OK old-timers, what's the best method for track glue?

[Jens]

My searches have yielded a few procedures for
gluing tubulars with shellac, but only a tangential
reference by JB on how to use track glue.

I'll be using the Clement red or the d'alessandro
stuff. Do you apply it like shellac or like conventional
tubular glue?

thanks in advance, jens

 

[Ron Ruff]

Hey!

Gotta be somebody here that knows...

 

[[email protected]]

Jens Heycke writes:

> My searches have yielded a few procedures for gluing tubulars with
> shellac, but only a tangential reference by JB on how to use track
> glue.

> I'll be using the Clement red or the d'alessandro stuff. Do you
> apply it like shellac or like conventional tubular glue?

What more do you need to know than what's here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/mounting-tubulars.html

Jobst Brandt

 

[Jens]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jens Heycke writes:
>
> > My searches have yielded a few procedures for gluing tubulars with
> > shellac, but only a tangential reference by JB on how to use track
> > glue.
>
> > I'll be using the Clement red or the d'alessandro stuff. Do you
> > apply it like shellac or like conventional tubular glue?
>
> What more do you need to know than what's here:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/mounting-tubulars.html
>
> Jobst Brandt

This was actually the tangential reference I was talking about:

"Mounting track tires is done the same way as with road glue only that
it takes several coats of shellac, the last of which must not be
allowed to dry, so the bare cloth rim strip will be wet by the glue as
the tire is inflated. Mounting the tire cleanly is more difficult and
removing the tire sometimes requires tire irons."

What wasn't 100% clear to me from this, is "shellac" the same (or
functionally the same) as track glue?

thanks, jens

 

[[email protected]]

Jens Heycke writes:

>>> My searches have yielded a few procedures for gluing tubulars with
>>> shellac, but only a tangential reference by JB on how to use track
>>> glue.

>>> I'll be using the Clement red or the d'Alessandro stuff. Do you
>>> apply it like shellac or like conventional tubular glue?

>> What more do you need to know than what's here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/mounting-tubulars.html

> This was actually the tangential reference I was talking about:

> "Mounting track tires is done the same way as with road glue only
> that it takes several coats of shellac, the last of which must not
> be allowed to dry, so the bare cloth rim strip will be wet by the
> glue as the tire is inflated. Mounting the tire cleanly is more
> difficult and removing the tire sometimes requires tire irons."

> What wasn't 100% clear to me from this, is "shellac" the same (or
> functionally the same) as track glue?

That's what track glue is. The ones from tire companies may be a
jelled version of it but it is basically the same. The ones I saw
were clear brown thick soup. Do you have bare base tape tires like
these:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/d'aless.html

Another but messier method is to paint both the rim and the base tape
and let both dry until nearly hard but still tacky enough so that when
the two are brought together under inflation pressure they bond.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Jens]

[email protected] wrote:

>
> > What wasn't 100% clear to me from this, is "shellac" the same (or
> > functionally the same) as track glue?
>
> That's what track glue is. The ones from tire companies may be a
> jelled version of it but it is basically the same. The ones I saw
> were clear brown thick soup. Do you have bare base tape tires like
> these:
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/d'aless.html
>

Thanks Jobst. I think so. They look like this:

http://tinypic.com/nf5hg0.jpg

-jens

 

[[email protected]]

Jens Heycke writes:

>>> What wasn't 100% clear to me from this, is "shellac" the same (or
>>> functionally the same) as track glue?

>> That's what track glue is. The ones from tire companies may be a
>> jelled version of it but it is basically the same. The ones I saw
>> were clear brown thick soup. Do you have bare base tape tires like
>> these:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/d'aless.html

> Thanks Jobst. I think so. They look like this:

> http://tinypic.com/nf5hg0.jpg

Ooh, What lovely silk track tires! Where are they made?

Jobst Brandt

 

[Jens]

I think they're made in Holland now. Used to be made in France.

-jens

 

[[email protected]]

Sergio Servadio writes:

> Despite I have known, and practiced, how to glue tubulars for
> decades now, there is still something I am not clear about. Perhaps
> just semantics?

> First of all: what is shellac (in english, of course). I thought
> shellac was that flaky stuff one would dissolve in alcohol to finish
> wood furniture and make it glossy (gommalacca, in Italian).

It is, and it hardens and does not melt at track bicycle rim
temperatures and quite a bit above that. If you recall from the
graphs of RR, you can see that rim glue causes rolling losses because
pressure sensitive glues (ones that can be used for changing a tire on
the road, aka Road Glue) move with every rotation of the wheel. Tires
have a bias ply that works in scissor action when compressed. This
motion causes the base tape of the tubular tire to squirm and cause
rolling damping.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html

Look at the edges of a well used aluminum tubular rim and you will see
an impression of the base tape, fretted into the metal. You will also
see that rim glue, that was once light colored, has become grey from
metal worn from the rim. The ancients knew this and invented track
glue, a glue that hardens, does not move and cannot be used for tire
changes on the road, but it has lower RR which is important for 400m
and 1000m pursuit times that are won on hundredths of seconds, as well
as for other track events.

> Over here, all old bike mechanics used to refer to the glue as
> 'Gutta', or 'Masticione' (quite close to that name I saw in the
> picture). Traditionally, it was invariable the red stuff by Clement
> that as used; nowadays, that creamy alternative by Vittoria, mainly.

Yes, that is true and that glue is still valid. You'll note that it
is clear and not rubbery and that it dries hard (because it is
basically shellac). My tubes of glue are labeled: "Mastice Gutta
Strada" and "Mastice Gutta Pista". Ask your local bicycle track old
timers about the two glues. I'm curious whether anyone knows the
difference. Around here they did it because that's the way they did
it in Italy. They had no idea that it had a performance effect.

> After being advised to do so, I have always moistened the base tape
> of the new tubular with a little gasoline, to soften it a bit and
> have it better adhere to the rim glue, upon inflation.

Don't do that. It damages the base tape elastomers (usually latex)
and does nothing for adherence. If the tire has a bare cloth base
tape, put it on the wheel before the rim glue is fully cured and
inflate hard.

> Finally, why should the procedure be any different on a track from a
> road bike?

They are different glues, the reason for which is given above.

Sergio Servadio, Pisa
--
Jobst Brandt

 

[Jon_H]

"Jens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > > What wasn't 100% clear to me from this, is "shellac" the same (or
> > > functionally the same) as track glue?
> >
> > That's what track glue is. The ones from tire companies may be a
> > jelled version of it but it is basically the same. The ones I saw
> > were clear brown thick soup. Do you have bare base tape tires like
> > these:
> >
> > http://www.yellowjersey.org/d'aless.html
> >
>
> Thanks Jobst. I think so. They look like this:
>
> http://tinypic.com/nf5hg0.jpg
>
> -jens
>

I have used that vitoria rim cement in your pic on track tubs and they are
still firmly stuck on there after about 14 months of once/twice a week
usage. I have used the same wheels for both sprints and distance events at
about 140 psi.

I haven't tried to get them off yet.

cheers
Jon_H

 

[Jens]

Jon_H wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Jobst. I think so. They look like this:
> >
> > http://tinypic.com/nf5hg0.jpg
> >
> > -jens
> >
>
> I have used that vitoria rim cement in your pic on track tubs and they are
> still firmly stuck on there after about 14 months of once/twice a week
> usage. I have used the same wheels for both sprints and distance events at
> about 140 psi.
>
> I haven't tried to get them off yet.
>
> cheers
> Jon_H


Thanks. I've used the Mastik 1 before. However, in this case,
I'm striving for something more than just keeping the tires on.
I'm looking to eliminate the hysteresis loss from flexible glue
that Jobst has eloquently described elsewhere. This loss
was definitely measurable with Mastik 1.

Just, trying to gain those extra few seconds......


-jens

 

[[email protected]]

Jens wrote:
> Thanks. I've used the Mastik 1 before. However, in this case,
> I'm striving for something more than just keeping the tires on.
> I'm looking to eliminate the hysteresis loss from flexible glue
> that Jobst has eloquently described elsewhere. This loss
> was definitely measurable with Mastik 1.

Who measured it, and how?

Brandt's description may or may not be eloquent, but it is definitely
inadequate. At the very least, his implication that his gluing method
allows the tire to be removed without tools on the road suggests that
the hysteresis losses may be the result of the glue method, not the
glue. Just as rubber tread increases squirm compared to slicks,
improper glue technique may allow squirm due to gaps between where the
glue sticks and where it doesn't. The proper way to glue on tires is to
put the tire on when the glue is wet and to make the glue layer as thin
as possible.

All we know from Brandt's testing is that the way his test assistants
glued the tires on there were hysteresis losses. What we don't know is
whether there is another way to glue tires on with road glue that would
significantly decrease hysteresis losses. It is inconceivable to me to
suggest that "shellac" has neglible loss compared to road glue, but
that the loss caused by road glue is a constant that does not vary
regardless of how the glue is applied, and following that logic, that
Brandt's crew applied road glue in the best way possible without doing
any sort of testing to find out what the best way possible is. Although
Brandt is vague about it, some of his statements suggest that his
method was suboptimized. Besides his statement that glue must be
applied in a way that facillitates tire removal on the road, he has
also stated repeatedly that inflation pressure provides the major force
that keeps a tubular tire on the rim, which anyone can easily prove
false with a tire glued on properly with Mastik 1. Mastik1, if properly
applied, will require a tire lever to remove the tire. Anyone who finds
it easier to remove a flat tire glued on than a 100psi tire unglued did
a crappy job of gluing on their tire.

None of this proves that Mastik 1 has insignificant hysteresis losses,
even with optimal glue technique, but I have yet to see any evidence
that with proper technique the loss is greater than shellac.

 

[[email protected]]

SSTW? writes:

>> Thanks. I've used the Mastik 1 before. However, in this case, I'm
>> striving for something more than just keeping the tires on. I'm
>> looking to eliminate the hysteresis loss from flexible glue that
>> Jobst has eloquently described elsewhere. This loss was definitely
>> measurable with Mastik 1.

> Who measured it, and how?

Measured what?

> Brandt's description may or may not be eloquent, but it is
> definitely inadequate. At the very least, his implication that his
> gluing method allows the tire to be removed without tools on the
> road suggests that the hysteresis losses may be the result of the
> glue method, not the glue. Just as rubber tread increases squirm
> compared to slicks, improper glue technique may allow squirm due to
> gaps between where the glue sticks and where it doesn't. The proper
> way to glue on tires is to put the tire on when the glue is wet and
> to make the glue layer as thin as possible.

Look. The professionals who developed road rim glue did so in order
to hold tires in place yet make them replaceable, by the rider, on the
road, in a race, as was required in many stages of the GdI and TdF.
They made the stuff as secure as possible, yet field removable without
tools.

This was done for nearly 100 years and you think chemistry has made
stronger hands, tires, and glue that would prevent glue losses on road
bicycles today. Ones that can be changed on the road and adhere
satisfactorily as they have in the past. That these losses were known
to exist is demonstrated by the two kinds of glue. Just because
people after WWII no longer knew why, doesn't make the effect go away.
As I said, the instant I saw the RR curves I practically yelled
Eureka, because it answered my long unanswered question of the need
for two kinds of glue.

> All we know from Brandt's testing is that the way his test
> assistants glued the tires on there were hysteresis losses. What we
> don't know is whether there is another way to glue tires on with
> road glue that would significantly decrease hysteresis losses. It
> is inconceivable to me to suggest that "shellac" has neglible loss
> compared to road glue, but that the loss caused by road glue is a
> constant that does not vary regardless of how the glue is applied,
> and following that logic, that

I didn't test anything, IRC did so in their lab and in standard test
conditions. That tubular tires move on their rims is demonstrable by
the aluminum contamination of rim glue and the existence of cloth
(base tape) images fretted into aluminum rims. I have lots of them.

> Brandt's crew applied road glue in the best way possible without
> doing any sort of testing to find out what the best way possible is.

Where do you get this information about what was, and who, tested?

> Although Brandt is vague about it, some of his statements suggest
> that his method was suboptimized. Besides his statement that glue
> must be applied in a way that facillitates tire removal on the road,
> he has also stated repeatedly that inflation pressure provides the
> major force that keeps a tubular tire on the rim, which anyone can
> easily prove false with a tire glued on properly with Mastik 1.
> Mastik1, if properly applied, will require a tire lever to remove
> the tire. Anyone who finds it easier to remove a flat tire glued on
> than a 100psi tire unglued did a crappy job of gluing on their tire.

So what. You have weak hands. I have seen users of this adhesive
remove and replace tires without tools. If that weren't the case then
the spare would not remain glued to the degree that safety requires.
An unglued tire will roll if there is any side slip. If you know your
tire is poorly glued, don't do anything that will induce side slip
like riding over a slick spot in a curve where traction returns in a
fraction of a second but the tire 2would roll if not secure.

> None of this proves that Mastik 1 has insignificant hysteresis losses,
> even with optimal glue technique, but I have yet to see any evidence
> that with proper technique the loss is greater than shellac.

I don't give a hoot what you believe, but stop implying that I am
inventing all of this to sell (whose) tires.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Jens]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jens wrote:
> > Thanks. I've used the Mastik 1 before. However, in this case,
> > I'm striving for something more than just keeping the tires on.
> > I'm looking to eliminate the hysteresis loss from flexible glue
> > that Jobst has eloquently described elsewhere. This loss
> > was definitely measurable with Mastik 1.
>
> Who measured it, and how?

I did, with an SRM on rollers and on the road. I've been thinking
of trying one of these though:

http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/mrl/centralfacilities/polymer/DMA.html

> None of this proves that Mastik 1 has insignificant hysteresis losses,
> even with optimal glue technique, but I have yet to see any evidence
> that with proper technique the loss is greater than shellac.


That's what I aim to do discover. I really don't have a dog in this
fight. I'm just going to use whatever turns out to be fastest. I
might
share the results -- unless it looks too likely that I'll get harangued
for it by one side or the other, or it like will give away too much to
race competitors.


-jens

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Look. The professionals who developed road rim glue did so in order
> to hold tires in place yet make them replaceable, by the rider, on the
> road, in a race, as was required in many stages of the GdI and TdF.
> They made the stuff as secure as possible, yet field removable without
> tools.

Exactly. Their and your gluing technique is suboptimal because they
didn't use levers and could not afford to spend ten minutes prying off
tires that were tightly glued on,

> Where do you get this information about what was, and who, tested?

>From you and the rbt archives.

> > Although Brandt is vague about it, some of his statements suggest
> > that his method was suboptimized. Besides his statement that glue
> > must be applied in a way that facillitates tire removal on the road,
> > he has also stated repeatedly that inflation pressure provides the
> > major force that keeps a tubular tire on the rim, which anyone can
> > easily prove false with a tire glued on properly with Mastik 1.
> > Mastik1, if properly applied, will require a tire lever to remove
> > the tire. Anyone who finds it easier to remove a flat tire glued on
> > than a 100psi tire unglued did a crappy job of gluing on their tire.
>
> So what. You have weak hands.

A ridiculous and illogical statement. My hands are strong enough to
easily pull off a tire inflated to 100psi without glue but not to pull
off a flat tire glued on right with Mastik 1 (well, actually I can, but
it takes a long time and is hard on my fingers- using a lever is ten
times faster and less aversive).

> I have seen users of this adhesive
> remove and replace tires without tools.

I have done it, too. If you let the glue dry before you mount the tire
as is often advised it's pretty easy.

> If that weren't the case then
> the spare would not remain glued to the degree that safety requires.

That doesn't follow.

Your criticism of my post glaringly fails to address the fundamental
point that I made- your testing includes next to nothing to provide
data on how glue and tecnique affect squirm. What little there is-
comparing track and road glue- suggests that further experimentation is
needed to determine the optimum glue and technique for reducing squirm
and therefore rr with road glue.

 

[[email protected]]

Jens wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Who measured it, and how?
>
> I did, with an SRM on rollers and on the road.

How do you know that there were hysteresis losses- what was your
baseline? How did you glue on the tires when you used Mastik 1? The
thing I would like to see is someone take a glue like Mastik 1 or Conti
and apply it using the classic method, letting it dry and using it as a
contact cement, and also mounting the tire while the same glue is still
wet in thinnest possible layers edge-to-edge *to maximize support of
tire by the rim) on a clean rim (to minimize gaps and squirmy high
spots), and compare the results. My theory is that it will compare
favorably with shellac and that glue technique is critical, but so far
there is no data, so it is only a guess.

> > None of this proves that Mastik 1 has insignificant hysteresis losses,
> > even with optimal glue technique, but I have yet to see any evidence
> > that with proper technique the loss is greater than shellac.
>
> That's what I aim to do discover. I really don't have a dog in this
> fight. I'm just going to use whatever turns out to be fastest.

Same here (even though I haven't raced for more than 15 years), but I
don't want to change rims and tires based on speculation.

> I might
> share the results -- unless it looks too likely that I'll get harangued
> for it by one side or the other, or it like will give away too much to
> race competitors.

Excellent. I hope you share your data. This is what we need- data
instead of speculation. I suspect that the tests have been done by the
pros and this is why we don't see more clinchers on their bikes,
because they know there is no advantage in clinchers over top tubulars
mounted optimally, but there would be no reason for them to release
their results, nor for you to do so except to advance the body of
knowledge about the sport.

 

[RonSonic]

On 13 Apr 2006 20:19:43 -0700, "Jens" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Jens wrote:
>> > Thanks. I've used the Mastik 1 before. However, in this case,
>> > I'm striving for something more than just keeping the tires on.
>> > I'm looking to eliminate the hysteresis loss from flexible glue
>> > that Jobst has eloquently described elsewhere. This loss
>> > was definitely measurable with Mastik 1.
>>
>> Who measured it, and how?
>
>I did, with an SRM on rollers and on the road. I've been thinking
>of trying one of these though:
>
>http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/mrl/centralfacilities/polymer/DMA.html
>
>> None of this proves that Mastik 1 has insignificant hysteresis losses,
>> even with optimal glue technique, but I have yet to see any evidence
>> that with proper technique the loss is greater than shellac.
>
>
>That's what I aim to do discover. I really don't have a dog in this
>fight. I'm just going to use whatever turns out to be fastest. I
>might
>share the results -- unless it looks too likely that I'll get harangued
>for it by one side or the other, or it like will give away too much to
>race competitors.

I think the one thing this whole kerfuffle has established is that the
differences are subtle enough to permit prolonged, inconclusive debate. So I
think you're okay on that score.

As for the harangue, you won't get one from me and I'll stick up for anyone
presenting what it is he has observed. Let us know what you find, please.

Ron