New rims - comments?

G.T. said:

The drawing that they include seems to be very misleading. Why would the
bead of the tire on the standard rim stay near the bed of the rim? Doesn't
the bead stay up at the hook?

Certainly. If not, what purpose would the be served by the hook?

If the pair of small circles in the "Standard Rim" picture are meant to
represent the bead, then the diagram is simply wrong.

Stephen Greenwood

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:34:31 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was just looking around for rims today and saw these:

http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/products_id/346

I can't picture how "With these short sidewalls the tire ... will have
larger air volume giving you better traction."

The drawing that they include seems to be very misleading. Why would the
bead of the tire on the standard rim stay near the bed of the rim? Doesn't
the bead stay up at the hook?

I'm pretty sure Jobst will weigh in here, but here's my take on the
subject.

The bead when mounted on a "standard" rim should bed just under the
hook, but I believe this is only because the circumference of the bead
and the rim should match pretty closely. It would be pretty hard to
stretch a bead, particularly the wire kind, given only air pressure.
If a bead actually bedded tightly to the valley of the rim (as in the
"Standard Rim" illustration) it would probably look pretty much as
pictured.

I kind of wish I could see the mounting video, but at dial-up speeds
I'm not about to sit through the download time. Looking at the cross
section of the rims doesn't give me a lot of confidence that tires
would be all that easy to mount.

Final thought...where's the advantage? Perhaps weight saving because
of the elimination of the tube and less material in the rim, but I
don't buy the other claims.

Just my $.02

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

John Everett said:

The bead when mounted on a "standard" rim should bed just under the
hook, but I believe this is only because the circumference of the bead
and the rim should match pretty closely. It would be pretty hard to
stretch a bead, particularly the wire kind, given only air pressure.
If a bead actually bedded tightly to the valley of the rim (as in the
"Standard Rim" illustration) it would probably look pretty much as
pictured.

Of course it's also hard to appreciably stretch a bead using only thumb
and finger pressure (or even with the aid of tire levers). So if the
bead were sized to bed tightly to the valley of the rim as shown then
it would be impossible to mount the tire on the rim.

John Everett said:

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:34:31 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was just looking around for rims today and saw these:

http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/products_id/346

I can't picture how "With these short sidewalls the tire ... will have
larger air volume giving you better traction."

The drawing that they include seems to be very misleading. Why would the
bead of the tire on the standard rim stay near the bed of the rim? Doesn't
the bead stay up at the hook?

I'm pretty sure Jobst will weigh in here, but here's my take on the
subject.

The bead when mounted on a "standard" rim should bed just under the
hook, but I believe this is only because the circumference of the bead
and the rim should match pretty closely. It would be pretty hard to
stretch a bead, particularly the wire kind, given only air pressure.
If a bead actually bedded tightly to the valley of the rim (as in the
"Standard Rim" illustration) it would probably look pretty much as
pictured.

I kind of wish I could see the mounting video, but at dial-up speeds
I'm not about to sit through the download time. Looking at the cross
section of the rims doesn't give me a lot of confidence that tires
would be all that easy to mount.

Final thought...where's the advantage? Perhaps weight saving because
of the elimination of the tube and less material in the rim, but I
don't buy the other claims.

Just my $.02

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Dear John,

The video doesn't show any details of rim-height differences.

Stan changes a tubeless MTB tire and explains some details of his
technique, but the camera is far enough away that you see Stan and the
whole wheel all the time.

There's also a great video of Stan demonstrating his tire sealant by
riding an MTB over 19 nails sticking up in a wooden channel and then
by banging icepicks made of nails and spokes through tires from side
to side and into them--wham, wham, wham!

The tire seals wonderfully--you can see and hear the white spray of
sealant as Stan shish-kebabs the tire like a Benihana chef. (Sorry,
but Jobst got my mixed-metaphor juices flowing in another thread.)

Unfortunately, if you google around about Stan's sealant, you'll find
lots of debate on MTB sites about how well it works in real life.

Some riders claim that the chemicals destroy tires and post hideous
pictures of deformed bulges.

Some counter-claims are that using tires designed for tubes as
tubeless tires can lead to air leaking part way into the casing and
tread and causing the bulges, that only some tires are liable to the
chemical rot, and that knobs ripping off are bad vulcanizing.

Here's are some "rot" threads with truly gruesome pictures:

http://www.sorba.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10453

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=107178

Some riders say that they destroy tires so fast in off-road riding
that they don't need to worry about slow corrosion. Others say that
they've had no problem in tires run for years with Stan's stuff.

Other comments, often disputed, mention the need to keep adding more
Stan's sealant to the same tire every few months because the volatile
chemicals vanish and that the sealant seems to work much better on
large-volume, low pressure, thick wall MTB tires than on low-volume,
high-pressure, thin wall road tires.

But Stan's slasher video is still awfully impressive:

http://www.notubes.com/support_movies.php

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Everett said:

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:34:31 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was just looking around for rims today and saw these:

http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/products_id/346

I can't picture how "With these short sidewalls the tire ... will have
larger air volume giving you better traction."

The drawing that they include seems to be very misleading. Why would the
bead of the tire on the standard rim stay near the bed of the rim?
Doesn't
the bead stay up at the hook?

I'm pretty sure Jobst will weigh in here, but here's my take on the
subject.

The bead when mounted on a "standard" rim should bed just under the
hook, but I believe this is only because the circumference of the bead
and the rim should match pretty closely. It would be pretty hard to
stretch a bead, particularly the wire kind, given only air pressure.
If a bead actually bedded tightly to the valley of the rim (as in the
"Standard Rim" illustration) it would probably look pretty much as
pictured.

I kind of wish I could see the mounting video, but at dial-up speeds
I'm not about to sit through the download time. Looking at the cross
section of the rims doesn't give me a lot of confidence that tires
would be all that easy to mount.

Final thought...where's the advantage? Perhaps weight saving because
of the elimination of the tube and less material in the rim, but I
don't buy the other claims.

Just my $.02

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Dear John,

The video doesn't show any details of rim-height differences.

Stan changes a tubeless MTB tire and explains some details of his
technique, but the camera is far enough away that you see Stan and the
whole wheel all the time.

There's also a great video of Stan demonstrating his tire sealant by
riding an MTB over 19 nails sticking up in a wooden channel and then
by banging icepicks made of nails and spokes through tires from side
to side and into them--wham, wham, wham!

The tire seals wonderfully--you can see and hear the white spray of
sealant as Stan shish-kebabs the tire like a Benihana chef. (Sorry,
but Jobst got my mixed-metaphor juices flowing in another thread.)

Unfortunately, if you google around about Stan's sealant, you'll find
lots of debate on MTB sites about how well it works in real life.

Some riders claim that the chemicals destroy tires and post hideous
pictures of deformed bulges.

Some counter-claims are that using tires designed for tubes as
tubeless tires can lead to air leaking part way into the casing and
tread and causing the bulges, that only some tires are liable to the
chemical rot, and that knobs ripping off are bad vulcanizing.

Here's are some "rot" threads with truly gruesome pictures:

http://www.sorba.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10453

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=107178

Some riders say that they destroy tires so fast in off-road riding
that they don't need to worry about slow corrosion. Others say that
they've had no problem in tires run for years with Stan's stuff.

Other comments, often disputed, mention the need to keep adding more
Stan's sealant to the same tire every few months because the volatile
chemicals vanish and that the sealant seems to work much better on
large-volume, low pressure, thick wall MTB tires than on low-volume,
high-pressure, thin wall road tires.

But Stan's slasher video is still awfully impressive:

http://www.notubes.com/support_movies.php

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl,
Have to ask the obvious - how does this sealant work on goat's heads?
Kerry

KERRY MONTGOMERY said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Everett said:

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:34:31 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>
>I was just looking around for rims today and saw these:
>
>http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/products_id/346
>
>I can't picture how "With these short sidewalls the tire ... will have
>larger air volume giving you better traction."
>
>The drawing that they include seems to be very misleading. Why would the
>bead of the tire on the standard rim stay near the bed of the rim?
>Doesn't
>the bead stay up at the hook?

I'm pretty sure Jobst will weigh in here, but here's my take on the
subject.

The bead when mounted on a "standard" rim should bed just under the
hook, but I believe this is only because the circumference of the bead
and the rim should match pretty closely. It would be pretty hard to
stretch a bead, particularly the wire kind, given only air pressure.
If a bead actually bedded tightly to the valley of the rim (as in the
"Standard Rim" illustration) it would probably look pretty much as
pictured.

I kind of wish I could see the mounting video, but at dial-up speeds
I'm not about to sit through the download time. Looking at the cross
section of the rims doesn't give me a lot of confidence that tires
would be all that easy to mount.

Final thought...where's the advantage? Perhaps weight saving because
of the elimination of the tube and less material in the rim, but I
don't buy the other claims.

Just my $.02

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Dear John,

The video doesn't show any details of rim-height differences.

Stan changes a tubeless MTB tire and explains some details of his
technique, but the camera is far enough away that you see Stan and the
whole wheel all the time.

There's also a great video of Stan demonstrating his tire sealant by
riding an MTB over 19 nails sticking up in a wooden channel and then
by banging icepicks made of nails and spokes through tires from side
to side and into them--wham, wham, wham!

The tire seals wonderfully--you can see and hear the white spray of
sealant as Stan shish-kebabs the tire like a Benihana chef. (Sorry,
but Jobst got my mixed-metaphor juices flowing in another thread.)

Unfortunately, if you google around about Stan's sealant, you'll find
lots of debate on MTB sites about how well it works in real life.

Some riders claim that the chemicals destroy tires and post hideous
pictures of deformed bulges.

Some counter-claims are that using tires designed for tubes as
tubeless tires can lead to air leaking part way into the casing and
tread and causing the bulges, that only some tires are liable to the
chemical rot, and that knobs ripping off are bad vulcanizing.

Here's are some "rot" threads with truly gruesome pictures:

http://www.sorba.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10453

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=107178

Some riders say that they destroy tires so fast in off-road riding
that they don't need to worry about slow corrosion. Others say that
they've had no problem in tires run for years with Stan's stuff.

Other comments, often disputed, mention the need to keep adding more
Stan's sealant to the same tire every few months because the volatile
chemicals vanish and that the sealant seems to work much better on
large-volume, low pressure, thick wall MTB tires than on low-volume,
high-pressure, thin wall road tires.

But Stan's slasher video is still awfully impressive:

http://www.notubes.com/support_movies.php

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl,
Have to ask the obvious - how does this sealant work on goat's heads?
Kerry

Dear Kerry,

I haven't tried Stan's sealant.

Some MTB riders swear by it.

But others complain that it corrodes tires, needs to be replenished
every three months, and paradoxically works better on low-pressure
high volume tires than on high-pressure low-volume tires.

I gather that Stan's sealant was originally a powder that you mixed
yourself, but has been improved to a ready-to-use-if-shaken-well
liquid with other chemicals to prevent freezing and other problems.

Latex and ammonia are often mentioned, but I don't know if those
really are the ingredients.

Instead of the small white fibers that Slime uses, Stan's sealant is
supposed to use small particles of rubber in some sticky solution that
dries out, clots, or coagulates inside the tire.

Obviously, a tubeless tire full of crud can be cleaned out. A tube
would have to be thrown away. Many of the posts on the MTB sites are
from riders who mention that their tires don't last three months.

When I saw the movie, my first thought was to buy some, but reading
around left me unwilling to try something that may (?) lead to tire
trouble like this:

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83629&stc=1&d=1118606372

and this:

http://img103.echo.cx/img103/8724/img09704bk.jpg

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Instead of the small white fibers that Slime uses, Stan's sealant is
supposed to use small particles of rubber in some sticky solution that
dries out, clots, or coagulates inside the tire.

Obviously, a tubeless tire full of crud can be cleaned out. A tube
would have to be thrown away. Many of the posts on the MTB sites are
from riders who mention that their tires don't last three months.

When I saw the movie, my first thought was to buy some, but reading
around left me unwilling to try something that may (?) lead to tire
trouble like this:

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83629&stc=1&d=1118606372

Quoted message said:

and this:

http://img103.echo.cx/img103/8724/img09704bk.jpg

I currently have a WTB Velociraptor that looks exactly like that. But no
Stan's or any other sealant has been anywhere near the tire. It's on a
wheel in storage and I've been meaning to post here checking to see what the
possible causes could be. The current storage area is dry but at my last
place the garage was flooded during the rains of 2003/2004. Other than
moisture I can't think of anything in either the current or last place this
wheel was stored that could cause any problems.

Greg

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

KERRY MONTGOMERY said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:13:54 GMT, John Everett
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:34:31 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I was just looking around for rims today and saw these:
>>
>>http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/products_id/346
>>
>>I can't picture how "With these short sidewalls the tire ... will have
>>larger air volume giving you better traction."
>>
>>The drawing that they include seems to be very misleading. Why would
>>the
>>bead of the tire on the standard rim stay near the bed of the rim?
>>Doesn't
>>the bead stay up at the hook?
>
>I'm pretty sure Jobst will weigh in here, but here's my take on the
>subject.
>
>The bead when mounted on a "standard" rim should bed just under the
>hook, but I believe this is only because the circumference of the bead
>and the rim should match pretty closely. It would be pretty hard to
>stretch a bead, particularly the wire kind, given only air pressure.
>If a bead actually bedded tightly to the valley of the rim (as in the
>"Standard Rim" illustration) it would probably look pretty much as
>pictured.
>
>I kind of wish I could see the mounting video, but at dial-up speeds
>I'm not about to sit through the download time. Looking at the cross
>section of the rims doesn't give me a lot of confidence that tires
>would be all that easy to mount.
>
>Final thought...where's the advantage? Perhaps weight saving because
>of the elimination of the tube and less material in the rim, but I
>don't buy the other claims.
>
>Just my $.02
>
>
>jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Dear John,

The video doesn't show any details of rim-height differences.

Stan changes a tubeless MTB tire and explains some details of his
technique, but the camera is far enough away that you see Stan and the
whole wheel all the time.

There's also a great video of Stan demonstrating his tire sealant by
riding an MTB over 19 nails sticking up in a wooden channel and then
by banging icepicks made of nails and spokes through tires from side
to side and into them--wham, wham, wham!

The tire seals wonderfully--you can see and hear the white spray of
sealant as Stan shish-kebabs the tire like a Benihana chef. (Sorry,
but Jobst got my mixed-metaphor juices flowing in another thread.)

Unfortunately, if you google around about Stan's sealant, you'll find
lots of debate on MTB sites about how well it works in real life.

Some riders claim that the chemicals destroy tires and post hideous
pictures of deformed bulges.

Some counter-claims are that using tires designed for tubes as
tubeless tires can lead to air leaking part way into the casing and
tread and causing the bulges, that only some tires are liable to the
chemical rot, and that knobs ripping off are bad vulcanizing.

Here's are some "rot" threads with truly gruesome pictures:

http://www.sorba.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=10453

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=107178

Some riders say that they destroy tires so fast in off-road riding
that they don't need to worry about slow corrosion. Others say that
they've had no problem in tires run for years with Stan's stuff.

Other comments, often disputed, mention the need to keep adding more
Stan's sealant to the same tire every few months because the volatile
chemicals vanish and that the sealant seems to work much better on
large-volume, low pressure, thick wall MTB tires than on low-volume,
high-pressure, thin wall road tires.

But Stan's slasher video is still awfully impressive:

http://www.notubes.com/support_movies.php

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl,
Have to ask the obvious - how does this sealant work on goat's heads?
Kerry

Dear Kerry,

I haven't tried Stan's sealant.

Some MTB riders swear by it.

But others complain that it corrodes tires, needs to be replenished
every three months, and paradoxically works better on low-pressure
high volume tires than on high-pressure low-volume tires.

I gather that Stan's sealant was originally a powder that you mixed
yourself, but has been improved to a ready-to-use-if-shaken-well
liquid with other chemicals to prevent freezing and other problems.

Latex and ammonia are often mentioned, but I don't know if those
really are the ingredients.

Instead of the small white fibers that Slime uses, Stan's sealant is
supposed to use small particles of rubber in some sticky solution that
dries out, clots, or coagulates inside the tire.

Obviously, a tubeless tire full of crud can be cleaned out. A tube
would have to be thrown away. Many of the posts on the MTB sites are
from riders who mention that their tires don't last three months.

When I saw the movie, my first thought was to buy some, but reading
around left me unwilling to try something that may (?) lead to tire
trouble like this:

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83629&stc=1&d=1118606372

and this:

http://img103.echo.cx/img103/8724/img09704bk.jpg

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

My understanding is that Stan's is nothing more than liquid latex, sold at
hobby stores, that is cut with water or windshield washer fluid to aid in
freezing temps. I believe the mix is 3 parts fluid to one part liquid latex.
I used this homemade Stan's regularly a couple of years back and the
problems I had were related to going cheap (and light) on the rim
strip/valve, not the fluid. I was making my own w/ packing tape and
electrical tape and using valves cut from old flats. It seemed that any
failures were related to my rim strip system failing. It also seemed that
the tires should be used regularly as if they didn't rotate for awhile the
latex would settle and harden a little causing a failure of the tire seal of
the bead. I was using regular mavic rims and hutchinson tires. Some rims and
tires just don't work due to the shape. I thought this was why Stans came
out with their own rims that worked better in their system, but I know a few
guys that have no problems using other rims. As any tubeless rider will
attest the tires/bike handle amazing at lower pressures with no pinch flats
or goathead flats due to stans.
There was a rumour a couple of cross seasons ago that some guys were running
stans and clinchers. I played with this and had 50/50 luck with michelin
cross tires on Open Pros. I had problems with the tire to initially seal at
the bead which I thought was due to the shape. I also had instances the tire
would just blow off the bead that I think were related to higher pressure.
On another note, Stans looks really similar to Tufo sealant for their
tubulars which are very flat resistant on goathead courses in Colorado.
I never have had problems with the homemade stans and flat resistance, but
the price of the Stan's fluid is the least of the package. His rim
strips/valve system is the $$. I hadn't heard problem related to tire
degradation from the fluid until this thread. I plan on trying it again next
year with his rim strips since I will finally be riding more regular.
Andy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 935 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:47:06 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Instead of the small white fibers that Slime uses, Stan's sealant is
supposed to use small particles of rubber in some sticky solution that
dries out, clots, or coagulates inside the tire.

Obviously, a tubeless tire full of crud can be cleaned out. A tube
would have to be thrown away. Many of the posts on the MTB sites are
from riders who mention that their tires don't last three months.

When I saw the movie, my first thought was to buy some, but reading
around left me unwilling to try something that may (?) lead to tire
trouble like this:

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83629&stc=1&d=1118606372

Quoted message said:

and this:

http://img103.echo.cx/img103/8724/img09704bk.jpg

I currently have a WTB Velociraptor that looks exactly like that. But no
Stan's or any other sealant has been anywhere near the tire. It's on a
wheel in storage and I've been meaning to post here checking to see what the
possible causes could be. The current storage area is dry but at my last
place the garage was flooded during the rains of 2003/2004. Other than
moisture I can't think of anything in either the current or last place this
wheel was stored that could cause any problems.

Greg

Dear Greg,

It could just be a bad tire to start with, one from a bad production
run--a common comment in these cases. A knob that tears off is often
attributed to poor vulcanizing, though I don't know how likely that
explanation is.

But moisture seems unlikely to affect tires. They're often ridden in
rain, mud, and creeks. The tires that I see sunk in the sand and
gravel of the Arkansas river show no signs of moisture damage.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:47:06 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Instead of the small white fibers that Slime uses, Stan's sealant is
supposed to use small particles of rubber in some sticky solution that
dries out, clots, or coagulates inside the tire.

Obviously, a tubeless tire full of crud can be cleaned out. A tube
would have to be thrown away. Many of the posts on the MTB sites are
from riders who mention that their tires don't last three months.

When I saw the movie, my first thought was to buy some, but reading
around left me unwilling to try something that may (?) lead to tire
trouble like this:

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83629&stc=1&d=1118606372

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and this:

http://img103.echo.cx/img103/8724/img09704bk.jpg

I currently have a WTB Velociraptor that looks exactly like that. But no
Stan's or any other sealant has been anywhere near the tire. It's on a
wheel in storage and I've been meaning to post here checking to see what

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

possible causes could be. The current storage area is dry but at my last
place the garage was flooded during the rains of 2003/2004. Other than
moisture I can't think of anything in either the current or last place

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wheel was stored that could cause any problems.

Greg

It could just be a bad tire to start with, one from a bad production
run--a common comment in these cases.

It ran fine for a several years, it was on a wheel that didn't get every day
use. It wasn't until it had sat there unused, for probably 2 years, that
the huge gaping hole showed up in it.

Quoted message said:

A knob that tears off is often
attributed to poor vulcanizing, though I don't know how likely that
explanation is.

Oh, I have a Panaracer Fire XC that 22 knobs ripped off of after only one
ride so I'm very familiar with that. But this old tire appears to have
rotted, the rubber is crumbly and there's now a huge hole in it.

Quoted message said:

But moisture seems unlikely to affect tires. They're often ridden in
rain, mud, and creeks. The tires that I see sunk in the sand and
gravel of the Arkansas river show no signs of moisture damage.

It's the only thing I can think of with regards to the enviroment where the
wheel was stored.

Greg

G.T. said:

Oh, I have a Panaracer Fire XC that 22 knobs ripped off of after only
one ride so I'm very familiar with that.

Greg counts knobs! (South Park-esque ragging.)

"Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

Oh, I have a Panaracer Fire XC that 22 knobs ripped off of after only
one ride so I'm very familiar with that.

Greg counts knobs! (South Park-esque ragging.)

Yeah, I was actually going to stop every mile and count to see what the per
mile damage was but instead I just rode, crossing my fingers that I'd get
home without complete failure.

Greg

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:57:04 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:47:06 -0800, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Instead of the small white fibers that Slime uses, Stan's sealant is
> supposed to use small particles of rubber in some sticky solution that
> dries out, clots, or coagulates inside the tire.
>
> Obviously, a tubeless tire full of crud can be cleaned out. A tube
> would have to be thrown away. Many of the posts on the MTB sites are
> from riders who mention that their tires don't last three months.
>
> When I saw the movie, my first thought was to buy some, but reading
> around left me unwilling to try something that may (?) lead to tire
> trouble like this:
>
>

http://forums.mtbr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83629&stc=1&d=1118606372

Quoted message said:

>
> and this:
>
> http://img103.echo.cx/img103/8724/img09704bk.jpg
>

I currently have a WTB Velociraptor that looks exactly like that. But no
Stan's or any other sealant has been anywhere near the tire. It's on a
wheel in storage and I've been meaning to post here checking to see what

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

possible causes could be. The current storage area is dry but at my last
place the garage was flooded during the rains of 2003/2004. Other than
moisture I can't think of anything in either the current or last place

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wheel was stored that could cause any problems.

Greg

It could just be a bad tire to start with, one from a bad production
run--a common comment in these cases.

It ran fine for a several years, it was on a wheel that didn't get every day
use. It wasn't until it had sat there unused, for probably 2 years, that
the huge gaping hole showed up in it.

Quoted message said:

A knob that tears off is often
attributed to poor vulcanizing, though I don't know how likely that
explanation is.

Oh, I have a Panaracer Fire XC that 22 knobs ripped off of after only one
ride so I'm very familiar with that. But this old tire appears to have
rotted, the rubber is crumbly and there's now a huge hole in it.

Quoted message said:

But moisture seems unlikely to affect tires. They're often ridden in
rain, mud, and creeks. The tires that I see sunk in the sand and
gravel of the Arkansas river show no signs of moisture damage.

It's the only thing I can think of with regards to the enviroment where the
wheel was stored.

Greg

Dear Greg,

Ozone and sunlight are what normally damage tire rubber:

http://www.bikepro.com/products/tires/tireover.html

But your stored tire sounds as if it had much more obvious damage. If
you post a picture to one of the hosting sites, someone on RBT might
suggest an explanation.

To tempt you, here are some lurid pictures of car tires sticking out
of the sand and gravel of the Arkansas. They've moved at least fifteen
miles if they were thrown into the river in Florence, farther if they
hail from Cañon City.

Obviously, these car tires were under water until the river dropped
and were damaged as the current dragged them over the rocks and gravel
before burying them. But the rubber is still in good shape. If they
stay exposed in the Colorado sun at 5,000 feet, they'll slowly
deteriorate.

A "Road Hugger" hugging some brush:
http://i15.tinypic.com/4cmt7hs.jpg

The same tire and its deeply sunken brother to the right:
http://i15.tinypic.com/43mzh1v.jpg

More tires half-sunk in the sand and gravel:
http://i15.tinypic.com/34i6937.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/2zsqhjc.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/2zp33b4.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/4c1q8tf.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/2daxhdc.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/29ftcfb.jpg

The tires were lurking in the dry channel cutting across this bend in
the river:
http://i15.tinypic.com/2dvoh9d.jpg

Cheers,

Carl Fogel