Slime, any good?

[Callistus Valerius]

> Have any of tried such a "flat preventer" before?

slime doesn't work in road tires, the pressure is too great. If it's a
commuter bike, and you don't want to change a flat on the way to work, try
the thorn proof tubes, heavy but they work. Only failure I had with a thorn
proof tube was when the valve finally gave out. You have to catch a nail
like a car tire does to flatten it. Another benefit, is you only have to
pump them up, maybe once a month.

 

[Bruce Graham]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:37:18 GMT, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Doesn't this post belong on rec.wheelbarrows.tech?
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, but I *did* buy the Slime in a bike store.
>
You can buy a lifetime supply at the ride-on-mower place. I bought one
bottle a few years ago (about a litre I think) which did the 4 wheels of
the mower. All problems fixed since. I just should have kept a little
for my touring bike.

 

[TBGibb]

In article <[email protected]>, Burak Ilter
<[email protected]> writes:

>I am thinking about using Slime for my inner tires (700x23). Is it any
>good? I have not used any similar product before. So, I am curious
>whether it will be useful or not.

It works. My daughter has "slimed" tubes in her commuter (26X2.1 in back and
26X1.5 in front). Even though she has schrader valves I will NEVER again try
to put that stuff in through the valve. I just snip a small slit in the tube,
inject the sealant and then patch the slit. Much easier on my blood pressure.


One has to have a slightly different mindset when finding a flat before riding.
Ya just pump it up and go, the rolling of the wheel distributes the sealant
and it plugs the leak. If you get a hole in the side wall you are out of luck.


Tom Gibb <[email protected]>

 

[Jeff Starr]

On 09 Dec 2004 02:48:16 GMT, [email protected] (TBGibb) wrote:

nd
> Even though she has schrader valves I will NEVER again try
>to put that stuff in through the valve. I just snip a small slit in the tube,
>inject the sealant and then patch the slit. Much easier on my blood pressure.
>
>Tom Gibb <[email protected]>

Hi, why don't you just unscrew the valve core? On a Schradervalve you
can get a tool that will unscrew the core.
http://www.kevinscycleracing.com/images/tools/valveCoreTool.jpg


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

>> I am thinking about using Slime for my inner tires (700x23).
>> Is it any good? I have not used any similar product before.
>> So, I am curious whether it will be useful or not.
>
> Heavy. Can turn a nice, light, lively bike into a pig.

Amazing that eight fluid ounces of Slime can do all that.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

 

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

> I would never use that **** in my tubes.
> I would rather put up with a could flats a year.

Before I used Slime, I got a lot more than just a could flats a year.
Now I get usually none.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

 

[PBridge130]

>From: LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m [email protected]

>> Heavy. Can turn a nice, light, lively bike into a pig.
>
>Amazing that eight fluid ounces of Slime can do all that

It's not eight ounces of seatpost -- it's eight ounces precisely at the
perimeter of the rotating mass of the bike. Try it -- you'll feel it. Maybe
you'll like it. ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

On 11 Dec 2004 13:34:20 GMT, [email protected] (PBridge130)
wrote:

>>From: LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m [email protected]
>
>>> Heavy. Can turn a nice, light, lively bike into a pig.
>>
>>Amazing that eight fluid ounces of Slime can do all that
>
>It's not eight ounces of seatpost -- it's eight ounces precisely at the
>perimeter of the rotating mass of the bike. Try it -- you'll feel it. Maybe
>you'll like it. ;-)

Dear PB,

In such matters, there's always the question of how much
difference is actually noticed and how much is anticipation.

I wonder how reliably anyone can tell the difference if
slime tubes were swapped in and out randomly in a blind test
on the same bike over a period of two weeks with the rider
pedalling the same route.

I suspect that the rider's times would show very little
difference, with any effect from the extra weight affecting
acceleration being swamped by the vagaries of the breeze.

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:16:14 -0800, LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0
0_d 0 t_c 0 m <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I would never use that **** in my tubes.
>> I would rather put up with a could flats a year.
>
>Before I used Slime, I got a lot more than just a could flats a year.
>Now I get usually none.

Dear L.,

Flat front tire Thursday, goathead thorn--went flat
overnight.

Same thing Friday, after replacing both tube and
tire--noticed the tire going soft in the last mile and a
half of the ride.

Twenty-nine flats so far this year with Slime tubes in 334
15-mile rides, an average of one flat every 175 miles. And
this is a good year compared to some, with the improvement
possibly due to Kevlar strip tires--the woven Kevlar doesn't
stop the thorns from penetrating, but its extra thickness
means that shorter thorn points fail to reach the inner
tube. When I fix flats, after checking the inside of the
tire, I go around the outside, digging out the tiny thorns
embedded in the tread.

After I stopped using Mr. Tuffy plastic protector strips and
thick thorn-resistant tubes, I began getting three or four
times as many flat tires with Slime tubes, but they often
last for my less-than-an-hour ride and I prefer to fuss with
flats comfortably at home.

Flat rear tire at the beginning of the month--flipped the
bike upside down as usual in the garage, spun the rear tire,
and noticed something odd flashing past. Turned out to be an
intact goathead with one thorn stuck into the sidewall and
the other thorn hoping that I'd be fool enough to grab it
while the tire was spinning. I hadn't leaned over far enough
in any turns on that side to tear the vile thing off while
cornering, and the Slime had sealed the edges well enough to
hold air.

Carl Fogel

 

[PBridge130]

>From: [email protected]

>[email protected] (PBridge130)
>wrote:

>>>> Heavy. Can turn a nice, light, lively bike into a pig.

>I wonder how reliably anyone can tell the difference if
>slime tubes were swapped in and out randomly in a blind test...

>I suspect that the rider's times would show very little
>difference...


My wife has a nice Vitus, with the same wheels and tires that I have on a
number of other bikes. She and I ride the same size frame.

I was doing a bit of work on her bike, and I took it for a test ride. I
immediately -- instantly -- wondered why it felt so dead. After
investigation, I learned that a friend of hers had slimed her tires, following
a flat a couple of weekends previous. I replaced the tubes, and the bike
regained its lively nature.

Rider's times? Hmmmn. Maybe, if you're were talking about a FLAT time trial,
and an elite athlete. I suggest that you take a slimed set of tubes for an 8
or 9 thousand vertical feet climbing ride, and then come back and report as to
whether you noticed a difference in general bike liveliness.

Rotating weight, Carl, rotating weight. Rotating weight -- meditate on that
concept.

 

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

PBridge130 wrote:

>>> Heavy. Can turn a nice, light, lively bike into a pig.
>>
>> Amazing that eight fluid ounces of Slime can do all that.
>
> It's not eight ounces of seatpost -- it's eight ounces
> precisely at the perimeter of the rotating mass of the bike.
> Try it -- you'll feel it.

Even if I *could* feel it, which I doubt very much, that still would in
no way turn a nice, light, lively bike into a pig. There is a helluva
lot more difference between a NLL bike and a pig than eight fluid ounces
of Slime, which weighs what, six ounces avoirdupois? 170g? Get real.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

 

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

carlfogel wrote:

>>> I would never use that **** in my tubes.
>>> I would rather put up with a could flats a year.
>>
>> Before I used Slime, I got a lot more than just a could
>> flats a year. Now I get usually none.
>
> After I stopped using Mr. Tuffy plastic protector strips
> and thick thorn-resistant tubes, I began getting three or
> four times as many flat tires with Slime tubes

I should perhaps mention that I use Slime *and* thorn-resistant tubes
*and* Mr. Tuffy liners. I have found that none of these measures by
itself is adequate for the prevention of tardiness on my morning commute
here in the God-forsaken thorny desert to my job at the Devil's Own Salt
Mine.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

 

[Tom Sherman]

PBridge130 wrote:

> ...
> Rotating weight, Carl, rotating weight. Rotating weight -- meditate on that
> concept.

Myth and Lore (as J. Brandt would say) dies hard.

--
Tom Sherman - Rock Island County Illinois
Tetrahedral carbon lattices are not forever.

 

[Dave Lehnen]

[email protected] wrote:
<stuff about weight of Slimed vs un-Slimed tubes>

> Carl Fogel

While the extra weight of Slimed tubes is too little to be of
much concern, the tube contains a significant quantity of viscous
liquid, that probably gets pumped around, at least some, as the
wheel turns. Maybe at speed it stays plastered against the
outside of the tube and doesn't flow much, or maybe not.

As a test, you could put the bike on a stand or (heaven forbid)
upside down, and spin the front wheel up to some known speed,
and time how long it takes to coast down to some lower speed.
Do the test with Slimed and un-Slimed tubes. If the viscous
drag of flowing Slime is insignificant, the heavier Slimed tube
wheel will spin down more slowly, having more inertia but the
same air drag. If Slime's viscous drag is significant, it should
slow down much more quickly. If it only slows a little more
quickly, the viscous drag probably doesn't mean much either.

Not having any Slimed tubes, and not wanting to put the nasty
green **** in a perfectly good tube, I haven't tried the
experiment, at least not yet.

Dave Lehnen

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:56:21 GMT, Dave Lehnen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
><stuff about weight of Slimed vs un-Slimed tubes>
>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>While the extra weight of Slimed tubes is too little to be of
>much concern, the tube contains a significant quantity of viscous
>liquid, that probably gets pumped around, at least some, as the
>wheel turns. Maybe at speed it stays plastered against the
>outside of the tube and doesn't flow much, or maybe not.
>
>As a test, you could put the bike on a stand or (heaven forbid)
>upside down, and spin the front wheel up to some known speed,
>and time how long it takes to coast down to some lower speed.
>Do the test with Slimed and un-Slimed tubes. If the viscous
>drag of flowing Slime is insignificant, the heavier Slimed tube
>wheel will spin down more slowly, having more inertia but the
>same air drag. If Slime's viscous drag is significant, it should
>slow down much more quickly. If it only slows a little more
>quickly, the viscous drag probably doesn't mean much either.
>
>Not having any Slimed tubes, and not wanting to put the nasty
>green **** in a perfectly good tube, I haven't tried the
>experiment, at least not yet.
>
>Dave Lehnen

Dear Dave,

If you ever try the experiment, I suggest fitting a
speedometer to the rear wheel, which can be hand cranked to
a steady speed of over 20 mph fairly easily.

In a long-ago thread, I found that it's extremely hard to
hand-spin a front tire to over 15 mph:

http://groups.google.co.uk/[email protected]&rnum=1
or http://tinyurl.com/3pyq7

A claim that a front wheel could be spun up to 30 mph with
one finger prompted the inquiry above--it turned out to be
wishful thinking.

Hmmm . . . I have a spare Schwinn speedometer to mount on
the rear of a spare bike, both Slime and ordinary tubes, and
no time to waste on such frivolous experiments--how can I
resist? And with the holiday at my throat, I'll be wandering
past the post office, with its free electronic scale.

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Dave Lehnen writes:

> While the extra weight of Slimed tubes is too little to be of much
> concern, the tube contains a significant quantity of viscous liquid,
> that probably gets pumped around, at least some, as the wheel
> turns. Maybe at speed it stays plastered against the outside of the
> tube and doesn't flow much, or maybe not.

I can tell you what you'll find. At any reasonable bicycling speed
(over 10mph) any fluid in the tire will be centrifugally plastered
against the outer diameter of the inner tube air chamber. It will be
synchronous with the rotational speed, there being no force to prevent
it from being so. The wheel will spin longer with a fluid in there
than without and the test will reveal nothing new.

> Not having any Slimed tubes, and not wanting to put the nasty
> green **** in a perfectly good tube, I haven't tried the
> experiment, at least not yet.

Don't.

The real drawback of slime is, as I pointed out in earlier threads,
that in the event of a flat from a large cut or blowout, the bicycle
will be unmanageable because the tire will walk sideways with the
lightest side load, ones that are used to balance the bicycle by
steering. I have had that experience.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

carlfogel wrote:

> I'm don't know where the "eight ounces" came from

Contents of the bottle:

http://www.slime.com/images/bike_27.gif

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:37:24 GMT,
[email protected] wrote:

>Dave Lehnen writes:
>
>> While the extra weight of Slimed tubes is too little to be of much
>> concern, the tube contains a significant quantity of viscous liquid,
>> that probably gets pumped around, at least some, as the wheel
>> turns. Maybe at speed it stays plastered against the outside of the
>> tube and doesn't flow much, or maybe not.
>
>I can tell you what you'll find. At any reasonable bicycling speed
>(over 10mph) any fluid in the tire will be centrifugally plastered
>against the outer diameter of the inner tube air chamber. It will be
>synchronous with the rotational speed, there being no force to prevent
>it from being so. The wheel will spin longer with a fluid in there
>than without and the test will reveal nothing new.
>
>> Not having any Slimed tubes, and not wanting to put the nasty
>> green **** in a perfectly good tube, I haven't tried the
>> experiment, at least not yet.
>
>Don't.
>
>The real drawback of slime is, as I pointed out in earlier threads,
>that in the event of a flat from a large cut or blowout, the bicycle
>will be unmanageable because the tire will walk sideways with the
>lightest side load, ones that are used to balance the bicycle by
>steering. I have had that experience.
>
>Jobst Brandt
>[email protected]

Dear Jobst,

Hope to see you over in the new thread--my first tests show
an odd effect.

Carl Fogel

 

[David Damerell]

PBridge130 <[email protected]> wrote:
[Slime]
>It's not eight ounces of seatpost -- it's eight ounces precisely at the
>perimeter of the rotating mass of the bike.

Which would have no effect at all at steady speed, be the same as any
other 8 ounces when climbing, and act like 16 ounces elsewhere for the
purpose of resisting acceleration. Not a great deal.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[justen]

LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m <[email protected]> wrote:
> carlfogel wrote:
>> After I stopped using Mr. Tuffy plastic protector strips
>> and thick thorn-resistant tubes, I began getting three or
>> four times as many flat tires with Slime tubes

> I should perhaps mention that I use Slime *and* thorn-resistant tubes
> *and* Mr. Tuffy liners. I have found that none of these measures by
> itself is adequate for the prevention of tardiness on my morning commute
> here in the God-forsaken thorny desert to my job at the Devil's Own Salt
> Mine.

Just curious, what tire width/psi are you running? I've got 2.1"
knobbies at around 30psi, and my experience is that Slime works
amazingly well against goatheads. I've gone from a couple
goatheads flats a week to none, in many years. Probaby
thick, knobby tires help a bit, and maybe the low psi.

I've been on an offroad ride through a patch of goatheads,
and picked over a dozen thorns from my tires. The tube was
still holding pressure weeks later.

I've gotten a couple large punctures, and Slimed tires are indeed
tricky to ride when they go flat. They squirm all over. One
time, my rear wheel slid about two feet to the side, rolling
the tire off the rim, and denting the rim on the curb. This was
rolling out from a stoplight. I hate to think what'd happen
with a front flat on a 35mph paved descent.

justen