this is a good read about the change to the standards https://www.cyclingnews.com/...-affect-your-safety/
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Indeed, very interesting how people are interpreting this article.... For me, his main point (stated numerous times within the article) was the undisputed fact that zipp & vittoria are not complying with the updated ISO standard with their tyre width/internal rim width recommendation. Or are you disputing this fact? As an aside, and a minor part of his article he mentioned (once) the increase in rim weight and also stated that he had reached out to zipp for comment, but that they choose not to directly answer his question, so what's someone meant to do...?the original ETRTO recommendations were that a 28mm tire could go on a 25mm internal rim width wheel. today, as i understand it but i haven't read with any focus those chapters of the new manuals, is that either the ETRTO, or the ISO, or both, are saying that's now a minimum 29mm tire on that wheel. i believe that certain brands, perhaps Zipp and perhaps ENVE, are disputing that and feel they have plenty of evidence to back up their view. i don't know if what i just wrote above is accurate, but that's i guess what my understanding is.
i don't know how to characterize the ETRTO and ISO standards. i don't know if they're mandates, recommendations or what. i don't know whether it's a requirement that brands or consumers or users stick these recommendations.
if ronan is saying that the only thing that anybody did wrong is put a 28mm tire on a rim that should've had a 30mm tire, okay. but i don't at all get that sense that this is what he's saying.
He says many things in that article, but one that struck home with me was
"Furthermore, the current generation of riders and team staff are the first to be hyper-aware of the true marginal gains. Rolling resistance is right up there, offering major savings, and tyre pressure calculators are increasingly popular with riders everywhere. But in cases where calculators account for the pressure limitations of hookless and recommend suitable (usually lower) pressures or wider tyres, the recommended setups they produce are often ridiculed by riders. Other calculators recommend an optimal pressure without a fail-safe for those running hookless systems, increasing the likelihood a rider or mechanic over-inflates said hookless tyre."
I know this to be true. In my recent round of testing I started off with a chart of pressures for each athlete. I asked how they were derived and it was part calculator with a good dose of rider feedback. When testing I asked the rider how he chose and it was often "I have been doing this long enough to know what's fastest". You also get comments on grip and other on comfort. They also admit what the thought was the fastest wasn't. You then say "You know you couldn't ride a hookless wheel at these pressures" and you get a "what the F are you talking about" look.
Ronan talks a lot about need for education. Maybe some of this noise will create that.
I also liked
"a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
I appreciate that EC does not have sponsor influence and say the things the manufacturers don't necessarily want to say.
Your articles and Ronan's article have a certain amount of personal opinion/bias in them. Nothing wrong with that. I am surprised you call him out on it the way you do.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [marcag]
[ In reply to ]
marcag wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Indeed, very interesting how people are interpreting this article.... For me, his main point (stated numerous times within the article) was the undisputed fact that zipp & vittoria are not complying with the updated ISO standard with their tyre width/internal rim width recommendation. Or are you disputing this fact? As an aside, and a minor part of his article he mentioned (once) the increase in rim weight and also stated that he had reached out to zipp for comment, but that they choose not to directly answer his question, so what's someone meant to do...?the original ETRTO recommendations were that a 28mm tire could go on a 25mm internal rim width wheel. today, as i understand it but i haven't read with any focus those chapters of the new manuals, is that either the ETRTO, or the ISO, or both, are saying that's now a minimum 29mm tire on that wheel. i believe that certain brands, perhaps Zipp and perhaps ENVE, are disputing that and feel they have plenty of evidence to back up their view. i don't know if what i just wrote above is accurate, but that's i guess what my understanding is.
i don't know how to characterize the ETRTO and ISO standards. i don't know if they're mandates, recommendations or what. i don't know whether it's a requirement that brands or consumers or users stick these recommendations.
if ronan is saying that the only thing that anybody did wrong is put a 28mm tire on a rim that should've had a 30mm tire, okay. but i don't at all get that sense that this is what he's saying.
He says many things in that article, but one that struck home with me was
"Furthermore, the current generation of riders and team staff are the first to be hyper-aware of the true marginal gains. Rolling resistance is right up there, offering major savings, and tyre pressure calculators are increasingly popular with riders everywhere. But in cases where calculators account for the pressure limitations of hookless and recommend suitable (usually lower) pressures or wider tyres, the recommended setups they produce are often ridiculed by riders. Other calculators recommend an optimal pressure without a fail-safe for those running hookless systems, increasing the likelihood a rider or mechanic over-inflates said hookless tyre."
I know this to be true. In my recent round of testing I started off with a chart of pressures for each athlete. I asked how they were derived and it was part calculator with a good dose of rider feedback. When testing I asked the rider how he chose and it was often "I have been doing this long enough to know what's fastest". You also get comments on grip and other on comfort. They also admit what the thought was the fastest wasn't. You then say "You know you couldn't ride a hookless wheel at these pressures" and you get a "what the F are you talking about" look.
Ronan talks a lot about need for education. Maybe some of this noise will create that.
I also liked
"a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
I appreciate that EC does not have sponsor influence and say the things the manufacturers don't necessarily want to say.
Your articles and Ronan's article have a certain amount of personal opinion/bias in them. Nothing wrong with that. I am surprised you call him out on it the way you do.
when you allude with a thin disclaimer that a company's product is dangerous you'd better know what you're talking about. there's a lot riding on that kind of statement. so, know what you're talking about. show what you're talking about. demonstrate what you're talking about. this isn't something i would write or say about ronan, but about anyone. what i sense or outright hear and read in this whole discussion - and this isn't ronan-directed - are allusions or statements outright pointed at hookless that touch on safety, with the thinnest of anecdotal evidence and absolutely no testing. as a community we wouldn't allow that to happen to an individual, but we feel no problem doing that to a company. the fact that so few of us in the cycling press come from a manufacturing background means a necessary perspective just doesn't ever get voiced. for example, i notice that not once has anybody asked ENVE or Zipp for its blow-off test results.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
marcag wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Indeed, very interesting how people are interpreting this article.... For me, his main point (stated numerous times within the article) was the undisputed fact that zipp & vittoria are not complying with the updated ISO standard with their tyre width/internal rim width recommendation. Or are you disputing this fact? As an aside, and a minor part of his article he mentioned (once) the increase in rim weight and also stated that he had reached out to zipp for comment, but that they choose not to directly answer his question, so what's someone meant to do...?the original ETRTO recommendations were that a 28mm tire could go on a 25mm internal rim width wheel. today, as i understand it but i haven't read with any focus those chapters of the new manuals, is that either the ETRTO, or the ISO, or both, are saying that's now a minimum 29mm tire on that wheel. i believe that certain brands, perhaps Zipp and perhaps ENVE, are disputing that and feel they have plenty of evidence to back up their view. i don't know if what i just wrote above is accurate, but that's i guess what my understanding is.
i don't know how to characterize the ETRTO and ISO standards. i don't know if they're mandates, recommendations or what. i don't know whether it's a requirement that brands or consumers or users stick these recommendations.
if ronan is saying that the only thing that anybody did wrong is put a 28mm tire on a rim that should've had a 30mm tire, okay. but i don't at all get that sense that this is what he's saying.
He says many things in that article, but one that struck home with me was
"Furthermore, the current generation of riders and team staff are the first to be hyper-aware of the true marginal gains. Rolling resistance is right up there, offering major savings, and tyre pressure calculators are increasingly popular with riders everywhere. But in cases where calculators account for the pressure limitations of hookless and recommend suitable (usually lower) pressures or wider tyres, the recommended setups they produce are often ridiculed by riders. Other calculators recommend an optimal pressure without a fail-safe for those running hookless systems, increasing the likelihood a rider or mechanic over-inflates said hookless tyre."
I know this to be true. In my recent round of testing I started off with a chart of pressures for each athlete. I asked how they were derived and it was part calculator with a good dose of rider feedback. When testing I asked the rider how he chose and it was often "I have been doing this long enough to know what's fastest". You also get comments on grip and other on comfort. They also admit what the thought was the fastest wasn't. You then say "You know you couldn't ride a hookless wheel at these pressures" and you get a "what the F are you talking about" look.
Ronan talks a lot about need for education. Maybe some of this noise will create that.
I also liked
"a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
I appreciate that EC does not have sponsor influence and say the things the manufacturers don't necessarily want to say.
Your articles and Ronan's article have a certain amount of personal opinion/bias in them. Nothing wrong with that. I am surprised you call him out on it the way you do.
when you allude with a thin disclaimer that a company's product is dangerous you'd better know what you're talking about. there's a lot riding on that kind of statement. so, know what you're talking about. show what you're talking about. demonstrate what you're talking about. this isn't something i would write or say about ronan, but about anyone. what i sense or outright hear and read in this whole discussion - and this isn't ronan-directed - are allusions or statements outright pointed at hookless that touch on safety, with the thinnest of anecdotal evidence and absolutely no testing. as a community we wouldn't allow that to happen to an individual, but we feel no problem doing that to a company. the fact that so few of us in the cycling press come from a manufacturing background means a necessary perspective just doesn't ever get voiced. for example, i notice that not once has anybody asked ENVE or Zipp for its blow-off test results.
When ERTO says 25internal/28 external doesn't cut it, when you yourself says it's possibly pushing the limits, I applaud the guy that is saying "hey folks, pay attention here, big red flag.....check that tire pressure, reconsider a 30mm tire, err on the side of caution"
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
marcag wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Indeed, very interesting how people are interpreting this article.... For me, his main point (stated numerous times within the article) was the undisputed fact that zipp & vittoria are not complying with the updated ISO standard with their tyre width/internal rim width recommendation. Or are you disputing this fact? As an aside, and a minor part of his article he mentioned (once) the increase in rim weight and also stated that he had reached out to zipp for comment, but that they choose not to directly answer his question, so what's someone meant to do...?the original ETRTO recommendations were that a 28mm tire could go on a 25mm internal rim width wheel. today, as i understand it but i haven't read with any focus those chapters of the new manuals, is that either the ETRTO, or the ISO, or both, are saying that's now a minimum 29mm tire on that wheel. i believe that certain brands, perhaps Zipp and perhaps ENVE, are disputing that and feel they have plenty of evidence to back up their view. i don't know if what i just wrote above is accurate, but that's i guess what my understanding is.
i don't know how to characterize the ETRTO and ISO standards. i don't know if they're mandates, recommendations or what. i don't know whether it's a requirement that brands or consumers or users stick these recommendations.
if ronan is saying that the only thing that anybody did wrong is put a 28mm tire on a rim that should've had a 30mm tire, okay. but i don't at all get that sense that this is what he's saying.
He says many things in that article, but one that struck home with me was
"Furthermore, the current generation of riders and team staff are the first to be hyper-aware of the true marginal gains. Rolling resistance is right up there, offering major savings, and tyre pressure calculators are increasingly popular with riders everywhere. But in cases where calculators account for the pressure limitations of hookless and recommend suitable (usually lower) pressures or wider tyres, the recommended setups they produce are often ridiculed by riders. Other calculators recommend an optimal pressure without a fail-safe for those running hookless systems, increasing the likelihood a rider or mechanic over-inflates said hookless tyre."
I know this to be true. In my recent round of testing I started off with a chart of pressures for each athlete. I asked how they were derived and it was part calculator with a good dose of rider feedback. When testing I asked the rider how he chose and it was often "I have been doing this long enough to know what's fastest". You also get comments on grip and other on comfort. They also admit what the thought was the fastest wasn't. You then say "You know you couldn't ride a hookless wheel at these pressures" and you get a "what the F are you talking about" look.
Ronan talks a lot about need for education. Maybe some of this noise will create that.
I also liked
"a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
I appreciate that EC does not have sponsor influence and say the things the manufacturers don't necessarily want to say.
Your articles and Ronan's article have a certain amount of personal opinion/bias in them. Nothing wrong with that. I am surprised you call him out on it the way you do.
when you allude with a thin disclaimer that a company's product is dangerous you'd better know what you're talking about. there's a lot riding on that kind of statement. so, know what you're talking about. show what you're talking about. demonstrate what you're talking about. this isn't something i would write or say about ronan, but about anyone. what i sense or outright hear and read in this whole discussion - and this isn't ronan-directed - are allusions or statements outright pointed at hookless that touch on safety, with the thinnest of anecdotal evidence and absolutely no testing. as a community we wouldn't allow that to happen to an individual, but we feel no problem doing that to a company. the fact that so few of us in the cycling press come from a manufacturing background means a necessary perspective just doesn't ever get voiced. for example, i notice that not once has anybody asked ENVE or Zipp for its blow-off test results.
can i ask , are you saying ETRTO and ISO standards are wrong in what they seem to claim.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [marcag]
[ In reply to ]
marcag wrote:
Slowman wrote:
marcag wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Indeed, very interesting how people are interpreting this article.... For me, his main point (stated numerous times within the article) was the undisputed fact that zipp & vittoria are not complying with the updated ISO standard with their tyre width/internal rim width recommendation. Or are you disputing this fact? As an aside, and a minor part of his article he mentioned (once) the increase in rim weight and also stated that he had reached out to zipp for comment, but that they choose not to directly answer his question, so what's someone meant to do...?the original ETRTO recommendations were that a 28mm tire could go on a 25mm internal rim width wheel. today, as i understand it but i haven't read with any focus those chapters of the new manuals, is that either the ETRTO, or the ISO, or both, are saying that's now a minimum 29mm tire on that wheel. i believe that certain brands, perhaps Zipp and perhaps ENVE, are disputing that and feel they have plenty of evidence to back up their view. i don't know if what i just wrote above is accurate, but that's i guess what my understanding is.
i don't know how to characterize the ETRTO and ISO standards. i don't know if they're mandates, recommendations or what. i don't know whether it's a requirement that brands or consumers or users stick these recommendations.
if ronan is saying that the only thing that anybody did wrong is put a 28mm tire on a rim that should've had a 30mm tire, okay. but i don't at all get that sense that this is what he's saying.
He says many things in that article, but one that struck home with me was
"Furthermore, the current generation of riders and team staff are the first to be hyper-aware of the true marginal gains. Rolling resistance is right up there, offering major savings, and tyre pressure calculators are increasingly popular with riders everywhere. But in cases where calculators account for the pressure limitations of hookless and recommend suitable (usually lower) pressures or wider tyres, the recommended setups they produce are often ridiculed by riders. Other calculators recommend an optimal pressure without a fail-safe for those running hookless systems, increasing the likelihood a rider or mechanic over-inflates said hookless tyre."
I know this to be true. In my recent round of testing I started off with a chart of pressures for each athlete. I asked how they were derived and it was part calculator with a good dose of rider feedback. When testing I asked the rider how he chose and it was often "I have been doing this long enough to know what's fastest". You also get comments on grip and other on comfort. They also admit what the thought was the fastest wasn't. You then say "You know you couldn't ride a hookless wheel at these pressures" and you get a "what the F are you talking about" look.
Ronan talks a lot about need for education. Maybe some of this noise will create that.
I also liked
"a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
I appreciate that EC does not have sponsor influence and say the things the manufacturers don't necessarily want to say.
Your articles and Ronan's article have a certain amount of personal opinion/bias in them. Nothing wrong with that. I am surprised you call him out on it the way you do.
when you allude with a thin disclaimer that a company's product is dangerous you'd better know what you're talking about. there's a lot riding on that kind of statement. so, know what you're talking about. show what you're talking about. demonstrate what you're talking about. this isn't something i would write or say about ronan, but about anyone. what i sense or outright hear and read in this whole discussion - and this isn't ronan-directed - are allusions or statements outright pointed at hookless that touch on safety, with the thinnest of anecdotal evidence and absolutely no testing. as a community we wouldn't allow that to happen to an individual, but we feel no problem doing that to a company. the fact that so few of us in the cycling press come from a manufacturing background means a necessary perspective just doesn't ever get voiced. for example, i notice that not once has anybody asked ENVE or Zipp for its blow-off test results.
When ERTO says 25internal/28 external doesn't cut it, when you yourself says it's possibly pushing the limits, I applaud the guy that is saying "hey folks, pay attention here, big red flag.....check that tire pressure, reconsider a 30mm tire, err on the side of caution"
by "the guy" i assume you're talking about ronan. if so, this is why i find conversations like this particularly satisfying. this is one of the several areas i agree 100 percent with ronan (and i don't know why you think i give him a hard time; i give you a lot harder time than i give him). i believe, as i think ronan does, that the industry (e.g., zipp and ENVE) ought to "show cause" (as they say in the TV courtroom shows) why they feel it's perfectly safe (assuming they do) for 28mm tires to be ridden on wheels with 25mm bead widths. i also suspect ronan thinks (and if so i agree with him) that blow-off tests should be 150% or more of max stated pressure for that tire in that use case.
but i also think that if we're going to ask zipp and ENVE to provide us the raw tests or the bottom line results of their own blow off tests, we should ask the ETRTO to provide us the blow-off tests they're relying upon when they give us that guidance. or have you become selective in asking for testing to validate opinions and statements?
the reason i find this conversation satisfying is that - while he and i agree down the line on policy - i don't get the sense ronan is saying, "but if you put a 30mm tire on that zipp 353NSW you're gold! fabulous rig! whereas i do say that. right now i'm riding that wheel and a 32mm tire and it is gold. fabulous rig. i think it's in the nuance that you find the space between ronan and i. (but i want to be careful not to characterize what he thinks; i can only give you the impression i take from what he's writing.) i just find it interesting how 2 people can look at the same data, come to the same policy conclusions (mostly) but just not be in general agreement. i wish people who didn't generally agree could find common ground when making policy in places like, say, washington DC.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
the reason i find this conversation satisfying is that - while he and i agree down the line on policy - i don't get the sense ronan is saying, "but if you put a 30mm tire on that zipp 353NSW you're gold! fabulous rig! whereas i do say that.Ronan is the biggest aero/CRR weenie in the world. I for one will be devastated if he accepts a 1/4 watt aero loss </pink>
BTW, he was giving rave reviews on a Syncros hookless (yes hookless) wheel with 30mm tire.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [pk]
[ In reply to ]
pk wrote:
Slowman wrote:
marcag wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Indeed, very interesting how people are interpreting this article.... For me, his main point (stated numerous times within the article) was the undisputed fact that zipp & vittoria are not complying with the updated ISO standard with their tyre width/internal rim width recommendation. Or are you disputing this fact? As an aside, and a minor part of his article he mentioned (once) the increase in rim weight and also stated that he had reached out to zipp for comment, but that they choose not to directly answer his question, so what's someone meant to do...?the original ETRTO recommendations were that a 28mm tire could go on a 25mm internal rim width wheel. today, as i understand it but i haven't read with any focus those chapters of the new manuals, is that either the ETRTO, or the ISO, or both, are saying that's now a minimum 29mm tire on that wheel. i believe that certain brands, perhaps Zipp and perhaps ENVE, are disputing that and feel they have plenty of evidence to back up their view. i don't know if what i just wrote above is accurate, but that's i guess what my understanding is.
i don't know how to characterize the ETRTO and ISO standards. i don't know if they're mandates, recommendations or what. i don't know whether it's a requirement that brands or consumers or users stick these recommendations.
if ronan is saying that the only thing that anybody did wrong is put a 28mm tire on a rim that should've had a 30mm tire, okay. but i don't at all get that sense that this is what he's saying.
He says many things in that article, but one that struck home with me was
"Furthermore, the current generation of riders and team staff are the first to be hyper-aware of the true marginal gains. Rolling resistance is right up there, offering major savings, and tyre pressure calculators are increasingly popular with riders everywhere. But in cases where calculators account for the pressure limitations of hookless and recommend suitable (usually lower) pressures or wider tyres, the recommended setups they produce are often ridiculed by riders. Other calculators recommend an optimal pressure without a fail-safe for those running hookless systems, increasing the likelihood a rider or mechanic over-inflates said hookless tyre."
I know this to be true. In my recent round of testing I started off with a chart of pressures for each athlete. I asked how they were derived and it was part calculator with a good dose of rider feedback. When testing I asked the rider how he chose and it was often "I have been doing this long enough to know what's fastest". You also get comments on grip and other on comfort. They also admit what the thought was the fastest wasn't. You then say "You know you couldn't ride a hookless wheel at these pressures" and you get a "what the F are you talking about" look.
Ronan talks a lot about need for education. Maybe some of this noise will create that.
I also liked
"a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
I appreciate that EC does not have sponsor influence and say the things the manufacturers don't necessarily want to say.
Your articles and Ronan's article have a certain amount of personal opinion/bias in them. Nothing wrong with that. I am surprised you call him out on it the way you do.
when you allude with a thin disclaimer that a company's product is dangerous you'd better know what you're talking about. there's a lot riding on that kind of statement. so, know what you're talking about. show what you're talking about. demonstrate what you're talking about. this isn't something i would write or say about ronan, but about anyone. what i sense or outright hear and read in this whole discussion - and this isn't ronan-directed - are allusions or statements outright pointed at hookless that touch on safety, with the thinnest of anecdotal evidence and absolutely no testing. as a community we wouldn't allow that to happen to an individual, but we feel no problem doing that to a company. the fact that so few of us in the cycling press come from a manufacturing background means a necessary perspective just doesn't ever get voiced. for example, i notice that not once has anybody asked ENVE or Zipp for its blow-off test results.
can i ask , are you saying ETRTO and ISO standards are wrong in what they seem to claim.
it was the ETRTO that unlocked the use of tubeless, and i would like to see the ISO take the lead in standardizing testing (and providing protocols for the tests). i think we should ask, directly, for ENVE and zipp in particular to show us the results of their blow-off tests that substantiate their views on tire/wheel compatibility. i think we should ask standards organizations to do the same when we get to, in the words used by the ETRTO, a "contentious" disagreement like this. what caused the ETRTO to make a decision contrary to the (apparent) data of the wheel brands who've done more testing on this than just about any other brands? that seems a reasonable ask.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [pk]
[ In reply to ]
I think it is safe to say that any and all engineers involved in the standard or peripheral hardware understood that pressures will increase dynamically, so it is doubtful that such a common and predictable use case would result in catastrophy.
What can be said, rather objectively, is that not clinchers, tubular, nor tubeless tires have imposed such low maximum pressures, which tend to be close to or in some use cases lower than the optimal pressures. Even by modern standards, I can see arguments for using clinchers (convenient road side repair), tubular (track and some robustness/safety in case of high speed flats), tubeless (less likely to need roadside repairs, allows for inserts for additional safety), yet I’m failing to see why anyone would choose hookless.
What can be said, rather objectively, is that not clinchers, tubular, nor tubeless tires have imposed such low maximum pressures, which tend to be close to or in some use cases lower than the optimal pressures. Even by modern standards, I can see arguments for using clinchers (convenient road side repair), tubular (track and some robustness/safety in case of high speed flats), tubeless (less likely to need roadside repairs, allows for inserts for additional safety), yet I’m failing to see why anyone would choose hookless.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
What matters is the current standard, not what a previous standard may have been.... Always best to obtain one's info from primary sources https://www.iso.org/standard/80740.htmlyour link takes me to the place where i would buy the manual. yes?
A rhetorical question I assume...? The link takes you to the ISO website that contains their document for that standard. If you don't want to pay money to ISO to read their standard that is up to you of course....
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Fastasasloth]
[ In reply to ]
Fastasasloth wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
What matters is the current standard, not what a previous standard may have been.... Always best to obtain one's info from primary sources https://www.iso.org/standard/80740.htmlyour link takes me to the place where i would buy the manual. yes?
A rhetorical question I assume...? The link takes you to the ISO website that contains their document for that standard. If you don't want to pay money to ISO to read their standard that is up to you of course....
i already know the ISO standard and i believe the upcoming standard they will release. all steps in the right direction i think. but thanks for the heads up.
as to the manual, when i buy the ETRTO manual it's $500. as a bonus i also get to know ETRTO standards for the tires on airliners, tractors and wheelbarrows.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
If my wife and daughter have any say on the matter, I may need to hit you up to get the ETRTO standards for tractors.
----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter
----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [marcag]
[ In reply to ]
marcag wrote:
[ "a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
.
Hang on.... 15 pages ago and what seems like 3 lives (or 1 Lord of the rings film) I thought we were saying that wider tyre meant lower airpressure and based on BRR testing that lowered rolling resistance not increasing it. Tyre weight and aero penalty, sure, but the tests on the GP5000 at multiple widths and pressures suggested that running the same tyre in a wider size at the recommended pressure had lower rolling resistance than a thinner tyre (at the equivalent higher pressure).
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Duncan74]
[ In reply to ]
Duncan74 wrote:
marcag wrote:
[ "a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
Hang on.... 15 pages ago and what seems like 3 lives (or 1 Lord of the rings film) I thought we were saying that wider tyre meant lower airpressure and based on BRR testing that lowered rolling resistance not increasing it. Tyre weight and aero penalty, sure, but the tests on the GP5000 at multiple widths and pressures suggested that running the same tyre in a wider size at the recommended pressure had lower rolling resistance than a thinner tyre (at the equivalent higher pressure).
from an email i got today from someone deep into design and testing for multiple industry leading road cycling wheel and tire brands: "Narrow tires, rims and high pressure have all be so ingrained in people’s head that it’s hard to change preconceptions these days. The fact is, wider rims with larger tires at lower pressures are faster." so, for everyone who says one thing i guess there's somebody who says another.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Duncan74]
[ In reply to ]
Duncan74 wrote:
marcag wrote:
[ "a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
.
Hang on.... 15 pages ago and what seems like 3 lives (or 1 Lord of the rings film) I thought we were saying that wider tyre meant lower airpressure and based on BRR testing that lowered rolling resistance not increasing it. Tyre weight and aero penalty, sure, but the tests on the GP5000 at multiple widths and pressures suggested that running the same tyre in a wider size at the recommended pressure had lower rolling resistance than a thinner tyre (at the equivalent higher pressure).
"Potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance" is not the term I would have chosen.
"Potentially decreasing overall performance" would be more my choice.,
I think the point trying to be made is limits on maximum tire pressure MAY be getting in the way if optimal performance. Maybe, Possibly. We need data to form a better opinion.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [marcag]
[ In reply to ]
I guess the reason I picked up on this is that it's underlining the massive range of views/confusion? that there are on this between really knowledgeable cycle industry commentators, which then leads to the gen pop, many of whom are not technically minded/trained and 'just want to ride their bikes' do things that are outside of a very narrow set of behaviours that we seem to be now designing for.
40 years ago I maintained my bike myself as a 9 year old. Now, 2 masters of engineering degrees, 30 years of doing more significant maintenance of bikes from commuting and full multiple full bike and wheel builds and I feel less confident in what I'm doing than as a 9 year old.
And this cannot be good for the long term. It adds barriers to cycling, it frustrates and turns people off. Wheels have gone the way of bottom brackets. Something that used to be universal and straightforward, and now needs a day spent researching compatibility charts and you still run a 50:50 risk of being caught out.
40 years ago I maintained my bike myself as a 9 year old. Now, 2 masters of engineering degrees, 30 years of doing more significant maintenance of bikes from commuting and full multiple full bike and wheel builds and I feel less confident in what I'm doing than as a 9 year old.
And this cannot be good for the long term. It adds barriers to cycling, it frustrates and turns people off. Wheels have gone the way of bottom brackets. Something that used to be universal and straightforward, and now needs a day spent researching compatibility charts and you still run a 50:50 risk of being caught out.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
What matters is the current standard, not what a previous standard may have been.... Always best to obtain one's info from primary sources https://www.iso.org/standard/80740.htmlyour link takes me to the place where i would buy the manual. yes?
A rhetorical question I assume...? The link takes you to the ISO website that contains their document for that standard. If you don't want to pay money to ISO to read their standard that is up to you of course....
i already know the ISO standard and i believe the upcoming standard they will release. all steps in the right direction i think. but thanks for the heads up.
as to the manual, when i buy the ETRTO manual it's $500. as a bonus i also get to know ETRTO standards for the tires on airliners, tractors and wheelbarrows.
Excellent, so you will also therefore know what Ronan factually pointed out in his article, that Zipp and Vittoria have chosen not to follow the current ISO standard in their inner rim width/tyre width compatibility recommendations. And I concur with your later posts, both ISO (ETRTO) and wheel/rim and tyre manufacturers should also show their data and test protocols to reach their, currently, mostly divergent conclusions on compatibility....
Last edited by:
Fastasasloth: Mar 6, 24 23:43
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
What I would really want to see (ideally from multiple manufacturers) is something like this
That is, for a given wheel, pick a given road/roller/whatever and speed, and show for various tire sizes what the rolling and aero effects are together in a given setting.
It would help:
1. see where the optimum is. (Tell testers to go up or down until they have found a local minimum in the sum of contributions.)
2. judge how much one looses by being too wide or too narrow.
By letting manufacturer pick the road and the speed (which they should show), you'd also gain insights into what conditions they're thinking about when designing/testing wheels. (You probably loose in comparing manufacturers, but anyways that would likely not work without a third-party tester.) I've seen data in that direction (Zipp for Crr but not absolute, and missing aero at 25mm. Aerocoach for aero only.) but no complete dataset yet.
My gut feelings (or at least how I pick and ride my wheels):
- all-roads with wider 28mm+ tires (Zipp 303s)
- TT/speed on smooth roads with 25mm tires (Aerocoach)
- in-between/flexibility with latex clinchers to change often tires easily (Swisside)
https://besse.info/
https://www.strava.com/athletes/2012033
That is, for a given wheel, pick a given road/roller/whatever and speed, and show for various tire sizes what the rolling and aero effects are together in a given setting.
It would help:
1. see where the optimum is. (Tell testers to go up or down until they have found a local minimum in the sum of contributions.)
2. judge how much one looses by being too wide or too narrow.
By letting manufacturer pick the road and the speed (which they should show), you'd also gain insights into what conditions they're thinking about when designing/testing wheels. (You probably loose in comparing manufacturers, but anyways that would likely not work without a third-party tester.) I've seen data in that direction (Zipp for Crr but not absolute, and missing aero at 25mm. Aerocoach for aero only.) but no complete dataset yet.
My gut feelings (or at least how I pick and ride my wheels):
- all-roads with wider 28mm+ tires (Zipp 303s)
- TT/speed on smooth roads with 25mm tires (Aerocoach)
- in-between/flexibility with latex clinchers to change often tires easily (Swisside)
https://besse.info/
https://www.strava.com/athletes/2012033
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
but i also think that if we're going to ask zipp and ENVE to provide us the raw tests or the bottom line results of their own blow off tests, we should ask the ETRTO to provide us the blow-off tests they're relying upon when they give us that guidance. or have you become selective in asking for testing to validate opinions and statements?Playing devil's advocate here but surely the onus should be on manufacturers to prove something is safe. Not for a standards body to prove it is not?
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Duncan74]
[ In reply to ]
Duncan74 wrote:
I guess the reason I picked up on this is that it's underlining the massive range of views/confusion? that there are on this between really knowledgeable cycle industry commentators, which then leads to the gen pop, many of whom are not technically minded/trained and 'just want to ride their bikes' do things that are outside of a very narrow set of behaviours that we seem to be now designing for. 40 years ago I maintained my bike myself as a 9 year old. Now, 2 masters of engineering degrees, 30 years of doing more significant maintenance of bikes from commuting and full multiple full bike and wheel builds and I feel less confident in what I'm doing than as a 9 year old.
And this cannot be good for the long term. It adds barriers to cycling, it frustrates and turns people off. Wheels have gone the way of bottom brackets. Something that used to be universal and straightforward, and now needs a day spent researching compatibility charts and you still run a 50:50 risk of being caught out.
100% agreed. This trend is not good for the long term health of cycling as a participatory activity.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Bdaghisallo]
[ In reply to ]
Bdaghisallo wrote:
Duncan74 wrote:
I guess the reason I picked up on this is that it's underlining the massive range of views/confusion? that there are on this between really knowledgeable cycle industry commentators, which then leads to the gen pop, many of whom are not technically minded/trained and 'just want to ride their bikes' do things that are outside of a very narrow set of behaviours that we seem to be now designing for. 40 years ago I maintained my bike myself as a 9 year old. Now, 2 masters of engineering degrees, 30 years of doing more significant maintenance of bikes from commuting and full multiple full bike and wheel builds and I feel less confident in what I'm doing than as a 9 year old.
And this cannot be good for the long term. It adds barriers to cycling, it frustrates and turns people off. Wheels have gone the way of bottom brackets. Something that used to be universal and straightforward, and now needs a day spent researching compatibility charts and you still run a 50:50 risk of being caught out.
100% agreed. This trend is not good for the long term health of cycling as a participatory activity.
I learned a lot from this
The F250 part makes the video worthwhile
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [marcag]
[ In reply to ]
marcag wrote:
I learned a lot from this
Disclaimer: I have made a living in bike shops for more than 2 decades, so according to most people on this forum am not at all trust worthy
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Slowman wrote:
pk wrote:
Slowman wrote:
marcag wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Fastasasloth wrote:
Indeed, very interesting how people are interpreting this article.... For me, his main point (stated numerous times within the article) was the undisputed fact that zipp & vittoria are not complying with the updated ISO standard with their tyre width/internal rim width recommendation. Or are you disputing this fact? As an aside, and a minor part of his article he mentioned (once) the increase in rim weight and also stated that he had reached out to zipp for comment, but that they choose not to directly answer his question, so what's someone meant to do...?the original ETRTO recommendations were that a 28mm tire could go on a 25mm internal rim width wheel. today, as i understand it but i haven't read with any focus those chapters of the new manuals, is that either the ETRTO, or the ISO, or both, are saying that's now a minimum 29mm tire on that wheel. i believe that certain brands, perhaps Zipp and perhaps ENVE, are disputing that and feel they have plenty of evidence to back up their view. i don't know if what i just wrote above is accurate, but that's i guess what my understanding is.
i don't know how to characterize the ETRTO and ISO standards. i don't know if they're mandates, recommendations or what. i don't know whether it's a requirement that brands or consumers or users stick these recommendations.
if ronan is saying that the only thing that anybody did wrong is put a 28mm tire on a rim that should've had a 30mm tire, okay. but i don't at all get that sense that this is what he's saying.
He says many things in that article, but one that struck home with me was
"Furthermore, the current generation of riders and team staff are the first to be hyper-aware of the true marginal gains. Rolling resistance is right up there, offering major savings, and tyre pressure calculators are increasingly popular with riders everywhere. But in cases where calculators account for the pressure limitations of hookless and recommend suitable (usually lower) pressures or wider tyres, the recommended setups they produce are often ridiculed by riders. Other calculators recommend an optimal pressure without a fail-safe for those running hookless systems, increasing the likelihood a rider or mechanic over-inflates said hookless tyre."
I know this to be true. In my recent round of testing I started off with a chart of pressures for each athlete. I asked how they were derived and it was part calculator with a good dose of rider feedback. When testing I asked the rider how he chose and it was often "I have been doing this long enough to know what's fastest". You also get comments on grip and other on comfort. They also admit what the thought was the fastest wasn't. You then say "You know you couldn't ride a hookless wheel at these pressures" and you get a "what the F are you talking about" look.
Ronan talks a lot about need for education. Maybe some of this noise will create that.
I also liked
"a clear admission from the brands that certain scenarios will require sizing up tyres on certain hookless rims is needed. Given that could mean buying a new tyre and potentially introducing some increased rolling resistance, this is not a message many people want to hear, but not adequately communicating these facts is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the manufacturer."
I appreciate that EC does not have sponsor influence and say the things the manufacturers don't necessarily want to say.
Your articles and Ronan's article have a certain amount of personal opinion/bias in them. Nothing wrong with that. I am surprised you call him out on it the way you do.
when you allude with a thin disclaimer that a company's product is dangerous you'd better know what you're talking about. there's a lot riding on that kind of statement. so, know what you're talking about. show what you're talking about. demonstrate what you're talking about. this isn't something i would write or say about ronan, but about anyone. what i sense or outright hear and read in this whole discussion - and this isn't ronan-directed - are allusions or statements outright pointed at hookless that touch on safety, with the thinnest of anecdotal evidence and absolutely no testing. as a community we wouldn't allow that to happen to an individual, but we feel no problem doing that to a company. the fact that so few of us in the cycling press come from a manufacturing background means a necessary perspective just doesn't ever get voiced. for example, i notice that not once has anybody asked ENVE or Zipp for its blow-off test results.
can i ask , are you saying ETRTO and ISO standards are wrong in what they seem to claim.
it was the ETRTO that unlocked the use of tubeless, and i would like to see the ISO take the lead in standardizing testing (and providing protocols for the tests). i think we should ask, directly, for ENVE and zipp in particular to show us the results of their blow-off tests that substantiate their views on tire/wheel compatibility. i think we should ask standards organizations to do the same when we get to, in the words used by the ETRTO, a "contentious" disagreement like this. what caused the ETRTO to make a decision contrary to the (apparent) data of the wheel brands who've done more testing on this than just about any other brands? that seems a reasonable ask.
I can not add much on this, only that i would be a bit uncomfortable to ask volkswagen about how they test how clean their motors are... so yes i do see your point , at the same time i think you can probably also see why the view of zipp and enve can be a bit biased based on the volkswagen excample.
where can we read about the apparent blow off data you speak off . i guess since you argue that they should be used , you have seen them.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [Henrik Noerskov]
[ In reply to ]
Henrik Noerskov wrote:
marcag wrote:
I learned a lot from this
That is actually really surprising to me. So out of curiosity what did you learn?
A better understanding of the manufacturing process. How/why hookless is actually cheaper to manufacture. It is not something i paid attention to in the past
I obviously fall in that category that Dan described of not coming from a manufacturing background.
Re: Some more spice to hooked vs hookless debate. Tyre blow-out. [marcag]
[ In reply to ]
marcag wrote:
Henrik Noerskov wrote:
marcag wrote:
I learned a lot from this
That is actually really surprising to me. So out of curiosity what did you learn?
A better understanding of the manufacturing process. How/why hookless is actually cheaper to manufacture. It is not something i paid attention to in the past
I obviously fall in that category that Dan described of not coming from a manufacturing background.
did you find it notable that he acknowledges the process makes a stronger wheel (12 minutes in) but then he fails to list this benefit on his pros/cons chart at the end? otherwise, yeah, he pretty much gets it. easier process making a strong wheel. except that he says it doesn't work. when in fact it obviously does. i might be one of the few who has experience and owns both hookless road and an F250 ;-)
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman