A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stronger rubber cement?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old January 19th 17, 02:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 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  
Old January 19th 17, 02:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 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  
Old January 19th 17, 03:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old January 19th 17, 03:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default 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



  #215  
Old January 19th 17, 03:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Stronger rubber cement?

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 3:26:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/18/2017 3:47 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-8, 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.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Aren't you the one telling us that the study that showed Hillary 14 points in the lead was accurate and my reference to a site that broke down these polls and said that they were so biased that they were useless was nothing more than BS?


Um... no, I wasn't telling you that. Memory problems are cropping up
again and again.


Funny how my memory problems crop up after you say something really dumb like "There have been at least five different studies on the risks vs. benefits of cycling, measured in different ways"

Again, as an engineer, you're supposed to understand statistics and how limited studies do not give even vaguely accurate results.
  #216  
Old January 19th 17, 04:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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  
Old January 19th 17, 04:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default 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  
Old January 19th 17, 05:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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  
Old January 19th 17, 05:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,011
Default Stronger rubber cement?

Frank...every watch the antiquo video ?
  #220  
Old January 19th 17, 06:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.