# Tubeless tires--What's the point?



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Hey Tubeless riders, 

What's the point of going tubeless? You are adding 60 grams per tire ( 120 grams ) of spinning weight when you add sealant. Plus the tires are actually heavier than a GP4000 with a 60 gram tube. 

Sounds like they would feel like a dog to me. 
thoughts?


----------



## framesti (Jan 26, 2009)

u make a good point. I think they are more a training tire than racing. U can put low


----------



## bicyclemech1 (Mar 29, 2009)

That is a good point.
But after a brief ride on the A-23 wheelset, I am totally sold on the large volume, super compliant, magic carpet ride that was infused into my wheelset/tires. 
Combine that with the flat resistance of a tubeless system and I think you have a winner.

I think tire weights will come down substantially very soon.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

skygodmatt said:


> Hey Tubeless riders,
> 
> What's the point of going tubeless? You are adding 60 grams per tire ( 120 grams ) of spinning weight when you add sealant. Plus the tires are actually heavier than a GP4000 with a 60 gram tube.
> 
> ...


60 grams of sealant? you are off by about 50 grams, maybe more. in a road tire you don't much sealant at all. i use tubulars for racing, so the tubeless set up is for training only. i actually wouldn't mind a bit if it did weigh more, it's just better training. 
the point(s) are these...
1) lower pressure=better ride quality and traction
2) lower pressure=longer tread life
3) no tubes=no pinch flats, and last but not least...
4) tires w/ sealant=fewer punctures
i could also argue that they will roll better, but since they're 'training' tires i don't really care about that.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2011)

i've also read the heavier tubeless maintains your inertia/momentum up climbs, plus combined with lower pressure, double whammy


----------



## corky (Feb 5, 2005)

I don't use sealant...... just throw a tube in if I puncture which isn't very often....no pinch flats.

I Love the ride....every bit as good as tubular without the need to inflate every time I ride my bike.


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Was thinking about the flats argument yesterday.
I ride some pretty crappy roads whilst out training.
I am probably on my bike 4 - 5 days a week.
Touch wood, but I would think my last flat was probably nearly 18 months ago.
Tubed at 110psi.
I am yet to see any convincing argument about any amazing benefits of tubeless for road.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

FTR said:


> Was thinking about the flats argument yesterday.
> I ride some pretty crappy roads whilst out training.
> I am probably on my bike 4 - 5 days a week.
> Touch wood, but I would think my last flat was probably nearly 18 months ago.
> ...


it's not amazing, it just works. lots of things work. if you don't think you need to try it, fine. but if someone out there does have problems w/ flats, this could be a good solution for them.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

People who don't understand Road Tubeless are the same folks that poo-poohed clipless pedals, aero bars, and STIs. Someday they might understand, but it's ok if they don't get it now. Nothing wrong with being afraid of technological improvements that they can't understand.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Believing what you read*



purple maize said:


> i've also read the heavier tubeless maintains your inertia/momentum up climbs


Uh, no. The amount of extra momentum you carry into a climb by virtue of a heavier wheel will disappear in the first 20 feet, and that is if the wheels are really heavy. More weight when climbing means climbing slower - full stop. Barely measureably slower in this case, but slower.


----------



## Weav (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't use sealant. Why don't you give them a try and see for yourself.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

cxwrench said:


> 60 grams of sealant? you are off by about 50 grams, maybe more. in a road tire you don't much sealant at all. i use tubulars for racing, so the tubeless set up is for training only. i actually wouldn't mind a bit if it did weigh more, it's just better training.
> the point(s) are these...
> 1) lower pressure=better ride quality and traction
> 2) lower pressure=longer tread life
> ...


I'd love to be able to run tubulars but the prospect of having to replace one on the road is really a huge turn-off to me. So tubeless is a great option. I love the ride quality.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2011)

Kerry Irons said:


> Uh, no. The amount of extra momentum you carry into a climb by virtue of a heavier wheel will disappear in the first 20 feet, and that is if the wheels are really heavy. More weight when climbing means climbing slower - full stop. Barely measureably slower in this case, but slower.


maintains inertia of each individual pedaling action, not consecutive ride speed. uh, physics man, not my fault!


----------



## brians647 (Mar 2, 2007)

cxwrench said:


> it's not amazing, it just works. lots of things work. if you don't think you need to try it, fine. but if someone out there does have problems w/ flats, this could be a good solution for them.


Got a favorite sealant?


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

I hate to play devils advocate but.....

1) The sealant makers like Stan's and Tufo say 30g to 60g per tire ( 1ml is a gram) The tubeless rim weighs about 30g to 50g more because they need to be stronger. So, it is a FACT that you are adding between *120 grams and 220 grams per wheelset*. The tube/tire vs. tubeless tire are about the same. So weight wise they are TANKS. You've got to notice it....right?

2) I'll give you pinch flats...not with tubeless...point well stated. 

3) Sealant can be used in any inner tube. 

4) Ride quality? This is where the tubeless may shine bright. Is the ride really a lot better? I DO know that tubulars rule in this department. 

Would you tubeless guys ever go back to a tubed setup? Why not tubulars?

So, if a rider doesn't pinch flat much, why whould they care to go tubeless? Ride quality? Okay. Why not just use a tubular with some sealant? The Conti Sprinter is $50. I rode those and they really feel nice. Plus, you can get a pair of 1250 gram tubulars like the Shimano 7850 TU-24's that are tough as nails. 

Just being a realist here. Only my opinion.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

purple maize said:


> maintains inertia of each individual pedaling action, not consecutive ride speed. uh, physics man, not my fault!


would you mind sharing your calculations?


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

skygodmatt said:


> The tubeless rim weighs about 30g to 50g more because they need to be stronger. So, it is a FACT that you are adding between *120 grams and 220 grams per wheelset*. .


What non tubeless rim weighs 30-50 grams less than stans 350g rim?


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

TomH said:


> What non tubeless rim weighs 30-50 grams less than stans 350g rim?


The Shimano 7850-24-CL

They are an aluminum rim with a carbon laminate. The rims weigh 310 grams. 
The hubs are amazing too and they have a low spoke count but are very stiff and solid. 

Here is a photo:

Edit: Here is another wheelset that blows the doors off most of the competition.
It's the Bontrager Race XXX-Lite Clinchers. 1300 Grams and they are rock solid.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

Bontrager photo:


----------



## bigpantswheels (Jan 2, 2011)

Has anyone tried the Tufo tubeless clincher? In theory it sounds like a good idea, but I've never seen anyone using them.


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

purple maize said:


> i've also read the heavier tubeless maintains your inertia/momentum up climbs, plus combined with lower pressure, double whammy


Right. That's why cast iron and led rims are banned by the UCI. It's just too much of a climbing advantage.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> The Shimano 7850-24-CL
> 
> They are an aluminum rim with a carbon laminate. The rims weigh 310 grams.
> The hubs are amazing too and they have a low spoke count but are very stiff and solid.
> .


that sounds low - stated wheelset weight 1415 grams

dura ace front/rear hub 127+254 = 381 grams
spokes nipples 170 grams

1415- 551 = 864 for both rims or 430 grams each


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

brians647 said:


> Got a favorite sealant?


i use stan's, but we have a customer that puts in tons of miles and he uses stan's and cafe latex 50/50 for both road and mountain. theory being the stan's takes care of punctures and the cafe (because it foams) keeps the casing airtight. seems to me that stan's will coat the inside of the case as the wheels spins, and it seems to work. can't hurt mixing them, tho.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

bigpantswheels said:


> Has anyone tried the Tufo tubeless clincher? In theory it sounds like a good idea, but I've never seen anyone using them.


This should really be in a new thread, but I'll answer anyway. As a tire, they're heavier than others and have a slightly higher rolling resistance. Road feel is great though, and they corner really, really well. They sit taller than other tires, so if clearance is an issue, you might not be able to fit them.

Of course, they have the big disadvantage of tubulars in that you can't really fix it at the side of the road. If the puncture is tiny, you can get lucky with sealant or Pitstop, but any big puncture will have you calling for a ride (or you can carry a whole spare tire).

Plus they are non-repairable, unlike regular tubulars. I liked them ok, but they're really the worst of all worlds. Not recommended.


----------



## vincah (Aug 14, 2010)

Why can't you just throw in an inner tube if the tubeless tire doesn't seal after puncture?

Edit: Never mind, just googled and read up on tufo.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

skygodmatt said:


> 1) The sealant makers like Stan's and Tufo say 30g to 60g per tire ( 1ml is a gram) The tubeless rim weighs about 30g to 50g more because they need to be stronger. So, it is a FACT that you are adding between *120 grams and 220 grams per wheelset*. The tube/tire vs. tubeless tire are about the same. So weight wise they are TANKS. You've got to notice it....right?


Nope, I only use 8-10ml of sealant which is more than enough. Minor weight change. No need to use specific Road Tubeless rims either; all of mine are regular wheels with Stan's tape, which is no heavier than Velox.



skygodmatt said:


> 3) Sealant can be used in any inner tube.


Nope. Sealant doesn't work in tubes; they have too much movement. The hole seals and then breaks loose.



skygodmatt said:


> Would you tubeless guys ever go back to a tubed setup? Why not tubulars?


No way. Tubulars go back to the problem of flatting, and needing a team car behind you with a wheel, or carrying a spare tire around your shoulders. If I'm 100k into a 200k ride, I don't want to be stranded with a punctured tubular.

With Road Tubeless, I can patch it (preferred), or if the hole is too big, boot it and throw in a tube.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

vincah said:


> Why can't you just throw in an inner tube if the tubeless tire doesn't seal after puncture?


You can, but now we have TWO different types of tires referred to in this thread. Let's not confuse the two.

The thread is primarily about "Road Tubeless". This is a specific kind of tire, generally, but not always, used with wheels/rims that are "Road Tubeless" compatible.

The other subject that popped up is about "Tufo Tubular Clinchers". This is a tubular tire, sealed with a tube inside, that also has hooks to latch onto a clincher rim, instead of being glued to a tubular rim.

It would help if folks used correct and accurate nomenclature when posting about these subjects.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

purdyd said:


> that sounds low - stated wheelset weight 1415 grams
> 
> dura ace front/rear hub 127+254 = 381 grams
> spokes nipples 170 grams
> ...


No...stated weight is 1380. It says so right in the photo posted above. 
I weighed a set on my digital scale and it was 1399 grams. 
Also, the weight is mostly in the hubs. The rim does weigh 310 grams. I took the rim off a crashed set and weighed it. Do a google search to support this. 
The Bontragers are 1300. I weighed those too. I don't know the rim weight but it is LIGHT.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Physics is your fault*



purple maize said:


> maintains inertia of each individual pedaling action, not consecutive ride speed. uh, physics man, not my fault!


But what is your fault is completely not understanding the physics. A heavier rim/tire combination will increase in speed less for a given amount of pedaling force, and it will likewise slow down less during the dead spot of pedaling compared to a bike that weighs the same total weight but has lighter rims + tires. The variations in kinetic energy of rotation completely cancel out as long as the average bike speed and total bike weight is the same. The "peak" speed and the "trough" speed will be slightly closer together with a heavier rim/tire but if the total system weight is the same and the power is the same, the bike speed will be the same. 

Note that speed variations during each pedal revolution are miniscule, and so therefore is the effect of shifting weight from anyplace else to the rim/tire. But thanks for playing.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

we used to call the Tufo tubular-clinchers "clubulars". i never like them.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

A few comments:

1) Tubeless tires do not "ride better". Put less air in your tires if you want that. You'll be a little slower, but not much.

2) Tubeless tires do not have lower rolling resistance... in fact all the current offerings are worse in this respect than a lot of non-tubeless options.

3) Tubeless with goop are good for puncture flats. That is their best feature. Latex tubes are pretty good for pinch flats though... and if you get that far you are close to wrecking your rim anyway. 

4) Tubeless rims do not weigh more (or less) than clinchers... it's the same thing. 

5) I'm almost sorry for saying that heavy rims+tires actually help on a climb compared to carrying the same weight elsewhere... because people keep misquoting it. It is true but it is a super tiny amount... and you always want as little weight as possible. I only did that analysis to debunk the people who were saying that low rotational inertia is faster.


----------



## mattotoole (Jan 3, 2008)

rruff said:


> Tubeless tires do not have lower rolling resistance... in fact all the current offerings are worse in this respect than a lot of non-tubeless options.


All else being equal, tubeless should have lower RR. I just saw some test results from Tour where a tubeless Hutchinson tire had quite a bit less RR than the tube version of the same tire. But as you say, the tubeless Hutchinson was still not as good as some other tube type tires (because all else is not equal).


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

rruff said:


> A few comments:
> 
> 1) Tubeless tires do not "ride better". Put less air in your tires if you want that. You'll be a little slower, but not much.
> 
> ...


Hey rruff, 

I hate to morph my own thread but....

#1 - #3 I have to agree. 

#4 and #5 I have to disagree. 

#4) If the rims are the same- then why is the Shimano 7850 C24 TL almost 100 grams heavier than their 7850 C24 CL ? The only difference is in the rim. The hook needs to be reinforced. Yes you "can" use a non-tubeless specific rim but isn't a rim designed for that purpose safer? Perhaps we can get STAN from No-Tubes to chime in? 

#5) I have done a 6 mile time trial up an 8% grade that varies. I know I am faster with really light wheels. Am I faster because I weigh overall less? Or, am I faster because my rim inertia is less? I don't know. But I do know that when I mash with light rims, I surge forward an extra cm or so with every stroke. This I like very much.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

One last thing: 

Tubeless tires have been out for a few years now. 
If they are very great, how come I don't see very many riders with them?


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> Do a google search to support this.
> .


the tubular c24 rims are 310grams

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-12337756.html

clincher 380 grams

http://mattmagee.blogspot.com/2008/02/tested-shimano-wh-7850-c24-cl-wheelset.html

at least that is what i have read

not sure where i dreamed up 1415 grams for the weight


----------



## dysfunction (Apr 2, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> One last thing:
> 
> Tubeless tires have been out for a few years now.
> If they are very great, how come I don't see very many riders with them?


Selection is still extremely limited in road tubeless. I've been using them for a while on my mountain bike and I'll never go back to running tubes in that. The advantages in ride, traction and lack of flats far out weigh any disadvantages. That being said, I'm still running tubes on the road because.. the lack of tire selection. I am starting to see them (road tubeless) more and more often though. FWIW, the only inherent difference between tubeless and non-tubeless rims should be the bead hook. At least this is the case with both UST and BST hoops in the mtb world (since I don't physically possess any road tubeless, I'm going off memory with those)


----------



## roadie01 (Apr 13, 2010)

I've run Stan's tubeless on my mountain bike for 5 years and had one flat and that was due to a slate shard slicing a 2" hole in my tire. 

Most of the flats I get on the road are punctures while training on lunch rides, I guess that's what I get for riding in an industrial area where the road sweepers don't run. 

The only reason I've not converted my road bike to tubeless is I can't justify two new tires when I have two nearly new tires on the ride right now. The next time in the market for a new set it will be a tubeless conversion. 

The weight is a non-issue. As previously stated converting a standard spoked wheel to tubeless requires just the Stan's tape, tubeless tires, and sealant. The additional weight from the sealant is negligible, the tires are heavier but who cares for a training wheelset. 

I will be switching my 'race / event' wheels to tubular with sealant. I will probably carry a spare tubular in the event that I do get a flat that can't be sealed with the sealant. A tubular can be folded and fit in a tubular seat bag, jersey pocket, or even strapped to the seat post with a strap (a toe clip strap if your looking for that nostalgic look).


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

dysfunction said:


> Selection is still extremely limited in road tubeless. I've been using them for a while on my mountain bike and I'll never go back to running tubes in that. The advantages in ride, traction and lack of flats far out weigh any disadvantages. That being said, I'm still running tubes on the road because.. the lack of tire selection. I am starting to see them (road tubeless) more and more often though. FWIW, the only inherent difference between tubeless and non-tubeless rims should be the bead hook. At least this is the case with both UST and BST hoops in the mtb world (since I don't physically possess any road tubeless, I'm going off memory with those)


And in turn, the limited selection may be due to intellectual property limitations, which I don't know how it is in the case of road tubeless. I am, however, impressed that both Campagnolo and Shimano jumped into the puddle with both feet. All their top-of-the-line alu clinchers have tubeless-compatible options. 

So it could be that Hutchinson wants to protect some IP in the design and manufacture of the tires, but they freely gave away IP related to the rim design and manufacture. 

Anybody following up on the IP side of things?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

rruff said:


> 5) I'm almost sorry for saying that heavy rims+tires actually help on a climb compared to carrying the same weight elsewhere... because people keep misquoting it. It is true but it is a super tiny amount... and you always want as little weight as possible. I only did that analysis to debunk the people who were saying that low rotational inertia is faster.


try and tell this to a bike racer... "yeah, we're gonna put you on the heavy climbing wheels today"


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

skygodmatt said:


> #4) If the rims are the same- then why is the Shimano 7850 C24 TL almost 100 grams heavier than their 7850 C24 CL ? The only difference is in the rim. The hook needs to be reinforced. Yes you "can" use a non-tubeless specific rim but isn't a rim designed for that purpose safer? Perhaps we can get STAN from No-Tubes to chime in?


The lightest clincher rims you can get are the Stan's Alpha 340s. 



> #5) I have done a 6 mile time trial up an 8% grade that varies. I know I am faster with really light wheels. Am I faster because I weigh overall less? Or, am I faster because my rim inertia is less? I don't know. But I do know that when I mash with light rims, I surge forward an extra cm or so with every stroke. This I like very much.


If you surge more in the power phase because the inertia is low, then you also slow down more during the off phase. The increased speed variation is a little slower... which is what results in a super tiny advantage going to the heavy rims.


----------



## temoore (Mar 9, 2004)

I have Campy Eurus 2 way rims and have run several different Hutchison tires. I have owned them for about 1 1/2 years. I personally like the ride of the lower pressure and have had very few flats (these being large punctures). I use Stan's sealant. Every year I do a 6 to 7 day ride, and I like the ride that I get from 85 to 90 PSI. One of my other bikes has 25mm tubed tires, and even at 105 PSI, they are not quite as easy on me. The weight difference between the Eurus clinchers and 2-way fit is 18g for the wheelset. Add in tubes in one case and sealant in another, and the weight difference is not much (at least for me).
I suppose if I was all about performance, I would check the facts a little more closely and do some closer comparisons. At 62 YO, and liking to do long rides during the season, as well as not liking to change flats, these just work best for me. Others needs are different.
Here are a couple of articles:
http://www.bicycling.com/gear/detail/0,7989,s1-17-120-1494-0,00.html
http://bethelcycle.com/articles/road-tubeless-clinchers-are-ready-for-prime-time-pg312.htm
Articles are just opinions, as are the posts here. Finally, tubes just seem archaic. Cars tires have been tubeless for a long time. I know the needs and requirements are different, but I still feel tubeless is just more modern. All that said, I still have a little more trepidation dealing with flats. Both times I have flatted (again, big punctures), it has been raining and rather than trying a tubeless patch in the rain, I chose to put tubes in. Even though I have mounted them several times, and have changed flats, I still feel a little apprehensive when they do flat. All worked out fine, though.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

purdyd said:


> the tubular c24 rims are 310grams
> 
> http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-12337756.html
> 
> ...


Uh oh....I think I was confused and you are right. 
I am going to weigh that clincher one again this week and take a photo. Perhaps I did get around 380.


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

skygodmatt said:


> Hey Tubeless riders,
> 
> What's the point of going tubeless? You are adding 60 grams per tire ( 120 grams ) of spinning weight when you add sealant. Plus the tires are actually heavier than a GP4000 with a 60 gram tube.
> 
> ...


Try them and find out.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*counter opinion*

tubeless rule!!

will never go back..to tires and tubes...unless i have an irrepairable flat with sealant..


1) i can't ride tires and tubes below 90psi without pinching, especially if i go gravel or dirt on my ride..

2) ride quality is miles better than any tubed tire

3) traction is better therefore safer

4) when Hutch makes a 25c game over even in winter

5) i ride on real roads not drums, and rr is fantastic and that is compared to very high end tube and tires

6) did some roll downs and compared them to other tires and tubeless are actually a wee bit faster all things considered in my primative experiment with my bro

ride what you like just ride


----------



## goneskiian (Jan 13, 2005)

a_avery007 said:


> 4) when Hutch makes a 25c game over even in winter


They do...

http://www.hutchinsontires.com/en/catalogue-route.php?fiche=intensive-rtl.php&univers=4&pid=10


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*no way*



rruff said:


> If you surge more in the power phase because the inertia is low, then you also slow down more during the off phase. The increased speed variation is a little slower... which is what results in a super tiny advantage going to the heavy rims.


Without some proof, I'd never believe that.

Just think about it, though, even without a bunch of fancy testing or physics calculations. 

First scenario: The wheels have zero mass. It takes no force/energy to accellerate them, spinning and forward, or move them up the hill. Keep in mind that your entire body/bike system has inertia, so there is still plenty to keep your speed moving forward without excessive variation.

Second scenario: The wheels have infinite (ok, extremely high) mass. It takes a huge amount of force/energy to accellerate them, spinning and forward, and move them up the hill. However, once you get them going, they have a strong tendency to keep moving. 

Which would you choose?

Unless you are descending, every time you accellerate, it is your power that is causing it. In that case, lighter is always better. If you use your brakes to slow, that is relatively easy, requiring little energy, but again lighter is better. If you are climbing, and for some reason use your brakes or otherwise intentionally slow down, it will be your power that gets you back up to speed. 

More mass is harder to accellerate, harder to brake, and adds rolling resistance, not to mention is harder to get to the top of a hill.

Assuming durability is not an issue, I can think of only one circumstance I'd use heavier wheels, and that's descending, with little or no braking. In that case, I'd probably want to use a deep section front and disc rear. 

The circumstance you appear to be describing is entering a hill and wanting your momentum to carry you up the hill as far as possible. In that event, I'd think the additional momentum would be offset by the additional resistance to gravity, and it would be a wash. 

But, a reality check/personal observation: I've ridden all sorts of wheels and bikes up lots of hills of every kind, and all else equal, I'll take the lighter ones every single time. Even one hard accelleration is convincing.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> Hey Tubeless riders,
> 
> What's the point of going tubeless? You are adding 60 grams per tire ( 120 grams ) of spinning weight when you add sealant. Plus the tires are actually heavier than a GP4000 with a 60 gram tube.
> 
> ...


GP4000 215 grams + tube 60 grams = 275 grams

hutchinson Atom = 285 grams

60 grams of sealant is a lot - 15 grams is more than enough

but it is true, there are lighter weight clincher tires out there and light weight latex tubes that would weigh even less, unfortunately, they are pretty fragile

if you compare clinchers of the same durability, tubeless comes out pretty good

With Shimano you pay a penalty in weight for tubeless, Campy less so. But remember, you don't need rim tape

If you don't get flats, i would say go ride tubular and be done with it

However, for me, tubeless has significantly reduced the number of flat tires I have had to deal with on the road by about 80% at least

Probabaly the biggest issue is there is only three companies making road tubeless and only one of those (Hutchinson) is widely available. If Conti and Michelin (who did make road tubeless) got into the game, that would be significant.

The other issue is mounting the dang tires and getting them to seal. Maybe Stan has figured that out with the Alpha 340 as the videos look very promising.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*Tufos*

Tufo clinchers really suck. They aren't really tubeless. They have an "inside airtight layer", which is effectively a tube sealed up inside the tire. Can't unstitch them like a tubular, and can't change the tube/liner. All you can do is hope that the sealant works, which never did for me. On top of that, they are heavy, hard to mount, have high rolling resistance (Iike the highest measured of all clinchers), and ride like crap. As you say, the worst of all worlds. The only reason I'd ever consider them would if I planned to do a descent at 100 mph, as I'd bet the things would stay put even if you have a blow out, and they'd probably be the most resistant to high heat from heavy braking. I wouldn't use them if I got them by the gross for free.





















pmt said:


> This should really be in a new thread, but I'll answer anyway. As a tire, they're heavier than others and have a slightly higher rolling resistance. Road feel is great though, and they corner really, really well. They sit taller than other tires, so if clearance is an issue, you might not be able to fit them.
> 
> Of course, they have the big disadvantage of tubulars in that you can't really fix it at the side of the road. If the puncture is tiny, you can get lucky with sealant or Pitstop, but any big puncture will have you calling for a ride (or you can carry a whole spare tire).
> 
> Plus they are non-repairable, unlike regular tubulars. I liked them ok, but they're really the worst of all worlds. Not recommended.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

Just my thoughts/remarkes:

Tubeless tires work for cars. They should make sense on a road bike, just like they do on a mtb... Or do they?

The main "objective" advantage stated here so far seems to be the impreviousness to pinch flats.

Well, I never get pinch flats. Never. I get punctures. Perhaprs the occasional innertube blast when not properly installed. But no pinch flats. And I hear that tubeless tires can also be a pain if not installed properly.

I have no comfort problem or need to ride a specific lower tire pressure (I use 23 or 25 mm tires with 110 to 115 psi)

So until there is a clear advantage, weight, durability, resistance, PRICE, I have no reason to run tubeless.

Also: I have tubeless Mavic rims on my MTB. But I use traditionnal tires/tubes. Tubeless makes sense, but until they are imposed to me, I see no point.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

tempeteOntheRoad said:


> Also: I have tubeless Mavic rims on my MTB. But I use traditionnal tires/tubes. Tubeless makes sense, but until they are imposed to me, I see no point.


what pressure and tire size are you running on your mtb?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Fixed said:


> Without some proof, I'd never believe that. Just think about it, though, even without a bunch of fancy testing or physics calculations.


If you understand physics, then all you need to do is think about it. The lower inertia just increases the speed fluctuations within the pedal stroke, and the higher fluctuation is very slightly slower... due to greater wind resistance. 

Note that I said total weight is the same in both cases... a very important distinction.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*physics?*



rruff said:


> If you understand physics, then all you need to do is think about it. The lower inertia just increases the speed fluctuations within the pedal stroke, and the higher fluctuation is very slightly slower... due to greater wind resistance.
> 
> Note that I said total weight is the same in both cases... a very important distinction.


Well, there's understanding physics, then understanding reality.

If you isolate one factor, the inertia of the wheels, then what you are saying might be true for riding steady speeds. However, the reality is that we don't ride steady speeds, there are many other factors, and total weight does not remain constant (you add heavy wheels and then remove the saddle to make up for it?). I'd be willing to bet that the very first time you have to accelerate those heavier wheels up to speed, the extra energy required cancels out all of the benefit you describe for even a long ride. There's a darn good reason racers aren't throwing on 2500 gram wheels for climbing time trials.

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I will grant you that* if* your bike must have a particular weight, and *if *you are riding a steady speed, never speeding up or slowing down, and *if *you are not required to get the bike up to speed yourself, all else equal (e.g., aero) heavier wheels may be slightly faster.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*meant to say*



goneskiian said:


> They do...
> 
> http://www.hutchinsontires.com/en/catalogue-route.php?fiche=intensive-rtl.php&univers=4&pid=10


a 28c all the way through 32c..

thnx for the link though


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

cxwrench said:


> what pressure and tire size are you running on your mtb?


2.2 front and 2.0 rear, about 40 psi in both. Old Judy 100 in front, ti hardtail (pre-suspension geometry) Seems to work ok for me. I am heavy (180-185 pounds)


----------



## pcs2 (Sep 4, 2006)

tempeteOntheRoad said:


> 2.2 front and 2.0 rear, about 40 psi in both. Old Judy 100 in front, ti hardtail (pre-suspension geometry) Seems to work ok for me. I am heavy (180-185 pounds)


40 psi seems alot unless you are running on very smooth dirt paths.

It's generally* accepted that that for off roading, lower pressure is better.

I'm running 28/30 psi f/r (tubeless) on 2.2 f/r tires (XC to light AM) and I weight over 210 lbs (full suss). On my 80mm HT I run about the same pressure. 40 psi makes me feel like I'm bouncing over every little bump on the trail.

try going lower, you might like it.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

pcs2 said:


> 40 psi seems alot unless you are running on very smooth dirt paths.
> 
> It's generally* accepted that that for off roading, lower pressure is better.
> 
> ...



I did a lot of experimentation with tire pressure, as I raced with the dinausaurus back in the days. and I probably bounce a lot too. Fair enough, I don't do lots of heavy trial on sharp rocks anymore, and I prefer to ride longer than harder these days. As much as I do go to 35psi, I like the bouncy feeling I guess, plus I dont get flats and that is my #1 concern.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

Fixed said:


> Tufo clinchers really suck.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> I wouldn't use them if I got them by the gross for free.


Nicely stated. +1000


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

i'm 160ish and run WTB tires, depends on what time of year, but mainly 2.4 Mutano and 2.3 Weirwolf. i run 23-24 in the rear, and 20-21 front. tubeless. if you push the front really hard in corners, go a couple-3 psi more. if you hit sh*t hard a lot, go a bit higher. for mtb, tubeless is the ONLY way.


----------



## IndyFabCJ (Apr 1, 2006)

I've run tubeless for one season. I can tell a big difference in tubed vs tubeless tires on the road. My commuter is set up with Conti tubed and my Storck is set up with Hutchinson Fusion3/Atom. They do feel better at low pressure and high pressure. I've done a couple 40 milers with 40psi. There was no difference in avg speed when I pumped the tire up to 110psi mid ride. They just felt less comfy. That was just an observation on one ride so take that with a grain of salt. Tubeless is worth it. 

Tubes are for boobs...

Just kidding...


----------



## IndyFabCJ (Apr 1, 2006)

tempeteOntheRoad said:


> I did a lot of experimentation with tire pressure, as I raced with the dinausaurus back in the days. and I probably bounce a lot too. Fair enough, I don't do lots of heavy trial on sharp rocks anymore, and I prefer to ride longer than harder these days. As much as I do go to 35psi, I like the bouncy feeling I guess, plus I dont get flats and that is my #1 concern.


If flats are your #1 concern, tubeless is the way to go. The less deflection you experience from the tires the better. You will feel fresher, longer because the energy will not be transferred to your body. Not to mention traction and rolling is so much better.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

*I am reverting back to a standard setup*

You have a point about the weight but I don't think that the actual weight difference is really noticeable. Once you are moving along, it's all the same. On normal flat ground and even hills I really did not notice the difference between my 16 lb Madone and my 23 lb Merckx Corsa. When I really noticed the difference was when I was picking them up moving them around in my house.
Now having said all that, I will tell you that I had tubeless on 3 of my bikes and am now reverting back to standard tubed. Why? Well the ride quality was the main reason I went to them, plus flat protection. I recently found a set of tires that equals or is better than them in the ride department, Vittoria Open Pave EVO CG 's (with latex tubes), And at about the same price as Hutchinson's. 
I never did get a lot of flats so while I did like flat protection of tubeless, I never utilized it much. I will say of the 3 flats I got, one sealed up on the ride home. The other was a couple cuts in the tire. I placed a tube in it for the ride home then patched it with a boot (that one is a whole story in it'self).
The reason I am reverting back is because I have had an extremely hard time inflating these when there is no air in the tire, with my tire pump. If I can get 10 lbs in there, it's no problem, but I have to carry a CO2 cartridge along with a pump (in case the cartridge fails) so that's just a lot of extra stuff to carry. I may get more flats, that's yet to be determined but again, I never got many before anyway and I am comfortable with the changing procedure. Patch kit, and hand pump and 15 minutes, that's about it. 

Now the rims made for tubeless may allow you to fill with a hand pump starting from zero air pressure, I don't know. I'm using some Mavic SUP's, Shimano, and American classic rims with the tape over the spoke holes.

One thing to note, I switch rides between my bikes and you better not let a tubeless tire with sealant in it go flat and just sit there for a while. If you do you will have to remove the tire and clean all the dried sealant off the tire bead and the rim. this is a major pain and I had to do this because I was swapping rides on 2 of my bikes but the Corsa just sat there for over half a year with no rides and went flat. If you ride them all the time you will probably be fine.

Still that issue plus the fact that I had to double up and carry a CO2 cartridge plus my hand pump (2 cartridges of course, plus a tube just ended up being more hassle and junk then I wanted at this time. The ride quality was what sold me as I am really big on the feel of the ride, but now with the Vittoria's, those things ride pretty close to tubulars and I am back to just a standard setup of patch kit, spare tube (only if needed will I use it) and hand pump. I was paying close to $60.00 ea for the Hutchinson and I can get the Vittoria's for the same of less.


skygodmatt said:


> I hate to play devils advocate but.....
> 
> 1) The sealant makers like Stan's and Tufo say 30g to 60g per tire ( 1ml is a gram) The tubeless rim weighs about 30g to 50g more because they need to be stronger. So, it is a FACT that you are adding between *120 grams and 220 grams per wheelset*. The tube/tire vs. tubeless tire are about the same. So weight wise they are TANKS. You've got to notice it....right?
> 
> ...


----------



## jet sanchEz (Nov 28, 2005)

I've seen "tubeless conversions" mentioned a few times, what is this exactly? The TUFO product? Or is there another company doing this as well?


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

regular rim, rims strips, sealant and tubeless tire...


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

a_avery007 said:


> regular rim, rims strips, sealant and tubeless tire...


this makes it sound like regular rims strips too...

you use any road rim, stans narrow olympic tape and a stans valve. put in some stans sealant and inflate the tire...ready to go. there are other sealants that can be used, or you can mix them up if you like. i've not had a flat w/ stans in over a year and a half of training.


----------



## jet sanchEz (Nov 28, 2005)

cxwrench said:


> this makes it sound like regular rims strips too...
> 
> you use any road rim, stans narrow olympic tape and a stans valve. put in some stans sealant and inflate the tire...ready to go. there are other sealants that can be used, or you can mix them up if you like. i've not had a flat w/ stans in over a year and a half of training.


I see, that sounds interesting. I think I saw this in a Youtube video recently; are my Mavic Open Pros going to work with this system?


----------



## Brazos (Jun 20, 2009)

I needed a new set set of rims this past June and bought the Shimano WH-6700 tubeless ready rims & tubless Atom tires. I figured since you can run tubed or tubless why not try it. After many miles I won't go back to tubed tires. Running tubeless is nice. I can run w/ or w/o sealant. I ran w/o sealant for a while. Once I have several long charity rides lined up on the schedule I went ahead and put some Stan's in them. They set up just like tubed tires except you skip the step where you install a tube. As time goes you will see more of them. If you have a nice set of tubed clincher rims no need to dump them and spend money on a tubless set of rims. If you are in the market for new wheels take a serious look at some to the tubless rims available. You will like them.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

yes, they will work fine!

as poster stated above i should have made clear that you need stan's or other plastic rim strips..

any sealant like cafe latex, stans, latex and tubeless tire. 

i do NOT recommend using a regular tire with this system, i know others have but i am not risking my life having a tire blow off the rim at 50mph+...

hope this helps


----------



## Brazos (Jun 20, 2009)

To maybe clear up some confusion if you want to run tubless you can either buy tubeless ready rims (like I did, Ultegra 6700 wheels) or buy the Stan's conversion w/ the rim strip & sealant to convert you non-tubeless rims to tubeless. My tubeless ready rims requires no rim strip just tubeless tires (whichever route you need tubeless tires). So in my case I bought the Hutchinson Atom Comp Tubeless tires at 270g each. Though 70-80g heavier than a nice tubed clincher tire remember I don't need to have a tube so I save that weight. Whether or not I choose to run sealant should not be a weight penalty as the system works great w/ or w/o. At least I have a choice. I also have the choice to run my rims with tubes though it would be lighter to get a regular tubed clincher tire as the tubeless tires are heavier. If I have a flat I just install a tube no differently than if I had a tubed tire (if running sealant I drastically reduce my chances of flatting). So to me there is no down side to tubeless only an upside as I have more options. Again if you have some nice $1500+ Zipps you like keep them and enjoy them. If you are in the market for new wheels then check out some of the tubeless rim offerings.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

while pretty much any rim will work, remember...you MUST use a tubeless tire. regular tires will blow off the rim at the pressure used on the road.


----------



## skygodmatt (May 24, 2005)

*Post Update-- I bought a tubeless wheelset*

Well, 

It appears I better buy a piece of humble pie and eat it. 

I scored a set of Dura-Ace 7850 SL tubeless wheels after a buddy kept telling me I would love them. Put Fusion 3's inflated with 20 grams of Stan's sealant in each wheel- inflated to 100/90. 

I must say the wheels feel absolutely amazing. I would classify them as in between a good set of clincher and tubular wheels--more toward tubular. It smooths out the road a bit and absorbs the imperfections. They roll very well. I really don't know how well but my speeds and times are unaffected- with a much better feel. I have not had a flat yet but found two goat heads in the rear. I pulled them out and nothing happened. How can you argue with that? 

The tires went on without a hitch. It required a little more force to put the bead over the rim but it was no big deal. Inflating was very easy with a floor pump. Perhaps because these wheels were made for the tires? 

The wheels weigh in at 1530 grams but the weight is in the hub. The rims are very light and feel alive on the road. 

So far I am very happy with my purchase.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

skygodmatt said:


> Well,
> 
> It appears I better buy a piece of humble pie and eat it.
> 
> ...


it takes a big man to admit they were wrong 

sometimes the tires go on without a hitch and sometimes they don't

it is good to be happy with stuff you buy :thumbsup:


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Time will tell if I have to feast with Matt.
Just ordered a set of 32 hole Dura-Ace hubs laced to Stans rims with CX Rays as my Crit wheels. I will run Hutchinson Atoms initially.
Originally considered tubulars but I like to ride from my place to the track and was not convinced that tubulars and our local crappy roads was a good mix.
Tubeless is touted as the next best thing to tubs so I went that way.
I figure that if I dont like the tubeless for whatever reason I can just run standard race clinchers.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

good for you mate!

improved road feel, and smoothing out the bumps with no discernable loss of speed is always a good thing in my book..

enjoy your ride...


----------



## roadwarrior57 (May 31, 2007)

*agreed*



corky said:


> I don't use sealant...... just throw a tube in if I puncture which isn't very often....no pinch flats.
> 
> I Love the ride....every bit as good as tubular without the need to inflate every time I ride my bike.


You're the only one on this who actually gets it. If the tire is fitted properly on the rim you don't need the sealant. You can also choose to bring a tube if you're worried that the sealant won't take. No different than riding a clincher, only a better ride and less weight (do the calculations yourself).


----------



## Weav (Jun 21, 2009)

roadwarrior57 said:


> You're the only one on this who actually gets it. If the tire is fitted properly on the rim you don't need the sealant. You can also choose to bring a tube if you're worried that the sealant won't take. No different than riding a clincher, only a better ride and less weight (do the calculations yourself).


I was told by an industry expert who has been riding his 7850 SL wheels (compliments of Shimano, who gave them to him to test out) for 3-4 years without sealant and trouble free on his less than perfect roads, that "if you don't run sealant in your tube type wheels there's no reason to use them in your tubeless." I too have been riding sealant free without issue. Everyone tells me I'm crazy, "what if you get a flat then you're screwed"... Well as rare as I flat I can either carry a tube, which I rarely do, or use my cellphone and call my wife to come pick me up... big deal!


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

Weav said:


> I was told by an industry expert who has been riding his 7850 SL wheels (compliments of Shimano, who gave them to him to test out) for 3-4 years without sealant and trouble free on his less than perfect roads, that "if you don't run sealant in your tube type wheels there's no reason to use them in your tubeless." I too have been riding sealant free without issue. Everyone tells me I'm crazy, "what if you get a flat then you're screwed"... Well as rare as I flat I can either carry a tube, which I rarely do, or use my cellphone and call my wife to come pick me up... big deal!


I have to question how much sealant will actually be left to seal a hole after it gets forced out as the 100+psi pressure comes rushing out. And if it actually does seal, how much pressure will remain in your tyre.
I have seen sealant spurt out of a MTB tyre at 20psi so I have to think it will happen even more so at 100+psi.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

FTR said:


> I have to question how much sealant will actually be left to seal a hole after it gets forced out as the 100+psi pressure comes rushing out. And if it actually does seal, how much pressure will remain in your tyre.
> I have seen sealant spurt out of a MTB tyre at 20psi so I have to think it will happen even more so at 100+psi.


if you seldom get flats i agree, don't use sealant, I also want to know where you ride

but it does work very well with the road tubeless and yes, you will lose pressure but you can easily keep riding 

a lot of times i don't even notice i had a flat until i check the tire pressure for my next ride and notice it is really low

my current rear fusion 3 has at least 3 punctures 

although sometimes you will get a big puncture and it will spew all over the place like in a Monty Python movie


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

Weav said:


> I was told by an industry expert who has been riding his 7850 SL wheels (compliments of Shimano, who gave them to him to test out) for 3-4 years without sealant and trouble free on his less than perfect roads, that "if you don't run sealant in your tube type wheels there's no reason to use them in your tubeless." I too have been riding sealant free without issue. Everyone tells me I'm crazy, "what if you get a flat then you're screwed"... Well as rare as I flat I can either carry a tube, which I rarely do, or use my cellphone and call my wife to come pick me up... big deal!


Yeah, that works out great when you're on a 200k+ ride.

Both using sealant AND carrying a tube, plus a patch kit, is the way to go if you're doing any long rides. Usually the sealant will catch it and you can keep going. If not, you can just patch the tire and resume, with no follow-up needed.

When all else fails, you can use a tube, especially (and obviously) if you get a cut that needs a boot.

It's really useful to have sealant "catch" the small puncture when on a brevet with a group/paceline, and not get left behind while changing it, but being able to stay within the cover of the group. That has incredibly large value.


----------



## Weav (Jun 21, 2009)

I would consider using sealant on longer rides and cannot disagree with pmt's reasoning for using it on a brevet type of ride. 

Not everyone rides tubeless though, so what about those in the paceline running tubes, they're not running sealant. So does a clincher tire have better puncture resistance and offer better flat protection than a tubeless tire, that seems to be the insinuation here, even though nobody has stated it.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Weav said:


> So does a clincher tire have better puncture resistance and offer better flat protection than a tubeless tire, that seems to be the insinuation here, even though nobody has stated it.


You're right: that is the insinuation in all the discussions on tubeless. And to fully answer that, it depends on what kind of flats one has to deal with. Those who ride in places with lots of thorns from certain cacti-like plants will tell you that sealants are necessary regardless of riding tubeless or clinchers (or tubulars). And if you are to run sealants anyway, might as well run tubeless in the first place. 

Where I am in MA, most of my flats are from debris and glass. The sealant takes care of smaller debris, but for large cuts I have to boot and shove in a tube. So from a flats perspective, my use of tubeless with sealant has made only little difference. But I am sold on the lower pressure, that's why I run tubeless with sealant.


----------



## pmt (Aug 4, 2009)

Weav said:


> So does a clincher tire have better puncture resistance and offer better flat protection than a tubeless tire, that seems to be the insinuation here, even though nobody has stated it.


Not even close. Road Tubeless gives you the added luxury of using sealant if you so choose; sealant isn't usable on regular road tires with tubes because the tubes are stretchy, breaking the seal, and there's too much movement between tire and tube.


----------



## Weav (Jun 21, 2009)

pmt said:


> Not even close. Road Tubeless gives you the added luxury of using sealant if you so choose; sealant isn't usable on regular road tires with tubes because the tubes are stretchy, breaking the seal, and there's too much movement between tire and tube.


my sentiments exactly, however I haven't felt the need to go with sealant since my roads tend to be pretty average to good. Road Tubeless gives that nice ride by allowing a lower pressure in the tire, making it more forgiving than a clincher pumped up to 120 psi or more. The sealant would be a wise choice before embarking on a long ride for that extra protection in avoiding a pain in the @$$ pit stop to fix a flat.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

orange_julius said:


> You're right: that is the insinuation in all the discussions on tubeless. And if you are to run sealants anyway, might as well run tubeless in the first place.
> 
> Where I am in MA, most of my flats are from debris and glass. The sealant takes care of smaller debris, but for large cuts I have to boot and shove in a tube. .


If anything, it is the other way around as far as punctures, if you are comparing similar system weights. (tire plus tube & rim tape versus tubeless)

At the one extreme, you can ride tubeless with no sealant and if you get a puncture, put in a tube or patch the tire. The only problem is that at least with the Shimano rims they are hard to remove and put back on and can be hit and miss at resealing with a small pump or CO2 cartridge. So at worst, you put in a tube, so it is just like running a regular clincher at that point.

I would like to try the new Stan's No Tubes Alpha rims. If you have ever watched the video of installation, it looks very easy. If it is really that simple, i might consider giving up sealant.

As Julius states, if you are getting mostly small punctures and pinch flats, tubeless with sealant will essentially eliminate the need to change your tire on the road. Not to mention the occasional bad tube or damaging the tube when installing it.

For me it has been a god send in terms of flat tires and has literally eliminated 90% of my flats.

However, sealant does have some issues. On larger punctures it can spew out of the tire for awhile and be messy and it won't seal a really large split. And when you do change your tire you have to deal with the sealant and it can be messy if you aren't careful. It also will dry out after so even if you don't get a flat, you should change the tire and clean up the rim.

having run normal clinchers, tubeless no sealant, and tubeless with sealant

my choice is tubeless with sealant

i can certainly appreciate how others would come to another decision, 

however, it is hard for me to understand how people can make absolute statements against one of the options without at least trying it out


----------



## crank1979 (Sep 9, 2007)

I run my Ultegra 6700 wheelset tubeless with sealant. I've got a 60km commute each way on bad roads.

Previous to the road tubeless set up I destroyed a pair of Conti GP4000S tyres in two rides. I swtiched to Maxxis Re-Fuses and was averaging a flat per week. I installed tyre liners and went to about a flat per month. Always from bits of truck tyre belt wire.

Since going to the tubeless wheelset with sealant about 8 months ago I haven't had a puncture that has required me to stop and patch the tyre or tube on the roadside. I have felt sealant spray the back of my leg with a rear puncture but that was for one revolution and I didn't need to add any more air in the tyre. I did get one puncture in the front that sealed itself but I patched it when I got home. I carry a spare tube because running the Stans sealant means patching the inside of the tyre on the roadside isn't going to be much fun. All of the punctures I've had with the tubeless wheels have been cuts from glass or sharp rock edges.

For me the tubeless set up is brilliant. Not just because I haven't had to stop and fix a flat for a long time, but also because the road feel is excellent. My other wheelset is a 7850 Dura Ace C24 CL with Michelin Pro3 Race tyres and I prefer the feel of the Hutchinson Fusion 3 tyres on the Ultegra wheelset.


----------



## dougifresh1 (Aug 6, 2005)

Can you run a non ust tire tubeless?


----------

