What I don't understand is all the venom in this thread. Who cares what others do? Does it make the lead weight crowd less manly if others use beads?
'07 R1200GS for solo rides
'10 R1200GSA with Hannigan dual sport sidecar for rides with Barley
I'd be more than happy to see a photo of such grinding.Some apparently want to put stuff in a tire that interferes with most normal plug methods, can cause valve leaks and based on what I've seen from removal by others, grinds hell out of the inside of the tire.
Guys, if you're just posting what you think happens, how about you think about showing us some photos, a vid - anything other than - it won't work because.
And I too don't understand all the venom here about these beads. If they don't work and you have something other than my buddy told me - share it. If you're just using theory to support your opinion - in theory - turkeys can't fly.
BMWMOA # 6218
Texan RT | Houston | IBA
BMW R1200RT | HD Road Glide
It's a very polarizing subject and some people get really militant about it. Dynamic balancing is nothing new. I think some people simply 'know' lead weights to be how wheels are balanced and that's pretty much where it ends for them. I wonder how they mentally made the transition to tubeless tires!
What's properly? Is there something magic about lead weights? They're ugly, hard to re-use and they don't adapt. I had a bike where the front wheel always went out of balance partway through its life. I'd start off with a huge wad of weights and partway through I'd have to tear them off (the bike was in a crash before I got it and the front rim wasn't perfect). It's possible that beads would have kept it balanced the whole time.Why not just balance the tire properly?
OTOH, lead weights are easy for just about anyone to understand.
What I've observed in 2 tires removed that had been using the beads was approx a small handful of rubber debris that had a moderate particulate size rather than being fine dust. I do not remember the tire type and never knew the mileage they had been run. Also didn't examine them for whatever tread wear pattern they had. It was enough to suggest TO ME they were something to avoid without some proven benefit to be obtained. Without independent TEST LAB data (where if they had benefits, it would be trivial to measure them) I stay away from stuff like that.
Re the BT-020 cupping, very interesting note but as a scientist I classify that as an interesting anecdote that provides a basis for getting solid data (that IS NOT an insult- simply how any scientist would describe that type of information. And even scientists make personal decisions on anecdotal info because it is often the only info available). I also had cupping on my front OEM BT-020 and basically thought the tire (especially the rear) was a pos in the cold and wet (below 40 degrees) so simply changed to the vastly better Dunlop RoadSmart. They don't have the cupping or crappy cold traction problem and lasted longer but like other dual compound tires, the wear pattern you get depends a lot on how many twisties you ride and how hard you attack those corners. Am satisfied with them but after using two sets, am trying a couple sets of Michelin PR2s to see if they deliver better mileage in my hands as others indicate they might (now that they can be bought for about the same price as the RoadSmarts rather than a 20% premium, they become a more interesting choice. IF the PR2s outlast the RoadSmarts, then they'll be my new current choice as long as pricing/performance are about the same the way I ride).
The possibility that beads might increase mileage remains FOR ME the only worthwhile argument for their use and if they eliminated cupping on a tire you like, then they would be useful to you for extending life on tires with that sort of wear behavior. But that type of wear isn't what has killed my dual compound RoadSmarts- they get a visible v pattern due to shoulder wear (the nature of which depends on how many runs I've done in mountains on that set) but I run them until tread depth on center is worn.
My sympathies to anyone whose dealer has an attitude re mounting tires. Not something I've run into and its a little bizarre because mounting ought to cover cost plus profit for the dealer so why turn away work? If it gets done without adding staff to the shop, its bonus money. I time tire changes to other maintenance and get the J-brand guys down the street to pop mine on removed wheels while I'm doing other stuff because they are so close it shortens my total work time. There are plenty of independents and other dealers further away who would also do it but at that point it might be faster to mount my own. The guys who mount my car tires, do state inspections, etc recommend TireRack simply because they can't sell at anywhere near TireRack prices and believe that their honesty and work quality generate loyal customers (and based on their local reviews their approach works). They charge about the same per car tire as a bike dealer charges per wheel to just mount/balance one.
I also remember various other devices that have been promoted for the same purpose as beads. None seem to have become permanent fixtures on the automotive landscape.
(I also remember and still see all those multiple electrode plugs that give huge fuel mileage increases and the various fuel line magnets lifted from the electronics shops and intake obstructing vanes that make similar claims)
Anybody want to debate nitrogen? Very marginal benefits for street use and very little even for track use compared to dry compressed air (most compressed air is very "wet" as it comes out of std systems). Big cost for those small bennies.
Is the ideal solution a tire filled with beads and nitrogen??
As for reusing lead weights- I'm a firm believer in it. My old ones have often gone out the barrel of one of my handguns and even more have become deer hair jigs or spinner baits for bass fishing. A few made the "big time" as part of 10 lb downrigger weights, first for trout fishing in Lake Ontario and later for assorted stuff in the deep blue water off NC.
I've come to the conclusion that the science behind Dyna-Beads is pure FM. For you non-science folks, that's F***ing Magic. Perhaps some of us have more control over our environment, so by just thinking they will work, they work. Others may be just as convinced they aren't going to work, and so, they don't. Its pure FM.
I do think they are not used for racing because the speed changes are so rapid, the beads couldn't keep up. There has to be some lag time involved in the process of finding balance.
I've used them for two years in Avon Gripsters and did not have a problem with them eating the inside of the tires. I did find some granuals of rubber which I took to be from the beads polishing the inside of the tire. And once, I found a small piece of tire shrapnel and the little brass end off a Dyna-Plug floating around with them. I had plugged the tire, using Dyna-Plugs, and had none of the beads stick to the plug.
Now I have them (the same beads) in a set of tube-type Metzeler Sahara 3's. This was my first set of tube-type tires on the GSPD and didn't get the front tire seated on the first try. I went all the way to 70 PSI, but the tire was still deformed about 1/4" in one spot. I thought I had a bad tire. I took it for a short ride to see how it would handle so I could describe the "problem" to my tire supplier. I had already put in the Dyna-Beads. I was surprised as hell when there was no noticable wobble, shake, bounce, or any indication of the indentation. I even performed the ultimate test; remove your hands from the bars @ 70mph. The bike tracked perfectly straight with no vibration. When I got back to the shop, I deflated the tube, lubed the heck out of the rim, and reinflated which resulted in a resounding, "POP!" My "bad" tire was now perfect.
I have no idea if it was the beads that compensated for my not seating the bead properly, or if it was just FM.
"Everything is something."
'88 K75C, '03 K12RS, '93 R100GSPD '02 F650GS (all gone, but not forgotten)
Dyna Beads in tires... Lead weights for fishing...
Re any usage of balancing stuff for racing - any idea that balance is maintained more than very briefly on a track is simply an illusion. For cars, tires get so hot they pick up gummy worms from the track and various rubber debris accumulates inside a wheel because it and rubber bits are so hot they stick like glue. Any car racer is very familiar with braking shimmy from crap accumulated on wheels- you just ignore it and drive. I scrape a fair sized pile of crap off my wheels after a track weekend as part of the necessary safety inspection prior to "next time".
On bikes, tires get ragged pretty badly in many races, losing a lot of material, often asymetrically because all tracks are either either clockwise or counterclockwise (being modified circles) and bikes don't have/can't have the suspension adjustabilty of cars.
Racers constantly mount tires, inspect wheels, etc and would adopt beads if they gave even a miniscule edge - but racers don't expect to run a race on tires that are staying balanced. Tire life is also not an issue because race tires are dead after, at most, a few heat cycles - they don't get used until rubber is totally gone. Any serious racer can tell you that the tire budget is a big problem for staying competitive- without new tires every time (scrubbed when possible), it is nearly impossible to be out front, everything else being equal (which it usually isn't). At $200-500/ tire depending on vehicle, it gets pricey, quickly. At least one new set a race weekend is inevitable when on pavement if winning anything is part of a racer's plan and it will take more than that at higher levels of racing, especially where qualifying position is critical (any shorter track, any track where passing places are few, any shorter race, etc). There are a few race series on street tires- one of many measures in such series to keep costs "reasonable" (ain't no such thing if you're going racing to win)
Track tires of any type have little relation to street tires other than being rubber and round. Some car series use "DOT-spec" tires that are a type of middle ground and are not true racing slicks. Part of the reason for this is that they are bit less costly to use than true race slicks. There is as much lap time difference between a race slick and a DOT type track tire as there is between a street tire and a DOT type. Those times intervals are 2-4 seconds/lap on most tracks (a race slick could be 8 seconds per lap faster than a street tire). That's multiple eternities in a race were a thousandth of that gap matters.
Their FAQ's are very clear these Dyna Beads are NOT to be used in race tires. They cite compounds that are too soft:
Can I use Dyna Beads for motorcycle road racing?
No. The inner liner compound of motorcycle road racing tires is too soft to allow Dyna Beads to perform properly. (this does not apply to off-road motorcycle racing)
BMWMOA # 6218
if there was a problem balancing tires with conventional weights. I'd understand the need for dyna beads. but it's soooo easy to achieve a perfectly balanced wheel.
some tires need very little weight. just mounted a pair of K-60 in R80G/S, front tire needed no weight at all. as verified by a No Mar balance stand.
Ya'll all pass the course? Not everybody is created equal either. Just an observation, no offense intended. Randy
So, I gather that the beads don't "sandblast", and thereby damage, the plastic tire pressure monitors inside the wheels, everytime the wheels accelerate from rest, and everytime they decelerate to zero mph?