# Thinking of converting to tubeless, is it a good idea?



## the_don (Mar 23, 2008)

I am as the title says, thinking doing this. 

I ride Spinergy Rev X which don't have spoke holes, so no need for a liner. 

Seems like they'd be a perfect match for a tubeless conversion with Stan's no tubes kit. 

I hear the benefits are better feel, less rolling resistance and automatic puncture repair. 

Sounds like a no brainer, so why doesn't everyone do it???


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

it should work fine. why doesn't everyone do it? really? why doesn't everyone ride SRAM Red, or Campy Super Record, or Zipp wheels, or a carbon/steel/ti/aluminum/paper mache frame? it may be a great way to go (i ride tubeless myself and love it), but it's not the perfect solution for everyone. you seem to understand the benefits, i'm betting you'll love it.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

There are already a bazillion threads about them!

The only advantage is better sealing if you put goop in them. Otherwise, they are slower, heavier, and more expensive than good tires with latex tubes.


----------



## CyclingVirtual (Apr 10, 2008)

Get proper tubs if you want to go that way


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

rruff said:


> There are already a bazillion threads about them!
> 
> The only advantage is better sealing if you put goop in them. Otherwise, they are slower, heavier, and more expensive than good tires with latex tubes.


Haven't slowed me down. :thumbsup:


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

the_don said:


> Sounds like a no brainer, so why doesn't everyone do it???


In the last two years Ive flatted once, from a faulty tire blowing out. Not worth the bother to me! 

It makes tons of sense on mountain bikes being ridden in goat head infested trails.. can be the difference between constant flats and just enjoying the ride. I have no motivation to convert my road bike though.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

TomH said:


> In the last two years Ive flatted once, from a faulty tire blowing out. Not worth the bother to me!
> 
> It makes tons of sense on mountain bikes being ridden in goat head infested trails.. can be the difference between constant flats and just enjoying the ride. I have no motivation to convert my road bike though.


Agreed completely.
I see absolutely no benefit for road use.
Going on 3 years without a flat while all the time flirting with the danger that tubes inherently have.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

It sounds like you don't have anything to lose except the price of the kit and tires so what to heck, find out for youself.

From what I understand tire selection is quit limited. I suppose that doesn't matter if you like what's available but it will cut down your choices.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

cxwrench said:


> it should work fine. why doesn't everyone do it? really? why doesn't everyone ride SRAM Red, or Campy Super Record, or Zipp wheels, or a carbon/steel/ti/aluminum/paper mache frame? it may be a great way to go (i ride tubeless myself and love it), but it's not the perfect solution for everyone. you seem to understand the benefits, i'm betting you'll love it.


So CXwrench, I can't remember if I've asked you this, but do your teams/riders run tubeless?


----------



## Purt (Dec 23, 2010)

rruff said:


> Otherwise, they are slower, heavier, and more expensive than good tires with latex tubes.


Heavier?

I've converted, I don't ride with a pump, co2, tube or levers anymore. I doubt it is heavier.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Purt said:


> Heavier?
> 
> I've converted, I don't ride with a pump, co2, tube or levers anymore. I doubt it is heavier.


Huh??
Just because you are tubeless does not mean you cannot flat.
And you can flat in such a way that you will not just reinflate the tubeless tyre.
What are you going to do then if you dont have a tube?


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

If you live in a place where goatheads are a big problem, then tubeless will do wonders to help prevent flats.


----------



## the_don (Mar 23, 2008)

I didn't realize that goats were such a big problem there, are hunters leaving their heads on trails and roads? Weird, because the eyes and the brains are the best tasting parts!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Purt said:


> Heavier?
> 
> I've converted, I don't ride with a pump, co2, tube or levers anymore. I doubt it is heavier.


I agree with you completely. I converted when they first came out for road bikes and have more than 15,000 on them. 

I will admit that I had a needless failure when I forgot to renew the stan's on a set of wheels that had not been used very much over the previous 14 months. A large industrial staple made a pretty good hole in the tire and there was not enough liquid to completely seal the hole before it was used up. I ended up borrowing a tube and air.

Other than that, I've had several punctures that I simply rode through. I typically lose about 20 lbs of air before they seal but I always get back to my car, home, or camp without problem. I guess if I were riding alone in the wilderness, I would carry a tube and air in the unlikely event of a large tear (hasn't happened in 25 years of serious riding).


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

They are not slower, they are only marginally heavier, and the ride quality is much, much better than any other (tubed) clincher I have ridden. Give them a shot!

I can't imagine anyone saying they are slower, unless said person has never given them a shot.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Oh christ... look up the data... slower means higher rolling resistance, and that is what they deliver. It isn't necessarily inherent, but you can find plenty of clinchers that are faster.


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

What data? From more than one source?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

orange_julius said:


> So CXwrench, I can't remember if I've asked you this, but do your teams/riders run tubeless?


nope, they're fully sponsored by sram/zipp, so they're on 101s w/ zipp clinchers for training, and 303/404/808 tubulars for racing.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

the_don said:


> I didn't realize that goats were such a big problem there, are hunters leaving their heads on trails and roads? Weird, because the eyes and the brains are the best tasting parts!



Haha. I would find real goats on the road much less annoying that little ones you cant see!


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

Road Tubeless is simply a superior technological improvement over the tubed clincher. The folks who pooh-pooh them, or whine about insignificant weight or rolling resistance, haven't used Road Tubeless; they're also the same Luddites who argued against indexed shifting, aerobars, and clipless pedals.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Let me see... rolling resistance, weight, and cost are higher. 

What was the advantage again?


----------



## terrain (Apr 19, 2009)

the_don said:


> I am as the title says, thinking doing this.
> 
> I ride Spinergy Rev X which don't have spoke holes, so no need for a liner.
> 
> ...


My di2 Roubaix came with DuraAce tubeless and after several hundred miles in two weeks of riding I can say they feel very good. They are the closest road feel to tubulars that I have ridden. I have no worries about flatting....if the stans does not cover it my spare tubes and c02 will covee it. The only down side for me is the limited tire selection.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

natedg200202 said:


> What data? From more than one source?


BikeTechReview and Tour Magazine do tests regularly.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

rruff said:


> Let me see... rolling resistance, weight, and cost are higher.
> 
> What was the advantage again?


Let's see, show us a clincher with tube that weighs less than 190 grams (the Hutch Atom). Throw in a spare tube, tire irons, and co2 plus the duffel bag sized seat kit to carry all of that crap and you've got a logging truck.

Also, show us a decent lightweight clincher with tube for under $49 (the cost of the Atom)

Finally, show us any comprehensive resistance study that shows tubeless tires to have more rolling resistance that tubed clinchers.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let's see, show us a clincher with tube that weighs less than 190 grams (the Hutch Atom). Throw in a spare tube, tire irons, and co2 plus the duffel bag sized seat kit to carry all of that crap and you've got a logging truck.
> 
> Also, show us a decent lightweight clincher with tube for under $49 (the cost of the Atom)
> 
> Finally, show us any comprehensive resistance study that shows tubeless tires to have more rolling resistance that tubed clinchers.


What is it with all the deluded people that think they dont have to carry a repair kit because they are on tubeless?
I hope I come across one of you with a flat one day.


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

I converted my Ascent2's about 3 years ago. The only time I flated was because they were worn to the cord. My bad.

A Wilier dealer in Plano told me that Stan's voids the warrenty some wheel mfr's. I just ordered Campy Shamal 2way wheels, Hutchinson fusion 3's, and Protect Air Max sealant.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

FTR said:


> What is it with all the deluded people that think they dont have to carry a repair kit because they are on tubeless?
> .


over 15,000 miles of experience with tubeless! I'll admit that I live dangerously. I don't carry a first aid kit, a fire extinguisher, or a condom when riding my road bike with tubeless tires. While I've never been sorry about not carrying useless crap to fix extremely unlikely flats, I have had a couple of occasions when I had wished I had a first aid kit.

Incidentally, I've had several punctures.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> over 15,000 miles of experience with tubeless! I'll admit that I live dangerously. I don't carry a first aid kit, a fire extinguisher, or a condom when riding my road bike with tubeless tires. While I've never been sorry about not carrying useless crap to fix extremely unlikely flats, I have had a couple of occasions when I had wished I had a first aid kit.
> 
> Incidentally, I've had several punctures.


Well that is like me saying that I have not had a flat in 3 years (which is true) so I wont carry that stuff with me.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

FTR said:


> Well that is like me saying that I have not had a flat in 3 years (which is true) so I wont carry that stuff with me.


The difference is that when I get a puncture, I don't get a flat. I likely got an average of 700 miles on clinchers with tubes between flats. That's a bit different than 15,000 miles.

I will admit that I allowed the stans to dry up once on set of wheels that I don't use too often (I only use 1 ounce in each tire). It was embarrassing since it was on Zipp 303's and required a super long stem. I was able to borrow one to get through the ride.


----------



## enellch (Jun 15, 2011)

Interesting tread, and kind of impossible to follow..Can anyone objective fill me in on the following (I know I can search but was hoping for a 2-3 point summary)

- Benefits and potential considerations before going tubeless?
- Benefits and potential considerations using clinchers w/ tubes and tire?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Let's see, show us a clincher with tube that weighs less than 190 grams (the Hutch Atom).


Uh... they are advertised at 270g and are likely more. For racing I use Conti SS 20mm front (135g) and 23mm rear (155g) with 65g latex tubes. 



> Throw in a spare tube, tire irons, and co2 plus the duffel bag sized seat kit to carry all of that crap and you've got a logging truck.


You need the same repair kit, tubeless or not. 



> Also, show us a decent lightweight clincher with tube for under $49 (the cost of the Atom).


You must have gotten a good deal! But still, I buy Conti GP4000 and SS tires for <$35 on sale. 



> Finally, show us any comprehensive resistance study that shows tubeless tires to have more rolling resistance that tubed clinchers.


Have you checked BikeTechReview yet? Al has listings up plus plenty of discussion in the forums. There are also tests by Tour, but I don't know if they are online. 

The tubeless tires could be fast if they used a low resistance casing and a latex layer... but they don't.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> I will admit that I allowed the stans to dry up once on set of wheels that I don't use too often (I only use 1 ounce in each tire).


Well, that will probably save you... but add an extra 30g so you have 300g per tire.

And around here the sealant needs replacing every 2 months. I'd much rather deal with a flat every 6 months (I haven't had one yet this year... ~5k miles), than deal with sealant every 2 (twice).


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

enellch said:


> Interesting tread, and kind of impossible to follow..Can anyone objective fill me in on the following (I know I can search but was hoping for a 2-3 point summary)
> 
> - Benefits and potential considerations before going tubeless?
> - Benefits and potential considerations using clinchers w/ tubes and tire?
> ...


Benefits: 

If you flat a lot from punctures, you wont anymore. 

Thats all. If you're not flatting all the time, theres not a hugely compelling reason to dive in.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

TomH said:


> Benefits:
> 
> If you flat a lot from punctures, you wont anymore.
> 
> Thats all. If you're not flatting all the time, theres not a hugely compelling reason to dive in.


Plus, ability to run at lower pressure and getting a very nice comfy feel on a stiff wheelset, which according to some is true even against the most supple clinchers with latex tubes.

enellch, if you want a complete answer you'll have to search through and read the comments yourself unfortunately.


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

rruff said:


> BikeTechReview and Tour Magazine do tests regularly.


I thought the Tour Magazine test showed the Conti GP4000s (clincher) and Hutchinson Fusion 2 (tubeless) having nearly the same rolling resistance.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

BTR article:

http://www.biketechreview.com/tires_old/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev9.pdf


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

http://www.conti-online.com/generat...al/downloads/download/tourtest_gp4000s_en.pdf


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

orange_julius said:


> Plus, ability to run at lower pressure and getting a very nice comfy feel on a stiff wheelset, which according to some is true even against the most supple clinchers with latex tubes.
> 
> enellch, if you want a complete answer you'll have to search through and read the comments yourself unfortunately.


Ive ran my tubes as low as possible.. any lower they'd hit the rim (I dont pinch flat either). Tubeless doesnt stop the rim from hitting. I think people tend to get a little carried away with the low pressure thing.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

rruff said:


> Uh... they are advertised at 270g and are likely more. For racing I use Conti SS 20mm front (135g) and 23mm rear (155g) with 65g latex tubes.


You are a rare exception. I don't know anyone that races on clinchers that lightweight. So congrats to you, but you are NOT a typical clincher rider.

In general, a standard good quality clincher is about 200grams. Another 70 grams for a tube puts you at around 270grams. Tubeless tires are around this weight. You may add a slight bit of weight for the heavier valve stem, but that's not a huge amount. So I don't really think weight is a major consideration.

If there were one negative to tubeless tires, it would be on mounting and inflating them for the first time. It is certainly more work than a standard clincher wheel.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

orange_julius said:


> Plus, ability to run at lower pressure and getting a very nice comfy feel on a stiff wheelset, which according to some is true even against the most supple clinchers with latex tubes.


I worry more about denting the rims than pinching latex tubes.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

nightfend said:


> If there were one negative to tubeless tires, it would be on mounting and inflating them for the first time. It is certainly more work than a standard clincher wheel.


I'm not sure if this is common, but some people have a lot of trouble getting a tubeless tire to seat with a floor pump.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

rruff said:


> Well, that will probably save you... but add an extra 30g so you have 300g per tire.
> 
> And around here the sealant needs replacing every 2 months. I'd much rather deal with a flat every 6 months (I haven't had one yet this year... ~5k miles), than deal with sealant every 2 (twice).


Actually, 190 grams (hutchinson atoms) plus 30 grams equals 220 grams (if you want light).

I've never heard of Stan's drying up in 2 months. What is so special about where you ride? 

If you're riding 5K in six months it occurs to me that you change your tires every 3 months anyway unless you live where it is dead flat?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Do you have a scale? The tubeless Atoms are 270g. 

It's dry?

It's about as far from dead flat as it could get, and the Conti GP4000S on the rear lasts over 3k miles. Front tires last forever.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

rruff said:


> Do you have a scale? The tubeless Atoms are 270g.
> 
> It's dry?
> 
> It's about as far from dead flat as it could get, and the Conti GP4000S on the rear lasts over 3k miles. Front tires last forever.


My bad, I actually weighed an Atom at 272g

So in the end, with stan's I'll have 300 grams into each or 600 grams for the pair. You will have 242 grams into your tire, 102 grams into your tube. That's 344 compared to 300 (15% heavier). When we add the two we get 688 grams plus the spare tube, tire irons, and co2 inflater (an additional 200 grams) or a total of 888 grams as compared to 600 grams for tubeless. 

Now I would agree that if I had tires that "last forever" and never flat and if I weighed 120 lbs so I could get 3000 miles of climbing/descending out of 4000's I would forgo all of the repair stuff and end up only weighing 88 grams more than the guys riding tubeless.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

Don't exagerate numbers to try and win your case, it just makes you look bad.

To be fair, Continental 4000's don't weight 242 grams and people rarely use tubes that are as heavy as 102 grams. A closer approximation is 215grams, butyl tube (like Continental Race light), 70 grams.

Also, you need to add in the weight of a tubeless valve into the equation. So with sealant and the valve stem, you are looking at closer to 70 grams.


----------



## SworksSL3 (Jun 22, 2011)

great for mountain biking, I am not yet convinced for road...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> You will have 242 grams into your tire, 102 grams into your tube. That's 344 compared to 300 (15% heavier).


My tires are 180g front (Veloflex Corsa 20mm) and 205g rear (Conti GP4000S 23mm) and the tubes are 65g (Challenge latex). So 258g on average. You should add the valves also (8g), so you are 50g heavier per tire. And I have the option of using even faster tires for racing (which are also lighter) while you do not.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

Look rruff, you're clearly a tubeless hater, even though you've never used them. Please just go away and stop being an annoying troll. You troll like this in every tubeless thread. It's gotten old now.


----------



## NextTime (Oct 13, 2007)

rruff said:


> I'm not sure if this is common, but some people have a lot of trouble getting a tubeless tire to seat with a floor pump.


I'm one of those. I couldn't get the rear tire to seat. Took it to my LBS and they couldn't get it to seat with a compressor. I returned the wheels and got my money back.

I think I'm in the minority on this though. It seems like most people have had better luck than me. 

Someday I hope to figure out why everything seems so hard for me.:idea:


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Hello,
I have three sets of tubeless tires; two on Shamal Two-way Fits and the other set is on a Mavic Ksyrium ES wheelset. I am running Hutchinson Atoms, Fusions, and Specialized (rebranded Hutchinsons I believe). I put as much Stan's in them as I can when I first set them up and check them every month or so. I keep the tires inflated to 105 lbs and check them weekly to ensure they do not go flat enough to burp air. 
About me. I have been riding since age 5 or 6 and I am now 51 years old. I put together and maintain all of my bikes and I consider myself a fairly competent mechanic. I currently own 21 bicycles ranging from a 1982 Gios to a 2011 Ridley Damocles. I run predominately Campagnolo Super Record, Record, Chorus, SRAM Red, Shimano Dura Ace and Ultegra. I have just about every type of wheel from multi-spoke Mavic Open Pros, to Topolino, to Spinergy Full Carbon Clinchers, to Neuvations, to HED 3 Spoke, to Easton Circuit, etc. I love to try new technology, but unfortunately for me most of it ends up sitting unused in my garage on a shelf; however, I am happy to say tubeless road tires have been the single most noticeable improvement I have made to a bicycle since I installed index shifters in 1989. They simply make any bike I put them on ride better. Period. That said there is no such thing as a free dog. Tubeless are messier and more difficult to set up than standard clinchers with tubes and they do require periodic maintenance with regard to ensuring the sealant is still in liquid form and maintaining tire pressure so the tires don't pop off the bead and burp air and Stans. 
My experience to date: I cut a tire on my first ride with the tubeless tires and the cut was so bad the sealant could not repair the tire. I did have a spare tube, but was unable to remove the stem by hand to fit the tube (I put the stem lock nut on too tight) so I walked. 8( I patched the tire and I have not had a flat on any of my tubeless wheelsets since (knock on wood). I currently have about 1,500 miles on tubeless (too many bikes keep the tubeless bikes constantly in the rotation) and I am very pleased. I plan on converting my commuter to tubeless so I can really put on the miles and put them to the test. Bottom Line: The improved ride is worth the additional maintenance for me. 
Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

repost


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

pmt said:


> Look rruff, you're clearly a tubeless hater, even though you've never used them.


Does building, mounting tires and sealant, and riding them count?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

rruff said:


> My tires are 180g front (Veloflex Corsa 20mm) and 205g rear (Conti GP4000S 23mm) and the tubes are 65g (Challenge latex). So 258g on average. You should add the valves also (8g), so you are 50g heavier per tire. And I have the option of using even faster tires for racing (which are also lighter) while you do not.


Where are you picking up those Veloflex Corsa 20mm and Conti GP4000S 23mm and the Challenge latex tubes for under 49$ per wheel (the cost of Atoms)?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

ProBikeKit. Both were on sale for ~$32 shipped (at different times).


----------



## cch (Nov 22, 2008)

I recently went back to clinchers after riding tubeless for a couple of years. I did so based on the Tour Magazin tests which showed the Conti GP4000s to roll and grip better. I was surprised at how poorly the tubeless tires did in that test, since theoretically they should have lower rolling resistance with no friction between tube and tire. Fulcrum alleges that tubeless roll better, but, of course, they are trying to sell you an expensive wheel, and their test data is not public.

Anyway, if 1.5 watts per tire does not matter to you, I think tubeless is a better option on the road. I pinch flatted my clinchers on my 3rd ride. I weigh 175lbs. I ran my tubeless at 90psi, and have to run clinchers at 105psi. This makes a big difference in comfort and handling.

I think the wheels and tires make a big difference in terms of safety. The beads on tubeless specific wheels and tires are different, and will hold air better and stay locked on. This is especially an issue for tubeless MTB rims and tires. I have burped "ghetto tubeless" setups.


----------



## MWT (Nov 12, 2002)

cch said:


> I recently went back to clinchers after riding tubeless for a couple of years. I did so based on the Tour Magazin tests which showed the Conti GP4000s to roll and grip better. I was surprised at how poorly the tubeless tires did in that test, since theoretically they should have lower rolling resistance with no friction between tube and tire. Fulcrum alleges that tubeless roll better, but, of course, they are trying to sell you an expensive wheel, and their test data is not public.
> 
> Anyway, if 1.5 watts per tire does not matter to you, I think tubeless is a better option on the road. I pinch flatted my clinchers on my 3rd ride. I weigh 175lbs. I ran my tubeless at 90psi, and have to run clinchers at 105psi. This makes a big difference in comfort and handling.
> 
> I think the wheels and tires make a big difference in terms of safety. The beads on tubeless specific wheels and tires are different, and will hold air better and stay locked on. This is especially an issue for tubeless MTB rims and tires. I have burped "ghetto tubeless" setups.


The Tour Magazine test shows that the GP4000s and Hutchinson Fusion 2 both had rolling resistance of 34.3 watts at 35km/h. Am I missing something? Where is the 1.5 watts difference?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Latex tubes in your GP4000s would reduce that by at least 10%.


----------



## cch (Nov 22, 2008)

MWT said:


> The Tour Magazine test shows that the GP4000s and Hutchinson Fusion 2 both had rolling resistance of 34.3 watts at 35km/h. Am I missing something? Where is the 1.5 watts difference?


I have the 9/2010 tire test from Tour, and it shows the Conti GP4000RS at 28.9 watts of rolling resistance at 7.5 bar of tire pressure. The Hutchinson Atom has 38.4 watts at the same pressure. I remembered it as less, but it is a decent amount. 

The little blurb on the Atom says (pardon the rough Google translation from German--"A disappointment. The tubeless tire rolls worse than the slight fold version of the "atom". The puncture could be better with the weight of the border area is quite low." 

The Atom, which was presumably tested without a tube (but that is not explicitly clear), did outperform most of the other clinchers.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

...and if you swap those Contis for Vittoria Evo Corsa CX it drops even further.


----------



## cch (Nov 22, 2008)

Not in the 9/2010 test. Contis were 28.9w of rolling resistance, and Vittorias were 31.5w at 7.5 bar. Of course, German tires always do well in German tests, and at those very slight differences, you are well within the "makes no difference" margin.

The best clinchers all beat the best tubies for rolling resistance, but not for grip. Pros know that the rolling resistance of a lycra-clad backside is quite high, though, and that is why they choose tubies.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

cch said:


> Anyway, if 1.5 watts per tire does not matter to you, I think tubeless is a better option on the road. I pinch flatted my clinchers on my 3rd ride. I weigh 175lbs. I ran my tubeless at 90psi, and have to run clinchers at 105psi. This makes a big difference in comfort and handling.


Those are what I run with a an extra 10-15 lbs of body weight, and I've never pinched. You conditions aren't mine, but just saying there's a variance in experience.

And if those are your decision factors, thinking 25's might be a better option than thinking tubeless. Or not, but certainly worth the thought.

I'm neither luddite nor fanboi, but I smell a bunch of snake oil in the claims of the tubeless sellers. I'm sure there are advantages, and I'm sure there are disadvantages, and I honestly don't know how they'd net out for me. But those noting remarkable, miraculous changes are fooling themselves. The physics just aren't there to support it. And I gotta believe that if it were such a transformational technology, there'd be a lot more players in the game by now. 

And for flats? OK, sure. But it seems like a balance between saving the small headaches at the cost of a big one in the rare instance that it goes really badly. People can come to different conclusions, but for me, I don't have enough little problems to make the big problem worth the risk.


----------



## cch (Nov 22, 2008)

I run 23s on my HED Ardennes wheels, so more of a 25 profile. I think the pinch flat was a bit of a fluke, because it was a small rock, not a pothole, but it would not have happened on tubeless. In group rides and races, you are going to hit holes.

Bicycle tires have their own dynamics, of course, but the auto and motorcycle worlds went tubeless a long time ago. Part of the resistance in the bike world is the lack of "miraculous change". Any benefit is incremental (except on the mtb, where the low pressure capability is a big advantage). Another retardant to acceptance is the extra cost to have a true UST rim, which means paying a license fee, and redesigning your rim. In the face of tepid demand, most manufacturers will not bother.

If something really goes badly on a tubeless, you are no worse of than a clincher. In fact, in the case of a blowout, the tire will stay on the rim because of the bead design, so you are better off. I have sealant in my tires, but it is not a miracle. I still flat the tubeless a couple of times a year if I get a hole larger than 2mm or so. Then you just throw the tube in as you would with a clincher. I carry the same gear in my saddle bag whether I am running clinchers or tubeless. Basically, the tubeless sealant will catch the small stuff, and your chances of pinch flatting are close to zero. If you do flat, the sealant makes an awful mess, and it take longer to get a tube in there because your hands are so slippery. I know guys who keep a latex glove in their saddle bag for this reason.

Everyone's mileage will vary, but I have tubeless, clincher and tubular wheels, and my most frequent choice is the tubeless. Much of the comfort and handling of the tubulars (because of lower pressure), fewer flats, and no glue.


----------



## mattotoole (Jan 3, 2008)

orange_julius said:


> BTR article:
> 
> http://www.biketechreview.com/tires_old/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev9.pdf


The gleaming gem there is the Bontrager Select 28mm, a $17 OEM tire that most riders here would immediately "upgrade."


----------



## mattotoole (Jan 3, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> over 15,000 miles of experience with tubeless! I'll admit that I live dangerously. I don't carry a first aid kit, a fire extinguisher, or a condom when riding my road bike with tubeless tires. While I've never been sorry about not carrying useless crap to fix extremely unlikely flats, I have had a couple of occasions when I had wished I had a first aid kit.
> 
> Incidentally, I've had several punctures.


Do they self-seal completely, or do you still have to repair them?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

mattotoole said:


> The gleaming gem there is the Bontrager Select 28mm, a $17 OEM tire that most riders here would immediately "upgrade."


Good catch. How's the ride feel of that tire?


----------



## seanharvey (Jul 8, 2011)

it's been some time since I road the tubeless...back then I think we called them glue on's, laceup's?...don't remember exactly. Loved them. At the time they were a bit lighter and faster to swap out than conventional tube and tire.

on short trips I carried one extra, longer rides two. When I got a flat I just pulled the flat off and glued on a new one...very fast.

Now I don't believe the separation of weight is such an issue and rolling resistance difference is probably minimal with current clenchers.

basically it's a personal preference like so many other aspects of this hobby/sport. If you want to try tubeless...go for it. It's doubtful you'll be dissatisfied.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

seanharvey, you're thinking of "tubulars". This discussion is about Road Tubeless. They are vastly different tire systems.


----------



## seanharvey (Jul 8, 2011)

Thanks for the clarification...been a while since I've been riding. Much has changed.


----------

