|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:31:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/17/2017 1:56 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-01-17 10:36, jbeattie wrote: So what your saying is that I pay nothing extra insurance-wise for owning a bike. It is covered by insurance that I already own. (: OTOH, there are whole other things called "auto insurance policies" -- specially for autos! And they cost a lot! ): That is the same as saying that welfare costs us nothing. _Everyone_ is paying for the risk of cycling including home owners who never ride. Is that fair? I don't think so but that's the way it is. Oh, quit the bull**** about the "risks of cycling." There have been at least five different studies on the risks vs. benefits of cycling, measured in different ways - for example, health care dollars spent vs. saved, years of life lost vs. gained, etc. EVERY study found that cycling is by FAR a net benefit. So in insurance terms, you've got things backwards. _Everyone_ is getting reduced insurance premiums and reduced health care costs from cycling, even the people who never ride. IOW, quit the "Danger! Danger!" implications. You may ride like an idiot, but even you don't tip the scales in the direction you claim. Statista has it that 66.52 Million cyclists while Velonews says 103.7 million. If we use the average, than it is 85 million cyclists. I don't find the number of bicycle deaths in 2016 but I did find "an increase of 13%" so I assume that we can use 720 X 1.13 = 813. If my figures are accurate then that is bicycle fatality rate of 1 per 104,551 cyclists. Overall traffic fatalities covering all road users seems to be 57,177 out of some 214 million driving licenses and 85 million cyclists or say 300 million so the rate is 1 in 57,372. Yes Sir! Cycling is a dangerous activity! (although apparently less dangerous than anything else one can do on the highway :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 5:20:32 PM UTC-8, David Scheidt wrote:
Phil Lee wrote: :Joerg considered Wed, 18 Jan 2017 : :I have explained to you that these are _flat_ rims. Hard to understand? :Most of us never seem to have encountered such rims, so yes, it is :hard to understand that any manufacturer would produce such an utterly :useless design! :Are you sure they aren't cheap Chinese knockoffs of a normally good :quality product? No, they're real. And they suck. I can believe 30 minutes to put a tire on them. Why he hasn't gotten something less crappy, I don't know. Oh. He woulnd't be able to bitch about it. I don't get it either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfS5JTvv7hE My tolerance for self-abuse is much lower. With that said, I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get my studs to bead. Getting them on the rim is no problem at all, I just have to beat on them to get them to seat properly. But then the whole act of snow riding around here is an act of self-abuse, so beating on the tires is just kind of a warm-up. But I will not endure that sort of abuse just mounting an every-day tires. -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
On 1/18/2017 7:36 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:01:41 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2017-01-05 08:31, AMuzi wrote: On 1/5/2017 9:59 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-01-05 07:34, wrote: On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 8:47:35 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote: Joerg considered Wed, 04 Jan 2017 07:38:10 -0800 the perfect time to write: On 2017-01-04 01:19, Tosspot wrote: On 04/01/17 01:04, Joerg wrote: Gentlemen, Is there something stronger than the usual rubber cement in the patch kits? Ideally something that won't dry out so fast or where multiple cheap small tubes are available. The reason is that I sometimes have larger holes from side wall blow-outs. Not inch-long gashes but one or two tenths of an inch long. The tubes I use are super thick and, therefore, expensive. $15-20 each and that's not something to be thrown out lightly. Instead of the li'l REMA patches I need to use thicker rubber from an older sacrified tube but this has to be vulcanized/cemented really well. UK, but must be available all over http://www.tyre-equipment.co.uk/acat...r-Patches.html Go up to 180mmx95mm and are less than a UKP per patch. Thanks! Time for a trip to the autoparts store since there is http://www.vipal-usa.com/repair_line_e.html Looks like a Brazilian company. The 30mm patches are 13 squids per 100! Surely, surely even Joerg can't get through that amount that fast! I hardly get flats but when I do they are hardcore. Typically caused by those notorious #%&^!! flimsy side walls of bicycle tires. Which is also why I am always on the lookout for tires with better side walls. For the MTB I found that Asian ones do better in that domain but haven't found any yet for the road bike. Will try CST, their Conquistare tires look promising but I could not find reviews. Heavier tires are generally better and finally those appeared for 29". For 700c it's still slim pickens. You do know that 29" ARE 700c, both using a bead seat diameter of 622mm? It's just that one description is used for MTB and the other for road use. I have been told that many times. But my CX bike feels absolutely NOTHING like the 29er did. On that the wheels felt massive and heavy. On the CX bike they are nothing of the sort. Phil should try to mount a 29" Intense Trail Taker tire or similar on a 700c road bike. Then it would quickly sink in why this will never work :-) Joerg, don't be ridiculous. Phil Lee was correct. Tires formally labeled as 29" are simply not available in 25mm. At least AFAICT. I know you struggle with the real world, and complex mathematical concepts like wheel diameters, but surely even YOU can add 2x 25mm to 622mm, and conclude that the result is less than 29"! Just in case, 672mm = 26.46, or in round figures, 26 1/2", so it's hardly surprising that it is not mislabeled as 29"! A 559mm 26x2.3 tire will mount on the rim but can't possibly fit inside the frame or fork of a Bridgestone CB1. So what? A perfectly common 700-35C touring tire won't clear in your road bike either. That unsuitably wide tires exist for any given rim diameter in any given frame doesn't make them different ISO sizes. There are a spectrum of widths for almost every ISO format, choice is good! Well, there aren't skinny 29" tires. The thing you need for compatibility is BEAD SEAT DIAMETER, which is 622mm for both the so-called 29" (which isn't really 29" except in 2.25" width, and even then only roughly), and so-called 700C (which again, isn't really 700mm in diameter in anything other than 39mm width either). The move from using overall diameter of a mounted and inflated tyre to the use of bead seat diameters, as approved by ISO and ETRTO is because it is only by using the bead seat diameter that you can tell which tyre fits which rim. And any 29", 700C, xx-622 will fit your rims, whatever width it may be. Of course, it may not be the ideal width for the rim, or too wide for the frame or forks, but it WILL mount on the rim. GET IT? I can only hope that you never have to deal with the complexities of the various 26" formats! p.s. A 700-18 ultralight tire would fit your road bike rim as well. For you, I'd suggest a wider tire. Yes, I had very narrow tires before and found that 25mm is better for where I now ride. 28mm would theoretically fit but only when the rear is very well trued which does not hold for long on my routes. I am also not very talented for trueing a wheel. Maybe that (along with your notable level of machinery abuse) is the real reason you insist that only disk brakes are worth using. "I can only hope that you never have to deal with the complexities of the various 26" formats!" Quite. We had perfectly useful and popular 26 decimal (559) and fractional (590), both dirt cheap and ubiquitous. So the new new is a resurrected obsolete size between them, a fractional (584) marketed as 27.5 though it's not a decimal series. Progress indeed! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
goo.gl/vfk3Wn I understand. Stuff breaks under hard use. But I doahn understand why a level of acceptable durability eg Deore/double Sun Rims.... was not developed and used |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 5:45:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:31:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/17/2017 1:56 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-01-17 10:36, jbeattie wrote: So what your saying is that I pay nothing extra insurance-wise for owning a bike. It is covered by insurance that I already own. (: OTOH, there are whole other things called "auto insurance policies" -- specially for autos! And they cost a lot! ): That is the same as saying that welfare costs us nothing. _Everyone_ is paying for the risk of cycling including home owners who never ride. Is that fair? I don't think so but that's the way it is. Oh, quit the bull**** about the "risks of cycling." There have been at least five different studies on the risks vs. benefits of cycling, measured in different ways - for example, health care dollars spent vs. saved, years of life lost vs. gained, etc. EVERY study found that cycling is by FAR a net benefit. So in insurance terms, you've got things backwards. _Everyone_ is getting reduced insurance premiums and reduced health care costs from cycling, even the people who never ride. IOW, quit the "Danger! Danger!" implications. You may ride like an idiot, but even you don't tip the scales in the direction you claim. Statista has it that 66.52 Million cyclists while Velonews says 103.7 million. If we use the average, than it is 85 million cyclists. I don't find the number of bicycle deaths in 2016 but I did find "an increase of 13%" so I assume that we can use 720 X 1.13 = 813. If my figures are accurate then that is bicycle fatality rate of 1 per 104,551 cyclists. Overall traffic fatalities covering all road users seems to be 57,177 out of some 214 million driving licenses and 85 million cyclists or say 300 million so the rate is 1 in 57,372. Yes Sir! Cycling is a dangerous activity! (although apparently less dangerous than anything else one can do on the highway :-) -- Cheers, John B. How do you treat the fact that a very large number of people only ride a couple of miles in quiet neighborhoods or bicycle paths vs almost all automobile miles in dangerous roads? |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel: was: Stronger rubber cement?
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:11:50 -0800, Joerg
wrote: Got it only in German but if really interested I could translate it: http://www.chefkoch.de/rezepte/14555...sliriegel.html I was rather surprised that I could read that. For example, knowing the history of the haversack told me at once that "haferfloken" are rolled oats. Knowing for sure that the extraneous parts were extraneous took some dictionary work, though. It's a little more work than it looks like, with the bacon and all that, and cutting into bars at the end so they can be packed on a bicycle. I think that I could substitute Aldi's bacon bits for finely-gewürfelt bacon; "Speck ausbraten ohne Fett" appears to say that one should fry all the fat out. My wife puts all of them into the freezer and then moves as many as needed to the fridge a couple days before rides. Back when I made high-calorie muffins (one cup each of raisins, sunflower seed, self-rising mixed edible powder, and sweet liquid), I put them into my pannier still frozen, so that they would stay fresh longer. I don't think that I used them on cold days, since I wanted to stop inside warm places as often as possible. Also, I rode down into the cities instead of up into the boonies in the winter. It took me years, maybe decades, to figure out that I could cut them into bars after baking if I spread the dough on a cookie sheet (technically a jelly-roll pan). Cutting into bars is nothing compared to filling eighteen muffin cups. I tried baking the dough in a square pan and slicing the cake, but the slices fell into crumbs. I don't know how long it took me to realize that all they needed was more crust. But these days I mostly eat Aldi's "protein bars" -- more like Rice Krispies Treats, if you remember that fad, but denser and not sticky. I've gotten into the habit of carrying more food than I intend to eat, and I'm glad of it several times a year. Since I now *start* inside the city, I usually plan to buy food along the way, and seldom intend to eat *any* of what's in my pannier. Store-bought bars have the overwhelming advantage that left-overs can be saved for the next trip even if it's a week off. I forgot to bring spare food once, and said, no sweat, I'll buy a package of bars at Owen's West. After circling the store several times, I realized that there is a good reason that I always buy my food bars at Aldi. (This was before Breakfast Biscuits appeared, and even those require a little cream cheese.) Just as I despaired of finding anything edible, I noticed a store employee re-arranging the bananas. Duh! -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
On 1/18/2017 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
Statista has it that 66.52 Million cyclists while Velonews says 103.7 million. If we use the average, than it is 85 million cyclists. I don't find the number of bicycle deaths in 2016 but I did find "an increase of 13%" so I assume that we can use 720 X 1.13 = 813. If my figures are accurate then that is bicycle fatality rate of 1 per 104,551 cyclists. Overall traffic fatalities covering all road users seems to be 57,177 out of some 214 million driving licenses and 85 million cyclists or say 300 million so the rate is 1 in 57,372. Yes Sir! Cycling is a dangerous activity! (although apparently less dangerous than anything else one can do on the highway :-) Somehow, that called up the old Beatles song, "Why Don't We Do It in the Road." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
Frank...every watch the antiquo video ?
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Stronger rubber cement?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:09:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/17/2017 9:07 PM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:48:12 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: Tubulars are still the last word in bicycle tires and what the pros ride, but they have professional support staff who are physically fit and skilled in the complex operation of floor pumps and other precision machinery. Most of us do not have the intelligence or fitness necessary to operate a floor pump -- and certainly not on a daily basis. My wife and I have more robust tires on our bike that we have professionally pumped once a year. http://www.loupiote.com/photos_m/796...re-bicycle.jpg -- Jay Beattie. Gee, the U.S. must be a real "Alice" country. Professional tire pumpers :-) Of course! See 0:47 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn29DvMITu4 You don't have these ladies where you live? Sad! As I said, an "Alice in Wonderland" country. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cement for Rubber? | Rocket J Squirrel[_2_] | Techniques | 11 | September 24th 10 09:59 AM |
Elmer's Rubber Cement is not the vulcanizing kind! | Ablang | General | 76 | May 4th 09 10:04 AM |
Elmer's Rubber Cement is not the vulcanizing kind! | Nick L Plate | Techniques | 3 | April 30th 09 02:54 PM |
Elmer's Rubber Cement is not the vulcanizing kind! | Tom Keats | Techniques | 12 | April 28th 09 05:30 AM |
crappy rubber cement? | Duncan | Australia | 13 | June 8th 07 08:48 PM |