-
Yeah I’ve read that whole thread on Lee Valley actually and understand why they have to be strict, although I guess there are other safety checks as well eg. should be using lock rings, tubs glued on properly etc.
Single compound and slick make sense, tho I guess ultimately in my mind the criteria for what is a suitable track tyre seems a bit fuzzy if it’s relying on a manufacturer’s literature, what criteria are they using? Is it an EN ISO standard? Or is there some independent sporting body that certifies it like the UCI? Just doesn’t seem that clear to me to be honest.
Ultimately rider safety is key but personally I don’t put a lot of trust in manufacturers saying it’s suitable. There should be some kind of more tangible standard like most other things regarding safety.
ghettro-
Yes, it’s a strange situation with tyres, stranger still when you consider that I was told the accident that stirred up all the worry was actually nothing to do with the tyres but that’s just where the lawyers found an angle.
There was an attempt to establish some sort of British Standard for the grippiness of a tyres and a level that should be reached for velodrome use right after the fatal accident enquiry at Newport was concluded but this seemed to go nowhere. I think either the cost was exorbitant or it was such a niche that the people that do these things weren’t interested. It should perhaps be noted that grippiness tests formed part of the fatal accident enquiry but they are widely regarded as having been carried out in a way that has little in common with real world use of a tyre on a velodrome so the results of these tests should be discounted.
Our ngb (Scottish Cycling) which is a branch of your ngb (British Cycling) want nothing to do with classifying tyres. Probably because these organisations are predominantly staffed (especially at policy making level) by people who would wouldn’t know how to fix a puncture never mind decide the suitability of a tyre for a particular usage.
There’s also a real reticence for event organisers to get involved in this kind of thing, supposedly due to a case a while ago of a piece of equipment being approved for use in an event which then failed resulting in a large compensation claim.
I imagine the uci would take a similar stance.
At my workplace the powers that be decided that the question would be along the lines of “why those tyres?” and that “because the manufacturer said so” was a good enough answer. Now, I know that there’s a Maxxis tyre that they say is for the velodrome and it’s dual compound so it wouldn’t be my way of doing it but I’m way too far down the ladder to decide these things so…
M_V
Slick tread (or at the very most a consistent file type tread) and a single compound of rubber would be the salient points.
At Glasgow we only really allow tyres where the manufacturer has specified suitability for velodrome use in their description of it.
Just remember, if someone moans at you about tyres, it’s usually not because they want to sell you tyres, rather because they have to deal with the first aid, clean up, repair and paper work when someone slides off on road tyres and more often than not take other riders with them. In the worst case scenarios, they have been the ones the lawyers have come for when there’s been compensation to be paid when people suffer injuries or are killed.