Centramatic tire balancing system?
#31
12-07-2012, 01:52 PM
Elite HDF Member
Ahhhh, another tire balancing snake oil product poised to compete with the already oiled-up dyna beads. 
I've always been amazed at how intelligent these products seem to be. You know, able to overcome centrifugal force by knowing precisely where to migrate to the exact place inside of a tire to that sweet spot just perfect for balancing...regardless of whether or not it breaks the laws of motion and/or physics. When has that ever mattered?
No legitimate reader-supported bike publication has ever endorsed these miracle products because of one reason....they are not effective. Note I said reader supported...not advertiser supported. Advertiser supported rags are worthless when it comes to scientific testing. Sure, you can convince yourself of anything thanks to the placebo effect. Just look at the success of the entirely bogus dick enlargement remedies that are running rampant in the backs of most advertiser-supported bike magazines. And no, they didn't work for me either!!
Fact is, most folks could run their HD bikes without ANY weights and probably not see much difference. But if it makes folks feel better, allows a vendor to make cash flow requirements, and especially keeps those sticky ole weights off of your shiny new wheels, then what the hell...go for it!
I've always been amazed at how intelligent these products seem to be. You know, able to overcome centrifugal force by knowing precisely where to migrate to the exact place inside of a tire to that sweet spot just perfect for balancing...regardless of whether or not it breaks the laws of motion and/or physics. When has that ever mattered?
No legitimate reader-supported bike publication has ever endorsed these miracle products because of one reason....they are not effective. Note I said reader supported...not advertiser supported. Advertiser supported rags are worthless when it comes to scientific testing. Sure, you can convince yourself of anything thanks to the placebo effect. Just look at the success of the entirely bogus dick enlargement remedies that are running rampant in the backs of most advertiser-supported bike magazines. And no, they didn't work for me either!!
Fact is, most folks could run their HD bikes without ANY weights and probably not see much difference. But if it makes folks feel better, allows a vendor to make cash flow requirements, and especially keeps those sticky ole weights off of your shiny new wheels, then what the hell...go for it!
#32
12-07-2012, 02:17 PM
Outstanding HDF Member
I had a balancing problem on my 07 when I put on some new Metzlers. The installer balanced them twice, and could not get them to run smooth.
Instead of keep taking them back to the installer, I decided to try some of the beads.
Put in the recommended amount, and the ride instantly became like glass. No more vibration.
I was a bit skeptical, but the bike vibrated so much, I did not want to drive the 1 hr back to the tire installer. They were a well known supplier, and had top notch balancing equipment and an experienced tech.
Beads worked for me. YMMV.
Instead of keep taking them back to the installer, I decided to try some of the beads.
Put in the recommended amount, and the ride instantly became like glass. No more vibration.
I was a bit skeptical, but the bike vibrated so much, I did not want to drive the 1 hr back to the tire installer. They were a well known supplier, and had top notch balancing equipment and an experienced tech.
Beads worked for me. YMMV.
#33
12-07-2012, 02:29 PM
I had a balancing problem on my 07 when I put on some new Metzlers. The installer balanced them twice, and could not get them to run smooth.
Instead of keep taking them back to the installer, I decided to try some of the beads.
Put in the recommended amount, and the ride instantly became like glass. No more vibration.
I was a bit skeptical, but the bike vibrated so much, I did not want to drive the 1 hr back to the tire installer. They were a well known supplier, and had top notch balancing equipment and an experienced tech.
Beads worked for me. YMMV.
Instead of keep taking them back to the installer, I decided to try some of the beads.
Put in the recommended amount, and the ride instantly became like glass. No more vibration.
I was a bit skeptical, but the bike vibrated so much, I did not want to drive the 1 hr back to the tire installer. They were a well known supplier, and had top notch balancing equipment and an experienced tech.
Beads worked for me. YMMV.
#34
12-07-2012, 02:55 PM
I'm not for or against them, just that there seems to be no conclusive evidence out in the real-world that they either work or don't work and I don't give 2 sh*ts what the magazines say because they're paid to say it somewhere along the lines.
#35
12-07-2012, 04:20 PM
#36
12-07-2012, 11:04 PM
@Lowcountry Joe: Sorry to hear about your run in with "entirely bogus dick..", ..eh, I mean ...back of magazine ads. Hope your back in the "swing of things".
;^P
Good post, btw.
@all...
The "centrifugal force migration balancing act" (see Lowcountry joe's post), or "hydrodynamic balancing" does work, however, I think the issue is that it only works for matching forces at play in parallel with the rotational mass, but cannot handle affects induced by those working across it, ...and that its application theory (how the manufacturers represent this to consumers anyway) is flawed (and causing confusion). So its not that this tech doesn't work at all or reliably, it just cannot serve all situations - and thats not being discussed openly. Static weighting cannot serve all situations either, but static weighting doesn't suffer from the greater limitations inherent in the fluid~dynamic method when faced with off-axis torque.
Consider balancing... an off balance wheel typically seen as having a weighted "end" (in relation to its rotational "plane"). We will call this heavy point the "peak" and its opposite balance point the "valley". At the precise crest of this "valley" is the static balance point or node (to the peak's crest on the exact opposite end).
So to statically balance the wheel we place a weight at the crest of the 'virtual' valley directly opposite the peak.
When the wheel no longer moves/spins on the stand, we bless it as correct, and we're good to go.
We install the wheel and then it gets interesting.... we have vibrations at various speeds, or continual vibration. Damn.. Why?
Typically this may be due to "off-axis inertial torque" [speaking loosely].
To adjust for that, we physically adjust the static weight off of (or away from) the perfect crest of the valley balance node - right?
If we had been using a dynamic spin-balancer to begin with, it would calculate that spot for us. (And typically this is the tool we need to address this issue.)
In most cases these slight adjustments can tackle even a stubborn off-axis affect, but not always!
Sometimes you cannot find proper weight placement spot[s] even using a spin-balancer - it happens.
Enter hydrodynamic balancing... Fluid weight balancing is always affected at node crests ONLY. I.e., the counterweighting is always displaced into the valley crests. I.e., natural fluid adjustment will never fine-tune adjust the weight by using/assigning nodes slightly off the valley crests in order to compensate for problematic off-axis inertial torque.
So we can only attempt that type of compensation using static weights.
___________________
Potential Benefits of Hydrodynamic Balancing: So if this is close to correct, it seems to me that in a wheel with little or insignificant potential off-axis inertial torque, hydrodynamic balancing might not only do what a static weight will, but even potentially better than that (often reported - where its working anyway), ...because hydrodynamic action is not only dynamic, and places weight not only in a single spot, ...but its dynamically placing "the right amount" of counterweight variably into many spots at once, and on demand.
BUT, in a situation with off-axis-inertial torque issues, it cannot even address that - at all, and miserably fails.
Even to address this with static weight is a compromise, and does not always work.
Additional Potential Benefit: Consider also, during acceleration weighted nodes in the wheel (say for instance, densities in the wheel's medium [body] that are the source of weighted imperfections) change their weight, adding to the complexities of the dynamic im/balanced state while the wheel is in motion.
So really, a wheel's balance is constantly changing.
A static weight remains stationery and also changes its weight state during acceleration changes. Since it seems to work well enough in racing applications all these years, I am sure that's compensating equally well enough, .....but I have to wonder if hydrodynamic fluid weighting doesn't respond to these nuances more harmonically (off-axis inertial torque issues aside, of course).
_______________________________
Ok, I am not speaking as an expert, but I think its easy to understand this, but it took a lot of digging for me to finally connect the dots (hope I didn't get it wrong).
Not a necessarily a totally correct or elegant or complete explanation by any means, but hopefully it presents enough of a gist (of how there are distinct kinds of forces induced by varying densities present in a spinning mass) for getting a leg up the discrepancies in so many rider reports.
Note About "No Need To Balance": While I agree a lot of HD (and other) bikes can and do fair well enough without any "balancing", we know there are many that don't, and also, many of us own various types of bikes, not to mention have different riding styles, ...so it makes no sense to me to simply dismiss any potential needs for balancing altogether.
'Nuff said about that.
@Gary: I am willing to bet the Motorcycle Consumer News folks will not have an answer for you. The manufacturers are not being totally clear or honest with the public, and I bet consumer news folk are in the same basket with us. Hell, the video demonstrations we see (like that bottle on a powertool) only represent a single aspect out of several considerations required for understanding the sum of what's going on (forces at play) for hydrodynamic balancing affects in your spinning wheel at work on the road. Yes, its a very important aspect, and it does demonstrate one basic, even the primary, principle, ...but without the rest of the story we can chalk that up as pure hype. It does not represent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bottomline/Conclusion, and yes I have changed my tune since my last post,... I think this hydrodynamic balancing tech is probably well suited in certain situations and worth trying out. We cannot know how it may work for any particular wheel without trying it, though. But when it works, reports generally seem to indicate it works better than static weighting, and in a number of ways (with a few exceptions*). And when it doesn't work, ...well there's no making it work.
Static weighting does not solve all situations, and we do see overlap (reported often) between these applications... so it would seem hydrodynamic balancing tech has a valid place in the market. But manufacturers have to represent better.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*Last Words on the 3 Primary Options Available: I have been compiling a list of differences in performance reported by riders -trying to assess which tech may be better for my personal tryout. Seems to me these various methods (gel [ride-on], beads [dyna beads], disc-beads [centramatic]) have notable distinctions in their affects while riding (I am speaking to "where employed successfully").
From digging through reports I am reading it like this....
- Tour-Cruzers seem to praise the disc-bead tech the most. Interesting Note: I have seen some engineering discussions (2) expressing concern over potential lack of enough weight in the Centramatic discs' beads for affecting consistent results. I don't know why, I didn't spend time on those, so I can only mention it.
- Aggressive riders on more sporting rides seem to praise gel much more often than loose beads. (and almost none using disc-bead tech)
- While there are lot of folks praising plain bead tech, I seem to read more issues with that, especially with aggressive riders, ...with cornering, accel/decel, and speed issues.
The manufacturer's generally recommend hydrodynamic balancing tech at speeds NOT above 150mph.
• The recommended effective speed range for Dyna-beads is generally from 35/40mph up to about 120mph (and certainly not for applications over 150mph).
• Centramatic's effective speed range is generally expressed as being from 35/45mph up to ??mph, and specifically claims is beneficial when approaching 65/75mph.
Although I have seen claims of stability up to 90mph, Centramatic makes no claims for high-speed application. (I wish more riders would post about usage at higher speeds - I just haven't run across any [maybe one, but I cannot place it].)
• Ride-on's recommended effective speed range is from 0mph up to at least 150mph, and specifically claims is "beneficial for high-speed applications". (The reason it is effective at the very low speed range is... once the gel is "spun", it remains spread out in a ring inside the tire, and dynamicly adjusts from there.)
__________________________________
Well I hope this is in the neighborhood of accurate and useful. If you guys throw me a beating, please have the decency to leave me a bandaid.
I made an outline comparison on the 3 hydrodynamic balancing techs as I culled reports. If you want I will post that - but then I ask that you go easy on the beating, please.
Cheers,
;^P
Good post, btw.
@all...
The "centrifugal force migration balancing act" (see Lowcountry joe's post), or "hydrodynamic balancing" does work, however, I think the issue is that it only works for matching forces at play in parallel with the rotational mass, but cannot handle affects induced by those working across it, ...and that its application theory (how the manufacturers represent this to consumers anyway) is flawed (and causing confusion). So its not that this tech doesn't work at all or reliably, it just cannot serve all situations - and thats not being discussed openly. Static weighting cannot serve all situations either, but static weighting doesn't suffer from the greater limitations inherent in the fluid~dynamic method when faced with off-axis torque.
Consider balancing... an off balance wheel typically seen as having a weighted "end" (in relation to its rotational "plane"). We will call this heavy point the "peak" and its opposite balance point the "valley". At the precise crest of this "valley" is the static balance point or node (to the peak's crest on the exact opposite end).
So to statically balance the wheel we place a weight at the crest of the 'virtual' valley directly opposite the peak.
When the wheel no longer moves/spins on the stand, we bless it as correct, and we're good to go.
We install the wheel and then it gets interesting.... we have vibrations at various speeds, or continual vibration. Damn.. Why?
Typically this may be due to "off-axis inertial torque" [speaking loosely].
To adjust for that, we physically adjust the static weight off of (or away from) the perfect crest of the valley balance node - right?
If we had been using a dynamic spin-balancer to begin with, it would calculate that spot for us. (And typically this is the tool we need to address this issue.)
In most cases these slight adjustments can tackle even a stubborn off-axis affect, but not always!
Sometimes you cannot find proper weight placement spot[s] even using a spin-balancer - it happens.
Enter hydrodynamic balancing... Fluid weight balancing is always affected at node crests ONLY. I.e., the counterweighting is always displaced into the valley crests. I.e., natural fluid adjustment will never fine-tune adjust the weight by using/assigning nodes slightly off the valley crests in order to compensate for problematic off-axis inertial torque.
So we can only attempt that type of compensation using static weights.
___________________
Potential Benefits of Hydrodynamic Balancing: So if this is close to correct, it seems to me that in a wheel with little or insignificant potential off-axis inertial torque, hydrodynamic balancing might not only do what a static weight will, but even potentially better than that (often reported - where its working anyway), ...because hydrodynamic action is not only dynamic, and places weight not only in a single spot, ...but its dynamically placing "the right amount" of counterweight variably into many spots at once, and on demand.
BUT, in a situation with off-axis-inertial torque issues, it cannot even address that - at all, and miserably fails.
Even to address this with static weight is a compromise, and does not always work.
Additional Potential Benefit: Consider also, during acceleration weighted nodes in the wheel (say for instance, densities in the wheel's medium [body] that are the source of weighted imperfections) change their weight, adding to the complexities of the dynamic im/balanced state while the wheel is in motion.
So really, a wheel's balance is constantly changing.
A static weight remains stationery and also changes its weight state during acceleration changes. Since it seems to work well enough in racing applications all these years, I am sure that's compensating equally well enough, .....but I have to wonder if hydrodynamic fluid weighting doesn't respond to these nuances more harmonically (off-axis inertial torque issues aside, of course).
_______________________________
Ok, I am not speaking as an expert, but I think its easy to understand this, but it took a lot of digging for me to finally connect the dots (hope I didn't get it wrong).
Not a necessarily a totally correct or elegant or complete explanation by any means, but hopefully it presents enough of a gist (of how there are distinct kinds of forces induced by varying densities present in a spinning mass) for getting a leg up the discrepancies in so many rider reports.
Note About "No Need To Balance": While I agree a lot of HD (and other) bikes can and do fair well enough without any "balancing", we know there are many that don't, and also, many of us own various types of bikes, not to mention have different riding styles, ...so it makes no sense to me to simply dismiss any potential needs for balancing altogether.
'Nuff said about that.
@Gary: I am willing to bet the Motorcycle Consumer News folks will not have an answer for you. The manufacturers are not being totally clear or honest with the public, and I bet consumer news folk are in the same basket with us. Hell, the video demonstrations we see (like that bottle on a powertool) only represent a single aspect out of several considerations required for understanding the sum of what's going on (forces at play) for hydrodynamic balancing affects in your spinning wheel at work on the road. Yes, its a very important aspect, and it does demonstrate one basic, even the primary, principle, ...but without the rest of the story we can chalk that up as pure hype. It does not represent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bottomline/Conclusion, and yes I have changed my tune since my last post,... I think this hydrodynamic balancing tech is probably well suited in certain situations and worth trying out. We cannot know how it may work for any particular wheel without trying it, though. But when it works, reports generally seem to indicate it works better than static weighting, and in a number of ways (with a few exceptions*). And when it doesn't work, ...well there's no making it work.
Static weighting does not solve all situations, and we do see overlap (reported often) between these applications... so it would seem hydrodynamic balancing tech has a valid place in the market. But manufacturers have to represent better.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*Last Words on the 3 Primary Options Available: I have been compiling a list of differences in performance reported by riders -trying to assess which tech may be better for my personal tryout. Seems to me these various methods (gel [ride-on], beads [dyna beads], disc-beads [centramatic]) have notable distinctions in their affects while riding (I am speaking to "where employed successfully").
From digging through reports I am reading it like this....
- Tour-Cruzers seem to praise the disc-bead tech the most. Interesting Note: I have seen some engineering discussions (2) expressing concern over potential lack of enough weight in the Centramatic discs' beads for affecting consistent results. I don't know why, I didn't spend time on those, so I can only mention it.
- Aggressive riders on more sporting rides seem to praise gel much more often than loose beads. (and almost none using disc-bead tech)
- While there are lot of folks praising plain bead tech, I seem to read more issues with that, especially with aggressive riders, ...with cornering, accel/decel, and speed issues.
The manufacturer's generally recommend hydrodynamic balancing tech at speeds NOT above 150mph.
• The recommended effective speed range for Dyna-beads is generally from 35/40mph up to about 120mph (and certainly not for applications over 150mph).
• Centramatic's effective speed range is generally expressed as being from 35/45mph up to ??mph, and specifically claims is beneficial when approaching 65/75mph.
Although I have seen claims of stability up to 90mph, Centramatic makes no claims for high-speed application. (I wish more riders would post about usage at higher speeds - I just haven't run across any [maybe one, but I cannot place it].)
• Ride-on's recommended effective speed range is from 0mph up to at least 150mph, and specifically claims is "beneficial for high-speed applications". (The reason it is effective at the very low speed range is... once the gel is "spun", it remains spread out in a ring inside the tire, and dynamicly adjusts from there.)
__________________________________
Well I hope this is in the neighborhood of accurate and useful. If you guys throw me a beating, please have the decency to leave me a bandaid.
I made an outline comparison on the 3 hydrodynamic balancing techs as I culled reports. If you want I will post that - but then I ask that you go easy on the beating, please.
Cheers,
Last edited by twohawks; 12-08-2012 at 12:14 PM.
#37
12-08-2012, 11:36 AM
Outstanding HDF Member
#38
12-08-2012, 12:02 PM
#39
12-10-2012, 08:03 AM
#40
12-10-2012, 08:53 AM
From what I've read, a tire requires enough beads to counter the imbalance. Some tires are so far off balance that the recommended bead are not enough. Either add a lot more beads, which might fix the problem but can be a hassle, or add rim weights to get balance close. The delima is that if you are going to use rim weights at all, why even go to beads?
Beary
Beary