Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
As a workaround, you can use
As a workaround, you can use a seach like “site:road.cc bamboo” (to search road.cc for “bamboo”) in most/all search engines. I just tested it in DuckDuckGo, Bing and Google.
I’ve got a pair of IRC
I’ve got a pair of IRC Formula Pro X-guard tubeless in 28mm and am running them tubeless. I’ve been using them over the winter and haven’t had any issues with them. I don’t think they feel sluggish, but then their weight is only a small fraction of my weight, so I’d be better off losing weight myself before trying to trim a few grammes from my tyres.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Seems like lots of people have issues with even getting the buggers over the rim, worse the the most recalcitrant clincher, and far too easy for the unsophisticated home mechanic to damage the wheel rim.Plastic tyre levers are the answer. I tend to be heavy-handed when fettling, but with the right tyre levers, you’ll break the lever long before any damage happens to the rim. When seating tubeless tyres, I’ve found that technique is far more important than brute strength – lots of tubeless fitting liquid (or washing up liquid) to lubricate the rims and beads and then make sure that the beads are resting in the centre of the rim bed so that you’ve got a couple of extra mm to play with. Then again, I’ve damaged rim tape by over enthusiastic use of tyre levers, but although annoying, that’s easy to replace.
…… I’ve yet to be stranded having tubeless but have waited on a few dozen occasions for club mates while they fix their tubed flats. Mugs!I know exactly what you mean Mr Radio, it’s easy to think some people just deserve to be left behind. But on the other hand such riders are simply subscribing to the “least worst” school of cycling.
Their philosophy is that the worst thing that is likely to happen is their tubes need fixing or replacing every now and then. However, with tubeless at its present state of development, the worst thing that can happen is an unfixable tyre a very long way from home.
I agree it’s not likely, but, as the OP demonstrates beautifully, eventually it will ruin your day. Those of us with pessimism coursing through our veins will settle for the occasional nuisance flat while we wait for a leap forward in tubeless technology.
Surely if the worst happens, you can just pop an inner tube into a tubeless tyre and continue on your way? If the tyre is really damaged, a plastic £5 or bit of spare plastic rubbish can work as a temporary fix between the inner tube and tyre.
When I’ve had trouble, it’s
When I’ve had trouble, it’s usually been the rim tape that’s got damaged and needs replacing.
Nearly 18 years.I’m guessing that you’re not married.My wife knows that I am far better versed on this topic than she is and that it is a waste of time arguing with me about it; though I always acknowledge her and others’ concern. She respects that it is my considered choice and not merely a stubborn refusal to bow to convention or pressure. I would take offence at being told what to do in the manner described by brooksby, however well intentioned.
In the wider context I find that the people with the most firmly held beliefs are invariably the least informed, whether it is about helmets, chain lube, pedals, immigration, politics, religion etc etc. As time goes by I am less and less willing to engage with narrow-minded people that refuse to acknowledge another point of view. My time is better spent doing something else.
Fancy doing a trade?
Hey, that’s not fair! I wanted to!! (I’ve known my wife for 25 years, been married for 15, and in all that time I have never ever managed to win an argument, never made her change her mind on something she already thought… EVER.)
Been going out with my wife for 23 years, married for 16. She does a bit of cycling and often cycles to work, but I suspect it’s mainly out of her hatred of driving through Bristol traffic. She will not be convinced about bike helmets, so I wear one to keep her happy/quiet.
Nearly 18 years.I’m guessing that you’re not married.My wife knows that I am far better versed on this topic than she is and that it is a waste of time arguing with me about it; though I always acknowledge her and others’ concern. She respects that it is my considered choice and not merely a stubborn refusal to bow to convention or pressure. I would take offence at being told what to do in the manner described by brooksby, however well intentioned.
In the wider context I find that the people with the most firmly held beliefs are invariably the least informed, whether it is about helmets, chain lube, pedals, immigration, politics, religion etc etc. As time goes by I am less and less willing to engage with narrow-minded people that refuse to acknowledge another point of view. My time is better spent doing something else.
Fancy doing a trade?
It’s sad that your wife doesn’t trust your ability to research a topic, assess risk and come to your own conclusions.(I wish I could explain it like that to my wife, who went ballistic when she discovered I’d not been wearing a helmet for my commute, not even on “busy city streets”.)I’m guessing that you’re not married.
@madcarew – your point about
@madcarew – your point about helmet testing should be valid, but for one thing. Helmets are tested for hits against flat surfaces and not for irregular shaped objects. This means that a much weaker hit by an edge can cause a helmet to break in two and not provide any significant protection.
There is also an important point about the nature of the expanded polystyrene used in bike helmets – it is used for its ability to be compressed when hit and thus provide some protection. When you see a helmet split apart, that means that the polystyrene has failed in its tensile strength which is not a selling point of EPS (e.g. it’s easy to break apart polystyrene packaging, but difficult to compress).
Also, I’m not convinced by your figures on brain deceleration as I think you’re underestimating the size of forces involved when hitting another object at speed (AFAIK helmets are typically tested at up to 12mph). However, it is reasonable to assume that helmets would provide good head/brain protection for children due to their slower speeds and reduced height, although this could be offset by their increased risk taking if they believe that helmets are effective.
The big problem with talking about helmets as PPE is that it’s completely missing the point. We need to be looking towards the European countries that have much smaller cyclist KSIs; they have good cycle infrastructure and tend to not wear cycle helmets.
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it’s entirely possible that the inital ‘killing’ impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it’s design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn’t stop when it deployed doesn’t mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact.
I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That’s what I was arguing against.
If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it’s hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn’t have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within had it not been there, which is really what saying ‘it provided negligible protection’ means
I’m not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.
I don’t think any of it is as absolute as your alterrnative proposition “the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection?”. And at this point we get to semantics, because I’m uncomfortable with “most likely” but comfortable with “fairly likely”. I take your point about the vents and a non-flat surface (eg rock or top of fence post) but what would the effect on the skull be in the absence of the helmet. I think it’s going to be generally unlikely that in the event a helmet is destroyed (I was envisaging the majority of the helmet being in pieces) that an unprotected skull in the same instance wouldn’t have benefitted from a helmet between it and the striking surface.
I think we need some experimenters to figure out the real value of destroyed helmets.
I just object to the naive view that a destroyed helmet must have provided significant protection, when I would expect the opposite to be more likely.
Well, I nominate Donald Trump as crash test dummy #1
I don’t think the opposite is more likely, and just because it’s a naiive view doesn’t mean it’s wrong 🙂
Really, to my mind, the crux of that argument is given that a head was encased in the helmet at time of destruction, and significant force is likely to have been applied to destroy it, what would have been the state of the head had the helmet not been there. Generally speaking I think the answer has to be “worse”, probably normally coupled with “considerably”. 🙂
By the way, I meant “naive” as in the mother’s views – I think most people on this forum have read at least some discussions of helmet efficacy.
A problem with using a destroyed helmet as a signature of a high level of protection, is that it leads to the paradox whereby the weaker the helmet, the more often it is judged to have provided protection.
My view on bike helmets is that they are good at protecting against scrapes and possibly minor skull fractures, but next to useless in preventing brain damage due to the brain ‘sloshing’ against the inside of the skull. Combined with the data that shows drivers give less space to helmet wearing riders, and I think that their net benefit is negligible.
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it’s entirely possible that the inital ‘killing’ impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it’s design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn’t stop when it deployed doesn’t mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact.
I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That’s what I was arguing against.
If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it’s hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn’t have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within had it not been there, which is really what saying ‘it provided negligible protection’ means
I’m not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.
I don’t think any of it is as absolute as your alterrnative proposition “the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection?”. And at this point we get to semantics, because I’m uncomfortable with “most likely” but comfortable with “fairly likely”. I take your point about the vents and a non-flat surface (eg rock or top of fence post) but what would the effect on the skull be in the absence of the helmet. I think it’s going to be generally unlikely that in the event a helmet is destroyed (I was envisaging the majority of the helmet being in pieces) that an unprotected skull in the same instance wouldn’t have benefitted from a helmet between it and the striking surface.
I think we need some experimenters to figure out the real value of destroyed helmets.
I just object to the naive view that a destroyed helmet must have provided significant protection, when I would expect the opposite to be more likely.
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it’s entirely possible that the inital ‘killing’ impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it’s design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn’t stop when it deployed doesn’t mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact.
I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That’s what I was arguing against.
If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it’s hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn’t have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within had it not been there, which is really what saying ‘it provided negligible protection’ means
I’m not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it’s entirely possible that the inital ‘killing’ impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it’s design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn’t stop when it deployed doesn’t mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact.
I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That’s what I was arguing against.
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
I’m a fellow ‘waxer’ and one bit of advice I’d like to give is to fit the chain while it’s still reasonably warm. If you let it cool right down it’s like trying to thread a stick back onto your drivetrain
.He’s just spraying it on, not doing a warm wax bath.
I’ve always allowed the chain to cool down and then loosened each link by hand to remove excess wax and to make it more supple.
.