ROLL OUT tests

Everything about building wheels, glueing tubs, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

My suspensions per the Panaracer Gravel Kings were correct.. the tire is a dog. Rolls like a tank.. which the tracks full of mud... :roll:

This morn I compared my 3 rides.. surprising data was the Ultra ll 32mm's running tubeless nearly matching the Schwalbe Pro Ones.. scant 12' difference over .448 miles rolling.

Panaracer Gravel Kings made .375 miles.. same tire pressures et al. Very large difference... so I ran that test bike w the Ultra lls... which exceeded the distance on 12.2's run and matched the Pro Ones.. exactly.

So.. the pair of Ultra ll's in 25mm will see tubeless setup... when I decide on what the coat the inside of the tire with. 32's seep over a few days to nill psi.. despite the orange sealant. Beads and valve tight.. just porous fabric as expected from tubed tire.

************* Data Log.

6 23 18 Calm 58F 70% humidity-- patio

12.2 Ultra ll 32mm tubeless (200) 60/70---> *.425 mi
BR Panaracer GKings (1400?) 32mm 60/70 --->.375 mi
Ap Schwalbe Pro Ones (1500?) 25mm 60/70 ---*>.448

*----> NOT valid distances per speedometer.. Ap beat 12.2 by only 12‘---> 7.3 revs/.01 w Ap. Final length's marked/noted for comparisons.

BR Panaracer GKings (1400?) 32mm 60/70 ---> .448 matched Pro Ones<<-----

Distances in parentheses is mileage on the tire. 60/70 F/R tire pressures done pre-test.

GKings rated 'tubeless compatible' to 60 psi.. rear raised to 70 for comparison purposes. Ultra lls tubed wire bead rubber.. very snug fit that'll inflate w floor pump.. same for Pro Ones. GKings will not inflate on Kinlin 22T... custom setup of mine on Kinlin 200 front Kinlin 270 rear 3 tape wrap... reliable roadside inflation only with CO2... even problematic w small compressor.. not reliable.

Why.. the Panaracer Gravel King is marketed as 'tubeless compatible' is beyond sound reason.. IMO.

Tubed the GKings are ok... just another 15 dollar tire typed and marketed for $$.
I've no issues w blow off on them.. I would never run a tire tubeless or otherwise IF I thought that an issue w that combination.
----

Came bacckkk.. to add the normal disclaimers. No way the Continental Company is going to recommend or green light the use of Ultra ll's per tubeless. NOT meant for such.. saves the conscious responsible types around these parts for feeling to need to remind readers.

alcatraz
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:19 am

by alcatraz

I'm interested in your testing method but I'm not that familiar with the abbreviations. Ap? "'12"? The readings are distances in miles. Is it a flat power effort? Or maybe a zero power rolling test?

Do you always get better numbers with wider tires? How much do you weigh? I like to theorize that the heavier the higher the RR benefit is of running wider tires.

/a

by Weenie


User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

alcatraz wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:12 pm
I'm interested in your testing method but I'm not that familiar with the abbreviations. Ap? "'12"? The readings are distances in miles. Is it a flat power effort? Or maybe a zero power rolling test?

Do you always get better numbers with wider tires? How much do you weigh? I like to theorize that the heavier the higher the RR benefit is of running wider tires.

/a
Roll out is just that... no power... SAME conditions each run. If something deviates I dump that run.. like a car passing etc.

Ap 12 BR all bike designations.. Litespeed Appalachian 61cm 19.1 lb, 12.2 RainDaze (refurbished LeTour Super 12.2 63cm) 23 7ounces, Litespeed Blue Ridge-- identical to Ap size albeit weighs about a pound more per configuration.

Weight rolling out... the BR weighing around 3+ lbs less than 12 rolled the Ultra lls 32mm measuring 34mm on Kinlin 22T's... farther. Completely valid test... I gained confidence in the routine when subsequent runs w the same combinations finished always within a foot.. usually inches. I run SAME lines... same all. Yet.. caveat is... the 12 is a 63 frame and shorter seat to grips... I am marginally higher.. hence more wind resistance.. albeit not very much. Yet I watch all the variables.

Yes.. the combinations should be run on the SAME bike frame... I was after relative comparisons that morn. Was 55F and me in light clothing... brisk which I enjoyed. But swapping out wheels on Ap wasn't gonna happen that morn. I run all 'head up' comparisons on the Appalachian.

TheKaiser
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:29 pm

by TheKaiser

There's a lot to talk about here, but overall I commend your testing and, even though it should ideally be conducted on the same bike, it sounds like the repeatability is high.

Like Alcatraz, was also confused by the abreviations, so thank you for clarifying those.

Your data seems to be validated by the BRR rolling resistance data, at least to the degree that similar tires have been tested. It is always nice to see lab and real world tests agreeing with each other, both to validate the applicability of the lab test, and also to validate the precision of the real world test.

You found:
"12.2 Ultra ll 32mm tubeless (200) 60/70---> *.425 mi
BR Panaracer GKings (1400?) 32mm 60/70 --->.375 mi
Ap Schwalbe Pro Ones (1500?) 25mm 60/70 ---*>.448"


In Jarno's tests on BRR:
Conti Ultra 2 in 25mm at 60psi consumed 18.9w
Schwalbe Pro 1 in 25mm at 60psi consumed 14.8w

So there is a 4 watt disadvantage to the Ultra 2...HOWEVER...that was 25mm and also it had a tube in it!

From there we need to extrapolate a bit, but in other BRR tests, he found:
GP4000S2 in 28mm (31mm actual) had 1.4w lower consumption than the same same tire in 25mm (27mm actual), and 2.1w less than than the same tire in 23mm (25mm actual).
Also, the Ultra 2 he tested had a standard butyl tube in it. Standard butyl tubes will eat up somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5w or more.

If we apply the GP4000S2 size vs. RR data (which is a little difficult as nominal vs. actual sizes make it tough to pick which ones to compare), we can knock somewhere around 1.5-2+w off the BRR Ultra 2 number, since you are using a 32mm version, plus we can knock another 2.5w off that figure since you are using it tubeless instead of with a butyl tube.

Just those two things essentially put the Ultra 2 on equal ground to the Pro 1 in terms of rolling resistance.

Unfortunately, BRR has not tested any Panaracer tires for comparision. They have tested some Compass tires, which are made by Panaracer, and have similar tread patterns in some cases, but Compass claims to use a far more supple casing, so it wouldn't really be fair to compare at this point.

As far as "Tubeless with a Tube type tire goes", you sound like you understand the requirements of the interface and also the risks. I'd be nervous about it, but you actaully bring up an interesting point about using a wire bead tire. Besides the often looser fit of tube-type tires, the main problem with using tube-type tires tubeless is that the kevlar beads are more elastic than the carbon beads used on most tubeless tires, which allows them to expand and creep off the rim when they are not actively held below the rim hook by the pressure and friction of the tube. Wire bead tires are certainly less flexibile in bending, and I have seen MTB downhill tires that are made with wire beads specifically due to the better ability to stay seated and resist blow offs on impacts. I've never seen expansion data for wire vs. kevlar beads but if wire is a lot less elastic then you may have found a workaround to the problems others report. I've certainly never seen anyone running this combo, probably becaues wire beads are not very popular with the WW and racing crowd.

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 3706
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

if the test is not conducted on the same bike then sadly the result will vary. it only take a small difference in position to change the roll out distance. There is no way the CdA of the same rider wearing the same clothes will be the same on two different bikes even if they insist the postion is the same. it's not, the geomtery of the two frame will ave to be the same for that to be the case.

wire bead tyres dont reliably seal as the bead is not flexible enough.

Marin
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:48 am
Location: Vienna Austria

by Marin

I do my rolldown tests at very low speeds in an indoor car park.

At almost walking pace, I don't see a difference between tops and drops, and I seem to be getting quite realistic results that compare well to posted numbers.

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

bm0p700f wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:11 pm
if the test is not conducted on the same bike then sadly the result will vary. it only take a small difference in position to change the roll out distance. There is no way the CdA of the same rider wearing the same clothes will be the same on two different bikes even if they insist the postion is the same. it's not, the geomtery of the two frame will ave to be the same for that to be the case.

wire bead tyres dont reliably seal as the bead is not flexible enough.
SUGGEST... you try some roll out testing.. get some real world experience. Results are amazingly consistent. At times one actually does want to compare units rather than just a single component too... which was mainly the goal w this series.

Wire beads.. at least the Continental Ultra ll's seal fine/tight... water immersion tests shows this. Seepage is in the fabric is what one expects.. that is next series of experiments...sealing inside of tire.. with goal of not bothering w liquid sealant. Do use pumpkin sealant for the bead.

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

TheKaiser wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:02 pm
wire beads are not very popular with the WW and racing crowd.
Well understood... adding 40+ grams per tire is going the wrong way. What I've noticed w the Ultra lls is the supple feel in hand.... have run 28s a good deal tubed non wire.. great wear and roll.

When I get the new set of 25s Ultra ll's wire mounted tubeless then I'll run some more specific tests. IMO if one could accurately quantify Pro Ones over a long trip I believe the Schwalbe proves out...just I see no reason to spend 60-80 coins per tire for exercise riding. The difference in rolling resistance is not that significant.

I have definitely bought my last panaracer tire... their customer service is a circle jerk group.

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

Completed a new set of Kinlin 200s w R13 hubs.. low 1300's for wt. Mounted the Ultra ll 25mm wire beads with tubes.. did a rollout. Wind some very minor advantage.. conditions acceptable though for comparison purposes... would not use this data for hard comparisons but haven't observed any large difference when conditions acceptable for data.

Set rolled to same place as the S Pro Ones and Ultra ll 32mm's. 60/80 psi-- both running tubeless.. level I use for long trips. The distance ~.44 mi.

Tires inside were coated w a spray rubber sealant and weigh 340 grs coated. Ultra ll 32mm's seep air thru the tubed fabric.. beads are tight and have stayed using a dose of orange only to seal beads. Thinking the 25s will stay up when coated in tubeless configuration. Will be interesting to measure the effect of going tubeless w the 25s-- which measure 23.8mm on the 200 rim.

TheKaiser
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:29 pm

by TheKaiser

WinterRider wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:32 pm
Tires inside were coated w a spray rubber sealant and weigh 340 grs coated. Ultra ll 32mm's seep air thru the tubed fabric.. beads are tight and have stayed using a dose of orange only to seal beads.
When you say "spray rubber sealant" are you talking about a product like plasti-dip spray, or something else? Most of those type of products have a lot of intrinsic hysteresis/damping qualities, which should be bad for rolling resistance as it won't spring back and return the energy on the back edge of the tire contact patch.

I would think, from a rolling resistance perspective, normal latex based tire sealant would be better, and once it has been used for a while often will have completely sealed the casing pores. Orange seal is good in that regard, or so I have heard, but it sounds like you are finding that the casing is still leaking air even after using orange seal on the beads. Is that right?

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

TheKaiser wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:07 am
WinterRider wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:32 pm
Tires inside were coated w a spray rubber sealant and weigh 340 grs coated. Ultra ll 32mm's seep air thru the tubed fabric.. beads are tight and have stayed using a dose of orange only to seal beads.
When you say "spray rubber sealant" are you talking about a product like plasti-dip spray, or something else? Most of those type of products have a lot of intrinsic hysteresis/damping qualities, which should be bad for rolling resistance as it won't spring back and return the energy on the back edge of the tire contact patch.

I would think, from a rolling resistance perspective, normal latex based tire sealant would be better, and once it has been used for a while often will have completely sealed the casing pores. Orange seal is good in that regard, or so I have heard, but it sounds like you are finding that the casing is still leaking air even after using orange seal on the beads. Is that right?
Yes.. the orange is not sealing the very small pores in the fabric.. it seems. As I noted I believe sans going back and looking.. added a dose of Finish Line sealant which is stated to not dry out. Tires still go flat after a couple days.

I would have thought the orange or any sealant used popularly would have sealed the fabric.. I check new tubeless mounting in water for leaks at valve & bead.. both tight. Very small leaks in the fabric.. guess those are too low an air flow/volume to get the sealant to plug them.

Performix Plastic Dip was the product used to spray coat the 25's inside.. these weigh ~ 340 grs coated.. think the coating added all of 5 grs/tire. Tested it on a used MTB tire... company states it remains flexible and I'd agree.

The 25mm Ultra lls w tubes measure 23.8 vs the 25 of the S Pro Ones on the same rims. Ultra 25s w tubes is much stiffer .. feels to me like they corner better per compound adherence to the rd. I'm considering Ultra 28s for this rim set .. I ordered another rim 25mm width for a rear build .. think I'll trial the Ultra 25 on that rim... tubeless.

Thinking.. what can I use to seal the bead sans the orange? I might mount tire and lay a film of orange or ? around the bead from the outside and set the bead.

TheKaiser
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:29 pm

by TheKaiser

WinterRider wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:03 pm
Thinking.. what can I use to seal the bead sans the orange? I might mount tire and lay a film of orange or ? around the bead from the outside and set the bead.
Yeah, I have heard of people brushing or sponging on latex based sealant to the tire bead and rim prior to inflate, to add and extra bit of sealing power to that area. That was usually done in addition to, not instead of, a few ounces of liquid in the tire casing itself, but if you your goal is to get it to the bead then that might be good.

You could also try coating them with plasti-dip and mounting while it's still wet. Basically anythign that will add a little more "squish" to seal any gaps should do. Another strategy to accomplish the same thing would be to set them up ghetto-tubeless with an inner tube split open, which allows the tube to form a sort of gasket. I forget if you have mentioned being familiar with that technique but, if not, there are a number of how-to guides on various forums or videos on youtube. Just like coating the bead/rim with extra sealant, I have heard of people touting ghetto-tubeless as a way to make the tire/rim seal more robust, but again, it was always in addition to a normal dose of sealant, so I can't be sure how it would do on it's own. It will also make the tire/rim fit tighter, which is usually good for airsealing, but it does so in a malleable way which usually makes fitting easier.

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

Tubes.. of any flavor... no. Tubeless is just that in mine.

My thinking is same.. a good bead seal requires a sealant moved into the crevices between bead and rim. The only other way to accomplish that is gluing the tire to the rim ala tubular. This I would try w non tubeless tire minus the wire beads-- which to date is all I've experimented w running sans tubes. What glue to use? Yet the same scenario remains: any crevices sans the glue w of course loose psi. So for now the glue experiment remains untried.. and most likely will stay in that mode. Yet gluing could facilitate the bead staying put in a flat situation running low/no sealant. That was my rationale for potential glue experiments.

One poster noted a tubeless tire mounted literally w one hand.. -->ease of installation. My take is the manufacturer produces a sidewall which is flexible enough to allow a final product whereas the actual hole measurement of the tire is considerably tighter than the normal spec. Inflation sees the tire swell w the bead snapping into place snug. If the case.. that to me w my experience to date makes the most sense... softer sidewalls yet under normal specs.. allowing a tighter more reliable bead seal. One would think that route would eliminate the need for sealants.. for seal. Car tires for instance must run similarly.. very tight fit once inflated.

Mounted my set of Ultra 25's last eve.. the rear almost no leakage first run. I inflate to check and set a bead .. then dose the sealant. Front was leaking albeit slowly. Dosed and road 6-7 miles.. wanted to get a feel sans tubes. Then the companion identical bike w S Pro Ones. First impression the Ones are softer ride.. yet it'll take some miles to really tell. Ultra's roll as well.. even w tubes on their initial 30 mi run the rolling resistance factor was very good. Think this might work.. 25's in Ultra ll's.

Time again.. to remind readers running TUBED rubber TUBELESS is NOT something the manufacturer is recommending. My deal.. I take responsibility for the results/outcome.. NOT recommending this route to anyone. Yes I feel this is done safely per the manner I am employing the tires.. would not run them if that was not the case.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post