Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michelin Airless

michelin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 316 posts

Re: Michelin Airless

#231

Post by bkanber »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #213
bkanber wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... you don't actually have any reason to assume it won't happen other than blind pessimism. So let's just agree to disagree.

I love to disagree because I'm a betting man. Want to wager some money on a bet? Pick a timeline (5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years) and maybe we can make this fun!

lol. No bet. Not because I doubt my position (I see an aerogel-inspired material working out). Rather because the 50 year timeline that I would feel safe betting on is basically my end-of-life. I'm not really interested in paying out a longbets.org payment on my deathbed.

Re: Michelin Airless

#232

Post by bserge »

kllrnohj wrote: post #195
ddlsmurf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete layman here, every 6 months or so for the past decade I see an article claiming someone got air-less tires working. What are the chances this would be it ?

Air-less tires have been working fine for decades: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/wheels/ You'll also find industrial equipment examples like https://www.sourceproequipment.com.au/crocodile-skid-steer-b... As the person you're replying to said, though, the problem for passenger cars is NVH. They aren't quiet. Even with that downside, though, they are still used in consumer-facing applications like some bike sharing pr…

What the hell, I've been looking for something like this for the past few months. Only ones I could find were Tannus (too soft) and Schwalbe (garbage).

Don't care about weight, noise, ride quality, just need unbreakable tires because riding through neighborhoods where people break glass bottles on the bike paths will make me smash someone's head with one someday.

Re: Michelin Airless

#233

Post by djrogers »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #221
thefounder wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah...americans like big cars and manufacturers followed the sales! Even worse, europeans started to like big cars too...I just don't get why people like to drive big SUVs in the city.

Nah. SUVs above a certain weight pay less taxes [0], that's why automakers aggressively marketed them for decades and finally managed to convince Americans that SUVs are cool. [0]: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946

The vast majority of people don't commercially depreciate their vehicles, so while this does apply to some, it's a relatively small group.

In my huge group of friends, I know one person who does this with his truck, and he readily admits that it involves lying to the IRS and it fraud. Everyone else with a big SUV just prefers them to minivans.

Re: Michelin Airless

#234

Post by bserge »

_jal wrote: post #125
gregoriol wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because at some point we used wood for wheels?

You can still use wood if you want. Many of the reasons you don't are the same reasons airless tires have not escaped niches.

Hmm, not the worst idea. But who makes wood tires for bikes nowadays? And oh God, the splinters :D

Re: Michelin Airless

#235

Post by lost-found »

bkanber wrote: post #165
8ytecoder wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong - I'd expect Michelin to have done some testing to see NVH is within tolerance levels right? Airless is really close to working for bikes. If I were commuting on a bike now I'd be comfortable going for it. The downsides - painfully hard installation, uphill resistance, ...etc. - will be worth it.

Bridgestone said bike tweels were close 4 years ago, and then again 2 years ago... I won't hold my breath! :)

Michelin is by far the market leader in tires, especially compared to Bridgestone.

Re: Michelin Airless

#236

Post by djrogers »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #173
8ytecoder wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong - I'd expect Michelin to have done some testing to see NVH is within tolerance levels right? Airless is really close to working for bikes. If I were commuting on a bike now I'd be comfortable going for it. The downsides - painfully hard installation, uphill resistance, ...etc. - will be worth it.

Really? There are small cans of spray which you can have easily with you. Got a flat? Look where, pull it out. Spray the foam in. Turn the wheel for a minute, look for overseen leaks, maybe, and pull stuff out of them. Turn wheel a few more times. Pump. Or use car-adapter for pump at gas station. Those stuff costs between 2 and 4€ for a can of sprayfoam, and maybe 50ct for a small adapter(sugar cube like, but cylindr…

The last flat I had involved a 3" split in the tube - ain't no slime/foam/spray can that's gonna fix that.

Re: Michelin Airless

#237

Post by WillPostForFood »

noobermin wrote: post #200
bkanber wrote: post #13

Former automotive engineer chiming in. "Tweels" have been around a long time, but have always failed in terms of "NVH" (noise, vibration, harshness). Michelin is claiming that this generation of tweels are appropriate for passenger cars, which means that they think they've solved the NVH problem. They seem to be marketing these alongside EVs, I wonder if they're only really intended for lighter, compact-style cars. (…

Sorry for the conversation pivot, but this attitude sucks and is terrible for climate change and was decided wholesale by suppliers. While SUVs are leading sales in the US, it was the decision by car manufacturers to discontinue sales of anything other than SUVs in the US. That you say, "well these wheels which would reduce waste aren't useful for Americans," they are partly not useful because the car industry here p…

While SUVs are leading sales in the US, it was the decision by car manufacturers to discontinue sales of anything other than SUVs in the US

?? Cars are available for sale in the US.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/199981/us-car-and-truck-...

Re: Michelin Airless

#238

Post by djrogers »

moneywoes wrote: post #224
bkanber wrote: post #13

Former automotive engineer chiming in. "Tweels" have been around a long time, but have always failed in terms of "NVH" (noise, vibration, harshness). Michelin is claiming that this generation of tweels are appropriate for passenger cars, which means that they think they've solved the NVH problem. They seem to be marketing these alongside EVs, I wonder if they're only really intended for lighter, compact-style cars. (…

Is there a reason this technology is not used on bikes which weigh a lot less?

Because for a bike it's much simpler - make the tire solid, or a reasonably solid foam, and you're done.

These have been available for years - look at Tannus for a good example.

Re: Michelin Airless

#239

Post by chris_st »

bkanber wrote: post #174
8ytecoder wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong - I'd expect Michelin to have done some testing to see NVH is within tolerance levels right? Airless is really close to working for bikes. If I were commuting on a bike now I'd be comfortable going for it. The downsides - painfully hard installation, uphill resistance, ...etc. - will be worth it.

I also want to add, since this is more of a deep auto-industry thing, that NVH testing is almost like longitudinal health studies. NVH engineers actually have charts of which specific frequencies our internal organs resonate at . For a layperson it's easy to imagine that NVH testing is just a matter of setting up a dB meter and some accelerometers to make sure things aren't bouncing around too much, but it's actually…

A friend recommended I wear earplugs on plane flights, for a similar reason. He said that the constant noise stresses our bodies/minds, and lowering it makes the time more pleasant. It may entirely be placebo effect, but I find it very helpful.

Re: Michelin Airless

#240

Post by WillPostForFood »

djrogers wrote: post #233
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. SUVs above a certain weight pay less taxes [0], that's why automakers aggressively marketed them for decades and finally managed to convince Americans that SUVs are cool. [0]: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946

The vast majority of people don't commercially depreciate their vehicles, so while this does apply to some, it's a relatively small group. In my huge group of friends, I know one person who does this with his truck, and he readily admits that it involves lying to the IRS and it fraud. Everyone else with a big SUV just prefers them to minivans.

There is also a gas guzzler tax that only applies to cars. If it was applied evenly, most trucks and SUVs would be paying a tax penalty for poor mileage. So there is a kind of indirect government subsidy to bigger vehicles. It is a dumb policy, but it's not why people like SUVs.
Post reply on HN