# Ultegra WH-6800 - Which sealant?



## Ridin'Sorra (Sep 7, 2004)

Hi all!!

Dumb question here. I've read that Stans MUST not be used on Dura Ace wheels due to corrosion issues with the material used for the rims.

Is that a problem still/also present with the new Ultegra WH-6800?
If so, which sealant to use? I've been recommended Hutchinson sealant by a friend but what are other options?

I've searched but I'v found very little about the 6800 Ultegras and nothing specific about the subject.

Thanks for any help!


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

Apparently the new Stans sealant isn't corrosive like the old stuff. The new sealant is ammonia free which is probably where those issues were coming from. 

I think your best bet is going to be to call a Shimano rep and see what they say. I'm sure you COULD run Stans in there, but that would be a dumb reason to void the warranty on your wheels.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I am using Slime Pro with my Dura-Ace wheels with good results.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

I use Caffe Latex or Hutchinson. I have an old batch of Stans that smells of ammonia and I won't be using that.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

Zen Cyclery said:


> Apparently the new Stans sealant isn't corrosive like the old stuff. The new sealant is ammonia free which is probably where those issues were coming from.
> 
> I think your best bet is going to be to call a Shimano rep and see what they say. I'm sure you COULD run Stans in there, but that would be a dumb reason to void the warranty on your wheels.


Stan's sealant isn't as corrosive as the older formula. There is still trace amounts of ammonia.

Because the Shimano tubeless follows the UST rim profile, I would suspect Shimano would say with UST tubeless tires, no sealant is needed. 

The UST system standard was designed around not using sealant.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

tednugent said:


> Because the Shimano tubeless follows the UST rim profile, I would suspect Shimano would say with UST tubeless tires, no sealant is needed. The UST system standard was designed around not using sealant.


Understood, that is what they say. My scenario was a UST rim and UST tubeless tire combination that loses air pressure too quickly. I'm not going to junk the tire or the rim, so then I'm forced to use sealant.I don't think it is seeping through the tire but due to some minor rim/bead interface imperfection. Others, quite reasonably, want to run sealant for additional puncture protection.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

If you intend to intentionally void their warranty by using sealant, then don't worry about their warranty


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

tednugent said:


> Stan's sealant isn't as corrosive as the older formula. There is still trace amounts of ammonia.
> 
> Because the Shimano tubeless follows the UST rim profile, I would suspect Shimano would say with UST tubeless tires, no sealant is needed.
> 
> The UST system standard was designed around not using sealant.



UST? I have been using Fusion 2 & 3 for years and have never seen ust mentioned anywhere for road tubeless. I'm using Campy two way wheels, I've researched other tubeless tires and have never seen anything about UST.

Are all the road tubeless UST? But they don't say that.


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

tednugent said:


> If you intend to intentionally void their warranty by using sealant, then don't worry about their warranty


I intend to use the wheel as road tubeless without losing all air pressure on a ride! Given that I'm using sealant, I'll pick a kind that is least likely to corrode the rim. My wheels are DA 7850SL and are outside their 3 year warranty period anyway.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

you should go on MTBR and search for the various recipes of homebrew sealant.


----------



## clydeone (Oct 25, 2011)

tednugent said:


> you should go on MTBR and search for the various recipes of homebrew sealant.


+1000


----------



## Ridin'Sorra (Sep 7, 2004)

tednugent said:


> If you intend to intentionally void their warranty by using sealant, then don't worry about their warranty


My only objective with using sealant (and using tubeless altogether) is to get some puncture resistance.

UST/Tubeless offers no more protection than running tubes against punctures. Unless you use some sort of sealant. It will have much less pinch flats, though.

Shimano has a warning against CAUSTIC (Ammonia) sealant being used. They do not forbid the use of all sealants, just the ones being caustic.


----------



## jtompilot (Mar 31, 2002)

Ridin'Sorra said:


> My only objective with using sealant (and using tubeless altogether) is to get some puncture resistance.
> 
> UST/Tubeless offers no more protection than running tubes against punctures. Unless you use some sort of sealant. It will have much less pinch flats, though.
> 
> You would think that is true but I've been running my Zonda Two Way, Fusion 3, dry for 1500 miles without a flat. My Shamal two way haven't had new sealant in over three years without a flat. When I use a tube tire I get a flat once or twice a year.


----------



## pushstart (Feb 5, 2012)

> You would think that is true but I've been running my Zonda Two Way, Fusion 3, dry for 1500 miles without a flat. My Shamal two way haven't had new sealant in over three years without a flat. When I use a tube tire I get a flat once or twice a year.


Any resistance to [non-pinch] flats has has nothing to do with the fact that the tire is tubeless. Perhaps these are just tougher than the tube tires you run or you have just been lucky.

On the flip side I have had more flats with Fusion 3 tires tubeless (5 this year on 3 tires) with sealant than I have with tube tires. But anecdotes aren't science.

I don't find sealant to help seal things at road pressures (maybe itsy bitsy pinhole punctures?) but it does make it quick and easy to seat the tires.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

Ridin'Sorra said:


> My only objective with using sealant (and using tubeless altogether) is to get some puncture resistance.
> 
> UST/Tubeless offers no more protection than running tubes against punctures. Unless you use some sort of sealant. It will have much less pinch flats, though.


Tubeless tires are thicker/stronger to begin with. 

The whole sealant thing is just because the MTB world needed it to seal their non UST tires. It doesn't seem worth it to put 60 gram of mass into each wheel. Weight weenies would pay at least $120 to avoid that. Maybe more because it is rotating mass.

Besides, sealant needs to be cleaned out every 3-6 months. How does it make sense to solve the problem of having to fix a flat by guaranteeing that you must repair your tire every 3-6 month to remove dried sealant? Just carry a patch (square of cut inner-tube), a tiny tube of SuperGlue, and a Co2 inflator - stuff you need anyway since the sealant often does not work.

Almost no one runs sealant in car tires because it is a mess, costs money, and adds rotating mass. Same for the road bike except it matters even more on a nice road bike than a car.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> Tubeless tires are thicker/stronger to begin with.
> 
> The whole sealant thing is just because the MTB world needed it to seal their non UST tires. It doesn't seem worth it to put 60 gram of mass into each wheel. Weight weenies would pay at least $120 to avoid that. Maybe more because it is rotating mass.
> 
> ...


Wut? You bring back a 2 year old thread and then post a bunch of nonsense. You really should know what you're talking about before you do stuff like this. It's not 60 grams of 'mass', and most riders would rather have an extra degree of puncture protection than the lightest wheel/tire combination on the planet. It's probably less than half of what you state, but it's so little I've never bothered to weigh it. Topping up the sealant a couple times a year? I don't know how you consider this to be an issue, but whatever. No need to remove any dry sealant from the tire, just inject some through the valve or break the bead and pour some in. Done. 
Most all of the tubeless systems _require_ sealant to work, we've never set one up w/o it and we've done hundreds. Of course car and moto tires don't use it...they're many times thicker than bicycle tires and there is no need for anything like liquid sealant...the technology has been perfected over the last 70 or so years unlike the relatively new bicycle tubeless systems. 
Get a clue before you post this junk again. 


Jesus...good thing it's Friday.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

It is mass that we are concerned about, as mass is the ability to resist acceleration.

2 oz per wheel is 57 grams per wheel.

That fact that you have never done an install without sealant is my point - why is that?

When close to 0% of people put sealant in motorcycle tires, and you and others put it in close to 100% of tubeless bike tires, that is not explained by users "preferring some puncture resistance." 

It is more explained by a misunderstanding of the need for it. People just think that it is needed for the system to work, and it is not.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> It is mass that we are concerned about, as mass is the ability to resist acceleration.
> 
> 2 oz per wheel is 57 grams per wheel.


Road tires use 1oz. Just stop now. It's liquid, it's not attached to the tire. You don't feel anywhere near it's actual weight as rotating mass. Just stop now.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

cxwrench said:


> Road tires use 1oz. Just stop now. It's liquid, it's not attached to the tire. You don't feel anywhere near it's actual weight as rotating mass. Just stop now.


Would you say that the liquid coats the inside of the tire? Or does it just sit at the bottom as a pool at all times when the tire is rotating?

UST was invented by Mavic. Here are there instructions for installation of the tire. Notice no mention of sealant at all:

http://www.mavic.us/sites/default/files/download/UST_wheels.pdf

Sealant is required to correct the poor fit of typical non-UST tires and wheels. There is no explanation why so many more people use it on bicycle tubeless wheels and tires than motorcycle riders (who basically never use it) except for confusion with the process needed to make non-UST products hold air.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> Would you say that the liquid coats the inside of the tire? Or does it just sit at the bottom as a pool at all times when the tire is rotating?
> 
> UST was invented by Mavic. Here are there instructions for installation of the tire. Notice no mention of sealant at all:
> 
> ...


It's been a long, busy week. I'm going to try to maintain civility. You can't compare UST to ANY more modern tubeless system. ALL of the newer tubeless systems use liquid sealant to: 
Seal minor punctures
Seal the casing of non UST tires so they hold pressure better/longer...it's definitely not to 'correct the poor fit of non-UST tires and wheels'. 

The main problem w/ UST since it's inception has been the weight of the tires. They're stupid heavy because they need to hold air pressure soley through the construction of the tire. It was not engineered w/ any extra liquid and so offered no additional puncture resistance at all, it was only designed to eliminate pinch flats and hold tires on rims better if you did flat. 10 years ago there were 2 groups of Mtb XC racers: those sponsored by Mavic and using UST...and all the rest that used Stans originally. And I mean ALL the rest. All using normal, lightweight tires on normal, lightweight wheels. All of these riders/racers benefit from the puncture protection of the liquid sealant as well as the virtual elimination of pinch flats because tubes were now a thing of the past. Now there are still UST tires/wheels but even fewer people use them. Everyone now uses some kind of TCS type system w/ a tubeless specific rim/tire shape, but a lighter casing than UST that requires sealant to hold pressure in the casing. I repeat, it's NOT to correct fit. 

What do you mean by the 'confusion with process needed to make non-UST products hold air'? As far as I know it's been completely and totally figured out. I do it every day. And ffs, stop comparing bicycle tires to motorcycle tires.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

cxwrench said:


> What do you mean by the 'confusion with process needed to make non-UST products hold air'? As far as I know it's been completely and totally figured out. I do it every day. And ffs, stop comparing bicycle tires to motorcycle tires.


This is a thread on Shimano Ultegra 6800 wheels - the same ones that I have. You do not need sealant to hold air. So why do so many people do it when it is not needed and adds weight?

I think you will say "for increased puncture resistance," but if puncture resistance at the expense of weight was such a high priority, then the same people wouldn't be driving around in cars and motorcycles without sealant.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> This is a thread on Shimano Ultegra 6800 UST wheels - the same ones that I have. And for UST tires, you do not need sealant to hold air. So why do so many people do it on UST when it is not needed and adds weight?
> 
> I think you will say "for increased puncture resistance," but if puncture resistance at the expense of weight was such a high priority, then the same people wouldn't be driving around in cars and motorcycles without sealant.


Read my posts...say it with me now "puncture resistance". Not everyone cares about the minimal weight like you do. You'll figure this out someday. 

Car and moto tires? I've been driving and riding moto since '79. I've had one flat in the car and one on the moto. Car and motorcycle tires don't need sealant. Bicycle tires can definitely benefit from it and most tubeless systems require it. That's the way it is...understand this, please.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

Why is it that motorcycles don't need it as much?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

rsilvers said:


> Why is it that motorcycles don't need it as much?


They don't flat very often. Acutally a lot of dirt bike guys use it. Street bikes are just like cars...they rarely have flats. Cars and motos never flat compared to bicycles. After hundreds of thousands of miles in cars I have one. I rarely flat on my bicycle, but it happnens a LOT more often when compared to car/moto.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

I am putting sealant in my tubed MTB bike.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

rsilvers said:


> Why is it that motorcycles don't need it as much?


Compare the thickness of a motorcycle to a bicycle tire, and you will have the answer. I've ridden perhaps 100,000 miles on motorcycles road and off road, racing and recreational and have never had a flat. On a bicycle, I have several flats / year.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

rsilvers said:


> This is a thread on Shimano Ultegra 6800 wheels - the same ones that I have. You do not need sealant to hold air. So why do so many people do it when it is not needed and adds weight?
> 
> I think you will say "for increased puncture resistance," but if puncture resistance at the expense of weight was such a high priority, then the same people wouldn't be driving around in cars and motorcycles without sealant.


Beads on car and motorcycle tires are MUCH larger than on a bicycle and those tires are run at MUCH lower pressure. More sealing area to resist a much lower force is yet another reason sealant is not needed in motorcycles and cars.

If you would like to run your tubeless tires w/o sealant, have at it.

For the 90% of tubeless users that choose to run sealant, I have found Orange Seal to be great stuff.


----------



## pushstart (Feb 5, 2012)

rsilvers said:


> This is a thread on Shimano Ultegra 6800 wheels - the same ones that I have. You do not need sealant to hold air. So why do so many people do it when it is not needed and adds weight?


The rim is irrelevant here. Taped rims hold air just fine without sealant. Sealant is for the tires and for the reasons described. Some tubeless tires will hold air without sealant and if you never get flats on the road then this is probably a good option for you. I get flats, so I use sealant to help decrease them. Holes that are too large for sealant can usually be fixed with tire plugs, but much easier of you also have sealant in the tire (to help the plug seal up the hole).

Also sealant makes the tires easier to mount, though soap and water on the bead work well too.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

pushstart said:


> The rim is irrelevant here. Taped rims hold air just fine without sealant. Sealant is for the tires and for the reasons described. Some tubeless tires will hold air without sealant and if you never get flats on the road then this is probably a good option for you. I get flats, so I use sealant to help decrease them. Holes that are too large for sealant can usually be fixed with tire plugs, but much easier of you also have sealant in the tire (to help the plug seal up the hole).
> 
> Also sealant makes the tires easier to mount, though soap and water on the bead work well too.


The rim is relevant here. There are no spoke holes, as it follows the Mavic UST standard for rim bed geometry


----------



## pushstart (Feb 5, 2012)

tednugent said:


> The rim is relevant here. There are no spoke holes, as it follows the Mavic UST standard for rim bed geometry


Whether not the rim bed has holes has nothing to do with needing sealant. Of course the rim on a tubeless system has to be airtight  Typically the air-tightness is achieves by using tape or a special rim strip. You don't need sealant if you are using a taped rim any more than you need it on a UST rim.

UST is really obsolete at this point in the evolution of tubeless technology.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

pushstart said:


> Whether not the rim bed has holes has nothing to do with needing sealant. Of course the rim on a tubeless system has to be airtight  Typically the air-tightness is achieves by using tape or a special rim strip. You don't need sealant if you are using a taped rim any more than you need it on a UST rim.
> 
> UST is really obsolete at this point in the evolution of tubeless technology.


As already mentioned, Mavic's UST was designed to be used without sealant, as long as both the tire and the rim met the UST standards.

But, all that extra rubber needed to make it airtight has additional consequences, aside from the extra weight, it made the tires extra stiff, but means, on the road bike level, less comfort, even at lower pressures.

Thanks to Stan Koziatek, he went his own way, which much of the rest of the industry followed, tossing the "Universal Standard for tubeless" aside, which required sealant. Some MTB tires UST/tubeless ready or not, were not even compatible with sealant. Kenda tires come to mind. They had to re-engineer some of their tires with "SCT" rubber, sealant capability technology.

UST isn't obsolete yet. Hutchinson still offers UST road tires, which do not require sealant, including their new Atom Galatik tubeles tire. Even Mavic is coming around to UST for road applications. They let Shimano & Hutchinson take care of the growing pains of road tubeless. Sealant in those cases are more for smaller puncture mitigation, while on the road.

So, in the context of sealant, rims do matter, only in the context of Shimano, because there is no tape required to seal what is already, a sealed rim.


----------



## pushstart (Feb 5, 2012)

Ok, whatever. I still don't see how the rim bed affects decision on whether to use sealant. Stans rims, once taped, do not require sealant and are, as you note, obviously not UST.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

pushstart said:


> Ok, whatever. I still don't see how the rim bed affects decision on whether to use sealant. Stans rims, once taped, do not require sealant and are, as you note, obviously not UST.


If you use Hutchinson tubeless tires, then your statement is true. 

Other brands may not use an airtight casing that is called on the UST standard. They just put an extra butyl rubber layer, to make the bead tight with a tubeless ready rim. Those tires still require sealant.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

back to the original question.... since the time it was first asked... more options came to market such as the Bontrager tubeless sealant and Orange seal tubeless sealant.

stan's still has trace ammonia, which that can interact with the anodizing.

Taped wheels don't have this issue, since the tape protects it from the ammonia.


----------



## pushstart (Feb 5, 2012)

tednugent said:


> If you use Hutchinson tubeless tires, then your statement is true.
> 
> Other brands may not use an airtight casing that is called on the UST standard. They just put an extra butyl rubber layer, to make the bead tight with a tubeless ready rim. Those tires still require sealant.


No on is disagreeing with you. That is why I said the question of sealant and UST is irrelevant for the rim -- and only relevant for the tires.

"UST" does not appear on sidewall of the Hutchinson RT tires (at least none that I have seen), so if these new RT tires are using UST patent they are doing a good job keeping that a secret. (I thought UST was the old MTB technology.) Where does Hutchinson say their new RT tires are UST tires?


----------



## pushstart (Feb 5, 2012)

tednugent said:


> Taped wheels don't have this issue, since the tape protects it from the ammonia.


The tape doesn't go from bead seat to bead seat; its purpose is to cover the holes so of course there is exposed alloy. If Stans is gonna be an issue, then it will be an issue regardless of tape. They do mention covering rim scratches with tape, since those are un-anodized. That is just to protect from moisture in the sealant, so would apply to any sealant.

In practice I have not seen any rims that have problems with Stans, and have run on a wise array of rims from UST to random Kinlin to carbon to ZTR notubes. And Stans says that the trace ammonia evaporates immediately. This is not worth thinking about.

(Are you even running tubeless?)


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

pushstart said:


> The tape doesn't go from bead seat to bead seat; its purpose is to cover the holes so of course there is exposed alloy. If Stans is gonna be an issue, then it will be an issue regardless of tape. They do mention covering rim scratches with tape, since those are un-anodized. That is just to protect from moisture in the sealant, so would apply to any sealant.
> 
> In practice I have not seen any rims that have problems with Stans, and have run on a wise array of rims from UST to random Kinlin to carbon to ZTR notubes. And Stans says that the trace ammonia evaporates immediately. This is not worth thinking about.
> 
> (Are you even running tubeless?)


Yes, I have 2 Stan's tubeless wheelsets, on tubeless. See signature.

Second, you clearly do not have experience with a Stan's wheel, setting it up for tubeless.

The tape does cover the entire rim bed, from the spoke holes to the drop channel, to the tubeless bench. The only exposed rim without tape is the sidewall & bead hook. That is then covered by the tire bead, leaving no anodized aluminum exposed to the trace ammonia in Stan's sealant (other than trace cracks)

You can see it on Stan's website. There's tape on the "bench" and that is on purpose to help with the seal to the tire.









Shimano does have issues with some sealant. 
https://si.shimano.com/php/download.php?file=pdf/um/UM-4T70A-002-00-ENG.pdf


> Tubeless wheel
> • We do not recommend that you use general-purpose alkaline puncture repair agents, as they may cause the rims to corrode and allow air leaks to occur.


.... which was the issue for post #1.


----------



## pushstart (Feb 5, 2012)

pushstart said:


> The tape doesn't go from bead seat to bead seat;





tednugent said:


> The only exposed rim without tape is the sidewall & bead hook.


Glad we agree.

Regardless of how much rim is exposed on taped rims (and yes, some rim is definitely exposed; how else would 25mm tape work on rims that have 25mm or greater internal widths?), it isn't worth discussing because it is a non-issue.

Anyway, this conversation is clearly only making everyone dumber. Good luck in your tubeless endeavors. Indications are the horizon is replete with learning opportunities.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

pushstart said:


> Glad we agree.
> 
> Regardless of how much rim is exposed on taped rims (and yes, some rim is definitely exposed; how else would 25mm tape work on rims that have 25mm or greater internal widths?), it isn't worth discussing because it is a non-issue.
> 
> Anyway, this conversation is clearly only making everyone dumber. Good luck in your tubeless endeavors. Indications are the horizon is replete with learning opportunities.


we don't agree, as you do not tape vertically to seal the rim.

the tape goes all the way from bead seat to beat seat, the entire width of the rim bed. 

if a you're using a 25mm width tape on 25mm internal width rim you ask? Remember, when you add the arc length of the drop channel (where the spokes are), the 25mm width tape is not wide enough. What you do? Easy, 2 layers, and you focus the first layer on one side of the rim, then the next layer, you focus on the other side. Easy! 

YOur rhetorical question is not a rhetorical question.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

tednugent said:


> we don't agree, as you do not tape vertically to seal the rim.
> 
> the tape goes all the way from bead seat to beat seat, the entire width of the rim bed.
> 
> ...


This is exactly how we've done it for years. Works perfectly.


----------

