Tubular rim glue ???

My track riding partner had a crash the other week and is now sporting an artificial shoulder and
the reason for his crash has been identified as the wrong type of glue (as well as not enough) on
his tubular tyre. As I have a Yanky mate that can get tubular glue for me and is even willing to
send it it to me, But has no knowledge of cycling, let alone the noble sport of track riding. What
is a good brand of tubular glue in America? The "multi purpose" glues here in New Zealand are
obviously a bit dodgy.

Thanks in advance Trackie, or more commonly "The Old one"

 

On 02/26/2004 11:10 PM, in article [email protected], "Trackie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> My track riding partner had a crash the other week and is now sporting an artificial shoulder and
> the reason for his crash has been identified as the wrong type of glue (as well as not enough) on
> his tubular tyre. As I have a Yanky mate that can get tubular glue for me and is even willing to
> send it it to me, But has no knowledge of cycling, let alone the noble sport of track riding. What
> is a good brand of tubular glue in America? The "multi purpose" glues here in New Zealand are
> obviously a bit dodgy.

What brand of tubbies are you using?

--
Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net bellum
pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti
ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you double-yew double-ewe
dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

 

ro-<< What is a good brand of tubular glue in America? >><BR><BR>

Either Continental or Vittoria, both are specific to tubies and work well.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

"Trackie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> My track riding partner had a crash the other week and is now sporting an artificial shoulder and
> the reason for his crash has been identified as the wrong type of glue (as well as not enough) on
> his tubular tyre. As I have a Yanky mate that can get tubular glue for me and is even willing to
> send it it to me, But has no knowledge of cycling, let alone the noble sport of track riding. What
> is a good brand of tubular glue in America? The "multi purpose" glues here in New Zealand are
> obviously a bit dodgy.
>
> Thanks in advance Trackie, or more commonly "The Old one"

The gluing procedures and techniques are typically as critical, if not more critcal, than the brand
of glue. (There are, however, some very pour brands as well.)

For gluing procedure see: http://www.parktool.com/repair_help/tubular.shtml

 

On 27 Feb 2004 19:10:23 +1300, "Trackie" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>My track riding partner had a crash the other week and is now sporting an artificial shoulder and
>the reason for his crash has been identified as the wrong type of glue (as well as not enough) on
>his tubular tyre. As I have a Yanky mate that can get tubular glue for me and is even willing to
>send it it to me, But has no knowledge of cycling, let alone the noble sport of track riding. What
>is a good brand of tubular glue in America? The "multi purpose" glues here in New Zealand are
>obviously a bit dodgy.

http://www.engr.ukans.edu/~ktl/bicycle/Cusa1.pdf

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

 

I've been using the TUFO tubular adhesive tape, and it works very, very well. No more glue!

 

http://www.engr.ukans.edu/~ktl/bicycle/Cusa1.pdf[/url]
[/B][/QUOTE]

Great article John!
This article is very detailed and helpful.
Quality information like this helps tubular riders ride with maximum safety and security.

 

"Aut potentior te, aut imbecillior laesit: si imbecillior, barce ille;
si potentior, tibi." - Seneca
On 27 Feb 2004 19:10:23 +1300, "Trackie" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My track riding partner had a crash the other week and is now sporting an artificial shoulder and
>the reason for his crash has been identified as the wrong type of glue (as well as not enough) on
>his tubular tyre.

It seems particularly cruel to blame the victim whenever someone suffers more than a little road
rash, but if a crash is initiated by a rolled tire, it generally has to be regarded as a self-
inflicted wound. Although some rim adhesives can be better than others, failure to follow proper
gluing technique is far and away the most likely culprit when rims and tires go their separate ways.

>As I have a Yanky mate that can get tubular glue for me and is even willing to send it it to me,
>But has no knowledge of cycling, let alone the noble sport of track riding. What is a good brand of
>tubular glue in America? The "multi purpose" glues here in New Zealand are obviously a bit dodgy.

Because the adhesive securing track tires won't generally have to suffer the thermal problems
associated with rims superheated from brake pad friction and track racing rarely happens in the
rain, arguably the selection of a glue for track use is less critical than for road racing. Even
so, I have rather less confidence in some brands than others. I believe that Vittoria Mastik One,
Continental and Soyo rim cements are all solid choices. An automotive trim adhesive from 3M ("Fast
Tack") is also popular among track racers, notable for its fast cure time compared to dedicated
rim cement.
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalogue of track
equipment: eighth year online. http://www.businesscycles.com

 

"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ro-<< What is a good brand of tubular glue in America? >><BR><BR>
>
> Either Continental or Vittoria, both are specific to tubies and work well.
>
Of the two, I like the Conti in the big tub better. Love that built-in brush!

Mike

>
> Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

"Omne ignotum pro magnifico est." -Tacitus
"Omne ignotum pro magnifico est." - Tacitus
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:26:51 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>For the track, you can also use shellac. Much harder glue, less rolling resistance.

These claims for lowered rolling resistance recur here sporadically, but they never seem to include
supporting documentation to quantify them.

Isn't it time we learned whether we're talking about picoseconds per kilometer or if glue selection
for track racers really merits more consideration than it currently receives?
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalogue of track
equipment: eighth year online. http://www.businesscycles.com

 

John Dacey writes:

>> For the track, you can also use shellac. Much harder glue, less rolling resistance.

> These claims for lowered rolling resistance recur here sporadically, but they never seem to
> include supporting documentation to quantify them.

You can see the difference on the graphs that have been explained often here. The tubulars that have
the best RR by their nature (flattest curve) lie higher than clinchers due to glue squirm. That this
is the case should be obvious when inspecting rims that have been ridden a lot. They have base tape
wear marks and the glue is full of grey aluminum wear dust.

http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/imgs/rolres.gif

> Isn't it time we learned whether we're talking about picoseconds per kilometer or if glue
> selection for track racers really merits more consideration than it currently receives?

It is significant enough that the ancients in the days of tubulars invented hard glue to get rid of
this parasitic loss for record events on the track. It took me a few seconds to recognize this on
seeing the curves in these rolling resistance tests. Besides, around here riders often wore through
the base tape from all the creep on road glue from Pirelli, Clement, D'Allesandro' Tubasti,
Pastali, etc.

I was grateful to the Specialized Touring-II tire that absolved me of messing with tubulars. Those
FAQ items on manufacture, repair and gluing of tubulars did not come from empirical thinking. That
was a lot of impractical tire repair... a pain in the ass.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:NzS%[email protected]...
> John Dacey writes:
>
> >> For the track, you can also use shellac. Much harder glue, less rolling resistance.
>
> > These claims for lowered rolling resistance recur here sporadically, but they never seem to
> > include supporting documentation to quantify them.
>
> You can see the difference on the graphs that have been explained often here. The tubulars that
> have the best RR by their nature (flattest curve) lie higher than clinchers due to glue squirm.
> That this is the case should be obvious when inspecting rims that have been ridden a lot. They
> have base tape wear marks and the glue is full of grey aluminum wear dust.
>
> http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/imgs/rolres.gif
>

Dude, that chart is WAY out of date! We're talking about Michelin Supercomps and other tires that
haven't been made for YEARS.

I'd be interested to see a new chart with some updated tires... Anyone else?

For example: where do my Tufos stand? How bout the Michelin HiLite Prestige tires I train on? Or the
Hutchison Carbon Comps? Or...?

Mike

 

>> These claims for lowered rolling resistance recur here sporadically, but they never seem to
>> include supporting documentation to quantify them.

That's because there is not supporting documentation outside of Jobst Brandt's imagination.
rec.bicycles.tech readers will recognize JB's posts in most every thread despite no actual
experience as a bicycle mechanic or component designer outside of the Avocet cyclometer.

>It is significant enough that the ancients in the days of tubulars invented hard glue to get rid of
>this parasitic loss for record events on the track.

The use of ad hominem, "the ancients" is a Jobst signature, crudely inserted to divert
attention from the actual issues. In fact there is no such rolling resistance due to tubular
glues of any kind.

Problem is Jobst's data is based on a machine of his design for illustrating performance advantages
of the tires of his employer (Avocet). It in no way simulates actual riding conditions. It should
also be pointed out that the slick, high-pressure Avocet clinchers that showed such high performance
in Jobst's "tests" are no available. Too many real world cyclists lost traction in real world
conditions and suffered many square yards of road rash as a result. Take note, and heed, if you
should be so foolish as to take Jobst's advice on any subject related to bicycles.

Tommy Roster

 

Dear Tommy,

If you go to the site suggested by the address of the
graph link, you'll find what looks like extensive data:

http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rrdiscuss.htm

As for the possible disappearance of the tires from the
market, are tire models from the 1986 testing still available
18 years later?

To use Chalo Colina's immortal phrase, I doubt that I'll
be "pasting my own tires on with frog snot anytime soon,"
but it seems reasonable that an extremely thin, hard
layer of frog snot would contribute less to rolling resistance
than a thick, soft layer of amphibian mucous.

Which lane would you rather race in, one covered with
a thin layer of hard stuff or one with a thin layer of soft
stuff?

Carl Fogel

 

Tommy Roster writes:

>>> These claims for lowered rolling resistance recur here sporadically, but they never seem to
>>> include supporting documentation to quantify them.

> That's because there is not supporting documentation outside of Jobst Brandt's imagination.
> rec.bicycles.tech readers will recognize JB's posts in most every thread despite no actual
> experience as a bicycle mechanic or component designer outside of the Avocet cyclometer.

I take it you are more impressed by people who post unsupported claims while citing their
educational titles while using scientific jargon to give credibility to their claims. As Richard
Feynman said "If you can't explain it in plain English, you probably don't understand it
yourself." I suggest you respond to the statements I made rather than use insults to put forth
your point of view.

>> It is significant enough that the ancients in the days of tubulars invented hard glue to get rid
>> of this parasitic loss for record events on the track.

> The use of ad hominem, "the ancients" is a Jobst signature, crudely inserted to divert
> attention from the actual issues. In fact there is no such rolling resistance due to tubular
> glues of any kind.

Oh! "the ancients" refers to those professionals who long ago developed high performance tubulars
and their use. To whom do you believe this was an ad hominem? I use the term often to refer to those
who came before my time and made significant contributions to the art. How do you explain the
existence of road and track glue? To what do you attribute the data in those curves and how do you
explain wear on base tapes that leaves cloth abrasion marks in aluminum rims. I'm interested on what
you base your claim that pressure sensitive rim glue has no losses. Have you ridden tubulars over
any significant distance?

> Problem is Jobst's data is based on a machine of his design for illustrating performance
> advantages of the tires of his employer (Avocet).

These tests were done in Japan by IRC tire company on a standard RR machine that is used to compare
tires. Since RR is caused by tire flex, measuring all tires against a steel drum is a valid
comparison that favors no specific tire. Motor vehicle tire RR is tested on such machines.

> It in no way simulates actual riding conditions. It should also be pointed out that the slick, high-
> pressure Avocet clinchers that showed such high performance in Jobst's "tests" are no available.

I think you'll find them in various bicycle shops and that people who read this newsgroup have had
good service from them. What is it you feel is missing in the rolling resistance test that makes the
comparisons invalid? How do you propose they be done? You'll find that Michelin and Continental use
the same test method for their evaluations. Michelin even brought such a machine to the InterBike
trade show in 2002 for anyone to use.

> Too many real world cyclists lost traction in real world conditions and suffered many square yards
> of road rash as a result.

Let's see some evidence of this. Meanwhile evidence to the contrary abounds.

> Take note, and heed, if you should be so foolish as to take Jobst's advice on any subject related
> to bicycles.

I'm curious what it is that makes you so venomous.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

carlfogel <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Which lane would you rather race in, one covered with a thin layer of hard stuff or one with a
> thin layer of soft stuff?

I would rather race on which ever is better. Soft stuff versus hard stuff could also be described as
supple stuff versus brittle stuff.

A few questions come to mind: How well were the tires glued on when they were tested and were they
glued on by a Clement technician or Avocet? Also, has anyone proven that the advantages of tubulars
do not more than make up for supposed difference in rolling resistance? For example, despite all the
discussion on the subject, I have yet to see any evidence that rotaional inertia, and therefore the
weight of tires and rims, can be dismissed as insignificant. Or, in real world conditions does the
equation change somehow because clinchers require higher relative pressures? Does the softer ride of
tubulars save enough energy of the rider (since vibrating muscles are known as a cause of fatigue)
to offset an admittedly very small at most difference in rolling resistance?

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It seems clear that tubulars at one time held a
performance advantage. What is not clear is whether the advantage has slipped due to improvements in
clinchers or as a result of paying pros big bucks to use them, with trickle down acceptance. As a
consultant to Avocet, one of the early proponents of high performance clincher tires, Jobst is
someone worth listening to, but should be treated with healthy scepticism.

JP

 

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:57:01 GMT, [email protected]
wrote:

>John Dacey writes:

>> These claims for lowered rolling resistance recur here sporadically, but they never seem to
>> include supporting documentation to quantify them.
>
>You can see the difference on the graphs that have been explained often here. The tubulars that
>have the best RR by their nature (flattest curve) lie higher than clinchers due to glue squirm.
>That this is the case should be obvious when inspecting rims that have been ridden a lot. They have
>base tape wear marks and the glue is full of grey aluminum wear dust.
>
>http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/imgs/rolres.gif

You say I can see the difference, but I don't. There's no mention of the kind of adhesive used
for the two tubular models in the results you cite. Where does the plot lie for tires with a
hard cement?

>
>> Isn't it time we learned whether we're talking about picoseconds per kilometer or if glue
>> selection for track racers really merits more consideration than it currently receives?
>
>It is significant enough that the ancients in the days of tubulars invented hard glue to get rid of
>this parasitic loss for record events on the track. It took me a few seconds to recognize this on
>seeing the curves in these rolling resistance tests. Besides, around here riders often wore through
>the base tape from all the creep on road glue from Pirelli, Clement, D'Allesandro' Tubasti,
>Pastali, etc.

It seems to me that your "recognition" of this is conjecture, inasmuch as the tubular results with
hard glue aren't actually included on the graph. Also, from the recitation of the brands of cements
on which your comments are derived, it's clear that you're opinions are based upon products of 25
years ago and perhaps not consistent with results that might be had from contemporary tire adhesives
from Continental, Vittoria, Soyo and 3M. The "squirminess" of Tubasti is probably much greater than
for Mastik One.

The Ancients, whom you credit with inventing hard glue for select track events are the same ones who
began the custom of inflating those tires to very high pressures; yet you've regularly described
high pressure as gratuitous excess. High (10+ BAR) pressure for track tubulars remains a common
practice, while using shellac and track-specific tubular cement is rarely (if ever) still done. Why
would one bit of ancient wisdom that you say is significant (hard glue) fall from use while another
that you regard as needless risk (high pressure) remain common practice unless people found rewards
with the one and none in the other?

>
>I was grateful to the Specialized Touring-II tire that absolved me of messing with tubulars. Those
>FAQ items on manufacture, repair and gluing of tubulars did not come from empirical thinking. That
>was a lot of impractical tire repair... a pain in the ass.

I don't want to resurrect the whole clincher/tubular debate. The original poster inquired about
track tires, where tubulars are still the predominant format. I request again: can you estimate the
time difference in a flying kilometer time trial ridden at 50kph, where the only difference is
whether shellac or modern road rim cement is used to adhere the tires? Just how many seconds (or
fractions thereof) per kilometer is shellac (track glue) likely to be worth?

-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida http://www.businesscycles.com Now in our twenty-first
year. Our catalog of track equipment: eighth year online
-------------------------------

 

"JP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> carlfogel <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Which lane would you rather race in, one covered with a thin layer of hard stuff or one with a
> > thin layer of soft stuff?
>
> I would rather race on which ever is better. Soft stuff versus hard stuff could also be described
> as supple stuff versus brittle stuff.
>
> A few questions come to mind: How well were the tires glued on when they were tested and were they
> glued on by a Clement technician or Avocet? Also, has anyone proven that the advantages of
> tubulars do not more than make up for supposed difference in rolling resistance? For example,
> despite all the discussion on the subject, I have yet to see any evidence that rotaional inertia,
> and therefore the weight of tires and rims, can be dismissed as insignificant. Or, in real world
> conditions does the equation change somehow because clinchers require higher relative pressures?
> Does the softer ride of tubulars save enough energy of the rider (since vibrating muscles are
> known as a cause of fatigue) to offset an admittedly very small at most difference in rolling
> resistance?
>
> I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It seems clear that tubulars at one time held a
> performance advantage. What is not clear is whether the advantage has slipped due to improvements
> in clinchers or as a result of paying pros big bucks to use them, with trickle down acceptance. As
> a consultant to Avocet, one of the early proponents of high performance clincher tires, Jobst is
> someone worth listening to, but should be treated with healthy scepticism.
>
> JP

Holy Cow! Skepticism of the "fount of all cycling-related knowledge?" Blasphemer!

While I admit that Jobst knows a bunch more than I do, he's not all-knowledgeable.

I reserve the right to think for myself rather than parrot what I've been told.

Mike

 

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:00:50 GMT, <[email protected]> may have
said:

>>> These claims for lowered rolling resistance recur here sporadically, but they never seem to
>>> include supporting documentation to quantify them.
>
>That's because there is not supporting documentation outside of Jobst Brandt's imagination.
>rec.bicycles.tech readers will recognize JB's posts in most every thread despite no actual
>experience as a bicycle mechanic or component designer outside of the Avocet cyclometer.

Well, that little rant deserves just one terse response.

Plonk.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

Dear John,

Nicely done.

I'm sorry that I wandered off and lost sight of
your question. If no one has done tests to
compare the losses for the different kinds of
glue and shellac, then we're all chattering in
bad theoretical light, if not the dark.

The lack of specific data addressing our questions
may explain why so many of our threads descend
into yes-it-is, no-it-isn't arguments.

I predict that hard shellac should roll with less
loss than soft glue, but I'm absolutely certain
that neither glue nor shellac care what I predict.

Speaking of specific data, does anyone have a
handy link to tests of rolling resistance versus
inflation for modern tires?

Carl Fogel

P.S. Do you know whether Japanese keirin
racers glue their tires on? If so, with what?

C.F.