Tyres on the wrong way for over two years

[Racing roadkill]

As it happens I'm having tea with a professional industrial chemist/materials scientist and a genuine rocket scientist (two doctorates no less) later so I'm going to sound them out about the chemical reaction stuff.

Be prepared for a lot of mathematics. And after several hours, the conclusion that tyre interactions are driven by mechanical interactions, and boosted / refined by chemical reactions.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I've always put the tubes on the outside, is this wrong ?

 

[HLaB]

I've always put the tubes on the outside, is this wrong ?

Only if they are blue

 

[Bollo]

I can see a third option and that depends where in the vessel you are detecting for the two elements.
Henceforth, can we please allow all arguments to stand on their own legs and speak for themselves and not be bolstered by framed certificates on the wall?

TBH, this thread is a clusterfunk and I've been out enjoying the Winchester Criterium today rather than keyboard warrioring. I brought up my qualifications because this is the second time I believe that Roadkill has asked me to get an education rather than addressing any arguments I've made on its merits. So I think my qualifications are firmly in play. It's not for you to say otherwise.
To answer the first part of the question, I did say it was a thought experiment - you know - cats in boxes and all. I put it out there to examine the arguments and it seems to have worked on that level at least.
My continuing issue with many of Roadkill's posts is that he claims expertise in so many fields both cycling and non-cycling related, yet constantly fails to back them up with anything remotely concrete. We're either expected to accept his word as infallible or follow some vague instructions to "look it up", usually sauced with a personal jibe or insult. It grips my guano. I'll respect any argument made on it's merits (including this one) and I'm happy to back down if I'm wrong, but I need solid evidence, not chest-thumping and arrogance. That's how the scientific method works.

 

[Dirk]

TBH, this thread has had nothing to do with the OPs original post since about halfway down page 1.
The OPs only contribution was to start the thread..... no other input..... zilch.
We are now 232 posts in and the thread has veered so far off course as to be unrecognisable from the title.
Maybe @Moderators need to consider closing it?

 

[S-Express]

My continuing issue with many of Roadkill's posts is that he claims expertise in so many fields both cycling and non-cycling related, yet constantly fails to back them up with anything remotely concrete. We're either expected to accept his word as infallible or follow some vague instructions to "look it up", usually sauced with a personal jibe or insult.

My only problem with the above is that you are being too polite.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

TBH, this thread has had nothing to do with the OPs original post since about halfway down page 1.
The OPs only contribution was to start the thread..... no other input..... zilch.
We are now 232 posts in and the thread has veered so far off course as to be unrecognisable from the title.
Maybe @Moderators need to consider closing it?

That will leave us what, a few threads to speculate about household cleaners, shopping for second-hand shoes and wallets, quizzes and RIPs of old actors.

Valid cycling issues are rigorously debated here and there are still a few threads hanging in the air. Let it run its course.

 

[Dirk]

That will leave us what, a few threads to speculate about household cleaners, shopping for second-hand shoes and wallets, quizzes and RIPs of old actors.

Valid cycling issues are rigorously debated here and there are still a few threads hanging in the air. Let it run its course.

You could always start another thread which was more relevant to the issues being discussed.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

You could always start another thread which was more relevant to the issues being discussed.

So could you. I'll stick with this one.

The development from directionality of tread through to water dispersion to friction to the mechanism of friction is valid. You'll see, it will make full circle and it will be shown that because of the way that adherent friction works, treads do not have to point in any specific direction at all because they are in fact superflous and counter-productive.

 

[winjim]

That will leave us what, a few threads to speculate about household cleaners, shopping for second-hand shoes and wallets, quizzes and RIPs of old actors.

Valid cycling issues are rigorously debated here and there are still a few threads hanging in the air. Let it run its course.

Quite right. It's CycleChat. We're chatting.

 

[Racing roadkill]

TBH, this thread is a clusterfunk and I've been out enjoying the Winchester Criterium today rather than keyboard warrioring. I brought up my qualifications because this is the second time I believe that Roadkill has asked me to get an education rather than addressing any arguments I've made on its merits. So I think my qualifications are firmly in play. It's not for you to say otherwise.
To answer the first part of the question, I did say it was a thought experiment - you know - cats in boxes and all. I put it out there to examine the arguments and it seems to have worked on that level at least.
My continuing issue with many of Roadkill's posts is that he claims expertise in so many fields both cycling and non-cycling related, yet constantly fails to back them up with anything remotely concrete. We're either expected to accept his word as infallible or follow some vague instructions to "look it up", usually sauced with a personal jibe or insult. It grips my guano. I'll respect any argument made on it's merits (including this one) and I'm happy to back down if I'm wrong, but I need solid evidence, not chest-thumping and arrogance. That's how the scientific method works.

That's a troll post right there. I've tried to give you the evidence you seem to want, the fact you seem to fail to understand it isn't my problem. You say you were at the Winchester Crit today, it's a shame I didn't know what you look like, I would have loved to come and speak to you, about tyres.

 

[Racing roadkill]

I've always put the tubes on the outside, is this wrong ?

You'd be better off doing that with Continental tyres.

 

[S-Express]

That's a troll post right there

Second most ironic post of the day...

 

[Dec66]

Can I just say my tyres are on the right way round now?

Took me two attempts with the rear, as ten minutes after my first effort I heard the sudden "pfffffffft" of a pinch flat.

Always the back one, isn't it? Just glad I'd degreased the cassette, chain and rear derailleur.

 

[winjim]

Which is the third type of vdW. Given it's a dipole-dipole interaction.

What are the first two and who decided on the order?