Schwalbe introduces Dual chamber tires for ultra low pressures
- Thread starter captainspauldin
- Start date
Sounds pretty friggin rad for DH. Not sure we need it for trails, but if they can make it light enough, why not?
Ride gnarlier terrain faster next time.
Oh sweet now I said what I was making fun of?
Screw it, I'll own it.
Progressive resistance
tested on Okanagan rocks DH bike park for five seasons
no failz
quotefail revision - see above
I award myself 2/10 for mad internet skillz
yes, by all means if you're not flatting you should find a way to make sure you are.
It gave me an excuse to put up a dorky picture. Life's good
Woo, you should start a design business specializing in shop logos.
So I've been using the NeuTech Tubliss system on my dirt bikes for MX and desert for a couple years now. They're pretty damn cool for a few reasons.
1) The lower pressure possibilities. Especially with a heavy duty tire.
2) Changing tires is easier (doesn't really apply to MTB's I'd imagine).
3) You CAN still puncture/slash the tire and flat it out, but the single biggest benefit to this system is that you don't really have to slow down much because the tire can NOT roll off the rim.
On a dirt bike wheel, the system saves weight over a Bridgestone UHD tube, but not really at all over a lighter tube.
The other thing is that the system uses two valve cores spaced 4 spokes apart (on dirt bike rims). For high speed stuff (and for a really light wheel like a MTB wheel), it's going to need some balancing weights if you don't want to deal with speed wobbles.
For the weight/balance reasons, I never really thought it was a realistic option for MTB wheels.
1) The lower pressure possibilities. Especially with a heavy duty tire.
2) Changing tires is easier (doesn't really apply to MTB's I'd imagine).
3) You CAN still puncture/slash the tire and flat it out, but the single biggest benefit to this system is that you don't really have to slow down much because the tire can NOT roll off the rim.
On a dirt bike wheel, the system saves weight over a Bridgestone UHD tube, but not really at all over a lighter tube.
The other thing is that the system uses two valve cores spaced 4 spokes apart (on dirt bike rims). For high speed stuff (and for a really light wheel like a MTB wheel), it's going to need some balancing weights if you don't want to deal with speed wobbles.
For the weight/balance reasons, I never really thought it was a realistic option for MTB wheels.
WHOOOSH goes the F 16!
Last edited:
^ umma FYP
The fact that you still tear through moto tires and the fact that schwalbe touts being able to use lighter materials from the design alone makes it sound like this is going to be tough to do right.
And squirming on a moto is vastly different that squirming on a fast gravity fed mtb descent on a section of hardpack. Curious to see what they ride like but certainly not drinking the kool aid yet. I mean we are talking about a company that's resurrecting decades old abandoned tread design ideas and selling them only on the fact that sticky compounds exist now.
I mean we are talking about a company that's resurrecting decades old abandoned tread design ideas and selling them only on the fact that sticky compounds exist now.
I'm not sure why you hate on Schwalbe so hard. The Muddy Mary is a decent all around loose terrain tire, wet or dry. The Dirty Dan was solid. The Big Betty I have left me pleasantly surprised. An almost ramped tire that had just enough bit to climb. Albeit only for a few hard days.
The Magic Mary is also cheaper than the Maxxis Shorty.
I think this system holds potential. Don't many WC teams run tubeless with a tube inside?
If they can get the effective grip, rolling resistance and bounce of a lower pressure tire w/o the risk of pithc flats and rolled tires, then it's a win. I see the weight increase being offset by being able to run thinner side walled tires.
If they can get the effective grip, rolling resistance and bounce of a lower pressure tire w/o the risk of pithc flats and rolled tires, then it's a win. I see the weight increase being offset by being able to run thinner side walled tires.
And I'm not sure why everyone who rides only hero dirt and mud has such a problem understanding this
You've been doing this sport a while, as long as I have for sure. You remember all the michelin tires that people ran backwards? What do you remember about those treads? Specifically the angles of the braking and cornering edges?
edit: Here's some of where I'm coming from....
Read this regarding what I say about braking and cornering knob angles
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/maxxis-high-roller-2
Then go look at most of what schwalbe makes (not so much dirty dan, that's a pretty neutral tread design)
But FYI the magic mary is the one tread that they do that makes me want to check out this dual chamber thing they got going. Call it my "in" for the system. But I'm still going to run it backwards because they fvcked that one up with the side knobs too.
Curious about that rock razor as well.
Last edited:
so what does the tread of the tire has to do with this system?And I'm not sure why everyone who rides only hero dirt and mud has such a problem understanding this
You've been doing this sport a while, as long as I have for sure. You remember all the michelin tires that people ran backwards? What do you remember about those treads? Specifically the angles of the braking and cornering edges?
edit: Here's some of where I'm coming from....
Read this regarding what I say about braking and cornering knob angles
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/maxxis-high-roller-2
Then go look at most of what schwalbe makes (not so much dirty dan, that's a pretty neutral tread design)
But FYI the magic mary is the one tread that they do that makes me want to check out this dual chamber thing they got going. Call it my "in" for the system. But I'm still going to run it backwards because they fvcked that one up with the side knobs too.
Last edited:
Woo - which tread patterns do you refer to? I'm guessing it's the AM stuff?I mean we are talking about a company that's resurrecting decades old abandoned tread design ideas and selling them only on the fact that sticky compounds exist now.
Agreed. Yes, several WC riders have used this "dual chamber" system in one form or another primarily as a run-flat system for race runs. The list includes Slugger, Smith, and even Riffle back in the day to name a few. More recently Slugger was using a DIY version of Le-System at Windham a few times, Smith was actually testing a proto version of Schwalbe's Dual Chamber at Hafjell in 2012, and Riffle used Le' System here and there between 06 and 07' if I recall correctly.buildyourown said:
For aggressive riders who plow through rocks instead of "tap dancing" over them, for Clydesdale DH'ers, or for people who move around on a bike the way old people f#@& (terrible line choice & questionable handling skillz) such as myself - IF this system delivers, (locking tire bead in place, ability to run lower pressures, reduction in rim impacts) then this could be amazing...
I am curious about exactly how much rotational weight this will add, since the PB article was either poorly worded or lost in translation. If they mean it will add 200g to the avg. DH tubeless setup, then YES this will be awesome (recall that the mean weight for a Maxxis FR tube is around 293g for a 26" wheel) provided the above holds true... BUT if they are saying this will add 200g to the avg DH TUBED setup... then that blows goats.
Haha - I think with 'Woo, it's more like frustration, and to a certain extent I share this with him.buildyourown said:
Why? Well:
If you read 'Woo's analysis of the DHRII and HRII and do a search here regarding his break down of Schwalbe tires, it becomes apparent. When Schwalbe came out with the Magic Mary, everyone was "HELL YES!!!" because they were focusing on the center knobs, but then when you looked more closely at the SIDE knobs, it was "WHHY GOD, WHYYY?!!!" since it was obvious they were facing the wrong f#@&ing direction (compared to the ramps on the center knobs) on one of their DH tires. AGAIN.kidwoo said:
I think 'Woo's point was: If Schwalbe insists on making tires with side knobs that point in the opposite direction of rotation, then HOW exactly are they going to f#@& THIS up?
Last edited:
I was wondering when someone would bring this to the market.
I built and rode a prototype similar to this a couple years ago. Essentially it was a road tire and tube underneath/inside the outer tire. The sensation is a little weird running lower pressures; more sidewall squirm and more bottoming the tire out. But of course you're bottoming out onto another smaller tire which serves to protect the rim. It done right, the setup shouldn't weigh much more than a DH tube. And the benefits (beadlock / burp protection, rim protection, and run-flat capability) could be huge to a DH racer. It might be more hassle than it's worth to the enthusiast or weekend warrior, though. We'll see.
Also, if the inner chamber is belted, and has a very squared profile, the insert sidewall could add some support to the tire's lower sidewall, helping to reduce squirm / tire roll. I'm interested to see if Schwalbe has done this. I'm still not sure why Schwalbe needed Syntace (unless it was actually Syntace's idea first.)
BTW, weren't the Athertons (or some WC guys running Conti) doing this a couple years ago?
I built and rode a prototype similar to this a couple years ago. Essentially it was a road tire and tube underneath/inside the outer tire. The sensation is a little weird running lower pressures; more sidewall squirm and more bottoming the tire out. But of course you're bottoming out onto another smaller tire which serves to protect the rim. It done right, the setup shouldn't weigh much more than a DH tube. And the benefits (beadlock / burp protection, rim protection, and run-flat capability) could be huge to a DH racer. It might be more hassle than it's worth to the enthusiast or weekend warrior, though. We'll see.
Also, if the inner chamber is belted, and has a very squared profile, the insert sidewall could add some support to the tire's lower sidewall, helping to reduce squirm / tire roll. I'm interested to see if Schwalbe has done this. I'm still not sure why Schwalbe needed Syntace (unless it was actually Syntace's idea first.)
BTW, weren't the Athertons (or some WC guys running Conti) doing this a couple years ago?
"Independent of one another, Schwalbe and Syntace had the same idea, but now the two companies have decided to join forces and further develop the system together." : i'm guessing they decided to play together rather than fight it out with separate patents? weird.
The first review is online from a german site.
http://www.mtb-news.de/news/2014/02/10/schwalbe-doppelkammer-system-erster-test-im-spanischen-malaga/
- Damping is really good
- Traction is good
- They still managed to get a flat
http://www.mtb-news.de/news/2014/02/10/schwalbe-doppelkammer-system-erster-test-im-spanischen-malaga/
- Damping is really good
- Traction is good
- They still managed to get a flat
It's all good to me as I've had plenty of tubeless fail on me and some that worked. The problem I see is Schwalbe. These tires will be right up there with fat bike tires @$150 a piece.
About the side knob angles, last year, a guy I was riding with said his front tire grip was vague and didn't know what was going on. I looked down and his Muddy Mary was mounted backwards. He swapped it and said it was a large improvement. FWIW.
And, I'm no tire engineer, but my guess is the angled side knobs are because of this, which is a huge deal in motorsports. Granted, that's a different application, but I would imagine mtb tires also see significant torsional deformation when cornering.
And, I'm no tire engineer, but my guess is the angled side knobs are because of this, which is a huge deal in motorsports. Granted, that's a different application, but I would imagine mtb tires also see significant torsional deformation when cornering.
learn to read, these are not special tires...
They aren't?
How so?
How did you inflate the outer tyre with the road tyre in place?
the only solid truth in this thread
but srs would love to try it out once the "beta" stage is sorted out
Nah - I am going to try this when this comes available. I run tubes with 2.5" and 2.3" Dissents F & R, Steel DH and Kevlar Beads. 7" all day bike, but it does see limited DH.
With the DH casing tires I'd get no lower than 28/27psi. I did not run those last season, only the Kevlar and 2.5" 2.3" Weirwolf (great friggin' tires BTW). There - 30psi or 29 maybe.
If I could drop 2 or 3 PSI some stretches would have been much better, and that's where this seems to have so much promise -- not a rock crawlin' low pressure set up but allowing different tires to safely get results if needed.
Nothing really. Other than that if you want to try this system there should be a non-retarded tread option. Even magic air doesn't fix stupid.
Last edited:
That sounds like a nightmare. I hope this one is better. Like 'standard setting' better.
There's a fine line between compliant and squishy in a turn (as everyone knows). Especially on one line hardpack must make turns.
I have to imagine that until the next materials break through we're pretty stuck on a given toughness to weight ratio so something like this that works without the ills of what you made would be all angels and unicorns.
I could almost guarantee you that was because of braking. (you didn't specify cornering only so going on a limb here) You can run those things backwards but then your braking edge is ramped AND there's not much of a channel between the plague of all tires, the "intermediate knobs" AND the sideknobs themselves are pretty thin and fold over easily on anything that's not penetrable and holds together. Plus those knobs aren't really THAT angled to begin with so I'm guessing that's what he meant.
I've got a long diatriabe that anyone can click if they care. I didn't want to blow up a whole page with it. It's totally safe for work but does violate all sensible TLDR standards of civilized society.
As far as that slip angle explanation goes, think about what happens in the micro instances of a tire sliding. Think about what angle is going to provide support and which is going to keep letting loose. What schwalbe does a lot of and what michelin (as well as a lot of others) did was make a tire that works well under a driven scenario, not a coasting one. They're different and only one really applies to the mtb realm.
There was a time when all rear mtb tires tried to look like moto tires. A guy working for a company who shall remain nameless (it was a shltty one who still makes shltty tires), explained to me the moto reasoning. It was like talking to a wall when I asked him when the last time he roosted up a climb was. Biking, and especially DH biking is a specific application. Too many people who don't understand that somehow get jobs designing 100 dollar tires that should be way better thought out for what they cost.
Here's an easy one for everyone who rides a schwalbe tire, goes around a turn without eating shlt, and then wants to get all up in my face about tires: Picture the way ALL schwalbe sideknobs are angled except for a dirty dan. Hold your left hand on a table like you're karate chopping it. Point your finger tips in a little. That's your left edge of your front tire with a schwalbe. Now start to slide (push your hand to the right). Picture a snow plow and how it gets pushed by the snow (blade angled right, truck gets pushed left). On the schwalbe sideknobs, the direction its getting pushed is somewhere from the centerline to the right. But you're on your left edge so you're trying to make a left turn. At it's best the tire is getting pushed forward, at its worst the tire gets pushed right.
Now do the opposite angle with the heel of your hand more inward. Repeat a slide. The direction it's now being pushed is in the direction you're trying to turn. All these motions happen in little micro instances as the tire moves from knob to knob. Which direction do you think makes more sense, towards the center or right, or towards the direction you're leaning. In a true drift, your tire is already kind of sliding out from under you so something that pulls the bike back underneath your center of mass (or at least where you're directing) is beneficial.
Add braking tension and you're just amplifying all this. The braking side of 'backwards sideknobs' is open, letting material loose. Something like a minion "L" knob is closed off with that L and wants to hold dirt. You can do this with an angle too (like what a butcher does). It closes off with the side knobs and makes a cup that grabs material.
(the following not directed at you mtg, just everyone rolling their eyes every time I mention schwalbe)
All I ever get in rebuttal is "but I rode a schalbe tire and didn't eat **** and went around a corner". My response to that is and always will be: Big fvcking deal, all tires can do that. It's the minutia in behavior that I'm looking at, not whether you can put them on a bike and ride it. And no one who wants to defend the theory can articulate WHY one approach works better than another when they want to defend a tire that works in good dirt. All tires work in good dirt, especially sticky ones. It's only when you're pushing them through failure that this stuff starts to stand out. And in my mind you can't simultaneously believe that one design approach does things equally as well as another when they are literally an exact opposite execution.
And the sad sad fact is, all these lessons were learned a long time ago. But every so often someone feels the need to repeat history because they weren't around for it the first time. When I look at schwalbe tread designs (and let's be fair, a lot of what continental does too) it's literally the same feeling I get if someone were to come up to me and explain how rad URT suspension designs or bar ends are for efficiency.
But I'm just bitching about minutia. And hundred dollar tires make me pay attention to that stuff.
In short: Things could easily be better with a just a little effort
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--yQocjSR-VU/UtRXWVpRcHI/AAAAAAAAK10/bUxajsBStFA/s1600/products+that+suck2.jpg
There was a time when all rear mtb tires tried to look like moto tires. A guy working for a company who shall remain nameless (it was a shltty one who still makes shltty tires), explained to me the moto reasoning. It was like talking to a wall when I asked him when the last time he roosted up a climb was. Biking, and especially DH biking is a specific application. Too many people who don't understand that somehow get jobs designing 100 dollar tires that should be way better thought out for what they cost.
Here's an easy one for everyone who rides a schwalbe tire, goes around a turn without eating shlt, and then wants to get all up in my face about tires: Picture the way ALL schwalbe sideknobs are angled except for a dirty dan. Hold your left hand on a table like you're karate chopping it. Point your finger tips in a little. That's your left edge of your front tire with a schwalbe. Now start to slide (push your hand to the right). Picture a snow plow and how it gets pushed by the snow (blade angled right, truck gets pushed left). On the schwalbe sideknobs, the direction its getting pushed is somewhere from the centerline to the right. But you're on your left edge so you're trying to make a left turn. At it's best the tire is getting pushed forward, at its worst the tire gets pushed right.
Now do the opposite angle with the heel of your hand more inward. Repeat a slide. The direction it's now being pushed is in the direction you're trying to turn. All these motions happen in little micro instances as the tire moves from knob to knob. Which direction do you think makes more sense, towards the center or right, or towards the direction you're leaning. In a true drift, your tire is already kind of sliding out from under you so something that pulls the bike back underneath your center of mass (or at least where you're directing) is beneficial.
Add braking tension and you're just amplifying all this. The braking side of 'backwards sideknobs' is open, letting material loose. Something like a minion "L" knob is closed off with that L and wants to hold dirt. You can do this with an angle too (like what a butcher does). It closes off with the side knobs and makes a cup that grabs material.
(the following not directed at you mtg, just everyone rolling their eyes every time I mention schwalbe)
All I ever get in rebuttal is "but I rode a schalbe tire and didn't eat **** and went around a corner". My response to that is and always will be: Big fvcking deal, all tires can do that. It's the minutia in behavior that I'm looking at, not whether you can put them on a bike and ride it. And no one who wants to defend the theory can articulate WHY one approach works better than another when they want to defend a tire that works in good dirt. All tires work in good dirt, especially sticky ones. It's only when you're pushing them through failure that this stuff starts to stand out. And in my mind you can't simultaneously believe that one design approach does things equally as well as another when they are literally an exact opposite execution.
And the sad sad fact is, all these lessons were learned a long time ago. But every so often someone feels the need to repeat history because they weren't around for it the first time. When I look at schwalbe tread designs (and let's be fair, a lot of what continental does too) it's literally the same feeling I get if someone were to come up to me and explain how rad URT suspension designs or bar ends are for efficiency.
But I'm just bitching about minutia. And hundred dollar tires make me pay attention to that stuff.
In short: Things could easily be better with a just a little effort
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--yQocjSR-VU/UtRXWVpRcHI/AAAAAAAAK10/bUxajsBStFA/s1600/products+that+suck2.jpg
Last edited:
From a theoretical standpoint I think the Schwalbe alignment makes sense in a scenario where the tire is being powered (rear while pedaling). Assume you have a tire that when staring at the top you see the classic side knob "arrow" pointed forward like so - / \. The print on the ground looks like \ /. Now, when the bike is moving forward that tire patch is driving backward. The inside edge of the outer knobs doesn't have anything to drive against. With the reverse alignment the inside of the sideknobs engage as soon as they are driven against the ground / \. However, how often are you ever pedaling leaned over
Then again, if you assume that the only direction of force acting against the contact patch when cornering is from the side, it really doesn't matter which way the side-knob is pointed.
However, we're all just talking about mental models that may be completely off the mark.
Then again, if you assume that the only direction of force acting against the contact patch when cornering is from the side, it really doesn't matter which way the side-knob is pointed.
However, we're all just talking about mental models that may be completely off the mark.
It actually was cornering that the rider was having issues with on the backwards Muddy Mary.I could almost guarantee you that was because of braking. (you didn't specify cornering only so going on a limb here) You can run those things backwards but then your braking edge is ramped AND there's not much of a channel between the plague of all tires, the "intermediate knobs" AND the sideknobs themselves are pretty thin and fold over easily on anything that's not penetrable and holds together. Plus those knobs aren't really THAT angled to begin with so I'm guessing that's what he meant.
I've got a long diatriabe that anyone can click if they care. I didn't want to blow up a whole page with it. It's totally safe for work but does violate all sensible TLDR standards of civilized society.
As far as that slip angle explanation goes, think about what happens in the micro instances of a tire sliding. Think about what angle is going to provide support and which is going to keep letting loose. What schwalbe does a lot of and what michelin (as well as a lot of others) did was make a tire that works well under a driven scenario, not a coasting one. They're different and only one really applies to the mtb realm.
There was a time when all rear mtb tires tried to look like moto tires. A guy working for a company who shall remain nameless (it was a shltty one who still makes shltty tires), explained to me the moto reasoning. It was like talking to a wall when I asked him when the last time he roosted up a climb was. Biking, and especially DH biking is a specific application. Too many people who don't understand that somehow get jobs designing 100 dollar tires that should be way better thought out for what they cost.
Here's an easy one for everyone who rides a schwalbe tire, goes around a turn without eating shlt, and then wants to get all up in my face about tires: Picture the way ALL schwalbe sideknobs are angled except for a dirty dan. Hold your left hand on a table like you're karate chopping it. Point your finger tips in a little. That's your left edge of your front tire with a schwalbe. Now start to slide (push your hand to the right). Picture a snow plow and how it gets pushed by the snow (blade angled right, truck gets pushed left). On the schwalbe sideknobs, the direction its getting pushed is somewhere from the centerline to the right. But you're on your left edge so you're trying to make a left turn. At it's best the tire is getting pushed forward, at its worst the tire gets pushed right.
Now do the opposite angle with the heel of your hand more inward. Repeat a slide. The direction it's now being pushed is in the direction you're trying to turn. All these motions happen in little micro instances as the tire moves from knob to knob. Which direction do you think makes more sense, towards the center or right, or towards the direction you're leaning. In a true drift, your tire is already kind of sliding out from under you so something that pulls the bike back underneath your center of mass (or at least where you're directing) is beneficial.
Add braking tension and you're just amplifying all this. The braking side of 'backwards sideknobs' is open, letting material loose. Something like a minion "L" knob is closed off with that L and wants to hold dirt. You can do this with an angle too (like what a butcher does). It closes off with the side knobs and makes a cup that grabs material.
(the following not directed at you mtg, just everyone rolling their eyes every time I mention schwalbe)
All I ever get in rebuttal is "but I rode a schalbe tire and didn't eat **** and went around a corner". My response to that is and always will be: Big fvcking deal, all tires can do that. It's the minutia in behavior that I'm looking at, not whether you can put them on a bike and ride it. And no one who wants to defend the theory can articulate WHY one approach works better than another when they want to defend a tire that works in good dirt. All tires work in good dirt, especially sticky ones. It's only when you're pushing them through failure that this stuff starts to stand out. And in my mind you can't simultaneously believe that one design approach does things equally as well as another when they are literally an exact opposite execution.
And the sad sad fact is, all these lessons were learned a long time ago. But every so often someone feels the need to repeat history because they weren't around for it the first time. When I look at schwalbe tread designs (and let's be fair, a lot of what continental does too) it's literally the same feeling I get if someone were to come up to me and explain how rad URT suspension designs or bar ends are for efficiency.
But I'm just bitching about minutia. And hundred dollar tires make me pay attention to that stuff.
In short: Things could easily be better with a just a little effort
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--yQocjSR-VU/UtRXWVpRcHI/AAAAAAAAK10/bUxajsBStFA/s1600/products+that+suck2.jpg
And, you don't roost going uphill? Pssshh.
In the review I posted, they rode with 14-18 psi on rocky trails.
I made a special valve that had a hard, yet flexible plastic line to snake up and around the inflated road tube/tire.
I can read just fine. If you read the quote you linked, it tells me that it has a "tube" built into the tire it self. "Basically theres an inner tube, but its not really a tube, its a new construction process". I doubt that in a market where everyone is going tubeless, Schwalbe patented a new tube. Besides, why make a big deal over something without your name exposed... Like a tire? Do you really think after a race run someone will be like "Dude! Awesome run! It must be those secret tubes inside your Maxxis/Kenda/Michelin tires!" Or would they patent a proprietary system that will sell more of their tires specifically where their name is fully exposed on every sidewall at every race?
http://www.mtb-news.de/news/2014/02/10/schwalbe-doppelkammer-system-erster-test-im-spanischen-malaga/
=
still not clear?
Last edited: