# Tubeless Vs Clincher



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

Thinking about upgrading my Ksyrium wheelset (for all round riding) and going to to tubless compatible rims. Also interested in getting something a bit more aero than the Ksyriums. 

What are other riders thought and experiences with Dura ace WH-7801-SL and Hutchinson Fusion 2 tubeless combo?

I see Corima is also producing a Hutchinson tubless compatible carbon rim (possibly carbo is a bit fragile for an all purpose wheel)

Does anyone know if any one else has tubeless set ups coming out for 2008?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I will try out the Stan's kit.
http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/products_id/404
I will be using them on Kinlin Nb-r rims which have regular holes that require spoke tape. I should have the kit in a day or two and hope to have a ride in by the end of the week. I can post back what my impressions are. I'm really looking forward to them because it's only a matter of time before there will be a wider selection of tires to choose from.

-Eric


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ergott said:


> I will try out the Stan's kit.
> http://www.notubes.com/product_info.php/products_id/404
> I will be using them on Kinlin Nb-r rims which have regular holes that require spoke tape. I should have the kit in a day or two and hope to have a ride in by the end of the week. I can post back what my impressions are. I'm really looking forward to them because it's only a matter of time before there will be a wider selection of tires to choose from.
> 
> -Eric


Eric,

Are you sure you want to try that?

The road tubless rims have a better bead hook to secure those tubeless tires at higher pressures. I would NOT try this myself.

Satn used the WW on MTBR as a lab rats when his system first came out. I can't ell you how mnay people have issues, crashes etc.

Having a road tire blow off the rim @ 20+ mph can be scary!!

IMO, tubeless IS the future as well for road bikes. I would drop tubulars very soon when the system is perfected. But I would NOT run tubeless tires on a regular clincher rims ala Stan's way.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Check the link. I've talked to the for a while about this. The Hutch. tubless tire has a very strong bead that will not stretch over the rim. That is the main cause for blowouts and why they only recommend this with those tires. I'm not too worried. You can be sure that if I problems like that, I'll note that here and elsewhere for people to read.

-Eric


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ergott said:


> Check the link. I've talked to the for a while about this. The Hutch. tubless tire has a very strong bead that will not stretch over the rim. That is the main cause for blowouts and why they only recommend this with those tires. I'm not too worried. You can be sure that if I problems like that, I'll note that here and elsewhere for people to read.
> 
> -Eric


Then why would a UST Tire blowoff a stadard mtb clincher rims? Also you might have burping issues.

Road tubeless and mtb ust tires share the same bead.

Stan is coming out with a 700c road ZTR Rim which will address the bead/rim interface.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I've never tried to put a UST tire on a regular mtn. rim, but I do know that putting a regular mtb tire on a regular rim with the kit works very well. There would be no reason to use a UST tire as they are heavier.

The tape is wide enough to go up the sides of the rim area. This is wrapped around twice. They have tested this on the road with riders up to 190lbs with pressure down to 70psi with no issues.

-Eric


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

> ergott said:
> 
> 
> > I've never tried to put a UST tire on a regular mtn. rim, but I do know that putting a regular mtb tire on a regular rim with the kit works very well. There would be no reason to use a UST tire as they are heavier.
> ...


----------



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

Eric, I had thought about trying out Stan's kit n my Ksyrium rims (don't need the rim tape with these holeless rims) a with th Fusion 2 tyres. (Ive used his MTB kit from the very early days on my MTB's with nothing but great success the only thing that put me off tis option was the extra weight of the sealant plus the Fusion 2's already weigh 45 grams more than my current Conti GP 4000 (215) gram) and light weight Vittoria tube (55 gram) set up.

I'll be very interested in your feed back. Please keep us posted.


----------



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

Eric I have read a few comments that suggest that there could be a problem with Stan's sealant (because it contains ammonia) eating the Hutchinson tyres. "Hutchinson recommends using Fast' Air only (and not Tufo sealant or Stan's No Tubes) because Fast' Air doesn't contain ammonia, which will degrade the inner layer of a Hutchinson tire" (ref: http://www.competitivecyclist.com/z...RD&PRODUCT.ID=4184&CATEGORY.ID=259&MODE=&TFC=)


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Hmmmm. Very interesting.

I'll contact them and see if they have anything to say.

-Eric


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ergott said:


> Hmmmm. Very interesting.
> 
> I'll contact them and see if they have anything to say.
> 
> -Eric


Yes, they don't reccomend it. Personally I have used it in MTB for a few months at a time with no issuses.

You can use Specialize's stuuf or make you own! I do!

Mold Builder Art Latex
Tubeless Slime
Water

Windshield Washer Fluid (amonia) is needed only for really cold tems. Like below 35º


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

According to Stan's, all sealants with latex use about 1% ammonia as a preservative. It is necessary to keep the proper consistency during shipping and storage. They have sent their sealant to Hutchinson and have not been told of any incompatibility.

I ordered some Fast Air and could compare that when I get it in. At this point I'm still willing to give it a go. The tires and valve stem just came in today so I expect to be on the road by the end of the week.

-Eric


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Well here goes. They went on remarkably easy. The tires have a carbon whatever bead that isn't supposed to stretch which is what makes the tubeless compatible. I weighed one tire and it was 298g (290 claimed). Not bad. I have used a compressor to mount tubeless tires before, but this time I tried using a CO2. It worked perfectly. This was important as if I were to have a big tear in the tire from glass per say, I could boot the tire, put a tube in and get back on the road with just a CO2 to reset the tire. One 16g cartridge got me to 105 - 115psi. I won't get stranded.

I will go for the test ride tomorrow morning and it looks like I will have some decent weather to boot!

Here are some pics to hold you off for now.


<img src="https://websites4ever.com/ergott//images/Tubeless/pb211602.jpg" width="800">
<img src="https://websites4ever.com/ergott//images/Tubeless/pb211603.jpg" width="800">

<img src="https://websites4ever.com/ergott//images/Tubeless/pb211604.jpg" width="800">

<img src="https://websites4ever.com/ergott//images/Tubeless/pb211606.jpg" width="800">

-Eric


----------



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> Yes, they don't reccomend it. Personally I have used it in MTB for a few months at a time with no issuses.
> 
> You can use Specialize's stuuf or make you own! I do!
> 
> ...


I've used Stan's in my MTB for years with no problems. But I use it on non UST tyres that don't have a butyl liner. I used to make my own using just Art shop supply latex mixed 1:1 with water. It sealed very well but after a while it went hard (It was very difficult once it went hard to remove it from the inside of the tyres.. Stan's stuff seems to retain it's fluidity longer. I also used to make my own very light weight rim strips by wrapping a couple of layers of rubber self-amalgamating tape around the rim and then cutting a valve out of an old tube (leaving a small flange of rubber around the valve). I would then cut a small hole in the self-amalgamating tape over the valve hole and insert the valve into the rim. the self-amalgamating tape and the latex sealant did such a good job of bonding to the bottom of the tyre sidewalls that after a couple of months that it effectively created a tube ...and removing the tyre from the rim became a nightmare - now I just used Stan's rim kits and sealant - a lot less hassle.


----------



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

Eric, that's one very nice looking Serotta!

What are the Rims/wheels you have used?


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

i am very interested to hear how this works as i want to try it on a set
of fulcrum wheels


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Wheels:
Nb-r 19mm rims (hidden nipple design)
Sapim Laser spokes
White Industries H1 hubs
24 radial and 28 2X/3X
1398g

Get this, I replaced all the rear hub bearings with Phil Wood Spec bearings. The fronts were too small (new H2 won't be too small) to use Phil Woods so I used Boca ABEC 5 ceramic hybrids. The rear hub was so f-in smooth, like nothing I've done before. Imagine the weight savings of an H1 hub with that smoothness of Phil bearings.


Rode today. No problems at all. Here are the steps I followed.

1 Tape the rim according to Stan's (I start at the rim joint and wrap 2X)
2 punch hole for valve and insert valve
3 mount tires (no levers needed, just my bare hands)
4 CO2 the wheels to set bead and bring to pressure ( I got 105-115psi out of 16g cart.)
5 Let sit for a few hours (I don't know if this is necessary, but I wanted the tire to take shape)
6 deflate and add 2oz of Stan's sealant (there are other products out there including make your own)
7 reinflate with pump

I was a little worried that when totally deflated, I wasn't going to get them reinflated and standard rims don't hold the tire in place like tubless specific rims. I pumped a little fast and they set up right away. One note. Once I deflated the tire, I kept it off the ground (hung on my stand). I didn't want the weight of the wheel to unseat the tire and make it harder to reinflate. If you are doing this with a compressor around you don't have to bother. It's the easiest/est way, but I wanted to try without as I know that most people don't have one. All you really need is 1 CO2 per wheel. Once you are setup, the goal is to have the sealant fix most normal punctures, so you shouldn't have to do anything but maintain you normal pressure with a floor pump. I you have a tire killing cut (could happen to any tire), just keep a standard tube and a tire boot (dollar bill/folded paper works) and you are back on the road as if this were a regular tire/tube setup.

I have the feeling that as this technology progresses, it will be the best system compated to tubulars and tire/tubes. Theoretically the Crr should be the lowest of the three if the tire is designed properly. These tires are pretty good, rode nice enough. Objectively, I like my Veloflex tubular clad wheels the best, but this system makes the most sense. The kit costs no more to run than tire/tubes. More tires will come out of varying purpose and quality. The best part, you can start out with the wheels you have sitting around. I will continue to use this setup and if I have a problem, I'll report back. The only drawback I see right now is I don't know were you can get longer valve stems with threading on them. If you have deeper profile rims, you can't use any extensions that don't have any threading as you need the locknut on there to keep from leaking.

-Eric


----------



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

Stan's now offers a 44mm valve for road tubeless with threading on them. 

Eric Well done. Thanks for being the guinea pig on this for the rest of us. Keen to hear how your experiment continues.

So far the only disadvantage I can see is an extra 90 grams of rotating weight per wheel i.e like adding 180 gram to your wheelset.

Hutchinson Fusion 2 - 290 gram
Stan's sealant 60 Gram
Total 350 gram

Vs

Continental GP 4000 - 212 Gram
Light weight Vittoria tube - 60 gram
Total 262 gram

So what are the advantages:

-Smother rolling at 90 PSI
-Claimed lower rolling resistance (I am waiting to see some hard data on this or a mass of subjective feedback.) And even if there is a rolling resistance advantage some or all of this will be offset by the weight penalty.
-No pinch flats (Only ever had one of these on a road tire and that was because I went over a high footpath curb at 50k to avoid a bus)
-Less chance of instant deflation when you do get a puncture.


----------



## jjp (Mar 3, 2005)

*tubular....*

There's a reason tubulars are still the prefered choice among the pros. Aside from the ride quality,and the durability - if you get the right tire and keep it at the right pressure - , there is really nothing quite like them. They are totally round, and they grip, and they are a tradition unto themselves. And, if you get a flat on the road, its easy to replace, which is something that you can't do with tubeLESS. I've been riding them for almost thiry years, and I wouldn't think of changing. Tubulars are the bench mark that all other tires are measured against. After they flat, grab a cold beer, flip on a disc, and spend the next 45 minutes doing what every pro in Europe has done at one time or another for the last 50 years. Just my $.02 worth. Jared Purdy


----------



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

I haven't much experience (none) with tubulars but I would have thought it would be both much easier to carry around a new spare tube and easier to chuck it in a tubless tire than replace a tubular on the road?

Every now and then something comes along a rewrites the accepted rules. Before pneumatic tyres there were wooden ones. I 've been using wooden rims for 30 years and....

Besides I can't do what every other pro has been doing for the last 50 years because I don't have a service vehicle following me around with spare wheels and I am also allergic to EPO.

Not sure where I would carry the beer unless I ditch a water bottle and when you say disc I presume from how long you have been riding that you are talking vinyl - so heavens only knows how I will fit the record player and the dyno to the bike.

JJP hope you don't mind me pulling your leg ;-)

It may be that tubeless is not the immediate future for road tyres but now that we have the option it's certainly worth experimenting.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

No need to talk to me about tubulars. I've been riding them for years. My beef is that my favorite tire (Veloflex) is a bit expensive to be rolling on all the time. I won't bother with cheap tubs as you might as well use clinchers which have surpassed them in ride quality. There have been several studies that show that clinchers have a lower Crr. If that's the case with a tube in there, a comparable setup without the tube will be even better. Crr is a big enough drag in the system to be worth lowering if possible.

I'm not selling off my tubs just yet, but it's nice to experiment with what's out there.

-Eric


----------



## jjp (Mar 3, 2005)

*ah yes, tubulars.....*

If you are allergic to the glue, then there's not really anything that can be done about that as contact cemment is really a necessity in keeping them on. The two sided tape probably has similar compounds to the glue, and besides its a pain in the ass. Changing a tire in the field is really not an issue. I keep one tubular folded under my seat all the time. I use a spare that I've patched.

For the past twenty five years or so, I've been riding on Continentals - mostly. I tried some cheap Gommatalia's - they were junk and flatted easily, making their cost effectivness null and void. I tired Vittoria Corsa EVO Cx, and at first liked them but found that quality control was an issue coming out of Tiawan. The tread was not centred; they flatted way too easily, they cannot easily be patched because of a fabric lining that seperates the tube from the seam in the tire, and as the tube is laytex, it needs to be pumped up far too often. When I was racing over 20 years ago I rode on Continental Sprinters and really liked them. Last year I decided to give them another crack, and find that they are an excellent tire. Their cost is reasonable ($50-$60 in Toronto), they are perfectly round and they really grip, really low rolling resistance, and you can pump them up to 170psi! I keep my front at 140 and the back at 130, and since using that configuration, I have found the number of flats to be seriously curtailed. And as they have a butyl rubber tube, they don't leak as much air as laytex. When I pump them up to 140psi, two days later they are still at 120psi.

I've had two flats in the last year, and one of the tires has over 5000kms on it, with no thread showing. Patching them is easy. I use Berkely Fireline (braided and fused fishing line), and a regualr patch kit. Once they are sewn back up, if the job is done right, you can't tell its been patched. Besides all of the above rationale/hoopla, I just love the tradition of tubulars. They are old school, with new modern technologies to aid in rolling and puncture resistance and all- around durability. I've tried clinchers, many times, and just didn't find they rode as well as tubulars. Maybe I tried the wrong ones, but at this point, I'll likely stay with tubulars.

Just my $.10 worth. Jared Purdy


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Eric - so what are your initial impressions. 

Despite the extra weight penalty is this a faster setup than other clinchers?


----------



## markmaxwell (Jul 2, 2006)

I'm tempted to try this also with a set of Speedcompsites wheels that have hidden nipples I'm concernd about the hassle of truing spokes if needed. Is Stan's rim tape reusable? Do you need to repeat the process when you remove a tire?


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

Jared
Great explanation of tubulars. I've been kicking around the ideaof tubies for a while. There was a recent article in a mag about how easy they are to mount, using tufo tape, which intrigues me. However, I'm about 190lbs, 
When you flat on the road, how do you deal with the mess from glue, and sweat, dirt, etc. 
When the season is over and you pull the tire to get a new one on, how hard is it to clean the old glue off the rim to start over?
Do you have a preference for glue, rim/wheel, etc?


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

I don't believe the rim tape is reusable if you remove it to adjust your spokes. When I used to do my own system on mountain bike tyres I used just a standard high strength rim tape. Stan's rim tape is $9.95 a roll (enough to do two wheels.

If you just remove or replace the tyres then the rim/spoke tape doesn't need to be replaced but you may need to top up the sealant.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

So far not much to report. They ride OK, they hold pressure as if they had tubes in them. I'd like to see some tires with a more supple casing for better handling. I'm sure that Michelin and Conti will get on the bandwagon soon enough. IRC (or IRD, whichever) has a tire coming out as well.

As someone mentioned on another site, they are a good training idea. It's that much harder to get a flat with the sealant in there. You could leave out the sealant and keep a can of Hutchinson Fast Air with you in the even of a flat. That would inflate and seal the tire in one shot. Theoretically, all you really need to carry with you is a tube and a can of sealant. That would cover almost any flat you could get.

The Crr seems OK, but I have no way to quantify that. They don't feel like bad Tufos for those of you who know what I mean. No science talk here, just objective opinion.

-Eric


----------



## RelevantAaron (Oct 16, 2007)

Great thread - I have been thinking of changing to the Hutchinson since my 7801's are tubeless compatible. So if I have it right, on the 7801 I don't need to use the sealant saving 60 grams? Of course that loses the additional flat protection. I'm using Pro2's and Michelin tubes, total 290 grams now. 

I can not figure out why I am agonizing on this - I can try them and simply go back if I like the old setup better.


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Eric I am suprised that you say that you would like something with a more supple casing as moest of the reports I have read suggest that a key advantage is a more supple ride.

Hutchinson and Shimano both recommend that you run around 90lb pressure in the tires they claim this gives you a lower rolling resistance on real road surfaces. 

What pressure are you experimenting with at the moment,


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I'll have to try lower. The tire said 100psi recommended so I used that. I'll 90 and report. When you feel the sidewalls of a deflated Veloflex tire and compare that to the Hutch. there's no comparison. The Veloflex feel like silk.

-Eric


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Your right you don't need the sealant, But you might want to carry the Hutchinson Fast Air cannister.

Let us know how you get on.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

RelevantAaron said:


> Great thread - I have been thinking of changing to the Hutchinson since my 7801's are tubeless compatible. So if I have it right, on the 7801 I don't need to use the sealant saving 60 grams? Of course that loses the additional flat protection. I'm using Pro2's and Michelin tubes, total 290 grams now.
> 
> I can not figure out why I am agonizing on this - I can try them and simply go back if I like the old setup better.


That's my favorite part. I'm not married to this. It's one of the cheapest experiments you can do. No changing rims if you change your mind.

-Eric


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Possible fly in the ointment*



ergott said:


> I'll have to try lower. The tire said 100psi recommended so I used that. I'll 90 and report. When you feel the sidewalls of a deflated Veloflex tire and compare that to the Hutch. there's no comparison. The Veloflex feel like silk.


The thing that people forget is that the inside of a tubless tire will have to be treated/coated with something to make it less permeable to air than current clincher tire casings. It's easy to imagine how this could add significant weight, make the casing stiffer, or both. It may not be so easy to get a smooth ride out of tubeless tires. They have been talked about for a few years, but aren't entering the market very fast. I wonder if this issue isn't part of the reason why.


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

If your budget is not an issue you might want to have a look at these new tubeless compatible wheels from Corima. http://www.corima.fr/gb/produits/roues/default.cfm?family=roues_aeroplusTub


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Cycling News did a review here http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/reviews/hutchinsontubeless that talks about the 'magic carpet' ride at lower pressures. No guarantee that this isn't just marketing though.


----------



## Dizzy812 (Feb 20, 2007)

I rode tubulars for years...

Changing flats on the road is quick and easy - just tear off the punctured tire and slap on the pre glued spare. Though I never rolled a tire off the rim after these quick changes, any fun I would have had cornering with a cured glue job was negated. I never quite trusted the glue and took it very easy in the turns.

...wrong thread?


----------



## goneskiian (Jan 13, 2005)

I know I'm not a frequent poster here but I too just mounted up a pair of Fusion 2's to some standard clincher wheels with Stan's tape and sealant.

The wheels are a DT Swiss RR 1.1 laced to a PT SL in the rear and an Easton/Velomax Orion II in the front. 

I've done one ride on them and it felt pretty good. I've been a clincher rider for all my time on a road bike (10+ years) so I can't compare them to tubular tires. The ride felt a little stiffer than the ~90 lbs I was running them at (I easily weigh 200 lbs kitted up). I attribute this to the tires definitely being stiffer due to all the extra rubber on the inside.

I forgot to weigh the tires before installing them, which I'm kicking myself for. 

They aired up quite easily using a CO2 cartridge, which I was happy about because I don't have a compressor handy. 

The tires went on about as easily as a new pair of Michelin Prorace2's. The DT wheel has always been a real pain to get tires on and off of and these where no exception. I am definitely not worried about the tire blowing off this rim. The tire went on much easier to the Easton/Velomax rim.

I'm testing this right now as well but would like to use it on my race wheels as well. Hopefully someone (Stan?) will come out with a threaded valve extender as I like deep aero wheels.

Anyway, if you want to experiment. Now might be a good time as I found these tires on sale at coloradocyclist.com for $29.99 a piece. 

Cheers!
-Ian


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Ian I weighed a pair in a shop last week in the local bike shop. It came out to exactly the advertised weight of 290 grams.


----------



## goneskiian (Jan 13, 2005)

Cool. Thanks Hellbent. 

I'm not too worried about it. I like to know the weights but don't pay them too much mind. If I was worried about weight I wouldn't be bike racing! 

Actually, I'm thinking for races I'd use the lighter of the 2 tubeless Hutchinson's, the Atom, and only use an ounce of Stan's sealant per tire. Just a thought. I hate flats in races just as much as the next guy! 

Cheers!
-Ian


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Thanks for the advice on where to buy these. I like your idea of using half the sealant on race days and the lighter Atom tyres. I have been using half the recommended amount of Stans sealant in my MTB tyres for a couple of years now and I have never had a flat tyre with stan's sealant in MTB tyres.

Can you please keep this thread posted on your experience with going tubeless for the road?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ergott said:


> I'll have to try lower. The tire said 100psi recommended so I used that. I'll 90 and report. When you feel the sidewalls of a deflated Veloflex tire and compare that to the Hutch. there's no comparison. The Veloflex feel like silk.
> 
> -Eric


That's how 99% of tubleless UST tires fell. The stiffer sidewalss allow you to run lower psi and have a supple ride but a tire that won't fold over in turns. Tubleless Ready tires are regular tires that have UST/Tubeless beads. You must run the pressure bit higher or the fold over rin turns.

Unitl they can mke Tubless Road tires wil slighty stiffer sidewalls, but suppe ate the same time this is the reason why they are slow to come to the market for road use.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Translation*



DIRT BOY said:


> Unitl they can mke Tubless Road tires wil slighty stiffer sidewalls, but suppe ate the same time this is the reason why they are slow to come to the market for road use.


Want to try this again in English?


----------



## dhtucker4 (Jul 7, 2004)

Vittoria moved their whole operation to Thailand, not Taiwan. A bunch of Vittoria Italian employees bought the Vittoria factory and molds and they started Veloflex - Veloflex is revered in Europe, just like Vittoria used to be.


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Not sure why you have posted this here?
Are Veloflex making a tubeless tyre?
If so is it compatible with the Shimano tubeless rims or some other rim design?


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Safety issue: I've been thinking about this a bit more.

A while ago I had a puncture in my conventional tire/tube setup. The small punture made by a pice of glass in the inner tube expanded very quickly (some portion of a second) into a large hole. There was a loud and sudden hissing sound and my tire deflated nearly instantaneously. While it didn't come off the rim I was very lucky to survive what followed. At the time I was bombing down a steep mountain while trying to keep up with some other riders (doing about 45 Mph) I had slowed by a few mph to enter a sharp corner when the front tire 'blew'. I dared not hit the front brakes and the rear brake did little to slow me. I ran wide through the corner (to scared to turn sharply with the tire completely deflated) and ended up on the wrong side of the road still travelling at about 30 Mph - very luckily for me their was no car coming the other way and I managed to make the turn without flipping over the safety barrier and down the cliff.

I think the tubeless tire system offers huge safety advantages under certain conditions.

I've made the decision to also try out Stans's system with the Hutchinsons on my training wheels purely for safety reasons.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Funny, until the end of your post I though you were going to compare tubless to clinchers as far as being very dangerous if you have a puncture at the wrong time.

I have been experimenting with Stan's and conventional tires for the last couple months on my MTB and CX bike. With certain tires, it works well. But when it doesn't work, it can get ugly fast. I was reminded of this while riding my CX bike home on a freshly installed CX tire. The bead seal failed and the tire dumped all of its air in a split second. Fortunately I was riding on a flat, straight road at the time.

Now, I admit that this was not a combination that is endorsed by the rim, tire or sealant makers. Components desinged to work together _should_ fare better. That said, I don't see how a tubless tire offers any added safety over a clincher with a tube. If anything, I think they add a more dangerous failure mode to the equation.

Certainly, the hazards of blowing a tire haven't kept clinchers from largely replacing tubulars. Nevertheless, I won't be an early tubless adopter -- at least for fast riding on pavement.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Funny, until the end of your post I though you were going to compare tubless to clinchers as far as being very dangerous if you have a puncture at the wrong time.
> 
> I have been experimenting with Stan's and conventional tires for the last couple months on my MTB and CX bike. With certain tires, it works well. But when it doesn't work, it can get ugly fast. I was reminded of this while riding my CX bike home on a freshly installed CX tire. The bead seal failed and the tire dumped all of its air in a split second. Fortunately I was riding on a flat, straight road at the time.
> 
> ...



I think he means that a tire/sealant combo will be less prone to a puncture when you least want it. If it does, it should seal fast enough to keep most of the air in. If it is a catastrophic tire cut, I don't think there will be any difference in an emergency.

-Eric


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

ergott said:


> I think he means that a tire/sealant combo will be less prone to a puncture when you least want it. If it does, it should seal fast enough to keep most of the air in. If it is a catastrophic tire cut, I don't think there will be any difference in an emergency.
> 
> -Eric


I'm curious. Have you had a puncture with your set-up? How fast do they seal and how much air pressure is lost?

Personally, I have had mixed luck getting Stan's to seal (MTB) tires with more than 50 PSI in them. Given the low air volume in a road tire, I would be worried about losing enough air to compromise the bead seal even if the puncture was stopped.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

No punctures yet. To be honest, I've been too sick to ride for the last 2 weeks not. I get the first couple of rides in and that's it. Not a big fan of cold air coming into my lungs with respiratory issues:-(

They were demonstrating how this kit works at Interbike by repeatedly puncturing the tire with an awl and it held air. I wasn't at Interbike this year, but this made coverage in some of the articles written.

-Eric


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I saw that demo at Interbike in 05. I can duplicate the result, but only with the right tire/rim combo. Getting that combo can be a crap-shoot, as two of the "same" tire may yield different results. 

But again, this is with non UST tires. They have been working on the road versions for a few years know -- presumably they have it figured out.

I hope you get well soon.


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

"Personally, I have had mixed luck getting Stan's to seal (MTB) tires with more than 50 PSI in them. "

Wow 50lbs of pressure in a MTB tire!

I never put more than 40lbs in a MTB tire and find that 30lbs generally gives me the lowest rolling resistance when using Stans sealant on my mountain bike. I am sure you have a good reason for putting 50lbs in your mountain bike tires. Are you doing this to get less rolling resistance for road riding on your mountain bike? I expect that most mountain bike tyres beads are not engineered for this sort of pressure load.

I have never had a punture using Stan's on my MTB (Although I was once amazed to find a 2 inch nail floating around inside my tire when changing over tyres). The puncture obviously self sealed without me even knowing the nail had entered the tire!

Pressure loss with tubes/clinchers can be near instantaneous. It's my expectation that if I am using Hutchinsons tubeless clinchers with sealant, that near instantaneous pressure loss will only ocur if I slash the tire tread or sidewall. The special Hutchinson tubeless clinchers have a tire bead engineered for high pressure so I wouldn't expect the sidewall to blow off the rim. I definitely would not attempt this with a normal road tire!

"Given the low air volume in a road tire, I would be worried about losing enough air to compromise the bead seal even if the puncture was stopped." 

Yes this concerns me to. However the volume of a road tire is smaller than an MTB tire but the pressure is much greater and air is compressible. I expect their is probably a similar amount of air in a road tire at 100lbs as there is in an MTB tire at 35lbs?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Hellbent said:


> "Personally, I have had mixed luck getting Stan's to seal (MTB) tires with more than 50 PSI in them. "
> 
> Wow 50lbs of pressure in a MTB tire!
> 
> I never put more than 40lbs in a MTB tire and find that 30lbs generally gives me the lowest rolling resistance when using Stans sealant on my mountain bike. I am sure you have a good reason for putting 50lbs in your mountain bike tires. Are you doing this to get less rolling resistance for road riding on your mountain bike? I expect that most mountain bike tyres beads are not engineered for this sort of pressure load.


Many MTB tires are rated to 60 PSI or so. However, I don't actually ride them that way -- I ususlly have them no higher than 30 on the trail (tubless or no).

I only pump them that high when I am trying to seat a difficult bead. On a few different tires that was the neighborhood where recently sealed punctures would start to leak again (as in I just stabbed the tire with a sharpened spoke), or the beads and sidewalls on non UST tires would start to sizzle.

With the non UST CX tires using Stans, I was running much lower pressure than any road tire, so that probably contributed to my sudden meltdown somewhat. I was looking forward to giving the Hutchinson CX tires a shot, but QBP sent me a stock notice last week and the last race of the season was today. Next year. . .


----------



## Hellbent (Nov 25, 2007)

Thanks for the explanation you make perfect sense and raise an important issue.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Got to ride them at 90psi finally. It's a noticeable improvement in ride quality. It's too cold around here and too many leaves/ice to mess with cornering, but straight is good. I even took the bike off road. It's promising for me and can't wait to get quality miles this spring.

-Eric


----------



## goneskiian (Jan 13, 2005)

Quick update on the tubeless setup I'm running. No problems what-so-ever to report. I've done a couple wet rides where I'd normally be more likely to flat. I'm very impressed so far. I've tried cornering hard on them too when it's been dry. Nothing like you'd see in a crit but they felt fine. I couldn't feel it rolling over at all and at my weight (200 lbs.) and the low 90 lbs. of pressure.

Oh yeah, I knew I should have purchased an extra set of these tires when colorado cyclist had them on sale for $30 each.

Cheers!
-Ian


----------



## LVenter (Nov 18, 2007)

jjp said:


> There's a reason tubulars are still the prefered choice among the pros.... Just my $.02 worth. Jared Purdy


I notice some of the pro teams (ProTour team La Française des Jeux ref: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2008/probikes/?id=philippe_gilbert_FDJ_Lapierre08) have started using the Hutchinson tubless tires in races/stages which are a bit more demanding on tyres.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

I've got about 500 miles on my WH-7850-SL/Fusion2 tubeless set-up. I was originally using the wheels tubed, but found Fusion2 tubless tires for about $50, so I couldn't resist. I didn't use any sealant when mounting, but I do carry a can of Fast-Air with me when I ride (fortunately they're small and light). They hold air fine (they bleed no faster than my tubed tires). I really like the set up and haven't had any problems on the road. I do make a point of removing any glass shards from them after each ride.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

So what's everyone's riding impressions on the Hutchinson tubeless tires?? What kind of road conditions and what pressures?

I have 5 rides on mine and would like to hear your viewpoints before I blurt out my review. But here's a teaser... paradigm shift...

On the week before Sea Otter, 4 people including Dr_John coincidentally exclaimed the virtues of tubeless to me. A conspiracy I think.

fc


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> On the week before Sea Otter, 4 people including Dr_John coincidentally exclaimed the virtues of tubeless to me.


... with the caveat I may change my praises after I flatted on one. Well, I finally did at about 1500 miles.  

With a flat I didn't really know what to expect. I had a tube with me, but was also carrying Fast Air. I was only 10 miles from home, so I went the Fast Air route. I had some trouble getting the connector sealed on the valve stem and lost some pressure/latex. I did eventually get the tire sealed and filled enough to be back on my way. It only took a few minutes. Checked the pressure when I got home and it was only about 60 psi, but I'm only 140 lbs, and hey, no worry about pinch flats so all was good.

Science/tech-wise I'm still impressed. I definitely wouldn't say it's night and day between clinchers and road tubeless. Cruzer said he had a set and didn't really notice a difference, and I'm not sure how noticeable the difference is to me either. I do like be able to run clincher or tubeless on the wheels, and I really like the wheels a lot, so for me, I'm happy. YMMV.


----------



## FrankDL (Oct 8, 2003)

I've had the Fusion2 tubless on a set of Shimano DA 7850SL's for the last 3 weeks. I've got a little over 400 miles on them and my impressions are:

MOUNTING:
While the tires came already mounted on the wheelset (got on ebay) I asked the seller if there was sealant installed. He said that there was some, but that I should probably add some. As the valves did not have removable cores, I took the tires off and cleaned off the old sealant. I remounted the tires and poured in about 60 grams of Stan's sealant per tire. I used soapy water on the bead but it took me 3 trys to get it to seal and I was using a compressor/inflator. I think I just might invest in Stan's valves with the removable cores. Anyway, I did get them on and cleaned off the residue sealant. The tires look very well constructed.

ROAD FEEL: 
I inflated the front to 90 and the rear to 100 psi. I weigh 180. The tires felt very comfortable and rolled very smoothly. My local climb is a 7 mile stretch up Hwy 9 from Saratoga to Skyline, and I really couldn't tell a difference while climbing between my tubed P2R's and the tubless. However, during the desent, the Hutchinson's were superb in cornering, better than my favorite Michelin P2R's (at 120 psi) mounted on my Mavic K's on the same bike. Very confidence inspiring. The Hutchinson's are noticeably more comfortable than any tire I've ever ridden, although I've not yet ridden tubulars. I've no doubt that the lower tire pressure contributes to the increased comfortable ride.

LONGEVITY:
I'm fortunate to have very good roads in my area and I wipe down my tires and inspect them after every ride. I have not got any cuts yet, and only a few tiny pieces of rock/glass that I picked out with an exacto knife.
I've had no flats in the 400 miles and the tires still have those tiny nub/whiskers of rubber on the top of the tread. I checked the air loss between rides and found that these lost about 5 psi after 3 days of inactivity. 

All in all I really like these tires.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

FrankDL said:


> I've had the Fusion2 tubless on a set of Shimano DA 7850SL's for the last 3 weeks. I've got a little over 400 miles on them and my impressions are:


Nice Frank. You live right by me!

Last week, I climbed Montebello Rd with these tires. The rougher it got, the better. So I punched through the end of the road and did the 2 mile fire road to the top. I ride at 85 psi and it was pretty similar to riding on my big cross tires at 60 psi.

fc


----------



## echappe (May 9, 2008)

Its because they are paid to. You'll see tubulars in there sometimes if they can get away with it.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

echappe said:


> Its because they are paid to (use the Hutchinson Tubeless). You'll see tubulars in there sometimes if they can get away with it.


Is that why most pros run tubular? Cause they are paid to? Cause the tubular market is just a money-making juggernaut?

Or maybe, just maybe... racing is about winning as well and using the right equipment.

fc


----------



## echappe (May 9, 2008)

I don't think you understood my answer. I race tubulars myself because they are a better tire, and pros ride them for the same reason. Pros ride the tubeless because they are paid to, or asked to by sponsors. 

Why so cynical fc?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

echappe said:


> I don't think you understood my answer. I race tubulars myself because they are a better tire, and pros ride them for the same reason. Pros ride the tubeless because they are paid to, or asked to by sponsors.
> 
> Why so cynical fc?


I think you may be jumping to conclusions. I'm not sure you've ridden tubeless and I'm not sure you know those pros don't actually prefer tubeless on a very rough course.

I may be wrong too. Maybe those tubeless tires are inferior and they're causing the racers to lose because they are forced to by their sponsors.

But fundamentally, I think racing is about winning and not just about branding. Racers have some choice on what equipment to use to allow them to win.

I have a sneaking suspicion that carbon tubeless wheels with 250 gram tubeless tires and a little sealant will be a pro choice in Paris-Roubaix or the Tour of Flanders in the coming years.

<img src="https://mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2008/04/18/Hutchinson_Corima_RT1-798-99.jpg">

fc


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

francois said:


> So what's everyone's riding impressions on the Hutchinson tubeless tires?? What kind of road conditions and what pressures?
> 
> I have 5 rides on mine and would like to hear your viewpoints before I blurt out my review. But here's a teaser... paradigm shift...
> 
> ...



francios, my initial (knee jerk) reaction to tubeless would be that you are combining the worst (most disliked) features of tubulars with the worst of clinchers, but: "paradigm shift!" Wow, those are heady words, I'm listening....


----------



## FrankDL (Oct 8, 2003)

Since my last posting, I've done another 4 rides with the Hutchinson tubeless tires. Still no flats to report, and I've the following observations. While my evaluation period is still under 600 miles and thus I really can't address longevity, I am none the less impressed with the fact that I can no longer get those irritating flats from the rupturing of the base of the valve stem at the connection with a tube. My last 3 flats on clinchers were of this type, despite the fact that they were on 3 different clincher wheels, had tape covering the valve hole and were with different manufactured tubes. 
Another aspect of the tubeless that I feel are an advantage over the tube clinchers is the elimination of the tube poping out between the tire and rim because of overheating during braking. I've only had one of those during a long steep decent but just knowing it can't happen with the tubeless tires is reassuring. Liking these tires more and more as time goes by.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

FrankDL said:


> Since my last posting, I've done another 4 rides with the Hutchinson tubeless tires. Still no flats to report, and I've the following observations. While my evaluation period is still under 600 miles and thus I really can't address longevity, I am none the less impressed with the fact that I can no longer get those irritating flats from the rupturing of the base of the valve stem at the connection with a tube. My last 3 flats on clinchers were of this type, despite the fact that they were on 3 different clincher wheels, had tape covering the valve hole and were with different manufactured tubes.
> Another aspect of the tubeless that I feel are an advantage over the tube clinchers is the elimination of the tube poping out between the tire and rim because of overheating during braking. I've only had one of those during a long steep decent but just knowing it can't happen with the tubeless tires is reassuring. Liking these tires more and more as time goes by.


hmm, never had that tube problem, sure its not rim/tape induced? i'm thinking you have a roughly cut valve hole that is causing that, and the rim tape u are using does not compensate for it...

as for tubeless re: overcooking, that's a good point ! overcooking the brakes on tubbies can still be problem .... i've never done it on clinchers, but the thought crossed my mind on a steep, steep downhill, and i was  !


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

I can't see any advantage to tubeless at this point. I can go 3000 miles without a flat on a clincher, or get 3 flats in one ride, but more often than not i get maybe to flats a year. The extra weight, i.e, around 100 grams per wheel is actual fairly significant, since rolling resistance is around 3 to 1.

If I want a comfy and light wieght tire i'll go with a tubular, at least until a tudeless can come down in weight.

BTW, the size of the tire, type of wheel it is mounted to, air pressure and construction are combinations that I have found to be determining factors on over all ride.

Give me a Conti-force/attack for speed and low rolling resistance and Vit's Open Corsa for comfort and suppleness.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

raymonda said:


> I can't see any advantage to tubeless at this point. I can go 3000 miles without a flat on a clincher, or get 3 flats in one ride, but more often than not i get maybe to flats a year. The extra weight, i.e, around 100 grams per wheel is actual fairly significant, since rolling resistance is around 3 to 1.
> 
> If I want a comfy and light wieght tire i'll go with a tubular, at least until a tudeless can come down in weight.
> 
> ...


What kind of tubular rim/tires have you ridden? How many miles do you have on tubeless tires. It is pretty difficult to compare the qualities of these tire technologies unless you've ridden them significantly.

If you hardly flat at all, then flat prevention is not a big deal. But I do think the advantage of tubeless is actually ride quality and rolling resistance.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

zac said:


> francios, my initial (knee jerk) reaction to tubeless would be that you are combining the worst (most disliked) features of tubulars with the worst of clinchers, but: "paradigm shift!" Wow, those are heady words, I'm listening....


That's what I said. But hey, there's no glue sniffing. Is that a best or worst quality of tubular?

I largely ignored the tubeless movement. But 5 folks I trust told me this month to check them out. So I am checking them out at the moment.

fc


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

Honestly, I haven't ridden any. However, in a practical sense I think the 200 grams of weight, almost 1/2 lb is too much and a better option, tubular, is available. By going tubular you have the best of all worlds, light weight, comfort and speed.

Wouldn't it make more sense to rebuild your wheels with a tubular rim then to bend over backwards on a technology that is a kludge?

Also, if you haven't tried the Open Corsa EVO's I would suggest them highly. Run the 23's @ 95 to 105lbs. Smooth and comfy sailing.

Just my 2 cents. :?)


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> Wouldn't it make more sense to rebuild your wheels with a tubular rim then to bend over backwards on a technology that is a kludge?


I'd hardly consider it a kludge. They're a versatile wheel set - you can use them tube or tubeless. I've ridden my 7850 SL's with Conti 4000S's and Fusion2 tubeless. I prefer by a narrow margin the the Fusion2 tubeless, and I don't see a disadvantage. If the entire tubeless "fad" goes away, I still have a set of wheels which I really like and that I can use with any clincher I like.



> I remounted the tires and poured in about 60 grams of Stan's sealant per tire.


 I was told or read somewhere, perhaps on these forums, not to use Stan's with the Shimano wheels because it's too harsh for the rim material. Not sure if this is entirely correct, but the person who stated it seemed to know what they were talking about.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

Cool! I'm sure they are great and will serve you exceedingly well. Enjoy.

Ray


----------



## FrankDL (Oct 8, 2003)

Dr_John said:


> I was told or read somewhere, perhaps on these forums, not to use Stan's with the Shimano wheels because it's too harsh for the rim material. Not sure if this is entirely correct, but the person who stated it seemed to know what they were talking about.


I read a similar concern on this forum about the ammonia in Stan's sealant possibly having a bad reaction with the Hutchinson tires and the scandium in the Shimano rims so I e-mailed Stan's last week and asked them. They replied the following day and said that they have never had any instances reported to them of their sealant adversely affecting Shimano rims and/or the Hutchinson tires, and they have never seen any cautions from Shimano or Hutchinson that the use of their sealant could cause harm or void warranties on those rims or tires. If anyone out there has some documented instances of Stan's sealant causing problems with Shimano rims or Hutchinson tires please chime-in because I ride both and would like to be informed of any potential safety issues regarding my equipment.


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

*ONLY GUESSING in here. Here are the hard facts about TUBELESS Fusion2*



FrankDL said:


> I've had the Fusion2 tubless on a set of Shimano DA 7850SL's for the last 3 weeks. I've got a little over 400 miles on them and my impressions are:
> 
> MOUNTING:
> While the tires came already mounted on the wheelset (got on ebay) I asked the seller if there was sealant installed. He said that there was some, but that I should probably add some. As the valves did not have removable cores, I took the tires off and cleaned off the old sealant. I remounted the tires and poured in about 60 grams of Stan's sealant per tire. I used soapy water on the bead but it took me 3 trys to get it to seal and I was using a compressor/inflator. I think I just might invest in Stan's valves with the removable cores. Anyway, I did get them on and cleaned off the residue sealant. The tires look very well constructed.
> ...


That is all a lot of Bullshitting in here and guessing. 

Did a research the half of the day and finally came to PROOFs that my fusion2 tubeless is NOT better than my 4000s. i felt no difference at all except that the fusion 2 tubeless gave me less confidence on wet and dry edges/curves. 

please READ this test, it is quite old, but the TUBELESS-HYPE is now fully on. the only thing that is can say is ok: possibilty to get sealant in the tire and hoping! for less flats. 


HERE ARE THE FACTS (if you want the original pdf file go to http://www.tour-magazin.de/?p=1012)
------------------------------------

Manufacturer, model, width x height, CRR at 35kph (85kg system weight, 7.5bar pressure), puncture resistance, wet adhesion, mounting 

Clinchers/Tubeless: 
Continental GP4Season 23.4x23mm 224g 53.90W 180s 33.20kph possible without tools 
Continental GP4000s 23.4x22.8mm 207g 34.30W 180s 33.00kph possible without tools 
Continental GP4000s TOUR - TEST WINNER 
Hutchinson Fusion 2 23x22.7mm 233g 52.8W 56s 30.30kph with tools middle difficult 
Hutchinson Fusion 2 Tubeless 21.9x20.5mm 299g 34.30W 41s 30.40kph with tools middle difficult 
Michelin Pro²Grip 23.2x22mm 234g 43.70W 180s 32.60kph with tools easy 
Michelin Pro²Grip Tour - Tip 
Michelin Pro²Race 23.3x24.1mm 218g 36.00W 180s 30.30kph with tools easy 
Schwalbe Stelvio Rain 23.6x23.2mm 215g 51.50W 180s 31.10kph possible without tools 
Schwalbe Ultremo 22.5x21.2mm 196g 43.30W 180s 32.90kph possible without tools 
Schwalbe Ultremo Tour - Tip 
Vittoria Evo CX 23x22.7mm 229g 42.00W 9s 30.40kph with tools middle difficult 
Zipp Tangente 21.5x18.9mm 204g 36.20W 47s 33.00kph possible without tools 


Tubulars: 
Continental GP4000s 22.3x19mm 246g 41.60W 180s 31.80kph inconspicuous 
Schwalbe Stelvio 22.0x20.0mm 220g 47.00W 180s 32.90kph inconspicuous 
Tufo Elite Ride 25 26.0x24.4mm 262g 41.20W 180s 30.20kph inconspicuous 
Vittoria Evo CX 21.9x19mm 282g 41.10W 50s 30.60kph inconspicuous 
Vredestein Fortezza Pro TriComp 22.7x21.6mm 278g 36.70W 6s 30.20kph inconspicuous 
Zipp Tangente 21.5x19.5mm 269g 37.20W 70s 32.80kph inconspicuous 

Keep in mind that different test laboratories and methodologies do yield varying CRR numbers. 

Rating Criteria 

Manufacturer, model, weight (10%), CRR (30%), puncture proofness (30%), wet grip (30%), overall grade 

Clinchers/Tubeless: 
Continental GP4Season 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 
- Gives good feedback. Soft transition to the adherence limit. Predictable. 
- Very good puncutre protection with dual Vectran breaker and firm sidewall. For rough roads. Wears square, rolls sluggish. 
Continental GP4000s 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
- Rich riding impressions of a lot of rubber. Very secure, predictable. Besides the Ultremo the best riding experience. 
- Test winner. Optimal compromise between CRR, grip and puncture protection. Perfect all-arounder for training and competition. Thread wears square. 
Hutchinson Fusion 2 2.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 
- Soft riding impression. Predictable, but with a low adherence limit. 
- Thick thread made of three compounds. Sensitive despite of protection belt. Rolls sluggish. A tire without distinctive strengths. 
Hutchinson Fusion 2 Tubeless 2.3 1.0 3.3 3.0 2.4 
- Soft riding impression. Predictable, but with low adherence limit. 
- Tubeless tire for special rims. Construction and thinner thread allow for a much lower CRR than of the normal "Fusion". 
Michelin Pro²Grip 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 
- Hard riding impression. Hobbles extremely. Hard to predict. 
- Competition and training tire. The CRR suffers under the improved grip. Wears very evenly. 
Michelin Pro²Race 1.67 1.33 1.00 3.00 1.8 
- Hard riding impression. Much grip on the shoulder, but less in the middle, stutters predictably. 
- Easily rolling competition tire with robust casing and good puncture protection. Wears evenly. 
Schwalbe Stelvio Rain 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.0 2.2 
- Hard to predict, doesn't give any feedback. Slips away without stottering, tight limit range. 
Schwalbe Ultremo 1.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.4 
- Very good riding impression. Rich, predictable. Causes a feeling of much rubber on the road. 
- Very light competition tire with optimal adhesion and still good CRR. Wears very evenly. 
Vittoria Evo CX 2.0 2.3 4.7 3.0 3.2 
- Slips at a high, stutters at a slight sloping position. Unpredictable. 
- Rolls well, but other than that prooves itself problematic: bad puncture protection and delicate properties in the limit range make the Vittoria a good weather tire. 
Zipp Tangente 1.3 1.3 3.3 1.0 1.8 
- Gives early some very fine feedback, without stuttering. Only slightly worse than the GP 4000 S and the Ultremo. 
- The surprise. Except for the puncture protection a very good tire, grip and CRR within touching distance to the class winners. Relatively thin thread. 


Tubulars: 
Continental GP4000s 1.3 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.6 
- Predictable and of good nature. Reaches the limits a little sooner than the GP 4000 S. 
- Best tubular in the test. Flat and seamless construction with butyl tube. Does not reach the level of the 4000 S clincher: rolls worse, grips worse. 
Schwalbe Stelvio 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 
- Gives little feedback, but grips well. 
- Light, seamless tubular with butyl tube. Despite of a conventional rubber coompound very good grip. Thin thread. High CRR. 
Tufo Elite Ride 25 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 
- Mediates the feeling of much rubber. Limit announces itself. But pretty low grip level. 
Vittoria Evo CX 2.7 2.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 
- Unpredictable. Slips at a high, stutters at a slight sloping position. 
- Traditionally constructed, sewed tubular with latex tube and dual compound. Disappointing rgds grip and puncture protection. 
Vredestein Fortezza Pro TriComp 2.3 1.3 4.7 3.0 2.9 
- Does never mediate the impression of a secure grip. 
- Traditionally constructed with latex tube. Construction very similar to Vittoria, but more voluminous and faster. Disappointing in grip and puncture protection. 
Zipp Tangente 2.0 1.3 3.0 1.0 1.8 
- Gives early some fine feedback, secure feeling of much rubber. 
- Traditionally constructed tubular with latex tube. Single compound with good CRR and dimples. Only slightly falls back rgds puncture protection.


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

And another independent source http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev8.pdf

thanks and good bye tubeless.


----------

