Heat resistant tubular glue?



Howdy,

I am considering going back to tubulars, but one of the issues that was
most problematic for me using them in the past was the glue melting
during heavy braking. I weigh 95-100 kg so it doesn't take too much
breaking to get generate lots of heat, and the braking forces are high
too, so the tires slide around on the rim a lot. This is not good. I
used 3M Fast Tack for a while but it seemed to kill the base tapes. I
haven't had to use glue for many years now.

So what is the story with tubular glue these days? What suggestions do
folks have for solutions to the melting problem?

Joseph
 
Joseph Santaniello writes:

> I am considering going back to tubulars, but one of the issues that
> was most problematic for me using them in the past was the glue
> melting during heavy braking. I weigh 95-100 kg so it doesn't take
> too much breaking to get generate lots of heat, and the braking
> forces are high too, so the tires slide around on the rim a
> lot. This is not good. I used 3M Fast Tack for a while but it seemed
> to kill the base tapes. I haven't had to use glue for many years
> now.


> So what is the story with tubular glue these days? What suggestions
> do folks have for solutions to the melting problem?


Nothing has changed. All pressure sensitive glues are thermally
affected. If they have low thermal sensitivity they also do not stick
well for mounting a spare tire because they are not sufficiently
pressure sensitive once cured.

Why do you want to go back to the tubular routine?

Jobst Brandt
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Joseph Santaniello writes:
>
> > I am considering going back to tubulars, but one of the issues that
> > was most problematic for me using them in the past was the glue
> > melting during heavy braking. I weigh 95-100 kg so it doesn't take
> > too much breaking to get generate lots of heat, and the braking
> > forces are high too, so the tires slide around on the rim a
> > lot. This is not good. I used 3M Fast Tack for a while but it seemed
> > to kill the base tapes. I haven't had to use glue for many years
> > now.

>
> > So what is the story with tubular glue these days? What suggestions
> > do folks have for solutions to the melting problem?

>
> Nothing has changed. All pressure sensitive glues are thermally
> affected. If they have low thermal sensitivity they also do not stick
> well for mounting a spare tire because they are not sufficiently
> pressure sensitive once cured.
>
> Why do you want to go back to the tubular routine?


One thing is I don't live in an area with big descents, so the melting
issue isn't really that big a problem, unless I take my bike on a
vaction someplace. Then it's a luxury problem!

The real reason is comfort given my weight and the rough roads. I like
low pressure but don't want pinch flats, so I need a large section
clincher tire. I have clearance problems with large section tires, and
there are not many nice tires available in 25 width. Tubulars seem to
me to be able to be run at a lower pressure for a given size without
the pinch flat issue. Thus I get comfort without the clearance problems
and I get a wider range of tires to choose from that are of a suitable
width.

Does that make sense? Do say 22-23 tubulars offer as much "shock
absorbtion" as a 24-25 clincher at approx the same pressure?

Joseph
 
Joseph Santaniello writes:

>>> I am considering going back to tubulars, but one of the issues
>>> that was most problematic for me using them in the past was the
>>> glue melting during heavy braking. I weigh 95-100 kg so it doesn't
>>> take too much breaking to get generate lots of heat, and the
>>> braking forces are high too, so the tires slide around on the rim
>>> a lot. This is not good. I used 3M Fast Tack for a while but it
>>> seemed to kill the base tapes. I haven't had to use glue for many
>>> years now.


>>> So what is the story with tubular glue these days? What
>>> suggestions do folks have for solutions to the melting problem?


>> Nothing has changed. All pressure sensitive glues are thermally
>> affected. If they have low thermal sensitivity they also do not
>> stick well for mounting a spare tire because they are not
>> sufficiently pressure sensitive once cured.


>> Why do you want to go back to the tubular routine?


> One thing is I don't live in an area with big descents, so the
> melting issue isn't really that big a problem, unless I take my bike
> on a vacation someplace. Then it's a luxury problem!


> The real reason is comfort given my weight and the rough roads. I
> like low pressure but don't want pinch flats, so I need a large
> section clincher tire. I have clearance problems with large section
> tires, and there are not many nice tires available in 25 width.
> Tubulars seem to me to be able to be run at a lower pressure for a
> given size without the pinch flat issue. Thus I get comfort without
> the clearance problems and I get a wider range of tires to choose
> from that are of a suitable width.


> Does that make sense? Do say 22-23 tubulars offer as much "shock
> absorption" as a 24-25 clincher at approx the same pressure?


I don't believe so. If your tires are bottoming on roads, then you
are close to damaging rims and getting pinch flats anyway. I think
you need a suspension bicycle if the roads are that bad. Running
small soft tires is not a reasonable solution as I see it. I suspect
you gained some weight since you last rode tubulars. They are not
significantly better at withstanding pinch flats. Besides, you could
do this by getting latex tubes for your clinchers.

Jobst Brandt
 
On 01 Jan 2006 17:15:42 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>... [Tubulars] are not
>significantly better at withstanding pinch flats. Besides, you could
>do this by getting latex tubes for your clinchers.


With perhaps the caveat that they'll need reinflation more often due
to their greater porosity than most butyl tubes. Since running
underinflated contributes to pinch flats, I have always viewed this as
a solution with its own set of problems. (My small experience with
tubulars led me to the conclusion that they were more trouble than
they were worth. I suspect that I am not alone in this conclusion,
and that this is a major reason that the clincher design has come to
dominate the market, since the tubular predates it.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Joseph Santaniello writes:
>
> >>> I am considering going back to tubulars, but one of the issues
> >>> that was most problematic for me using them in the past was the
> >>> glue melting during heavy braking. I weigh 95-100 kg so it doesn't
> >>> take too much breaking to get generate lots of heat, and the
> >>> braking forces are high too, so the tires slide around on the rim
> >>> a lot. This is not good. I used 3M Fast Tack for a while but it
> >>> seemed to kill the base tapes. I haven't had to use glue for many
> >>> years now.

>
> >>> So what is the story with tubular glue these days? What
> >>> suggestions do folks have for solutions to the melting problem?

>
> >> Nothing has changed. All pressure sensitive glues are thermally
> >> affected. If they have low thermal sensitivity they also do not
> >> stick well for mounting a spare tire because they are not
> >> sufficiently pressure sensitive once cured.

>
> >> Why do you want to go back to the tubular routine?

>
> > One thing is I don't live in an area with big descents, so the
> > melting issue isn't really that big a problem, unless I take my bike
> > on a vacation someplace. Then it's a luxury problem!

>
> > The real reason is comfort given my weight and the rough roads. I
> > like low pressure but don't want pinch flats, so I need a large
> > section clincher tire. I have clearance problems with large section
> > tires, and there are not many nice tires available in 25 width.
> > Tubulars seem to me to be able to be run at a lower pressure for a
> > given size without the pinch flat issue. Thus I get comfort without
> > the clearance problems and I get a wider range of tires to choose
> > from that are of a suitable width.

>
> > Does that make sense? Do say 22-23 tubulars offer as much "shock
> > absorption" as a 24-25 clincher at approx the same pressure?

>
> I don't believe so. If your tires are bottoming on roads, then you
> are close to damaging rims and getting pinch flats anyway. I think
> you need a suspension bicycle if the roads are that bad. Running
> small soft tires is not a reasonable solution as I see it. I suspect
> you gained some weight since you last rode tubulars. They are not
> significantly better at withstanding pinch flats. Besides, you could
> do this by getting latex tubes for your clinchers.
>
> Jobst Brandt


At present I do weigh about 5kg more than when I used tubulars. I don't
run tires with so low that I get pinch flats (knock on wood, I haven't
had a flat in the last 6,000 km!) but occasionaly I hit a pebble or
something that bottoms out the tire, particularly if I am using
anything narrower than ACTUAL 23mm. But to smooth out road vibration, I
like a lower pressure, which means I need a larger casing, so I don't
actually bottom out ove rcracks, etc.

It is hardly a scientific survey, but I just measured the width and
unloaded distance from rim to outside of the tire on 3 clincher
wheelsets, and one tubular. One clincher set was 22mm wide with a
"depth" of 20mm, another 23mm wide 21mm deep, and another 24mm wide and
22mm deep, while the tubulars were 22mm wide and 21mm deep. So it seems
the 22mm tubulars have at least as much vertical travel as a 24mm
clincher. There are of course all sorts of other things involved, too,
but a few mm may be all that is needed to not bottom out. And it could
be a case of glue build-up giving a false measurment, or who knows.

I am by no means convinced that tubulars will be suitable for me, but
these are the things I am taking into consideration.

Joseph
 
Joseph Santaniello writes:

> At present I do weigh about 5kg more than when I used tubulars. I
> don't run tires with so low that I get pinch flats (knock on wood, I
> haven't had a flat in the last 6,000 km!) but occasionally I hit a
> pebble or something that bottoms out the tire, particularly if I am
> using anything narrower than ACTUAL 23mm. But to smooth out road
> vibration, I like a lower pressure, which means I need a larger
> casing, so I don't actually bottom out over cracks, etc.


The way to measure a tire cross section is to measure its width since
bicycle tires are not belted radials and their casings have a true
circular cross section. Measuring height may have something to do
with compressive travel, it is not the way tire size is measured, that
being to difficult to determine unless you measure rim height off the
ground before and after inflation.

> It is hardly a scientific survey, but I just measured the width and
> unloaded distance from rim to outside of the tire on 3 sets of
> clincher wheels, and one tubular. One was 22mm wide with a "depth"
> of 20mm, another 23mm wide 21mm deep, and another 24mm wide and 22mm
> deep, while the tubulars were 22mm wide and 21mm deep. So it seems
> the 22mm tubulars have at least as much vertical travel as a 24mm
> clincher. There are of course all sorts of other things involved,
> too, but a few mm may be all that is needed to not bottom out. And
> it could be a case of glue build-up giving a false measurement, or
> who knows.


The difference you ar eseeing is probably tube+casing+tread thickness.

> I am by no means convinced that tubulars will be suitable for me, but
> these are the things I am taking into consideration.


I think the comment that tubulars are more trouble than they are worth
is appropriate. That is why they are hardly used these days although
they were the only tires before about the 1980's.

Jobst Brandt
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Joseph Santaniello writes:


> > I am by no means convinced that tubulars will be suitable for me, but
> > these are the things I am taking into consideration.

>
> I think the comment that tubulars are more trouble than they are worth
> is appropriate. That is why they are hardly used these days although
> they were the only tires before about the 1980's.
>
> Jobst Brandt


That comment will get the usual responses from others here, so here's
mine: the first really fine bicycle I purchased was in 1980. New
beaded tires were being introduced, and the claim was that they were
just as good as tubulars. I got tubulars. That's what all the good
bikes had, right? They were fine, and I didn't seem to get all that
many flats (still don't). But even infrequent flats are a nuisance that
is easier to deal with on a tire that isn't glued on.

These days all my bikes except one wear clinchers. I do like the feel
of the tubies, but the difference is so small and difficult to describe
or measure that I'm just not willing to tolerate the disadvantages.

Sheldon Brown sums it up well on http://sheldonbrown.com/tires.html :

"Tubulars are considerably more expensive than clinchers of comparable
performance.

Tubulars are very much harder to repair once punctured. Most people
just throw them away.

You need to carry a complete spare tubular in case you get a flat.
This negates the weight advantage over clinchers, unless you have a team
car following you with spare wheels.

If you replace a tubular on the road, you cannot corner safely at high
speeds until you go home and re-glue the tire. For safe high-speed
cornering, the glue needs to dry for at least several hours.

Tubulars have higher rolling resistance than the best clinchers.

Tubulars are rarely as true and round as clinchers.

Improperly glued tubulars can roll off the rim. This almost always
causes a serious crash."

--
Ted Bennett
 
Try the Panaracer Roll-y Pol-y 700x28 (a real 27mm on my rims). It is fairly
light, will just fit most racing frames (it fits with minimal clearances in
both the Klein and Litespeed road bikes that I have), and you could probably
run it at 85-90 psi and not pinch flat.

I've actually raced on the Roly Poly a couple of times, out of curiousity.
Couldn't really detect any difference in my performance vs other riders
compared to the Conti GP3000 that I normally used...

Nick

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The real reason is comfort given my weight and the rough roads. I like
> low pressure but don't want pinch flats, so I need a large section
> clincher tire. I have clearance problems with large section tires, and
> there are not many nice tires available in 25 width. Tubulars seem to
> me to be able to be run at a lower pressure for a given size without
> the pinch flat issue. Thus I get comfort without the clearance problems
> and I get a wider range of tires to choose from that are of a suitable
> width.
>
> Does that make sense? Do say 22-23 tubulars offer as much "shock
> absorbtion" as a 24-25 clincher at approx the same pressure?
 
Nick Payne wrote:
> Try the Panaracer Roll-y Pol-y 700x28 (a real 27mm on my rims). It is fairly
> light, will just fit most racing frames (it fits with minimal clearances in
> both the Klein and Litespeed road bikes that I have), and you could probably
> run it at 85-90 psi and not pinch flat.
>
> I've actually raced on the Roly Poly a couple of times, out of curiousity.
> Couldn't really detect any difference in my performance vs other riders
> compared to the Conti GP3000 that I normally used...
>
> Nick


I have used Michelin Pro Race2 700x25 (actual 27-28 on my rims) and
they have been my favorite tire. They have a few mm of clearance, but
when I ride, the wheels flex enough that they rub. Both side to side
when I stand, and up and down when I go over a bump, or more often when
I ride through a small dip.

I haven't found a nice true 25 yet.

Joseph


> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The real reason is comfort given my weight and the rough roads. I like
> > low pressure but don't want pinch flats, so I need a large section
> > clincher tire. I have clearance problems with large section tires, and
> > there are not many nice tires available in 25 width. Tubulars seem to
> > me to be able to be run at a lower pressure for a given size without
> > the pinch flat issue. Thus I get comfort without the clearance problems
> > and I get a wider range of tires to choose from that are of a suitable
> > width.
> >
> > Does that make sense? Do say 22-23 tubulars offer as much "shock
> > absorbtion" as a 24-25 clincher at approx the same pressure?
 
Ted Bennett wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Joseph Santaniello writes:

>
> > > I am by no means convinced that tubulars will be suitable for me, but
> > > these are the things I am taking into consideration.

> >
> > I think the comment that tubulars are more trouble than they are worth
> > is appropriate. That is why they are hardly used these days although
> > they were the only tires before about the 1980's.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt

>
> That comment will get the usual responses from others here, so here's
> mine: the first really fine bicycle I purchased was in 1980. New
> beaded tires were being introduced, and the claim was that they were
> just as good as tubulars. I got tubulars. That's what all the good
> bikes had, right? They were fine, and I didn't seem to get all that
> many flats (still don't). But even infrequent flats are a nuisance that
> is easier to deal with on a tire that isn't glued on.
>
> These days all my bikes except one wear clinchers. I do like the feel
> of the tubies, but the difference is so small and difficult to describe
> or measure that I'm just not willing to tolerate the disadvantages.


Due to my weight, I think I am more in tune to rolling resistance than
lighter riders, as rolling resistance is a larger percentage of my
total resistance. In other words, heavy riders notice a greater benefit
from better tires. It may be some sort of related yet non-quantifiable
reason that tubulars feel better, and perhaps this feel is more
pronounced for heavier riders.

But the disadvantages are real, so the point is still valid. Is it
worth it? I haven't had a flat (on my current clinchers) for several
thousand km, so I may in my mind underestimate the potential
aggravation from flatted tubulars. Patching them isn't a problem, I
kind of enjoy doing that. But the whole temporary nature of a replaced
tire on the road is a drag.

Joseph


> Sheldon Brown sums it up well on http://sheldonbrown.com/tires.html :
>
> "Tubulars are considerably more expensive than clinchers of comparable
> performance.
>
> Tubulars are very much harder to repair once punctured. Most people
> just throw them away.
>
> You need to carry a complete spare tubular in case you get a flat.
> This negates the weight advantage over clinchers, unless you have a team
> car following you with spare wheels.
>
> If you replace a tubular on the road, you cannot corner safely at high
> speeds until you go home and re-glue the tire. For safe high-speed
> cornering, the glue needs to dry for at least several hours.
>
> Tubulars have higher rolling resistance than the best clinchers.
>
> Tubulars are rarely as true and round as clinchers.
>
> Improperly glued tubulars can roll off the rim. This almost always
> causes a serious crash."
>
> --
> Ted Bennett
 
On 2 Jan 2006 02:38:39 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

> Due to my weight, I think I am more in tune to rolling resistance than
> lighter riders, as rolling resistance is a larger percentage of my
> total resistance.


I suspect that your greater frontal area, and hence wind resistance
at a given speed, is much more significant in most conditions if the
tyres are properly inflated.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I am considering going back to tubulars, but one of the issues that was
> most problematic for me using them in the past was the glue melting
> during heavy braking. I weigh 95-100 kg so it doesn't take too much
> breaking to get generate lots of heat, and the braking forces are high
> too, so the tires slide around on the rim a lot. This is not good. I
> used 3M Fast Tack for a while but it seemed to kill the base tapes. I
> haven't had to use glue for many years now.
>
> So what is the story with tubular glue these days? What suggestions do
> folks have for solutions to the melting problem?
>
> Joseph


I have ridden tubies for 2 decades and granted, I have not ridden in
the Alps but I haven't had the problem of overheated rims causing
tubies to creep either, under braking. Colorado isn't flat, I go up and
down hills so unless you have the problems others have had, like in the
Alps, Vittoria or Conti glue, a solvent brush and a few minutes.
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
> I don't believe so. If your tires are bottoming on roads, then you
> are close to damaging rims and getting pinch flats anyway. I think
> you need a suspension bicycle if the roads are that bad. Running
> small soft tires is not a reasonable solution as I see it. I suspect
> you gained some weight since you last rode tubulars.


Hmmm. I am 200 pounds...have NEVER had a pinch flat on tubies, I use
95psi...

Don't ask Jobst for any advise about tubulars. He hates them and those
that use them. He hasn't seen or used a tubular for as long as I have
been using them. His knowledge is not current, on these and other
subjects.

They are not
> significantly better at withstanding pinch flats. Besides, you could
> do this by getting latex tubes for your clinchers.
>
> Jobst Brandt
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
> I think the comment that tubulars are more trouble than they are worth
> is appropriate. That is why they are hardly used these days although
> they were the only tires before about the 1980's.
>
> Jobst Brandt


Appropriate for you, too much trouble for you. Let the guy make up his
own mind, as to 'trouble' or 'mess' or any other 'lore'.
 
Ted Bennett wrote:

I like Sheldon and appreciate his inputs and knowledge but like Jobst,
he does not now nor has used tubulars for a long time. Does not sell
them in the store he calls home so-

>
> Sheldon Brown sums it up well on http://sheldonbrown.com/tires.html :
>
> "Tubulars are considerably more expensive than clinchers of comparable
> performance.


Not true. Continental Sprinters and Vittoria CX are very comparible to
GP3000/4000 in constuction methods and are comparible in price. Same
for lower end tubies and clinchers.
>
> Tubulars are very much harder to repair once punctured. Most people
> just throw them away.


"Harder' to repair than clinchers no doubt but not hard to do at all.
>
> You need to carry a complete spare tubular in case you get a flat.
> This negates the weight advantage over clinchers, unless you have a team
> car following you with spare wheels.


Unlerss you also as a clincher rider, carry a foldable tire, which many
do, in case of a cut sidewall. Most tubie users, like me, use them NOT
for the 'weight' savings anyway.
>
> If you replace a tubular on the road, you cannot corner safely at high
> speeds until you go home and re-glue the tire. For safe high-speed
> cornering, the glue needs to dry for at least several hours.


True, but often I have gone home after one of my infrequent flats and
found that after checking the tire, at 95psi, I didn't need to reglue
it.
>
> Tubulars have higher rolling resistance than the best clinchers.
>


True...but in the grand scheme of things, the differences are teeny,
tiny and the 'advantages' of tubies, like the 95psi, supple feel far
outweigh any rolling resistence advantages for the majority of us
cyclists that just ride...

> Tubulars are rarely as true and round as clinchers.


Not true. The ones I use, even the low prices ones from Clement are
very round and true. Lots of low end Vittorias are not true at all, the
clinchers.

>
> Improperly glued tubulars can roll off the rim. This almost always
> causes a serious crash."


Flated clinchers, when decending and turning..will also cause the tire
to come off, resulting in the same type crash. I haven't had one of the
trubulars I have gluded roll in the 20 years I have been doing it. For
customers or myself.

So, let the gent decide for himself...the great tire debate continues
un abated...
>
> --
> Ted Bennet
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Ted Bennett wrote:
> > Sheldon Brown sums it up well on http://sheldonbrown.com/tires.html :
> >
> > Tubulars are very much harder to repair once punctured. Most people
> > just throw them away.

>
> "Harder' to repair than clinchers no doubt but not hard to do at all.


Easier on the road where you quickly replace the tire; fixing the tire
can be very easy with Tufo sealant which will repair many flats without
even opening the casing.

> > If you replace a tubular on the road, you cannot corner safely at high
> > speeds until you go home and re-glue the tire. For safe high-speed
> > cornering, the glue needs to dry for at least several hours.

>
> True, but often I have gone home after one of my infrequent flats and
> found that after checking the tire, at 95psi, I didn't need to reglue
> it.


Who corners at 10/10ths all the time, anyway? If you do that *every*
time you go around a curve you are going to be doing a lot of crashing
because of occasional sand or whatever. For the speeds that rational
people do outside of racing or descending, a tubular after a tire
change will be plenty safe. If you have to ride down a mountain, slow
down a little.

> > Tubulars have higher rolling resistance than the best clinchers.

>
> True...but in the grand scheme of things, the differences are teeny,
> tiny and the 'advantages' of tubies, like the 95psi, supple feel far
> outweigh any rolling resistence advantages for the majority of us
> cyclists that just ride...


I still don't think this has been proven, only that many tubulars have
higher RR than the best clinchers.

> > Improperly glued tubulars can roll off the rim. This almost always
> > causes a serious crash."

>
> Flated clinchers, when decending and turning..will also cause the tire
> to come off, resulting in the same type crash. I haven't had one of the
> trubulars I have gluded roll in the 20 years I have been doing it. For
> customers or myself.


Me either. You have to do an unbelievably crappy glue job to get a tire
to roll off.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I am considering going back to tubulars, but one of the issues that was
> most problematic for me using them in the past was the glue melting
> during heavy braking. I weigh 95-100 kg so it doesn't take too much
> breaking to get generate lots of heat, and the braking forces are high
> too, so the tires slide around on the rim a lot. This is not good. I
> used 3M Fast Tack for a while but it seemed to kill the base tapes. I
> haven't had to use glue for many years now.


3M is not a good choice for tubular glue. Despite Brandt's claims to
the contrary, glue *does* make a difference in heat resistance, and
unlike Brandt, I can point you to hard evidence to support my
statement:

http://www.engr.ku.edu/~kuktl/bicycle/Part6.pdf

At 60oC Vittoria MastikOne has more bond strength than 3M at a normal
operating temperature of half that. Also, the Vittoria glue reaches a
bond strength in one hour that is approximately the same as 3M after 50
hours:

http://www.engr.ku.edu/~kuktl/bicycle/Part5.pdf

Can temps get higher than 60oC in descents? Maybe. Can even Vittoria
get hot enough in a descent to get it squirmy? Maybe. But the *facts*
show that there is an important difference in heat resistance among
tubular glues, and that at temperatures at which all other glues weaken
significantly, Vittoria MastikOne stays stronger than most of the
others were in the first place.

I have no stake in Vittoria, BTW, but this is the definitive answer
based on the body of research that exists at present.
 
I like running sprnts and tubs even though mending a puncture in a tub is a
pain. I don't get many punctures because I fitt Flint catchers. I glue them
with double sided tape and have never had a problem. I carry two spare tubs
and one roll of double sided tape which does two tubs.

PK
 
[email protected] aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> ...
> I think the comment that tubulars are more trouble than they are worth
> is appropriate. That is why they are hardly used these days although
> they were the only tires before about the 1980's.


But clincher tire users miss out on inhaling glue fumes when mounting
tires. Maybe this explains why some like tubular tires so much. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley