FWIW, I have mounted on several bikes, the following tyres:

Tufo S33 special (tubulars) 700/21

Specialized Turbo Armadillos 27x1 1/4

Specialized Hemisphere 26x19.5

Pasela Messenger tyres 700/32

With the first 2, I have about (roughly) 9,000 miles withno punctures at all!

During that time, I was the recipient of the sort of ride that only an inflatible tyre can provide (although, in the case of the Armadillos and the S33's, they were a bit stiffer than other less puncture-prone tyres, but still light-years better than any solid tyre).

I guess the choice is yours. Every 2 years or so, somebody claims that solid tyres are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Dozens of people disagree, and in the periods inbetween, only tricycles and a few odd people use the airless tyres.

When something works as well overall as pneumatic tyres (theyve been around since the mid 1800's, and replaced solid tyres then), why would you even bother? Spend a few bucks on a decent inflatible tyre, why don'cha????

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe that this spam hasn't been deleted yet?

mechBgon,
I used the Specialized Turbo Armadillos on my roadbike for many years. We have Goats Head thorns here, and they get through anything. I also have ruined a few by running over glass in the dark/rain (usually the bottom of a beer bottle).

I thought about the spoke issue. Airfree uses a special tool to install, and I don't think they would be fun to try to remove. So I got rid of the spoke problem with bombproof aerospoke wheels (now I have to overcome the "Fred" image since I don't race).

I teach, and I give detentions for tardy, so I know I would never hear the end of it if I came in late with a lame "I had a flat" excuse. I ride in the dark, and sometimes in the rain. School is 18 miles away and I have been late 4 times in nine years, all while driving when an accident has stopped traffic on the freeway.

When I say I am looking for reliable commuting, I ain't kidding! I don't know if the Airfree tires will work out, but I sure am hoping.

Tom Balmer

this date I posted these new threads in Bicycle Mechanics forum:

To demount/mount solid bicycle tires

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=12008




To replace spokes without demounting solid tires

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=12009



Truing/aligning bicycle wheels

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=12010

First of all, are they heavier?

Secondly and more importantly, I think having to change a punctured tire is a part of cycling too. Sometimes perfection takes the fun away.

unrelated

I infer that you are asking if a particular airfree tire is heavier than some unspecified tire that you have in mind.

1. please go to the first post in this thread and click on the first url given
2. click on the tire that interests you
3. at the end of the explanatory paragraph click on More Information. that page will give you specifics as to weight, size etc of that tire.

I march to a different drummer. I think that fixing flats is a pain in the ass.

Unrelated,

Yeah, the poop sheet on the website shows they are definately heavier, but heavier is OK when commuting to work in the dark and the rain (IMHO).

Tom

the Teton AT HP 26x2.0
weighs 1150 grams (x 0.03527 = 40.56 oz = 2.535 lbs)

click here

http://www.airfreetires.com/Bicycle/Legacy/26x20HP.html

then at the end of the explanatory paragraph at More Information there is a detailed description of tire and rim size etc


http://www.airfreetires.com/Bicycle/...p?ProductID=86

Dear Little Big Man,

Not everything is a conspiracy. Your writing style suggests one who has too much time on his hands and to top it off you are dead wrong in everything you wrote in this thread. Not one statement you made is true.

Hundreds of bike shops sell airless tires and several Nu-Teck tires are in the J&B catalog.

Sheldon Brown offers his own take on airless tires, but neglected to mention that 5 of 6 airless tire manufacturers actually make money.

Over 10 million airless tires are meade every year, mostly for the disability industry.

Since wheelchair wheels are the same as bike wheels, the issue of the tire coming off of the rim has never presented itself in the 30 years that the tire has been available. If the tire did come off of the rim, it would have been known years ago. The only way a tire can come off of the rim is if the tire is not properly fitted to the rim. With rims ranging anywhere from 10mm wide to a whopping 40mm wide, it is impossible for one airless to fit them all. Just like with any equipment choices, some knowledge of the product and fitment must be gained. Do you know the difference between a 451 and a 406? Most people don't. Did you know the rim that a bike shop calls 'standard' like a 26 x 1.5 rim can range anywhere from 15-21mm wide?

There is no such thing a standard rim, and the closest the bicycle industry ever got was back in the Seventies when they made a couple of billion bikes with the same rim and even then other rims were in use too.

Five percent of the bike owners in this country purchase about 50% of all replacement rubber bicycle tires. These are people who obviously ride thier bikes. Why are the avid cyclists so eager to dictate to the other 95% just what they should purchase and how they should ride? Because I jog once a week doesn't mean that I have to buy $300 running shoes meant for a world class athlete, but many of the cycling elite will mandate that to 'properly enjoy the cycling experience', one must spend thousands of dollars no matter how little they may ride. Also to suggest that a preventable flat tire should be chalked up to 'doing business' is an affront to those who would prefer not to have a flat.

I could take a run of the mill handlebar and paint it black and drill holes in it and sell it for more, any many would believe that some technological benifit would be there. Yet few understand just how far urethanes have come in the last ten years.

The inline skate industry has over 5,000 urethanes to choose from and most still haven't been used or tested. They come in colors, clear, bouncy, hard, sticky or slick. Everyone would agree that todays' inline skate wheels and skateboard wheels are better today than they were years ago. So why not the airless tire?

For every application that requires a wheel, there is an optimum product. For heavy metal carts, there is the steel caster. For farm tractors and earth moving equipment, the rubber tires are foam filled. For dollies and such, there is the nylon wheel. The point here is that for many an airless tire would be a good choice.

I would agree with many in that if a rubber tire never went flat, then there would be no need for an airless tire. However since it is impossible for a rubber tire to not go flat at some point, it is only natural that people would want an alternative product if no drawbacks were present.

In issues of rolling resistance, many urethanes can already outperform rubber tires. For traction, many urethanes can compare with rubber. Afterall, rubber is a synthetic process that incporporates carbon black and soot. So rubber tires are not all that 'pure and natural'.

All rubber bike tires are imported with most costing around a $1.25 each by the container load. By the time you buy it, it costs more than $20.00. There is practically no technology advances occuring in the rubber tire industry and certainly not to the extent that the car tire makers engage in. So the next time you buy a rubber tire, remember that it came from a factory in India, Thailand, Taiwan, China or Pakistan, made by people who make less than what we outlawed 50 years ago. Rubber bike tire makers are not really interested in making a flat free tire, however if they can convince you that it has some 'flat prevention' properties, you will pay more for it.

Over 40 million rubber bike tires come into this country every year with the bike shops selling about half of them. Since there are only 5,000 or so bike shops, you do the math. There is absolutely no incentive for rubber bike tire makers to reduce the number of product coming into this country by making them better so they last longer.

Another thing that makes no sense is the obsession with the lack of weight on a bike. It is true that a lighter vehicle takes less watts of energy to propel but put things into perpesctive. If a bike with a rider weighs 180lbs and the tires are 700 x 23c at 120 psi with a low rolling resistance (.004crr), then the watts of energy required to propel the bike at 12mph might only be about 200 watts. Add three pounds to the bike and the watts required will be 210. However if you increase the rolling resistance even slightly (.005crr), the watts go up by 40. Addressing things like aerodynamics, rolling resistance and overcoming the tires' tendancy to flatten out make for much more quantifiable gains in performance than by shaving a few grams off of a bike.

So will an airless tire ever look, feel and act exactly like a rubber tire? Probably not, but the airless tire will do the exact same thing a rubber tire does. For a lot of people that is good enough and it is a shame you just couldn't resist the tempatation to poo poo somebodies' recent purchase decision.

Hello pabldb

Welcome to Bikeforums.

It may be handy to know that it's not really good form to make your first post a personal attack against another member.

You are more than welcome to refute any or all of someone else's claims but please do it with a little respect.

We look forward to hearing more from you. Maybe you could drop into the 'Introductions' forum and let us know a little more about you.

Cheers

Wheelchairs and bikes have little in common in terms of how those wheels are used - two wheels used in a parallel arrangement, with the occupied chair having a very low centre of gravity and generally moving at a relatively low speed is different to where a bike has two inline wheels, a high weighted centre of gravity and a higher top speed. Steering is also completely different.

I don't doubt that it's possible to use other materials than rubber, although I've not heard of any other vehicle successfully using alternatives. As far as I'm aware motorbikes, cars, trucks etc. still use rubber. I'd be interested in seeing any research results on urethane compared with rubber.

Many of the bicycle tyre manufacturers also produce car tyres.

Many tyres are made in Europe, but in any case most consumer goods are rightly or wrongly produced where labour is cheap.


I can't see why traditional tyre manufacturers wouldn't be interested in producing flat free tyres, a better tyre increases market share. It's tyre wear not flatting that generally determines when the next tyre needs to be purchased - you don't generally throw away a tyre if you get a flat.

This is nonsense - see above

Wheelchair wheels are side by side so there are much greater stresses laterally. If something is going to pinch a tire off of a rim, it will be a wheelchair spinning on a dime. Tires running one in front of another like a bike have a completely different set of dynamics. This can be evidenced by the completely different shapes that motorcycle and car tires have.

You riding a bike a couple hours a day in no way will replicate the stresses endured by wheelchair wheels, whose occupants will literally live in the wheelchair 18 hours a day and traversing terrain not all that freindly. This is an affront to the entire wheelchair bound population to assume that that you do something more 'special' on your bike. Also wheelchair bound are not helpless and to say that they have to use airless tires because they are diabled is incorrect.

Urethane has replaced rubber on millions of vehicles. Issues of heat build up prevent urethane from being used in high speed applications. Many scooters have solid tires though.

Since the cubic volume of urethane needed to make the same size tire as one that is air inflated, the cost of the urethane tire will always be more. This limits where the tire can be used at the OEM level because the OEMs aren't about to raise the cost of materials needed to make a product regardless of percieved benifit. Congressional action is usually needed before the OEM will entertain using more expensive componentry.

Again, the bicycle tire makers do not engage in real R&D to the extent that the motorcycle or car tire makers engage in. If there was true R&D, then the $40.00 bike tire would cost $80.00. But wait, just how is it that I can buy either a car tire with a 40,000 mile warranty and a bike tire with no warranty both for $40.00? You know why? Because they found out that you will pay $40.00 for a bike tire, not because it is worth it. Economy of scale doesn't work here because more bike tires are made in the world than car tires.

You are getting ripped off by foreign multinational companies and you are convinced there is no such thing as a substitute. This is a recipe to ensure that innovation comes slowly and that prices will only rise.

A rubber bike tire that lasts longer will only cause the tire maker to sell fewer product in the long run. Sure he could get a bump in market share, but that would quickly erode once his competition comes out with the exact same thing. Rubber bike tire production would decrease as everybodies product lasted longer. The only way to offset the reduction in production is to raise the cost.

So what if a urethane tire may not be as good as what you use. Big whooppee deal! Does that invalidate the airless tire completely for use by others simply because it isn't good enough for you? You people need to quit making equipment choices for others. Your disdain for tire innovation is evident and totally biased threads in this discussion board only point out just how little many people actually know.

I once bought a pair of sneakers that hurt my feet. Did I go online and tell everybody my experience and spend hours trying to talk people out of purchasing that brand? No. You see I am a grown up.

Again we have another post from an individual with very little knowledge of the cycling, wheelchair or tire industry and also is incredibly naive about the way business works. Sorry but you are going to have to try harder and do some research. This is nothing personal, and I don't wish to anger anybody, but several posts are from people who just don't know what they're talking about.

Exactly. So how do we know that you know what you're talking about?

Can you please supply a source for the information that you are offering? Something concrete that we can all source?

I'm very interested that you told LittleBigMan that "Not everything is a conspiracy" and yet you seem to be claiming that the manufacturers of bike tyres are conspiring against us. Can you give us proof of this conspiracy?

By the way, the tone of the only 2 posts you've made so far has been very heated. Perhaps you'll take my earlier suggestion to drop into the 'Introductions' forum to let us know a bit more about you. What kind of bike do you ride? Are you a commuter or weekend rider? Road or MTB? I'm sure if you gave us all the opportunity to get to know you we wouldn't feel so offended by your angry attitude.

Cheers

Which was the point I made

If you are going to accuse me of affronting wheelchair users by assuming that I do something more 'special' on my bike will you please provide a quote - If you read my post I merely pointed out that the design of bikes is completely different to that of wheelchairs.

I made no such comments - you did read my post didn't you?

By 'scooter' do you mean the things kids push along with their feet or do you mean small motorized bikes? At what sort of speeds does urethane have problems?

Sorry I'm not from the US, I'm not familiar with the concept of a product needing government support to encourage manufacturers to use it.

I assume this is just your wild unsubstantiated estimate of the costs involved in R&D in tyre production rather than being based on any verifiable reports from manufacturers?

I don't know of any British bicycle tyre manufacturers, and personally don't care whether I buy from a Dutch company or an American one. As to being 'ripped off' - I currently buy a product at a price that I think is fair that does the job at least as well as stated - what makes this being 'ripped off'?

I have no problems with innovation, if it provides tangible benefits. I've yet to see any favourable reports from independent sources - such as large cycling magazines. The cycling world is hardly adverse to innovation.

So why do some manufacturers produce tyres that last longer than others, and why would makers of an airless tyre be any different to rubber tyre makers?

Surely if someone asks for an opion on a product they deserve an honest response?


I would hope if you were a member of a running or leisure forum and someone asked you about that specific sneaker you would be honest about your experiences.

I confess I have little knowledge of the wheelchair industry, as already noted that is irrelevant - I am through having disabled relatives familiar with the basics of wheelchair design which is all I commented on. I think I'm as well read on the cycling business as the average cyclist. With regards to my naivety about the way business works, I do have business experience, and I think to conclude that in a fairly large market with a fair few competitors, increasing market share through a better product rather than producing a product that wears out faster is not that naive.

I'd be more than grateful to see your sources of information, to see links to any reviews by independent magazines of airless tyres, and hear how you know so much about the airless tyre business. Many of the contributors to this thread either have worked/work in bike shops or have many miles experience as cyclists. I value their opinions on that basis.

Your post may not be marketing spam, but I'd be grateful to know more about how you've formed your opinions.

Richard

I like Goatbiker's systematic solution to the spoke-fatigue problem. Those Aerospokes are a good long-term solution, and I see his reasons for going airless. :)

pabldb, as a FYI, I don't think so many wheelchairs use solid tires anymore, at least not outside of hospitals. Over the years I've trued a fair number of wheelchair wheels (the side loads break spokes) and I can't remember the last time I worked on one that did NOT have a pneumatic tire. Considering that the spokes may break off in the nipple, requiring the partial removal of the tire to replace the nipple, it is a big blessing to have pneumatic in that situation.

I've also built wheels for ruggers. These gents can annihilate a standard-duty wheelchair wheel in one match. I mean, we're talking 6 to 12 broken spokes, mangled rims... wow! :eek: They also use pneumatic tires.

I have a system at home for dealing with unwanted telephone solicitors: I hang up.

:roflmao:

JOE PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD, it is becoming a flame war (or as close as you get on this forum) and is not going anywhere.

I didnt want to close it, as i dont see it as advertising, but i will close it due to the nature of where it is going...