I mean.. I wouldn’t say you are a “Idiot” sometimes it helps when you say something out loud you know? And to this forums credit sometimes someone just knows more then we do and they precent it in a way that allows us all to learn something new.
To answer your question… I have said this already a couple of times. But Im happy to do so again. At first I too was surprised that no one was using sealant for these tests. And I thought the same thing for a while
”Surley this would effect the outcome of the test” But when you have 6 different engineers from 6 different wheel companies all tell me it doesnt.. I sort of just believe them.. and the other thing when doing this.. Is If I was going to be comparing apples too apples I from a “PSI LIMIT” you sort of had to do as much as you can to be the same. For example if EVERY SINGLE company including ETRTO doesnt use sealant… And Im trying to do a third party test to verify what they are finding.. I felt like using sealant would sort of be stupid.. It’s bad enough that I cant 100% do what they do.. As in wait 24 hours on each tires.. Or take 3-4 hours per tire.. as ( I just dont have that much time) So to create as much “Baseline” as possible. We didnt use any sealant. The variable that we created was the quick time in which someone would do the inflate which to me was the biggest worry of people on the forum.. I mean we had users for days worried that a 16 oz CO’2 was going to blow a 28mm tire right off a rim.
Couple of things.. This is a front facing article that happens to be linked here in the forum ( like most of our articles now) . Article’s on the main page purpose’s are NOT driven with the design of one specific outcome though. They are written so that the world can find them and read them. They are news, reviews, opinions and community touch points. They are designed for that. The special and unique thing about SLOWTWITCH is that we are a commutative community which is why we link them to the forum ( its the new replacement of what we used to use and that we “Facebook comments “ when it come to direct comments on articles.) And it doesnt really surprise me that a lot of what I would call the “Hookless haters” have left this topic.. I mean what else can they say again and again that they havent already said.. And we understand some of the things they are talking about.. which is why we do these tests. And while some of them hate me more every day for doing them I respect “most” of them as humans and community members. I just dont see that universal hate they seem to have on this same topic.. What I hope that has become clear and will continue to become clearer is that we like others see the current narrow scope in hookless. We always have. What is that narrow scope? Well you cant use every tire, You need to know what you’re doing, You have PSI limitations. And if you dont know about these things.. It’s a big fucking issue…. but that doesnt mean that hookless is horrible or bad “over all “ To me it means… People need to fucking know about those.. So here we are talking about what we think are ALL the points…
Also the only thing that is 100% accurate on the “Views, likes, Links, and users” that everyone see’s is the “likes, links, users”. Views are dependent on logged in users that allow that tracking to take place. It also doesn’t even consider the ten of thousands of people that have read this article on the home page that dont even look at the forum let alone want to login to make a comment.
But if your area trusting their engineers, why are you repeating their tests. This only makes sense if either you don’t trust them, or are going to do things differently.
What data? You are flying by the seat of your pants, testing in a manner that doesn’t correlate with real world usage. Also, if you do get a blowoff, you’ve measured absolutely nothing that will help you figure out why that particular rim/tire combination failed.
If you’d read the thread then the thinking there was if someone dumped a whole CO2 cartridge in, as they may well be used to if they’ve been riding/racing for a decade or more, then very feasible this would be where the tyre would end up. And so I for one, did have the concern that this would lead to a tyre blowing off.
And your last line. Sigh. Welcome to the last 5 minutes of 6 months worth of discussion….. Yes it is, depending on size and rim as low as 70. Which is exactly the issue for anyone weighing over 80kg, and so began the entire discussion…..
“…roughly what the average, old school rider would pump a tire to…”
I read this literally — the same way you did. Right?
With all the assumptions you make in your response, nowhere is it indicated the users of said hookless tires RTFM re: installation and inflation. So your premise is all users are ignorant?
No, I read that in the context of the discussions where pump was in the meaning of inflate. Heck we didn’t suggest @E_DUB repeat all the tests as the pop off may occur differently with pressure from CO2 compared to air….
Yes. Well not all users, but yes to enough for some of us to have concern. Noting the posts that referred to incorrect advice/inflation from bike shops let alone the ‘average’ triathlete that buys a bike which comes with hookless but doesn’t even know there are different types of wheel/tyre let alone that there is a pressure ‘limit’ So this test/discussion was to show what happened if an unaware person ended up with such a setup and just uses it like their last bike that was 5+ years old and they pumped up the tyres to 90psi as they always did….
Indeed 12g do exist. However as per above, 16g way more common in bike shops, the user above is more likely to have 25mm tyres that come standard on most bikes from factory (ie my Trek SC is officlally limited to 25mm, accepting you can fit 28mm or 30mm on. And so 16g on a 25mm will be over 100psi. Which is the point of the test. Not so recommend this but to show the ‘real world’ margin of error. Is it 10% (is 72psi+7psi) so 80psi and risk of pop off. Or as is suggested by all the sweat and tears of @E_DUB , actually approaching 100% which in fairness says no-one likely to exceed by that much.
An aside, if all these tyres and wheels are fine at 150psi, why is there such a low max pressure stated?
More importantly, why are tires blowing up and causing injuries. Does a new tire handle 2 x design pressure without any issues, but maybe not after some wear and tear and stretching? Well, then all these “tests” are absolutely useless and frankly, a bit reckless.
Yes, before the hookless jedis (or jedi) attack me, this is no secret. Plenty of videos and testimony after Googling the topic for five seconds.
Hookless wheels for road and TT? No thanks. Not going to sponsor a manufacturers savings by compromising my well being.
Purely vertical blowoff tests are irrelevant. Add in a torsional or side-load, and there’s a discussion to be had - admittedly, difficult in a controlled environment, but that’s where all the failures happen.
Look, it’s a system with well documented limitations when it comes to max pressures. You don’t wanna buy them because they don’t fit you or don’t feel “safe”? Don’t do it, who cares. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. Nothing happens if you ride them at the max recommended pressure, if you have an accurate pump.
I’ve been riding mines for years, as a light athlete, with conti and Victoria tires, and have had no issues whatsoever, likewise thousands of other people. And I’ve hit plenty of potholes at 40+ km/h.
You only hear those that have had issues, like every tech. But it doesn’t mean it’s always the system’s fault. Esp for hookless most of the time it’s the user’s fault, not of the tire+wheel combo, because ppl treat them like they would treat hooked systems. You simply don’t because it’s written so, end of the story.
Does the bike you want come with hookless wheels? Either change model or ask for a wheel swap, or sell them, don’t see any issue, since hookless is not gonna become a mainstay like disc brakes for now. So you can still chose whatever you want.
That’s exactly the problem with this technology, it is always the fault of the stupid user. All the fog around it is made to blame the human user in the case something happens.
As I’ve said many times, the problem is the user is not informed well enough. It’s almost small print. This technology should have warning stickers all over the place. Yet I bet more than 90% off people riding them are not aware they are riding something different than what they’ve riden in the past.
I had the first hookless tasting 2010 with Stan’s aluminum rims. I didn’t know it first that they came hookless. I was lucky and had no problems at all, the wheels are still running. A friend of mine was not that lucky.
I don’t care about individual anecdotes. At all. That’s now how decisions are made, because every accident must be analyzed separately. Easy to say your friend was not lucky enough blaming the wheel, but then: was the tyre compatible? Was the pressure within the limit and how can you be sure? Has he maybe used an inaccurate pump? How did the accident happened? Etc.
These discussions are like toddlers fighting over toys. The reality is that as long as we don’t have proper longitudinal studies collecting all the data about safety and how each and every reported accident happened, building a clear cause-causation effect, we are just finger pointing and doing nonsense bar talks.
And blowoffs happen with every tech, every day. The difference is that hooked is established and people have come to accept that maybe it’s either a faculty wheel/tire or an user error. Hookless not yet.
