Tire rot

Can someone point me in the direction of a photo of the damage that
might occur from storing a bike with its tires on a cold concrete floor.

Just A User wrote:
Can someone point me in the direction of a photo of the damage that
might occur from storing a bike with its tires on a cold concrete floor.

Don't think it exists - no such damage. If, though, you add a nearby
deep freeze compressor (or other ozone source), I'm sure there are lots
of examples. Heat is bad for tires as well, at least in the looong term.

Mark J.

Just A User wrote:
Can someone point me in the direction of a photo of the damage that
might occur from storing a bike with its tires on a cold concrete floor.

No damage if you top them up periodically.

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

Just A User wrote:
Can someone point me in the direction of a photo of the damage that
might occur from storing a bike with its tires on a cold concrete floor.

depends on where you live. i live in colorado, and if you leave tubes or
tires out for long periods (like over a year) without using them, they
dry out and crack. other than that, i don't know that i'd worry about it.

becca

In article ,
Just A User writes:
Can someone point me in the direction of a photo of the damage that
might occur from storing a bike with its tires on a cold concrete floor.

In residential basements, it's not the cold concrete
floor that accelerates tire deterioration, it's the
ozone created by nearby electric motors such as those
in central heating furnaces.

N.B: Rubber doesn't "rot" as in the biological sense
of the word. Rather, it gradually but inexorably
outgasses its more volatile chemical components, causing
the rubber structure to shrink, crack, and eventually
crumble. Ozone and ultraviolet light are reputed to
hasten the process. I think the latter factor (UV light)
is the greater concern.

I /have/ to store my main bike right beside the furnace.
But I wear my tires out just from daily use before the
furnace-motor ozone can kill 'em. But if I just permanently
left my bike out in a sunny spot in the back yard for a
year or two, (perish the thought) the tires would die long
before their time. If the bike wasn't stolen first.

As an aside thought, I also don't believe storing a bike
within a pyramid would prolong the the life of the tires ;-)
Now that I've said that, chances are Carl Fogel will try it.
You can put him up to almost anything that's tastefully and
non-destructively investigative/analytical/experimental G
(I say that with the utmost respect.)

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:15:22 -0800, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

[---]

Now that I've said that, chances are Carl Fogel will try it.
You can put him up to almost anything that's tastefully and
non-destructively investigative/analytical/experimental G

Agreed !

(I say that with the utmost respect.)

So do I - I rather keep hoping he'll do an in-depth investigation into
the benefits and disadvantages of cotton vs synthetics in clothing!

Hang the bike, lift tires off the floor. Opinion here is Galiliean:
bikes tires flatten if left in one position. Auto tires do it, people
do it, rocks do it, wine and beer do it, glass does it-glass is a
fluid.
Bike tires are unsecured in the carcass compared to auto tires.
Concrete is very basic, maybe this isnot good for rubber.

Dear Tom Keats:

On Mar 11, 2:15*am, (Tom Keats) wrote:
...
N.B: *Rubber doesn't "rot" as in the biological sense
of the word. *Rather, it gradually but inexorably
outgasses its more volatile chemical components,
causing the rubber structure to shrink, crack, and
eventually crumble. *Ozone and ultraviolet light are
reputed to hasten the process. *I think the latter
factor (UV light) is the greater concern.

There are chambers that age rubber at an accelerated rate. They do
not bathe the rubber sample in UV, but they do bathe them in ozone.
If you irradiate rubber with UV, in an atmosphere without oxygen, you
do not get anything close to the degradation you describe above.

Just keep in mind that visible light (purple to UV), NOx (from
automobile emissions), and VOCs (even methane) make ozone. So it is
"natural" to attribute the damage to "the light". It just is not
strictly correct.

David A. Smith

doowwwwwwwwwwwwnwind
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/aq/sectors/conus.php

say whattabout RADON?

In article ,
Andrew Price wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:15:22 -0800, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

[---]

Now that I've said that, chances are Carl Fogel will try it.
You can put him up to almost anything that's tastefully and
non-destructively investigative/analytical/experimental G

Agreed !

(I say that with the utmost respect.)

So do I - I rather keep hoping he'll do an in-depth investigation into
the benefits and disadvantages of cotton vs synthetics in clothing!

Hm. What kind of information are you looking for? The pros and cons of
cotton and synthetics (and wool) are pretty well understood at this
point. A really spiffy double-blind test might add a few extra decimal
places of precision, but the broad generalization that cotton gets wet
and stays wet, while synthetics and wool tend to wick water away from
the skin are both easily verified and the reason the latter two
materials predominate in sportswear.

Cotton is inexpensive, light, and feels nice against the skin. It's not
much fun when wet, and isn't as warm, weight for weight, as either
synthetics or wool. On the other hand, it isn't as warm (or itchy!) as
wool, so that's why it's popular for casual wear in climat-controlled
environments, or as base layers for people not planning to break a sweat.

I am now waiting for someone to start advocating for linen cycling
apparel,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."