Skip to main content

Got a No-More-Flats insert and tried it out. Last test showed statistically insignificant difference in two groups of 8 each 1,000' cal course rides: 35,609.5 and 35,608.0 with a Start T shade of 74.8 F and Finish T shade of 77.1. Start T sun on cal surface of 96.0 F and Finish of 111.3 F. So the question is: Are you feeling lucky? In other words, do you want to measure accurately or are you in love with knowing hotter tires may be adding the SCPF half again?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Duane,
Both were done in the sun with the temp rising but much faster on pavement than in the shade. I have done 3 other sets of tests over a much wider range of temperatures on a shorter course where there appeared to be modest expansion. Below is a highly abbreviated summary comparing my regular measuring bike at about 95 psi with the No-More-Flats tire.
4/27 95 PSI would add 16.3' and NMF would add 4.5' from 57F to 77 F
6/7 95 PSI adds 33.67' and NMF adds 9.74' from a pavement temp of 73 in early morning shade to 136 F in full sun.
What is concerning is that the test done on my cal course over a minimal range would make me have to do something about the constant for the day with the NMF insert vs the 95 lb tire that in my experience would definitely expand.
Maybe they are old meters. I just double checked and I was getting about 23,500 counts / mile in 2010 on the old bike with a 26" tire and hub mount meter and about the same now with hub mount Oerth and NMF insert. With the handlebar mount Oerth, I get about 24,800 these days.

So I would probably be OK with the NMF tires calibrating at dawn and recalibrating at noon but I would think twice about it on an overcast, constant temp day.

Oscar
Both meters get right at 30 counts per revolution.

The tire I have been measuring with is a Kevlar thorn resistant variety 26" x 1.25" and the one with the NMF is a 26" x 1 3/8". I know those are supposed to be different because the Cyclometer I just got has different factors for different widths like 26 x 1.25 is 1953 and 26 x 1.5 is supposed to be 1985. That's what I was trying to set up the day I did the two groups of 8 rides on the cal course. Oddly what finally worked out to be a NMF mile was 2060.
This is the continuing saga of my ventures into airless measuring. Airless tire options are somewhat limited by your bike and wheels. I got a 26 x 2.0 airless tire and did not even ride it around the block before measuring with it. Big mistake, it must have gone "kachong" settling in during the ride because I had to drive 15 miles to add 7 feet to a 2 mile course! It has been stable since then but a buddy (170 lb) rode it doing a HM a few weeks ago and was getting 24,712ish when I (150 lb) was getting 24,701. He was also exhausted as you still have to pedal on a slight downhill. That bike also has a rear airless insert 2.0 that feels a little stiffer than the airless tire.
Saturday night before going to do a 5K 65 miles from here, I tried swapping in the 1 3/8" insert tire and found that the brakes on the bike which was using the 2.0 marshmallow tire with the good gears did not have enough travel to hit the rim so I put it all back like it was and rode the marshmallow.

I got another wheel and ordered a 26 x 1 3/8" airless tire expecting it to be much easier to pedal. Still puzzled by why tires from 2 26" bikes are not interchangeable.
So selection and what works remains a matter of trial and error. Contacting the Airless folks is difficult if even possible. The only tires I can find with "equivalent pressure ratings" are all for 700 C types.
Stay tuned.

Oscar Wagner
Johnson City, TN

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×