# Sorry tubeless setup, but honeymoon is over. Dumping you tubeless



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Well folks, title said it all.

First of all let's check out all my tubeless setup. This is to show the extent I have tried these things.

1. Shimano Dura Ace 7900 tubeless wheelset with Maxiss Padrone tubeless tires. Rim width is 20mm, tire is 23mm.

2. Bontrager TLR Race Lite tubeless wheelset with Bontrager R3 25c tubeless tires. Rim width is 23mm, tire is 25mm.

3. Latest HED Ardennes tubeless wheelset, with Hutchinson Sector 28. Rim width is 25mm, tire is 28mm. This combination is huge.

Sealants tried. Stans and the green slime stuff. 

Of the 2 types of sealant, the Stans will seal quicker, but the Stans also cause oxidization of my Shimano rims. The Stans will also need to be re-added every 2-3 months, if you wish to have it actually working. Also, it's very important that when you shake the Stans bottle, you shake it upside-down so to get the tiny rubber particles out when you pour the Stans into your tires. However, the real ugliness of Stans is the huge "alien boogers and snot" it leaves in your tires.

The "green slime" stuff is more maintenance free. It doesn't leave behind alien boogers. The green stuff is not amonia based (like Stans is), so it doesn't cause corosion. Green stuff is like Cafelatex. Green stuff doesn't coaggulate out of solution like Stans (hence, no alien boogers). However, the downside of the green stuff (and Cafelatex) is that it doesn't seal as well as stans.

So the above setups are what I have tried over a period of over a year. Intially, I love all of them, when the tires are still new. I never got a flat when the tires are still new, but this is because I didn't run over anything that would actually cause a puncture. But as the tires wear down, I would say about after 500-1000 miles, things got worse. The Stans would seal, then then the seal never hold. If you keep riding for another 100 miles for so, the Stans seal will break, and upon the break, you may or may not get the Stans to seal again (this is due to the reduced rubber in the now more worn out tire). I have never ever had a Stans sealed tire that in which the seal will last the life of the tire. Never! Now all my tubeless tires have a tube in them because they just don't seal with less rubber material.

The green slime stuff. Well forget it. They just don't seal worth a shiat. And although I don't have Cafelatex, but reading around, Cafelatex is similar to the green slime stuff too. I have never been able to get the green stuff to seal on any flat. Imagine my frustration as I muck around with the shiat to put a tube in. The green stuff is called "Flat Attack". It's basically a non-amonia based sealant, using ethylene glycol (like Cafelatex).

After getting 4 flats on all my wheelset that don't seal, I'm done. Each time, I have to either put in a tube to finish my ride, or call someone to pick me up. Very frustrating.

And another bad thing about tubeless is that once you have removed a tubeless tire from the rim, it almost can never be pumped up again with a floor pump. CO2 or an air compressor is mandatory. It's just another knock against tubless tires.

At this point, I would equate tubeless to "almost" like tubular. The ride is good and jolly until you get a flat that won't seal. This means any flat bigger than a small staple or pin... will not seal. Stans advertise their sealant being able to seal something 2-4 mm wide. Bullshiat. True, Stans will only seal a 4 hole if this hole has no pressure. For example, Stans will easily clog and seal a small straw, like a coffe straw (I've tested it!). But in road tire under high PSI, Stans will only spray all over your frame. Oh how I have cleaning the white milky shiat off my frame and brake caliper afterward.

To make matters worse, tubeless tires are not cheap. You can't just throw one away if it doesn't seal. You would be compelled to repair them with superglue and a patch and use it with a tube. I guess it's called salvaging huh!

Just about the ONLY thing I found good in tubeless setup is that if you do get a big blowout due to a gash to the tire, the tubeless tire is MUCH LESS likely to just pop from the bead of the rim like a regular clincher can. In this light, tubeless is safer when doing downhill, and yes I have a blowout doing downhill on my Dura Ace wheelset and Padrone tubelsss tires, and the Padrone hung onto the rim tight like tubular. I was very impressed with how the Padrone didn't peel from the rim. But is is just about the only positive I can say about tubeless tire setup.

So now I'm spending Memorial Day converting, and cleaning, all my tubeless tires back to use regular clinchers. It has been a good lesson learned. I'm pretty sure plenty of folks have had great success wih tubeless. But not me. Riding in the mountains a lot mean I will get sharp rocks that will cut deep into the tires, and it is these cuts simply do not seal, and even if they do seal, the seals will only last about 5-10 miles before they break open again. I'm not talking about a small pinhead or small staple leaving a small round and clean hole (where sealing is much easier). I'm talking about an irregular shaped gash of about 1-3 mm wide (in other word, a typical cut one would get from sharp rocks on the mountains).

Adios tubeless!


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Here comes all the tubeless defenders

Different strokes for different folks


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Burn the heretic!!!

Lol. 

Next thing you'll be debunking disk brakes


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'm still a fan of tubeless (and disc brakes). But these go on my mtb bike. No question that tubeless is the way to go on mtb bikes. Pressure there is much much lower so a good seal can actually form and not break. Also for mtb terrain, most of the flats are either a pinch flat (which tubeless can almost solve) and thorns (and like I said, little perfectely round punctures like thorns are easily seal). In mtb biking, rarely do you get a gash in the tire (like you do on road).

Honestly I'm really bummed that I have to ditch all my tubeless setup because I've spent a lot of money setting up, trying out different tubeless tires, and maintaining these 3 wheelsets over about 1.5 years. Cost does play into my decision. Tubeless tires are expensive. You can't find them for 50% off like you do for the regular clinchers. And if I can't even come close to utilizing the life of a tubeless tire as it is advertised, then I'm wasting a HUGE amoun of money. As of this point, I have about 5 to 6 pairs of tubeless tires that I will be using with a tube after being only used about 20% - 30% of their thread life.

And I should have made a video of how I clean my Dura Ace rim after the Stans shiat corroded them. Imagine a woodshop worker taking sandpaper and trying to remove the imperfection in his wood. That's me. The Stans concontion created literally hundred of little bumps which are actually tiny rubber particulates that have coagulate and oxidized into lumps. One can't simply scrub them off with fingernails. I have to let the wheel dry out in the sun, than take sandpapers to them like you're sanding zit off a teenager's face. And the process create a little dust cloud as the dried out rubber is being sanded down. There goes Memorial Day.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Can't blame you, sounds like you tried.
I'll stick with mine for the time being, they've been good so far. 
^^^knocks on wood


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

It's good that most tire manufacturers didn't buy into the stupidity of tubeless on a road bike. Never a better example of a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

Just like anything related to new biking technology (CF rims, disc brakes, electronic shifting, etc....) for some there will be tangible benefits to make it worth the plunge, for others not so much. Doing some research in advance goes a long way!

That said, I will comment on a couple of your points:
- You should of tried some other sealants, Stans maybe the shiz for MTB tires, but not so much for road tubeless. Slime by almost all reports is pure junk. I've had good luck with Hutchinson Protect'Air but Bontrager and Orange Seal are supposed to be good too.
- Cost: I tried 4 different brands of tubeless and have paid no more than $60-70 each for them (all had MSRPs of $70-$110). Yes tubeless bargains are harder to find, but they can be had- mostly by price watching them well in advance of when you need them and by shopping on foreign web sites. While this is still significantly more than a good tubed clincher, if you factor in the cost of say one or two latex tubes over the life of the tire then the cost difference is small or break even. Why latex tubes? Because butyl tubes just don't compare ride/handling quality wise.
- As you said, tubeless flat resistance is dependant upon the type puncture issues you have to deal with. For me, 95% of my flats were due to goat heads which tubeless handles extremely well (and point punctures in general). But for large sidewall and glass cuts, tubeless brings little or nothing to the table but a big mess to cleanup.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Yep I tried. But in the end, it's just too expensive and too much pain in the ass to use tubeless.

However, I still like the idea of using "tubeless rims" due to their deeper hook. The deep hook makes it harder for even a regular clincher to peel in an event of a big catastrophic blowout. So in this sense, tubeless rim is safer than nontubeless rims. Yes, this also means that mounting and removing regular clinchers on tubeless rims are more difficult and will require you to use tire levers, but I'm ok with using levers in exchange for a tighter and safer rim-tire interface.

Time to go back to ye ole regular clinchers and butyle tubes!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cooskull said:


> Just like anything related to new biking technology (CF rims, disc brakes, electronic shifting, etc....) for some there will be tangible benefits to make it worth the plunge, for others not so much. Doing some research in advance goes a long way!
> 
> That said, I will comment on a couple of your points:
> - You should of tried some other sealants, Stans maybe the shiz for MTB tires, but not so much for road tubeless. Slime by almost all reports is pure junk. I've had good luck with Hutchinson Protect'Air but Bontrager and Orange Seal are supposed to be good too.
> ...


I think the cost difference is much more pronounce than that. I can get a Michelin Pro 4 or Conti 4000 or Bontrager R3 in 25mm for about $30-$35 at pretty much any given time online. That's half the cost of a $60-$70 tubeless tire that may or may not be availabe at any give time and may not be available in 25mm width. The cost of a lightweight butyl tube is about 84g and can be purchased when on sale for about $4-$5 each. You don't need to go latex, which is about 75g and cost like $12 apiece, and offer very minimal benefit over a lightweight butyl. 

But don't forget that with tubeless, you'll also have sealant cost too.

But with my 23-25mm wide rims, and 25mm wide tires, latex (and even lightweight butyl) tubes offer minimal performance benefit. It's not like the old days of skinny 19mm wide rims on 20-21mm wide tires, where latex or lightweight butly could make a noticable difference in feel and performance.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> I think the cost difference is much more pronounce than that. I can get a Michelin Pro 4 or Conti 4000 or Bontrager R3 in 25mm for about $30-$35 at pretty much any given time online. That's half the cost of a $60-$70 tubeless tire that may or may not be availabe at any give time and may not be available in 25mm width. The cost of a lightweight butyl tube is about 84g and can be purchased when on sale for about $4-$5 each. You don't need to go latex, which is about 75g and cost like $12 apiece, and offer very minimal benefit over a lightweight butyl.
> 
> But don't forget that with tubeless, you'll also have sealant cost too.
> 
> But with my 23-25mm wide rims, and 25mm wide tires, latex (and even lightweight butyl) tubes offer minimal performance benefit. It's not like the old days of skinny 19mm wide rims on 20-21mm wide tires, where latex or lightweight butly could make a noticable difference in feel and performance.


Yeah, I guess $35ish is pretty typical these days for a high end clincher. Sealant price varies considerably from about $0.75 to $4 per tire per application- I'm trying some of the cheaper alternatives now myself. So assuming say two flats per tire over it's entire life gives about a $25 savings using clinchers with light weight butyl tubes and about $5-8 when using latex tubes.

Indeed, the selection of 25c tubeless tires is pretty limited.

Have to agree to disagree about the performance differences though. I feel the ride and handling performance of most of the tubeless tires I tried was considerably better than my standby Conti 4000s with light weight butyl tubes I used to ride.

Cheers!


----------



## scottma (May 18, 2012)

Notvintage said:


> a solution looking for a problem.


My thoughts exactly


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

To the OP - that's a great and thoughtful post on the pitfalls of road tubeless. Sorry it didn't work out for you,. You invested heavily (both time and money), but at least you can run the same wheels as clinchers.

My experience was different but then I wasn't looking for puncture resealing. For me, the benefits are ride quality, descending confidence and safety. I've had a couple of front wheel blow-outs on steep slopes at high speed (edit - with clinchers), and one of them put me in the hospital. Road tubeless gives me some extra insurance from the tight bead fit and the way that the tire snaps into the rim. I'm hoping to reduce the risk of the catastrophic failure mode. Fortunately, I don't have any such data points in ~5 years of riding at about 3000 miles/year to draw any conclusions from.

I do use Cafe Latex, sometimes, but only to get an airtight seal upon inflation if necessary. It might seal a pinhole puncture and get me home, but I don't expect it to do anything useful for a larger hole. I plan to repair on the road with a tube, but I can only think of one time in the last 5 years where I had to do this. That actually didn't work out too well because I couldn't get the tire seated properly again, but that was a user error which I think I can fix now. I should also say that I often run a regular clincher in the rear so that I can use a PowerTap wheel. Fixing a puncture out on the road has become so infrequent that I'm getting pretty rusty at doing it. This is more a statement of the roads I ride rather than the tires though. Oh, I've exclusively used Hutchinson Fusion 2. Still have some left and some Fusion 3 - I'm not going through them as quick as I thought.

Anyway, this is not to argue with your experience. I think if I was suffering from punctures, I'd have dumped tubeless too. Dealing with any sealant goop out on the road is no fun.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

an update.

so have finally finished sanding the hardened rubber bits off of my 2 Dura Ace 7900 wheels. There is still some slight residual rubber bits, but I think if I sand the rim anymore, I'm afraid I might polish too much aluminum off!

Anyway, I proceeded to repair my busted Hutchinson Intensive tubeless rear tire. Used superglue on the hole, and it held. And just for curiousity, I decided to mount the repaired tire back on the rear wheel without using a tube, and just pumped it up. NO sealant was used (never again!). Well the darn thing held air tight from the initial pump (using floor pump). LOL so now I'm just gonna run this tubeless setup without sealant. If I get a flat on the road, I'll just pop in a tube. At least I won't be dealing with the milky shiat again.

So maybe my story with tubeless is not exactly over yet. LOL here we go again.

As for performance between tubeless and tubed. I can't say I feel there's any difference, except for the safety issue I mentioned previously.

However, make no mistake about it, a premium clinchers like the Vittoria Evo or Zipp Tangente run with a latex or even a lightweight butly... will own any tubeless combination out there right now. But the reason I don't run Vittoria or Zipp is well... I'd be spending time fixing 2-3 flats on each mountain ride.

But currently, I have to say my most favorite wheel/tire combination and "buck/performance" is the Hed Ardennes 25mm wide rim with a 25mm wide Michelin Pro 4 or just about any 25mm wide tire. This combination is sooo volumious that the tire when mounted will balloon to easily 27-28mm wide. This impressed me. Only downside is that most frames will not fit a 28mm wide tire/wheel combo! Luckily my Cyfac Nerv fits it. My buddy's Cannondale Evo wont fit it. He was quite dissapointed to find out that his bike wont be able to run such wide wheel/tire combo.


----------



## scottma (May 18, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> However, I still like the idea of using "tubeless rims" due to their deeper hook. The deep hook makes it harder for even a regular clincher to peel in an event of a big catastrophic blowout. So in this sense, tubeless rim is safer than nontubeless rims. Yes, this also means that mounting and removing regular clinchers on tubeless rims are more difficult and will require you to use tire levers, but I'm ok with using levers in exchange for a tighter and safer rim-tire interface.


That is an interesting point. I run Dura Ace C24 tubeless wheels with Conti GP4000s tires with tubes. Yes, the tires fit a lot tighter and "pop" when they seat like a tubeless tire does. Maybe a bit harder to mount, but not too bad. The extra margin of safety is not something I thought of before.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

scottma said:


> My thoughts exactly


You could use that line of thinking with virtually every bike technology that's come out in the last 50 years- carbon fiber use, more gears, index shifting, electronic shifting, clipless pedals, etc... The roll out of these advancements did not solve any "problem" per say. A 50 year bike will probably get you from point A to point B just as safely and reliably (or more so!) as a modern day bike with the above advancements will. Still I would venture to say the vast majority of us prefer the ride behaviour of a modern day bike over the 50 year old bike.


----------



## Neb (Sep 8, 2012)

What pressure were the tires ran at? I wonder if running a tire like the Secteur 28's at a lower pressure might solve the sealant issue?


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

I've had pretty good luck with my 2-way fit campy wheels running Hutchinsons, although I have had one significant puncture that the sealant would not fix. Other than that still riding the same set up, Fusion 3 front Intensive rear, and I bought a couple of each which should last me through this season and beyond. I use the Stan's sealant, from the one time I cleaned out the old and put in some new, I was worried that it might corrode the rim as some have reported, but there was no such cosmetic let alone metallic damage apparent. Maybe Shimano's surface treatment is susceptible to ammonia or something. The Campagnolo rim treatment (even the adhesive bar code labels) doesn't seem to be affected by Stan's at least.

Re-installing those tires can be a bit more hassle getting a decent seal on the bead though!


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Thanks for the detailed comments, aclinjury. Reading your experiences with tubeless is much more credible than ad copy, magazine reviews, or listening to the salesman.

Call me a Luddite, but I can't see the benefits outweighing the aggravation.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

Running tubeless seems to produce a very wide range of results amongst its users. It's benefits for flat protection, ride quality and the hassle factor are all over the spectrum.

I will say from my own experience regardless of peoples opinions on the pros and cons, running tubeless is not user friendly even if you get the best of results. Here are some reasons:
1) Mounting tubeless tires is usually never easy and can be extremely difficult. You need to have excellent technique and a repertoire of tricks to get the buggers on without using levers as recommended. If things don't go well you need to figure out why and improvise. The hassle factor varies tremendously between rim and tire combinations.
2) Changing tires is a chore when you're running sealant. All the dried sealant must be thoroughly cleaned from the rim beads before installing a new tire or else you may have air holding issues. Of course this extra up front work is hopefully offset by you having to spend less time on the side of the road changing flats!
3) Information about tubeless is often sparse and hard to find on the interwebs. Sealant is a prime example of this- there is very little info on sealant usage/effectiveness for road tubeless. Which means you're the guinea pig trying to figure what works for you and what doesn't.

This is not to say running tubeless can't be a net good thing, I'd say it's just probably better suited for avid bike aficionados who probably tend to do their own bike maintenance.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Neb said:


> What pressure were the tires ran at? I wonder if running a tire like the Secteur 28's at a lower pressure might solve the sealant issue?


I war running it around 70-75 psi. I think you would need to dip into the 50 or maybe even 40 psi range for a reliable seal, but 40 - 50 psi is just too low for the road.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

scottma said:


> That is an interesting point. I run Dura Ace C24 tubeless wheels with Conti GP4000s tires with tubes. Yes, the tires fit a lot tighter and "pop" when they seat like a tubeless tire does. Maybe a bit harder to mount, but not too bad. The extra margin of safety is not something I thought of before.



of all my tubeless wheelsets, the DA 7900 C24 has the tightest fit and grab of the tire bead. This is the wheelet I use for the mountains, for its lightweight climbability, and an extrememly tight tire-rim interface for descending. Win-win.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

aa.mclaren said:


> I've had pretty good luck with my 2-way fit campy wheels running Hutchinsons, although I have had one significant puncture that the sealant would not fix. Other than that still riding the same set up, Fusion 3 front Intensive rear, and I bought a couple of each which should last me through this season and beyond. I use the Stan's sealant, from the one time I cleaned out the old and put in some new, I was worried that it might corrode the rim as some have reported, but there was no such cosmetic let alone metallic damage apparent. Maybe Shimano's surface treatment is susceptible to ammonia or something. The Campagnolo rim treatment (even the adhesive bar code labels) doesn't seem to be affected by Stan's at least.
> 
> Re-installing those tires can be a bit more hassle getting a decent seal on the bead though!


Shimano's 7900 C24 rims have raw aluminum, no anodization of aluminum. This is perhaps why the ammonia got to them. Everyone with C24 wheelset and Stans will attest to the damaging of the metal by the Stans.

Ohter rims from other wheelset like the Trek Bontrager TLR have their metal anodized. In this case, the metal is unaffected.

but let me tell you, the affect of the Stans on shimano C24 is nasty.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Peter P. said:


> Thanks for the detailed comments, aclinjury. Reading your experiences with tubeless is much more credible than ad copy, magazine reviews, or listening to the salesman.
> 
> Call me a Luddite, but I can't see the benefits outweighing the aggravation.


Honestly I was lured into tubeless when I was at Interbike a couple years ago watching the Stans rep doing their demo. I was totally impressed with the rep taking a medium sized screwdriver and poking at the tire multiple times and each time the sealan would seal almost instanstantly. Heck, even a sidewall puncture was seal quickly. Totally impressed by the demo.

but int he real world, things are much different. Puncturing objects are often not a clean and smooth screwdriver, but irregular objects that often leave a jagged hole that's hard to seal.

However, the ONE feature of tubeless specific rim that is a big positive to safety is that their deep rim hook do grab the tire tightly in the event of a blowout. In this sense, it's great.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cooskull said:


> Running tubeless seems to produce a very wide range of results amongst its users. It's benefits for flat protection, ride quality and the hassle factor are all over the spectrum.
> 
> I will say from my own experience regardless of peoples opinions on the pros and cons, running tubeless is not user friendly even if you get the best of results. Here are some reasons:
> 1) Mounting tubeless tires is usually never easy and can be extremely difficult. You need to have excellent technique and a repertoire of tricks to get the buggers on without using levers as recommended. If things don't go well you need to figure out why and improvise. The hassle factor varies tremendously between rim and tire combinations.
> ...


I can't even come close to mounting any tubeless tire that I have used by hands. Not even close. I take levers to all of them. I saw a youtube demo of a rep from Maxxis mount a Padrone tubeless tire onto a Dura Ace C24 wheel without using any lever, and with ease. Bullshiat, they must have rigged the demo. Because in reality, there is no freakin way a Padrone tire can go on the DA C24 wheel that easily. Even with 2 levers, I had to use quite a bit of effort to get the last 4-5 inches of the tire to go over the rim.

Yeah yeah, you're suppose to push hte bead to the center chanel of the rim bed, and work the tire toward the valvestem... blah blah. Reality is different.

After well over a year of experiment, with 3 tubeless wheelsets (Dura Ace C24 tubeless, Bontrager TLR tubeless, HED Ardennes Plus tubess), and tubeless tires ranging from models like Fusion3, Intensive, Sector28, Padrone, Bontrager R3 (that's probably $500 dollar worth of tires), and spent many hours of installing them and fixing them... I'd say a little qualify to say that they're not worth the time, effort, and money.

One major downer about tubeless tire is as I mentioned earlier, you can't easily repair them once they've worn down to as little as 10%-20% their tread. In order to use superglue, you need a lot of meat left on the tire, and the gap can't present (a cut is ok, but not a gap). Once there is a gap, even a small gap of .5 mm, then glueing will not work, and now you have to use a patch to try to patch the gap. This patch is very difficult to do, and even if you're successful in patching the gap, the patch may come apart after some miles. In practice, it's very hard for a person to truely use a tubeless tire without a tube for its lifetime. For the same amount of money I spent on tubeless tires, I could have easily bought double the amount of regular clinchers (when they're on sale).


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Your in depth experience is fantastic. It brings to mind the cliche "Reinventing the wheel".

Indeed.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> I can't even come close to mounting any tubeless tire that I have used by hands. Not even close. I take levers to all of them. I saw a youtube demo of a rep from Maxxis mount a Padrone tubeless tire onto a Dura Ace C24 wheel without using any lever, and with ease. Bullshiat, they must have rigged the demo. Because in reality, there is no freakin way a Padrone tire can go on the DA C24 wheel that easily. Even with 2 levers, I had to use quite a bit of effort to get the last 4-5 inches of the tire to go over the rim.
> 
> Yeah yeah, you're suppose to push hte bead to the center chanel of the rim bed, and work the tire toward the valvestem... blah blah. Reality is different.
> 
> After well over a year of experiment, with 3 tubeless wheelsets (Dura Ace C24 tubeless, Bontrager TLR tubeless, HED Ardennes Plus tubess), and tubeless tires ranging from models like Fusion3, Intensive, Sector28, Padrone, Bontrager R3 (that's probably $500 dollar worth of tires), and spent many hours of installing them and fixing them... I'd say a little qualify to say that they're not worth the time, effort, and money.


Wow, I guess YMMV is an under statement here. I have tried Maxxis Padrones, Bonty R2 TLRs, Schwalbe Ones and IRC Roadlites on my Velocity A23 wheels. All went on without too much hassle except for the R2s- those were a royal PITA and I did end up using levers. But FWIW, the bag of tricks and technique I referred to in an earlier post goes beyond the usual "ensuring the beads are in the center channel" and finishing at the valve tips- there are other tricks I collected over time from various threads in this forum.

Given your experience I wouldn't blame you a bit for hanging it up. If you're not getting any noticeable ride and flat protection benefits, then absolutely, save yourself $ and the extra misery and go back to tubed clinchers!


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

I've only got the one pair of wheels set up with tubeless, and I'll concede that my mileage is nothing like it used to be! In any case I've used the Hutchinson Intensive rear/Fusion 3 front for a couple of years now, on the second round for each tire. I did re-install the other week as it is advisable to clean out the old, and get the fresh sealant in there after so many months. But in addition to the re-install being far more of a gong show, actually getting a good seal on the bead, on the plus side, they now seem to retain air much better. So, I guess all that comedy wrestling on install#2 forced more sealant all along the bead (I think) which makes for much less air escaping.

Always a mixed blessing with these things it seems.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

scottma said:


> My thoughts exactly



I've said the same thing. Seems some riders, are intent on making riding a bit too complicated. Clinchers are a tried and true solution that works. Unless there's a specific goal in mind such as a race, I can't imagine not using clinchers. Solution looking for a problem definitely describes tubeless.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> I've said the same thing. Seems some riders, are intent on making riding a bit too complicated. Clinchers are a tried and true solution that works. Unless there's a specific goal in mind such as a race, I can't imagine not using clinchers. Solution looking for a problem definitely describes tubeless.


Tubeless is still a clincher tire


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

I have to admit this thread makes me MORE tempted to try tubeless, interestingly. Most of my punctures are frigging Goatsheads, which are everywhere here and make tiny holes -- but go straight thru' Gatorskin Hardshells. Sealant tubes are ok , but if tubeless is better on the small punctures, in tempted by a set if the 28mm schwalbe Ones!


----------



## redvespablur (Aug 23, 2011)

I just love the tubeless. It lets me, as a clyde, run with lower psi w/o worrying about pinching. 

More comfort, fewer flats (none until the tire is worn out usually). Two set of Zondas with Hutch Intensive on on and Fusion 3 on the other + Fulcrum Zeros with 28 Secteurs. I have a some Schwalbe One's waiting on deck.


----------



## trener1 (Jan 22, 2004)

I went tubeless a few months back, the other day I was in a race and got a flat, when I tried to find the hole I couldn't see anything at all, so I went back to the start and pumped up the tire, there was a tiny little hole actually on the sidewall that you couldn't actually see, only hear the air go out, I have no idea what caused it or why the sealant didn't work, kind of bummed about that.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

Couple possibilities why it didn't seal. 1) The sealant dried out over time 2) Sometimes the sealant has a difficult time making it to the sidewalls to seal a cut, centrifugal force tends to pool the sealant in the center of the tire casing. Some sealants claim they foam to prevent this but I have no real world experience with any of them.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> I can't even come close to mounting any tubeless tire that I have used by hands. Not even close. I take levers to all of them. I saw a youtube demo of a rep from Maxxis mount a Padrone tubeless tire onto a Dura Ace C24 wheel without using any lever, and with ease. Bullshiat, they must have rigged the demo.


Do you use the channel in the middle of the rim? It is there so that the opposite side of the tire can sit into it, allowing you to more easily pull the side you are seating over the rim.

Go to 1:35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxwEKUV6nxo


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Tubeless rims; I flatted a SL23 early rim [the notorious ones] with a 23mm SC Michelin out on the road yesterday. It was a spirited ride, and I wanted to get rolling fast so we all did not cool down being 1/2 way in.

I got it off in a few seconds, the wheel, took a minute to get the tire off by hand. Put in a new tube and that last bit of tire over the bead took a solid 30 seconds with my gorilla hands. I got home and took off my gloves and had a night contusion across my forward part of my hand. I am surprised I did not rip the glove.  But still like 5-6 minutes before it got pumped up and the stuff put all away etc. Reasonably fast for fast casual ride, race loosing slow otherwise. 

I got right on the front to pull to say thanks for waiting with me being a non group ride technically. Totally under estimating the energy used in an Adrenalin induced pit stop and had get off the front in less than a minute. 

I can totally see the OP sentiment. A flat fixer/rider with lesser hands [non gorilla like] would certainly taken more than 6 minutes.  Not to mention I have maybe a million tire mounts under my belt. Well, a few thousand...

But as far a tubeless rims with tubeless tires, Probably take a bad cut and sealant lambasting for me to wain...


----------



## charlesrg (Mar 29, 2014)

Schwalbe One tubeless mounts easily. Padrone sucks to mount. I've spent several CO2 and no luck. Much less effort to get the schwalbe one.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

When Shimano first came out with tubeless wheels fusion (1) was also the only tire on the market and they were easy to mount. Subsequent to that Shimano pretty much destroyed the tubeless market with their oversized Dura Ace rims with minimal trench that required two people to mount the tire. More recently, they have become a bit better. Still the hardest tubeless rims to mount on the market but one guy can do it with determination and an extensive four letter word vocabulary. 

I'm still a fan of tubeless--just not of shimano wheels or spare wheels that don't get a lot of use. Overall, for dependability, I still prefer tubulars, then tubeless, and last and least, clinchers with tubes.


rsilvers said:


> Do you use the channel in the middle of the rim? It is there so that the opposite side of the tire can sit into it, allowing you to more easily pull the side you are seating over the rim.
> 
> Go to 1:35.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxwEKUV6nxo


----------



## Asmodeus2112 (Aug 5, 2008)

I'm currently using Sector 28's on my commuter. Bontrager mountainbike TLR rims. Since I primarily mountain bike and have been tubeless for years, I have a lot of experience with it. I'm still on the fence regarding the value of tubeless on the road, but one thing is for sure, if you are not mechanical or do not do your own maintenance I think tubeless is too much trouble. I've had several nails, thorns, glass pieces that have caused the sealant to come into action and so far have not had to repair on the road. I do use superglue on bigger punctures for a temp fix and then once in a while pull the tire and use a repair kit on them. My rims are older and had a rim strip inside that had an inner ridge, I could not get the tires off the bead for my life and ended up destroying the tires to get them off. Now I just use tape and that works much better. I agree with much of what the OP has said, the value is elusive, but the difficulty mounting and repairing is assured.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

28mm tubeless from StarBike. Took seven days to the USA.

Was able to get it on but had to use some soapy water to stretch the last bit over the wheel without using a tire lever. It inflated with a compressor. So far I have no sealant in them and will see if they hold air overnight.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

rsilvers said:


> It inflated with a compressor. So far I have no sealant in them and will see if they hold air overnight.


Clearly illustrates the stupidity of a road "tubeless" tire. Put a tube in there and rest easy. Tubeless is brainless for a road application and fantastic for MTB.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Notvintage said:


> Clearly illustrates the stupidity of a road "tubeless" tire. Put a tube in there and rest easy. Tubeless is brainless for a road application and fantastic for MTB.



And you've run how many sets of road tubeless so far, and on what wheels and rims?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

wow it's been almost a year and a half since I wrote this. To date, I'm not resenting one bit for ditching tubeless. Nope I don't miss anything tubeless. 

A good clincher and thin butyl tube will ride better than even the best tubeless setup. And worry-free.

Haven't heard much about folks adopting tubeless. I think the tubeless movement for road has run its course. It's not like in mtb when tubeless came out, within about 5 years pretty much everyone is on board with tubeless. Well it's been 5 years of tubeless on the road, and so far the adoption rate is still low. I think the jury has spoken on tubeless.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> Well it's been 5 years of tubeless on the road, and so far the adoption rate is still low. I think the jury has spoken on tubeless.



Based on what? I see an awful lot of post and comments on Secteur 28s which came out more recently?/ certainly not 5 years ago. Me, I am at the take it or leave stage leaning take it. But I have said it before, a big cut and sealant bath when it occurs may sway me more.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

robt57 said:


> Based on what? I see an awful lot of post and comments on Secteur 28s which came out more recently?/ certainly not 5 years ago. Me, I am at the take it or leave stage leaning take it. But I have said it before, a big cut and sealant bath when it occurs may sway me more.


The good tires are just coming out for 2016. Pro One and the new Specialized. I don't think road tubeless made sense before now, and there is a good chance it does not make sense after now either - I am not sure yet.


----------



## simplemind (May 8, 2015)

charlesrg said:


> Schwalbe One tubeless mounts easily. Padrone sucks to mount. I've spent several CO2 and no luck. Much less effort to get the schwalbe one.


My Schwalbe One Tubeless went on with no drama. Did use soapy water to facilitate seating. Mounted on a Vision 40 non-TR wheel using Orange Seal tape and juice. Only have about 100 miles so far, and the air is not leaking down over a week like it did with tubes. BTW, Orange Seal now makes Endurance which is supposed to last 2-3 times longer.




robt57 said:


> And you've run how many sets of road tubeless so far, and on what wheels and rims?


Bingo


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

My bike is not compatible with this 28mm. Rubs on the brake strut. These are for sale if anyone was about to buy them, I can get them to you faster than anyone in Germany.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

robt57 said:


> Based on what? I see an awful lot of post and comments on Secteur 28s which came out more recently?/ certainly not 5 years ago. Me, I am at the take it or leave stage leaning take it. But I have said it before, a big cut and sealant bath when it occurs may sway me more.


I tried the Secteur 28. Not impressed at all in term of handling in the twisties because it gives too much, feel too squishy and squirmy during hard braking hairpins, and in high speed corners. In the real world, I don't know of one person who run secteur. Granted, the cyclists I most hang around with are racers types and types that ride race bikes that the secteur would have issue fitting in. However, my Serotta does fit the Secteur, just barely. Meanwhile, tubeless in 23mm and 25mm tires are a miserable fail to me.

the problem I see with tubeless tires is that in order for them to seal well and to last the mileage, they have to be made big, thick, and heavy. And because of this, their feel in corner is horrible, almost no feedback. Clinchers can be made light and supple, so they give great feedback in fast corners. For light riders, tubeless feel a bit dead and numb unless you set the psi really low, but setting a low psi makes the tire feel squirmy and insecure in corners. Too many compromises with little value.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I tried the Secteur 28. Not impressed at all in term of handling in the twisties because it gives too much, feel too squishy and squirmy during hard braking hairpins, and in high speed corners. In the real world, I don't know of one person who run secteur. Granted, the cyclists I most hang around with are racers types and types that ride race bikes that the secteur would have issue fitting in. However, my Serotta does fit the Secteur, just barely. Meanwhile, tubeless in 23mm and 25mm tires are a miserable fail to me.
> 
> the problem I see with tubeless tires is that in order for them to seal well and to last the mileage, they have to be made big, thick, and heavy. And because of this, their feel in corner is horrible, almost no feedback. Clinchers can be made light and supple, so they give great feedback in fast corners. For light riders, tubeless feel a bit dead and numb unless you set the psi really low, but setting a low psi makes the tire feel squirmy and insecure in corners. Too many compromises with little value.


The earlier road tubeless were made to be sealant optional, so the airtight casing made for heavy and stiff ride

The newer "tubeless ready" road tires will solve this as it doesn't need to be air tight without sealant, so sealant is mandatory


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tednugent said:


> The earlier road tubeless were made to be sealant optional, so the airtight casing made for heavy and stiff ride
> 
> The newer "tubeless ready" road tires will solve this as it doesn't need to be air tight without sealant, so sealant is mandatory


I'll take a wait and see this time.

One thing I don't like about adding sealant is that the sealant will give a weird feeling to the bike in a fast corner, you feel it in the handlebar as the front wheel roll with some sort of pulsing gyration effect. Not so much in a straight roll where the bike is upright to the ground. But at an angle at high speed, I feel it.

anyway, my perspective is when it comes to road tires, it must be absolute performance first, and flat innoculation later. I get maybe 2 flats per year max around the roads here, and at this point I have low incentive to think about flat protection. A good clincher tire setup will outperform a good tubeless setup.

Ultimately, I think tubeless will catch on with the gravel grinder crowds where 28c and 32c tires are desirable. Low speed, low psi, tough tires, makes sense to go tubeless, benefits are much more realized here. On the pavement at high speed, and desire to use light tires, tubeless makes no sense.


----------

