Tire making--unsafe at any speed....

Looking through the (USA) CSPC rules for bicycles, the only two
requirements mentioned for tires are-
1--the max inflation pressure shown on the sidewalls at least 1/8" high,
and-
2--a combined tire/wheel test where the wheel is supported horizontally
by the tire sidewalls, and a force of 450 lbs is applied to the axle.
The tire has to stay on the rim, and the spokes/hub can't suffer damage
from this.

I coulda sworn that there was a rule that said that the bicycle had to
be able to roll 25 or 30 feet with no air pressure in the (clincher)
tires, and the tires had to stay on the rims for that long.... And this
was the reason that tires fit as tight as they did.

???????

I find nothing like that now.
And I read about that rule many years ago (long before my tire-making
escapades) so maybe it was there before but they got rid of it.

,,,,,,,

The bicycle tire cut-beads test has been posted before, so I know about
that. And there are issues with it, in terms of exactly what it
demonstrates. But anyway.

perhaps you ought to correspond with the cspc directly to get it from the horses mouth, so to speak- everything here is just rumour and opinion, really

"Doug Cimperman" wrote in message
...
Looking through the (USA) CSPC rules for bicycles, the only two
requirements mentioned for tires are-
1--the max inflation pressure shown on the sidewalls at least 1/8" high,
and-
2--a combined tire/wheel test where the wheel is supported horizontally by
the tire sidewalls, and a force of 450 lbs is applied to the axle. The
tire has to stay on the rim, and the spokes/hub can't suffer damage from
this.

I coulda sworn that there was a rule that said that the bicycle had to be
able to roll 25 or 30 feet with no air pressure in the (clincher) tires,
and the tires had to stay on the rims for that long.... And this was the
reason that tires fit as tight as they did.

On the old British 26 x 1 3/8" tyres I always had to use tyre levers to get
the tyre off.

With the 26" MTB tyres, I rarely need tyre levers at all and if I'm not
careful to centre up the tyre bead, it can slip off the rim during inflating
so the inner tube pops out and bursts!

On 10/23/2013 9:43 AM, wrote:
perhaps you ought to correspond with the cspc directly to get it from the horses mouth, so to speak- everything here is just rumour and opinion, really


Well yea I know. Ida thought somebody else would have remembered it tho.

--------

Here is something of a surprise/disappointment...

In part §1512.16 "Requirements for reflectors" it states that-

(h) Retroreflective tire sidewalls. When retroreflective tire sidewalls
are used in lieu of spoke-mounted reflectors, the reflecting material
shall meet the following requirements:

(1) The retroreflective material shall form a continuous circle on the
sidewall.

?:|

I always thought using the continuous circle was dumb, because if the
circle is continuous then it isn't apparent to vehicles approaching from
the side if the wheel is rolling (moving) or not.

I had planned on having reflective spots, but wasn't going to use a
whole circle for that very reason.

REACing the 450 p LEVEL ONE WOULD VENTURE tires would fill the bill.

'old' rubber was stiff so moving a contact patch around rim used more energy than compliant and grippier rubber.

anyway ura talkin wire beads. Wires are DOA

On 10/23/2013 3:01 PM, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 10/23/2013 9:43 AM, wrote:
perhaps you ought to correspond with the cspc directly to
get it from the horses mouth, so to speak- everything here
is just rumour and opinion, really


Well yea I know. Ida thought somebody else would have
remembered it tho.

--------

Here is something of a surprise/disappointment...

In part §1512.16 "Requirements for reflectors" it states that-

(h) Retroreflective tire sidewalls. When retroreflective
tire sidewalls are used in lieu of spoke-mounted reflectors,
the reflecting material shall meet the following requirements:

(1) The retroreflective material shall form a continuous
circle on the sidewall.

?:|

I always thought using the continuous circle was dumb,
because if the circle is continuous then it isn't apparent
to vehicles approaching from the side if the wheel is
rolling (moving) or not.

I had planned on having reflective spots, but wasn't going
to use a whole circle for that very reason.

If you're waiting for a federal regulation that's sensible,
it could be a long while. Ever wonder why your average cars
got better mileage in the 1980s than they do now?

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

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:01:32 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:

snip


Here is something of a surprise/disappointment...

In part §1512.16 "Requirements for reflectors" it states that-

(h) Retroreflective tire sidewalls. When retroreflective tire sidewalls
are used in lieu of spoke-mounted reflectors, the reflecting material
shall meet the following requirements:

(1) The retroreflective material shall form a continuous circle on the
sidewall.

?:|

I always thought using the continuous circle was dumb, because if the
circle is continuous then it isn't apparent to vehicles approaching from
the side if the wheel is rolling (moving) or not.


It doesn't matter if the wheel is rolling unless it's rolling
across the ground, in which case motion will be evident when
viewed from the side.

I had planned on having reflective spots, but wasn't going to use a
whole circle for that very reason.

That is the cool thing about rolling your own.

(I'm picturing one of those stroboscopic speed gauges on record
players.)

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:

If you're waiting for a federal regulation that's sensible,
it could be a long while. Ever wonder why your average cars
got better mileage in the 1980s than they do now?

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/09/12/a...cord-24-9-mpg/

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/24/2013 2:49 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Doug Cimperman considered Wed, 23 Oct 2013
,,,,
2--a combined tire/wheel test where the wheel is supported horizontally
by the tire sidewalls, and a force of 450 lbs is applied to the axle.
The tire has to stay on the rim, and the spokes/hub can't suffer damage
from this.

A fifth of a ton sideways force?
I think almost all bicycle wheels would fail that test.
Certainly asymmetric rear wheels for derailer geared bikes would if
the force was applied from the cassette end of the axle.
I can't imagine any circumstance where having so much sideways
strength would be useful in a wheel - the frame would bend in half
with that sort of lateral loading.


That test is done on the wheel alone, removed from the frame:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve....3 .81.1.2.11
tiny-
http://tinyurl.com/qgqow26

Also we note,,,, the CSPC rules only apply to bicycles sold new, that
are not 'velodrome' bicycles (single gear + fixie + no handbrakes). The
rules do not apply to individual parts, or bicycles sold incomplete
(such as without pedals), or new bicycles sold with non-standard choices
of parts specified by the customer.



Motor vehicle tires have a zillion rules, but I can't find anything else
in there concerning bicycle tires.