Tires and leaks

[Kelly_P]

Hello all.

I need help. My bicycle is my main transport in my neighborhood,
and I've had three major flats within the past year. I can pump air
into the tires, but I'm afraid of running out of air in the tanks!
Is there an available tire that can minimize punctures and leaks ?

I can aviod glass and other objects in the streets, but I try to avoid
contact with major thoroughfares as much as possible. This means
riding over rough, grassy areas many times where sharp objects
are not so easily noticed.

Thank you fror your time and help.

Kelly Paul Graham

[Werehatrack]

On 16 Mar 2006 21:32:09 -0800, "Kelly_P" >
wrote:

>Hello all.
>
>I need help. My bicycle is my main transport in my neighborhood,
>and I've had three major flats within the past year. I can pump air
>into the tires, but I'm afraid of running out of air in the tanks!
>Is there an available tire that can minimize punctures and leaks ?
>
>I can aviod glass and other objects in the streets, but I try to avoid
>contact with major thoroughfares as much as possible. This means
>riding over rough, grassy areas many times where sharp objects
>are not so easily noticed.

The main tactics frequently suggested for this are:

Install an anti-punture tire liner between the tube and the tire.
These have some drawbacks. Some liners have sharp edges or may
develop wrinkles which can chafe a hole in a tube eventually, any
liner increases rolling resistance to some extent, and they add weight
to the bike. Their effectiveness varies; the best will stop most
small sharp things from puncturing a tube.

Change to a puncture-resistant tire. There are several brands, such
as the Specialized Armadillo, which employ a mixture of technologies
to reduce flats; their main thrust is just to make it harder to poke a
hole in the tread. Once again, effectiveness is not 100%, and
increased rolling resistance is generally going to be seen relative to
most common tires.

Add Slime as a flat-stopping measure. Effectiveness, as before, is
not 100%, but using Slime will frequently allow the rider to proceed
to destination without even necessarily knowing that a puncture has
taken place. There are at least two common known drawbacks to this.
The first is that the fibers in the Slime compound tend to foul the
valve and cause a slow (or even not-so-slow) leak that's difficult to
stop. The second drawback is that the Slime compound's presence at
the site of a puncture will make it much harder to perform a permanent
repair once the tube has been removed.

Switch to a thicker-walled "thorn resistant" tube. In theory,
anything that makes the tread/tube wall section thickness greater
should reduce punctures, and this type of tube can add up to 4mm of
additional penetration depth. As usual, there's both a weight and a
rolling resistance penalty involved, and the effectiveness of the
tactic will be determined by the nature of the things that are causing
the punctures; the longer they are, the less effective this tactic
becomes.

Switch to an "airless tire", or the equivalent, a shaped foam
surrogate in place of the inner tube. While either of these will
absolutely preclude flats, they have the highest rolling resistance
penalty, and they make the bike ride *very* rough due to the lack of
compressibility of the foam that fills the tube. Installing these is
widely regarded as a fool's education; it's difficult and/or
frustrating at best. They are widely disparaged as a result of both
their installation issues and their performance shortcomings. One
local Wal-Mart is presently closing out its inventory of the foam
inner tube surrogates; they didn't sell very well. Unsurprisingly,
they're still not selling, even after getting marked down to half
price.

It is also possible to employ combinations of all of the tactics
except the last one; you could, if you so desired, put Slime in a
thorn-resistant tube, and install that plus a tire liner in a
Specialized Armadillo (or other puncture-resistant) tire. If, at that
point, you got a flat, you would be fully justified in calling a cab
IMO.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Nate Knutson]

Kelly_P wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I need help. My bicycle is my main transport in my neighborhood,
> and I've had three major flats within the past year. I can pump air
> into the tires, but I'm afraid of running out of air in the tanks!

Don't know what tanks you're referring to. Depending on how much you
ride, 3 flats in a year isn't abnormal.

> Is there an available tire that can minimize punctures and leaks ?

Leakage is a function of the inner tube (the part inside the tire that
actually contains the air), and most normal tubes of a given size will
loose air at about the same rate unless there's something going wrong
with the tube. Pumping up your tires every 1-2 weeks is about normal.

There are numerous options for avoiding punctures. These include tires
with some kind of built-in shielding (usually Kevlar), add-on tire
liners, liquid tire sealants and extra thick, heavy "thornproof" tubes.
Generally, I think shielded tires (which are light and all the extra
protection needed for many) and/or tire liners (which are usually very
effective, and still pretty light) if desired are the first picks, but
this is a frequently debated thing. Sealants can be a mess and
thornproof tubes are very heavy. This is all changes in thornier areas.


Worn out tires cause more frequent flatting. Also, it's somewhat common
for repeat flats to be caused over and over by the same piece of debris
stuck in the tire if it's not dealt with when fixing the flat. This can
also happen with other irregularities that are causing flats. This is
worth thinking about whenever back-to-back flats occur.

> I can aviod glass and other objects in the streets, but I try to avoid
> contact with major thoroughfares as much as possible. This means
> riding over rough, grassy areas many times where sharp objects
> are not so easily noticed.
>
> Thank you fror your time and help.
>
> Kelly Paul Graham

[POHB]

"Kelly_P" wrote
> I can pump air into the tires, but I'm afraid of running out of air in the
> tanks!

Is your neighborhood underwater or in space?
In my neighborhood there's loads of air just sloshing around.
The quality may be a bit iffy but I don't worry about running out.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Kelly_P:
>three major flats within the past year

Some people who read this are thinking that's not too bad.

I've gotten three flats on a single 3-hour ride.


One strategy that nobody's mentioned yet is to carry a spare tube and learn how
to change a tube and/or patch a flat quickly.

There's definitely a technique/procedure to this and once you learn it, you
should be able to be back up and running within ten minutes of getting a flat.
--
PeteCresswell

[Werehatrack]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:42:39 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" >
wrote:

>One strategy that nobody's mentioned yet is to carry a spare tube and learn how
>to change a tube and/or patch a flat quickly.
>
>There's definitely a technique/procedure to this and once you learn it, you
>should be able to be back up and running within ten minutes of getting a flat.

Works well if you're always habitually running early on the commute
and/or have an employer/supervisor with a sane attitude toward on-time
arrival. (I.e., that it won't *always* happen.) Habitually running
early to a job can be giving an unappreciative employer free work, but
there are lots of employers around whose expectation is that no one
will *ever* be late to their (underpaid, oversupervised) positions,
and in such cases it's treated as a Major Transgression when it
happens. (I've had too many of these over the years.)


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[POHB]

"Werehatrack" wrote

>>There's definitely a technique/procedure to this and once you learn it,
>>you
>>should be able to be back up and running within ten minutes of getting a
>>flat.
>
> Works well if you're always habitually running early on the commute
> and/or have an employer/supervisor with a sane attitude toward on-time
> arrival. (I.e., that it won't *always* happen.)

So have you a more reliable way to commute than a bike that occasionally
gets a flat, unless you live within walking distance of work?
Cars break down too and are much more prone to traffic hold ups, as is the
bus.
Trains and tubes/subways are way less reliable.
IME the bike is the best bet for reliability.

[G.T.]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:42:39 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>One strategy that nobody's mentioned yet is to carry a spare tube and learn how
>>to change a tube and/or patch a flat quickly.
>>
>>There's definitely a technique/procedure to this and once you learn it, you
>>should be able to be back up and running within ten minutes of getting a flat.
>
>
> Works well if you're always habitually running early on the commute
> and/or have an employer/supervisor with a sane attitude toward on-time
> arrival. (I.e., that it won't *always* happen.) Habitually running
> early to a job can be giving an unappreciative employer free work,

So ride around the block a couple of times if you're early, or grab a
newspaper, or, well, do anything to not come in early.

Thankfully as long as I show up sometime between 9am and 1pm my boss is
happy.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

[Simon Cooper]

"G.T." > wrote in message
...
> Werehatrack wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:42:39 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Works well if you're always habitually running early on the commute
> > and/or have an employer/supervisor with a sane attitude toward on-time
> > arrival. (I.e., that it won't *always* happen.) Habitually running
> > early to a job can be giving an unappreciative employer free work,
>
> So ride around the block a couple of times if you're early, or grab a
> newspaper, or, well, do anything to not come in early.

Or just spend the extra time doing something like reading newsgroups...

[Werehatrack]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:09:35 -0000, "POHB"
> wrote:

>"Werehatrack" wrote
>
>> Works well if you're always habitually running early on the commute
>> and/or have an employer/supervisor with a sane attitude toward on-time
>> arrival. (I.e., that it won't *always* happen.)
>
>So have you a more reliable way to commute than a bike that occasionally
>gets a flat, unless you live within walking distance of work?
>Cars break down too and are much more prone to traffic hold ups, as is the
>bus.

The automotive commute time to my most common AM destination (13 miles
via the most direct route, 17 via the fastest and most reliable)
varies by less than 3 minutes with the common interruptions, and has
not varied by more than five minutes over the course of three years.
In the past six years, I have had one commute interrupted by car
failure (flat tire) and one delayed by not starting (five minutes
spent getting it jumped due to a flat battery); the car is 12 years
old. I call that damned reliable.

>Trains and tubes/subways are way less reliable.

Here, it's not so much their reliability as their availability and
speed that makes them impractical. The only bus route downtown from
my neighborhood runs twice an hour, and I can race the bus to the
downtown library on my bike and win most of the time without working
up a sweat. Taking the schedule into account, I can beat it downtown
by an average of 15 minutes simply by leaving when I am ready instead
of waiting for the bus...but if it's raining, I'll drive instead. To
use the city bus system for the morning commute I mentioned above, a
bike would be faster by over an hour. This isn't as much praise for
the bike as it is an acknowledgement of the fact that the local bus
system isn't good for much. *Walking* can be faster between many
points.

>IME the bike is the best bet for reliability.

Maybe. If you need to be able to consistently arrive dry, don't rely
primarily on a bike in Houston, TX, for example. If you live in
Minneapolis (or someplace similar), a bike isn't terribly useful for
several months of the year due to ice, snow, and frigid temperatures.
And in many parts of the US, a bike simply won't get you from point A
to point B because the only feasible route is off-limits to that mode
of transport; most freeways are so designated. Reliability of the
device itself may not indicate reliability of its usefulness in a
given situation.

U.S. mass transport is entirely based on the automobile in all but a
handful of very large cities, and it's still the backbone of mass
transit in most of those. Bikes *could* replace some of that, but the
average U.S. commuter is unlikely to try to ride a bike 22 miles each
way; that's the typical commute distance here. Telling them to move
closer to where they work is, in most of the U.S., futile. Too many
people own their homes and can't sell without an unacceptable cost.
The persistent application of "zoning" has worked to physically
separate the industrial, office, commercial and residential areas, and
has acted to stratify the residential neighborhoods as well, with the
result that it is unlikely that affordable and/or suitable (if *any*)
housing will be found within a reasonable distance of any given
job....and if it is, that won't remain the case when the employer
moves you to another location, or the job evaporates and is replaced
by one many miles away (and the lease on the apartment has 6 months to
run), etc., as happens on a too-regular basis for most workers.

It's all very well to advocate bikes for commuting, but a widespread
shift won't occur in most of the U.S. without a lot of other changes
to pave the way. It may happen. There are locales in which this is
slowly shifting already; I'm in one of them. We're seeing old,
dilapidated industrial and warehousing districts razed and converted
to residences, we're seeing long-neglected near-city-center residences
renovated and occupied by professionals with an inner-loop practice,
we're seeing blighted near-downtown areas with low occupancy torn down
and converted to mid-price condos that are selling to people who work
nearby, etc. None of this would be taking place (or at least, not so
freely and swiftly) if Houston had the kind of obsession with
Byzantine restrictions on land use that is common elsewhere, but the
very lack of "planning" in this city is now producing areas with an
amazing hodgepodge of business, industry, residence, commerce and
entertainment, and a range of resident incomes in a single
neighborhood that covers all of the tax brackets.

Now, if we could just lose that damn Rodeo...
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[None]

Werehatrack wrote:
<snip some good stuff>

You were doing so well until.....

> Now, if we could just lose that damn Rodeo...

HERETIC!

Kevin (in Houston who has never been to the Fat
Stock Show)