Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: SocSecTrainWreck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 25 Oct 2005 06:23:17 -0700
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1130182046.805747.218440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> SocSecTrainWreck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > You are incorrect in your interpretation of what I am saying. I am NOT
> > saying that the rebound response of the tire is dependent on the change
> > in air pressure; that is, as you said, dependent on the absolute air
> > pressure, i.e., the difference between the pressure in the tire and the
> > atmospheric pressure. Similarly, the compressibility of the tire is
> > dependent on the amount of force required to move highly compressed air
> > out of the local part of the tube so that the casing can flex. After
> > doing a very little research on air shocks, it does, however, appear
> > that decreasing the volume does in fact increase the compression
> > damping curve, causing the compression damping to increase more rapidly
> > than it does with a larger volume. Fox takes advantage of this with
> > some of their shocks by including a system for changing air volume _up
> > to_ 40% as a way to change the compression damping curve. If there is
> > indeed a difference in volume between a clincher and tubular of the
> > same width, the only question is whether this same effect is
> > significant or not for tires, _not_ whether the effect is present.
> > Given that there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests clinchers
> > bottom out more easily than tubulars at the same air pressure, the
> > effect of volume difference between the two types of tires, all other
> > things being equal, may explain the effect.
> >
> > The "equations", or, as I would describe them, formulas, were derived
> > as a guess, but would certainly benefit from some actual measurements
> > of volume; might even be able to do it by comparing number of pump
> > strokes (with a good pump that has a secure fit on the valve stem) to
> > pump up comparable tubulars and clinchers.
>
> This is plausible sounding prose using some terms from
> engineering, but it is not engineering. You need to state
> a thesis, then support it using methods recognized by
> those skilled in the art; then we can productively discuss
> what you have in mind. What you have written is not even a
> start, so I will not add specific comments.
BS. First of all, the effect of volume on compression damping is a
fact, not a thesis. Secondly, the hypothesis is clearly stated: "If
there is indeed a difference in volume between a clincher and tubular
of the same width, the only question is whether this same effect is
significant or not for tires, _not_ whether the effect is present.
Given that there is some anecdotal evidence that suggests clinchers
bottom out more easily than tubulars at the same air pressure, the
effect of volume difference between the two types of tires, all other
things being equal, may explain the effect." Anyone with minimal
reading comprehension and analytical ability could construct a more
formal hypothesis from this. Finally, as any hypothesis should be, it
can be tested, and easily by anyone who wants to put in the effort.
I don't give a crap whether you "will add specific comments." Other
than completely nonspecific, utterly nonconstructive criticism, you
don't seem to have anything to add.
.
- References:
- Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: weinstro
- Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: David L. Johnson
- Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: David L. Johnson
- Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: SocSecTrainWreck
- Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: David L. Johnson
- Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: SocSecTrainWreck
- Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: SocSecTrainWreck
- Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- From: Michael Press
- Q on tubular tires (long)
- Prev by Date: Re: disk brake debate - summary II
- Next by Date: Re: Problem with SJS cycles track hubs
- Previous by thread: Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- Next by thread: Re: Q on tubular tires (long)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|