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

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.

If we eliminate a belt by substituting suspenders, we lose the weight
of the belt. But that does not insure that the suspenders system is
overall, lighter. We have, after all, added suspenders.


No, it is alleged that neither the belt nor the suspenders are
required 'cause they cut the belt in a suspender-less tire and
inflating it. Guy said so right here.

Since we are talking about tires I will note that the same error in
logic is presently made with regard to tubeless bicycle tires.
"Common knowledge" often suggests that a tubeless system is inherently
lighter since it eliminates the weight of a tube. However this
conveniently ignores that system weight is also typically added in the
form of extra material in the tire, a heavier rim strip and/or added
liquid sealant.

DR


Ah Ha... remove the steel wire and replace it with something else.....
But I read right here that by cutting the bead and inflating a tire it
was proved that the bead don't do nuttin. Now you are saying it
does??????

As I said, WHY are those idiots that make their living building tires
using this archaic (and heavy) system - must be pretty dumb.

Cheers,

John B.

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.

If we eliminate a belt by substituting suspenders, we lose the weight
of the belt. But that does not insure that the suspenders system is
overall, lighter. *We have, after all, added suspenders.

No, it is alleged that neither the belt nor the suspenders are
required 'cause they cut the belt in a suspender-less tire and
inflating it. Guy said so right here.

Interesting interpretation. You are struggling to justify your
nonsensical position. "They" cut the tire bead ("belt") on a rim
with a hooked bead ("suspenders")
I have no idea how you reached your conclusion.

Since we are talking about tires I will note that the same error in
logic is presently made *with regard to tubeless *bicycle tires.
"Common knowledge" often suggests that a tubeless system is inherently
lighter since it eliminates the weight of a tube. However this
conveniently ignores that system weight is also typically added in the
form of extra material in the tire, a heavier rim strip and/or added
liquid sealant.

Ah Ha... remove the steel wire and replace it with something else.....
But I read right here that by cutting the bead and inflating a tire it
was proved that the bead don't do nuttin. Now you are saying it
does??????

Again, your interpretation. I have never suggested that, under all
circumstances. the tire bead reinforcement does nothing Quite the
contrary. Indeed, if the tire bead is the "belt" and there are no
"suspenders," it is critical. Example: automotive tubeless tire.
But if there are "suspenders" (hooked rim) it is not so critical.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth based upon what you wish I
had said. Now if you are merely criticizing words used by someone else
in the cut bead experiment I may tend to agree with you. This is not a
black'white - either/or situtation.

As I said, WHY are those idiots that make their living building tires
using this archaic (and heavy) system - must be pretty dumb.

Could be. Seems to more or less work. That does not exclude other
possibilities, maybe even improvements.
In fact, I have read that while tubeless "conversions" (making a non-
tubeless rim and tire into a tubeless setup) are common (or "trendy")
for MTB use, the same is not recommended for road tires because of the
high probability of the tire blowing off if the rim/tire combo is not
designed for tubeless use. And "designed for tubeless use" seems to
involves changes in both the rim/tire interface AND the tire bead
itself (that's where carbon seems to be appearing).

Geeze, you aren't one of those "It's alway been like this so it can't
be improved" idiots, are you? And, please, don't provide examples of
things that have been tried which did not work. There are plenty. They
merely provide support for not being an early adopter. If you want to
avoid thinking about changes/improvements you can go back to your
"ordinary." For that matter you can go back to whatever there was
before someone came up with what we now know as a "wheel."

DR

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...).

On Aug 24, 6:53*pm, 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...).

OK, at the risk of opening a huge can of worms....
Are you (we) only considering some sort of metallic bead
reinforcement?
As opposed to the well known exotic synthetics used for the purpose.
Just asking.
I think you described your project at some point but I do not recall
details.
You have both my respect and disdain (if you know what I mean).
DR

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

-snip tire bead-

DirtRoadie wrote:
You have both my respect and disdain (if you know what I mean).

Now that's creative writing!

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

On Aug 24, 9:15*pm, AMuzi wrote:
-snip tire bead-

DirtRoadie wrote:
You have both my respect and *disdain (if you know what I mean).

Now that's creative writing!

Lemme 'splain.

Respect:
It's interesting that someone would take the time necessary to learn
how to accomplish all the details required to assemble a bicycle tire
starting tire from scratch.

Disdain:
Why would anyone waste the time trying to reproduce from scratch an
item that is readily available commercially?

DR

On 8/24/2011 11:24 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 24, 9:15 pm, wrote:
-snip tire bead-

DirtRoadie wrote:
You have both my respect and disdain (if you know what I mean).

Now that's creative writing!

Lemme 'splain.

Respect:
It's interesting that someone would take the time necessary to learn
how to accomplish all the details required to assemble a bicycle tire
starting tire from scratch.

Disdain:
Why would anyone waste the time trying to reproduce from scratch an
item that is readily available commercially?

DR

The big factories are limited in what they can offer, by what is
possible on the mass-production equipment they have.

I want tires that the big factories don't make.
And I'm betting that lots of other people do, too.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:50:19 -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.

If we eliminate a belt by substituting suspenders, we lose the weight
of the belt. But that does not insure that the suspenders system is
overall, lighter. *We have, after all, added suspenders.

No, it is alleged that neither the belt nor the suspenders are
required 'cause they cut the belt in a suspender-less tire and
inflating it. Guy said so right here.

Interesting interpretation. You are struggling to justify your
nonsensical position. "They" cut the tire bead ("belt") on a rim
with a hooked bead ("suspenders")
I have no idea how you reached your conclusion.

Since we are talking about tires I will note that the same error in
logic is presently made *with regard to tubeless *bicycle tires.
"Common knowledge" often suggests that a tubeless system is inherently
lighter since it eliminates the weight of a tube. However this
conveniently ignores that system weight is also typically added in the
form of extra material in the tire, a heavier rim strip and/or added
liquid sealant.

Ah Ha... remove the steel wire and replace it with something else.....
But I read right here that by cutting the bead and inflating a tire it
was proved that the bead don't do nuttin. Now you are saying it
does??????

Again, your interpretation. I have never suggested that, under all
circumstances. the tire bead reinforcement does nothing Quite the
contrary. Indeed, if the tire bead is the "belt" and there are no
"suspenders," it is critical. Example: automotive tubeless tire.
But if there are "suspenders" (hooked rim) it is not so critical.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth based upon what you wish I
had said. Now if you are merely criticizing words used by someone else
in the cut bead experiment I may tend to agree with you. This is not a
black'white - either/or situtation.

As I said, WHY are those idiots that make their living building tires
using this archaic (and heavy) system - must be pretty dumb.

Could be. Seems to more or less work. That does not exclude other
possibilities, maybe even improvements.
In fact, I have read that while tubeless "conversions" (making a non-
tubeless rim and tire into a tubeless setup) are common (or "trendy")
for MTB use, the same is not recommended for road tires because of the
high probability of the tire blowing off if the rim/tire combo is not
designed for tubeless use. And "designed for tubeless use" seems to
involves changes in both the rim/tire interface AND the tire bead
itself (that's where carbon seems to be appearing).

Geeze, you aren't one of those "It's alway been like this so it can't
be improved" idiots, are you? And, please, don't provide examples of
things that have been tried which did not work. There are plenty. They
merely provide support for not being an early adopter. If you want to
avoid thinking about changes/improvements you can go back to your
"ordinary." For that matter you can go back to whatever there was
before someone came up with what we now know as a "wheel."

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.

Cheers,

John B.

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.

Cheers,

John B.