Bicycle Tire-Making: cable cozies for Christmas

http://www.bikernet.com/pages/Differ...ed_T ire.aspx


the Cipperman project creates a constant steel fabric from clincher wire to clincher wire as a mesh....your installing a 360 degree mesh from clincher wire to clincher wire ?

then bonds the other elements to that mesh n covers the foundation with rubber ?

video please.

and a page of math where you show the added mass of mesh produces a reduction in squirm friction losses countering the gain in inertial centripetal mass.

Avon says Avon does that but in comparison to what ? a Big Apple....I'm lost quantifying but see a market niche in quality for some riders...as Big Apple is for Jute.

Frank misses the nomenclature. One can add a circumferential belt no problem tho tieing it at the bitter ends is an known unknown but this is not a radial mesh....as in the Avon graphic.

how tie a radial around the clincher suspension ?

does it tie or only lay there encased in hot rubbah ? now your looking at a custom steel pressure cooker.

an auto radial is desirable in the opposite environment of where you want to go.

How you're turning this around escapes me.

an auto radial runs at lower pressures with more contact that is more resistance but less squirm.....that is squirm is less than resistance. the result is obtaining less squirm the contact surface then meets the road and road irregularities more effectively than more squirm squirming on irregularities' rather than stably gripping that surface.

less squirm in the continuous attempt to meet the road surface means less wear with the opportunity of softer compound's giving more mileage and more safety than otherwise.

Thus effective fabric radials eg Dunlop n Falken are overall faster than steel.

also more fun. responsive.

leading to my conclusion that a heavier radial metal mesh, than other fabrications, is centripetally more inertial than any squirm reduction.

?

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 9:17:30 PM UTC-5, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
http://www.bikernet.com/pages/Differ...ed_T ire.aspx


the Cipperman project creates a constant steel fabric from clincher wire to clincher wire as a mesh....your installing a 360 degree mesh from clincher wire to clincher wire ?

then bonds the other elements to that mesh n covers the foundation with rubber ?

video please.

and a page of math where you show the added mass of mesh produces a reduction in squirm friction losses countering the gain in inertial centripetal mass.

Avon says Avon does that but in comparison to what ? a Big Apple....I'm lost quantifying but see a market niche in quality for some riders...as Big Apple is for Jute.

Frank misses the nomenclature. One can add a circumferential belt no problem tho tieing it at the bitter ends is an known unknown but this is not a radial mesh....as in the Avon graphic.

how tie a radial around the clincher suspension ?

does it tie or only lay there encased in hot rubbah ? now your looking at a custom steel pressure cooker.

an auto radial is desirable in the opposite environment of where you want to go.

How you're turning this around escapes me.

an auto radial runs at lower pressures with more contact that is more resistance but less squirm.....that is squirm is less than resistance. the result is obtaining less squirm the contact surface then meets the road and road irregularities more effectively than more squirm squirming on irregularities' rather than stably gripping that surface.

less squirm in the continuous attempt to meet the road surface means less wear with the opportunity of softer compound's giving more mileage and more safety than otherwise.

Thus effective fabric radials eg Dunlop n Falken are overall faster than steel.

also more fun. responsive.

leading to my conclusion that a heavier radial metal mesh, than other fabrications, is centripetally more inertial than any squirm reduction.

?

a super example of my direction is the elusive and once often discussed and dissssscussssed Pasela Panaracer or is that Panaracer Pasela with a cotton thread radial foundation. eyahhahaha THE EBULLIENT TIRE ...OUTASIGHT.

unfortunately delicate in the extreme for the common rider (me) who clodly hit a cement crack here n there causing almost immediate tire failure n a gross ineffectiveness on proceeding from A to B. The Zepplin of cycle tires..

On 12/21/2016 6:51 PM, DougC wrote:
On 12/21/2016 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

A few thoughts:

First, have you tried just modifying a stock tire by
applying a belt? It
would involve removing the tread rubber then somehow
applying a
substitute. But it might be much, much easier than
developing an entire
tire manufacturing system, and might give preliminary data
on whether
continuing the effort was worthwhile.


I've already got the tire part done tho? I could have been
making regular (bias-ply or radial!) tires already if I had
wanted. This is just a last detail of making the belts; I
could not make any useful belts until I could do this.

I considered at one point if there would be a way to convert
existing tires, and I don't think it would work well for
several reasons.

Paul Rinkowski did produce some belted tires by winding wire
over tubular tires and then re-coating them with more
rubber, but I suspect that these tires were not very durable
at all.

There was a fellow on one of the German bike forums who was
trying to use this method to make belted tires from cut-down
20" tubulars in 2012, and no further news was ever posted of
it. My guess is that it didn't work well enough to be
useful, since it would take a LOT less equipment and time
than what I've done.

Second, I really wonder about the handling characteristics
of a
squared-off cross section, which seems to be what you're
attempting to
construct. (Correct me if I misunderstand that.) Bikes
lean in turns,
and sudden changes in the shape and size of the contact
patch sound
dicey to me. (I recall some '70s kid bikes with square
"slick" rear
tires, but I never rode such a thing.)


The cornering of a squared-off tire is gonna suck--but it
will go faster in straight lines, and people don't turn much
anyway.

The kids' bike tire was the Schwinn Slik.
It did have a wide, flat slick tread.
And it was a rear tire, but sometimes we would put one on
the front too.
It felt heavy on the front, but the main difference was that
the steering didn't center as well so you couldn't ride
no-handed. I guess that was due to the flatness more than
the heaviness, but I don't really know at this point. It was
not /un/-stable however; it just made the steering much more
neutral.

The steel-belted radial tire is only really intended for
Battle Mountain IHPVA-style racing. -Or adventurous souls
who want to sacrifice riding comfort and extreme cornering
ability to go a bit faster on the straights. It may never
become a "typical" bicycle tire in our lifetimes.

And people really /don't/ turn a lot, to be honest... Most
casual riders lean over less than 10 degrees when they turn.
Very few lean more than ~20 degrees. People imagine
themselves sweeping through corners at 45° but it takes high
speeds, very sticky tires and very clean pavement, and even
with the right circumstances most people are way to afraid
to even approach that.

Third, regarding your point above: I thought that some
tires marketed
by Compass and by Rivendell had essentially the same core
construction,
but with different sidewalls and treads. Am I wrong? If
that's true,
you could use those to get some data on the effect of
sidewall or tread
thickness.

Maybe--but that would only tell you about those Compass
tires. It's still difficult to quantify what's going on.

If you could make your own tires, then you could make test
tires with different features--say, a set of nine identical
casings but with different combinations of sidewalls and
tread: sidewalls either 0mm, 1mm or 2mm thick, and tread
that is 2mm, 3mm, or 4mm thick.







Frank's right that some Panaracer tires are sold under
Panaracer, Compass, Rivendell and SOMA label (inter alia?
formerly CyclePro for example) with various sidewall
treatment, treads, colors and labels all on the same casing.

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

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 9:51:38 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/21/2016 6:51 PM, DougC wrote:
On 12/21/2016 6:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

A few thoughts:

First, have you tried just modifying a stock tire by
applying a belt? It
would involve removing the tread rubber then somehow
applying a
substitute. But it might be much, much easier than
developing an entire
tire manufacturing system, and might give preliminary data
on whether
continuing the effort was worthwhile.


I've already got the tire part done tho? I could have been
making regular (bias-ply or radial!) tires already if I had
wanted. This is just a last detail of making the belts; I
could not make any useful belts until I could do this.

I considered at one point if there would be a way to convert
existing tires, and I don't think it would work well for
several reasons.

Paul Rinkowski did produce some belted tires by winding wire
over tubular tires and then re-coating them with more
rubber, but I suspect that these tires were not very durable
at all.

There was a fellow on one of the German bike forums who was
trying to use this method to make belted tires from cut-down
20" tubulars in 2012, and no further news was ever posted of
it. My guess is that it didn't work well enough to be
useful, since it would take a LOT less equipment and time
than what I've done.

Second, I really wonder about the handling characteristics
of a
squared-off cross section, which seems to be what you're
attempting to
construct. (Correct me if I misunderstand that.) Bikes
lean in turns,
and sudden changes in the shape and size of the contact
patch sound
dicey to me. (I recall some '70s kid bikes with square
"slick" rear
tires, but I never rode such a thing.)


The cornering of a squared-off tire is gonna suck--but it
will go faster in straight lines, and people don't turn much
anyway.

The kids' bike tire was the Schwinn Slik.
It did have a wide, flat slick tread.
And it was a rear tire, but sometimes we would put one on
the front too.
It felt heavy on the front, but the main difference was that
the steering didn't center as well so you couldn't ride
no-handed. I guess that was due to the flatness more than
the heaviness, but I don't really know at this point. It was
not /un/-stable however; it just made the steering much more
neutral.

The steel-belted radial tire is only really intended for
Battle Mountain IHPVA-style racing. -Or adventurous souls
who want to sacrifice riding comfort and extreme cornering
ability to go a bit faster on the straights. It may never
become a "typical" bicycle tire in our lifetimes.

And people really /don't/ turn a lot, to be honest... Most
casual riders lean over less than 10 degrees when they turn.
Very few lean more than ~20 degrees. People imagine
themselves sweeping through corners at 45° but it takes high
speeds, very sticky tires and very clean pavement, and even
with the right circumstances most people are way to afraid
to even approach that.

Third, regarding your point above: I thought that some
tires marketed
by Compass and by Rivendell had essentially the same core
construction,
but with different sidewalls and treads. Am I wrong? If
that's true,
you could use those to get some data on the effect of
sidewall or tread
thickness.

Maybe--but that would only tell you about those Compass
tires. It's still difficult to quantify what's going on.

If you could make your own tires, then you could make test
tires with different features--say, a set of nine identical
casings but with different combinations of sidewalls and
tread: sidewalls either 0mm, 1mm or 2mm thick, and tread
that is 2mm, 3mm, or 4mm thick.







Frank's right that some Panaracer tires are sold under
Panaracer, Compass, Rivendell and SOMA label (inter alia?
formerly CyclePro for example) with various sidewall
treatment, treads, colors and labels all on the same casing.

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

you remeber good. Having several from the House of illusion hanging in the garage and tested, once ripped open , with a butane lighter finding that yes indeed the strands burned not frizzled, Colima would show up n go on abt none of that being true n the entire deal was a figment of m imagination.

That Pasela would have developed a Kevlar substitute with equal sensitivities or that Shimano makes tires.

On 12/21/2016 8:17 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:


http://www.bikernet.com/pages/Differ...ed_T ire.aspx


the Cipperman project creates a constant steel fabric from clincher wire to clincher wire as a mesh....your installing a 360 degree mesh from clincher wire to clincher wire ?

then bonds the other elements to that mesh n covers the foundation with rubber ?

video please.


The steel belt runs around the circumference just over the tread area,
not the whole tire.

As to textile belts: that remains to be seen. My one attempt with
twisted thread (update #8) found that twisted thread has a LOT of
stretch under such a load.

Flat thread (untwisted, like dental floss) would do better, but I don't
got any right now. And even so, a belt using it would likely end up
thicker than the steel wire, and would still stretch more.

....

Drawing direct comparisons with car or motorcycle tires is difficult,
since they experience far more stress and commonly use much more complex
designs.

Last paragraph may be ballpark but the tire material scales down with the system...or not pinned down by the squirm/contact patch inertial relation opposing rotation or not.

I'm a tread guy not a carcass wonk tho somewhat tangentially ...no depth...Frank would know n off course Jobst.

Recommend looking over the shelf at


https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bk...tructures+text

For a college text.

I'm but a touring art gallery coffee table book expert.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:36:34 -0600, DougC
wrote:
On 12/21/2016 2:11 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:55:35 -0600, DougC
wrote:
On 12/20/2016 5:22 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
write a summary relating to the 13 updates ?

Points numbered to make arguing easier:

1) The goal here is to be able to make steel-belted radial bicycle
tires, since those will have the lowest rolling resistance of any
type.

Interesting, never having heard about Rinkowski or other radial bike
tires. Having followed your efforts off and on with what might be
described as mild befuddlement, I do have one question: why would
steel-belted radial bike tires have the lowest rolling resistance of
any type? Given that rolling resistance in bike tires is due to
hysteresis losses (except for those with rough or knobby tread, which
adds additional losses), why would adding the steel belt reduce
hysteresis and lower rolling resistance?


There is two reasons that (I believe) play a part.

1) One reason is that a tire that has a round cross-section when
inflated suffers from friction best described as tread squirm. Since
the outer diameter of the tire varies across the contact patch, some
areas of the tire are getting dragged slightly (forwards or backwards)
as the tire rolls along. They cannot all move at the same speed, since
they do not have the same circumference.

Doesn't the contact patch effectively equalize the major diameter of the
tire, reducing or perhaps eliminating this?

2) The other reason has to do with sidewall flex. If you place a
restrictive belt on a tire, it forces the contact patch to become
drastically wider and shorter than on a round-profile tire that was
inflated to the same pressure and carrying the same weight. This
causes shorter sidewall flex, and causes the tread area flex to be
wider but to a much lower angle. Hysteresis losses occur wherever the
tire casing/tread flexes. With a restrictive belt, the tire basically
flexes less-severely than a comparably-sized tire would without the
belt.

Similar to increasing inflation pressure. By reducing the amount of
casing/rubber flex, the hyseresis losses are reduced.

Adding a restrictive belt to a tire decreases both these things.

At the loss of compliance and shock absorption, would think. You might
decrease rolling resistance on a smooth surface (like a steel train
wheel on a steel track, which has very little rolling resistance), but
inefficiency would increase over rough surfaces because the wheel and
everything attached to it would be vertically displaced to a greater
degree. Of course, if the wheel is suspended on a spring or shock
absorber you can reduce this effect significantly.

Jan Heine has been on this quite aggressively for a decade or more,
insisting that decreased pressures in wide tires improves efficiency
over pavement, gravel, etc.- and that a 42 mm wide tire at say 50 PSI
rolls as efficiently as a 25 mm tire at 110 PSI (assuming construction
with the same casing, rubber compound, tread, etc.). The difference is
that the wheel (and bike, rider and load) are vertically displaced to a
smaller degree. I think he picked up this idea from Jim Papadopolous
(sp?), who was talking about it at least 20 years ago in this newsgroup.
In case there is a distinction to be made between rolling resistance and
rolling efficiency.

J. Brandt insisted that in bicycle tires the cause of rolling
resistance was zero-percent of (#1) and 100% of (#2) above--but in the
real world, you don't get one effect without also getting the other.
The effect of tread squirm/friction may be rather small, but then
again, compared to, say, a car--the amount of /power/ used to move a
bicycle is rather small as well.

Yes, it is, and therefore even small gains are helpful. But are there
losses from tread squirm (I am assuming a slick tread here) and are they
anything more than infinitesimal? I don't know about the tread squirm
losses, I find that a bit hard to visualize and I suspect that the
flattening of the tire at the contact patch equalizes the diameter and
reduces squirm quite a bit, but hysteresis losses and vibrational or
suspension losses are intuitively pretty easy to grasp. Interestingly
the latter two are in opposition: hysteresis can be reduce by reducing
flex (which you are doing) whereas suspension losses are reduced by
increasing flex.

I have pondered an experiment using a method to possibly isolate these
two effects from each other, but I can't do it now. And it would
result in mere trivia I think. I may get around to it some day,
there's still a few sacred cows wandering loose.

More than a few.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:52:58 -0600, DougC
wrote:
On 12/21/2016 3:36 PM, DougC wrote:
more blathering

I've never really liked the way that various technical types like to
explain the matter of "tread flexing vs. sidewall flexing" because in
a normal bicycle tire, the tread and the sidewall are the same
surface... and the sidewalls are usually significantly thinner than
the tread.

Some people like to go on about how critical it is to have "supple"
sidewalls and it is commonly presumed that racing bicycle tires are
generally skinwalls (even MTB tires!) but it may be that having
thicker sidewalls isn't the cause of a whole lot of rolling
resistance. It must be SOME of it, but having thick protected
sidewalls may not be all that big of a performance drag.

Jobst was quite focused on the hysteresis in the rubber tread, as I
recall, and less so on the casing. Jan Heine is quite focused on the
casing and less on the tread in his writings, although some acknowledge
that thinner tread rolls easier.

Rolling drum RR measurements have usually supported the notion that more
supple tires have less rolling resistance (although steel wheels on a
steel surface have far less RR than any pneumatic tire). The Avocet
tests, for example, showed this with nice graphable data. But how
directly applicable is that to riding a bike down a road or trail? The
Crr may not change (except perhaps with temperature) but now many other
variables are introduced.

I'm not convinced that Jan's experiments in this matter are well
designed (e.g., roll-down tests, pedaling a bike while using a power
meter, etc.; whole-system measurement makes it difficult to isolate the
variable of interest) to show subtle effects but they do seem to show
the large effects.

Reviewers cannot isolate the effects of the tread area and sidewalls
separately, because they cannot obtain tires that have these
variations in tread and sidewalls--but are otherwise identical.

So they are just guessing.

Until someone figures out a way to measure. As the saying goes, one
measurement is worth 1000 expert opinions.

Well, in any event, it is very interesting to see you doing this
project. Whether you get a usable tire out of it to test your theory or
not, it's quite fascinating to watch the process.

On 12/23/2016 1:01 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:36:34 -0600, DougC
...
J. Brandt insisted that in bicycle tires the cause of rolling
resistance was zero-percent of (#1) and 100% of (#2) above--but in the
real world, you don't get one effect without also getting the other.
The effect of tread squirm/friction may be rather small, but then
again, compared to, say, a car--the amount of /power/ used to move a
bicycle is rather small as well.

Yes, it is, and therefore even small gains are helpful. But are there
losses from tread squirm (I am assuming a slick tread here) and are they
anything more than infinitesimal? I don't know about the tread squirm
losses, I find that a bit hard to visualize and I suspect that the
flattening of the tire at the contact patch equalizes the diameter and
reduces squirm quite a bit, but hysteresis losses and vibrational or
suspension losses are intuitively pretty easy to grasp. Interestingly
the latter two are in opposition: hysteresis can be reduce by reducing
flex (which you are doing) whereas suspension losses are reduced by
increasing flex.


I drafted out a projection that may not be entirely accurate, but it
shows that the sides of the contact patch get dragged forward as the
tire rolls.

http://beevilletire.com/assorted_top...crubby_01.html

Image #1 shows the overall view of the diagram, and indicates the
portions that Figures #2 and #3 show. This diagram is for a tire with a
radius of 13 inches and 2 inches wide, with a round cross-section,
pressed against a flat surface (the ground). The purpose here was to
measure the length of the circular arcs that contact the ground across
the contact patch at the centerline and at a couple other distances from
the centerline.

Image #2: 2-A shows how the tire's round outer surface was divided into
three zones, each a half-inch wide, starting from the center line. This
CAD program is pretty cheap and simple so it gets rounding errors, as
can be seen from the three different arc length measurements in the
lower-left side (they're all supposed to be .2500 inches). 2-B shows the
same quarter-inch-wide zones projected on the ground at actual width;
these are used to find the lengths of the different zones in Figure #3.
(2-C) shows the "ground plane" being used--which is the solid thick
violet line. The height of the blue and green zones is indicated by thin
(same-color) horizontal lines running off to the right.

Image #3: this shows the side-view of the tire, where the lengths of the
zones can be found, and compared with the circular-arc-lengths necessary
to cover that distance when pressed flat.
,,,
(3-A) shows that the arc length at the blue line (1/4" from the tire's
center) is 5.1010", but the centerline arc length at that same flat
length is only 5.1008". So across this short distance, the blue line
would get dragged forward .0002" as the tire rolled.
,,,
(3-B) shows the same thing but for the green line, that is 1/2" out from
the centerline. The green line's arc length is 4.0163", but the
centerline arc length is only 4.0159". So across this distance, the
green line would get dragged forward .0004" as the tire rolled.
,,,
(3-C) is just the arc angles of each section used.
,,,
(3-D) is the three radii of the centerline and the two zone edges, plus
the "ground" plane that is the lowest value (12.7187"). This is why you
cannot simply figure off the difference circumferences of the different
points on the tire's width, since when pressed against the ground, they
all have a 12.7187" radius.
,,,
(3-D) is the result of these differences, figured over one complete
revolution of the tire. If we assume that the centerline of the tire
stays stationary as the wheel rolls, then the blue line will get dragged
forward ~.003" per turn, and the green line will get dragged forward
~.008" per turn.

---------

My contact patch looks funny... It doesn't make a smooth oval, but this
CAD program only does one kind of continuous spline automatically. Mebbe
needed more control points, or a different kind of spline... :|

The CAD program is pretty meager too (DeltaCAD). It's cheap and easy to
use but the features and precision aren't real great.

Jobst was quite focused on the hysteresis in the rubber tread, as I
recall, and less so on the casing. Jan Heine is quite focused on the
casing and less on the tread in his writings, although some acknowledge
that thinner tread rolls easier.

Actually it is the opposite. The greater the TPI (threads per inch)
the thinner the cords and therefore the thinner the tire casing can
be. Since this requires a strong filament that is more expensive than
a coarse one, manufacturers who make high TPI tires generally don't
equip them with heavy, thick tread, just as one doesn't use huge
knobby SUV tires on a high performance sports car.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/Jobst$20TPI%7Csort:relevance/rec.bicycles.tech/HqsWGC8G8Aw/SHJ8GNxix6MJ