More glue is better

rl Fogel wrote:


I think you missed the cause of tubular rolling resistance and the use
of hard glue to get rid of that source. Increasing the source does
not get rid of it. Even if the glue were to gel and become latex
rubber, it would still have more RR because rubber is hysteretic and
its flexing increases with volume in this application.

In contrast, where are the measured RR values for this report and how
was the data taken. I explained how tubular tires squirm on rims and
what the result is. If you have used tubulars with other than shellac
to bond them to the rim, you have the evidence of how these tires,
using road glue (pressure sensitive adhesive), squirm. It takes an
act of faith to believe that more high viscosity adhesive can reduce
these losses.

I think you missed the fact that the subject is the results of tests.

It takes an act of faith to insist that the tests must be wrong.

Feel free to produce some tests showing the effect of thicker and
thinner layers of glue on rolling resistance.

In response I believe you might feel free to produce some tests
showing the effect of thicker and thinner layers of glue on rolling
resistance. This should include how the measurements were made and
how thick the various glue thicknesses were for the comparative tests.

I've offered the test results that showed road glue made tubulars
perform significantly worse then good clinchers. I believe the ball
is in the other court now considering that I described the mode of
viscous friction, the results to the integrity f tubular tire base
tapes and how you can prove to yourself that this occurs.

Jobst Brandt

On 18 Sep 2008 21:42:55 GMT, wrote:


In response I believe you might feel free to produce some tests
showing the effect of thicker and thinner layers of glue on rolling
resistance. This should include how the measurements were made and
how thick the various glue thicknesses were for the comparative tests.

I've offered the test results that showed road glue made tubulars
perform significantly worse then good clinchers. I believe the ball
is in the other court now considering that I described the mode of
viscous friction, the results to the integrity f tubular tire base
tapes and how you can prove to yourself that this occurs.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Er, the original thread describes tests that showed how more layers of
glue lowered rolling resistance.

Read through it again and let us know how many layers produced what
kind of reduction.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Please, would you two be so kind as to tell us what ultimate thickness
of dry Gutta is optimum in your honored opinion?
Dear Carl, you cannot just say: 'The more, the better.'
In addition, why is not a well put thick layer just as good as a
series of thinner ones of the same ultimate thickness?
It is not like Chinese lacquer, is it?

Sergio
Pisa

On 18 Sep 2008 19:57:10 GMT, wrote:

In contrast, where are the measured RR values for this report and how
was the data taken.

You could try reading it....

Carl Fogel wrote:

In response I believe you might feel free to produce some tests
showing the effect of thicker and thinner layers of glue on rolling
resistance. This should include how the measurements were made and
how thick the various glue thicknesses were for the comparative tests.

I've offered the test results that showed road glue made tubulars
perform significantly worse then good clinchers. I believe the ball
is in the other court now considering that I described the mode of
viscous friction, the results to the integrity f tubular tire base
tapes and how you can prove to yourself that this occurs.

Er, the original thread describes tests that showed how more layers of
glue lowered rolling resistance.

Read through it again and let us know how many layers produced what
kind of reduction.

I see no measure of glue thickness and comparison with the glue
thickness to which it is claimed to be superior. As you know, from
patching tires, applying glue can be thick or thin depending on method
of application and how thin the glue is. Beside that, I saw no method
of measurement.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic.

The topic "More glue is better" contains nothing about RR which must
be derived from the text. My posts address RR directly, what causes
it, how the tire responds and causes these losses and a link to RR
tests. I see no such explanation for the claimed improvement.

Your last sentence seems to ma as "off topic", a gratuitous slur.

Jobst Brandt

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


In contrast, where are the measured RR values for this report and
how was the data taken?

You could try reading it....

Bottom line is that it is much better to use too much glue than not enough - Mastik 1 may be better than Conti.

That'sall there is, is a bottom line. Nothing about how it was
measures, what tire pressure, what load or how thick the glue was.

So back to the futu

In contrast, where are the measured RR values for this report and how
was the data taken?

Jobst Brandt

In defence of Jobst I post these dated quotes:

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Tire Resistance Ratings
Date: 3 May 2001 17:58:09 GMT

The tests were performed in Japan by the rubber institute
and Avocets are not the only low RR tires. As
I pointed out, if the tubulars had been mounted with
hard glue, they would have been even lower, as one
would expect from the thickness of the tube, casing and
most importantly, tread. Jobst Brandt

A. - Jobst's opinion trumps further testing.

"if the tubulars had been mounted with hard glue, they
would have been even lower," Jobst Brandt 05/03/01

B. - And even though the test was designed to only measure RR, if one
can extrapolate speculations from the data then that can be used to
support A.

"IRC (Inoue Rubber Co.) tested a series of tires at
the time that their smooth tread tires were being introduced
in the USA by Avocet. The goal of these tests
was to show that slick tires had lower rolling resistance
than similar tires with grooved tread patterns, and in particular,
tires that had a raised center rib that was intended
to reduce rolling resistance by making less contact with the
road." Jobst Brandt 12/21/04

I'm giving Jobst a pass. Once again the man's pride is a roadblock in
his way to humility.
Many may consider it a character flaw. I consider those flaws are what
makes him a character!

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

On 18 Sep 2008 23:33:48 GMT, wrote:

Carl Fogel wrote:

In response I believe you might feel free to produce some tests
showing the effect of thicker and thinner layers of glue on rolling
resistance. This should include how the measurements were made and
how thick the various glue thicknesses were for the comparative tests.

I've offered the test results that showed road glue made tubulars
perform significantly worse then good clinchers. I believe the ball
is in the other court now considering that I described the mode of
viscous friction, the results to the integrity f tubular tire base
tapes and how you can prove to yourself that this occurs.

Er, the original thread describes tests that showed how more layers of
glue lowered rolling resistance.

Read through it again and let us know how many layers produced what
kind of reduction.

I see no measure of glue thickness and comparison with the glue
thickness to which it is claimed to be superior. As you know, from
patching tires, applying glue can be thick or thin depending on method
of application and how thin the glue is. Beside that, I saw no method
of measurement.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic.

The topic "More glue is better" contains nothing about RR which must
be derived from the text. My posts address RR directly, what causes
it, how the tire responds and causes these losses and a link to RR
tests. I see no such explanation for the claimed improvement.

Your last sentence seems to ma as "off topic", a gratuitous slur.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Oh for crying out loud, can't you tell the difference between 5 coats
of glue and 2 coats?

" . . . the process was 2 coats on the rim and 2 coats on the base
tape with 24 hours to dry between each coat - then a third coat on the
rim . . ."

Sounds like 5 coats of glue.

"I glued it using a slight variation (suggested by Jack) on the "too
much glue" procedure (3 coats of Mastik 1 on the rim and 2 coats on
the tire - 24 hours between each coat except for the last coat on the
rim)."

Sounds like 5 coats of glue.

"I used 4 coats on the rim but allowed the last coat to dry for ~ 2
hours. Installing and centering the tire was much, much easier.
Additionally I did not remove the latex coating on the base tape."

Sounds like 5 or more coats of glue.

The 5 or more coats of glue were being compared to extensive RR
testing of tubulars that used only 2 coats of glue:

"When testing tubulars initially I was using a 2 coats of Continental
glue on the rim of my test wheel with no glue on the tire so as to
minimize the affect on the tire for future use/sale."

And these were the results for 2 coats versus 5 coats:

"For the Crono and Bonty the Crr results are much better with more
layers of Mastik 1. The Bontrager RXL Pro tested at 0.00276 with light
glue and 0.00245 with Mastik 1. A similar improvement as seen in the
Crono which went from 0.00276 to ~ 0.00235."

Here's the same information in a table, if that will help:

RXL Pro Crono
2 coats 0.00276 0.00276
5 coats 0.00245 0.00235

If you want to argue with the results, do some testing.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:36:01 -0700 (PDT), sergio
wrote:

Please, would you two be so kind as to tell us what ultimate thickness
of dry Gutta is optimum in your honored opinion?
Dear Carl, you cannot just say: 'The more, the better.'
In addition, why is not a well put thick layer just as good as a
series of thinner ones of the same ultimate thickness?
It is not like Chinese lacquer, is it?

Sergio
Pisa

Dear Sergio,

The original post described testing 5 or more coats of glue versus
only 2 coats.

The obviously thicker layer of goo produced better RR tests.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


In contrast, where are the measured RR values for this report and
how was the data taken?

You could try reading it....

Bottom line is that it is much better to use too much glue than not
enough - Mastik 1 may be better than Conti.

That'sall there is, is a bottom line. Nothing about how it was
measures, what tire pressure, what load or how thick the glue was.

So back to the futu

In contrast, where are the measured RR values for this report and how
was the data taken?

You could try http://just****inggoogleit.com

Let's see: if I use the search term "tire rolling resistance
site:biketechreview.com" it comes up on the first page.