. That is how it works. Every product you have in your house
has been marketed and advertised at some moment. The people I refer to
as dinosaurs question always the choice of people for bicycle parts in
this case they consider as 'not detectable improvements',
'insignificant', 'less reliable' 'too expensive', 'not needed' and they
are victim of marketing and that is what bothers me from time to time.
Most of the times the net outcome of all the efforts of the marketing
departments is that people have more choice and that is a good thing in
my opinion. If the marketing department make a bad decision the product
will disappear in the end. In this discussion there are people that
really benefit from tubeless tires.

If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

Lou

On 1/16/2019 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:


If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

I agree with Lou on this. I've done many, many miles on Avocet slicks
and liked them really well. I never had a problem.

(Well, except the time my car was parked in the hot sun with my bike
inside. One Avocet tire blew out in the heat.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/16/2019 2:39 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 7:48:44 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

Why is marketing a bad thing? Every company in the West has a marketing department. That is how it works. Every product you have in your house has been marketed and advertised at some moment.

Do you want to restrict the discussion to bicycling, or consider this
from a more general viewpoint? Let's go general for a bit.

Is marketing bad? Not if your objective is to have people's lives and
self-worth dominated by the amount of **** that they can manage to
afford - or buy on credit and hope to pay off some day. Not if you think
the best use of the world's manufacturing capacity is to pump out
gigatons of disposable crap. Not if you think that it's wise to sow
discontent in every underclass by telling them that richer folks are
more happy because they have bigger cars and TVs.

Marketing, almost by definition, is urging people to buy what they don't
really need. (Nobody markets toilet repair kits; you buy one only if you
really need one.) The promise is that buying THIS new cell phone, or
THAT brand of toothpaste, or THIS fancy car, will finally give meaning
to your life. Or returning to the bicycling context, buying THIS
derailleur or THAT aero handlebar will either allow you to keep up with
your stronger buddies, or make your rides - what? - 10% more pleasurable?

It's bull****. Those who are susceptible get a few weeks of endorphins
from the pride of new ownership. They may even be a bit faster on their
bike, due to the placebo effect. Then the magic product fades into the
background and becomes "old." It's time to get another hit by buying
something "new."

But if successful, those who ordered and produced the marketing effort
do very well indeed. They get more fees, more commissions, more stock
options. And they can go out and buy bigger cars, bigger TVs and even
more ****.

It seems like a cheap and ineffective attempt to bring meaning to life.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:40:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:


If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

I agree with Lou on this. I've done many, many miles on Avocet slicks
and liked them really well. I never had a problem.

(Well, except the time my car was parked in the hot sun with my bike
inside. One Avocet tire blew out in the heat.)

Basically every high-end road tire on the market is a slick or semi-slick. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews Knobby tires are notoriously squirmy and slippery on wet asphalt. The best wet grip tires have a big contact patch and a grippy compound and either a modest file tread (my choice in fall with the leaves) or slicks when the leaves get swept. And setting into a wet corner with oil or other slick contaminant, nothing will keep you up short of outriggers. The good news is that I've never returned home in an ambulance because of a crash on wet pavement. I typically rode home and then drove myself to the hospital later -- or urgent care. My wife did pick me up the last time when I cartwheeled over my son who crashed on a wet descent, but I had to ride 5-10 miles to the pick-up point with a broken hand (which now has a swanky Ti plate in it)

-- Jay Beattie.

On 16/01/2019 12:17 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:40:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:


If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

I agree with Lou on this. I've done many, many miles on Avocet slicks
and liked them really well. I never had a problem.

(Well, except the time my car was parked in the hot sun with my bike
inside. One Avocet tire blew out in the heat.)

Basically every high-end road tire on the market is a slick or semi-slick. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews Knobby tires are notoriously squirmy and slippery on wet asphalt. The best wet grip tires have a big contact patch and a grippy compound and either a modest file tread (my choice in fall with the leaves) or slicks when the leaves get swept. And setting into a wet corner with oil or other slick contaminant, nothing will keep you up short of outriggers. The good news is that I've never returned home in an ambulance because of a crash on wet pavement. I typically rode home and then drove myself to the hospital later -- or urgent care. My wife did pick me up the last time when I cartwheeled over my son who crashed on a wet descent, but I had to ride 5-10 miles to the pick-up point with a broken hand (which now has a swanky Ti plate in it)

-- Jay Beattie.





What would be the logic of knobs on concrete?

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 12:55:14 PM UTC-5, duane wrote:
On 16/01/2019 12:17 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:40:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:


If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

I agree with Lou on this. I've done many, many miles on Avocet slicks
and liked them really well. I never had a problem.

(Well, except the time my car was parked in the hot sun with my bike
inside. One Avocet tire blew out in the heat.)

Basically every high-end road tire on the market is a slick or semi-slick. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews Knobby tires are notoriously squirmy and slippery on wet asphalt. The best wet grip tires have a big contact patch and a grippy compound and either a modest file tread (my choice in fall with the leaves) or slicks when the leaves get swept. And setting into a wet corner with oil or other slick contaminant, nothing will keep you up short of outriggers. The good news is that I've never returned home in an ambulance because of a crash on wet pavement. I typically rode home and then drove myself to the hospital later -- or urgent care. My wife did pick me up the last time when I cartwheeled over my son who crashed on a wet descent, but I had to ride 5-10 miles to the pick-up point with a broken hand (which now has a swanky Ti plate in it)

-- Jay Beattie.





What would be the logic of knobs on concrete?

A lot of people think that knobby tires, especially on MTBs, protect better from glass and other forms of punctures.

Cheers

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 12:18:00 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:40:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 8:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 1:18:06 PM UTC+1, news18 wrote:


If their choices don't affect me, then I don't care about what marketing
people want to believe. If they ask, I'll give my experiences and opinion
and leave it at that. However, there are some products that over the
years I requard as highy undesireable and will not allow anyone to use on
any event that I organise.

One of those is slick tyres. I don't care whatever reason they give, they
are a definite no-no on any thing I organise. In my experience, riding on
slicks on a ride it is just a matter of when you're going to return home
in an ambulance. Seen it too many times on other rides.

On tarmac or off road? Define slicks. If on tarmac we disagree and I'm not allowed on your organized rides. I can live with that.

I agree with Lou on this. I've done many, many miles on Avocet slicks
and liked them really well. I never had a problem.

(Well, except the time my car was parked in the hot sun with my bike
inside. One Avocet tire blew out in the heat.)

Basically every high-end road tire on the market is a slick or semi-slick.. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews Knobby tires are notoriously squirmy and slippery on wet asphalt. The best wet grip tires have a big contact patch and a grippy compound and either a modest file tread (my choice in fall with the leaves) or slicks when the leaves get swept.. And setting into a wet corner with oil or other slick contaminant, nothing will keep you up short of outriggers. The good news is that I've never returned home in an ambulance because of a crash on wet pavement. I typically rode home and then drove myself to the hospital later -- or urgent care. My wife did pick me up the last time when I cartwheeled over my son who crashed on a wet descent, but I had to ride 5-10 miles to the pick-up point with a broken hand (which now has a swanky Ti plate in it)

-- Jay Beattie.

Many, many years ago I had the folding 19mm Michelin slicks on my road bike.. I road that bike in the winter and one early evening I had to ride on a side-road that had packed snow on its entire surface. i stood on the pedals but could NOT break that tire loose so that the rear wheel spun. I was amazed at the grip they had. I also remember reading about the Avocet slick and that Pete Penseyres road uphill on a painted white line in the rain and he could not break the rear tire loose either. Seems that those two slicks had far better traction than many other treaded tires.

Then again, a cheap tire often has material that becomes hard in the cold and thus looses quite a bit of its ability to grip the road.

Cheers