Anyone using those ...
 

  You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more

[Closed] Anyone using those new inner tubes?

87 Posts
43 Users
0 Reactions
177 Views
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I did my research on these a while back and found they actually increased rolling resistance.

fools


 
Posted : 31/03/2013 12:40 am
Posts: 65918
Free Member
 

Hmm, what's your source for that? And compared to what? Did a wee bit of googling and all I can find is road tube comparisons.

It's not a concern for me (though bloomin bursting for no reason is!) but it's interesting


 
Posted : 31/03/2013 12:44 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'll try to find the source for it but it was compared to various XC tyres.

Might be a bit of a pain to find as I was reading German forums - you know what they're like for chartzzz and proofs. Even found a review the other day testing the G-forces various downhill helmets impart on the user. You never see that in British mags.


 
Posted : 31/03/2013 12:49 am
 hora
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I had to double check the date.

FOOLS GOLD.


 
Posted : 31/03/2013 6:18 am
Posts: 65918
Free Member
 

German mags seem quite into their pseudo-science, it's interesting reading but sometimes when you take a step back it's obvious nonsense- like Bike mag melting an icetech rotor in their test rig, which it seems is something that's never happened in a bike, but still drawing conclusions from their wonky test. Likewise g-force alone is meaningless without dwell times, and the relationship between those 2 and the outcome on squishy humans isn't something simple enough to cover in a bike mag review- but g-force is a nice simple "bigger/less" number that seems meaningful even when it's not.

Still, it's better than "It didn't fit me therefore I'm taking points off" a la UK press 😉


 
Posted : 31/03/2013 5:34 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

By dwell time I'm assuming you mean how long the g-forces were applied for. I'm also assuming that if G-forces remained the same for each impact then the helmet with the lower g rating would see the energy of the impact spread out over a longer period of time.

Not a physicist, so I wouldn't mind knowing why dwell time is so important in a controlled test.


 
Posted : 01/04/2013 1:19 am
Posts: 65918
Free Member
 

Basically, a lower force for a longer time can be as damaging or more to soft tissue. There was quite a bit of literature on this for motorbikes when the SHARP tests were introduced, lots of CEN vs Snell comparisons.

My own knowledge only goes as far as knowing it makes a difference, not exactly what the difference is... But everyone but Snell seems to agree it's significant, and that testing without it doesn't make any sense.


 
Posted : 01/04/2013 12:58 pm
Posts: 13771
Free Member
 

Any update on those tubes, NW? Did they end up back at Merlin?


 
Posted : 02/05/2013 10:47 am
Page 2 / 2

6 DAYS LEFT
We are currently at 95% of our target!