Thanks to the MTBR archive - my invention of Schwalbe's PROCORE
Cloxxki, Mar 24, 2002 6:30 AM
Mountain Bike Review Forum Archives
Boy was that a craaaaaazy concept, silly Cloxxki...
Then, fast forward 12 years:
Schwalbe // PROCORE
Schwalbe integrated the system, but the main features are the same
- anti snake bite
- beads pressed against rim walls
- reduced effective main tire cavity volume
- regulating valve
Circa 2004 I proposed face to face to the Surly boss and employees at SSWC Berlin to make 29x3.0 tires to fit their Pugsley bike. Gave them a good laugh. Who'd want that?
Last edited by Cloxxki; 14 Hours Ago at 06:49 PM.
well all I can say is, last time I saw this it was two valve system, no way
now they have an integrated single valve, this is super genius and will probably dominate all mtb wheelsets over time...downhill -and- xc/all mountain
I don't see the problem with the valve. Is it that hard to come up with something workable? Probably, this is where Schwalbe filed patents for.
If you were to want the inner core solution, would anyone ready to build and market it be hung up on a valve?
The system could perhaps be made a bit lighter still. A single bead for the inner core (like a narrow tubular liner). With just enough elasticity for tight mounting in the deepest of rim valleys. No need to be rim bead stiff anyway.
Initial pressurizing of the inner core, when constructed as a tubular tire, will make it self-center and cling on to the rim anyway.
I did find today a patent from after my post. Patent EP2173572B1 - Pneumatic sealing ring having an inner tube and expandable liner for a tube ... - Google Patenten
As it happens, Schwalbe (Ralf Bohle) filed opposition on it this year. Perhaps they wanted to get out of royalties or infringement claims by addressing a prior art beknownst to them, such as mine, after, or before.
The patent owner seems to have wasted his time and money, as even if I wasn't the first inventor, my MTBR post constitutes prior art.
I am awaiting in-depth reply from Schwalbe on this matter. Their tire guru I met in 2004 on other business. He was very unumpressed by 29" at the time.
Unrelated, Schwalbe's people at Eurobike also refused to accept me and my friend's order for a Supermoto 29*2.35 and Racing Ralph. They later introduced it in their own time, but could have had us pay for the first production run.
Seemed pointless then to ask them about 29x3.0 if Surly didn't even feel inspired.
And we feel like we're part of an exciting innovative sport, always on the edge of knowledge and technology...
Hate to burst your bubble, but your suggestion you are the first inventor is out of touch with reality. Lots of earlier forms have been noted in reactions to Procore press statements. You replied to the same statements, but apparently you only read what you want to read.
"I am awaiting in-depth reply from Schwalbe on this matter." , stop it, you're killing me!
Sure, you have had lots of good ideas very early, but you do not seem to realize these companies exist because they produce products in large quantities. A tire company is not a boutique steel frame welder that does custom builds. They will invest when the timing is right, not when you want a product.
My advice: Patent an idea or shut up. Nothing good comes from telling everyone you told them so long ago but they would not listen.
Originally Posted by JeroenK
Man, someone have a stick up his butt? The guy had an idea that may be used - even though he won't get anything. Looked like he was posting in jest. Leave him alone. No harm comes from telling everyone you told them so long ago but they would not listen.
On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.
what I meant was two separate presta valves, who wants that noise ?
I am glad they built the single valve system with dual air channels
NOW it is something that can be adopted w/o drilling holes
Indeed I have been pressed for time, but do like things to be clear.
If someone saw this before 2002, please help out with a link? My searches come up blank for now...
If there is prior art before mine I am fine with that. But there are people having patents filed after my post, and that should just not be. Perhaps the patent offices are badly staffed or my post was just too hard to find.
I have invented plenty of stuff (or failed to find prior art), and just open sourced it right here. Some stuff I contributed to others was patented.
If you want to get rich off a bike invention you are high on something. This is a hobby. The wheel has been invented.
Related, there used to be a LOVE branded semi-tubeless system. A tire with a bit of rubber closing the chamber a bit above the beads. Nifty.
But I can't get that on my screen anymore. Stuff does get lost in cyber space it seems. I had many more post on this dual core thing, but no-where to be found anymore.
The inner tire may not have been used for bicycles before, but it has been around in auto racing (NASCAR) for decades.
The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common
Shiggy, thanks for that. A quick Google told me it's mostly a safety feature in case of outer tire failure? Not used primarily to force the outer tire to seed, or is it? At the same time, this seems hard to avoid as a result.
The question then is: if this is all so great and good, what took the cycling bizz to get off their butts to make it? They're a particularly conservative lot....
By aliikane in forum Wheels and Tires
Last Post: 1 Day Ago, 06:46 PM
By andrextr in forum Wheels and Tires
Last Post: 1 Week Ago, 06:27 AM
Last Post: 07-03-2014, 03:34 PM
By ssiegrist in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 03-03-2012, 06:38 PM
By dan_hudson in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
Last Post: 11-11-2011, 06:38 PM