Tubeless ...Why ?????
Comments
-
Vaguely on topic though, here's one that's literally just 20 minutes ago annoyed me... WTB's new Mutano TCS, a tubeless compatible though not UST tyre. Works very well, sealed up instantly, effortless fitting- it's very similiar to Specialized 2bliss in use. Tyre isn't light but not too drastically heavy.
But, they come in a 2.2 and a 2.4. And the 2.4 measures up 2.2 exactly across its widest point :evil: The tread isn't 2.4 across, the carcass isn't 2.4 across, in fact no part of it is 2.4 across. So why have a 2.2 model when the 2.4 is 2.2? If I wanted a 2.2 I'd buy it. The 2.2 presumably's even smaller. How hard is it?Uncompromising extremist0 -
Me?Northwind wrote:Are you using some sort of random illogic generator
No.
Look, if it bothers you that much, rather than being a dicktard about it, why don't you ask Conti?
http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/contactus.shtml
You seem to have a real grievance with them, their tyre sizing, pricing, and compounds.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:What the hell has watchdog got to do with anything?
The advertising standards does not allow selling a product under false pretences, no matter what the market is. It's not the kind of body that only goes after trends.
You have answered your own question. How can the Advertising standards investigate an area of which there is no standard? A watchdog errr....watches trading practice. Tyre sizing is completly wrong. In fact I think a quango should be set up to regulate tyre sizing for mountain bikes. Why? Because there is danger of ERD sizing variances caused by irregularities in measurement practices which = you burping a tyre, falling over and killing a small child!
As crazy as it may sound my point is totally on topic.0 -
A grievance No, they're just the worst offenders I know of, since they're both crooked in their descriptions but also inconsistent in their crookedness. At least with Maxxis, you know what you're getting, some of them are crooked but you can tell from the sizes claimed roughly how big it'll be, you can't do that with Conti. And they have the absolute best examples of hopeless sizing so they're the examples I use.
And now WTB have annoyed me too
But why would you defend it? It's not the end of the world but it is crap, and so easily avoided. Most tyre companies manage it, or at the very least they manage consistency. It's not so much to ask is it?
As for asking Conti, their official answer was that they measure the tread, but laid flat (so essentially they're measuring round the circumference of the treaded part of the tyre) But unfortunately, that's not true either.Uncompromising extremist0 -
If they are lying about tyre sizes, they are lying about tire sizes. That's as simple as it gets.
You guys seem REALLY, REALLY fuckking bothered by this, but like all good conspiracy theorists, you seem oblivious to the simple answers.
If you want to know how their sizing works, ASK continental.
Is it a Scottish thing?0 -
It has been done. Their answer was also untrue. Happy now?Uncompromising extremist0
-
Ah, so you HAVE asked (even though it's only a minor grievance?) and got an answer, and you're still not happy?
Grow up for god's sake. Nobody just plucks numbers from the air.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Ah, so you HAVE asked (even though it's only a minor grievance?) and got an answer, and you're still not happy?
Grow up for god's sake. Nobody just plucks numbers from the air.
No, I haven't asked, but other people have and that's the answer they give. And it's total bulls**t. I may have mentioned that already.
So, just to recap, right... Since "nobody just plucks numbers from the air". There's no consistency within their range at all. They have 2.2s bigger than 2.4s. They claim a standard which actually is demonstrably not true. Their claimed dimensions on some of the tyres are accurate measured by the most common methodology (RQ) but there's no measurement anyone can find on a MK that matches what it says on the sidewall. But there's no way it can be an actual lie because of the advertising standards.
So, what is the answer? It's not random, it's not a lie, it's not measured from the tyre, it's not consistent... Perhaps it's affected by the phases of the moon or something. Maybe it's the uninflated size when rolled up endways. Who knows. Not Conti apparently.Uncompromising extremist0 -
It's not a Conti thing, it's an industry thing! That was my whole point about tyre sizing and tubeless wheelsets. Mavic have the right idea with UST. For whatever reason [someone please enlighten me in with the details]. Some[all?] UST wheels are not sold in the US. Stans system is lighter but has compatibility issues and consequently tyre seating issues.
Personally, I blame the Welsh!0 -
Holy crap, you guy s sound like the faked moon landing crazies. You DO realise that, right?0
-
weescott wrote:It's not a Conti thing, it's an industry thing!
Except, it isn't. Specialized from what I've seen are slightly inaccurate but pretty consistent. Some Contis are accurate. The new Maxxis are pretty accurate too. Can't speak for others, but some companies manage it somehow. John Tomac himself parachutes into Kenda's factory once a week and measures every tyre with a golden ruler, and if it's not the right size he won't sign it- fact!Uncompromising extremist0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Holy crap, you guy s sound like the faked moon landing crazies. You DO realise that, right?
Yes, with my measurable facts and real world examples. Insane, it is. Uncompromising extremist0 -
Epic, EPIC facepalm :roll:
Seriously guys, there must be something in the water up there.0 -
Going back a second...yeehaamcgee wrote:If they are lying about tyre sizes, they are lying about tire sizes. That's as simple as it gets.
You guys seem REALLY, REALLY fuckking bothered by this, but like all good conspiracy theorists, you seem oblivious to the simple answers.
Er. I said it in my first post in this thread. They lie about tyre sizes. It's the simple answer. Except that you said it can't be that. Are you arguing with yourself tonight? Uncompromising extremist0 -
slightly inaccurate or massivly innacurate is still inaccurate however you look at it Some and pretty accurate, is not standardised. Your John Tomac example highlights the issue. If it was standardised he wouldn't need to get the measuring tape out to measure his mango's!0
-
Ok, now I know I'm dealing with a moron.Northwind wrote:Going back a second...yeehaamcgee wrote:If they are lying about tyre sizes, they are lying about tire sizes. That's as simple as it gets.
You guys seem REALLY, REALLY fuckking bothered by this, but like all good conspiracy theorists, you seem oblivious to the simple answers.
Er. I said it in my first post in this thread. They lie about tyre sizes. It's the simple answer. Except that you said it can't be that. Are you arguing with yourself tonight?
The question was asked why would the trading standards get involved if there was no "standard" way of measuring tyres.
I replied that it didn;t matter if there was a standard, they would get involved if they were lying, since "lying is lying".
Do you get it now? Is there a spark of neuron activity?
I've had enough of this anyway. Not only have you strongly shown your anger towards tyre companies, and your paranoid delusions about them wanting to con you, but you're also showing a severe learning difficulty. And it's rather unfair to make fun of the disabled.
So, have fun, believe (or not, as the case may be) whatever you want.0 -
weescott wrote:slightly inaccurate or massivly innacurate is still inaccurate however you look at it Some and pretty accurate, is not standardised.
Well, you could say that. But then you get weight variance in parts, and nobody says "Oh, it's OK that this frame is half a pound over its claimed weight because there's no standard for weighing". Slightly inaccurate and massively inaccurate are both inaccurate, sure, but it's not the same thing. Most tyre companies get consistency, and most get to within a few percent of a true width. And that's good enough to be used as an indicator, and good enough to be reasonably sure that your new tyre will fit into your frame, etc.
It's only once you get into inconsistency within a brand and wildly inaccurate/crooked sizes that it's a problem. But it'd be such a trivial thing to fix.
Thing is, people talk about standards but it's not the problem it seems, it's just that it's used as an excuse for inaccurate sizing. But there's really only 2 width standards that make any sense- true width at the widest point, and tread width at the widest point on the tread. * And whichever you use, you'll get a fairly similiar answer, and it's easily measured. It'll be affected by rim size (and shape, stans make tyres come up bigger) but not drastically since all mtb rims fall within a fairly small width range. So all the standards chat comes down to a pretty low error factor.
(*There's a 3rd option, the "width of tread when laid flat", though it doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not variable with different rim sizes which seems good, but it's not actually much use as a measurement, which is why nobody uses it)Uncompromising extremist0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:The question was asked why would the trading standards get involved if there was no "standard" way of measuring tyres.
I replied that it didn;t matter if there was a standard, they would get involved if they were lying, since "lying is lying".
Did you really?
<reads posts>
No. No you didn't You're falling very far short of your high trolling standards mate, Sheeps'll not love you any more if you can't get back in the game. Uncompromising extremist0 -
weescott wrote:
How can the Advertising standards investigate an area of which there is no standard?...yeehaamcgee wrote:The advertising standards does not allow selling a product under false pretences...yeehaamcgee wrote:If they are lying about tyre sizes, they are lying about tire sizes. That's as simple as it gets.
Make sense now, or are you still struggling to keep up?
This isn't trolling, either Northwind, this is called "dealing with a Scottish pleb"0 -
Not going to work, you were addressing that comment to me as well as weescott remember?
There might be time for some sneaky edits btw.Uncompromising extremist0
