Tire-making: testing, pre-testing, ect.

Sorry no new pics this time.
Progress continues and I've come up with many new ideas.
Simple chance would seem to indicate that they're probably not all bad.

--------

Today I am taking a casual poll.

I had assumed that I would-
1) get to a point that I could make tires that appeared to be
consistent, and then-
2) mount a pair to one of my own bikes and ride some miles on them. Then
(assuming they held together properly)-
3) I would make a few more pairs and offer them to others to try out and
give their thoughts.

The question (#2) I am wondering is, how far is a reasonable distance to
test-ride them? 25 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles? (this would only be done
with one pair I tested, not all of them I would offer in step #3 above)

This wouldn't be to determine the total expected lifespan, but only to
provide some assurance that the things wouldn't fall apart twenty
minutes after you mounted them. If you've ever had a tire fail from a
manufacturing defect that was not visible beforehand, after how much
distance did it take to occur?



Unfortunately, with winter approaching it may be a couple or three
months before I could really get any test-riding done at all. Other
issues may push it off that far anyway though.



Also you might suppose you're not willing to ride somebody's home-made
exploding colored tires, but there will be more to it all than that
(-though at the moment, I am planning on the tires being made with two
different colors of rubber-)

On Oct 29, 4:35*pm, DougC wrote:
Sorry no new pics this time.
Progress continues and I've come up with many new ideas.
Simple chance would seem to indicate that they're probably not all bad.

--------

Today I am taking a casual poll.

I had assumed that I would-
1) get to a point that I could make tires that appeared to be
consistent, and then-
2) mount a pair to one of my own bikes and ride some miles on them. Then
(assuming they held together properly)-
3) I would make a few more pairs and offer them to others to try out and
give their thoughts.

The question (#2) I am wondering is, how far is a reasonable distance to
test-ride them? 25 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles? (this would only be done
with one pair I tested, not all of them I would offer in step #3 above)

Ride out for an hour and back and let us know what distance you made
before it gave way. ;-)


This wouldn't be to determine the total expected lifespan, but only to
provide some assurance that the things wouldn't fall apart twenty
minutes after you mounted them. If you've ever had a tire fail from a
manufacturing defect that was not visible beforehand, after how much
distance did it take to occur?

8 miles after I knicked it with a knife. ****e carcass wouldn't hold
a fly. Should have got kevlar. ;-)

Unfortunately, with winter approaching it may be a couple or three
months before I could really get any test-riding done at all. Other
issues may push it off that far anyway though.

Also you might suppose you're not willing to ride somebody's home-made
exploding colored tires, but there will be more to it all than that
(-though at the moment, I am planning on the tires being made with two
different colors of rubber-)

Woodland cammo is probably not the best choice for an untested product
affecting mobility.

On Oct 29, 1:05 pm, Tosspot wrote:
On 29/10/11 17:35, DougC wrote:

Sorry no new pics this time.
Progress continues and I've come up with many new ideas.
Simple chance would seem to indicate that they're probably not all bad.

Dammit man, this is simply unacceptable. There are people out here that
*need* to know the progress. Pop 'em in the post to leftpondia and I'll
ride the damn things myself over the winter and post them back to you.

Today I am taking a casual poll.

I had assumed that I would-
1) get to a point that I could make tires that appeared to be
consistent, and then-
2) mount a pair to one of my own bikes and ride some miles on them. Then
(assuming they held together properly)-
3) I would make a few more pairs and offer them to others to try out and
give their thoughts.

The question (#2) I am wondering is, how far is a reasonable distance to
test-ride them? 25 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles? (this would only be done
with one pair I tested, not all of them I would offer in step #3 above)

Hmmm, my feeling is around 500 miles gives a feel for puncture
resistance, longevity etc.

This wouldn't be to determine the total expected lifespan, but only to
provide some assurance that the things wouldn't fall apart twenty
minutes after you mounted them. If you've ever had a tire fail from a
manufacturing defect that was not visible beforehand, after how much
distance did it take to occur?

Mate had a wire bead protrude and he got punctures every 100 miles or
so. A Marathon+.

Unfortunately, with winter approaching it may be a couple or three
months before I could really get any test-riding done at all. Other
issues may push it off that far anyway though.

Hookers and blow?

Also you might suppose you're not willing to ride somebody's home-made
exploding colored tires, but there will be more to it all than that
(-though at the moment, I am planning on the tires being made with two
different colors of rubber-)

Someone has to do it...

I'd not only be willing to ride them, I'd give them the torture test
(not afraid of what might happen as long as I know that I'm "testing"
and am ready for it come what may).

DougC wrote:
Sorry no new pics this time.
Progress continues and I've come up with many new ideas.
Simple chance would seem to indicate that they're probably not all bad.

--------

Today I am taking a casual poll.

I had assumed that I would-
1) get to a point that I could make tires that appeared to be
consistent, and then-
2) mount a pair to one of my own bikes and ride some miles on them. Then
(assuming they held together properly)-
3) I would make a few more pairs and offer them to others to try out and
give their thoughts.

Suggest you make a tire tester.
Let it tell you about the safety aspects of your
creation in a non-life-threatening way.

http://www.tire-tyre-machine.com/drum-testing-machine/bicycle-drum-testing.html

http://goo.gl/FyWwj

--Winston

On 10/29/2011 11:54 PM, Winston wrote:

Suggest you make a tire tester.
Let it tell you about the safety aspects of your
creation in a non-life-threatening way.

http://www.tire-tyre-machine.com/drum-testing-machine/bicycle-drum-testing.html


http://goo.gl/FyWwj

--Winston

I have read of them. They're pretty easy to construct in principle and I
may eventually do that, but not anytime soon.

The only thing they really tell you is the (approximate) ultimate
lifespan of the casing; they don't give an accurate representation of
lots of other things--thinks like center tread wear and cornering (edge)
tread wear from real road surfaces, sun/UV damage, and very importantly
how the tire actually feels in use. Radial tires should have done well
in the bicycle tire marketplace--they did have a lower rolling
resistance and better comfort than a typical tire, and weren't lacking
in any other technical aspect--but they did not do well in sales, just
due to their odd feel.

Knowing the ultimate lifespan to expect isn't a bad thing, but it isn't
usually the shortest limitation of the tire. For a front tire that
experiences basically no tread wear, the limitation is often the UV
resistance of the sidewalls as the rubber hardens and cracks, exposing
the casing threads. For the rear tire (on any bicycle that is presumably
rear-wheel-drive) the limitation is the center tread wear. Most people
probably run the same tires front and rear, but for these reasons I'm
thinking that is not ideal.

Plus when you really think about it, tire companies don't do all that
much testing either. They do initially, but a lot of that has to do with
assumptions based on other existing tires, and simple ride-testing--and
once they settle on construction specs that they assume will work well
enough, they don't normally test very much from then on. A small
percentage of production does get tested continuously, but most tires
they make only get a visual inspection and are then tossed in a box and
shipped to the distributor.



I think it would be much more useful (at first) to concentrate on the
failure types that tend to happen spontaneously and can cause crashes,
and there's only two I can think of that are common: blow-offs and tire
bubbles.

The only consistent factor in non-MTB blowoffs I have noticed is that
kevlar beads tend to do it way more often than steel beads. Since it is
possible to make "semi-folding" tires without resorting to kevlar, I
doubt I'll be using kevlar beads anytime soon. For the ability to pack
very small and a minor reduction in weight, you're taking on a large
decrease in reliability.

Tire bubbles are simple to prevent, just by perforating the tire casing
completely through with regularly-spaced pinholes--but I've never seen
it done, and no manufacturer I've heard of bothers to do it. The
pinholes pretty much guarantee you won't get any tire bubbles, yet it's
very unlikely that any road debris would ever slip in through a pinhole
and puncture the tube (how often do you get "second" punctures through a
hole in the tire that an earlier puncture made?...). This seems odd to
me, since tire bubbles are the only type of failure that happens often
while riding, usually silently and rather suddenly, and that can cause a
crash even at low-to-moderate speeds if the bubble catches on the (rim)
brakes. It's worth preventing, and a few moments of labor and one simple
tool can basically guarantee that it won't EVER happen.

....It should be possible to make bubble-proof tubeless tires--by making
the tire normally, perforating the whole tire casing with pinholes, and
then applying one more thin coating of rubber on the inside to re-seal
the interior. Why don't bike tire companies do this already? I don't
know. I can only guess that the equipment they all use {which is ALL the
same} doesn't allow it. This goes back to what I said in another post
about "...if you can make tires, you can do things that the tire
companies can't, or won't, do."
,,,,,,,
I don't plan on offering tubeless-rated non-UST tires at first, as
there's still a lot of issues with blowoffs, even with steel beads--but
I don't think it's impossible to do. The [steel-cable] beads may just
end up being 2-3X thicker than usual, and if you're running very narrow
rims then you may need wider ones.



Other problems like tread separation and tire bulges aren't good, but
they usually provide some noise or physical sensation to let you know
that something isn't right and you need to pull over and take a look.
The causes don't seem to be very consistent, and often the causes aren't
really know at all by the rider.



Punctures are another problem that can cause crashes (at higher speeds)
but that is only partly predictable. The one factor that is known is
that higher-pressure tires tend to puncture and deflate "instantly" far
more often than low-pressure tires do. Bike tire companies make narrow
high-pressure tires because that's the easiest way for them to make a
tire with low weight and rolling resistance--but it isn't the only way.
It's just the only way they'll bother with.

DougC wrote:
On 10/29/2011 11:54 PM, Winston wrote:

Suggest you make a tire tester.
Let it tell you about the safety aspects of your
creation in a non-life-threatening way.

http://www.tire-tyre-machine.com/drum-testing-machine/bicycle-drum-testing.html



http://goo.gl/FyWwj

--Winston

I have read of them. They're pretty easy to construct in principle and I
may eventually do that, but not anytime soon.

The only thing they really tell you is the (approximate) ultimate
lifespan of the casing; they don't give an accurate representation of
lots of other things--thinks like center tread wear and cornering (edge)
tread wear from real road surfaces, sun/UV damage, and very importantly
how the tire actually feels in use. Radial tires should have done well
in the bicycle tire marketplace--they did have a lower rolling
resistance and better comfort than a typical tire, and weren't lacking
in any other technical aspect--but they did not do well in sales, just
due to their odd feel.

Knowing the ultimate lifespan to expect isn't a bad thing, but it isn't
usually the shortest limitation of the tire. For a front tire that
experiences basically no tread wear, the limitation is often the UV
resistance of the sidewalls as the rubber hardens and cracks, exposing
the casing threads. For the rear tire (on any bicycle that is presumably
rear-wheel-drive) the limitation is the center tread wear. Most people
probably run the same tires front and rear, but for these reasons I'm
thinking that is not ideal.

Plus when you really think about it, tire companies don't do all that
much testing either. They do initially, but a lot of that has to do with
assumptions based on other existing tires, and simple ride-testing--and
once they settle on construction specs that they assume will work well
enough, they don't normally test very much from then on. A small
percentage of production does get tested continuously, but most tires
they make only get a visual inspection and are then tossed in a box and
shipped to the distributor.



I think it would be much more useful (at first) to concentrate on the
failure types that tend to happen spontaneously and can cause crashes,
and there's only two I can think of that are common: blow-offs and tire
bubbles.

The only consistent factor in non-MTB blowoffs I have noticed is that
kevlar beads tend to do it way more often than steel beads. Since it is
possible to make "semi-folding" tires without resorting to kevlar, I
doubt I'll be using kevlar beads anytime soon. For the ability to pack
very small and a minor reduction in weight, you're taking on a large
decrease in reliability.

Tire bubbles are simple to prevent, just by perforating the tire casing
completely through with regularly-spaced pinholes--but I've never seen
it done, and no manufacturer I've heard of bothers to do it. The
pinholes pretty much guarantee you won't get any tire bubbles, yet it's
very unlikely that any road debris would ever slip in through a pinhole
and puncture the tube (how often do you get "second" punctures through a
hole in the tire that an earlier puncture made?...). This seems odd to
me, since tire bubbles are the only type of failure that happens often
while riding, usually silently and rather suddenly, and that can cause a
crash even at low-to-moderate speeds if the bubble catches on the (rim)
brakes. It's worth preventing, and a few moments of labor and one simple
tool can basically guarantee that it won't EVER happen.

...It should be possible to make bubble-proof tubeless tires--by making
the tire normally, perforating the whole tire casing with pinholes, and
then applying one more thin coating of rubber on the inside to re-seal
the interior. Why don't bike tire companies do this already? I don't
know. I can only guess that the equipment they all use {which is ALL the
same} doesn't allow it. This goes back to what I said in another post
about "...if you can make tires, you can do things that the tire
companies can't, or won't, do."
,,,,,,,
I don't plan on offering tubeless-rated non-UST tires at first, as
there's still a lot of issues with blowoffs, even with steel beads--but
I don't think it's impossible to do. The [steel-cable] beads may just
end up being 2-3X thicker than usual, and if you're running very narrow
rims then you may need wider ones.



Other problems like tread separation and tire bulges aren't good, but
they usually provide some noise or physical sensation to let you know
that something isn't right and you need to pull over and take a look.
The causes don't seem to be very consistent, and often the causes aren't
really know at all by the rider.



Punctures are another problem that can cause crashes (at higher speeds)
but that is only partly predictable. The one factor that is known is
that higher-pressure tires tend to puncture and deflate "instantly" far
more often than low-pressure tires do. Bike tire companies make narrow
high-pressure tires because that's the easiest way for them to make a
tire with low weight and rolling resistance--but it isn't the only way.
It's just the only way they'll bother with.



By 'tire bubble' do you mean a casing rend or bruise under
the tread? Usual cause is a pointy impact. Stronger fiber
of finer weave is the usual approach to minimize those. How
would a casing material with holes in it be stronger?

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

On 10/30/2011 4:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:



By 'tire bubble' do you mean a casing rend or bruise under the tread?
Usual cause is a pointy impact. Stronger fiber of finer weave is the
usual approach to minimize those. How would a casing material with holes
in it be stronger?


I meant an air bubble that forms between the casing fabric and the
rubber tread layer.

Obviously this means the tube is leaking or punctured as well--but that
is a problem with a relatively slow onset. Making the pinholes wouldn't
make the tire stronger, but it would make certain that air couldn't ever
form the bubbles.

On Oct 30, 9:39*pm, DougC wrote:
On 10/30/2011 4:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:



By 'tire bubble' do you mean a casing rend or bruise under the tread?
Usual cause is a pointy impact. Stronger fiber of finer weave is the
usual approach to minimize those. How would a casing material with holes
in it be stronger?

I meant an air bubble that forms between the casing fabric and the
rubber tread layer.

Most likely due to lack of cement because the operator's thumb was in
the way. There's a simple solution. All treads should be pressure
rolled after cementing in place. A tread which is vulcanised to the
carcass does not require this last pressing.

Obviously this means the tube is leaking or punctured as well--but that
is a problem with a relatively slow onset.

Always use quality tubes.
Making the pinholes wouldn't
make the tire stronger, but it would make certain that air couldn't ever
form the bubbles.

Unnecessary. I doubt you could even make it a markettable point.

DougC wrote:
On 10/30/2011 4:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:



By 'tire bubble' do you mean a casing rend or bruise under the tread?
Usual cause is a pointy impact. Stronger fiber of finer weave is the
usual approach to minimize those. How would a casing material with holes
in it be stronger?


I meant an air bubble that forms between the casing fabric and the
rubber tread layer.

Obviously this means the tube is leaking or punctured as well--but that
is a problem with a relatively slow onset. Making the pinholes wouldn't
make the tire stronger, but it would make certain that air couldn't ever
form the bubbles.

Are you sure about that?

The only bubbles I recall getting were with Continental Top Touring
tires. AFAICT, they were failures in the sidewall fabric. The tube
wasn't leaking.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/30/2011 6:16 PM, thirty-six wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 10/30/2011 4:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:



By 'tire bubble' do you mean a casing rend or bruise under the tread?
Usual cause is a pointy impact. Stronger fiber of finer weave is the
usual approach to minimize those. How would a casing material with holes
in it be stronger?

I meant an air bubble that forms between the casing fabric and the
rubber tread layer.

Most likely due to lack of cement because the operator's thumb was in
the way. There's a simple solution. All treads should be pressure
rolled after cementing in place. A tread which is vulcanised to the
carcass does not require this last pressing.

I've had tire bubbles happen both ways-
.....As a regular bruise, where a bubble formed after I ride over a
rather round stone that shot out from under the tire, and a bubble
formed quickly after. That time I aired the tire way down and still rode
home on it (several miles) with a small bubble instead of a
golf-ball-sized one.
.....And also where a bubble formed as I was riding, so I stopped and
pulled over and when I was looking at the tire, I noticed a couple
inches away there was a piece of steel wire that had punctured the tire
(like a bristle from a steel brush). When I pulled the piece of wire
out, air began to leak out, and both the bubble and the tire deflated.
When I inspected the inner tube there was a hole where the wire was, but
no hole where the bubble was.


Obviously this means the tube is leaking or punctured as well--but that
is a problem with a relatively slow onset.

Always use quality tubes.

Well everyone thinks they do.
If you're not using a tubeless setup and the tire is perforated, then
you won't ever have the problem of air escaping from the innertube and
building up inside the tire itself.



Also maybe this has something to do with the spontaneous tire
blowoffs?... It's already been shown that the lateral pressure of the
innertube holds the tire beads in place on a clincher rim. The tire is
holding the mechanical load, but the innertube is sealing the pneumatic
pressure. If the tube has a leak and the tire doesn't, then the
pneumatic pressure will slowly transfer from the innertube directly into
the tire.

Assuming you use a screw-in tire valve (like the tubeless
conversions),,,, can you inflate a clincher [road] tire on a [road] rim
with no innertube present at all? The notubes.com site seems to indicate
that this is not possible, and you must use the tubeless Hutchinson
tires for road conversions--implying that regular road clincher tires do
not hold on well enough without a tube..... -or rather, without the
pressure contained inside the tube and not the tire itself.


Making the pinholes wouldn't
make the tire stronger, but it would make certain that air couldn't ever
form the bubbles.

Unnecessary. I doubt you could even make it a markettable point.


It would seem to be much safer in all instances to have a tire slowly go
flat than to blow off the rim suddenly,,,, and the users that witness
the most blowoffs by far are MTB people trying to use non-tubeless tires
in tubeless conversions. The very instance where there is /no/ innertube
pressure present to hold the bead onto the rim. Coincidence?