# How about running tubeless for your road bikes?



## q2cycling (May 15, 2014)

Has anybody bought the road tubelss wheels? What rim width and rim profile did you choose? Will you think about it? And what price range would you be willing to pay for a rimset? 

We are planning to promote our 26mm width tubeless road rims. Need to gather as much information regarding the market.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Your first post here is promoting your own product?  If you're in the rim production business I would have thought you would have already gathered "as much information regarding the market" as you need. How be you pay for advertising?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Maybe you could gather that information by actually reading some threads on the forum. People have been posting about road tubeless for years. Just use that little 'search' button, you'll find enough info to keep you busy for a while.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

cxwrench said:


> Maybe you could gather that information by actually reading some threads on the forum. People have been posting about road tubeless for years. Just use that little 'search' button, you'll find enough info to keep you busy for a while.


........and joining in and helping answer questions and becoming a valued forum participant. Then, after a while, a little very subtle self-promotion is even tolerated.


----------



## q2cycling (May 15, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> Maybe you could gather that information by actually reading some threads on the forum. People have been posting about road tubeless for years. Just use that little 'search' button, you'll find enough info to keep you busy for a while.


 I did search the "wheels and tires" for that kind of information. It seems nobody has posted that kind of information. Thanks for your advice, CXWRENCH. It seems people don't like people post threads that is any "AD" related. I will have to google more information. I don't want to be rude. And feel bad when people don't welcome the postes.


----------



## q2cycling (May 15, 2014)

Mike T. said:


> ........and joining in and helping answer questions and becoming a valued forum participant. Then, after a while, a little very subtle self-promotion is even tolerated.


Got it, Mike. I will try to be a valued participant.Thanks.


----------



## q2cycling (May 15, 2014)

So how to delete the thread? I am tryting to delete this thread....


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

google a search like this: tubeless road site:forums.roadbikereview.com


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

q2cycling said:


> So how to delete the thread? I am tryting to delete this thread....


Not sure if you can delete the thread once others post to it, but you can edit your previous posts I believe.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

bikerector said:


> Not sure if you can delete the thread once others post to it, but you can edit your previous posts I believe.


Yep, OP, you can simply delete the contents of your initial post.

Also, as mentioned plenty of discussion both in this sub-forum and I believe the Cyclocross forum on tubeless for "road" bikes.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

q2cycling said:


> Has anybody bought the road tubelss wheels?


No, I haven't. I think road tubeless is as pointless at tits on a bull, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist if you will. Bye troll.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

To be fair, the search feature of RBR is weak. One would need to use the "Advanced" search feature to come back with real useful relevant results.

Having said that, here is a discouraging old post of mine regarding tubeless tires,

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/wh...neymoon-over-dumping-you-tubeless-323975.html

To sum it up, I tried it wholeheartedly, and then was happy to ditch everything tubeless. Ain't worth the time and trouble for the road application. For mtb bike use, yes! Road, no.

And on a sidenote but related note, being only a 123-lb rider, I find that wheels wider than 23mm to be ridiculous. Some of these wheels are 27mm-28mm wide at the brake tracks, and if you put a wide 25c tires on them, it looks so out of place for a road application. I guess with the population of cyclists aging and looking for comfort, we'll be seeing cx wheel/tire sized combo on road application more and more.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I happen to like my tubeless and have 25mm wide rims. To each his own.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> To sum it up, I tried it wholeheartedly, and then was happy to ditch everything tubeless. Ain't worth the time and trouble for the road application. For mtb bike use, yes! Road, no.


Tubeless road tires have been the next big thing for several years now. I've never tried them so am not speaking from personal experience, but how long do we give a "trend" to take hold before we realize it's a fad, or at least a niche product? My new wheels are tubeless compatible but I see no compelling evidence to go that direction.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Kerry Irons said:


> Tubeless road tires have been the next big thing for several years now. I've never tried them so am not speaking from personal experience, but how long do we give a "trend" to take hold before we realize it's a fad, or at least a niche product? My new wheels are tubeless compatible but I see no compelling evidence to go that direction.


I'd say the road tubeless trend has reached its climax, and has run out of steam. It probably will linger around in a muted fashion as there seem to be people willing to use them.

the greatest hurdles for me were:
1) the maintenance of them
2) tire cost

It's very hard to use up the life of a tubeless tire because of sealant leak after the tire is only half used. This is not the case for mtb tires since mtb tires are thick and heavy. And every 3 months you have to top off the sealant if you wish the tire to seal in an event of a flat. Guys who don't top off, we'll they'll find out real quick on the road.

One thing good came out of the tubeless trend is that the clincher rim hook is now better at holding on to tires in event of a big blow out. The deeper rim hook started with tubeless, but they seem to also migrate over to standard clinchers now too, hence you'll see a lot of "tubeless compatible" wheels. And why not.

but tell ya what, highend Veloflex and Forestein tires on sale now for $30-$40 a piece. Stock a few. Get some light butyle tubes. Done.


----------



## samh (May 5, 2004)

*tubeless*

You have to be willing to spend $100 ($50 per tire), doesn't include cost of sealant, tape, time, frustration.I first started with Hutchinson fusion, air leaked through tire (sidewalls).No response from customer service.Now newer tires leak from valve stem. I can get it sealed a couple of hours with +sealant, but not for 24. All my LBS don't have experience with it. Also its different from mtb tubeless I think. I used tubeless Shimano and DT set. There is less selection of tires. What's interesting is Michelin chose not to enter this market for some reason.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

samh said:


> What's interesting is Michelin chose not to enter this market for some reason.


They're smart?


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

I think if there were more tubeless tires on the market, they were cheaper, and they were easier to mount/dismount, a lot more people would be using them, or at least, be willing to try them.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

mfdemicco said:


> I think if there were more tubeless tires on the market, they were cheaper, and they were easier to mount/dismount, a lot more people would be using them, or at least, be willing to try them.


No doubt this is true. You are saying they are expensive and hard to mount/dismount and this is a problem in the market. 

A little like saying that bespoke suits would be a lot more popular if they were cheap and could be bought off the rack.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mfdemicco said:


> I think if there were more tubeless tires on the market, they were cheaper, and they were *easier to mount/dismount*, a lot more people would be using them, or at least, be willing to try them.


This is like a catch22 situation. If a tubeless tire is easy to mount, then it's be hard to pump up using a floor or hand pump. You need that tight tire/rim interface so the air can hold, and tight interface means hard to mount. 

And as a collorary. Let's say you manage to mount a tight tire, and that the tire holds air (using a floor pump). Well, guess what? As the tire is being used and worn down, it it also being stretched. This stretched out tire is now easier to mount back on. Sounds good right? Yeah, until you attempt to pump it back up again. You got it, it won't hold air if you use a floor pump. You'll need compressed air, or a CO2 cartridge.

But like I have said, tubeless trend is not all bad. The pronounced deep hook of tubeless rims has made their way into regular clinchers now, and this is a great safety feature to have in an event of a big blow out. The tire will not peel completely from the rim easily due to a deeper hook. And even if I don't plan to run a tubeless setup, I will still prefer to buy a tubeless ready rim due to this feature alone.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

The hook isn't necessarily deeper. On Stan's BST, it is a shorter bead hook

And on their demo videos, easy to install and easy to inflate


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Ugghh. If, for some reason, I couldn't have easy-fit 25mm clinchers on "normal" rims with 50 gram tubes, I'd go back to tubulars before I went tubeless. If I have to eff about with tires and rims I'll eff about in traditional ways of the sport - ways that I grew up in.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

I've ridden tubeless with 1st gen Hutchinsons on Stans -converted Bontrager wheels and on current Eastons with Schwalbe Ultremo whatevers and haven't had the first issue. Whether or not I'll have an issue when getting a flat I don't know because I've never had a flat with tubeless, knock on wood.

I rarely get flats with tubes so as far as flat-protection it's fairly pointless.

And to be honest, I think there is more of a difference going from tubed 23mm tires to tubed 25 than tubed to tubeless of equal width.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

Tubeless haters out in force again. Ya'll couldn't even resist a troll thread. Lol


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

92gli said:


> Tubeless haters out in force again. Ya'll couldn't even resist a troll thread. Lol


Uh, speaking of trolls . . .


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> but tell ya what, highend Veloflex and Forestein tires on sale now for $30-$40 a piece. Stock a few. Get some light butyle tubes. Done.


The whole cost argument doesn't hold much water these days as tubeless tire prices have come down considerably in the last couple of years. In general tubeless are still more expensive than tubed clinchers, but the cost delta is shrinking steadily. 

Two years ago when I first tried going tubeless paying $70-$80 a tire was considered a good deal. Shopping around for my restock of tubeless tires the other night I saw Schwalbe Ones selling for $35 a piece and IRC Roadlites going for a smidge over $50- both being excellent highly rated tires.

IMO paying maybe $100 extra a year for tubeless tires for the extra safety and improved handling they provide is a very reasonable price to pay.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

samh said:


> What's interesting is Michelin chose not to enter this market for some reason.


It makes total sense. Michelin, who know more about tires from F1 and everything else know more about tires than anyone. They realize tubeless road is a non-starter. It's a stupid idea for a road bike at road bike tire pressures.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I love reading misinformed people talk about tubeless and have never tried it.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

Notvintage said:


> It makes total sense. Michelin, who know more about tires from F1 and everything else know more about tires than anyone. They realize tubeless road is a non-starter. It's a stupid idea for a road bike at road bike tire pressures.


"I don't like it, so therefore it has no merit. I ignore those that enjoy the benefits and find value in the concept. They are wrong because i am right."


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

To be as fair as possible, I have found that tubeless road works best with bigger tires. I recommend 25-28mm tires. Then you can run a lower pressure (80psi or less). I run no more than 60psi in my 28mm tires and have no problem getting them up to speed.

As a result, I have a durable setup that will seal up the more common punctures and keep me riding. I also get a real nice ride quality with the lower pressure.

If I rode on roads that were in much better condition than here in the NE, I would be more inclined to run 23-25mm tires and latex tubes. That's a great setup, but not as reliable for day to day riding up here.

23mmm tubeless tires need to be run at pressures (typically 85-95psi) and sealant is less likely to work effectively.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cooskull said:


> The whole cost argument doesn't hold much water these days as tubeless tire prices have come down considerably in the last couple of years. In general tubeless are still more expensive than tubed clinchers, but the cost delta is shrinking steadily.
> 
> Two years ago when I first tried going tubeless paying $70-$80 a tire was considered a good deal. Shopping around for my restock of tubeless tires the other night I saw Schwalbe Ones selling for $35 a piece and IRC Roadlites going for a smidge over $50- both being excellent highly rated tires.
> 
> IMO paying maybe $100 extra a year for tubeless tires for the extra safety and improved handling they provide is a very reasonable price to pay.


Cost is still a big factor. A tubeless tire, once it's rubber has been worn away 1/3 to 1/2 of its original thickness, is pretty much a regular clincher now because with less rubber, it's less likely to hold any seal bigger than a pinhead.

Regarding safety, most of the newer regular clincher rims are also now "tubeless compatible". They are constructed with the same hook profile as tubeless rim.

Regarding handling, there is no way any tubeless tire will be able to handle like a Veloflex Corsa or a Michelin Pro 4 Race with lightweight butyle or latex tube. Absolutely cannot compete. Tubeless tires, if they are to be durable and purposful in sealing a flat, must have thicker, harder rubber on the meaty part and on the sidewall, and this makes the sidewall very stiff. I hated its stiff sidewall, it feels numb in the corner. And if you lower the air pressure of tubeless to get that compliance feeling, then it might roll too much in high g-force cornering.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Notvintage said:


> It makes total sense. Michelin, who know more about tires from F1 and everything else know more about tires than anyone. They realize tubeless road is a non-starter. It's a stupid idea for a road bike at road bike tire pressures.


when i started using tubeless, i kept hoping one day Michelin would jump into it. My reason was exactly like yours, a top rated tire constructor joining tubeless would give tubeless a firm legitimacy. But alas, the best tubeless supporter is Hutchinson, all the rest just follow Hutchinson. But what the hell does Michelin know about tire construction right!


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

While I do wish the likes of Conti, Vittoria or Michelin would enter the road tubeless market, I have not found the handling of tubeless to be that bad. Granted, I do not push tires to the limit. Since I am running 23mm tires on a 25mm rim I am not worried about it rolling too much. 80-90psi on a Hutchenson puts more rubber on the road than 110psi in a traditional tubed clincher.

At 200# I can ride 80psi easily with no worries of a pinch flat with tubeless. Also, tubeless are less likely to blow out or roll off the rim when a high speed flat occurs.

At the moment I am good with them, but do not see them as the best thing ever by any means.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

I've ridden on a bike with tubless very briefly but never tried them on my own bike or for any amount of time.

What I'm starting to gather, reading between the lines of several posts here, is that heavy guys might benefit from them not so much for people of ordinary (by road cyclist standards) weight or below.
I'm basing that on people saying it works better with bigger tires (28ish) and allows you to run lower PSI and not worry about pinch flats.
I'm about 148 pounds, which I think is about average for a road cyclist, and have never gotten a pinch flat using 80-90 psi on often really bad roads and have no interest in using tires bigger than 25mm on asphalt. 
Make sense or am I missinterpreting things?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm usually around 160-170 lbs in the summer and still like the ride of lower pressure, bigger tires. It's not just for big guys.

It recommend you to try 25mm tires @ around 80psi. I run 28s because they are no slower and I can just fly over the potholes and other crap the road throws at me. 

If 23mm tires disappeared from the market I wouldn't miss them. All they are better for is bragging rights for having a slightly lighter bike. 20-21mm tires have already went the way of the dodo. The bikes we ride don't have to look like the bikes pros ride.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> But what the hell does Michelin know about tire construction right!


Exactly, they only supply the aerospace grade tires for Buggatti's Veyron.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

And I'm sure their decisions have nothing to do with things like market research and maximizing profit.

Give me a break.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I prefer to get all my training done on inexpensive clinchers with tubes. I do all my racing on tubulars. I guess that tubeless would be OK if you only had one set of wheels, but I'm not too sure about racing on them.
I tend to be a little retro.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> Cost is still a big factor. A tubeless tire, once it's rubber has been worn away 1/3 to 1/2 of its original thickness, is pretty much a regular clincher now because with less rubber, it's less likely to hold any seal bigger than a pinhead.


Not in my experience. I have had several 1-3mm punctures in well worn tubeless tires which sealed just fine. I've found sealant choice plays a big part in this.



> Regarding safety, most of the newer regular clincher rims are also now "tubeless compatible". They are constructed with the same hook profile as tubeless rim.


This may help keep tire beads from unseating and spontaneously blowing off the rim when fully inflated, but it won't help you when you get a large cut and subsequent sudden blowout when you're bombing down a steep mountain pass. When I dismount my tubeless tires I actually have to pry the beads out of the bead channels they are held in so securely. Here's a quote from Leonard Zinn from a velonews article:

"I’ve ridden a couple of kilometers of downhill switchbacks on a flat tubeless Hutchinson Fusion 2 in order to see if it held it on the rim (a Dura-Ace Scandium tubeless rim), which it did for almost two kilometers. That’s plenty of time to bring your bike to a standstill, in the case of a sidewall cut and sudden deflation, even if it’s loaded up with packs. And it is of course much safer than having the tire come off of the rim."



> Regarding handling, there is no way any tubeless tire will be able to handle like a Veloflex Corsa or a Michelin Pro 4 Race with lightweight butyle or latex tube. Absolutely cannot compete.


I have never ridden those tires but I must say I much prefer my tubeless tires compared to the tubed Conti 4000s I used to ride. YMMV depending on what your tire needs are.

Again I'll say tubeless have come a long way in price and performance in the last couple of years since you probably tried them last. And in the coming years I'm sure tubeless tires will continue to advance at a rate faster than traditional tubed clinchers.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

ergott said:


> I'm usually around 160-170 lbs in the summer and still like the ride of lower pressure, bigger tires. It's not just for big guys.
> 
> *It recommend you to try 25mm tires @ around 80psi.* I run 28s because they are no slower and I can just fly over the potholes and other crap the road throws at me.
> 
> If 23mm tires disappeared from the market I wouldn't miss them. All they are better for is bragging rights for having a slightly lighter bike. 20-21mm tires have already went the way of the dodo. The bikes we ride don't have to look like the bikes pros ride.


I do use 25mm tires at 80 psi. With tubes, and I've never had a pinch flat in over 40K miles on the often crappy North East roads.

I get the benefits of being able to use lower PSI but still don't really see how that ability is unique to tubeless for middleweights and below who can already get as low as they want to go and not worrying about pinch flats.

Maybe I'm underestimating how good I am at 'riding light' and using my knees and others my size do have pinch flat concerns but I just don't understand all the talk about using tubless to avoid pinch flats when pinch flats were never an issue to begin with for most anyone but people over a certain weight (which I'm guessing is around 180).


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm not worried about pinch flats. I find fewer punctures and smaller punctures seal up without me stopping to fix.

The lower pressure just rides nice and you already know.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

ergott said:


> I'm not worried about pinch flats. I find fewer punctures and smaller punctures seal up without me stopping to fix.
> The lower pressure just rides nice and you already know.


It's interesting that Steve Abraham, who's going for the one year cycling record right now, and averaging 200 miles per day in the UK (over 13,000 so far this year) is using Schwalbe tubeless on Stan's 340 & 400 rims. He figures they save him one flat per day and at least 3 mins or 1 mile daily. Me, I get one flat per year.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> He figures they save him one flat per day and at least 3 mins or 1 mile daily. Me, I get one flat per year.


One flat a day for every 200 miles. Those must be really bad roads. 

One flat a year? I'd ride tubulars then all the time. I get flats in threes(so it seems) then none for a while. Average 6-8 a year.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

I didn't have a single flat last year. I only rode 7000 km, but a significant amount was on gravel roads with tubeless tires.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

Theres a lot of trash on the road shoulders where I live, and it was common for me to have at least 6 flats per year due to glass, pieces of wire or other stuff you can't see. And had to run 100psi to avoid pinch flats with the bad asphalt condition everywhere. I cant stand changing tubes on the side of the road in summer heat. Not having to deal with that is worth the extra $ for the tires and sealant.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

92gli said:


> Theres a lot of trash on the road shoulders where I live, and it was common for me to have at least 6 flats per year due to glass, pieces of wire or other stuff you can't see. And had to run 100psi to avoid pinch flats with the bad asphalt condition everywhere. I cant stand changing tubes on the side of the road in summer heat. Not having to deal with that is worth the extra $ for the tires and sealant.


I know it'll be an impossible question to really answer but could you give an idea of what percentage of or what type of flats tubless saves you from getting?

I don't get many flats but my rough guess is that 50% are from a small sliver of glass and the other 50% are from something more drasitic like a nail. Most of the latter group I'm guessing would still be a flat with any tire set up but I'd like to know if my guess is wrong.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Tubeless and sealant will seal a nail type flat. Works best with punctures under 1cm.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

92gli said:


> Theres a lot of trash on the road shoulders where I live, and it was common for me to have at least 6 flats per year due to glass, pieces of wire or other stuff you can't see. And had to run 100psi to avoid pinch flats with the bad asphalt condition everywhere. I cant stand changing tubes on the side of the road in summer heat. Not having to deal with that is worth the extra $ for the tires and sealant.


Are you saying that tubeless tires with sealant never flat? Wait until you get one then have to deal with a tightly mounted tire and messy sealant out on the road someday. Sealant doesn't do well on large cuts and doesn't seal when it dries out. It's not maintenance free because the sealant dries out and has to be replaced every 3 months or so.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

mfdemicco said:


> Are you saying that tubeless tires with sealant never flat? Wait until you get one then have to deal with a tightly mounted tire and messy sealant out on the road someday. Sealant doesn't do well on large cuts and doesn't seal when it dries out. It's not maintenance free because the sealant dries out and has to be replaced every 3 months or so.


You're not talking to a tubeless noob. I've been dealing with it for years on my mountain bikes. Mine and my wife's. Ive been surprised many times at how well sealant has worked on small cuts when all that was left in the tire was a slight residue. 

I've never had a road puncture with anything bigger than a small nail. If i run over a discarded machete then i guess I'm screwed regardless. 

The key to this is not expecting outright miracles and using proven combos of tires and rims. I know i have to break the bead once in a while and dump in a little more sealant. It takes 5 minutes, big deal.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

ergott said:


> Tubeless and sealant will seal a nail type flat. Works best with punctures under 1cm.


I think you meant 1mm.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

mfdemicco said:


> Are you saying that tubeless tires with sealant never flat? Wait until you get one then have to deal with a tightly mounted tire and messy sealant out on the road someday. Sealant doesn't do well on large cuts and doesn't seal when it dries out. It's not maintenance free because the sealant dries out and has to be replaced every 3 months or so.


1.) a standard tire does not do well with large cuts
2.) In my experience sealant lasts far more than 3 months before drying out. When I wear out my rear tire and replace it the initial sealant is still liquid.

Yes, it is a bit messy. Difficulty to change a tire roadside depends on the wheel. My DA7800's would require a nice walk, or call for a ride. My HED Ardennes are not a problem to remove an insert a tube.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> I think you meant 1mm.


No. I've has some seal up that were 6-8mm. Depends on where the puncture is, how much tread you have left, and what pressure you are running.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> 1.) a standard tire does not do well with large cuts
> 2.) In my experience sealant lasts far more than 3 months before drying out. When I wear out my rear tire and replace it the initial sealant is still liquid.
> 
> Yes, it is a bit messy. Difficulty to change a tire roadside depends on the wheel. My DA7800's would require a nice walk, or call for a ride. My HED Ardennes are not a problem to remove an insert a tube.


That's why I carry a Park tire boot. 

Depends on the sealant. I've read Stans, the most popular sealant, dries up in 3 months.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

mfdemicco said:


> That's why I carry a Park tire boot.
> 
> Depends on the sealant. I've read Stans, the most popular sealant, dries up in 3 months.


I too have read the recommendation for a re-application of sealant after 3 months, but I have EXPERIENCED that to not be necessary. Here is a chart from Slow Twitch where they list dry times for various sealants.

Now I live in Wisconsin where the relative humidity is much higher than say Phoenix. Perhaps it drys much quicker in a dry climate.

To date I have used Slime Pro, but may try Orange Seal when my S-Pro is gone as it did very well in Slow Twitch's test. I have avoided Stans due to reports of the old formula reacting with aluminum rims.


----------



## 195cranky (Jun 25, 2013)

Unbelievable the amount of road tubeless misinformation that gets posted. Costs too much, dries out, hard to seal, messy, hard to mount/dismount, hard to pump up to bead, roll off under g's, leak, blah...blah...blah...All bull and nothing that I have experienced with using road tubeless for years.

Yes, I ride road tubeless. 205 pounds, 23 wide tire on wide tubeless rims. No problems, No issues. Orange Sealant. Easy peasy. Ride 90 f 95 rear for training and racing. 85/90 in the rain. No need for the 25 or 28 fad. 23's at lower pressure on a wide rim is sublime. Schwalbe1 tubeless and Maxxis Padrones curently and previously Hutchi, Specialized, and Bontrager. There is a reason why all my tubeless wheelsets are migrating towards Schwalbe1. 

The benefits far outweigh (pardon the pun) any perceived real or BS posted problems here about road tubeless. Great ride, great grip, no flats, especially no pinch flats. Have done many rides without carrying spare tube or cartridge. No worries. All those that post the huge tire cut problem..well guess what, you would have that same problem on a clincher or a tubular. So why is that more of a problem with a tubeless? The amount of times I have heard my tires seal up a puncture is a huge benefit and thus able to keep riding. The amount of times I have had riders flat around me cause of glass, debris, bad luck and I have had no tubeless flat issues make any "issue" with tubeless not an "issue."

Road tubeless is here. It works. It's great. Wished all my wheelsets were tubeless ready. Eventually they all will be. Don't need Michelin but would love a Conti 4000s or sII tubeless cause they would corner the tubeless market. Hard to beat that for a tubed clincher in my experiences. 

If you haven't tried it and are posting negative here - try it. If you are using and enjoying - keep laughing at these never used know it alls or uninitiated. I sure do.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

92gli said:


> I know i have to break the bead once in a while and dump in a little more sealant. It takes 5 minutes, big deal.


You can even forgo having to break the bead seal by getting valve stems with removable cores. For one time buy a small container of sealant which can directly inject into the valve stem. Then for later remounts/refills, just buy a large jug of whatever sealant you use to save $ and reuse the small bottle applicator.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

cooskull said:


> You can even forgo having to break the bead seal by getting valve stems with removable cores. For one time buy a small container of sealant which can directly inject into the valve stem. Then for later remounts/refills, just buy a large jug of whatever sealant you use to save $ and reuse the small bottle applicator.


I know. I have them. Just got in the habit of doing it the other way. Also gives me the chance to pull out any booger balls in the tire.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

92gli said:


> I know. I have them. Just got in the habit of doing it the other way. Also gives me the chance to pull out any booger balls in the tire.


I mentioned it only because I've found sometimes the bead doesn't seal (hold air) as well after breaking the bead due to dirt and dried latex booger stringies getting into the bead seat.
Cheers.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

When tubeless was introduced in the mountain biking world, the folks there embraced it pretty quick, because it worked very well for fat tires with lots of rubber running extremely low psi (25 - 28 psi). That worked, so it was embraced. But even in the mtb world, the MAJORITY of the guys are still NOT riding tubeless. At this point, after 10 years, we can pretty much conclude that the tubeless adoption in the mtb world has pretty climaxed and stablized.

Let's move over to road world. Road tubeless has been introduced for about 4 year? At the start, it was pretty much just Stans and Hutchinson making a big push for road tubeless. Since then, we've seen a few more tire makers entry the game, but still, their tire choices are very limited. The initial adoption rate of the road world is no where near as enthused as it was in the mountain biking world. And at this point, I'd say the adoption rate has climaxed, and there will be unlikely any further adoption.

Now if road tubeless was all that great, then we would have seen a high initial rate of adoption like we did in mtb. But we didn't. We did not and still do not see the big tire makes (Michelin, Conti, Vittoria) enter the game. Looking at my local club, we have over 120 members last I'm aware of, and I was the only person to have ever tried it.. then I ditched it.

If tubeless guys want to run tubeless, then great for them. But don't go saying stuff like "there are so many misinformation about tubeless" and attribute this "misinformation" to the anemic adoption of it. Or do you tubeless gentlemen suppose that you are the only ones smart and knowledgable enough about tubeless, and the rest of us, inclucding many big name tire makers, are clueless and misinformed? ugh.. pah-leezz!

And this line of thinking "you have to try it to know it", or "if you haven't tried it, then you don't know jack"... is nonsense. Tubeless tires have been tried for over a decade in mtb, and close to half a decade in the roadie world. Of course it's already been tried, and reports have already been posted on the internet. There may be some minor inaccuracies here and there, but the general trend (based on years of total user experience) is already in place. It's not like road tubeless or (tubeless tires) is still in its infancy where no one has good info on it, and the only way to obtain good info on it is to actually go out and try it. The knowledge is already out there and well established enough to support a conclusion that would approximate 90% of what you will encouter should you try it yourself.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

ergott said:


> No. I've has some seal up that were 6-8mm. Depends on where the puncture is, how much tread you have left, and what pressure you are running.


a 6-8mm cut will seal if the tire is new, the rubber is fresh (not hard or cracked), the cut is clean circular hole (i.e., not jagged), the sealant is fresh, and the location of the cut is smack in the middle of the meaty part of the tire. In other word, the cut would have to be pretty an ideal cut under ideal condition for it to seal. Anywhere else on the tire, or under poorer condition, it ain't gonna seal.

But here is the thing. Even if the cut does heal initially, at some point in the future when the rubber has worn off a bit (I'm talking as little as 100-200 miles), the seal may burst at any time. And it's the second bursting that you know you're outta luck and you now need to clean the tire up of the gooo crap and put in a boot and a tube. Or you may attempt to glue in a permanent boot using superglue, or use the Hutchinson tire repair kit (basisally it insert a strip of rubber plug in the hole), but in my experience if you do that, the tire doesn't ride the same anymore, and you get a knock whenever the patched spot is rolled over. 

So it's not like you get a 6-8mm cut, and it seals, and you're off happily riding for the remainder of the lifespan of the tire.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

195cranky said:


> Unbelievable the amount of road tubeless misinformation that gets posted. Costs too much, dries out, hard to seal, messy, hard to mount/dismount, hard to pump up to bead, roll off under g's, leak, blah...blah...blah...All bull and nothing that I have experienced with using road tubeless for years.


Most of this is true, not misinformation.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

aclinjury said:


> So it's not like you get a 6-8mm cut, and it seals, and you're off happily riding for the remainder of the lifespan of the tire.


True, it would be best to put an internal patch on that big a cut when you get home. Still let's you deal with it after the ride.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Look, I openly admit that not everyone should run tubeless. Not everyone should run tubulars either. There are three different choices out there and each have their advantages. Reread the positive aspects of tubeless in this thread and see if they work for you.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Notvintage said:


> Exactly, they only supply the aerospace grade tires for Buggatti's Veyron.


You still have not a single clue about this subject. Not one.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> When tubeless was introduced in the mountain biking world, the folks there embraced it pretty quick, because it worked very well for fat tires with lots of rubber running extremely low psi (25 - 28 psi). That worked, so it was embraced. But even in the mtb world, the MAJORITY of the guys are still NOT riding tubeless. At this point, after 10 years, we can pretty much conclude that the tubeless adoption in the mtb world has pretty climaxed and stablized.


Not sure which part of the 'mountain bike world' you're talking about, but the vast majority of riders where I live ride tubeless. Pretty much EVERY pro XC racer that isn't sponsored by Mavic is tubeless. The majority of Enduro racers are tubeless. The only place where tubes are still used by the majority is DH oddly enough. 

I've been tubeless on the mountain bike for 7-8 years, over 4 on the road. It works for me. In that time, zero flats off road, 1 on the road. The reason the companies that don't offer tubeless is based on economics, pure and simple. The concept works just fine, anyone that thinks Michelin isn't making tubeless because it doesn't work is an idiot.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Found this:

Interesting response from Vittoria about tubular/tubeless. On Velonews.com


"Ciao Lennard,
I’ve read your column about tubular vs. tubeless, and I would like to go through it a bit more in detail, as I’m not convinced about the superiority of the tubeless setup at such high pressure (while I’m of course enthusiastic about tubeless tires at inflation pressures below 45/55psi).

The reason why Vittoria isn’t on board with it, even though we have developed the technology already, is the balance between various factors:

* safety and mounting: a tubeless bead that will hold safely at 120psi will be almost impossible to mount safely (safely means with almost no tire levers); a mountable one won’t keep pressure or keep the bead in place instead (which is the case with products actually available in the market which of course we have tested internally)
* air tightness and riding quality: a casing wall which will keep 120psi has to be so thick that it will make the overall performance drop, first of all rolling resistance (we tested it with an external laboratory), even if the rolling feeling is of being faster. On the other hand, a thin casing won’t hold pressure enough, even with dense latex sealant (we tested it too, making a 120tpi 230g TNT 23mm prototype, amazing riding quality but lost too much pressure even in short time and with a modified sealant inside).

These key compromises are made by no other tire industry (truck, aircraft, automotive, motorbike, industrial) using a tubeless environment; none go above 45/55psi…

On the whole other hand, tubulars are still proving (laboratory tests and feedback from pro riders) to offer unmatched performance (grip, speed, comfort) not only in road racing, but in MTB too, where the tubulars are so damn much faster than any tubeless around that it’s just a matter of letting riders try them to fall in love…
Samuele Bressan
Product Manager & Designer
Vittoria S.p.A.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

You beat me to it. I don't see any serious cross country guys still using tubes in our part of the world.

As with all innovation in road biking, x-spurts invariably show up to explain that everything is a conspiracy by those corporate bass turds because none of it is ever an improvement over the status quo. I'm frequently reminded by my longtime cycling friends that I was one of those x-spurts with a handful of good reasons why disc brakes were a stupid idea when they first came out on mountain bikes (this is triggered by the purchase of my current disc road bike--seems they didn't get enough when I went discs on my mountain bike 3 years after they did).


cxwrench said:


> Not sure which part of the 'mountain bike world' you're talking about, but the vast majority of riders where I live ride tubeless. Pretty much EVERY pro XC racer that isn't sponsored by Mavic is tubeless. The majority of Enduro racers are tubeless. The only place where tubes are still used by the majority is DH oddly enough.
> 
> I've been tubeless on the mountain bike for 7-8 years, over 4 on the road. It works for me. In that time, zero flats off road, 1 on the road. The reason the companies that don't offer tubeless is based on economics, pure and simple. The concept works just fine, anyone that thinks Michelin isn't making tubeless because it doesn't work is an idiot.


----------



## crank1979 (Sep 9, 2007)

I've been running road tubeless for a few years now, starting with 7850 C24 wheels, then 7900 C24s, then 9000 C24s and I just picked up a set of Reynolds Assault SLGs. I always used plastic tyre levers to fit and remove Fusion 3s or IRC Formula Pro X-guard tyres for the last couple of spokes width on the C24s but can fit the tyres by hand on the Reynolds wheels. It's really not a difficult process to fit or remove a road tubeless tyre. I'm not a pro level bike mechanic and can do it easily. I have to think that people who did it difficult perhaps aren't as adept at fitting a tyre as they believe they are.

Topping up sealant isn't an issue. It just becomes part of regular maintenance and if you can fit and remove a tyre easily it takes all of 5 minutes. Using valves with a removeable core makes topping sealant up even easier. 

Tyre feel is going to be a personal preference but I'd rate road tubeless tyres to feel and perform as well as Conti GP4000s or Michelin Pro3 Race tyres I used before going tubeless. Puncture protection with road tubeless is definitely improved for me over standard clinchers and tubes. I've never had a pinch flat and my main enemy is the small pieces of truck tyre belt wire and road tubeless works better than anything I've tried to stop most punctures. Nothing will stop every piece of that wire, not even Re-fuses or Gatorskins with Mr Tuffy tyre liners or Schwalbe Marathon Plus or Durano Plus tyres, and they are supposed to be puncture proof!

I've also set up some wheels ghetto tubeless for the Durano Plus and Marathon Plus tyres without any issues. 

A wider choice of tyres would be nice, but I still haven't tried the Maxxis Padrones or Schwalbe Ones because the IRC tyres are brilliant. The prices seem acceptable. They are cheaper than Schwalbe mtb tyres.

What other arguments are there against road tubeless?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

This coming from a company that thinks 120psi tubeless is a launching point for the design. 

Thanks for the laugh.



mfdemicco said:


> Found this:
> 
> Interesting response from Vittoria about tubular/tubeless. On Velonews.com
> 
> ...


----------



## Manning (Jul 8, 2010)

mfdemicco said:


> Found this:
> 
> Interesting response from Vittoria about tubular/tubeless. On Velonews.com
> 
> ...


Well, there goes Vittoria's credibility. All sorts of truck/aircraft/automotive tires are designed for use above 55psi. I have generic tires on my 3/4 truck that rated above that.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

ergott said:


> This coming from a company that thinks 120psi tubeless is a launching point for the design.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.


That was their line 3.5 years ago. Not sure it would be the same today. While they don't yet have any tubeless road tires, they have several in their off-road offerings. Maybe they're still stuck in the narrow/high-pressure paradigm, for whatever reason. Given the limited choices for tubeless road tires among their key competitors, I doubt they are loosing much business. If / when they feel threatened by tubeless road, then I am sure they will have products too.


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

Manning said:


> Well, there goes Vittoria's credibility. All sorts of truck/aircraft/automotive tires are designed for use above 55psi. I have generic tires on my 3/4 truck that rated above that.


Semi-truck tires go to the 100-110 psi range I believe. I know it's right close to the max psi many air compressors handle (125 psi).


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Notvintage said:


> Exactly, they only supply the aerospace grade tires for Buggatti's Veyron.


that's a good point, very sound logic you got there. I believe Pirelli supplies all the F1 tires and has choosen to not make bicycle tires so we can conclude that any tires on a bicycle will not work.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> But even in the mtb world, the MAJORITY of the guys are still NOT riding tubeless. At this point, after 10 years, we can pretty much conclude that the tubeless adoption in the mtb world has pretty climaxed and stablized.


LOL. I literally do not know a single serious mountain biker that uses tubes anymore. Yes, there are some newer riders that show up to group rides that have tubes, but that's pretty much because that's how their bike left the shop. Almost every tire brought to market over the last 3 or 4 years is rated "tubeless ready".


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

crank1979 said:


> I've never had a pinch flat and my main enemy is the small pieces of truck tyre belt wire


So that's where those little pieces of wire come from! I've been wondering about that for years.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

ergott said:


> This coming from a company that thinks 120psi tubeless is a launching point for the design.
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.


Exactly. I ride tubeless so I don't have to ride high pressure.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

True, most pros mountain bikers run tubeless. But let's not forget, most mountain bikers are still not pros. Furthermore, I have already stated that running tubeless makes sense in the mountain biking world, but even then, most mountain bikes sold at any LBS in Socal for under $3000 will not have a tubeless setup. Please don't tell me people would need to spend over $3000 for a mountain bike to be considered "serious". What nonsense.

But let's look at road tubeless technology from an objective picture, shall we? Usually, when a new technology is instroduced, there will be an initial show of interest from the folks and enthusiasts in the industry. This means that people like Stans, Hutchinson, Michelin, Vittoria, Schwable, and ALL the regular posters on RBR forums (would you consider regular posters on RBR forums to be serious enough roadies?). If a technology is seen as great, reliable, easy to maintain, and affordable, then you can sure as hell bet the farm that it *WILL* be adopted quickly and expediently. Is there a technology that give people a product that is promosed to be better, better performing, better everything, cost the same, yet nobody likes it?? Yet, most of the roadie enthusiasts on here, and in the real world, don't seem to even care about it. Not one single major bike makers even use tubeless on their road bikes. The market doesn't lie about the lack of demand for the road tubeless technology. Market force, unlike personal opinions and anecdotes in here, is usually not wrong about something.


----------



## 195cranky (Jun 25, 2013)

aclinjury states road tubeless around for 4 years? Another example of misinformation being posted. Campy Eurus introduced two-way in 2009 and I used those for first tubeless set-up with Hutchi then Specialized that were made by Hutchi but lasted longer and seemed to have better grip oddly enough.

As posted here there are three choices. Your choice. And choosing to post erroneous reasons why someone else should not try or use road tubeless is a cheesy choice. There are plenty of tubeless choices to choose from. Just cause some brands elect not to offer, or maybe are in development and have not yet launched road tubeless models doesn't mean road tubeless is not a viable choice. It is as stated by other posters here as well as many other satisfied users, not just my rants.

What really should be noted is how many more wheel rim manufacturers are offering tubeless ready. Maybe the horse rubber will follow the cart?

Again, a very happy tubeless fan here who is tired of the head in the sand asses up making to much negative orifice type noise that can be stinky. Road tubeless does not stink, just the ones who don't know their tubed flat(ulance) is what stinks.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

road tubeless is the final frontier, mtb and cross have already crossed over to tubeless (or tubulars for certain race applications). On the road, the lack of high end tubeless options in carbon aero wheels slowed down things. Plus the continued popularity of tubulars in the ProTour meant slower adoption overall. But with Easton and now Bontrager's high end carbon clincher supporting road tubeless you will see adoptions pick up a bit more. 

I have a set of the Bontrager Aeolus 5/7 TLRs on order, I should be riding and racing on the tubeless next week. Should be interesting.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> True, most pros mountain bikers run tubeless. But let's not forget, most mountain bikers are still not pros. Furthermore, I have already stated that running tubeless makes sense in the mountain biking world, but even then, most mountain bikes sold at any LBS in Socal for under $3000 will not have a tubeless setup. Please don't tell me people would need to spend over $3000 for a mountain bike to be considered "serious". What nonsense.


Wrong again. A great majority of the bikes at the pricepoint you refer to, and below it, come with tubeless ready rims and most of those have tubeless ready tires. Lets see... pretty much every specialized, trek and giant (except the very low end ones) are ready to convert. As are most bikes with sun ringle wheels, many bikes with mavic wheels, most bikes with wtb rims, _every_ bike sold with stan's rims.... what am I leaving out? 

NOT ONE mountain bike comes out of the box set up tubeless. That much you're correct about. But it's because it would be idiotic to make the people in the factories tape rims and pour in sealant, not because you think it's the way of the world.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> Is there a technology that give people a product that is promosed to be better, better performing, better everything, cost the same, yet *nobody* likes it??


If there was ONLY *one* person on this forum that says they like the benefits of road tubeless, you'd be wrong. In this thread there are many people keep telling you they use it and like it, but you won't give it up.

I've said it in other threads and I'll say it again - people like you are why this board has so much less activity than the MTBR board. You can't have a discussion about anything new or different without people crapping all over it.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> True, most pros mountain bikers run tubeless. But let's not forget, most mountain bikers are still not pros. Furthermore, I have already stated that running tubeless makes sense in the mountain biking world, but even then, most mountain bikes sold at any LBS in Socal for under $3000 will not have a tubeless setup. Please don't tell me people would need to spend over $3000 for a mountain bike to be considered "serious". What nonsense.


I really don't get what you're trying to say here other than grasping for straws to backtrack on something you said that you now realize was wrong but aren't willing to admit. Of course that's a guess on my part.

Who cares what mountain bikes come with. Most all bikes come with the worst tires going and really crappy saddles. By your logic that means most serious cyclists don't favor high quality tires or good saddles.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> True, most pros mountain bikers run tubeless. But let's not forget, most mountain bikers are still not pros. Furthermore, I have already stated that running tubeless makes sense in the mountain biking world, but even then, most mountain bikes sold at any LBS in Socal for under $3000 will not have a tubeless setup. Please don't tell me people would need to spend over $3000 for a mountain bike to be considered "serious". What nonsense.
> 
> But let's look at road tubeless technology from an objective picture, shall we? Usually, when a new technology is instroduced, there will be an initial show of interest from the folks and enthusiasts in the industry. This means that people like Stans, Hutchinson, Michelin, Vittoria, Schwable, and ALL the regular posters on RBR forums (would you consider regular posters on RBR forums to be serious enough roadies?). If a technology is seen as great, reliable, easy to maintain, and affordable, then you can sure as hell bet the farm that it *WILL* be adopted quickly and expediently. Is there a technology that give people a product that is promosed to be better, better performing, better everything, cost the same, yet nobody likes it?? Yet, most of the roadie enthusiasts on here, and in the real world, don't seem to even care about it. Not one single major bike makers even use tubeless on their road bikes. The market doesn't lie about the lack of demand for the road tubeless technology. Market force, unlike personal opinions and anecdotes in here, is usually not wrong about something.


Put on your big boy pants, man up, and admit you're wrong about this.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Everyone talks about using road tubeless with sealant. However, the tire/system is designed to be used without. How well does a tubeless tire do without sealant? How easy is it to patch a tubeless tire?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

When I first went road tubeless, there was but one tubeless wheel (Dura Ace 7800 --if I remember correctly) and Hutchinson Fusions. It was a great setup that worked well--even though Hutchinsons were slightly tighter than conventional tires. After a few years Shimano and others started making rims without the traditional center dish and nearly impossible to mount. They set the road tubeless world back several years when the problem became well known. Newer rims have remedied this problem and tubeless tires are again pretty easy to mount.

It is true that without mountain biking leading the way, road bikers would still have friction shifters on their down tubes. They are far less capable of accepting change until it is forced on them by the industry (hard to buy new friction shifters these days). The infusion of mountain bikers into the sport and the clear superiority of tubeless will eventually take over--just as it has done among serious mountain bikers and with automobiles. We are lucky that the seriousness of shimano's (and some others) asinine design mistake did not kill otherwise superior technology. 

Road tubeless


aclinjury said:


> True, most pros mountain bikers run tubeless. But let's not forget, most mountain bikers are still not pros. Furthermore, I have already stated that running tubeless makes sense in the mountain biking world, but even then, most mountain bikes sold at any LBS in Socal for under $3000 will not have a tubeless setup. Please don't tell me people would need to spend over $3000 for a mountain bike to be considered "serious". What nonsense.
> 
> But let's look at road tubeless technology from an objective picture, shall we? Usually, when a new technology is instroduced, there will be an initial show of interest from the folks and enthusiasts in the industry. This means that people like Stans, Hutchinson, Michelin, Vittoria, Schwable, and ALL the regular posters on RBR forums (would you consider regular posters on RBR forums to be serious enough roadies?). If a technology is seen as great, reliable, easy to maintain, and affordable, then you can sure as hell bet the farm that it *WILL* be adopted quickly and expediently. Is there a technology that give people a product that is promosed to be better, better performing, better everything, cost the same, yet nobody likes it?? Yet, most of the roadie enthusiasts on here, and in the real world, don't seem to even care about it. Not one single major bike makers even use tubeless on their road bikes. The market doesn't lie about the lack of demand for the road tubeless technology. Market force, unlike personal opinions and anecdotes in here, is usually not wrong about something.


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

mfdemicco said:


> Everyone talks about using road tubeless with sealant. However, the tire/system is designed to be used without. How well does a tubeless tire do without sealant? How easy is it to patch a tubeless tire?


I'm pretty sure only the UST standard mavic developed was meant to be used without sealant. That also requires a UST tire that basically has a tube vulcanized to the inside of the tire. Most tires and wheels made for tubeless setups are now tubeless-ready (that I'm aware of), basically meaning it needs to be run with sealant.

Tubeless tires patch as easy as regular tires. For tubeless ready tires, the primary difference I've noticed is a squared bead shape to lock onto the rim better an the bead being carbon fiber instead of kevlar so it has increased stretch resistance to keep from blowing off the rim.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'll start to reconsider when I see 5 out of 10 guys on the road riding a tubeless setup. Just curious, how many guys ride a tubeless setup in a local crit anyway? Probably zero. Somebody tell these guys they should go tubeless for superior performance. 

market force speaks louder than anecdotes. When 9 out of 10 weekend warriors out there,,, when the crit guys,,, when the club racer guys,, when 9 out of 10 of them embrace tubeless, then you all have a point. Until then, market force is speaking on my side, not on the side of the personal anecdotes in here. Correct?


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

SwiftSolo said:


> It is true that without mountain biking leading the way, road bikers would still have friction shifters on their down tubes. They are far less capable of accepting change until it is forced on them by the industry (hard to buy new friction shifters these days). The infusion of mountain bikers into the sport and the clear superiority of tubeless will eventually take over--just as it has done among serious mountain bikers and with automobiles. We are lucky that the seriousness of shimano's (and some others) asinine design mistake did not kill otherwise superior technology.
> 
> Road tubeless


Who's this guy/\
I love this guy! Lol


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

195cranky said:


> aclinjury states road tubeless around for 4 years? Another example of misinformation being posted. Campy Eurus introduced two-way in 2009 and I used those for first tubeless set-up with Hutchi then Specialized that were made by Hutchi but lasted longer and seemed to have better grip oddly enough.
> 
> As posted here there are three choices. Your choice. And choosing to post erroneous reasons why someone else should not try or use road tubeless is a cheesy choice. There are plenty of tubeless choices to choose from. Just cause some brands elect not to offer, or maybe are in development and have not yet launched road tubeless models doesn't mean road tubeless is not a viable choice. It is as stated by other posters here as well as many other satisfied users, not just my rants.
> 
> ...


so Campy introduced a tubeless compatible wheel 6 years ago? Oh ok. I said about 4 years ago as that was when the general trend, in the broadest of term. Yet you used a 2 years difference between the introduction of a specific wheelset from a manucfacturers to a broad trend I was implying... as your exhibit A as me using misinformation? Seriously, are you like one of these guys that like nitpick on the internet?


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> I'll start to reconsider when I see 5 out of 10 guys on the road riding a tubeless setup. Just curious, how many guys ride a tubeless setup in a local crit anyway? Probably zero. Somebody tell these guys they should go tubeless for superior performance.
> 
> market force speaks louder than anecdotes. When 9 out of 10 weekend warriors out there,,, when the crit guys,,, when the club racer guys,, when 9 out of 10 of them embrace tubeless, then you all have a point. Until then, market force is speaking on my side, not on the side of the personal anecdotes in here. Correct?


Do i have to be a "crit guy" to qualify for this? I would prefer to enter as a "guy who rides a bunch of miles to look at trees".


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

92gli said:


> Do i have to be a "crit guy" to qualify for this? I would prefer to enter as a "guy who rides a bunch of miles to look at trees".


why do you like to not read the rest of my post, and previous posts about trends and market force? Do you understand that market force speaks louder than your anecdote? You belong in a miniscule segment of users in using tubeless. The rest of the market apparently realize that they're better off not (or do you assume that most of them are too dumb and not as enlightened as you because they don't use tubeless?). The way it works is that if tubeless is so great and advantageous like you say, then riders will all swamp to tubeless use, and they will buy tubeless tires, and this force will inevitable force big guys like Micheline, Vittoria, Conti, Specialzed, Cdale, to all work toward building and equiping virtually all road bikes with tubeless setup. Personal anecdotel success cannot come close to comparing the decision of a whole market.


----------



## 92gli (Aug 27, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> why do you like to not read the rest of my post, and previous posts about trends and market force? Do you understand that market force speaks louder than your anecdote? You belong in a miniscule segment of users in using tubeless. The rest of the market apparently realize that they're better off not (or do you assume that most of them are too dumb and not as enlightened as you because they don't use tubeless?). The way it works is that if tubeless is so great and advantageous like you say, then riders will all swamp to tubeless use, and they will buy tubeless tires, and this force will inevitable force big guys like Micheline, Vittoria, Conti, Specialzed, Cdale, to all work toward building and equiping virtually all road bikes with tubeless setup. Personal anecdotel success cannot come close to comparing the decision of a whole market.


So you'd prefer that I be a "crit guy"? Well, that makes me feel a little funny, but above all else, i think everyone here wants you to be happy.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

92gli said:


> So you'd prefer that I be a "crit guy"? Well, that makes me feel a little funny, but above all else, i think everyone here wants you to be happy.


ok let us not engage further as you have nothing to say


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mfdemicco said:


> Everyone talks about using road tubeless with sealant. However, the tire/system is designed to be used without. How well does a tubeless tire do without sealant? How easy is it to patch a tubeless tire?


You pretty much will need the sealant for initial setup. The seal between the rim and tire will seep air if there is no sealant. It's the sealant that will fill in all the many micro holes within the tire-rim interface. Without the sealant, you stand a high chance that you will get a slow seepage of air over a day or two. But once the initial sealant has dried up, you may choose not to refill the sealant, and just ride the tire without sealant (or more specifically, with dried up sealant). Btw dried up sealant can leave a lot of pieces of boogers, and these boogers can never be removed completely. The reason why I mention these boogers is because once they are dried and harden, they now can actually prevent fresh sealant from entering and sealing a new punctures. And these boogers, once they start to form, they are like cholestrol particles in your blood stream, they will start to attract the fresh sealant onto themselves, and the boogers will just grow bigger and bigger over time. I once have a booger the size of a golf ball inside my 2.3" mtb tire, and that pretty much block a lot of the sealant flow.

If you don't run sealant, you pretty eliminate half of the reasons to go tubeless in the first place, i.e., to avoid getting a flat on the road, or so goes the theory. In practice, I have mixed experiences with sealing a flat on the road. If a cut is small and smooth and clean, then it'll seal until you wear down the rubber a bit more, then the seal too will break. For jagged cut, or cut near or on the sidewall, forget it, pop in a tube. Oh the joy of putting a tube in a tubeless tire, especially if the tire is a tight one. It's a test of will.

(For mtb tubeless tires, they have a better chance of sealing without using sealant. This is because mtb tubeless tires (UST) have much thicker rubber on their hooks, and this thicker rubber wall provide a more airtight seal.)


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I really don't get what you're trying to say here other than grasping for straws to backtrack on something you said that you now realize was wrong but aren't willing to admit. Of course that's a guess on my part.
> 
> Who cares what mountain bikes come with. Most all bikes come with the worst tires going and really crappy saddles. By your logic that means most serious cyclists don't favor high quality tires or good saddles.


You didn't understand what I was saying. If you have an argument against what I have said about tubeless, if what I said about tubeless is not true, then state your argument. Otherwise, at this point I really don't want to re-explain myself. I know, I'm not perfect in writing, but don't want to rehash.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> You pretty much will need the sealant for initial setup. The seal between the rim and tire will seep air if there is no sealant. It's the sealant that will fill in all the many micro holes within the tire-rim interface. Without the sealant, you stand a high chance that you will get a slow seepage of air over a day or two. But once the initial sealant has dried up, you may choose not to refill the sealant, and just ride the tire without sealant (or more specifically, with dried up sealant). Btw dried up sealant can leave a lot of pieces of boogers, and these boogers can never be removed completely. The reason why I mention these boogers is because once they are dried and harden, they now can actually prevent fresh sealant from entering and sealing a new punctures. And these boogers, once they start to form, they are like cholestrol particles in your blood stream, they will start to attract the fresh sealant onto themselves, and the boogers will just grow bigger and bigger over time. I once have a booger the size of a golf ball inside my 2.3" mtb tire, and that pretty much block a lot of the sealant flow.
> 
> If you don't run sealant, you pretty eliminate half of the reasons to go tubeless in the first place, i.e., to avoid getting a flat on the road.
> 
> (For mtb tubeless tires, they have a better chance of sealing without using sealant. This is because mtb tubeless tires (UST) have much thicker rubber on their hooks, and this thicker rubber wall provide a more airtight seal.)


Here's a serious question for you tubeless guys - if you have to mess around with liquids, why don't you go with tubulars? Then you don't have to bother with rim lips, tire pressure effects on rim lips, pressure limits caused by lips etcetera. To me, it seems like the lower the tire pressure (23-25mm rims with 25mm tires; cx width tires etc) the better it is to run clinchers. The higher the pressure (or lower in the case of cx), the better tubulars become. 

I would revert back to tubulars before I "progressed" to tubeless. But for 80-90psi usage and an average of one flat per year, I'm staying with tubed 25mm clinchers.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Mike T. said:


> Here's a serious question for you tubeless guys - if you have to mess around with liquids, why don't you go with tubulars? Then you don't have to bother with rim lips, tire pressure effects on rim lips, pressure limits caused by lips etcetera. To me, it seems like the lower the tire pressure (23-25mm rims with 25mm tires; cx width tires etc) the better it is to run clinchers. The higher the pressure (or lower in the case of cx), the better tubulars become.
> 
> I would revert back to tubulars before I "progressed" to tubeless. But for 80-90psi usage and an average of one flat per year, I'm staying with tubed 25mm clinchers.


I don't see it as 'messing around' w/ liquids. When I mount a tire I pour some in as I'm putting the tire on. After 4-6mos I pull the valve core and add some. I do this til I wear the tire out or otherwise damage it beyond use. I pay very little attention to crap on the road, I just pretty much run over everything except steak knives and large pieces of sheet metal. Like I said, I've had ONE flat in over 4 years. I've mounted so damn many tubeless tires, both road and mountain...and a bunch of cx tires too...it's no big deal. I never pinch flatted on tubes, so that wasn't a worry for me, on the road at least. I've pinch flatted tubes on the mountain a few times, but not anymore. 
I rode tubulars exclusively for probably 12-14yrs and loved it, but they get expensive (I didn't ride crappy tires, ever) even though I only flatted a few times. I still race (road/cx/track) ONLY on tubulars, but I've had good enough results w/ tubeless on road and mountain that it works for me.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> I don't see it as 'messing around' w/ liquids. When I mount a tire I pour some in as I'm putting the tire on. After 4-6mos I pull the valve core and add some. I do this til I wear the tire out or otherwise damage it beyond use. I pay very little attention to crap on the road, I just pretty much run over everything except steak knives and large pieces of sheet metal. Like I said, I've had ONE flat in over 4 years. I've mounted so damn many tubeless tires, both road and mountain...and a bunch of cx tires too...it's no big deal. I never pinch flatted on tubes, so that wasn't a worry for me, on the road at least. I've pinch flatted tubes on the mountain a few times, but not anymore.
> I rode tubulars exclusively for probably 12-14yrs and loved it, but they get expensive (I didn't ride crappy tires, ever) even though I only flatted a few times. I still race (road/cx/track) ONLY on tubulars, but I've had good enough results w/ tubeless on road and mountain that it works for me.


Fyi, your inbox is full. Oh and they charged me $150 for the recall service.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

I'm in the 'tubeless experiment' phase, so perhaps not the best commentator. It's definitely been pluses and minuses.

My adoption reason was simple; goatsheads on the roads. They went thru' Gatorskins, ignored sealant filled tubes and were effectively invisible. I was getting 1-2 flats a month.

Since going tubeless, I've had 3 flats in 1000 miles or so. All were large chunks of metal that blended in with gravel on the road. I've been saved a few goatshead punctures and I've tubed up the wheels relatively easily, if a bit messily with sealant.

I'm not 100% convinced I'm the trade-off, but so far I'm convinced enough.

Initial mounting was my biggest complaint. Seating was easy in new tape -- a right bastard a second time. The use of a Prestaflator and compressor has helped this. Use of a Stans injector for sealant has also made things less messy.

In summary: not 100% sold, but liking it and continuing to go with it.


----------



## crank1979 (Sep 9, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> Not one single major bike makers even use tubeless on their road bikes. The market doesn't lie about the lack of demand for the road tubeless technology.


I'm pretty sure Trek and Giant both offer complete bikes that come with road tubeless ready wheels, just like their mtbs that have tubeless ready wheels but still come with tubes fitted.


----------



## crank1979 (Sep 9, 2007)

mfdemicco said:


> Everyone talks about using road tubeless with sealant. However, the tire/system is designed to be used without. How well does a tubeless tire do without sealant? How easy is it to patch a tubeless tire?


I've always used sealant for the emergency puncture fix it will hopefully do. Only once hasn't it worked and I've had to fit a tube, which is the same as with a standard clincher.

I've patched tyres before and it's not really much different to a tube with the exception that the sealant needs to be cleaned off the inside of the tyre first. At the moment I'm experiemnting with polyurethane glue to fix holes from the outside and it seems to work. I'll need to run the tyres a bit longer to see if there are any drawbacks, but so far so good.


----------



## crank1979 (Sep 9, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> market force speaks louder than anecdotes. When 9 out of 10 weekend warriors out there,,, when the crit guys,,, when the club racer guys,, when 9 out of 10 of them embrace tubeless, then you all have a point. Until then, market force is speaking on my side, not on the side of the personal anecdotes in here. Correct?


I prefer to think that the majority of the market have been sucked in by the naysayers or don't have the ability to set up a road tubeless wheelset properly. :idea:


----------



## crank1979 (Sep 9, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> Btw dried up sealant can leave a lot of pieces of boogers, and these boogers can never be removed completely. The reason why I mention these boogers is because once they are dried and harden, they now can actually prevent fresh sealant from entering and sealing a new punctures.
> 
> If you don't run sealant, you pretty eliminate half of the reasons to go tubeless in the first place, i.e., to avoid getting a flat on the road, or so goes the theory. In practice, I have mixed experiences with sealing a flat on the road. If a cut is small and smooth and clean, then it'll seal until you wear down the rubber a bit more, then the seal too will break. For jagged cut, or cut near or on the sidewall, forget it, pop in a tube. Oh the joy of putting a tube in a tubeless tire, especially if the tire is a tight one. It's a test of will.


A firm bristle toothbrush or plastic tyre lever can be used to scrape the boogers away without damaging the rims. Not an issue.

I agree that not running sealant doesn't make any sense. I've had good experiences with Stans, Conti Revo and Hutchinson ProtectAir for sealing everything but a cut that was 7-10mm long on the inside of the tyre. I fitted a tube on the roadside without any issues, no test of will. I got home and patched the tyre then ran it tubeless again.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> so Campy introduced a tubeless compatible wheel 6 years ago? Oh ok. I said about 4 years ago as that was when the general trend, in the broadest of term. Yet you used a 2 years difference between the introduction of a specific wheelset from a manucfacturers to a broad trend I was implying... as your exhibit A as me using misinformation? Seriously, are you like one of these guys that like nitpick on the internet?


Campy was not the first to introduce. Shimano and Hutchinson came out with the first setup in 2006. 4 years and 6 years were both misinformation. as the answer is 9 years. 9 is not "about 4" unless you are talking in geologic time.



> when the crit guys,,, when the club racer guys,, when 9 out of 10 of them embrace tubeless, then you all have a point. Until then, market force is speaking on my side


From those market forces we should all be riding tubulars.

Ride what you want and I will ride what I want. There are pros and cons to both tubeless and tubed clincher systems, people should pick the one that suits them best.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Keoki said:


> Fyi, your inbox is full. Oh and they charged me $150 for the recall service.


IMO that's insane. And I'll go clear out the inbox:thumbsup:


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

maxxis padrone is the closest road tubeless tire to a MTB UST.... the padrone "don't require" sealant... so, when used with UST-style rim bed (ie SHimano), no sealant needed to get them air-tight....


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

I'm all for road tubeless, but have not dropped any cash their yet. Road wheels tend to last a longer than mtb. So, I don't have the need and desire timed yet

Now, what really got my attention was 

30mm Hookless 26er MTB Rim


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Specialized did a lot of r&d in it and found it blew off around 120 psi.... Using Kevlar beads MTB 2bliss ready tires

Road tubeless, have carbon beads AFAIK


----------



## 195cranky (Jun 25, 2013)

Geez aclinjury...talk about nitpicking! and Cheeseyhead...

Butt, to nitpick...I did not write that Campy was first to introduce. I wrote they came out with theirs in 2009 and I started using Eurus two-way with tubeless. You did the math, as did others. I just posted correction to misinformed, as did others.

No real booger problem here. Just dismount old worn tire, clean up sealant residue, start a new. Not quite sure that is problem and the misinformed need to make it another misperceived negative about road tubeless. Talk about nitpicking. To correct, that be booger picking. 

Raced a couple crit races yesterday. According to acl I guess I should have raced on my tubed clinchers instead of road tubeless cause the boogers don't allow my sealant to work. A tubed clincher blow out caused a 9 rider crash. That should be written up as a negative about tubed clinchers. But since 9 out of 10 crashed they are now picking out asphalt intead of boogers. Maybe number 10 was tubeless? And probaby with a nasty booger problem.

Yes, all good points about trends and market force. Will be interesting to see road tubeless, electric shift, as well as road disc growth moving forward. There was initial resistance in the transportation industry from horse to auto, from solid, to tubed, then tubeless wheels/tires (see a trend here?), and drum to disc brakes, and hand crank to electric starters so I can only hope posters like acl will be able to adapt and get off their high horse.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

195cranky, you will note that I did not take issue with your post, but rather acl's response to your post.

Enjoy your ride...Glad to hear your tubeless did not roll off on a hard crit corner as I have read on the internet that they might be prone to do that... if it's on the internet it must be true.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Mike T. said:


> if you have to mess around with liquids, why don't you go with tubulars?


That's what I use. With Tufo gluing tape, I don't mess with liquids either.


----------



## cbk57 (Aug 12, 2009)

As to the Crit pile up. In my limited experience and belief, there always seems to be that guy in a crit or a race that is convinced more tire pressure is better. They hit a bump and you hear the blowing tire sound. I have never rode anything but clinchers and have had zero flats in a race but I run conservative air pressures that I would use any other day of normal riding under similar circumstances.


----------

