# Realities with Tubeless tires



## CycloCross (Feb 26, 2004)

The main draw back, that nobody seem to think about is that fact that when you flat a tubular tire, you can still ride it at a fast pace to the pit to switch bikes. Anybody you has flatted with clinchers knows that when you flat you dont have the same control. And when you add in sealant to tubeless tires, it acts as a lubricant and it makes the slipping of the tire on the rim 10X worse. Tubeless for training? Yes, Tubeless for racing? a decent alternative, but still not the same advantage as tubulars.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

CycloCross said:


> The main draw back, that nobody seem to think about is that fact that when you flat a tubular tire, you can still ride it at a fast pace to the pit to switch bikes. Anybody you has flatted with clinchers knows that when you flat you dont have the same control. And when you add in sealant to tubeless tires, it acts as a lubricant and it makes the slipping of the tire on the rim 10X worse. Tubeless for training? Yes, Tubeless for racing? a decent alternative, but still not the same advantage as tubulars.


When talking about tubeless for cyclocross, there's two avenues:

1) convert any cross tire and any rim into tubeless and use Stans sealant to seal it up.

2) use Hutchinson tubeless tires with beadlock with a tubeless compatible rim. Perhaps use sealant as well. One can still use Stans in this setup for extra flat protection.

In case #1, there's no chance of riding a flat. The tire will flop around and probably fall off the rim. Case #1 is hokey and risky I believe. I wouldn't do it unless I'm assured the seal is really, really good. Burping a tire on asphalt can be disastrous.

In case #2, the bead is locked onto the rim and the manufacturer is claiming you can ride with a flat. I don't know if this is true.

The other thing to consider is a tubeless tire with sealant is not likely to flat. There is no tube to pinch and if you poke a hole in the tire, the sealant should seal it.

Anybody have ANY experience? What's your setup and how's it working out?

fc


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*why go to all that hassle?*

when you can just use a tub?
a better solution already exists
why do all that work for something that will never be as good?


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

atpjunkie said:


> when you can just use a tub?
> a better solution already exists
> why do all that work for something that will never be as good?


How do you know it will never be as good? You don't. It is debatable whether it is as good currently (completely subjective and dependent on who you ask), but you have no idea what the future tech. will bring. 

I would prefer tubeless over tubular currently for the ease of change, better rolling resistance, and the ability to throw a tube in if I needed to.


----------



## Lord Taipan (Aug 10, 2006)

I'll add that if you already own a clincher rim that is tubeless compatable (*like my Ksyrium SL's) then it makes dropping the cash on a pair of tubeless tire look real attractive compared with dropping another (at least) $400 on another wheelset alone.


----------



## Gripped (Nov 27, 2002)

Lord Taipan said:


> I'll add that if you already own a clincher rim that is tubeless compatable (*like my Ksyrium SL's) then it makes dropping the cash on a pair of tubeless tire look real attractive compared with dropping another (at least) $400 on another wheelset alone.


Perhaps all of the tubular wheelsets are off the market now? I've scored all kinds of great tubular wheels used on Ebay. My top price is $200 per set and I've scored great wheels for less.

The reality of tubeless for cross is that you can't take an off-the-shelf rim and convert it to tubeless, there is some significant risk of burping during a race. That can be as bad as a flat. I've read reports of K users having mixed results with tubless. I'd prefer to have a sure thing.

I've heard guys having really good results with Stans rims and certain tires (Muds, for one). Building up a wheel set with Stans rims is going to cost you more than a comparable tubular set.

I'm with atpjunkie. We've got a good system already and I'm not convinced that tubeless is better.

HTH YMMV NTTAWWT


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

So far, I'm enjoying my Hutchinson tubeless on Roval Pave wheels with the stan's kits installed, they seem to hold well at pretty low PSI, I'm going to keep trying to roll them off as time goes by. 

I think they will be a good setup for some courses and I suspect they will end up being the technology that really suits cross. The girth of the Hutchinson Bulldog tire is a liability, if they made one about the size of a standard Grifo, it would be a lot nicer. I'm curious if that big beefy tire will roll ok at 40 psi or less, if so it may be a really nice setup.

I love how cyclists are so quick to reject change, something about the sport I guess and I'm guilty myself sometimes.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> How do you know it will never be as good? You don't. It is debatable whether it is as good currently (completely subjective and dependent on who you ask), but you have no idea what the future tech. will bring.


We know because tubeless clinchers are still *clinchers*, and as such continue to suffer many of the weaknesses inherent to the design of clinchers tires and rims.

Tubless clinchers only even offer to address a couple of these weaknesses. They won't pinch flat, which is good. They _might_ save some weight, but if they requier stronger beads, modified rims and "beefier" sidewalls and sealants, that is an open question.

We don't know what future tech will bring, but if you understand the entire issue, you will see that future tech that rivals tubulars will not be a modified clincher system.



SleeveleSS said:


> I would prefer tubeless over tubular currently for the ease of change, better rolling resistance, and the ability to throw a tube in if I needed to.


Ease of change is the only actual advantage that tubeless clinchers have over tubulars, though I don't count that as an aspect of performance. Regarding resistance, I am not so sure that the claimed advantages of road clinchers translate as well to cyclocross.

Throwing a tube in is pretty irrelevant. You wouldn't have time to do this during a race, and even if you did (or you are not racing), you now have a regular clincher which was the problem that was to be solved in the first place. Handy in an emergency, but again not a performance advantage.

The key here, from a racing perspective, is _performance_ and the idiosyncratic factors that define performance in cyclocross. These factors work against any clincher system rivaling tubulars. They go beyond riding low pressure and they trump the convenience factor of clinchers.

One thing is for sure -- tubeless offer some worthwhile improvements on tubed clinchers.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

jroden said:


> The girth of the Hutchinson Bulldog tire is a liability, if they made one about the size of a standard Grifo, it would be a lot nicer. I'm curious if that big beefy tire will roll ok at 40 psi or less, if so it may be a really nice setup.


I think a lot of frames will not fit the Bulldog tires. I thought my Steelman had ample rear tire clearance but it barely fits.

In muddy conditions the clearance might be an issue on my setup

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> We know because tubeless clinchers are still *clinchers*, and as such continue to suffer many of the weaknesses inherent to the design of clinchers tires and rims.
> 
> ...


Good points. That is the racing perspective. I think we'll learn a lot on this coming season of racing.

On the non-racing perspective though the verdict might be very different. I want to ride my cross bike every day. Big rides that traverse road and trails. The new system seems to hold a bit of promise.

fc


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

jroden said:


> I think they will be a good setup for some courses and I suspect they will end up being the technology that really suits cross. The girth of the Hutchinson Bulldog tire is a liability, if they made one about the size of a standard Grifo, it would be a lot nicer. I'm curious if that big beefy tire will roll ok at 40 psi or less, if so it may be a really nice setup.


It seems to me that tubeless clincher tires will always have to be bigger to protect the rim sidewalls. If you hit a square edge on a tubular wheel hard enough for the rim to make contact, you have a decently reinforced rim structure and even a ding in it won't necessarily put it out of commission. On a tubeless clincher, the sidewall is much more likely to get bent. If that happens your rim is destroyed and your tire is likely going to blow.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

francois said:


> On the non-racing perspective though the verdict might be very different. I want to ride my cross bike every day. Big rides that traverse road and trails. The new system seems to hold a bit of promise.
> 
> fc


I agree, though for this kind of riding I would not recommend tubulars anyway.

I did some training and course recon on a ghetto tubless set-up using 34C Vittoria clinchers last year. It was deinitely an improvement over using tubes in many ways, but I never trusted the integrity of my set-up enough for racing.

For training or just recreational riding when I can ride a little more conservatively, I would definitely give a reliable tubelesss system a look.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> We know because tubeless clinchers are still *clinchers*, and as such continue to suffer many of the weaknesses inherent to the design of clinchers tires and rims.
> 
> Tubless clinchers only even offer to address a couple of these weaknesses. They won't pinch flat, which is good. They _might_ save some weight, but if they requier stronger beads, modified rims and "beefier" sidewalls and sealants, that is an open question.
> 
> ...


I did not realize we were only speaking of racing. I will probably never race cyclocross, and I think that a vast majority of riders are in that category. And though I might be sympathetic to some of your points, I wholeheartedly disagree that the ability to throw a tube in is irrelevant, if you are not looking strictly at racing. When you flat a tubular you don't have this option, and you yourself said it would be useful in an emergency. An emergency would be the only time you would need to do it.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> I did not realize we were only speaking of racing. I will probably never race cyclocross, and I think that a vast majority of riders are in that category.


That perspective is the root of many a misguided post on this board with respect to which technologies are good for cyclocross.

Cyclocross is racing. Cyclocross bikes can be used for any number of things, but if you say "I participate in cyclocross", nobody is going to think you are talking about all-weather commuting or skinny tire trail riding.

The vast majority of 4WD vehicles are never driven off road. But if you say you are going four wheeling, nobody is going to think you are talking about driving your Subaru to the grocery store.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Cyclocross is racing.


That is your opinion. We have a separate forum for racing. Cyclocross to me is a type of bicycle. My girlfriend owns a cyclocross bike, one that she will most likely never race. She could benefit from the advantages tubeless tires have. That does not mean that my posts are "misguided."


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> That perspective is the root of many a misguided post on this board with respect to which technologies are good for cyclocross.
> 
> Cyclocross is racing. Cyclocross bikes can be used for any number of things, but if you say "I participate in cyclocross", nobody is going to think you are talking about all-weather commuting or skinny tire trail riding.
> 
> The vast majority of 4WD vehicles are never driven off road. But if you say you are going four wheeling, nobody is going to think you are talking about driving your Subaru to the grocery store.


'Cyclocross' is no more just racing than 'road' or 'mountain'. If you want a forum that only considers technologies, techniques and training for CX racing, then you better ask the moderators for one called "CX Racing". - TF


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

I think you are both right, in that using much of the life of a cyclocross race bike is spent logging training miles, either on the roads or on the cross pitch. To clarify, my posts were very much directed at my long term goal of living in a house without tubular tires darkening my doorstep, a goal which has eluded me for 25 years, I'm sorry to say. I think these new tires are clearly something that deserves some exploration. Recall that both Fausto Coppi and Eddy Merckx were known for pushing the envelope in their day when it came to technology. They would have been the first to abandon wool shorts and toe straps if they had the chance.

I've raced in wool shorts, leather chamois, Detto shoes, Binda toe straps, crashed with leather helmets and lost sprints because I had the downtube shifter in the wrong gear or pulled my foot out. I don't have an ounce of nostalga for that stuff and tubulars will hopefully be the next technology in the rubbish pile, just not quite this year, I fear.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> That is your opinion. We have a separate forum for racing.


Again, misguided. And yes IMO. This forum is where we talk about training for CX racing, post CX race reports, post about CX Nationals and European CX racing, CX course design, CX race tactics etc.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Again, misguided. And yes IMO. This forum is where we talk about training for CX racing, post CX race reports, post about CX Nationals and European CX racing, CX course design, CX race tactics etc.


Yes, but I've answered about a jillion questions about "do it all bikes" and suchlike and don't mind helping people get a cross bike set up for their non-racing pleasures, maybe we can get them out for a race in the future...


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Again, misguided. And yes IMO. This forum is where we talk about training for CX racing, post CX race reports, post about CX Nationals and European CX racing, CX course design, CX race tactics etc.


Of course you do, but that's not all that is discussed here. Regarding that, I don't see how we could disagree, and therein lies my point. Not everyone who posts on a topic within the "Cyclocross" forum, will approach the topic from the perspective of racing. That might be misguided in your opinion, but it is a reality you have to accept.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

jroden said:


> Yes, but I've answered about a jillion questions about "do it all bikes" and suchlike and don't mind helping people get a cross bike set up for their non-racing pleasures...


As have I, and gladly at that. That does not change the definition of cyclocross.

More to the point, it does not change my opinion about whether tubulars are better than tubeless tires. I don't think that tubeless tires are better than tubulars for racing. I don't think that tubulars are better than tubeless tires for non-racing. I usually identify the context for which I am offering an opinion. Some people seem to feel put upon when asked to do the same.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> Of course you do, but that's not all that is discussed here. Regarding that, I don't see how we could disagree, and therein lies my point. Not everyone who posts on a topic within the "Cyclocross" forum, will approach the topic from the perspective of racing. That might be misguided in your opinion, but it is a reality you have to accept.


The issue is not the topics and perspectives posted, but context. If there is no agreed upon definition of cyclocross, then I propose that the next time you expound on the inevitable dominance of disc brakes and tubeless clinchers, you make it clear up front that this opinion applies to "cyclocross" defined as whatever recreational riding you and your girlfriend enjoy. I am more than happy to make it clear that when I recommend tubulars or disdain disc brakes, I am doing so from the perspective of racing.

That way, when somebody comes to this board looking for experience and opinion most applicable to their intended usage, they can figure out what is going on.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

In any event, I am prepared to share my exciting adventures with racing on tubeless tyres this year to any hapless souls who happen to open my postings. Maybe I'll be nostalgic for special tubular racing moments like this:


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

TurboTurtle said:


> 'Cyclocross' is no more just racing than 'road' or 'mountain'. If you want a forum that only considers technologies, techniques and training for CX racing, then you better ask the moderators for one called "CX Racing". - TF


If so, what is this "cyclocross" that we are supposed to be discussing in the "Cyclocross" forum?

If someone refers to road biking or mountain biking, I have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about, the terrain and the equipment. What comes to your mind when someone says I am going cyclocross biking? Do people even say that?


----------



## seahuston (Sep 2, 2005)

I'm going to add my two cents here and agree with PBB. 
Cyclocross is still a very small sport though interest is growing every year. I think that the racing is what has really boosted its popularity and gotten people interested in riding cross bikes. 
I am also of the assumption that people who post avidly on this forum share the same passion for racing that I do. 
I dont honestly see a reason to eek out all performance possible for riding around on trails or gravel roads-something I do alot with my cross bike BTW. 
Tubulars are mainly seen at races, I think only a small percentage train on tubulars. For this reason I understand that a thread comparing one tire type to tubulars would be about racing.


----------



## cullinsb (Feb 6, 2007)

_


PeanutButterBreath said:



If so, what is this "cyclocross" that we are supposed to be discussing in the "Cyclocross" forum?

If someone refers to road biking or mountain biking, I have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about, the terrain and the equipment. What comes to your mind when someone says I am going cyclocross biking? Do people even say that?

Click to expand...

_
Cyclo-cross
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Cyclo-cross (sometimes cyclocross, CX, cyclo-X or 'cross) is a form of bicycle racing".

Riding a cyclocross bike to commute, play on trails, etc. is just ..... riding a bike. It's all fun, but cyclocross (the sport) is racing.


----------



## dankilling (Aug 27, 2002)

Im loathe to join into this one, but for whatever reason Im feeling compelled- all formats of tires have their benefits and drawbacks. I for one have been running tubeless on my MTB for quite a while with good results in much nastier conditions than I will ever encounter on a cross course. Since I already have a decent set of clinchers, why wouldnt I be inclined to try out a similar technology instead of dealing with the expense and hassle of gluing up tubular tires on freshly built wheels? For about $60 I can try out the Hutchinson system. Even if they dont perform as well as a nice set of tubulars, I know and understand the benefit of tubeless from my MTB experiences, so I also know that the benefites outweigh the risks vs regular tube-clinchers. I have rolled Michelins off the rims with tubes so that argument isnt a biggie IMO. If I can have an improvement for a fraction of the cost of new wheels ($200 for ultegra/reflex) plus $180 for tubular tires and glue its a good value for me. If they arent an improvement, I can either shell out almost $400 for a tubular setup, or I can just go back to my clincher setup and still have an extra pair of tires to use with tubes, so nothing lost. I understand the the perspective that tubulars are the best, but if I can get better than what I already have without any real risk for the cost of a pair of tires I already need, then its a no-brainer IMO. Why not try something new? Train hard with them and chances are good you will know how they will perform on race day.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> The issue is not the topics and perspectives posted, but context. If there is no agreed upon definition of cyclocross, then I propose that the next time you expound on the inevitable dominance of disc brakes and tubeless clinchers, you make it clear up front that this opinion applies to "cyclocross" defined as whatever recreational riding you and your girlfriend enjoy. I am more than happy to make it clear that when I recommend tubulars or disdain disc brakes, I am doing so from the perspective of racing.
> 
> That way, when somebody comes to this board looking for experience and opinion most applicable to their intended usage, they can figure out what is going on.


I have no problem with you focusing on the racing side of cyclocross. I do not call you or your opinions "misguided" for that. You shouldn't begrudge others focusing on the non-racing aspects of cyclocross bikes. We can both live in this world, so there's no need for you to put down posts about non-racing applications. You said yourself that you would use a tubeless system for non-racing applications, so where's the argument. You're first post on this topic only mentioned racing at the very end.

Again, we have a "Racing..." forum. Just like the "Fixed/Single Speed" forum does not focus specifically on racing one-speed bikes, the "Cyclocross" forum does not have to specifically focus on racing cyclocross bikes, and people shouldn't have to preface every post with "From a racing (or non-racing) perspective..."

The name of this forum is "Cyclocross." That could just as easily be interpreted as the "Cyclocross Bike" forum (as I would) as the "Cyclocross Racing" forum (as you apparently do). It really can be both, and everyone can get the information they are looking for and make perspective decisions on their own. We're big boys (and girls).


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> It seems to me that tubeless clincher tires will always have to be bigger to protect the rim sidewalls. If you hit a square edge on a tubular wheel hard enough for the rim to make contact, you have a decently reinforced rim structure and even a ding in it won't necessarily put it out of commission. On a tubeless clincher, the sidewall is much more likely to get bent. If that happens your rim is destroyed and your tire is likely going to blow.


I've hit hard enough to ding the rim (Velocity Escape) on my 34c Tufos and never knew it till the next time I went and cleaned up the bike.

Didn't pinch flat.
Didn't ride any different
Only minor perturbances in the braking

Nope. Not going tubeless any time soon.

M


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I am pretty sure that most agree that tubeless clinchers offer some compelling advantages over clinchers with tubes. Even ghetto tubless is better than clinchers with tubes in every respect other than reliability. Add reliabilty to the equation and tubeless is an easy sell over clinchers with tubes.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Cyclocross bikes originated as road bikes that were modified for cyclocross racing. Cyclocross bikes are uniquely adapted to be ideal for for cyclocross racing. You can ride them on the road or on mountain bike trails, but there is equipment that is better suited to those pursuits. If you can't or won't chose the most appropriate bike for either, a CX bike is a good compromise, but is is a _compromise_.

Whether you are talking about cyclocross, cyclocross bikes, cyclocross tires, cyclocross brakes or cyclocross what-have-you, it should be understood that you are talking about the equipment and considerations that pertain to the origins of cyclocross -- racing.

The kind of riding you seem to be talking spawed its own, uniquely adapted bike -- the hybrid.

If the Fixed/Singlespeed board were called the Track or Velodrome board you would have a point there.


----------



## joness (Dec 6, 2006)

I had two pairs of wheels last year racing in Oregon. One was with Challenge Grifo tubulars and the other was set up with Michelin Muds and Stan's tubeless on a CXP-33 rim. I did 13 races last year and at least 10 of them I chose the Muds and stan's option. For me I liked the tread better of the Muds and felt like I could push it a bit faster. 

I did 9 races the year before on Muds/Stan's and so far in 19 races I have had no issues. I do a bunch of trail riding and bomb stuff like i'm on my mountain bike. Once last season I had to re-inflate after a burp and once I had to put in a tube in to get home. With the number of miles I had on the tires I find that completely acceptable and reliable. 

I also like to race on the same setup I train on. When I have 100 hrs of riding on one setup I know exactly how far I can push it. I know where the traction will give and I know exactly how far I can drift the tire. When I am on my tubies I don't feel the same confidence because I honestly don't ride them enough. I raced them maybe 3 times and took them on 3-4 trail rides. 

Run what you brung, and if it works why change?

---------------------------
Joness
My results at CrossResults.com


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Whether you are talking about cyclocross, cyclocross bikes, cyclocross tires, cyclocross brakes or cyclocross what-have-you, it should be understood that you are talking about the equipment and considerations that pertain to the origins of cyclocross -- racing.


No it shouldn't. I am *NOT* talking about the origins of cyclocross racing at all. Never did I mention origins, and this is not a thread about history. Quite to the contrary, it is a thread about future innovation. I was talking about equipment that is designed to be used on cyclocross bikes. They are used for a lot more than racing. Period. 



PeanutButterBreath said:


> The kind of riding you seem to be talking spawed its own, uniquely adapted bike -- the hybrid.


I guess you're just trying to be insulting with the hybrid bike comment, as you have no idea what type of riding I or my girlfriend do. I never mentioned it, and there was no "kind of riding (I was) talking about". So you won't continue to assume, let me fill you in. My girlfriend rides on the road with me, and also on grass, gravel, and dirt trails. I have a mountain bike and a road bike. She likes to have one bike to do both. A hybrid would not suit her use nearly as well as her bike. She uses her cyclocross for exactly the kind of terrain it was intended. The difference is she doesn't do it while competing against others or the clock, she does it for enjoyment. 

Apparently you think that makes her less of a rider and not deserving of your hallowed "cyclocross racing" bike but only a hybrid (presumably because no one races those). Don't be condescending. I don't appreciate it. If all you want is racers in these forums, start a petition. Until this becomes the "Cyclocross Racing" forum, I'll continue to post my opinions from the non-racers point of view, which is probably a majority on these boards. As I said, adults can make these distinctions on their own.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> I have a mountain bike and a road bike. She likes to have one bike to do both.


So which one of those is your "cyclocross" bike? 

Your shrill rejection of the term "hybrid" speaks volumes. Its too bad that the term has come to induce this kind of mortified reaction. I still suggest that you embrace the term and agitate for innovations in that field. Actually, they already make hybrids with disc brakes. Contrary to you prejudices, it would appear that the hybrid world will be a welcome home to your progressive sensibilities.

Personally, I have no problem with the term "hybrid", and certainly don't think that riding such a bike makes one less of a rider. To me, its the riding that makes the rider, not the bike.

If someone prefers a cyclocross bike for their riding, whatever kind of riding that is, more power to them. But if they try to tell me that based on whatever that riding is they have concluded that disc brakes and tubeless clinchers are the way to go for cyclocross, that is where we have a problem.

It is also where it becomes obvious that cyclocross bikes are _not_ ideal for the application after all.

The sensible thing to do at that point would be to move on to the more appropriate type of bike. Absent the existence of such a beast they should probably realize that their considerations are not shared by a significant number of riders, much less this "vast majority" you claim to represent.


----------



## slideeslide (Feb 1, 2007)

Simple fact, bang a root or rock with low pressure and clincher/tubeless rim and you seal and rim are probably toast. Tubular rim, no worries. How do I know this? I have done this on my tubeless mt bike wheels.

And Im sorry, but the fact is cyclo-cross has always been a form of off-road racing with *road* style bikes. That is the history of the sport. 

If you aren't racing you are touring, mt biking, training for cyclo-cross racing or just tooling about. You are not "cyclo-crossin" Geesh!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> We know because tubeless clinchers are still *clinchers*, and as such continue to suffer many of the weaknesses inherent to the design of clinchers tires and rims.
> 
> Tubless clinchers only even offer to address a couple of these weaknesses. They won't pinch flat, which is good. They _might_ save some weight, but if they requier stronger beads, modified rims and "beefier" sidewalls and sealants, that is an open question.
> 
> ...


to make a tubeless clincher hold they must beef up the bead and the sidewall
beefing up the sidewall reduces the quality of the tires ride. One of the things that makes Tubs so great is how supple the sidewalls are incomparison to clinchers
you will never get that from a tubeless and have it stay on the rim. So the concept while good has some serious hurdles to overcome
oh,and I trailride on Tufo T-34 Tubs.Pack an extra with a roll of tape to get me home in a pinch, or just bring some sealant
I see people going to all the hassle of getting a tubeless to seal properly, adding sealant, buying proprietary rims and tires
like many others, I buy whole wheelsets used for around $200. I can glue a tire in no time, you do it in stages and the way I do it,I get 2-3 seasons before a reglue
I have never rolled a tire, in fact search the archives,I hit a hidden tree root so hard
it broke the rim in 2 places and my tire was still firmly on what was left

as for Jones' later quote, he should try some Dugasts with Michelin Treads


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> If so, what is this "cyclocross" that we are supposed to be discussing in the "Cyclocross" forum?
> 
> If someone refers to road biking or mountain biking, I have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about, the terrain and the equipment. What comes to your mind when someone says I am going cyclocross biking? Do people even say that?


"What comes to your mind when someone says I am going cyclocross biking? Do people even say that?" No, they just say "cyclocross" which is the point. Cyclocross is a road-style bike that can be (not necessarily is) used on other than roads.

If you want to start a post on just racing, I think it is up to you to define that post, not everybody else to say when they are not restricting it to racing.

TF


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> So which one of those is your "cyclocross" bike?
> 
> Your shrill rejection of the term "hybrid" speaks volumes. Its too bad that the term has come to induce this kind of mortified reaction. I still suggest that you embrace the term and agitate for innovations in that field. Actually, they already make hybrids with disc brakes. Contrary to you prejudices, it would appear that the hybrid world will be a welcome home to your progressive sensibilities.
> 
> ...


I don't have a cyclocross bike, she does, as I've said. She weighs 100 pounds, and a 25 pound bike is not suitable for her. She is on the most suitable type of bike for her. She has a congenital hip disorder, that does not allow her to stand up to pedal. That, combined with her light weight, makes the lightest bike possible a necessity for her to ride with me. You tell me where she can buy a 17 lb hybrid. 

It makes me terribly happy that she can get out and ride with me, and for you to say that she belongs on a hybrid (for whatever reason) is ignorant and insulting. It is not because of what hybrids represent, it is because you assume to know her situation, which you do not. I don't know who was talking about disc brakes in this discussion. She sure doesn't need them, because of her weight and because of their weight. That's not to say I would begrudge anyone else the use of them on their cyclocross bike. 



PeanutButterBreath said:


> But if they try to tell me that based on whatever that riding is they have concluded that disc brakes and tubeless clinchers are the way to go for cyclocross, that is where we have a problem.


That is where you are still failing to understand. The word cyclocross encompasses more things than just racing. When I said I would prefer tubeless clinchers, it was for *her* cyclocross bike (and I'm sure some others in here are merely recreational riders on cyclocross bikes). I *did not* say they would be great for cyclocross racing, as I have no experience with that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2008)

It would appear given PBB's views that any of us who owna Cx bike but do not race it are not worthy of consideration, and that we are not worthy of posting in this forum.

These are the rules as defined by PBB, who appears to have anointed himself the arbiter of all things CX.

I guess we need to ask the mods for a new forum, so that all of the rest of us can post in it.

We'll call it the "CX forum for people who don't race their CX bikes"

Honestly, this has become the one of the stupidest posts in some time.

We are not entitled to post in a thread unless we pass some arbitrary test laid down by a committee appointed by PBB.

Riiight.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

toomanybikes said:


> It would appear given PBB's views that any of us who owna Cx bike but do not race it are not worthy of consideration, and that we are not worthy of posting in this forum.
> 
> These are the rules as defined by PBB, who appears to have anointed himself the arbiter of all things CX.
> 
> ...


That's really the vibe I'm getting, though I'm not convinced he really means it that way. While I don't appreciate his comments, I don't know if he really means offense by them. I think that it is more of the "certain blindness" that William James talks about in his work. He really isn't seeing things from any other point of view than racing, which certainly doesn't encompass all of cyclocross.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

TurboTurtle said:


> "What comes to your mind when someone says I am going cyclocross biking? Do people even say that?" No, they just say "cyclocross" which is the point. Cyclocross is a road-style bike that can be (not necessarily is) used on other than roads.
> 
> If you want to start a post on just racing, I think it is up to you to define that post, not everybody else to say when they are not restricting it to racing.
> 
> TF


You hear people say "I am going to cyclocross"? :skep:

I hear people say that they are going to ride their cyclocross bike. Or do a century on their cyclocross bike. Or ride some trails on their cyclocross bike. None of this has any bearing on that "cylocross" is. They just prove that a cyclocross bike can handle many types of terrain.

Cyclocross is a style of racing that spawned a purpose-built type of bicycle. The concept of a cyclocross race came before the development of cyclocross bikes.

All I am saying is that racing is the root of cyclocross.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

toomanybikes said:


> It would appear given PBB's views that any of us who owna Cx bike but do not race it are not worthy of consideration, and that we are not worthy of posting in this forum.


Consideration for what? Is this group therapy? Are we here to make sure that you feel validated?

The definition of cyclocross is over 100 years old: http://www.reference.com/search?q=cyclocross. It is _racing_.

Posting that fact has no bearing on what other applications for cyclocross bikes are discussed here. I'd wager that I am as likely as any regular on this forum to answer questions posted by non-racers about their bikes that are never raced.


----------



## dead flag blues (Aug 26, 2004)

Hi PBB and ATP
not to hijack this thread, but need to know where i can score 2-3 cheap/used tubular wheelsets for this season. Need Campy-compatability. And yes, these will be destined SOLELY for racing use. 

Nothing on ebay or whatever. I hate to blow $450/wheelset for new..

As always, your advice is appreciated.

Tim


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Consideration for what? Is this group therapy? Are we here to make sure that you feel validated?
> 
> The definition of cyclocross is over 100 years old: http://www.reference.com/search?q=cyclocross. It is _racing_.
> 
> Posting that fact has no bearing on what other applications for cyclocross bikes are discussed here. I'd wager that I am as likely as any regular on this forum to answer questions posted by non-racers about their bikes that are never raced.


You are inutterably insufferable.

I was racing steel bikes in cyclocross events in 1975.

I know perfectly well what the sport is, and what the event is.

I also do not need you to decide what can , or cannot, or should not be posted in this forum.

I have cyclocross bikes, I ride them for pleasure - your responses to some of the others here are the height of hubris.

Get over yourself and let people enjoy their sport and their bikes.

If you take offence that they are not posting about RACING, don't read it.

simple.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> That is where you are still failing to understand. The word cyclocross encompasses more things than just racing. When I said I would prefer tubeless clinchers, it was for *her* cyclocross bike (and I'm sure some others in here are merely recreational riders on cyclocross bikes). I *did not* say they would be great for cyclocross racing, as I have no experience with that.


Cyclocross is racing. Whatever else someone wants to do with their cylocross bike is very cool, but it is not cyclocross any more than racing a crit on a touring bike is touring.

If you had said that you think that tubeless clinchers are better than tubed clinchers for your girlfriend's recreational riding I would have wholeheartedly agreed right off the bat. By saying that you would prefer tubeless over tubulars in general because of rolling resistance and ease of tire changes, you confused the issue. For cyclocross (i.e. racing) that is a questionable position for the reasons I noted.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

toomanybikes said:


> You are inutterably insufferable.
> 
> I was racing steel bikes in cyclocross events in 1975.
> 
> ...


Yet you continue to suffer me and utter about it.  You really seem to feel oppressed by me expressing an opinion that is confirmed by completely uncontroversial reference materials. I don't get it.

Try as you might to paint me as an bully who would heckle every non-racer off the board. I am not the slightest bit concerned that anybody who participates on this board regularly would agree. I'll be here answering questions from non-racers about good set-ups for trail riding or 80% pavement long after you have become bored of personalizing this issue and trying to whip it up into a witch hunt for elitist big meanies.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> By saying that you would prefer tubeless over tubulars in general because of rolling resistance and ease of tire changes, you confused the issue.


You might have been confused, but that doesn't mean that I confused the issue. You assumed I was talking about racing, and you were wrong. It's your fault you read more into my post than what I actually wrote, not mine. Get over it. :mad2: 

You can define the single word "cyclocross" as racing all you want (at least 5 times in this thread alone). That doesn't mean you are right. Repeating it incessantly doesn't make you correct. The word "cyclocross" by itself if ambiguous at best, because it is not qualified at all. It can be followed just as easily by "bike" as by "race." You talk about racing, I'll take about recreational riding, and no one needs to call the other "misguided." Again, there is room for us both to express our opinions, but there is no need for you to put mine down.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SleeveleSS said:


> You can define the single word "cyclocross" as racing all you want (at least 5 times in this thread alone). That doesn't mean you are right. Repeating it incessantly doesn't make you correct. The word "cyclocross" by itself if ambiguous at best, because it is not qualified at all. It can be followed just as easily by "bike" as by "race." You talk about racing, I'll take about recreational riding, and no one needs to call the other "misguided." Again, there is room for us both to express our opinions, but there is no need for you to put mine down.


Once again: http://www.reference.com/search?q=cyclocross It only becomes ambiguous when you refuse to recognize the obvious.

Don't get me wrong. Please continue to post about recreational riding on cyclocross bikes. I like recreational riding on cyclocross bikes. Not defining it as cyclocross is not an indication that I look down on such uses of cyclocross bikes.


----------



## Unoveloce (Apr 13, 2005)

*I love this thread!*

The first half is an argument over what exactly cyclocross "is" and then it disappears like an ugly issue that will just go away if we don't talk about it. The thread then becomes sane and reasonable and doesn't develop into a flame war. I didn't think that was allowed to happen on the internet. Wow! By the way, for racing, tubulars all the way. For everything else, clinchers. I also think that when making any blanket statement, you should clarify how you are going to use the bike. A cross bike all too ably covers such a wide spectrum of use. Can you imagine if I posted that 23c road tires were far and away better than any cross tire for a cross bike, but didn't say that I did crits, not cross races on the bike?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Now that y'alls have kissed and made up, I'll weigh in:

Daniel Gousseau _rode_ cyclocross before he _raced_ cyclocross.

Contemporary cyclocross racing, incidentally, is significantly different from the original cyclocross races. Therefore, one can't really speak about "pure" cyclocross racing.

The characteristics that make cyclocross racing what it is, are the same that make cyclocross riding what it is. By contrast, one can't "ride" Madison, or "ride" a time trial, or "ride" pursuit. But one can certainly road ride, ride cross-country, ride cyclocross, etc.

PBB is just being his charming self, yet again.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

pretender said:


> Therefore, one can't really speak about "pure" cyclocross racing.


Search this thread for references to "pure" cyclocross. I didn't notice any until you propped up your strawman.

"Ride cyclocross"? What exactly is that, as opposed to riding road, or riding cross country?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> "Ride cyclocross"? What exactly is that, as opposed to riding road, or riding cross country?


"Race cyclocross"? What exactly is that, as opposed to racing road, or racing cross country?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

pretender said:


> "Race cyclocross"? What exactly is that, as opposed to racing road, or racing cross country?


Cyclocross is a clearly defined format, easily distinguished from road racing or cross country racing. If you want to learn more, _look up "cyclocross" in the dictionary._

Admit it -- you are really just mad about the mean things I say about bar-top levers.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I'll keep my eyes open*



dead flag blues said:


> Hi PBB and ATP
> not to hijack this thread, but need to know where i can score 2-3 cheap/used tubular wheelsets for this season. Need Campy-compatability. And yes, these will be destined SOLELY for racing use.
> 
> Nothing on ebay or whatever. I hate to blow $450/wheelset for new..
> ...


just do searches under "Tubular"

in this months Mountain Bike they Review Reynolds Rims with Tufo Tubs for MTB
you should read how they just glow over the superior feel of Tubulars

"every corner felt like it had a berm"


----------



## jmkimmel (Jul 13, 2007)

francois said:


> When talking about tubeless for cyclocross, there's two avenues:
> Anybody have ANY experience? What's your setup and how's it working out?
> 
> fc


All purism/retrogrouchism/euroism aside...I just stuck a mini v on the front end of my cross race bike, so I'm automatically not 'core 

My experience with cross tires:

I built up some Stan's ZTR rims to ultegra hubs for cross training/racing, and really like them. I've tried Maxxis Raze's, Mich. Muds, and Ritchey Speedmax's, and just as with any setup, the tire makes a huge difference on the cornering, ride, and rolling characteristics of the bike. I rode all of last cross season on the Raze's set up tubeless - the super thin, supple sidewall gives a fantastic ride, and they corner decently given the low tread pattern.
As with a good tubular, supple sidewalls mean you have to bump the pressure up a bit to be able to really rail corners, else they fold and wander around. I ran the tires as low as 22 psi (front) and 24psi (rear) with only one problem....and it just happened to be during a particularly important race. I hit an off-camber root hard enough to unseat the maxxis tire and burp...and lost 3ish minutes during that lap as I attempted to ride on a flat clincher. Flat clinchers on stan's rim's ride OK on grass and soft stuff, but are terrifying and dangerous on pavement. I was able to get a bike swap and stay in contention, but lost some places.

So...I then built up some tubs (reflex/ultegra) and mounted grifos. My honest opinion, having spent decent time on both, is that 'ride quality' is based on psi and sidewall suppleness, which you can get in either tubeless, tubular, or plain 'ol clinchers. A supple tubeless setup like the raze feels so similar to the grifo's that I can't tell any difference apart from tread pattern and grip...but I know that I could have ridden that grifo in to the pits much faster than my tubeless setup.

Bottom line:

When not failing (flatting, tearing sidewalls, rolling off the rim, etc), any of the tire setup options could 'feel' similar enough that 99.999% of riders couldn't tell the difference. I'd 'challenge' anyone to try an open grifo (tubeless or tubed) and a tubular grifo back to back at the same pressure and tell any difference.

For training, trail riding, and the like, tubeless is the bee's knees. Fixable on the fly via a tube, cheap, easy to change tires for conditions. If you tear a sidewall, you can boot it at home.

For racing, tubular is the way to go, but only for the ability to ride to the pit at near full tilt. Well, unless you have the scratch for deep carbon rims - you can save a bunch of weight with tubulars.

Can't wait till cross season!


----------



## slideeslide (Feb 1, 2007)

pretender said:


> "Race cyclocross"? What exactly is that, as opposed to racing road, or racing cross country?


Quite easy, road riding was invented for the sake of road racing, neither was cross country. Funny thing is, cyclocross was invented for.............racing.

I find it funny that the pot stirrer here SleeveleSS doesn't own a cross bike, his girlfriend does and that somehow brought him into discussing the merits of tubeless cross wheels for cyclocross. This wasn't posted in the wheels and tires forum.


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

jmkimmel said:


> All purism/retrogrouchism/euroism aside...I just stuck a mini v on the front end of my cross race bike, so I'm automatically not 'core
> 
> My experience with cross tires:
> 
> ...


Now would that be the 

cyclocross racing season = Sept- Jan

or the 

cyclocross bicycle season = Jan to Dec?



Also...

when using the term 'cross- what are the rules on nomenclature & definitions?


or 
we can go to BSNYC or C-Todd for the definitive answer. 



Yeah- I am an :arf: 

I think jmkimmel is correct- Can't wait for the cross season to start. This is just a good example of going a bit stir crazy in the off season.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

jmkimmel said:


> All purism/retrogrouchism/euroism aside...I just stuck a mini v on the front end of my cross race bike, so I'm automatically not 'core
> 
> My experience with cross tires:
> 
> ...


Kimmel. You are a scholar and a rider. You're so fast I didn't know you were so nerdy too.

I'll send you an email. I want you to do some work for me now.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

PaleAleYum said:


> Now would that be the
> 
> cyclocross racing season = Sept- Jan
> 
> ...


This was on my mind today. What are we doing now on our cross bikes?? I call it riding.

I also came up with a good way to describe my cross bike with these new tubeless tires:
"On the trail, the bike used to ride like a road bike. Now, it rides more like a 29er.

Photos: from the ride today at Stevens Canyon, Northern CA.
fc


----------



## cliff (Sep 23, 2004)

All the arguing aside, I have raced tubeless stan's rims and various tires for a couple of seasons without incident. I like the relatively easy setup and inexpensive tires with great tread options and tough sidewalls. Sealant does seal up a flat since I'm only running 25 psi anyway. I tried road tubeless and the high pressure made it less successful, though it still sealed. 

Regarding tubulars, true you can get to the pit, which is great. Pulling the expensive tire off the rim after the flat is a pain if it's glued on properly-I've had the base tabe pull off of the tire first. Then cutting open the tire and restitching it....remember putting the needle through the tube on the last stitch? Well, I have better things to do nowadays. They sure ride great, though the sidewall is a bit fragile unless you're just racing on grass and dirt/mud. BTW, I tried tufo tubeless tubulars-yuck. No nice ride and cut the sidewall and the tire was wasted with a lot of tread left too!


----------



## J-K (Nov 5, 2006)

To all those who have flatted tubeless setups due to burps: Next time tape a CO2 cartridge pump to your seat post. It is very likely you can just ride on, after using it, no pits detour needed!


----------



## HuckMeat (May 8, 2008)

PBB is right, cyclocross is a type of racing, with equipment that has adapted for it. That does not mean you have to race, but the distinction is there. Re-read the comment about track/velodrome versus single speed.

If you are looking for a do it all bike, you might be looking at a touring bike. Or a hybrid bike. Or a cyclocross bike. But when you say the term cyclocross means racing.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

The word cyclocross comes from the greek word 'kuklos' which means wheel and cross defines the application where ....

Who gives a rats ass??

I think what is more important is who the people are who buy cross bikes today and what they use it for. Furthermore, who are the people on this forum and what do they do and what information are they looking for.

Saying one application is impure or not relevant may not be in our best interest.

We should probably do a poll for this forum to better understand what kind of cyclocross riding they do.

fc


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*Poll*



francois said:


> I think what is more important is who the people are who buy cross bikes today and what they use it for. Furthermore, who are the people on this forum and what do they do and what information are they looking for.
> 
> Saying one application is impure or not relevant may not be in our best interest.
> 
> ...


Before we do that, can we examine a single case of anyone claiming that a certain application is either "impure" or "not relevant". There are a few people reacting as though that kind of attitude is rampant, but I suspect they are just projecting their own insecurities.

I'm not sure our best interests are any better served by kowtowing to the defensive rants of one person who neither races nor even owns a CX bike, or by humoring the obstinate contrarianism of a couple axe-grinders.

99% of the people on this forum make it perfectly clear what they do with their bikes and 99% of the time there is no problem exchanging information in the appropriate context.

If people want to appropriate the term "cyclocross" for anything ever done on or near a cyclocross bike, its a free country. But to refuse to accept that this puts further onus on everybody to make it clear what they are talking about when they refer to the now undefinable "cyclocross" is ludicrous.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> You hear people say "I am going to cyclocross"? :skep:
> 
> I hear people say that they are going to ride their cyclocross bike. Or do a century on their cyclocross bike. Or ride some trails on their cyclocross bike. None of this has any bearing on that "cylocross" is. They just prove that a cyclocross bike can handle many types of terrain.
> 
> ...


Your reasoning makes no sense. I can say the same things about 'road' or 'mountain'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You hear people say, "I'm going to road."? or "I'm going to mountain."?

I hear people say that they are going to ride their mountain bike. Or do a century on their mountain bike. Or ride some trails on their mountain bike. None of this has any bearing on that "MTB" is. They just prove that a mountain bike can handle many types of terrain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyclocross racing came from using road style bikes in the off season to train. Racing never comes first. People race what they have.

TF


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

TurboTurtle said:


> I hear people say that they are going to ride their mountain bike. Or do a century on their mountain bike. Or ride some trails on their mountain bike. None of this has any bearing on that "MTB" is. They just prove that a mountain bike can handle many types of terrain.


Riding a century (as far as "century" is typically defined), is not mountain biking. Riding trails on a mountain bike _is_ mountain biking and is the use around which the mountain bike evolved: http://www.reference.com/search?q=mountain bike

Riding a century on a cyclocross bike is not cyclocross. It is road riding. Riding trails on a cyclocross bike is not cyclocross. It is trail riding. Riding a cyclocross race on a mountain bike is not mountain biking. Its is cyclocross.


----------



## Kuna (Oct 14, 2002)

*Tires*

Back to the original thread, hate tubbies for the high maintenance, expensive cost, love the way they ride. Like clinchers for low maintenance, low cost, and they don't ride too bad. I am about to try the tube less setup with the Hutchinson tires, and Dura Ace wheel set, only drawback that I see on paper is the tire size for racing. But I am getting tired of tubular’s.

For most of us racers the performance difference between tubular and clincher isn't going to win the race, unless you are racing at the elite level (which probably is only a few on this forum). Even then, look at the Luna squad they are sponsored by Maxxis and they don't have a tubular cross tire, so they race clinchers and are consistently in the top 5. 

But if the average Joe race car driver could piece together an F-1 race car, think of how many would do so, even if it didn't improve them much - it still would be fast and cool to use. I would buy one.


----------



## dc.cyclocross (Oct 5, 2007)

*CX is racing*



HuckMeat said:


> PBB is right, cyclocross is a type of racing, with equipment that has adapted for it. That does not mean you have to race, but the distinction is there. Re-read the comment about track/velodrome versus single speed.
> 
> If you are looking for a do it all bike, you might be looking at a touring bike. Or a hybrid bike. Or a cyclocross bike. But when you say the term cyclocross means racing.


I agree, CX is a type of racing...

- I use a traditional CX bike for commuting, riding semi-technical trails, getting around town...and racing- but if someone says they do CX, it means (or should mean) they race. 

nobody is stopping anyone from talking about CX bikes or all the ways you can use them.
calling other stuff you do "biking", "off road biking", "trail riding", etc doesn't diminish it, it just avoids diluting the meaning of "CX"

A comment by CX guru Adam H-M implicitly highlights the distinction: "This is also a good day to go for a longer, fun ride in the woods on your 'cross bike. "Mountain biking" on your 'cross bike is one of the best ways to develop good 'cross instincts in an unstructured way." http://www.cycle-smart.com/Articles/find.php?search=19


----------



## Gripped (Nov 27, 2002)

I think of cyclocross like I do track. You race cyclocross and you race track. You don't go out for a track ride. Sure, you can ride your fixie -- which might be a repurposed track bike -- but you don't do a track ride.

Similarly, you don't do cyclocross rides. You might go for a trail ride or a road ride or a mixed surface ride on your cross bike.

Cyclocross is a racing discipline with specific rules and equipment demands. Cross bikes can be pretty versatile. I'd call them a jack of some trades, master of none (except cross racing). They are a bundle of tradeoffs (except for cross racing).

I'd probably pick a lean fully rigid mtb (maybe 29er) for most of the applications people seem to be flocking to cross bikes for.


----------



## justinb (Nov 20, 2006)

Gripped said:


> ...
> 
> Similarly, you don't do cyclocross rides. You might go for a trail ride or a road ride or a mixed surface ride on your cross bike.
> 
> ...



I did do a sweet dismount-remount over the horse gate on a local trail the other day. Maybe that makes it a CX ride?


----------



## Lord Taipan (Aug 10, 2006)

Gripped said:


> I think of cyclocross like I do track. You race cyclocross and you race track. You don't go out for a track ride. Sure, you can ride your fixie -- which might be a repurposed track bike -- but you don't do a track ride.
> 
> Similarly, you don't do cyclocross rides. You might go for a trail ride or a road ride or a mixed surface ride on your cross bike.
> 
> ...


While I agree that the term cyclocross speficially refers to racing, I regularly use the term Cross-ride to describe what you call a mixed surface ride. Most cyclists I know seem to understand what I mean and understand why I state it that way differentiating it from a road ride or a mountain bike ride..


----------



## rensho (Aug 5, 2003)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Cyclocross is racing.


Wow. Lot's of us are going to have to step it up, or sell our bikes.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

rensho said:


> Wow. Lot's of us are going to have to step it up, or sell our bikes.


There are about 30 posts around here explaining in patient detail why that won't be necessary. After 86 responses, the poll thread suggests that "lot's" is an overstatement anyway.


----------



## rensho (Aug 5, 2003)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> There are about 30 posts around here explaining in patient detail why that won't be necessary. After 86 responses, the poll thread suggests that "lot's" is an overstatement anyway.


Sorry, I'm just poking fun. 

Tubeless is really nice though, you should give it more a shot, even just training. I've been riding stans on Ksyrium ES for 9 months, and really like the setup. No issues at all, and not a single burp. I ride around 32-36 psi. 155lbs. I've run several WTB, Muds, Speedmax, and Mimo. For my terrain, I do find I need the larger volume tires like a good 35c or the Muds. Those Bulldogs are huge, and are a good 2mm larger than Muds.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I trained on Vittoria 34s with Stans last year. Never had a problem. I did not have the confidence in my set-up to really push them though (non-endorsed folding tire, rim strip made from a 24" tube).

I took everything apart and tried it with some steel bead Ritcheys. They rear spontaneously crapped out riding on pavement in pretty short order, and I have not bothered to try again.

I would try it again on a more reliable set-up, but at this point I have a critical mass of tubular stuff and no real complaints (knock on wood).


----------



## roseyscot (Jan 30, 2005)

can we create a forum for discussing cyclocross racing and its associated topics? or, can those who want to discuss cyclocross racing and gear just find another forum where a cyclocross racing forum already exists?


----------



## rensho (Aug 5, 2003)

PBB, from my experience and search, those are the 2 worse tires to try and do stans with. Just my 2c. Hutchinson, Maxxis, Michelin, in order of easiest to easier, is my call on Stans setups.
Some tires have vertical rubber ribbing on the bead, along the circumference. These really can't work with Stans, as the sealant can't ever glue the two faces of the bead and rim bead together. Sealant would forever leak past the vertical ribbing/channels.

I'm in a different boat. Grew up with tubulars, and hated fixing them. I hated glueing them, and I hated rolling tires on the street, while cornering. I ride the bikes on rides and rarely race.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

rensho said:


> Hutchinson, Maxxis, Michelin, in order of easiest to easier, is my call on Stans setups.


Good to know. The Vittorias were solid, but that could have been a fluke.

I have a set of Panaracer/IRD Crossfires, that I am curious about. I never really connected the dots between pattern in the beads and whether they would hold a seal. I'll check that first.


----------



## Lord Taipan (Aug 10, 2006)

roseyscot said:


> can we create a forum for discussing cyclocross racing and its associated topics? or, can those who want to discuss cyclocross racing and gear just find another forum where a cyclocross racing forum already exists?


No need to create it, you're posting in it.


----------

