Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 10:24 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> > advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will establish
> > the relative importance of these variables.
>
> The relative importance is the key issue. Is a .001 or .003 difference
> in Crr worth worrying about? I would very much tend to doubt it.

Me, too. However, we don't have any idea what the difference really
is, or if we do, the evidence suggests that it is much more than that.
Jobst's own research suggests that the difference between track and
the road glues of that error was such that it made the difference
between clincher and tubular = zero. The effect of tread patterns on
tire rr is well documented and significant; wouldn't you expect voids
in glue to cause a similar effect? It was also clear that the effect
of a smooth drum compared to a more representative road surface was
quite significant in increasing the variance among car tires.

> > Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are many
> > here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that the pros
> > with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing to do
> > anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and who
> > generally have instantly available mechanical support, are going to
> > give up the watts that these tests suggest they are giving up when
> > they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to make claims about
> > why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we really don't know what
> > testing they have done and why they generally still continue to
> > choose tubulars.
>
> Or if they've (the teams) done any testing. Pro cycling is the original
> home of myth and lore in our sport. Some of it has panned out (for
> example, lower rolling resistance with hard track glues compared to soft
> road glues was one bit of myth and lore that appears to have been
> correct) and some of it has not.

So they test everything else, but for some reason they don't test
tires' rr? All the time in wind tunnels, just to give it back by dumb
tire selection, with millions of dollars at stake. That's also a
pretty implausible hypothesis to me.

 

[RonSonic]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:15:03 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:


>>
>> What's the problem with making money. I suppose all you "insiders"
>> don't make money because it's beneath you?
>
>Money's a handy thing. The greed of Gates and his ilk surpasses any in
>history, however.

Oh ********. Gates is a greedy *****, no doubt, but can hardly hold a candle to
any of the tens of thousands of thugs, warlords, chieftans, monopolists and
Royal-Where-ever Mercantilist Trading companies that pollute world history.

>Excessive power and wealth concentrated in the hands
>of a few is the most pernicious threat to democracy that can be found in
>a capitalist society.

It's a threat, but my personal favorite for "most pernicious" would be inertia,
the sense that one need not do more than surf the trend and infrastructure to
continue reaping the fruit of previous sacrifice and planning and work.

Ron

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Aug 2, 10:24 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > The bottomline is that to establish whether clinchers hold a real
> > > advantage over tubulars, testing needs to be done that will
> > > establish the relative importance of these variables.
> >
> > The relative importance is the key issue. Is a .001 or .003
> > difference in Crr worth worrying about? I would very much tend to
> > doubt it.
>
> Me, too. However, we don't have any idea what the difference really
> is, or if we do, the evidence suggests that it is much more than
> that. Jobst's own research suggests that the difference between track
> and the road glues of that error was such that it made the difference
> between clincher and tubular = zero. The effect of tread patterns on
> tire rr is well documented and significant; wouldn't you expect voids
> in glue to cause a similar effect?

No. Well, I wouldn't automatically expect that voids in the glue would
have a similar effect to the effects of tread patterns in terms of
magnitude. It seems to me that the mechanism of energy loss would be
quite different. However I could be all wet on this and it wouldn't be
the first time.

> It was also clear that the effect of a smooth drum compared to a more
> representative road surface was quite significant in increasing the
> variance among car tires.
>
> > > Looking a the practical side of the debate, although there are
> > > many here who gobble up this test data, I am not convinced that
> > > the pros with their multi-million dollar budgets, who are willing
> > > to do anything for an equipment or physiological advantage, and
> > > who generally have instantly available mechanical support, are
> > > going to give up the watts that these tests suggest they are
> > > giving up when they choose clinchers over tubulars. It's easy to
> > > make claims about why pros use tubulars, but the fact is that we
> > > really don't know what testing they have done and why they
> > > generally still continue to choose tubulars.
> >
> > Or if they've (the teams) done any testing. Pro cycling is the
> > original home of myth and lore in our sport. Some of it has panned
> > out (for example, lower rolling resistance with hard track glues
> > compared to soft road glues was one bit of myth and lore that
> > appears to have been correct) and some of it has not.
>
> So they test everything else, but for some reason they don't test
> tires' rr? All the time in wind tunnels, just to give it back by dumb
> tire selection, with millions of dollars at stake. That's also a
> pretty implausible hypothesis to me.

Well, just going on the reportage. I've read about pro teams doing wind
tunnel testing. I've never read about pro teams doing rolling
resistance testing. Plus, the differences between similar tires are
pretty small but the differences between TT positions is fairly large.
They may just choose to put their resources where they'll get the best
paybacks for their investment: doping and aerodynamics.

I am always reminded of the Miguel Indurain story. Apparently he was
actually more aero in the drops on his road bike than on his TT bike. So
they trundle him off to the wind tunnel, rearrange his position and find
they can take lots of time off a long TT. He says, "that's very nice.
But I couldn't actually pedal the bike in that position."

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:15:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> What's the problem with making money. I suppose all you "insiders"
> >> don't make money because it's beneath you?
> >
> >Money's a handy thing. The greed of Gates and his ilk surpasses any
> >in history, however.
>
> Oh ********. Gates is a greedy *****, no doubt, but can hardly hold a
> candle to any of the tens of thousands of thugs, warlords, chieftans,
> monopolists and Royal-Where-ever Mercantilist Trading companies that
> pollute world history.

Gates's methods are less directly brutal and there is not a trail of
blood leading to his door, but a comparison of accumulated wealth
answers the question as to the extent of greed. Whose wealth has
surpassed Gates's?

According to Forbes Magazine, in 2007 there are 946 billionaires on the
planet. Together they own more wealth than something like half of the
people on the planet- $3.5 trillion dollars, which was up from 2006 by
$900 billion or a 25.7% increase. The rich and greedy continue to do
exceptionally well and the gap between them and everyone else broadens
geometrically.

> >Excessive power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few is the
> >most pernicious threat to democracy that can be found in a
> >capitalist society.
>
> It's a threat, but my personal favorite for "most pernicious" would
> be inertia, the sense that one need not do more than surf the trend
> and infrastructure to continue reaping the fruit of previous
> sacrifice and planning and work.

Ah. Wall Street, in other words.

 

[still me]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:38:12 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> It's a threat, but my personal favorite for "most pernicious" would
>> be inertia, the sense that one need not do more than surf the trend
>> and infrastructure to continue reaping the fruit of previous
>> sacrifice and planning and work.
>
>Ah. Wall Street, in other words.

I think he's suggesting that us lower class folks are not contributing
our share whilst the true upper class has the vision an insight to
plan for the future, but I'm not sure.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.

There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.


>In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
>issue in the tests.

There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
another.

> Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is
>a major point: Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild
>advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
>great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage.

There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only ones
>who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell us that we
>don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy brings up some
>stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW here). Criticizing
>research does not in any way require that you do research or cite
>other research that addresses the criticisms that you are making. The
>criticisms stand on their own.

The research is firm, the speculation you made is not. If you want to
stick with the speculation, go ahead. In all probablility, you're
wrong. Not certainly wrong, but almost certainly wrong.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[A Muzi]

>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> ... Money's a handy thing. The greed of Gates and his ilk
>>> surpasses any in history, however. Excessive power and wealth
>>> concentrated in the hands of a few is the most pernicious threat to
>>> democracy that can be found in a capitalist society.

> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It has yet to be proven that democracy and capitalism can co-exist.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> It currently co-exists in many nations. There tends to be some inherent
> tension in the relationship.

> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Capitalism has just been the latest tool for the class that can only
>> find true gratification in the domination of others.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Capitalism is a pretty broad spectrum. There are certainly those
> individuals who use capitalism as the method of achieving power and
> domination, but there are many more who do not.
>
> One example that pops into mind is having been to The Yellow Jersey a
> couple of times when I have been passing through Madison, and I didn't
> get any sense of Andrew Muzi getting gratification from dominating
> others. My impression from Andrew's posts is that he is generally
> supportive of capitalism.

Woo hoo!
Freedom is always the best answer!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[still me]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:01:27 -0400, RonSonic
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Excessive power and wealth concentrated in the hands
>>of a few is the most pernicious threat to democracy that can be found in
>>a capitalist society.
>
>It's a threat, but my personal favorite for "most pernicious" would be inertia,
>the sense that one need not do more than surf the trend and infrastructure to
>continue reaping the fruit of previous sacrifice and planning and work.

I think the current trend towards Fascism is a bigger threat.
Certainly the perversion of politics for business is as old as
politics itself, but the current levels of political corruption and
it's infiltration into all three branches of the government exceeds
anything this country has seen before.

Accumulation of wealth would not lead to power if there was no
government for sale to the highest bidder in every election and in
every statehouse, Congress, and White House.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> ... Money's a handy thing. The greed of Gates and his ilk surpasses
>>>> any in history, however. Excessive power and wealth concentrated in
>>>> the hands of a few is the most pernicious threat to democracy that
>>>> can be found in a capitalist society.
>
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It has yet to be proven that democracy and capitalism can co-exist.
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> It currently co-exists in many nations. There tends to be some
>> inherent tension in the relationship.
>
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Capitalism has just been the latest tool for the class that can only
>>> find true gratification in the domination of others.
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Capitalism is a pretty broad spectrum. There are certainly those
>> individuals who use capitalism as the method of achieving power and
>> domination, but there are many more who do not.
>> One example that pops into mind is having been to The Yellow Jersey a
>> couple of times when I have been passing through Madison, and I didn't
>> get any sense of Andrew Muzi getting gratification from dominating
>> others. My impression from Andrew's posts is that he is generally
>> supportive of capitalism.
>
> Woo hoo!
> Freedom is always the best answer!

Much of that freedom ended in the U.S. when there was no longer any land
left to take from the American Indians. If you are not born
independently wealthy, you have the freedom to conform to what your
employer wants or to starve.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> [1] Would anyone that is sane suggest running a bike shop as the way
>> to a high income?
>
> What I have heard is that you can end up with a small fortune out of
> owning a bike shop, if you start with a large fortune.

I was told by a bike shop owner (not Andrew Muzi) that if he had an
annual profit of more than $50,000 he was very happy.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Peter Cole]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You're just repeating what I said. As far as it being a "gift",
>>>> that wasn't the kind of thing that IBM had much of a reputation
>>>> for, then or now.
>>> It was a gift in that IBM didn't sue to protect their "intellectual
>>> property." If they had, the computer market would most likely be a
>>> very, very different place.
>> I don't know why IBM didn't sue the BIOS cloners, I doubt it had
>> anything to do with philanthropy.
>
> Which is beside the point. The point is that by not doing so, the way
> was cleared for the competitive production of DOS and Windows personal
> computers. That's the key incident in the rise of Windows.

Was all I said, you brought up "gift".

BIOS cloning enabled PC clones and a de facto standard, didn't directly
do anything for MS other than create the need for someone to bridge all
the hardware, which they did by virtualizing it -- a *huge* undertaking.



>>>> How do you define narrow?
>>> Apache? Are you sure about your description there?
>> Sure. Apache is an excellent example.
>
> Ya think? Apache is not a "narrow" application that doesn't integrate
> with a lot of other applications. Apache has to integrate with a *lot*
> of things and has to do it extremely robustly.

It's just a web server, one of many. IOW, just an app.


>>> Money's a handy thing. The greed of Gates and his ilk surpasses
>>> any in history, however.
>> That's a pretty broad brush. As for potential for abuse of power, I
>> think Google is in a much more dangerous position than MS ever was.
>
> Google is very, very, very scary especially since they have abandoned
> their stated value of doing no evil.

Google controls information, I don't think there has ever been a greater
potential for abuse, especially when they're driven at least as much by
profit motive as MS.

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:32:07 GMT, still me <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:01:27 -0400, RonSonic
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Excessive power and wealth concentrated in the hands
>>>of a few is the most pernicious threat to democracy that can be found in
>>>a capitalist society.
>>
>>It's a threat, but my personal favorite for "most pernicious" would be inertia,
>>the sense that one need not do more than surf the trend and infrastructure to
>>continue reaping the fruit of previous sacrifice and planning and work.
>
>I think the current trend towards Fascism is a bigger threat.
>Certainly the perversion of politics for business is as old as
>politics itself, but the current levels of political corruption and
>it's infiltration into all three branches of the government exceeds
>anything this country has seen before.
>
>Accumulation of wealth would not lead to power if there was no
>government for sale to the highest bidder in every election and in
>every statehouse, Congress, and White House.

I'll disagree with you. Not because money doesn't buy influence, but because I
don't think that the influence that is available for sale is as comprehensive as
you think. I say that because in relative terms little money is being spent on
politics. The biggest money is union, specifically teachers and gov't employees,
there the interest is obvious. Of the big corporations AT&T is number one with
something like $3M in 2006. Now if there was something worth buying don't you
think they'd have coughed up a lot more. Three meg is chump change to those
guys. Total from the petroleum industries PACs, corps, individuals combined is
about $20M. Again, there are billions in play and if it would help they'd invest
five or ten times what they have put into politics, but they don't see a payoff
in it.

Either politicians grossly underprice their services, which is rather
implausible amongst a group as arrogant and enlawyered as they, or, and more
likely, the buyers of their services see the value to be severely limited by the
constraints of a free press, public opinion and regular elections. I think we
had a recent example when the bought and paid for immigration bill got shot down
by the bulk of the American people.

Money still doesn't quite buy as much power as it would like. yet.

Ron

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> You're just repeating what I said. As far as it being a "gift",
> >>>> that wasn't the kind of thing that IBM had much of a reputation
> >>>> for, then or now.
> >>> It was a gift in that IBM didn't sue to protect their
> >>> "intellectual property." If they had, the computer market would
> >>> most likely be a very, very different place.
> >> I don't know why IBM didn't sue the BIOS cloners, I doubt it had
> >> anything to do with philanthropy.
> >
> > Which is beside the point. The point is that by not doing so, the
> > way was cleared for the competitive production of DOS and Windows
> > personal computers. That's the key incident in the rise of
> > Windows.
>
> Was all I said, you brought up "gift".

Well, *I* didn't initially bring up the idea that IBM allowing BIOS to
escape into the wild was a gift but, in effect, it was.

> BIOS cloning enabled PC clones and a de facto standard, didn't
> directly do anything for MS other than create the need for someone to
> bridge all the hardware, which they did by virtualizing it -- a
> *huge* undertaking.

It made the task much smaller than it would have been. However, don't
forget that MS also dictated aspects of design to manufacturers as well.

> >>>> How do you define narrow?
> >>> Apache? Are you sure about your description there?
> >> Sure. Apache is an excellent example.
> >
> > Ya think? Apache is not a "narrow" application that doesn't
> > integrate with a lot of other applications. Apache has to
> > integrate with a *lot* of things and has to do it extremely
> > robustly.
>
> It's just a web server, one of many. IOW, just an app.

Yep. I was contesting the notion of Apache as a "narrow application"
that doesn't have to integrate with other processes and applications.
As far as "just" a Web server, it is one of the two leading Web servers.

> >>> Money's a handy thing. The greed of Gates and his ilk surpasses
> >>> any in history, however.
> >> That's a pretty broad brush. As for potential for abuse of power,
> >> I think Google is in a much more dangerous position than MS ever
> >> was.
> >
> > Google is very, very, very scary especially since they have
> > abandoned their stated value of doing no evil.
>
> Google controls information, I don't think there has ever been a
> greater potential for abuse, especially when they're driven at least
> as much by profit motive as MS.

Oh man, you sure have that right. The situation has gone from good to
not so good to bad to worse over the past 10 years. Google has gotten
far too big and far too powerful on the simple understanding that
controlling access to information is the real source of power. Google
in in a position to manipulate almost any aspect of modern life that
they choose.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"RonSonic" WHO? wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:32:07 GMT, still me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:01:27 -0400, RonSonic
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Excessive power and wealth concentrated in the hands
>>>> of a few is the most pernicious threat to democracy that can be found in
>>>> a capitalist society.
>>> It's a threat, but my personal favorite for "most pernicious" would be inertia,
>>> the sense that one need not do more than surf the trend and infrastructure to
>>> continue reaping the fruit of previous sacrifice and planning and work.
>> I think the current trend towards Fascism is a bigger threat.
>> Certainly the perversion of politics for business is as old as
>> politics itself, but the current levels of political corruption and
>> it's infiltration into all three branches of the government exceeds
>> anything this country has seen before.
>>
>> Accumulation of wealth would not lead to power if there was no
>> government for sale to the highest bidder in every election and in
>> every statehouse, Congress, and White House.
>
> I'll disagree with you. Not because money doesn't buy influence, but because I
> don't think that the influence that is available for sale is as comprehensive as
> you think. I say that because in relative terms little money is being spent on
> politics. The biggest money is union, specifically teachers and gov't employees,
> there the interest is obvious. Of the big corporations AT&T is number one with
> something like $3M in 2006. Now if there was something worth buying don't you
> think they'd have coughed up a lot more. Three meg is chump change to those
> guys. Total from the petroleum industries PACs, corps, individuals combined is
> about $20M. Again, there are billions in play and if it would help they'd invest
> five or ten times what they have put into politics, but they don't see a payoff
> in it.
>
> Either politicians grossly underprice their services, which is rather
> implausible amongst a group as arrogant and enlawyered as they, or, and more
> likely, the buyers of their services see the value to be severely limited by the
> constraints of a free press, public opinion and regular elections. I think we
> had a recent example when the bought and paid for immigration bill got shot down
> by the bulk of the American people.
>
> Money still doesn't quite buy as much power as it would like. yet.

Would you like another glass of Kool-Aid, Ron?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[A Muzi]

>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> [1] Would anyone that is sane suggest running a bike shop as the way
>>> to a high income?

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> What I have heard is that you can end up with a small fortune out of
>> owning a bike shop, if you start with a large fortune.

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> I was told by a bike shop owner (not Andrew Muzi) that if he had an
> annual profit of more than $50,000 he was very happy.

We can dream, can't we?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Google controls information, I don't think there has ever been a greater
> potential for abuse, especially when they're driven at least as much by
> profit motive as MS.

Remember them before they discovered the joys of 'evil'?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[still me]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:12:09 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
>>on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>
>There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
>because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
>shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.
>

I don't believe the original supposition included that specifier (road
or track).

>>In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
>>measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
>>issue in the tests.
>
>There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
>another.

Sorry, suggesting that we can _assume_ that there would be a linear
relationship between resistance against a smooth surface and
resistance against a road simulated surface is so far outside of
scientific that I'm not even sure how to comment.

 

[still me]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:07:25 -0400, RonSonic
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Money still doesn't quite buy as much power as it would like. yet.

You're misreading the use of money. It isn't about campaign
contributions. It's about real money talking to other real money. It's
about people with the power to make global decisions. It's about bills
in Congress or your statehouse, it's about executive branch decisions.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 6:12 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT, still me <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >He's correctly pointed out that glue types on tubulars have an effect
> >on the issue that does not seem to be recognized in the survey's done.
>
> There has been no discussion of using shellac -- it's all road glue
> because that's what people use. If he or anyone want to test with
> shellac, go ahead, but that's sort of testing stuff that is not used.

You're missing the point. The point is that if there is a difference
between shellac and other glues, why not amont road glues? In fact
there is a difference between Conti and Mastik in some of the data
referenced by Fogel. It follows that without quantifying this
variable, you don't really know whether the glue that is used for
tests is optimal.

> >In addition, the road surface issue is a consideration. If you're
> >measuring resistance to a surface, then the type of surface is a major
> >issue in the tests.
>
> There is no indication why this would effect one sort of tire and not
> another.

Again, you miss the point: the evidence is that smooth drums
exaggerates differences. Reporting a wattage difference between tires
based on smooth drum testing is misleading.

> > Lastly, the selection of tubulars by pro teams is
> >a major point: Considering the lengths that they go to for a mild
> >advantage, it seems logical that they'd have studied the issue in
> >great depth and concluded the tubulars hold an advantage.
>
> There are advantages to tubulars beyond rolling resistance.

But none that outweigh rr for a supported pro, IMO.