(Rant warning) Rene Herse tires poorly designed for tubeless?

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by Likes2ridefar

I’d be pissed If I was stuck with that logic as I’d make it maybe one ride before flatting.

Originally Posted by mtechnica

If you tried the trip I did using tubes you would not have made it period. 220 miles in the AZ desert, 15000ft elevation gain. ROUGH roads and single track. Goat heads. You would have been stranded and had to walk 50 miles when you ran out of tubes and patches after day 3.

Originally Posted by dbnm

I too live in the desert and just went out to check my tires for goat heads.

Here in NM, goat heads are as common as sand.

This is my 700x38 Gravel King SS+.

I won't pull out the goat head. I will let it fall out on the next ride and nothing will happen other than I will keep riding.

Ps... I don't even carry a tube these days.

I grew up in NM and spent most of my 20s in AZ. Anyone else remember carrying at least two slime filled tubes for every ride, plus patch kit? I still remember that glorious day in the mid-00's when I got a "ghetto" tubeless setup with homebrew sealant to set up properly on my MTB - free from the tyranny of tubes.

[DRZRM]

One year in Albuquerque, so many flats, SO MANY GOATHEADS, switched everything except my fat bike to tubeless and never looked back.

Topping sealant on all the bikes in the house (mine, two sons, wife) can be a pain (her road bike still has tubes) but my riding partner is a doctor and brings "free" syringes from work that are perfect for re-filling and the extra hose is great for checking current levels of sealant (dipstick), it only takes a few minutes and I very rarely have any flats to deal with.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

3.) The tires are supple because some people think the more supple tire the faster it rolls, but there is little to no scientific evidence that RH or extra supple tires are faster than less supple tires such as a GP5000 or schwalbe thunder burt (for example) - because the accepted method for testing rolling resistance is flawed - and presumably the tires really are faster there just isn't any objective data. (am I understanding this correctly?)

It's a game. Demi- and Balloon size tires at the pressure most people would ride roll significantly slower than racing size tires, at the pressure most people would ride. The trick is to make the tires supple enough that the user (or tester) can run the tires at relatively high pressure (say 50+psi for a 40mm tire) and drop the rolling resistance enough to test well before it hits the deflection point. Check the last graph linked below. Supple tires generally have a deflection point much further right than stiffer tires. So a supple 40mm tire can be shown to roll down very fast at right below deflection to suspension losses at 50 psi whereas a stiffer tire hits deflection at 40 psi - so that stiffer tire does not roll as fast in the test. The issue is that for most riders, a 40mm tire at 40 or 50 psi is a basketball and uncomfortable to ride. If you know the sag ratio to tire pressure for a sample of tires this can be estimated. Look at the Bicycle Rolling Resistance gravel tire tests to get a general idea, note the rolling resistance for most demi balloon tires (38-42mm) is vastly understated as most riders would be riding then at Ultra Low or Low, whereas cross sizes (32-37) would be ridden at "med" or "high" pressure: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...gravel-reviews

Roller data tracks roll down data on regular asphalt: https://blog.silca.cc/part-4b-rollin...-and-impedance



The whole thing is a very interesting multi-variate puzzle. To me personally, because the vast amount of mileage I've put down riding 700cx25/28/38/42 vs. 650bx42/48/52 outside in the real world does not track well to the statistically clean, regression tested, ride around a velodrome at 17.32mph "lab" data.

And that's just riding on pavement. Things get even more complicated with dirt, gravel, and knobbs.

Originally Posted by benb

The more Jan posts here the more I worry that proper engineering hasn't been done on the supple tires to ensure they're actually safe.

He's already said that the RH tires get made with the same dimensions as the Panaracers because the Panaracer tires do not have blow off problems.

And he's also acknowledgede that the weaker (more supple) sidewalls demand changes to to dimensions and tighter tolerances.

It really sounds like the combination of dimensions + more supple casings has not been fully tested.

This stuff is supposed to be fully tested at RH before sending the order to Panaracer.. it doesn't sound like that happens.. it sounds more like specifications were come up with, then the tires are manufactured, and then everyone gets to see what happens.

I think the thing to do here would be for RH to start actually testing this stuff, come up with a solid set of specifications for what is required of a rim to be safe with the super supple tires, and then start certifying rims that meet the RH specifications.

This is kind of the same thing as specialized cotton turbo tires + ENVE carbon rims with sharp unfinished edges. Either ENVE or Specialized needs to start listing/specifying which rims or tires are safe with their product. And it can't be a blacklist that grows as reports of accidents occur. It needs to be a whitelist that is tested & generated BEFORE customers get the tires or rims.

It can't be up to customers to find out whether it's safe or not by smacking the ground with their faces.

It's all *exactly* the model of nothing is properly tested because too much stuff is outsourced.

I'd bet dollars to donuts RH can't prototype a tire design change onsite whereas Panaracer can.. the Panaracer tires would then be much more solidly tested before a big production run.

It can never be repeated enough that all this increased risk is all in the name of "marginal gains". The gains are marginal, the risks are not.

If this ever gets ironed out and standards are fixed I'm willing to believe the standard could end up specifying a minimum casing stiffness for safety.

Jobst Brandt had almost the same complaints about the bicycle industry as a whole, for what? 40 years?

[FriarQuade]

I'll chime in as someone that's worked in the industry for some time but doesn't make any actual bike parts.

Tire to rim interfaces are F'ed and it's the biggest problem our industry faces. From a rider safety standpoint as well as a general compatibility issue. We had a tubeless standard that worked pretty damn well. Then that Stan fellow came along and effectively fractured the industry into a dozen pieces.

RH might have more compatibility issues than other tire brands but they are certainly not the only ones seeing issues. I do suspect that you could offset some of the casing related issues with a more robust bead. That's the foundation of the tire after all.

The industry is working on trying to get everyone on the same page but I doubt it will ever happen. Perhaps once the NoTubes rim patents expire everyone can adopt that, it does work really well with pretty much everything. Until then you've got everyone sitting in their corner thinking it's the other guys fault. The fact that you only have a couple of brands that have both tires and rims made under their name only complicates things further. As does the "Brand" being pretty far removed from the manufacture.

We've run into issues were a parts manufacture tries to solve a tooling issue. Basically they think company P's tool fit's too loose so they make their part bigger to compensate. Then they don't fit our tools because we don't allow a mile of clearance between part and tool. They usually admit there's a problem but aren't always inclined to do anything about it. So I feel for Jan, he could make this better but it's likely at the expense of the product he's trying to make.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by .RJ

Give this a listen

https://cyclingtips.com/2020/03/nerd...arbon-curtain/

I'm not talking about Specialized or Trek here.

I tried. really I gave it like 13 minutes but I have an attention span of a 3 year old.

If you are lamenting the fact that so many brands are just that and don't manufacture....sure I get that. But if you are implying that if you go to Taiwan and want frames built or China (sorta) for that matter that you are SOL and they just build what they build, not true. I worked for a small two location shop and the owners have been selling house branded stuff from Asia for decades now. "We" design and spec steel frames and virtually any spec and dimension is an option, and almost overwhelming. Never was involved with carbon but yeah many brands will buy open mold "models" with a tweak or two and brand them. I'm cool with that and even IF is now doing so. It's not all bad.

I don't see a huge problem with that as long as you are truly involved with the process. You can go to the Taiwan bike show and in a few days build a full line of bikes and accessories mostly to your liking. I don't think the brush strokes of manufacturing are as broad as your comment implied. QC issues can certainly be an issue and making sure you are getting what you ordered can be a challenge but it doesn't need to be if again, you are involved throughout. Obviously if you can control your own destiny and do everything in-house great, few can.

The whole world works this way not just bikes, but you know that.

[spoonrobot]

"Rene Herse tires are poorly designed for tubeless use!"

Schwalbe:

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by charliedid

I tried. really I gave it like 13 minutes but I have an attention span of a 3 year old.

If you are lamenting the fact that so many brands are just that and don't manufacture....sure I get that.

A little bit. But while there are a lot of cool things happening in bikes these days, I'm mostly lamenting the industry as a whole that spouts all kinds of engineering bull**** and acronyms out of both sides of their mouths. I dont think there's any poor intent here, but yet a lot of smaller brands still produce ****ty products with questionable QC and even worse customer service.

The more interesting stuff on the podcast was a little deeper into the conversation, FWIW.

Originally Posted by charliedid

The whole world works this way not just bikes, but you know that.

Yep, consumer products across the board - I think the cycling industry is particularly bad when it comes to transparency about manufacturing, especially given the cost of the products.

[Clean39T]

Paging @Hambini .......

[lavi]

Lol.

I'm just happy I live in a non-goat head area. They sound annoying. I will not ride tubeless. I like my teeth firmly in my mouth.

I get it, if you live in a goat head area, maybe try a tire with stiffer casings and skip RH. As for the PNW, they sure are mighty fine tires to roll on.

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by .RJ

A little bit. But while there are a lot of cool things happening in bikes these days, I'm mostly lamenting the industry as a whole that spouts all kinds of engineering bull**** and acronyms out of both sides of their mouths. I dont think there's any poor intent here, but yet a lot of smaller brands still produce ****ty products with questionable QC and even worse customer service.

The more interesting stuff on the podcast was a little deeper into the conversation, FWIW.



Yep, consumer products across the board - I think the cycling industry is particularly bad when it comes to transparency about manufacturing, especially given the cost of the products.

I hear ya.

The trick is to sell the romance and the lifestyle and forget all the tech/engineering garbage.

I sold bikes off and on for years and people who walk into bike shops don't really give a S*&T what tubing is used or why blah blah blah...

[El Chaba]

Full disclosure...I am a subscriber to Bicycle Quarterly, but I am not exactly a member of the all road bike resistance or revolution or what have you largely because there just aren’t that many gravel roads around my home. I really don’t have any interest in tubeless as it just doesn’t make much sense for my type of riding. Actually, the vast majority of my riding is done on tubulars, but I have a few sets of clinchers in the mix, mostly for winter time use. So I guess that it would be a fair conclusion that I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. However, I would like to note a few things about Jan and his work. Our sport and the industry specifically would benefit greatly from about 100 more people just like him. In Jan, what you have is a man who is passionate about cycling and thinks about it almost 24 hours a day. In other words, he is one of us. The difference is that he has put himself in a position to do something about his ideas. Anybody would have to admit that an uncanny number of his ideas are spot on and many of us have benefitted greatly in our riding by learning about them and then implementing them. Obviously not all of them will be applicable to YOUR riding, but most of us will do well to consider many of them. Our sport’s industry used to be dominated by strong personalities with great ideas....Ugo DeRosa, Tullio Campagnolo, Lucien July, Rene Herse, etc. Today so many products have lost any semblance of passion as they seem to be produced by committees under the umbrella of large corporations owned by holding companies. Sterility and blandness has replaced passion and excellence. I applaud Jan’s efforts and we are lucky to have him.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by charliedid

I sold bikes off and on for years and people who walk into bike shops don't really give a S*&T what tubing is used or why blah blah blah...

No, but they care when the product they buy is **** quality and the manufacturer either ghosts, blames the consumer, or doesnt have the spare parts to resolve the issue and walks away. All things that could have been resolved through better engineering and testing.

I dont know where cycling stacks in relation to other consumer products in this, but I'd imagine relative to the cost of the products pretty bad.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Wattvagen;2839773


[B

How would you propose the tire is to be "tested" before it is manufactured? [/B]

Based on your rant above, it sounds like you dont really understand how contract manufacturing works.

Spec it, have the manufacturer make a small batch, test them, and either change the spec of go into large scale production...called 'prototypes'..Happens all the time.

ahh, benb already said it, post 127..

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by sg8357

That is not the Navy way, see below.

Come up with a design
Try to prove the design through pre-prototype engineering methodology
Create a prototype
Install in new ship
Test & verify the prototype in the real world
Power up new proto installed in ship, no blue smoke, good to go
If the prototype is not safe/doesn't perform go back to step 1
Nope, finish development on ship
Once the prototype is proven move to manufacturing
Go back to first install new ship, rip out, install working unit.

I was in a operational test squadron in the USN(VX-4) and maybe that's how it works in the black shoe Navy, but not in the brown shoe Navy..

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Spec it, have the manufacturer make a small batch, test them, and either change the spec of go into large scale production...called 'prototypes'..Happens all the time.

ahh, benb already said it, post 127..

Yeah, but small brand strapped for cash aint got time for that.

Or when the product isnt built the way they designed it and there are 5,000 of them just arrived on the boat from China.

And so forth... Everyone loses - consumers, the brand, etc.