Tire-making: bead stress, tire width, math, woe........

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:53:23 -0500, DougC
wrote:

On 8/24/2011 4:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 11:47 AM, DougC wrote:

.........


Also note: I already know that tire beads aren't usually made of
stainless wire, but I can't get the same stuff the big companies all
use and plain chrome steel would rust too easily. The "real" stuff is
bronze-plated chrome steel spring wire, but the only purpose of it
seems to be for tire beads, and I haven't found anyone selling small
quantities of it that isn't already made into tires.





I don't know, but what do pianos use for wire? You aren't making a
thousand pieces; something like that which is readily available may be a
plus.


I already said what normal tires (car, motorcycle and bicycle at least)
use. The "real" stuff is (deep breath) bronze-plated chrome-steel
spring-tempered wire.

Music wire is all that BUT bronze-plated, it's not greatly expensive and
ordinary mortals can buy 1 - 5 - 10 lb spools of it, but bronze-plating
it myself is not economically viable.

The bronze plating serves to increase the rubber's ability to bond to
the cable, by inhibiting rust. As the rubber cures it gives off water,
and plain carbon-steel wire would quickly begin to corrode in such
circumstances.

On the grand scales of industrial purchasing, bronze-plated carbon-steel
spring-temper wire is cheaper than stainless--but not on mine. So I
don't really have a choice there--but there's no evidence that the
stainless is lacking in any regard; much of the lifting wire rope and
cable in use for everything else is stainless anyway (-such as,,, bike
shifter and brake cables, for example...).


The main problem with stainless as boat rigging is that it tends to
work harden over time, to the extent that some insurance wants rigging
changed after 10 years, or so, which probably wouldn't be a factor in
a tire. There is also galvanized steel cable (although I not certain
about very small sizes) that might be usable.

Cheers,

John B.

On Aug 25, 12:03*pm, john B. wrote:

DR

Nope. But I do consider myself a competent engineer and one thing you
learn early on is to research before you design and if nobody else is
considering a new method that you feel you have discovered then
perhaps you need to take a second look at things. There may be a
reason that nobody else is doing it.


Look, the cheapo tyres use very small diameter half hard steel (not
spring, piano etc). This is to economise, every penny counts. Use
nylon monofilament in a diameter that feels suitable for
reinforcement. The elasticity and tensile strength of the reinforcing
wire are irrelevant, get over it.

On Aug 25, 5:16*am, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie









wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:28*pm, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:32 am, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:42 pm, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:02 am, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:37 pm, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six

wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:28 pm, DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 1:18 PM, thirty-six wrote:

The wire stiffens the connection with the rim so that the tyre stays
in place. The wire's strength is of no particular importance, it's
the resistance to bending which is key. ...

I don't know if I believe that.

It would mean that you could take a clincher tire and cut both beads
completely through--and then mount & inflate it and still have it stay
on the rim, with just as much pressure as with the beads uncut.

You would be breaking the beam and so the hold of the tyre is
compromised around the cut. Test it statically. Do not ride it at
speed.

Obviously the beads are placed under great tension in use, since for
~100 years steel was the only material used and in the last several
decades the only other material used has been kevlar (which is also a
high tensile strength material).

The steel wire is used as a beam for the tyre's unfortunate edge. The
tubular tyre does not of course suffer from this liability as the
edges are joined together making the tyre essentially edgeless.

Errr... there is no "beam" involved in tire strength.

The bead reinforcement - i.e., the steel or kevlar cable in this case
- is stressed longitudinally, in reference to the cable, as it is used
to prevent the bead stretching.

Everyone seems to want to fully adopt one side or the other in this
"belt v. suspenders" discussion. There should really no problem
accepting that there are two mechanism that can work and they can (and
undoubtedly do) work together.

With NO "hook" at the bead, the bead reinforcement does have to take
on the full responsibility for constraining the forces of air pressure
(and all others) within the tire.

But add a substantial hook and the job of the bead reinforcement
becomes much easier. With a suitable means of securing the tire edge
to the rim (thinking hypothetically) all the way around, the
longitudinal strength/stretch resistance of the bead reinforcement
becomes less important or even unnecessary.

Kevlar, by the way, is used because it doesn't stretch, not primarily
because it is a high strength material.

And very UN-stretchy carbon is also becoming the material of choice.

DR

The whole discussion seems centered on a bicycle wheel, as though
nothing else used rubber wheel covers :-)

More to the point a day or so ago I walked by a tire and hose dealer
who supplied the aircraft. In his front window he had an aircraft tire
- About 5 ft. in diameter - and beside it a section cut from the tire.
the bead reinforcing cable was slightly over 1 inch in diameter.

I wonder what all of those reinforced tire beads are doing out there
if they aren't required. Must be a lot of really stupid tire makers.

Sounds like you are a "belt" kinda' guy and gotta' have it - with or
without suspenders.
Yes, we were talking about bicycle wheels which, at present, most
commonly have BOTH a tire with your precious bead reinforcement
material AND a rim with a bead engaging "hook."

Does the aircraft tire you saw have a hooked bead interface? As a more
common comparison, automobile tires do not.
See example:
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT...t-cross-sectio...

So it is of little surprise that they must have a strong bead
reinforcement and has little to do with whether the manufacturers are
smart or stupid.

But that hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface.
See:
http://bit.ly/nA53me

Belt and/or suspenders, right?

DR

I think that the most powerful rebuttal to your point is that a tire
built without any form of bead reinforcement would be substantially
lighter then a tire built with one and as we all know light is
wonderful in the bicycle world.

Oh? Then let's get right to it. But don't forget that we still need
some way to fully secure the constrain the tire bead radially to the
rim. You have obviously conceived of a way to do that which involves
no weight whatsoever. Please share.

Get right to it? I'm merely responding you your statement "But that
hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface."

I'm not even contesting your remark. I'm only saying that nobody is
building such tires... Even though they would be substantially lighter
and would sell faster then you could get them out of the mold.

I wonder why?

They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be lighter.
A silly proposition.

So you say.... Of course, if you remove some 160 inches of steel cable
it will make things heavier. After all, several folks have "proved"
that it is unnecessary by mounting tires with said cable cut.

Oops, missed this. Do us all a favor and see if you can maintain
consistency in the points you present.
You assumed "removal of bead reinforcement" (with no suggestion of
structure to replace its function) and asserted "lighter" which is not
a reasonable assumption. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't but
your unsupported assumption cannot be allowed to stand.
Now you are also suggesting "cut." Sorry dude, cut is neither
"removed" nor "lighter."

DR

The discussion I read on this site and the JPG that was referenced
showed a tire with the bead cut, in several places. No mention of
additional reinforcement or anything else - other then one of the
participants saying that when the tire pressure got to 100 psi he
decided to split.

Now then - you said "They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be
lighter. A silly proposition." and I replied if you remove the wire it
is going to get lighter, which is a logical deductions given that
steel weighs more then rubber, nylon or other tire materials.

Unless, that is, you are going to blunder off at a tangent and decide
that while they removed the cable they somehow added something else to
reinforce the bead.... like kevlar, carbon fiber, butcher's twine,
etc.

Oh yes, in closing. The entire thrust of this thread has been the
requirement or lack there of in bead reinforcement. Now you seem to be
saying that of course if you remove the wire you need to replace it
with something..... Is that right? Originally you seemed to be saying
that it wasn't needed and now you seem to be saying that if you remove
the steel you need to replace it with something.... If that is your
assertion I agree with you.

Your myopia has you ignoring the very essence of what was being
discussed, especially the "belt and suspenders" part. It was pointed
out that tire retention can be accomplished without significant tire
bead reinforcement when an appropriate substitute mechanism is in
place. In the cited example the rim included a "hooked" interface.
But for some reason, you keep referring back to the characteristics of
the tire's inherent bead reinforcement because of your apparent belief
that it can never be eliminated. And you cite un-helpful examples of
wheels (auto, aircraft) that DO require such reinforcement precisely
because they do NOT provide any such substitute mechanism, either in
whole or in part.
The term "substitute mechanism" means changing "belt" to "suspenders,"
not changing the "belt" material from steel to something else.

The hook bead arrangement of a present day bicycle wheel improves the
traditional "wired on" tire by having the rim supply some or most of
the constraint otherwise supplied entirely by the wire in a non-hooked
bead (or auto) wheel arrangement.

Call it constraint by an "external bead reinforcement" if that helps
with the visualization.

DR

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:

On Aug 25, 5:16*am, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie









wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:28*pm, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:32 am, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:42 pm, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:02 am, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:37 pm, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six

wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:28 pm, DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 1:18 PM, thirty-six wrote:

The wire stiffens the connection with the rim so that the tyre stays
in place. The wire's strength is of no particular importance, it's
the resistance to bending which is key. ...

I don't know if I believe that.

It would mean that you could take a clincher tire and cut both beads
completely through--and then mount & inflate it and still have it stay
on the rim, with just as much pressure as with the beads uncut.

You would be breaking the beam and so the hold of the tyre is
compromised around the cut. Test it statically. Do not ride it at
speed.

Obviously the beads are placed under great tension in use, since for
~100 years steel was the only material used and in the last several
decades the only other material used has been kevlar (which is also a
high tensile strength material).

The steel wire is used as a beam for the tyre's unfortunate edge. The
tubular tyre does not of course suffer from this liability as the
edges are joined together making the tyre essentially edgeless.

Errr... there is no "beam" involved in tire strength.

The bead reinforcement - i.e., the steel or kevlar cable in this case
- is stressed longitudinally, in reference to the cable, as it is used
to prevent the bead stretching.

Everyone seems to want to fully adopt one side or the other in this
"belt v. suspenders" discussion. There should really no problem
accepting that there are two mechanism that can work and they can (and
undoubtedly do) work together.

With NO "hook" at the bead, the bead reinforcement does have to take
on the full responsibility for constraining the forces of air pressure
(and all others) within the tire.

But add a substantial hook and the job of the bead reinforcement
becomes much easier. With a suitable means of securing the tire edge
to the rim (thinking hypothetically) all the way around, the
longitudinal strength/stretch resistance of the bead reinforcement
becomes less important or even unnecessary.

Kevlar, by the way, is used because it doesn't stretch, not primarily
because it is a high strength material.

And very UN-stretchy carbon is also becoming the material of choice.

DR

The whole discussion seems centered on a bicycle wheel, as though
nothing else used rubber wheel covers :-)

More to the point a day or so ago I walked by a tire and hose dealer
who supplied the aircraft. In his front window he had an aircraft tire
- About 5 ft. in diameter - and beside it a section cut from the tire.
the bead reinforcing cable was slightly over 1 inch in diameter.

I wonder what all of those reinforced tire beads are doing out there
if they aren't required. Must be a lot of really stupid tire makers.

Sounds like you are a "belt" kinda' guy and gotta' have it - with or
without suspenders.
Yes, we were talking about bicycle wheels which, at present, most
commonly have BOTH a tire with your precious bead reinforcement
material AND a rim with a bead engaging "hook."

Does the aircraft tire you saw have a hooked bead interface? As a more
common comparison, automobile tires do not.
See example:
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT...t-cross-sectio...

So it is of little surprise that they must have a strong bead
reinforcement and has little to do with whether the manufacturers are
smart or stupid.

But that hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface.
See:
http://bit.ly/nA53me

Belt and/or suspenders, right?

DR

I think that the most powerful rebuttal to your point is that a tire
built without any form of bead reinforcement would be substantially
lighter then a tire built with one and as we all know light is
wonderful in the bicycle world.

Oh? Then let's get right to it. But don't forget that we still need
some way to fully secure the constrain the tire bead radially to the
rim. You have obviously conceived of a way to do that which involves
no weight whatsoever. Please share.

Get right to it? I'm merely responding you your statement "But that
hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface."

I'm not even contesting your remark. I'm only saying that nobody is
building such tires... Even though they would be substantially lighter
and would sell faster then you could get them out of the mold.

I wonder why?

They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be lighter.
A silly proposition.

So you say.... Of course, if you remove some 160 inches of steel cable
it will make things heavier. After all, several folks have "proved"
that it is unnecessary by mounting tires with said cable cut.

Oops, missed this. Do us all a favor and see if you can maintain
consistency in the points you present.
You assumed "removal of bead reinforcement" (with no suggestion of
structure to replace its function) and asserted "lighter" which is not
a reasonable assumption. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't but
your unsupported assumption cannot be allowed to stand.
Now you are also suggesting "cut." Sorry dude, cut is neither
"removed" nor "lighter."

DR

The discussion I read on this site and the JPG that was referenced
showed a tire with the bead cut, in several places. No mention of
additional reinforcement or anything else - other then one of the
participants saying that when the tire pressure got to 100 psi he
decided to split.

Now then - you said "They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be
lighter. A silly proposition." and I replied if you remove the wire it
is going to get lighter, which is a logical deductions given that
steel weighs more then rubber, nylon or other tire materials.

Unless, that is, you are going to blunder off at a tangent and decide
that while they removed the cable they somehow added something else to
reinforce the bead.... like kevlar, carbon fiber, butcher's twine,
etc.

Oh yes, in closing. The entire thrust of this thread has been the
requirement or lack there of in bead reinforcement. Now you seem to be
saying that of course if you remove the wire you need to replace it
with something..... Is that right? Originally you seemed to be saying
that it wasn't needed and now you seem to be saying that if you remove
the steel you need to replace it with something.... If that is your
assertion I agree with you.

Your myopia has you ignoring the very essence of what was being
discussed, especially the "belt and suspenders" part. It was pointed

Nope. what was being discussed was whether the wire/kevlar reinforced
bead was necessary.

You substituted the concept of belt and suspenders in an attempt to
improve your debating position.

out that tire retention can be accomplished without significant tire
bead reinforcement when an appropriate substitute mechanism is in
place. In the cited example the rim included a "hooked" interface.

and, I say again - why hasn't some enterprising tire company made such
a thing. a point that you keep ignoring as you can't seem to refute
it.

But for some reason, you keep referring back to the characteristics of
the tire's inherent bead reinforcement because of your apparent belief
that it can never be eliminated. And you cite un-helpful examples of
wheels (auto, aircraft) that DO require such reinforcement precisely
because they do NOT provide any such substitute mechanism, either in
whole or in part.
The term "substitute mechanism" means changing "belt" to "suspenders,"
not changing the "belt" material from steel to something else.


Again - point to an example. It is one thing to postulate a possible
solution to a problem and usually quite another to actually implement
it.

The hook bead arrangement of a present day bicycle wheel improves the
traditional "wired on" tire by having the rim supply some or most of
the constraint otherwise supplied entirely by the wire in a non-hooked
bead (or auto) wheel arrangement.

Call it constraint by an "external bead reinforcement" if that helps
with the visualization.

DR


You can spout all the rhetoric you wish, unfortunately it doesn't
prove anything. given that my point is essentially that for whatever
reason nobody is making tires without bead reinforcement. All you need
to "win" is to point out at a bicycle tire which doesn't include a
form of bead reinforcement.

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:09:04 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
wrote:

On Aug 25, 12:03*pm, john B. wrote:

DR

Nope. But I do consider myself a competent engineer and one thing you
learn early on is to research before you design and if nobody else is
considering a new method that you feel you have discovered then
perhaps you need to take a second look at things. There may be a
reason that nobody else is doing it.


Look, the cheapo tyres use very small diameter half hard steel (not
spring, piano etc). This is to economise, every penny counts. Use
nylon monofilament in a diameter that feels suitable for
reinforcement. The elasticity and tensile strength of the reinforcing
wire are irrelevant, get over it.

True? Or one of your mind farts? I think that you need to provide a
bit of proof for that statement as I believe you have descended to
posting utter rubbish.

If your statement that anything will work why do tire manufacturers
bother with all this high dollar stuff to put in beads? Why not just
butcher's twine? Far cheaper and according to you just as suitable.

No, I'm afraid that you have just proved that you really, really,
don't know what you are talking about.

Cheers,

John B.

On Aug 25, 5:51*pm, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:16*am, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:28*pm, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:32 am, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:42 pm, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:02 am, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:37 pm, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six

wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:28 pm, DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 1:18 PM, thirty-six wrote:

The wire stiffens the connection with the rim so that the tyre stays
in place. The wire's strength is of no particular importance, it's
the resistance to bending which is key. ...

I don't know if I believe that.

It would mean that you could take a clincher tire and cut both beads
completely through--and then mount & inflate it and still have it stay
on the rim, with just as much pressure as with the beads uncut.

You would be breaking the beam and so the hold of the tyre is
compromised around the cut. Test it statically. Do not ride it at
speed.

Obviously the beads are placed under great tension in use, since for
~100 years steel was the only material used and in the last several
decades the only other material used has been kevlar (which is also a
high tensile strength material).

The steel wire is used as a beam for the tyre's unfortunate edge. The
tubular tyre does not of course suffer from this liability as the
edges are joined together making the tyre essentially edgeless.

Errr... there is no "beam" involved in tire strength.

The bead reinforcement - i.e., the steel or kevlar cable in this case
- is stressed longitudinally, in reference to the cable, as it is used
to prevent the bead stretching.

Everyone seems to want to fully adopt one side or the other in this
"belt v. suspenders" discussion. There should really no problem
accepting that there are two mechanism that can work and they can (and
undoubtedly do) work together.

With NO "hook" at the bead, the bead reinforcement does have to take
on the full responsibility for constraining the forces of air pressure
(and all others) within the tire.

But add a substantial hook and the job of the bead reinforcement
becomes much easier. With a suitable means of securing the tire edge
to the rim (thinking hypothetically) all the way around, the
longitudinal strength/stretch resistance of the bead reinforcement
becomes less important or even unnecessary.

Kevlar, by the way, is used because it doesn't stretch, not primarily
because it is a high strength material.

And very UN-stretchy carbon is also becoming the material of choice.

DR

The whole discussion seems centered on a bicycle wheel, as though
nothing else used rubber wheel covers :-)

More to the point a day or so ago I walked by a tire and hose dealer
who supplied the aircraft. In his front window he had an aircraft tire
- About 5 ft. in diameter - and beside it a section cut from the tire.
the bead reinforcing cable was slightly over 1 inch in diameter.

I wonder what all of those reinforced tire beads are doing out there
if they aren't required. Must be a lot of really stupid tire makers.

Sounds like you are a "belt" kinda' guy and gotta' have it - with or
without suspenders.
Yes, we were talking about bicycle wheels which, at present, most
commonly have BOTH a tire with your precious bead reinforcement
material AND a rim with a bead engaging "hook."

Does the aircraft tire you saw have a hooked bead interface? As a more
common comparison, automobile tires do not.
See example:
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT...t-cross-sectio...

So it is of little surprise that they must have a strong bead
reinforcement and has little to do with whether the manufacturers are
smart or stupid.

But that hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface.
See:
http://bit.ly/nA53me

Belt and/or suspenders, right?

DR

I think that the most powerful rebuttal to your point is that a tire
built without any form of bead reinforcement would be substantially
lighter then a tire built with one and as we all know light is
wonderful in the bicycle world.

Oh? Then let's get right to it. But don't forget that we still need
some way to fully secure the constrain the tire bead radially to the
rim. You have obviously conceived of a way to do that which involves
no weight whatsoever. Please share.

Get right to it? I'm merely responding you your statement "But that
hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e..
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface."

I'm not even contesting your remark. I'm only saying that nobody is
building such tires... Even though they would be substantially lighter
and would sell faster then you could get them out of the mold.

I wonder why?

They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be lighter.
A silly proposition.

So you say.... Of course, if you remove some 160 inches of steel cable
it will make things heavier. After all, several folks have "proved"
that it is unnecessary by mounting tires with said cable cut.

Oops, missed this. Do us all a favor and see if you can maintain
consistency in the points you present.
You assumed "removal of bead reinforcement" (with no suggestion of
structure to replace its function) and asserted "lighter" which is not
a reasonable assumption. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't but
your unsupported assumption cannot be allowed to stand.
Now you are also suggesting "cut." Sorry dude, cut is neither
"removed" nor "lighter."

DR

The discussion I read on this site and the JPG that was referenced
showed a tire with the bead cut, in several places. No mention of
additional reinforcement or anything else - other then one of the
participants saying that when the tire pressure got to 100 psi he
decided to split.

Now then - you said "They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be
lighter. A silly proposition." and I replied if you remove the wire it
is going to get lighter, which is a logical deductions given that
steel weighs more then rubber, nylon or other tire materials.

Unless, that is, you are going to blunder off at a tangent and decide
that while they removed the cable they somehow added something else to
reinforce the bead.... like kevlar, carbon fiber, butcher's twine,
etc.

Oh yes, in closing. The entire thrust of this thread has been the
requirement or lack there of in bead reinforcement. Now you seem to be
saying that of course if you remove the wire you need to replace it
with something..... Is that right? Originally you seemed to be saying
that it wasn't needed and now you seem to be saying that if you remove
the steel you need to replace it with something.... If that is your
assertion I agree with you.

Your myopia has you ignoring the very essence of what was being
discussed, especially the "belt and suspenders" part. It was pointed

Nope. what was being discussed was whether the wire/kevlar reinforced
bead was necessary.

You substituted the concept of belt and suspenders in an attempt to
improve your debating position.

How long have you had this paranoia?
No, the "belt and suspenders" was to provide a way of describing that
there are two separate mechanisms at work. And they need not be
mutually exclusive.

out that tire retention can be accomplished without significant tire
bead reinforcement when an appropriate substitute mechanism is in
place. In the cited example the rim included a "hooked" interface.

and, I say again - why hasn't some enterprising tire company made such
a thing. a point that you keep ignoring as you can't seem to refute
it.

And if a wire bead reinforcement is fully sufficient by itself, why
aren't rims, especially those for high pressure tires, made like this
anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bi...agrams_03_.png

But for some reason, you keep referring back to the characteristics of
the tire's inherent bead reinforcement because of your apparent belief
that it can never be eliminated. And you cite un-helpful examples of
wheels (auto, aircraft) that DO require such reinforcement precisely
because they do NOT provide any such substitute mechanism, either in
whole or in part.
The term "substitute mechanism" means changing "belt" to "suspenders,"
not changing the "belt" material from steel to something else.

Again - point to an example. It is one thing to postulate a possible
solution to a problem and usually quite another to actually implement
it.
Sorry, I have been talking over you head. I assumed you could grasp
some basic structural concepts. Silly me.

The hook bead arrangement of a present day bicycle wheel improves the
traditional "wired on" tire by having the rim supply some or most of
the constraint otherwise supplied entirely by the wire in a non-hooked
bead (or auto) wheel arrangement.

Call it constraint by an "external bead reinforcement" if that helps
with the visualization.

Maybe Carl F. can provide a reference, perhaps an old patent showing
an early clincher with the tire clamped in place.
The 1891 Michelin version is described briefly he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_tire

You can spout all the rhetoric you wish, unfortunately it doesn't
prove anything. given that my point is essentially that for whatever
reason nobody is making tires without bead reinforcement. All you need
to "win" is to point out at a bicycle tire which doesn't include a
form of bead reinforcement.

I think maybe Andrew can help you there since you are obviously intent
on denying anything I might suggest.
He provided a nice link to a description of an experiment where the
bead reinforcement was cut and the pressurized tire stayed on the rim,
presumably secured by the hook of the rim.
You seem to have great difficulty conceptualizing how that could be.
Sorry, I can't get past your "It doesn't presently exist as a
commercial product therefore it can neither exist nor function "
blindness.
There is little point in trying, even when discussing concepts.
And you are the one bringing up "winning." I was trying to address
some interesting concepts brought to light by the OP's questions.

DR

DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:51 pm, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:16 am, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:28 pm, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:32 am, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:42 pm, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:02 am, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:37 pm, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:28 pm, DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 1:18 PM, thirty-six wrote:
The wire stiffens the connection with the rim so that the tyre stays
in place. The wire's strength is of no particular importance, it's
the resistance to bending which is key. ...
I don't know if I believe that.
It would mean that you could take a clincher tire and cut both beads
completely through--and then mount & inflate it and still have it stay
on the rim, with just as much pressure as with the beads uncut.
You would be breaking the beam and so the hold of the tyre is
compromised around the cut. Test it statically. Do not ride it at
speed.
Obviously the beads are placed under great tension in use, since for
~100 years steel was the only material used and in the last several
decades the only other material used has been kevlar (which is also a
high tensile strength material).
The steel wire is used as a beam for the tyre's unfortunate edge. The
tubular tyre does not of course suffer from this liability as the
edges are joined together making the tyre essentially edgeless.
Errr... there is no "beam" involved in tire strength.
The bead reinforcement - i.e., the steel or kevlar cable in this case
- is stressed longitudinally, in reference to the cable, as it is used
to prevent the bead stretching.
Everyone seems to want to fully adopt one side or the other in this
"belt v. suspenders" discussion. There should really no problem
accepting that there are two mechanism that can work and they can (and
undoubtedly do) work together.
With NO "hook" at the bead, the bead reinforcement does have to take
on the full responsibility for constraining the forces of air pressure
(and all others) within the tire.
But add a substantial hook and the job of the bead reinforcement
becomes much easier. With a suitable means of securing the tire edge
to the rim (thinking hypothetically) all the way around, the
longitudinal strength/stretch resistance of the bead reinforcement
becomes less important or even unnecessary.
Kevlar, by the way, is used because it doesn't stretch, not primarily
because it is a high strength material.
And very UN-stretchy carbon is also becoming the material of choice.
DR
The whole discussion seems centered on a bicycle wheel, as though
nothing else used rubber wheel covers :-)
More to the point a day or so ago I walked by a tire and hose dealer
who supplied the aircraft. In his front window he had an aircraft tire
- About 5 ft. in diameter - and beside it a section cut from the tire.
the bead reinforcing cable was slightly over 1 inch in diameter.
I wonder what all of those reinforced tire beads are doing out there
if they aren't required. Must be a lot of really stupid tire makers.
Sounds like you are a "belt" kinda' guy and gotta' have it - with or
without suspenders.
Yes, we were talking about bicycle wheels which, at present, most
commonly have BOTH a tire with your precious bead reinforcement
material AND a rim with a bead engaging "hook."
Does the aircraft tire you saw have a hooked bead interface? As a more
common comparison, automobile tires do not.
See example:
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT...t-cross-sectio...
So it is of little surprise that they must have a strong bead
reinforcement and has little to do with whether the manufacturers are
smart or stupid.
But that hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface.
See:
http://bit.ly/nA53me
Belt and/or suspenders, right?
DR
I think that the most powerful rebuttal to your point is that a tire
built without any form of bead reinforcement would be substantially
lighter then a tire built with one and as we all know light is
wonderful in the bicycle world.
Oh? Then let's get right to it. But don't forget that we still need
some way to fully secure the constrain the tire bead radially to the
rim. You have obviously conceived of a way to do that which involves
no weight whatsoever. Please share.
Get right to it? I'm merely responding you your statement "But that
hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface."
I'm not even contesting your remark. I'm only saying that nobody is
building such tires... Even though they would be substantially lighter
and would sell faster then you could get them out of the mold.
I wonder why?
They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be lighter.
A silly proposition.
So you say.... Of course, if you remove some 160 inches of steel cable
it will make things heavier. After all, several folks have "proved"
that it is unnecessary by mounting tires with said cable cut.
Oops, missed this. Do us all a favor and see if you can maintain
consistency in the points you present.
You assumed "removal of bead reinforcement" (with no suggestion of
structure to replace its function) and asserted "lighter" which is not
a reasonable assumption. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't but
your unsupported assumption cannot be allowed to stand.
Now you are also suggesting "cut." Sorry dude, cut is neither
"removed" nor "lighter."
DR
The discussion I read on this site and the JPG that was referenced
showed a tire with the bead cut, in several places. No mention of
additional reinforcement or anything else - other then one of the
participants saying that when the tire pressure got to 100 psi he
decided to split.
Now then - you said "They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be
lighter. A silly proposition." and I replied if you remove the wire it
is going to get lighter, which is a logical deductions given that
steel weighs more then rubber, nylon or other tire materials.
Unless, that is, you are going to blunder off at a tangent and decide
that while they removed the cable they somehow added something else to
reinforce the bead.... like kevlar, carbon fiber, butcher's twine,
etc.
Oh yes, in closing. The entire thrust of this thread has been the
requirement or lack there of in bead reinforcement. Now you seem to be
saying that of course if you remove the wire you need to replace it
with something..... Is that right? Originally you seemed to be saying
that it wasn't needed and now you seem to be saying that if you remove
the steel you need to replace it with something.... If that is your
assertion I agree with you.
Your myopia has you ignoring the very essence of what was being
discussed, especially the "belt and suspenders" part. It was pointed
Nope. what was being discussed was whether the wire/kevlar reinforced
bead was necessary.

You substituted the concept of belt and suspenders in an attempt to
improve your debating position.

How long have you had this paranoia?
No, the "belt and suspenders" was to provide a way of describing that
there are two separate mechanisms at work. And they need not be
mutually exclusive.

out that tire retention can be accomplished without significant tire
bead reinforcement when an appropriate substitute mechanism is in
place. In the cited example the rim included a "hooked" interface.
and, I say again - why hasn't some enterprising tire company made such
a thing. a point that you keep ignoring as you can't seem to refute
it.

And if a wire bead reinforcement is fully sufficient by itself, why
aren't rims, especially those for high pressure tires, made like this
anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bi...agrams_03_.png

But for some reason, you keep referring back to the characteristics of
the tire's inherent bead reinforcement because of your apparent belief
that it can never be eliminated. And you cite un-helpful examples of
wheels (auto, aircraft) that DO require such reinforcement precisely
because they do NOT provide any such substitute mechanism, either in
whole or in part.
The term "substitute mechanism" means changing "belt" to "suspenders,"
not changing the "belt" material from steel to something else.
Again - point to an example. It is one thing to postulate a possible
solution to a problem and usually quite another to actually implement
it.
Sorry, I have been talking over you head. I assumed you could grasp
some basic structural concepts. Silly me.

The hook bead arrangement of a present day bicycle wheel improves the
traditional "wired on" tire by having the rim supply some or most of
the constraint otherwise supplied entirely by the wire in a non-hooked
bead (or auto) wheel arrangement.
Call it constraint by an "external bead reinforcement" if that helps
with the visualization.

Maybe Carl F. can provide a reference, perhaps an old patent showing
an early clincher with the tire clamped in place.
The 1891 Michelin version is described briefly he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_tire

You can spout all the rhetoric you wish, unfortunately it doesn't
prove anything. given that my point is essentially that for whatever
reason nobody is making tires without bead reinforcement. All you need
to "win" is to point out at a bicycle tire which doesn't include a
form of bead reinforcement.

I think maybe Andrew can help you there since you are obviously intent
on denying anything I might suggest.
He provided a nice link to a description of an experiment where the
bead reinforcement was cut and the pressurized tire stayed on the rim,
presumably secured by the hook of the rim.
You seem to have great difficulty conceptualizing how that could be.
Sorry, I can't get past your "It doesn't presently exist as a
commercial product therefore it can neither exist nor function "
blindness.
There is little point in trying, even when discussing concepts.
And you are the one bringing up "winning." I was trying to address
some interesting concepts brought to light by the OP's questions.

DR

I believe a short perusal of tire and rim sections should
make the art clear except for willful disbelief.

One need not even look at ancient rims; a range of 1980s
products clearly shows the difference:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/WEINRIMS.JPG

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:21:40 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:

On Aug 25, 5:51*pm, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:16*am, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:28*pm, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:32 am, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:42 pm, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:02 am, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:37 pm, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six

wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:28 pm, DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 1:18 PM, thirty-six wrote:

The wire stiffens the connection with the rim so that the tyre stays
in place. The wire's strength is of no particular importance, it's
the resistance to bending which is key. ...

I don't know if I believe that.

It would mean that you could take a clincher tire and cut both beads
completely through--and then mount & inflate it and still have it stay
on the rim, with just as much pressure as with the beads uncut.

You would be breaking the beam and so the hold of the tyre is
compromised around the cut. Test it statically. Do not ride it at
speed.

Obviously the beads are placed under great tension in use, since for
~100 years steel was the only material used and in the last several
decades the only other material used has been kevlar (which is also a
high tensile strength material).

The steel wire is used as a beam for the tyre's unfortunate edge. The
tubular tyre does not of course suffer from this liability as the
edges are joined together making the tyre essentially edgeless.

Errr... there is no "beam" involved in tire strength.

The bead reinforcement - i.e., the steel or kevlar cable in this case
- is stressed longitudinally, in reference to the cable, as it is used
to prevent the bead stretching.

Everyone seems to want to fully adopt one side or the other in this
"belt v. suspenders" discussion. There should really no problem
accepting that there are two mechanism that can work and they can (and
undoubtedly do) work together.

With NO "hook" at the bead, the bead reinforcement does have to take
on the full responsibility for constraining the forces of air pressure
(and all others) within the tire.

But add a substantial hook and the job of the bead reinforcement
becomes much easier. With a suitable means of securing the tire edge
to the rim (thinking hypothetically) all the way around, the
longitudinal strength/stretch resistance of the bead reinforcement
becomes less important or even unnecessary.

Kevlar, by the way, is used because it doesn't stretch, not primarily
because it is a high strength material.

And very UN-stretchy carbon is also becoming the material of choice.

DR

The whole discussion seems centered on a bicycle wheel, as though
nothing else used rubber wheel covers :-)

More to the point a day or so ago I walked by a tire and hose dealer
who supplied the aircraft. In his front window he had an aircraft tire
- About 5 ft. in diameter - and beside it a section cut from the tire.
the bead reinforcing cable was slightly over 1 inch in diameter.

I wonder what all of those reinforced tire beads are doing out there
if they aren't required. Must be a lot of really stupid tire makers.

Sounds like you are a "belt" kinda' guy and gotta' have it - with or
without suspenders.
Yes, we were talking about bicycle wheels which, at present, most
commonly have BOTH a tire with your precious bead reinforcement
material AND a rim with a bead engaging "hook."

Does the aircraft tire you saw have a hooked bead interface? As a more
common comparison, automobile tires do not.
See example:
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT...t-cross-sectio...

So it is of little surprise that they must have a strong bead
reinforcement and has little to do with whether the manufacturers are
smart or stupid.

But that hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface.
See:
http://bit.ly/nA53me

Belt and/or suspenders, right?

DR

I think that the most powerful rebuttal to your point is that a tire
built without any form of bead reinforcement would be substantially
lighter then a tire built with one and as we all know light is
wonderful in the bicycle world.

Oh? Then let's get right to it. But don't forget that we still need
some way to fully secure the constrain the tire bead radially to the
rim. You have obviously conceived of a way to do that which involves
no weight whatsoever. Please share.

Get right to it? I'm merely responding you your statement "But that
hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface."

I'm not even contesting your remark. I'm only saying that nobody is
building such tires... Even though they would be substantially lighter
and would sell faster then you could get them out of the mold.

I wonder why?

They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be lighter.
A silly proposition.

So you say.... Of course, if you remove some 160 inches of steel cable
it will make things heavier. After all, several folks have "proved"
that it is unnecessary by mounting tires with said cable cut.

Oops, missed this. Do us all a favor and see if you can maintain
consistency in the points you present.
You assumed "removal of bead reinforcement" (with no suggestion of
structure to replace its function) and asserted "lighter" which is not
a reasonable assumption. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't but
your unsupported assumption cannot be allowed to stand.
Now you are also suggesting "cut." Sorry dude, cut is neither
"removed" nor "lighter."

DR

The discussion I read on this site and the JPG that was referenced
showed a tire with the bead cut, in several places. No mention of
additional reinforcement or anything else - other then one of the
participants saying that when the tire pressure got to 100 psi he
decided to split.

Now then - you said "They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be
lighter. A silly proposition." and I replied if you remove the wire it
is going to get lighter, which is a logical deductions given that
steel weighs more then rubber, nylon or other tire materials.

Unless, that is, you are going to blunder off at a tangent and decide
that while they removed the cable they somehow added something else to
reinforce the bead.... like kevlar, carbon fiber, butcher's twine,
etc.

Oh yes, in closing. The entire thrust of this thread has been the
requirement or lack there of in bead reinforcement. Now you seem to be
saying that of course if you remove the wire you need to replace it
with something..... Is that right? Originally you seemed to be saying
that it wasn't needed and now you seem to be saying that if you remove
the steel you need to replace it with something.... If that is your
assertion I agree with you.

Your myopia has you ignoring the very essence of what was being
discussed, especially the "belt and suspenders" part. It was pointed

Nope. what was being discussed was whether the wire/kevlar reinforced
bead was necessary.

You substituted the concept of belt and suspenders in an attempt to
improve your debating position.

How long have you had this paranoia?
No, the "belt and suspenders" was to provide a way of describing that
there are two separate mechanisms at work. And they need not be
mutually exclusive.

out that tire retention can be accomplished without significant tire
bead reinforcement when an appropriate substitute mechanism is in
place. In the cited example the rim included a "hooked" interface.

and, I say again - why hasn't some enterprising tire company made such
a thing. a point that you keep ignoring as you can't seem to refute
it.

And if a wire bead reinforcement is fully sufficient by itself, why
aren't rims, especially those for high pressure tires, made like this
anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bi...agrams_03_.png

But for some reason, you keep referring back to the characteristics of
the tire's inherent bead reinforcement because of your apparent belief
that it can never be eliminated. And you cite un-helpful examples of
wheels (auto, aircraft) that DO require such reinforcement precisely
because they do NOT provide any such substitute mechanism, either in
whole or in part.
The term "substitute mechanism" means changing "belt" to "suspenders,"
not changing the "belt" material from steel to something else.

Again - point to an example. It is one thing to postulate a possible
solution to a problem and usually quite another to actually implement
it.
Sorry, I have been talking over you head. I assumed you could grasp
some basic structural concepts. Silly me.

The hook bead arrangement of a present day bicycle wheel improves the
traditional "wired on" tire by having the rim supply some or most of
the constraint otherwise supplied entirely by the wire in a non-hooked
bead (or auto) wheel arrangement.

Call it constraint by an "external bead reinforcement" if that helps
with the visualization.

Maybe Carl F. can provide a reference, perhaps an old patent showing
an early clincher with the tire clamped in place.
The 1891 Michelin version is described briefly he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_tire

You can spout all the rhetoric you wish, unfortunately it doesn't
prove anything. given that my point is essentially that for whatever
reason nobody is making tires without bead reinforcement. All you need
to "win" is to point out at a bicycle tire which doesn't include a
form of bead reinforcement.

I think maybe Andrew can help you there since you are obviously intent
on denying anything I might suggest.
He provided a nice link to a description of an experiment where the
bead reinforcement was cut and the pressurized tire stayed on the rim,
presumably secured by the hook of the rim.
You seem to have great difficulty conceptualizing how that could be.
Sorry, I can't get past your "It doesn't presently exist as a
commercial product therefore it can neither exist nor function "
blindness.
There is little point in trying, even when discussing concepts.
And you are the one bringing up "winning." I was trying to address
some interesting concepts brought to light by the OP's questions.

DR

You seem strangely reluctant to answer the question that I have been
posing from the start - why aren't the major tire manufacturers making
tires without the bead reinforcement. You natter on and on about belts
and braces but you (strangely) never quite get around to addressing
the question, in fact you seem reluctant to even address it.

You say you are trying to address concepts. I'm saying that the major
tire manufacturers somehow don't seem to be worrying much about your
concepts. Is this because you know something that none of them have
realized; or is that they know something that you can't comprehend?

As for "winning" I can only assume that somehow you have decided that
this is some kind of contest that a barrage of rhetoric will somehow
"win".

I'll repeat the question one more time - if your assertion that the
reinforced bead is unnecessary is correct why aren't tire
manufacturers making tires without it.




Cheers,

John B.

On Aug 26, 12:05*am, AMuzi wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:51 pm, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:16 am, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:28 pm, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:32 am, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:42 pm, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:02 am, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:37 pm, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:28 pm, DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 1:18 PM, thirty-six wrote:
The wire stiffens the connection with the rim so that the tyre stays
in place. The wire's strength is of no particular importance, it's
the resistance to bending which is key. ...
I don't know if I believe that.
It would mean that you could take a clincher tire and cut both beads
completely through--and then mount & inflate it and still have it stay
on the rim, with just as much pressure as with the beads uncut.
You would be breaking the beam and so the hold of the tyre is
compromised around the cut. Test it statically. Do not ride it at
speed.
Obviously the beads are placed under great tension in use, since for
~100 years steel was the only material used and in the last several
decades the only other material used has been kevlar (which is also a
high tensile strength material).
The steel wire is used as a beam for the tyre's unfortunate edge. The
tubular tyre does not of course suffer from this liability as the
edges are joined together making the tyre essentially edgeless.
Errr... there is no "beam" involved in tire strength.
The bead reinforcement - i.e., the steel or kevlar cable in this case
- is stressed longitudinally, in reference to the cable, as it is used
to prevent the bead stretching.
Everyone seems to want to fully adopt one side or the other in this
"belt v. suspenders" discussion. There should really no problem
accepting that there are two mechanism that can work and they can (and
undoubtedly do) work together.
With NO "hook" at the bead, the bead reinforcement does have to take
on the full responsibility for constraining the forces of air pressure
(and all others) within the tire.
But add a substantial hook and the job of the bead reinforcement
becomes much easier. With a suitable means of securing the tire edge
to the rim (thinking hypothetically) all the way around, the
longitudinal strength/stretch resistance of the bead reinforcement
becomes less important or even unnecessary.
Kevlar, by the way, is used because it doesn't stretch, not primarily
because it is a high strength material.
And very UN-stretchy carbon is also becoming the material of choice.
DR
The whole discussion seems centered on a bicycle wheel, as though
nothing else used rubber wheel covers :-)
More to the point a day or so ago I walked by a tire and hose dealer
who supplied the aircraft. In his front window he had an aircraft tire
- About 5 ft. in diameter - and beside it a section cut from the tire.
the bead reinforcing cable was slightly over 1 inch in diameter.
I wonder what all of those reinforced tire beads are doing out there
if they aren't required. Must be a lot of really stupid tire makers.
Sounds like you are a "belt" kinda' guy and gotta' have it - with or
without suspenders.
Yes, we were talking about bicycle wheels which, at present, most
commonly have BOTH a tire with your precious bead reinforcement
material AND a rim with a bead engaging "hook."
Does the aircraft tire you saw have a hooked bead interface? As a more
common comparison, automobile tires do not.
See example:
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT...t-cross-sectio...
So it is of little surprise that they must have a strong bead
reinforcement and has little to do with whether the manufacturers are
smart or stupid.
But that hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface.
See:
http://bit.ly/nA53me
Belt and/or suspenders, right?
DR
I think that the most powerful rebuttal to your point is that a tire
built without any form of bead reinforcement would be substantially
lighter then a tire built with one and as we all know light is
wonderful in the bicycle world.
Oh? Then let's get right to it. But don't forget that we still need
some way to fully secure the constrain the tire bead radially to the
rim. You have obviously conceived of a way to do that which involves
no weight whatsoever. Please share.
Get right to it? I'm merely responding you your statement "But that
hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e..
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface."
I'm not even contesting your remark. I'm only saying that nobody is
building such tires... Even though they would be substantially lighter
and would sell faster then you could get them out of the mold.
I wonder why?
They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be lighter.
A silly proposition.
So you say.... Of course, if you remove some 160 inches of steel cable
it will make things heavier. After all, several folks have "proved"
that it is unnecessary by mounting tires with said cable cut.
Oops, missed this. Do us all a favor and see if you can maintain
consistency in the points you present.
You assumed "removal of bead reinforcement" (with no suggestion of
structure to replace its function) and asserted "lighter" which is not
a reasonable assumption. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't but
your unsupported assumption cannot be allowed to stand.
Now you are also suggesting "cut." Sorry dude, cut is neither
"removed" nor "lighter."
DR
The discussion I read on this site and the JPG that was referenced
showed a tire with the bead cut, in several places. No mention of
additional reinforcement or anything else - other then one of the
participants saying that when the tire pressure got to 100 psi he
decided to split.
Now then - you said "They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be
lighter. A silly proposition." and I replied if you remove the wire it
is going to get lighter, which is a logical deductions given that
steel weighs more then rubber, nylon or other tire materials.
Unless, that is, you are going to blunder off at a tangent and decide
that while they removed the cable they somehow added something else to
reinforce the bead.... like kevlar, carbon fiber, butcher's twine,
etc.
Oh yes, in closing. The entire thrust of this thread has been the
requirement or lack there of in bead reinforcement. Now you seem to be
saying that of course if you remove the wire you need to replace it
with something..... Is that right? Originally you seemed to be saying
that it wasn't needed and now you seem to be saying that if you remove
the steel you need to replace it with something.... If that is your
assertion I agree with you.
Your myopia has you ignoring the very essence of what was being
discussed, especially the "belt and suspenders" part. It was pointed
Nope. what was being discussed was whether the wire/kevlar reinforced
bead was necessary.

You substituted the concept of belt and suspenders in an attempt to
improve your debating position.

How long have you had this paranoia?
No, the "belt and suspenders" was to provide a way of describing that
there are two separate mechanisms at work. And they need not be
mutually exclusive.

out that tire retention can be accomplished without significant tire
bead reinforcement when an appropriate substitute mechanism is in
place. In the cited example the rim included a "hooked" interface.
and, I say again - why hasn't some enterprising tire company made such
a thing. a point that you keep ignoring as you can't seem to refute
it.

And if a wire bead reinforcement is fully sufficient by itself, why
aren't rims, especially those for *high pressure tires, made like this
anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bi...agrams_03_.png

But for some reason, you keep referring back to the characteristics of
the tire's inherent bead reinforcement because of your apparent belief
that it can never be eliminated. And you cite un-helpful examples of
wheels (auto, aircraft) that DO require such reinforcement precisely
because they do NOT provide any such substitute mechanism, either in
whole or in part.
The term "substitute mechanism" means changing "belt" to "suspenders,"
not changing the "belt" material from steel to something else.
Again - point to an example. It is one thing to postulate a possible
solution to a problem and usually quite another to actually implement
it.
Sorry, I have been talking over you head. I assumed you could grasp
some basic structural concepts. Silly me.

The hook bead arrangement of a present day bicycle wheel improves the
traditional "wired on" tire by having the rim supply some or most of
the constraint otherwise supplied entirely by the wire in a non-hooked
bead (or auto) wheel arrangement.
Call it constraint by an "external bead reinforcement" if that helps
with the visualization.

Maybe *Carl F. can provide a reference, perhaps an old patent showing
an early clincher with the tire clamped in place.
The 1891 Michelin version is described briefly he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_tire

You can spout all the rhetoric you wish, unfortunately it doesn't
prove anything. given that my point is essentially that for whatever
reason nobody is making tires without bead reinforcement. All you need
to "win" is to point out at a bicycle tire which doesn't include a
form of bead reinforcement.

I think maybe Andrew can help you there since you are obviously intent
on denying anything I might suggest.
He provided a nice link to a description of an experiment where the
bead reinforcement was cut and the pressurized tire stayed on the rim,
presumably secured by the hook of the rim.
You seem to have great difficulty conceptualizing how that could be.
Sorry, I can't get past your "It doesn't presently exist as a
commercial product therefore it can neither exist nor function "
blindness.
There is little point in trying, even when discussing concepts.
And you are the one bringing up "winning." I was trying to address
some interesting concepts brought to light by the OP's questions.

DR

I believe a short perusal of tire and rim sections should
make the art clear except for willful disbelief.

One need not even look at ancient rims; a range of 1980s
products clearly shows the difference:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/WEINRIMS.JPG


Thank you. That is instructive. My reason for seeking an "ancient"
example is a matter of curiosity, i.e. my wondering whether the
earliest rim/tire combinations, described as being "clamped on,"
relied upon an "external" form of bead reinforcement rather than the
modern wire/kevlar/carbon bead which is incorporated into the tire.

DR

On Aug 26, 5:42*am, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:21:40 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:51 pm, john B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:59:48 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 25, 5:16 am, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:15:50 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:28 pm, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 24, 5:32 am, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:42 pm, john B. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:32:23 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:02 am, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:55:32 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:37 pm, john B. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:32:01 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six

wrote:
On Aug 22, 9:28 pm, DougC wrote:
On 8/22/2011 1:18 PM, thirty-six wrote:

The wire stiffens the connection with the rim so that the tyre stays
in place. The wire's strength is of no particular importance, it's
the resistance to bending which is key. ...

I don't know if I believe that.

It would mean that you could take a clincher tire and cut both beads
completely through--and then mount & inflate it and still have it stay
on the rim, with just as much pressure as with the beads uncut.

You would be breaking the beam and so the hold of the tyre is
compromised around the cut. Test it statically. Do not ride it at
speed.

Obviously the beads are placed under great tension in use, since for
~100 years steel was the only material used and in the last several
decades the only other material used has been kevlar (which is also a
high tensile strength material).

The steel wire is used as a beam for the tyre's unfortunate edge. The
tubular tyre does not of course suffer from this liability as the
edges are joined together making the tyre essentially edgeless.

Errr... there is no "beam" involved in tire strength..

The bead reinforcement - i.e., the steel or kevlar cable in this case
- is stressed longitudinally, in reference to the cable, as it is used
to prevent the bead stretching.

Everyone seems to want to fully adopt one side or the other in this
"belt v. suspenders" discussion. There should really no problem
accepting that there are two mechanism that can work and they can (and
undoubtedly do) work together.

With NO "hook" at the bead, the bead reinforcement does have to take
on the full responsibility for constraining the forces of air pressure
(and all others) within the tire.

But add a substantial hook and the job of the bead reinforcement
becomes much easier. With a suitable means of securing the tire edge
to the rim (thinking hypothetically) all the way around, the
longitudinal strength/stretch resistance of the bead reinforcement
becomes less important or even unnecessary.

Kevlar, by the way, is used because it doesn't stretch, not primarily
because it is a high strength material.

And very UN-stretchy carbon is also becoming the material of choice.

DR

The whole discussion seems centered on a bicycle wheel, as though
nothing else used rubber wheel covers :-)

More to the point a day or so ago I walked by a tire and hose dealer
who supplied the aircraft. In his front window he had an aircraft tire
- About 5 ft. in diameter - and beside it a section cut from the tire.
the bead reinforcing cable was slightly over 1 inch in diameter.

I wonder what all of those reinforced tire beads are doing out there
if they aren't required. Must be a lot of really stupid tire makers.

Sounds like you are a "belt" kinda' guy and gotta' have it - with or
without suspenders.
Yes, we were talking about bicycle wheels which, at present, most
commonly have BOTH a tire with your precious bead reinforcement
material AND a rim with a bead engaging "hook."

Does the aircraft tire you saw have a hooked bead interface? As a more
common comparison, automobile tires do not.
See example:
http://www.offroaders.com/tech/AT-MT...t-cross-sectio...

So it is of little surprise that they must have a strong bead
reinforcement and has little to do with whether the manufacturers are
smart or stupid.

But that hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface.
See:
http://bit.ly/nA53me

Belt and/or suspenders, right?

DR

I think that the most powerful rebuttal to your point is that a tire
built without any form of bead reinforcement would be substantially
lighter then a tire built with one and as we all know light is
wonderful in the bicycle world.

Oh? Then let's get right to it. But don't forget that we still need
some way to fully secure the constrain the tire bead radially to the
rim. You have obviously conceived of a way to do that which involves
no weight whatsoever. Please share.

Get right to it? I'm merely responding you your statement "But that
hardly establishes that such a bead reinforcement is
absolutely necessary where there IS a sufficient mechanical (i.e.
hooked or even interlocked) bead interface."

I'm not even contesting your remark. I'm only saying that nobody is
building such tires... Even though they would be substantially lighter
and would sell faster then you could get them out of the mold..

I wonder why?

They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be lighter.
A silly proposition.

So you say.... Of course, if you remove some 160 inches of steel cable
it will make things heavier. After all, several folks have "proved"
that it is unnecessary by mounting tires with said cable cut.

Oops, missed this. Do us all a favor and see if you can maintain
consistency in the points you present.
You assumed "removal of bead reinforcement" (with no suggestion of
structure to replace its function) and asserted "lighter" which is not
a reasonable assumption. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't but
your unsupported assumption cannot be allowed to stand.
Now you are also suggesting "cut." Sorry dude, cut is neither
"removed" nor "lighter."

DR

The discussion I read on this site and the JPG that was referenced
showed a tire with the bead cut, in several places. No mention of
additional reinforcement or anything else - other then one of the
participants saying that when the tire pressure got to 100 psi he
decided to split.

Now then - you said "They do not exist yet you KNOW they would be
lighter. A silly proposition." and I replied if you remove the wire it
is going to get lighter, which is a logical deductions given that
steel weighs more then rubber, nylon or other tire materials.

Unless, that is, you are going to blunder off at a tangent and decide
that while they removed the cable they somehow added something else to
reinforce the bead.... like kevlar, carbon fiber, butcher's twine,
etc.

Oh yes, in closing. The entire thrust of this thread has been the
requirement or lack there of in bead reinforcement. Now you seem to be
saying that of course if you remove the wire you need to replace it
with something..... Is that right? Originally you seemed to be saying
that it wasn't needed and now you seem to be saying that if you remove
the steel you need to replace it with something.... If that is your
assertion I agree with you.

Your myopia has you ignoring the very essence of what was being
discussed, especially the "belt and suspenders" part. It was pointed

Nope. what was being discussed was whether the wire/kevlar reinforced
bead was necessary.

You substituted the concept of belt and suspenders in an attempt to
improve your debating position.

How long have you had this paranoia?
No, the "belt and suspenders" was to provide a way of describing that
there are two separate mechanisms at work. And they need not be
mutually exclusive.

out that tire retention can be accomplished without significant tire
bead reinforcement when an appropriate substitute mechanism is in
place. In the cited example the rim included a "hooked" interface.

and, I say again - why hasn't some enterprising tire company made such
a thing. a point that you keep ignoring as you can't seem to refute
it.

And if a wire bead reinforcement is fully sufficient by itself, why
aren't rims, especially those for *high pressure tires, made like this
anymore?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bi...agrams_03_.png

But for some reason, you keep referring back to the characteristics of
the tire's inherent bead reinforcement because of your apparent belief
that it can never be eliminated. And you cite un-helpful examples of
wheels (auto, aircraft) that DO require such reinforcement precisely
because they do NOT provide any such substitute mechanism, either in
whole or in part.
The term "substitute mechanism" means changing "belt" to "suspenders,"
not changing the "belt" material from steel to something else.

Again - point to an example. It is one thing to postulate a possible
solution to a problem and usually quite another to actually implement
it.
Sorry, I have been talking over you head. I assumed you could grasp
some basic structural concepts. Silly me.

The hook bead arrangement of a present day bicycle wheel improves the
traditional "wired on" tire by having the rim supply some or most of
the constraint otherwise supplied entirely by the wire in a non-hooked
bead (or auto) wheel arrangement.

Call it constraint by an "external bead reinforcement" if that helps
with the visualization.

Maybe *Carl F. can provide a reference, perhaps an old patent showing
an early clincher with the tire clamped in place.
The 1891 Michelin version is described briefly he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_tire

You can spout all the rhetoric you wish, unfortunately it doesn't
prove anything. given that my point is essentially that for whatever
reason nobody is making tires without bead reinforcement. All you need
to "win" is to point out at a bicycle tire which doesn't include a
form of bead reinforcement.

I think maybe Andrew can help you there since you are obviously intent
on denying anything I might suggest.
He provided a nice link to a description of an experiment where the
bead reinforcement was cut and the pressurized tire stayed on the rim,
presumably secured by the hook of the rim.
You seem to have great difficulty conceptualizing how that could be.
Sorry, I can't get past your "It doesn't presently exist as a
commercial product therefore it can neither exist nor function "
blindness.
There is little point in trying, even when discussing concepts.
And you are the one bringing up "winning." I was trying to address
some interesting concepts brought to light by the OP's questions.

You seem strangely reluctant to answer the question that I have been
posing from the start - why aren't the major tire manufacturers making
tires without the bead reinforcement. You natter on and on about belts
and braces but you (strangely) never quite get around to addressing
the question, in fact you seem reluctant to even address it.

Only in your close minded view.

You say you are trying to address concepts. I'm saying that the major
tire manufacturers somehow don't seem to be worrying much about your
concepts. Is this because you know something that none of them have
realized; or is that they know something that you can't comprehend?

To the contrary, the present day tire/rim combo that you undoubtedly
use involves precisely the concepts I have discussed, even if
manufacturers have not entirely abandoned the "belt."

As for "winning" I can only assume that somehow you have decided that
this is some kind of contest that a barrage of rhetoric will somehow
"win".

Assume what you want. But let's not confuse your assumptions with
facts. And look up the term "ad hominem."

I'll repeat the question one more time - if your assertion that the
reinforced bead is unnecessary is correct why aren't tire
manufacturers making tires without it.

Repeat your mantra as much as you wish, it certainly saves you the
trouble of actually thinking.
But back at ya' - Speaking both conceptually and pragmatically, if
bead reinforcement is the ONLY necessary tire retaining element, why
are some some some rims "not suitable for Kevlar bead?"
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...t/WEINRIMS.JPG
(Thanks AM)

DR