WARNING - ECLIPSE TUBELESS KIT = useless- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mads Kock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    66

    deleted!

    I was frustreted when I first wrote - stupid! It will probably be better tomorrow!

    From Mads
    Last edited by Mads Kock; 09-22-2005 at 01:27 PM.

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Mads Kock
    is simply the WORSE thing I have ever tried to mount on my mountainbike. I have tried many stupid and bad things but the tubeless kit from Eclipse tops it all - I broke 5 tire levers in my attemp to install the tyre and when I decided to dump the useless thing the tyre is impossible to get off the rim.

    So if you're thinking about getting a Eclipse tubeless kit - simply DON'T! Completely waist of money!
    what a stupid post!

    let me guess: you tried to mount a UST tire and have an old style M126 kit, correct? that rimstrip is designed for regular tires ONLY! it is thicker than the newer ones and makes it almost impossible to install a stiff UST tire.

    the only other possibility is you have the wrong kit on your rim. there are thousands of happy users worldwide so don't make yourself look stupid if you don't have the correct items on hand, please

  3. #3
    Maromero
    Reputation: doccoraje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,544

    useless??

    I've been using the "useless" eclipse for almost two years, no problems at all.
    Just my .02

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,761
    I wish everyone would calm down with this (insert brand here) tubeless kit is the best or worst banter. Seriously, you guys realize there are more that goes into a good tubeless system than just a rimstrip. Meaning that because one tubeless kit works for you and your tires and your particular rim, has nothing to do with how well it will work with different tires and rims.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    next stupid post...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Scary
    Yeah, Nino what is the tally on the number of kits your company has sold?
    You know quite a bit for such a "casual" observer (rolleyes).
    I have been told that if NASA had used the Eclipse rim strip and sealant as an O-ring on the afterburner in the 1986 Challenger mission, there would have been zero loss of life. This is straight from the mouth of an engineer on the project. It seems the Eclipse rim strip coupled with the sealant would not have been affected by the cooler than normal ambient temps as the material used in the original o-ring was.
    Next the kit will bring about world peace...
    i didn't expect anything better from you

    but if the shuttle would have been designed in switzerland it wouldn't have had any problems at all

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,006

    really.....

    when was the last time the swiss were in space?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tomacropod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    541
    when was the last time any western Europeans really gave a rat's about burning up billions of dollars and tonnes fuel to go dancing around in zero gravity? Selling aerospace components to the Yanks and Ruskis is not the same, that's just good sense. The Australian government has never implemented a space exploration program either, nor have the Indonesians or Monaco. Better off using our time, money, fuel and bauxite on more useful things. A vacuum is honestly not that interesting.

    - Joel
    Cycling is Serious Business.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,006

    good.......

    answer, tool

  9. #9
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,102

    Nasa

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Scary
    Yeah, Nino what is the tally on the number of kits your company has sold?
    You know quite a bit for such a "casual" observer (rolleyes).
    I have been told that if NASA had used the Eclipse rim strip and sealant as an O-ring on the afterburner in the 1986 Challenger mission, there would have been zero loss of life. This is straight from the mouth of an engineer on the project. It seems the Eclipse rim strip coupled with the sealant would not have been affected by the cooler than normal ambient temps as the material used in the original o-ring was.
    Next the kit will bring about world peace...
    My father-in-law was called in as an indepentent researcher on that accident. He has one of the bolts and cups that holds the fuel tank to the orbiter, and it has two explosive charges. The idea is that if one charge fails, the other will still explode and separate the bolt and cup. The problem is, each charge is too small to break the bolt, so both charges MUST explode for the bolt and cup to separate. So instead of halving the failure rate of the charges, the engineers doubled it. Fantastic!

    As for o-rings, there were two o-rings sealing the cup and bolt, and the lower o-ring was completely burned through, the upper one partly burned. A slight variation in presicion might have allowed the exhaust gases from the charges to leak between the bolt and nut, and again no separation.

    But they did go to the moon.


    Ole.

  10. #10
    t2p
    t2p is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by tomacropod
    when was the last time any western Europeans really gave a rat's about burning up billions of dollars and tonnes fuel to go dancing around in zero gravity? Selling aerospace components to the Yanks and Ruskis is not the same, that's just good sense. The Australian government has never implemented a space exploration program either, nor have the Indonesians or Monaco. Better off using our time, money, fuel and bauxite on more useful things. A vacuum is honestly not that interesting.

    - Joel
    ???
    .
    Puh leeeze ........ at least perform some simple research on the benefits of the US Space program before you knock it.
    .
    Many of the benefits are intangible - but many are there for you and I to benefit from .....
    .
    http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html
    .
    http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/b...e_program.html
    .
    Do you ... (did you) .... have a VCR ? The Space Program led to the development of the VCR. And can anyone imagine the world without Tang ?
    .

  11. #11
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,861
    Quote Originally Posted by t2p
    ???
    .Do you ... (did you) .... have a VCR ? The Space Program led to the development of the VCR. And can anyone imagine the world without Tang ?
    .
    You're using a powdered drink that NASA didn't even invent as an example of the everyday tangible benefits of the space program ?!

    Gee...a powdered drink with citric acid added.,.. wow...like that is just so hard to invent.

    Instant potatoes on the other hand... that takes genius. Which is why a canadian invented it.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  12. #12
    Just passing through....
    Reputation: DaFireMedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by t2p
    ???
    .
    Puh leeeze ........ at least perform some simple research on the benefits of the US Space program before you knock it.
    .
    Many of the benefits are intangible - but many are there for you and I to benefit from .....
    .
    [.
    Not to mention satellites that transmit communications used by almost every country in some way, detect hurricanes before they hit (look up Hurricane Camille if you don't believe that they save lives), and countless other benefits.

    Space exploration on the other hand is expensive, but it inspires the human spirit like few other achievements. I realize that it is strictly a matter of opinion, but I am not the only one that holds that opinion. I tend to agree with those that would say that saving lives is a more worthy use of the money, but that still does not make exploration a waste of time.

    As far as NASA goes, even with Columbia they have a remarkable safety record considering the incredible complexity involved in space travel, and the extreme dangers associated with it. I would leap at the chance to fly on the next shuttle mission.

    Oh, by the way...The Eclipse has been a fantastic system for me.
    Last edited by DaFireMedic; 09-23-2005 at 03:04 PM.
    If you want to play with electricity, more power to ya......

  13. #13
    Maromero
    Reputation: doccoraje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,544

    update


  14. #14
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,861
    the shuttles should never be cited as having a good safety record. For the number of missions launched, the fatality rate is the worst of any manned space program. The entire mercury, gemini and apollo programs combined had only 3 deaths, and that occurred on the ground during a test.

    The shuttles were SUPPOSED to be a lower cost / more reliable system than the previous use it once apollo/saturn rocket system. The turn around time between flights was supposed to be measured in days, not months. The best they ever got was like 2 and a half months between launches, and that was in the heyday of the program before challenger.

    Burt Rutan has managed more reliable and frequent launches of a manned spaceship than NASA has. He's got 2 flights, in under 48 hours, using the same ship. Nasa could take lessons from him. He did it without taxpayer dollars, with an engine that's a lot cheaper to operate, a lot more environmentally friendly, and a lot safer.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  15. #15
    Just passing through....
    Reputation: DaFireMedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,331
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    the shuttles should never be cited as having a good safety record. For the number of missions launched, the fatality rate is the worst of any manned space program. The entire mercury, gemini and apollo programs combined had only 3 deaths, and that occurred on the ground during a test.
    I was referring to the space program as a whole, not just the shuttles. People too often think of space flight as routine after hundreds of flights, but it is not. Each flight is incredibly complex, as is the machinery involved. There is a great deal of risk in every flight, and that cannot be eliminated.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    The shuttles were SUPPOSED to be a lower cost / more reliable system than the previous use it once apollo/saturn rocket system. The turn around time between flights was supposed to be measured in days, not months. The best they ever got was like 2 and a half months between launches, and that was in the heyday of the program before challenger.
    True, but to acheive a goal you must start somewhere. The shuttle system never did meet its potential, and the fleet has obviously aged. Time for a new system.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Burt Rutan has managed more reliable and frequent launches of a manned spaceship than NASA has. He's got 2 flights, in under 48 hours, using the same ship. Nasa could take lessons from him. He did it without taxpayer dollars, with an engine that's a lot cheaper to operate, a lot more environmentally friendly, and a lot safer.
    Burt Rutan is indeed the premier aircraft designer in the world, and NASA encouraged his research and flight for the exact reasons that you cited, to learn from them. I guarantee you that they took lessons from those flights.

    SpaceShipOne is an impressive machine, I enjoyed watching the flights. However, the safety of the spacecraft has yet to be proven. 2 flights, one with an uncontrolled spin at nearly 100 kilometers altitude is hardly a proven safety record. It may indeed prove safer than the shuttle, but it has not yet. As you said, it is cheaper to operate, but it has yet to lift more than the equivalent weight of 3 persons to space, much less a useable payload. In addition, reaching 100 kilometers is a far cry from achieving orbit, much less the moon. SpaceShipOne isn't capable of even coming close to achieving the speed necessary to make orbit.

    What Rutan's team has accomplished is truly remarkable. They did what no other private enterprise has been able to, and this is just the beginning for them. But they are still a LONG way off from what NASA has achieved. Sadly, NASA has had 3 well publicized failures, but their accomplishments are without parallel.
    If you want to play with electricity, more power to ya......

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tomacropod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole

    But they did go to the moon.


    Ole.



    - Joel
    Cycling is Serious Business.

  17. #17
    Welcome Turner Homers!
    Reputation: el Turtlehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    761

    MMMMmmmm!! Instant potatoes!!....

    I'll remember to order that the next time I'm down at the local Canadian restaurant.


    *hiccup*

    Feel the gin


    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    You're using a powdered drink that NASA didn't even invent as an example of the everyday tangible benefits of the space program ?!

    Gee...a powdered drink with citric acid added.,.. wow...like that is just so hard to invent.

    Instant potatoes on the other hand... that takes genius. Which is why a canadian invented it.
    Ask me about my translucent green clearcoat!

  18. #18
    On your left.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,186

    Next Generation

    He also did it about 25 years later. Big difference (think of the bikes they rode then to what we ride now!). One of the lead engineers, Jim Tighe, on SS1 is only 29 and the fact that his field of aerospace engineering exists is partially due to projects like the Space Shuttle. Nevertheless, the US government could improve bigtime (which is actually a scary thought). In the case of NASA, Burt Ruttan pronouces it NaySay.

    The bottom line is the Eclipse kit is a fancy, heavy rim tape. It does not aid sealant of the tire bead to the rim and it does make installing tires more difficult because it is thick. The double stick tape is actually more functional than the rim strip itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    the shuttles should never be cited as having a good safety record. For the number of missions launched, the fatality rate is the worst of any manned space program. The entire mercury, gemini and apollo programs combined had only 3 deaths, and that occurred on the ground during a test.

    The shuttles were SUPPOSED to be a lower cost / more reliable system than the previous use it once apollo/saturn rocket system. The turn around time between flights was supposed to be measured in days, not months. The best they ever got was like 2 and a half months between launches, and that was in the heyday of the program before challenger.

    Burt Rutan has managed more reliable and frequent launches of a manned spaceship than NASA has. He's got 2 flights, in under 48 hours, using the same ship. Nasa could take lessons from him. He did it without taxpayer dollars, with an engine that's a lot cheaper to operate, a lot more environmentally friendly, and a lot safer.
    M

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.