Results 1 to 39 of 39
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/06/26/...e-tire-system/

    Looks promising, super low pressures without the risk of a pinch flat...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    are those used with sealant?
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    254

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    I would assume so, but the devil is in the details which should be forthcoming soon apparently the inner bladder seats the bead and is held at higher pressure, like a dual spring shock, a soft one to deal with 90% of the hits and a heavy one to deal with those last 10%


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    Re: Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by mjduct View Post
    I would assume so, but the devil is in the details which should be forthcoming soon apparently the inner bladder seats the bead and is held at higher pressure, like a dual spring shock, a soft one to deal with 90% of the hits and a heavy one to deal with those last 10%


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    There was a long thread (that i can not locate) about it a few months ago, including links to a VERY similar motorcycle system than has been on the market for 5+ years
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    662
    and a very similar 4x4 system that's been on the market for many many years...


    How the Coyote Enterprises Staun II, Dual, Internal, Pneumatic Beadlock works
    My bike MCA kinda climbs like a billy-goat. WOO WOO!

  6. #6
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    So...we are back to tubes but with tubeless and get to add 1/2 pound?
    I don't rattle.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    So...we are back to tubes but with tubeless and get to add 1/2 pound?
    I think that's the wrong way to look at it. It adds a 1/2 pound as long as everything else remains unchanged, but maybe you don't need so much rubber in the tread anymore. I don't think something like this can be judged until the rim and tire are more optimized with this in mind. Yeah it adds a tube but that tube won't get punctured. It's probably heavier regardless, but those differences are overrated.

    This thing solves the rim strike issue and helps with the bead lock, but it doesn't do much for squirm. The entire solution needs to evolve. Trouble is, you have to commit a rim to this by adding the extra drilling. You can't experiment by buying one or two, you need to sacrifice a wheelset.

    I'm hoping whatever is offered isn't sensitive or limited to inner rim widths (or at least not to narrow ones).

  8. #8
    SRAM...Shimano who cares?
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    98
    If it keeps my two patches of rubber planted better than previous systems…..I'd call it a win-

    Yet, we've got to give it a try first-

    Anybody core a rim 700c/29er and stretch a tubular (traditional) over it? Then run the outer tire tubeless (stan's type) at 15psi? It'd be a bear to get on but it might be a fun experiment.

    ~JRA
    Last edited by J_R_A; 06-28-2014 at 08:10 AM.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by J_R_A View Post
    Anybody core a rim 700c/29er and stretch a tubeless (traditional) over it? Then run the outer tire tubeless (stan's type) at 15psi? It'd be a bear to get on but it might be a fun experiment.

    ~JRA
    probably wont' work... the tube will continue stretching till it reaches the casing of the tire, or ruptures. To keep the tube at 1/2 the size of the tire, the pressures would have to be appx equal, negating the benefits of the dual chamber.

    The inner bit has to be reinforced to minimize stretching from the pressure inside, to enable using a higher pressure, which is what they're doing.
    My bike MCA kinda climbs like a billy-goat. WOO WOO!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,511
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I think that's the wrong way to look at it. It adds a 1/2 pound as long as everything else remains unchanged, but maybe you don't need so much rubber in the tread anymore. I don't think something like this can be judged until the rim and tire are more optimized with this in mind. Yeah it adds a tube but that tube won't get punctured. It's probably heavier regardless, but those differences are overrated.

    This thing solves the rim strike issue and helps with the bead lock, but it doesn't do much for squirm. The entire solution needs to evolve. Trouble is, you have to commit a rim to this by adding the extra drilling. You can't experiment by buying one or two, you need to sacrifice a wheelset.

    I'm hoping whatever is offered isn't sensitive or limited to inner rim widths (or at least not to narrow ones).
    The Pinkbike article I read earlier said 23mm internal width minimum I think

  11. #11
    SRAM...Shimano who cares?
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by shupack View Post
    probably wont' work... the tube will continue stretching till it reaches the casing of the tire, or ruptures. To keep the tube at 1/2 the size of the tire, the pressures would have to be appx equal, negating the benefits of the dual chamber.

    The inner bit has to be reinforced to minimize stretching from the pressure inside, to enable using a higher pressure, which is what they're doing.

    Sorry a tubular tire…

    ~JRA

  12. #12
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    Re: Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by J_R_A View Post
    If it keeps my two patches of rubber planted better than previous systems…..I'd call it a win-

    Yet, we've got to give it a try first-

    Anybody core a rim 700c/29er and stretch a tubular (traditional) over it? Then run the outer tire tubeless (stan's type) at 15psi? It'd be a bear to get on but it might be a fun experiment.

    ~JRA
    You need the bead of the liner tire to seat against the bead of the outer tire for this to work.

    I have played with this using an old road tire.

    The difficult part of this type of setup is installing a valve through the inner tire to inflate the outer tire.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  13. #13
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    Re: Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by Alias530 View Post
    The Pinkbike article I read earlier said 23mm internal width minimum I think
    Yup, and drilling a second valve hole will not destroy the rim or exclude using it with normal tire setups.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plantdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    685

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    I'm all for advancements in product development and newfangled gadgets and can see its value for some. But personally, I'm not very interested in such a system myself. I don't seem to have any of the problems this is supposed to solve. I run pretty low pressure (18f/26r) and have never had a rim strike and only had one tire burp in 6 yrs (and that was from using a faulty pressure gauge and running something like 12psi). Maybe it's the fact that I only weigh 160, and rarely hit the gnarly stuff these days. I'm all for it if it means that the current expensive rubber will be on close out!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,175
    Stupid. Run a thinner tire? Just because it has a inner tube doesn't mean you won't still cut the tire making it useless.
    friends don't let friends Fred

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Yup, and drilling a second valve hole will not destroy the rim or exclude using it with normal tire setups.
    Yeah but you'd have to plug it or tape it and feel like a loser with an extra hole showing. I'd feel better experimenting with a less expensive rim but not something narrower than might get used otherwise.

    Not so much concerned with a minimum width as a maximum one.

  17. #17
    SRAM...Shimano who cares?
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    You need the bead of the liner tire to seat against the bead of the outer tire for this to work.

    I have played with this using an old road tire.

    The difficult part of this type of setup is installing a valve through the inner tire to inflate the outer tire.
    I have not tried this…But, I've got to believe as long as you are not using M517 width rims you'd be able to get the tubular on (with some bloody knuckles and a few swears) and inside the outer tube- A grand prix tubie is about a 28c? So if you could stretch it over the bead (that'd be the trick, as it won't roll off inside the outer tire) and it sat well on the inside of the rim- It should stay inside the rim and the tire should seat??

    Inflating would be tricky I guess you'd inflate the tire first? then back off and inflate the tubular…But I've wasted hours speculating how to do it? Sounds like a project for a snow day.

    ~JRA

  18. #18
    beater
    Reputation: evasive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,684

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    So...we are back to tubes but with tubeless and get to add 1/2 pound?
    You may not be the target audience then, but I am very interested in this. It seems like it'll offer real advantages to me. I'll be interested to read the details this fall, and my MTX-33 wheelset is a candidate. I moved to tubeless to avoid pinch flats, but those rims just don't work with any ghetto conversion. And if I have a pair of wheels built with those rims, I'm obviously not counting grams.
    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." - Dr. Peter Venkman

    Riding in Helena? Everything you need to know, right here.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    854

  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    Not even close to the same idea.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    So...we are back to tubes but with tubeless and get to add 1/2 pound?
    In a word yes.

    But, if it's anything like as good as the moto version (Tubliss) you take your weight penalty in exchange for never having a pinch flat, never having a tyre burp, getting to run silly low pressure and have mid corner support without worrying about rolling a tyre off the rim.

    I doubt the weight penalty will be that bad, if it lets me move away from running dual ply tyres all the time that's 1lb on each wheel to play with. Alternatively if it lets me keep those dual plys but run 15-20 psi instead of 25-30, that's me sticking to off camber like a gecko.

  22. #22
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    In a word yes.

    But, if it's anything like as good as the moto version (Tubliss) you take your weight penalty in exchange for never having a pinch flat, never having a tyre burp, getting to run silly low pressure and have mid corner support without worrying about rolling a tyre off the rim.

    I doubt the weight penalty will be that bad, if it lets me move away from running dual ply tyres all the time that's 1lb on each wheel to play with. Alternatively if it lets me keep those dual plys but run 15-20 psi instead of 25-30, that's me sticking to off camber like a gecko.
    Schwalbe was claiming a 200g weight for the liner system. Not sure if that includes sealant for the outer tire.

    You could still cut or puncture the outer tire, but as long as the inner tire is inflated the tire would stay in place and could be ridden with little or no damage to the rim.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  23. #23
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I think that's the wrong way to look at it. It adds a 1/2 pound as long as everything else remains unchanged, but maybe you don't need so much rubber in the tread anymore. I don't think something like this can be judged until the rim and tire are more optimized with this in mind. Yeah it adds a tube but that tube won't get punctured. It's probably heavier regardless, but those differences are overrated.

    This thing solves the rim strike issue and helps with the bead lock, but it doesn't do much for squirm. The entire solution needs to evolve. Trouble is, you have to commit a rim to this by adding the extra drilling. You can't experiment by buying one or two, you need to sacrifice a wheelset.

    I'm hoping whatever is offered isn't sensitive or limited to inner rim widths (or at least not to narrow ones).

    We disagree but probably ride differently in different places.
    I don't rattle.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,278
    1. Michelin had a similar system a long time ago when tubes were still the standard.

    2. For the person asking about running a tubular road tire, there is an article out there someplace about a guy in Europe doing this with a full DIY. He actually drilled through tubular and then resealed it. Looked pretty crazy and not sure why you would have to drill through the tubular. Seems like you could just mount it in place flat, pump up the tubeless tire and then pump up the tubular inside.

    Either way I cannot wait for this system to hit the market.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,226
    So wouldn't adding this system reduce the volume inside of your tire, making it more progressive?

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    We disagree but probably ride differently in different places.
    Some riders happily add a pound to their bike with a dropper post while others don't see any value. Both are right.

    At one end you have rubber weighing 1000+ grams and some new interest in tires in ~3 inch widths. It may be that this approach can accomplish similar goals with superior weight/size tradeoffs. That's why it's not clear to me that it represents a "weight penalty" even though it clearly would to an XC racer.

    It may turn out that you can get "1000 gram" performance out of an 800 gram tire with the added benefit of no burps or rim strikes. That's a win at no weight penalty plus tire clearance may improve. On the other hand, you'll never see "400 gram" performance out of a 200 gram tire so it just won't translate on that end of the range.

    Of course, it's also possible that it's a dead end.

    I'm someone whose weight and terrain limit my pressures through rim strikes. It's not clear, though, how much lower I could go before other factors come into play. I'd like to experiment with it, just not excited to drill out a carbon rim only to find that my preferred tires don't like the lowered pressures or that the solution doesn't agree with my rim width. Seems like a good idea to me to build a front wheel with a Dually to experiment with before going all in.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by half_man_half_scab View Post
    So wouldn't adding this system reduce the volume inside of your tire, making it more progressive?
    It would make the spring rate somewhat more progressive but not nearly enough. It's really just a nice, soft bump stop. Technically, the volume of the tire is unchanged.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,226
    It's two separate air chambers, both of which are small when you add the insert. I guess the progressive is the point, but I'd like to try before reserving judgement.

  29. #29
    J:
    J: is offline
    No E-Drive
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,225

    How the overall volume reacts is what counts

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    It would make the spring rate somewhat more progressive but not nearly enough. It's really just a nice, soft bump stop. Technically, the volume of the tire is unchanged.
    It changes the spring rate feel in the tire/wheel noticeably and has more rebound or bounce on certain hits,, or a sort of bob off of g-outs. There is less "travel" in the low pressure tire portion.. and that initial feel will now have to do more with the construction of the tire casing..


    The higher pressure portion will only save the rim if psi is high enough. That higher psi restricts the volume in the lower psi portion and how the overall volume reacts, that is what counts. It is definitely changed
    ...

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    It changes the spring rate feel in the tire/wheel noticeably and has more rebound or bounce with certain hits. There is less "travel" in the low pressure tire portion.. and that initial feel will now have to do more with the construction of the tire casing..
    Are you speaking from experience?

    If you estimate the overall volume of air in a typical tire, then estimate how much volume is reduced when the tire is loaded, you'll see that the change is quite small (less than 1%). Now, if this system cuts the low pressure volume in half, which it won't, the percentage change doubles but is still nothing.

    I seriously doubt the "feel" is changed "noticably" or has more "rebound or bounce". It is true mathematically but it's 1 or 2 orders of magnitude away from significance.

    Volume of 29er trail tire (torus, 720x53): ~2x10^7 mm^3
    Volume lost, 20 psi 100 pound load: ~2x10^4 mm^3
    relative change: 0.1%

    I think that's a generous estimate of volume change, but even at 10x more than that, it's still only 1%. Changes in progression here are very small. Any change in feel will come from the drop in pressure and the additional support at the bead. Spring progression is the same until the tire engages the inner chamber.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    The higher pressure portion will only save the rim if psi is high enough. That higher psi restricts the volume in the lower psi portion and how the overall volume reacts, that is what counts. It is definitely changed
    It would be pretty dumb to set the inner chamber too low to accomplish that. It doesn't take huge pressure after all. How many rim strikes does anyone get at 50 psi today? None.

    As I said before, the high pressure chamber changes the lower pressure chamber's behavior mathematically, just not significantly.

  31. #31
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    It changes the spring rate feel in the tire/wheel noticeably and has more rebound or bounce on certain hits,, or a sort of bob off of g-outs. There is less "travel" in the low pressure tire portion.. and that initial feel will now have to do more with the construction of the tire casing..


    The higher pressure portion will only save the rim if psi is high enough. That higher psi restricts the volume in the lower psi portion and how the overall volume reacts, that is what counts. It is definitely changed
    I doubt there is going to be any significant change in the outer tire pressure.

    The dual chamber systems are more about bead locks, rim protection, and run-flat possibilities.

    This is more of a two-stage spring rate. When the low pressure outer tire compresses it hits the high pressure (80-90psi) inner tire.

    For a given "hit", whether or not the inner tire spring rate comes into play depends on the volume of the outer tire, the outer tire pressure, the inner tire volume (I have experimented with various size road and 'cross tires as inners), and rim width.
    The less difference between inner and outer volume, the more you will be bouncing on the inner tire.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  32. #32
    J:
    J: is offline
    No E-Drive
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,225
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I seriously doubt the "feel" is changed "noticably" or has more "rebound or bounce". It is true mathematically but it's 1 or 2 orders of magnitude away from significance.

    Volume of 29er trail tire (torus, 720x53): ~2x10^7 mm^3
    Volume lost, 20 psi 100 pound load: ~2x10^4 mm^3
    relative change: 0.1%

    I think that's a generous estimate of volume change, but even at 10x more than that, it's still only 1%. Changes in progression here are very small. Any change in feel will come from the drop in pressure and the additional support at the bead. Spring progression is the same until the tire engages the inner chamber.
    It's like any shock in that the bottom out protection will change with rider preference and weight, but it does act like a volume spacer/reducer when at the pressure needed for protection of high speed compression impacts (too simplify).


    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    It would be pretty dumb to set the inner chamber too low to accomplish that. It doesn't take huge pressure after all. How many rim strikes does anyone get at 50 psi today? None.

    As I said before, the high pressure chamber changes the lower pressure chamber's behavior mathematically, just not significantly.
    And the application is heavier duty.. you are leaving out the fact that there's a VERY small distance above the rim sidewall to stop the high speed compression impact of a rock strike. Lowering the inner chamber to 50 psi will not protect the rim from a HSC hit like that unless you obviously raise the tire pressure.. or smooth trails

    The other fact you are leaving out is that if you want to ride with lower pressures, you need more rim protection if you're using this to prevent breaking the rim.
    ...

  33. #33
    J:
    J: is offline
    No E-Drive
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,225
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    I doubt there is going to be any significant change in the outer tire pressure.

    The dual chamber systems are more about bead locks, rim protection, and run-flat possibilities.

    This is more of a two-stage spring rate. When the low pressure outer tire compresses it hits the high pressure (80-90psi) inner tire.

    For a given "hit", whether or not the inner tire spring rate comes into play depends on the volume of the outer tire, the outer tire pressure, the inner tire volume (I have experimented with various size road and 'cross tires as inners), and rim width.
    The less difference between inner and outer volume, the more you will be bouncing on the inner tire.
    The rider preference for outer tire pressure won't change much, lets say it is 20 psi for reference.

    The tire expands when it takes a hit. The increase in rebound/ bouncing/ progression is also affected by reducing the 20 psi volume (increasing the rigidity of inner chamber with more psi), and it's also affected by the construction of the casings (how they increase contraction/rebound)
    ...

  34. #34
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    It changes the spring rate feel in the tire/wheel noticeably and has more rebound or bounce on certain hits,, or a sort of bob off of g-outs. There is less "travel" in the low pressure tire portion.. and that initial feel will now have to do more with the construction of the tire casing..


    The higher pressure portion will only save the rim if psi is high enough. That higher psi restricts the volume in the lower psi portion and how the overall volume reacts, that is what counts. It is definitely changed
    How do you know this?
    You seem very certain... how much experience do you have riding this system?
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  35. #35
    J:
    J: is offline
    No E-Drive
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,225
    This is not new
    ...

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    It's like any shock in that the bottom out protection will change with rider preference and weight, but it does act like a volume spacer/reducer when at the pressure needed for protection of high speed compression impacts (too simplify).
    Yes, it's a volume reducer just not a sufficiently effective one. From a spring rate perspective, the air volume in a tire is far too great.

    What shiggy is saying is the correct answer---the system acts as a two stage spring. The designers have to get the inner size right and it sounds like shiggy has some experience playing with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    And the application is heavier duty.. you are leaving out the fact that there's a VERY small distance above the rim sidewall to stop the high speed compression impact of a rock strike. Lowering the inner chamber to 50 psi will not protect the rim from a HSC hit like that unless you obviously raise the tire pressure.. or smooth trails
    I'm not leaving that out nor is it necessarily true. I was not advocating for a 50 psi inner pressure, just using that as an example of a pressure where rim strikes are typically eliminated in a conventional tire. The inner pressure will depend on the rider and the diameter of the inner tube.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    The other fact you are leaving out is that if you want to ride with lower pressures, you need more rim protection if you're using this to prevent breaking the rim.
    It's hard to leave that out when it's the entire point of the system.

    I don't know why you are suggesting that rim strikes can't be eliminated when they most certainly can be. We can eliminate rim strikes now. Like you said, the system isn't new.

  37. #37
    J:
    J: is offline
    No E-Drive
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,225
    Look I was not trying to be hostile.. and wasn't trying to say shiggy is incorrect, in fact the way he words it sounds right.. I might not always type it out in the best way for someone to read it. The extra bounce/rebound in the system is there though



    * edit

    shiggy have you tried different combos on 26" or 650b? I have not tried 29er
    Last edited by J:; 06-29-2014 at 04:46 PM.
    ...

  38. #38
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,838

    Can't believe no one else has brought up the dual core tire concept

    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    The extra bounce/rebound in the system is there though
    I'm curious why you think rider preference for tire pressure wouldn't change. If either burping or rim strikes are the limiting factors (they are for me), and you take those limitations away, then I can lower the tire pressure until I hit whatever the next barrier is... likely handling.
    Once more, how much ride experience do you have on these systems?
    It would be good to know which system it was and when you did this riding.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    You could still cut or puncture the outer tire, but as long as the inner tire is inflated the tire would stay in place and could be ridden with little or no damage to the rim.
    I know I can still get a sidewall tear, but compared to pinch flats that's a rarity for me.

Similar Threads

  1. A good dual purpose tire?
    By askibum02 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-12-2013, 01:31 PM
  2. Has anyone ever used dual shock/tire pumps?????
    By lafd5246 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 12:44 PM
  3. dual use 29er tire
    By bradktn in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-15-2012, 11:07 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 10:26 AM
  5. 50% at Concept Cyclery
    By snowjnky in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-09-2011, 08:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •