When they f i n a l l y get around to showing the rolling tire from the side near the end of the video I do not see any flex or give. They look like they ride like a rock. I would not buy them because you need that flex for traction on the dirt. Besides that they have no side tread for the corners. But keep trying because no flats would be a dream.

It's possible they simply had the rubber tension very.. tense.

I agree with the Hoff. They need compliance for traction and side tread for railing corners. However that compliance must not be lateral or the tire will roll in hard corners and annoy the rider. Unless these are lighter than a tube and tire, you're better off marketing to the baggy shorts DH crowd. Model the tread after the High Roller 42a, and or the Minion DHF 42a and you'd have a hot product. Great idea, keep working on it.

Reviewing the vid, I saw several instances of where the tire gave and flexed. These tires are geared for mountain bikes in this example, not your street racers.

Well-designed experimental comparison is better than theoretical analysis in proving whether "Energy Return Wheel" is not just marketing jabber. Still, there are cases when any possibility of the punched tire must be eliminated regardless the cost or fuel efficiency.

Try Basalt fibers instead of carbon fibers for the frame. Basalt takes impact very well-and is easily three-four times less expensive. It has great spring modulus-17.5 percent better than a high end S-glass. http://www.basalt-mesh-fiber.com/

These tires might work but also might not. Bicycles distribute shocks in an air filled tire over the entire tire. In a foam filled tire the shock apparently is more local and wheel wear and failure are more of an issue. In essence you could go to WalMart and buy a solid foam tube right now and drill windows in your sidewall and have almost the same thing as this new tire system might offer. Although I have read that pro racers at Tour De France are now beginning to accept foam filled tires so maybe there is hope.

'Resilient Technologies' have also been in the airless tyre game with a similar design since 2005. http://www.resilienttech.com/
While the concept of an airless puncture-proof tyre is noteworthy, I think they're making some bold claims with the supposed performance enhancements. Their claim of 'energy return', where the compression from a bump is converted into rotational momentum... is imaginative. http://www.energyreturnwheel.com/videoplayer/video/VideoPlayer.html
I've watched the video on their website about 10 times, still can't understand where they think the free momentum is coming from. That would seem to violate the principle of energy conservation.
Next, they claim that this tyre technology will have better braking performance, but don't explain how. The only way you can improve braking performance in a tyre is by reducing rotational weight or increasing your friction coefficient/contact area, at the cost of higher rolling resistance.
Finally, they show a '50% better coast down' video, claiming this as evidence of higher efficiency. But it can only be because either the wheel has greater rotational momentum (because it's heavier) or because it has a lower friction coefficient. Both of these things are in conflict with their claim that they get better braking.
So in summary, I think the concept of a durable airless tyre for cars or mountainbikes is admirable, but I think the rest of their claims are just snake oil.

I use no-flat tubes in all my bike wheels now and these looked very interesting until they said carbon fiber rims.... no thanks.....

What about when they get filled with mud and spray all over you as your flying downhill?