# Road Tubeless



## mylesofsmyles (Mar 20, 2007)

This past Sunday, I finally had the opportunity to outfit my bike with the Stan's No Tubes Road Tubeless kit, including the Hutchinson Fusion 2 Road Tubeless tire. Since Road Tubeless's introduction, this year, I had been something of a skeptic, struggling to understand the benefits over a conventional tube tire on a clincher rim. After countless phone calls and emails to tech reps at Shimano, Specialized and Industry Nine, I learned just how much of a hindrance the presence of a tube is to the performance of a tire. Tubes cause friction, which inhibit any tire from doing its job properly; traction and rolling efficiency are at a major disadvantage. It seems, the more I researched, that the only reason clincher riders must run such high pressure is to overcome tube friction causing rolling resistance. So, what does Road Tubeless do differently? Road Tubeless, simply negates the weak link; eliminate the tube! By doing so, a rider should be able to run significantly lower pressure, which will result in an obviously smoother ride, much improved stability and traction, and hopefully still roll as efficiently.

The claims that have been made by Stan's and Hutchinson are that Road Tubeless will offer better traction, stability, ride quality and rolling efficiency. The tires should also wear longer and hold air more steadily; it'd be nice to not have to monitor my tire pressure every ride!

The setup was a breeze; the Stan's rim strip went in without a problem, and I let them sit with an inflated tube in for 2 hours to force the strip down, onto the rim. I think the most difficult part was getting the carbon fiber bead on the rim; it is definitely stiff, but no complaint there, if it keeps my tire on the rim!

First ride was unbelievably amazing! It proved to me that I had been lying to myself, convinced that Industry Nine Ego wheels with Open Tubular tires on a Cannondale CAAD9 was a smooth, comfortable ride. Road Tubeless has offered me a whole new bike! First off, I noticed how supple and smooth the ride was; this has been the suspension I had been longing for. Once I got over the concern as to whether my tire would blow off or not, I started pushing harder and harder into turns, only to discover that the more I pushed, the more the bike wanted to be pushed...there is a sense of endless traction and grip.

For Labor Day, I did a light 38 mile ride to test these tires further. Rolling efficiency proved itself greater than my previous Clincher setup. I wasn't working as hard to maintain speed, and climbs and sprints seemed more efficient too. The ride is smooth as ever, yet not compromising necessary road feel; it is more a matter of feeling what one needs to feel, rather than feel every bit of the road. After I finished my first climb, it was time for my favorite descent, a long stretch of steep s-curves, one feeding into the next; it is like an autocross course for my bike! Traction, yeah, there is plenty. I felt the same sensation as when I ride a roller coaster; this bike rides like it is on rails, never letting up, begging for more!

I LOVE ROAD TUBELESS!


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

How exactly does a tube cause increased rolling resistance? If there was significant friction between the tube and the tire, the tube and tire would heat up pretty darn fast.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Thinking about this some more I can certainly see 2 inherent advantages: the tire can't easily deflate catastrophically like a burst tube and the sidewall flex can be improved, which would lead to better traction. This would indeed improve rolling resistance slightly, specifically if you were on bad terrain. However I have my doubts that this can be effectively done with available materials as the sidewalls likely have to be fairly stiff with a tubeless tire.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

What a remarkable testimonial. My remark: BS.


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

PBBreath's kind post was enough to actually get me to stop lurking and become a member. 

Although I agree that the original posters review came across like advertising copy, I have to say that I am sold on the road tubeless thing. I have been using the Hutchinson's for about a month and I have had no problems and the ride is great. I am running them around 85 psi with no perceived decrease in rolling resistance, but a huge increase in comfort and smoothness. I have used the various versions of Michelin Pro Races (and its predecessor, the name of which escapes me) for years. I would generally run them around 110 psi. FYI, I weigh 180 lbs. I was a little apprehensive at first, but they have been nothing but solid in hard cornering. I haven't raced a crit on them yet, but not for fear of them rolling off. I would love a lighter tire option and I am curious to see what is on the horizon from Hutchinson and Specialized.

By the way does anyone know if the Hutchinson with the ribbing on the inside is the newer (2008) version, or is it the one that is completely smooth on the inside. I thought I had read that the ribbed version was an improved version, but I can't remember where I read that.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> What a remarkable testimonial. My remark: BS.


To each his own.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> I am running them around 85 psi with no perceived decrease in rolling resistance, but a huge increase in comfort and smoothness.


Yep. I've got about 5000 miles on the set up and I ain't going back. :thumbsup:


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*Thank you.*

Plausible reviews are much more useful.

Personally, I think that an optimal tubeless tire system would not be based on clinchers. That way, extra weight and sidewall stiffness would not have to be employed to protect the rim sidewall and bead interface. Its great that there is no tube to pinch if you bottom out a tubeless wheel, but you still run the risk of damaging a rim and possibly causing a sudden loss of air anyway.

I'd prefer a system that eliminated the (minor) hassles of tubular installation and removal. Why not use the better* system as the basis for new & improved technology?

*IMO


----------



## the Inbred (Feb 28, 2004)

I agree than the optimal tubeless system would lack a clincher setup, but regardless, right now, nothing improves the ride of a bike like tubeless tires. expect Conti to release some tubeless tires soon...


----------



## notubes_pete (Aug 7, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Plausible reviews are much more useful.
> 
> Personally, I think that an optimal tubeless tire system would not be based on clinchers. That way, extra weight and sidewall stiffness would not have to be employed to protect the rim sidewall and bead interface. Its great that there is no tube to pinch if you bottom out a tubeless wheel, but you still run the risk of damaging a rim and possibly causing a sudden loss of air anyway.
> 
> ...


It would be possible to have a tire with a vary thin side wall setup tubeless, all you need is that strong bead. But sadly no one makes a tire like that.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

notubes_pete said:


> It would be possible to have a tire with a vary thin side wall setup tubeless, all you need is that strong bead. But sadly no one makes a tire like that.


I don't see how a strong bead is going to stop the rim from denting when you hit a bump and bottom out that thin casing.


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

It would be interesting to see an out of the box solution to that problem. I have often wondered if we will ever see a switch to disc brakes on road bikes (as Lennard Zinn has suggested is in the future for road bikes) you could eliminate the need for a tall clincher rim with a braking surface and thus allow a stronger and lower volume rim like those being used for mountain bikes and more similar to a tubular rim. That doesn't necessarily solve the problem of the thin casing, but it could prevent dented rims and a loss of air from the dented rim.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

I've been on Stan's notubes for a few months and love it. Stan's also makes rims, but no 700c, unfortunately, except for 29ers (same diameter but too wide for road use). With his mountain rims and tires, the sidewall isn't as tall (at least on the disc-specific rims), and the interface is better between the hook and the tire bead. He has road rims/tires in development, but nothing on the market yet.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I got my start working on bikes thanks to Zinn and the Art, but I get the feeling these days that he is pushing for these new technologies because he is frustrated by the pace of progress over his decades on the case. A bit of the "where the hell is my flying car" syndrome. I don't think that tubeless or disc brakes have much in the way of technical merit for road applications. What they do have is the ability to be adapted from existing MTB tech, and thus a much lower bar of entry for manufacturers.

There are certainly ways to improve road bikes, but I think tubeless is a perfect case of taking the easy re-hash route instead of actually innovating. Its too bad no company that can make better riding tires than Tufo is around to push tubular clinchers. As they are they are not perfect either (or an improvement at all by many accounts), but a mechanically attached true tubular with purpose built rims that could be optimized for weight and structural integrity would be more interesting to me than the tubeless kludge.


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

Yeah, I kind of had in mind the Stans rims when making my comment. Maybe notubes_pete will chime in on if/when Stans will have a road rim on the market. 

As for Zinn's wishes, I hear what you are saying PBB. Being a mountain biker, I have given some thought to the disk brakes on road bikes question, and I don't know if it would ever start showing up on road bikes due to the extra weight and tradition. Also, my Dura Ace brakes seem to have plenty of power for pretty much any situation. However, I do think it has potential. I am an attorney who handles a few bike accident personal injury cases and in one case I am working on right now I wonder if the rider could have avoided the collision with the car if he had stronger brakes.


----------



## akatsuki (Aug 12, 2005)

JayZee said:


> It would be interesting to see an out of the box solution to that problem. I have often wondered if we will ever see a switch to disc brakes on road bikes (as Lennard Zinn has suggested is in the future for road bikes) you could eliminate the need for a tall clincher rim with a braking surface and thus allow a stronger and lower volume rim like those being used for mountain bikes and more similar to a tubular rim. That doesn't necessarily solve the problem of the thin casing, but it could prevent dented rims and a loss of air from the dented rim.


Since a taller rim can serve a dual purpose of braking and aerodynamics, I am not sure that there is a need really. I am still unconvinced of the need for discs on road bikes, but, then again, I always wondered why they don't make them internal to the hub for off-road, mud use to make them foolproof.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I got my start working on bikes thanks to Zinn and the Art, but I get the feeling these days that he is pushing for these new technologies because he is frustrated by the pace of progress over his decades on the case. A bit of the "where the hell is my flying car" syndrome. I don't think that tubeless or disc brakes have much in the way of technical merit for road applications. What they do have is the ability to be adapted from existing MTB tech, and thus a much lower bar of entry for manufacturers.
> 
> There are certainly ways to improve road bikes, but I think tubeless is a perfect case of taking the easy re-hash route instead of actually innovating. Its too bad no company that can make better riding tires than Tufo is around to push tubular clinchers. As they are they are not perfect either (or an improvement at all by many accounts), but a mechanically attached true tubular with purpose built rims that could be optimized for weight and structural integrity would be more interesting to me than the tubeless kludge.


The original 'double-diamond' bicycle that we all ride has been around for 100 years. As we all know, improvements are incremental. Yet if you look back to the bikes racers road in the 80's the changes add up to be huge. But improvements in wheels have lagged behind. Except for the use of carbon in rims, there hasn't been a whole lot of change. Tubulars haven't changed at all (except Tufos). With No Tubes and the sealant, I won't get pinch flats, glass or nail flats. If I want to carry a spare (I never do), I only have to carry a tube and not another tubular. For me, discs on road bikes have too much of a weight penalty as it stands now.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

DrSmile said:


> How exactly does a tube cause increased rolling resistance? If there was significant friction between the tube and the tire, the tube and tire would heat up pretty darn fast.


The companies that have recently come out with tubeless systems, Specialized and Campagnolo, say the advantages are huge. Campy, who everyone should agree tests their prototypes exhaustively, says the rolling resistance is reduced 30%. Stan's, though, which makes their own rims, doesn't even bother with a sealed rim (they have spoke holes like any other); they claim the weight penalty is too great. He has great confidence in converting any rim to tubeless with his yellow rim tape, including his own.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Did you use the tire sealant, is that mandatory?


----------



## andulong (Nov 23, 2006)

And when you flat do you fix the tire or toss it? Do you carry a spare tire on rides?


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

gh1 said:


> Did you use the tire sealant, is that mandatory?


You can get away with not using sealant, but your tires will leak air faster, meaning you'll have to pump them every day. No tubes recommends using 2 ounces of sealant per tire, the same amount they recommend for their mountain tires, but you could get away with one ounce with the Hutchinsons.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

andulong said:


> And when you flat do you fix the tire or toss it? Do you carry a spare tire on rides?


 Unless the tire is slashed you can just put in a tube. But the bead is so tight that it's a ***** to change or install a tube. That's why I wouldn't pass on the sealant. With the sealant in there you will only get a flat if you gash the tire.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

mudrock said:


> The original 'double-diamond' bicycle that we all ride has been around for 100 years. As we all know, improvements are incremental. Yet if you look back to the bikes racers road in the 80's the changes add up to be huge. But improvements in wheels have lagged behind. Except for the use of carbon in rims, there hasn't been a whole lot of change.


By the same standard of recognizing change, frames haven't changed much either other than the use of carbon.

To me, the difference between tubeless and actual innovation is the difference between moving shifters from the DT to the stem and the development of Ergo/STI. The former were/are embraced by many for their convenience, but sometimes evolution branches off into dead-ends.


----------



## foz (Sep 30, 2004)

What you mean is a tubeless tubular! Has no-one thought of that yet, or is there something that makes it's production and/or use too difficult or expensive? I can't see what that would be, as it would essentially be an overgrown innertube, but made with the thread and rubber layup of a tyre. Gluing it to the rim shouldn't be too much of a problem - it might need a fabric basetape between the rim and the rubber, as tubulars have, but it's quite possible that there is an adhesive already available that will glue rubber to alu or carbon with the right joint properties.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

I've been using a Shimano/Hutchinson set up for about six months.



> Did you use the tire sealant, is that mandatory?


No, I don't bother and with the Shimano/Hutchinson system, it's not necessary. 



> but your tires will leak air faster, meaning you'll have to pump them every day.


Not in my experience with my set up. They leak no faster than a standard tube/clincher set up.



> But the bead is so tight that it's a ***** to change or install a tube. That's why I wouldn't pass on the sealant. With the sealant in there you will only get a flat if you gash the tire.


Again, not my experience at all. It takes me no longer to tube up a flat tubeless on the road than a conventional clincher.



> And when you flat do you fix the tire or toss it? Do you carry a spare tire on rides?


No. I'd never be able to mount and inflate a tubeless on the road. Unless there's bad sidewall damage, I patch it when I get home and switch back to tubeless. If bad sidewall damage I toss it, just as I would with a conventional clincher. 

So I treat my tubeless set up basically as a conventional clincher. I carry a tube and CO2. If I flat, I just tube up. I then patch the tire with the Hutchinson Rep' Air patches when I get home. I really see no disadvantage to the system, and get the pleasure of riding at 85-90 psi without a noticeable increased rolling resistance.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

Would you need a rim strip for a Velocity Deep V rim using veloplugs?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

dekindy said:


> Would you need a rim strip for a Velocity Deep V rim using veloplugs?


Have you used veloplugs with Deep Vs? I tried it years ago with some samples I got, but the plugs did not fit in the holes in the spoke bed. Maybe they changed the design?

I doubt the plugs are air-tight, and I suspect it would be hard to get the sealant to work on that area of the rim.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Have you used veloplugs with Deep Vs? I tried it years ago with some samples I got, but the plugs did not fit in the holes in the spoke bed. Maybe they changed the design?
> 
> I doubt the plugs are air-tight, and I suspect it would be hard to get the sealant to work on that area of the rim.


Yes I purchased them last Summer for my Aeroheads and have transferred them to my Deep V's. They work great in both. I am not concerned about the weight savings. However I am pleased with additional room versus rim strips. It makes tire installation much easier.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

Here lies the difference between using Shimano DA wheels which are meant for tubeless, and converting regular rims using Stan's NoTubes rim tape. Dr. John has had no problems with mounting tires because the DA wheels still have the valley or depression in the center of the rim cavity which the tire bead will drop into while mounting your tire, giving you the slack required to get that bead over the sidewall. 

But Stan's tape is stiff and inflexible, and you lose that depression after the tape is installed. There's no room left for that bead while you're trying to squeeze the opposite side you're working on over the rim. I worked in a bike shop that does a lot of tubeless conversions and I never got any better at doing it. Zinn's remarks on this problem on the Velonews site illustrates this.

Also, using the rim tape to convert rims with spoke holes requires that you use the sealant to seal the tape. With the closed DA wheels (or some Mavics, and the new rims coming out by Campy and Spec.) that's not necessary.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> Here lies the difference between using Shimano DA wheels which are meant for tubeless, and converting regular rims using Stan's NoTubes rim tape. Dr. John has had no problems with mounting tires because the DA wheels still have the valley or depression in the center of the rim cavity which the tire bead will drop into while mounting your tire, giving you the slack required to get that bead over the sidewall.


Right. That's why I wanted to make it clear I was using and talking about Shimano wheels. I have no experience with non-Shimano tubeless set ups. I just wanted to make it clear to those asking questions that the "made for tubeless" wheels are no more difficult or incovenient to use than clinchers.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

Can you use the Stan's system with a Deep V? Would the standard stem be long enough? Could you use extenders to make it work?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

dekindy said:


> Can you use the Stan's system with a Deep V? Would the standard stem be long enough? Could you use extenders to make it work?


The stem that it comes with is long enough for 30mm rims.

-Eric


----------



## jonpom (Mar 18, 2008)

mudrock said:


> You can get away with not using sealant, but your tires will leak air faster, meaning you'll have to pump them every day. No tubes recommends using 2 ounces of sealant per tire, the same amount they recommend for their mountain tires, but you could get away with one ounce with the Hutchinsons.


I have not used sealant on DA WH-7850 and don't pump up any more than tubed tires.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

how is hard cornering with 85-90psi? I'm still riding with tubes, and have gone to a 25gp4 season rear, and with lower pressure, it feels pretty squirrelly when cornering/leaning, or if I sway alot while climbing. Does tubeless rid you of this?
Is tubeless a reasonable option for training, or is this just for racing (alla carbon tubulars)
thanks in advance


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

jhamlin38 said:


> how is hard cornering with 85-90psi? I'm still riding with tubes, and have gone to a 25gp4 season rear, and with lower pressure, it feels pretty squirrelly when cornering/leaning, or if I sway alot while climbing. Does tubeless rid you of this?
> Is tubeless a reasonable option for training, or is this just for racing (alla carbon tubulars)
> thanks in advance


I rode on tubulars up until the mid '80s, pumped up to 90psi. notubes feels just like that. No squirming on the road or in corners. Just a softer feel. And they are great, i would think, racing or training. i would give them 100 psi for a race, depending on road surface and rain, and how much you're cornering. Lower pressure = larger contact patch, longer wearing tire, better purchase in corners.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

I understand the lower pressure theory since I've "no-tubes converted" my mtn bike. What I don't understand is why Hutchinson has recommended air pressures of 116-125 for riders > 175 pounds. I'm usually in the mid 190's and don't even run my tubes that high.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> What I don't understand is why Hutchinson has recommended air pressures of 116-125 for riders > 175 pounds. I'm usually in the mid 190's and don't even run my tubes that high.


I saw that too, and if I had to run them that high, I wouldn't bother with tubeless.


----------



## jonpom (Mar 18, 2008)

upstateSC-rider said:


> I understand the lower pressure theory since I've "no-tubes converted" my mtn bike. What I don't understand is why Hutchinson has recommended air pressures of 116-125 for riders > 175 pounds. I'm usually in the mid 190's and don't even run my tubes that high.


I'm close to 200# and run mine @ 90 w/ no problem; the recommended higher pressure doesn't make sense and defeats advantages.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> What I don't understand is why Hutchinson has recommended air pressures of 116-125 for riders > 175 pounds. I'm usually in the mid 190's and don't even run my tubes that high.


I've noticed that it seems to be a common occurrence for Hutchinson to mislabel and provide confusing directions/instructions, so I figured that's what has happened here. I suspect those incorrect pressures were the ones recommended for the tubed Fusion2 tires. Guess what? Found this on their roadtubeless site.  Those pressures are more reasonable. Also, someone at Hutchinson has a problem converting bar to psi; for instance 6.5-7 bars is indicated as 95-109 psi on the Fusion2 tubeless wrapper. 6.5-7 bars is actually 95-102 psi. And it says for a 175 lb rider 7-7.5 bars/116-125 psi, when 7.5 bar is actually 109 psi.

So, according to this graphic:

60 kg (132 lbs) = 5.5 bar (80 psi)
65-75 kg (143-165 lbs) = 6-7 bar (87-102 psi)
80 kg (176 lbs) = 7.5 bar (109 psi)


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Dr_John said:


> I saw that too, and if I had to run them that high, I wouldn't bother with tubeless.


Thanks for the research. I've had the tires and stan's kit for some time now, I was just reluctant to install them until I've heard more reviews.


----------



## thegreatdelcamo (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm 180 and have been running them at 90 in the front and 100 in the back. 

Very happy with those pressures. Smooth and efficient ride.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

I was ready to take the road tubeless plunge but cannot until they make a valve extender. The 44mm valve stem is not long enough for my Velocity Deep V. This is straight from the folks at notubes.com. I was advised by a wheel builder that the current valve stem would work but will refrain from trying road tubeless until the new valve stem or extender is available.


----------



## PMC (Jan 29, 2004)

dekindy said:


> I was ready to take the road tubeless plunge but cannot until they make a valve extender. The 44mm valve stem is not long enough for my Velocity Deep V. This is straight from the folks at notubes.com. I was advised by a wheel builder that the current valve stem would work but will refrain from trying road tubeless until the new valve stem or extender is available.


Just pull the valve core and add a tufo extender just like on a tubular with deep rims. Should cost about 8 bucks to do both wheels. You can make the 44mm valve stem as long as needed that way.


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

Dr_John said:


> I've noticed that it seems to be a common occurrence for Hutchinson to mislabel and provide confusing directions/instructions, so I figured that's what has happened here. I suspect those incorrect pressures were the ones recommended for the tubed Fusion2 tires. Guess what? Found this on their roadtubeless site.  Those pressures are more reasonable. Also, someone at Hutchinson has a problem converting bar to psi; for instance 6.5-7 bars is indicated as 95-109 psi on the Fusion2 tubeless wrapper. 6.5-7 bars is actually 95-102 psi. And it says for a 175 lb rider 7-7.5 bars/116-125 psi, when 7.5 bar is actually 109 psi.
> 
> So, according to this graphic:
> 
> ...


As well as possible misconversions, tire companies have always liked to advertise as high a pressure rating as possible. The marketers know that many still believe that a higher pressure necessarily equals a lower rolling resistance and therefore higher speed. Many of us may know that such is not necessarily the case, the tire makers may know it, but it is still a very prevalent thought, so they market to it. If they said their tires could only be run up to 90 psi, there would be many who wouldn't buy them. But if they say they can go up to 125, more are interested. The rest of us can happily run our tires at 80-90 psi.


----------



## Michelin Bicycle Tech (Nov 14, 2007)

DrSmile said:


> How exactly does a tube cause increased rolling resistance? If there was significant friction between the tube and the tire, the tube and tire would heat up pretty darn fast.


I really don't want to get into a discussion about tubeless road tires since we do not make any and I would not be able to put any valuable info into the mix, but I would like to comment on this. 

There is some friction between the tube and the tire, but just like you said, anything significant enough would heat up pretty quick. If you ever had a tube in a tire for a long period of time and pull off that tire, sometimes the tube is "stuck" to the tire, well that is because of friction, which is why some people suggest putting in talc powder. 

So there is some slight friction between the two, but really, there isn't enough to think that going to tubeless will make you faster because of lower rolling resistance due to the friction of the tube/tire combination...


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

So, any plans for Michelin to re-enter the road tubeless market? If I remember correctly, Michelin's road tubeless was used with success in the tour a few years ago and was liked by riders.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

As I understand it, tubeless tires made significant improvement to gas milage in autos.

The real reason for posting is that I now have over 4000 miles on Fusion 2 tubeless with no riding flats----that's zero, none. I got just short of 3200 miles on the first set before the cloth was showing on the rear tire. The Kevlar ply running over the entire casing makes a big difference in toughness.

I no longer carry a spare tube or tire--only a small patch kit.

I've regained the desending confidence that was completely destroyed by a catastophic blowout in a high speed curve (busted helmet--knocked senseless). The fusion 2's really hold well in the corners.

I'll not be going back to last century's tire technology.


----------



## roadboy (Apr 1, 2003)

I have been riding the dura ace 7850 / hutchinson setup all summer long. At first I did not use sealant, but I do now to prevent flats from occuring. without sealant I was putting air in my tires before every ride like normal, but with sealant i can go 3 or 4 days without having to air them up. I still carry a tube and CO2 but this is mostly out of habit and not wanting to give up that saftey blanket when your 40 miles from home. 

With 3500 miles on this system I have had no flats and the tires have held up great (just a few small cuts) but nothing I would ever worry about. I run them and 85 psi in the front and 90 psi in the rear. The difference was quite substantial. I have another road bike with 24c Vittoria open paves that is my B bike and the ride between the two is very apparent. The tubeless bike is much smoother. 

I was very skeptical at first but I cannot see myself running anything else on my A bike and I may even go to tubeless on the B bike. 

Im not claiming any magic Im just saying it works very well for me, and the 7850 dura ace wheels are quite nice which makes the transition all the easier.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> As I understand it, tubeless tires made significant improvement to gas milage in autos.


I believe the reason to switch to tubeless in cars was the increased safety factor as well as friction concerns at high speed. None of that really applies to bicycles. In terms of fuel efficiency I think the main improvement was moving from bias-ply to radial. 

I found this Cycling News article very informative:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2008/features/tubeless_08


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

if campy or mavic puts out a set i will buy... cant be more of an inconvenience than 3 flats on a single ride.


----------



## normalnorm (Jan 16, 2006)

I've been riding tubeless on a mtb for the last 4 years with no problems. It really does "smooth" things out. Never had a flat on tubeless.


----------



## mdplayer (Oct 13, 2007)

JayZee said:


> So, any plans for Michelin to re-enter the road tubeless market? If I remember correctly, Michelin's road tubeless was used with success in the tour a few years ago and was liked by riders.


At this point, no, there is no plans to get into the road tubeless market. The main reason for this is there is no "standard" for road tubeless like there is for mtb (ust). With that being the case, we would almost have to make a tire for each rim to make sure everything is 100% safe. Until that is the case, I don't see Michelin doing it, at least from what I have seen coming down the pipeline for 2009 and 2010.


----------



## daniyarm (Aug 19, 2008)

So if I was to try out a Specialized Turbo tubeless (i know they are not out yet) on a regular clincher wheelset, what kind of rim tape or strip would I need?


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

i'm planning on going with Hed ardennes stallion built wheels and running stans. The more this thead lives, the more i'm interested in following thru. I wish Heds were like Ksyriums, or no holes... Is the rim strip a deal breaker?


----------



## thegreatdelcamo (Aug 20, 2008)

I like my Shimano tubeless wheels so much that I'm stalling on buying a Campy group for my bike until I can get Campy tubeless wheels.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

notubes.com has the rim strips. They are no heavier than the cloth rim strips that are used with tubes. Stan makes his own rims with spoke holes, to be used with his rim strips to "convert" his own. Building rims with solid cavity walls is not only heavier but makes wheel building a real pain. The website has instructions and videos that show how to do it. 

Their standard valve stem is 44mm. if that's not deep enough for the Heds you'll need a valve extender; someone else addressed that in this thread.


----------



## notubes_pete (Aug 7, 2007)

We tested the Hed ardennes, Its 23mm wide and not vary deep. Te 44mm valve and 21mm Yellow tape worked fine.


----------



## daniyarm (Aug 19, 2008)

So you are saying I can just use Stans Yellow tape over the holes without special rim strip and that will hold 100psi of air?


----------



## notubes_pete (Aug 7, 2007)

daniyarm said:


> So you are saying I can just use Stans Yellow tape over the holes without special rim strip and that will hold 100psi of air?


Yes 2 layers of 21mm yellow tape will hold 120psi. Watch our video for more info.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

thegreatdelcamo said:


> I like my Shimano tubeless wheels so much that I'm stalling on buying a Campy group for my bike until I can get Campy tubeless wheels.


why wait... eurus are be two-way fit for tubeless for 09... be out soon... 09 centaur groups and 09 vento wheels are already out.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

This has been a very useful topic and all comments are appreciated, even though I'm not the OP.
Any bigger guys 180+lbs have success with a particular lightish clincher? UltremoR?, pro3? TY again.


----------



## sbindra (Oct 18, 2004)

So this maybe obvious but the Stan's No Tubes set up allows you to use the Hutchinson Tubeless tires with any clincher wheel? I have a pair of Mavic KSL2. My understanding is that because there are no spoke holes in the rim, I would not even need to use the rim strips. With my Mavic Open Pro powertap, I would need to use the rim strips. What I do not understand is how does the tire stay on a regular clincher without the special groove that the Shimano WH-7850 has?

A teammate suggested these tires with the sealant for the winter thinking that flats would be almost nonexistent. I live in the northeast. Nothing sucks more than changing a tube on a training ride cause there is crap all over the roads at it is 40 degrees.


----------



## mudrock (Jun 4, 2008)

sbindra said:


> So this maybe obvious but the Stan's No Tubes set up allows you to use the Hutchinson Tubeless tires with any clincher wheel? I have a pair of Mavic KSL2. My understanding is that because there are no spoke holes in the rim, I would not even need to use the rim strips. With my Mavic Open Pro powertap, I would need to use the rim strips. What I do not understand is how does the tire stay on a regular clincher without the special groove that the Shimano WH-7850 has?
> 
> As far as I know, just about any clincher rim, and certainly all the Mavics, will work with the Hutchinson. They are coming out with a lot more tires, as well as Specialized. You can email notubes to be sure. They would be a perfect winter training setup.


----------



## the Inbred (Feb 28, 2004)

the bead of the tire is what keeps it on. i doesn't stretch.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

i'm think michelen are out for now since they prolly make killa margin on tubes - roadies are notorious for throwing away vs patching cf MTB users... JMO... lightweight latex... easy to maake, negligible cost - 12bux mail order.... vs a whole tire @ 35 ish...

what's up with conti? have they announced tubeless?


----------



## notubes_pete (Aug 7, 2007)

I think conti is still in the early prototype stage. maybe we will know more after interbike. 

Most rims work fine with tape and valves, The open pro rims we tested the rim was vary small and we could not inflate the tire. So we had to use a cyclocross rubber strip. But your rim might work with just the tape and valve.


----------



## nowatt (Jan 14, 2008)

*Shamal Ultra 2 way fit are here*

I've been riding them for a couple of weeks, and of course like them.
with no problems.
I wouldn't say the setup is a night and day differentce that the original
poster claims. But I feel like i'm going down the hills faster and smoother,
don't think i'd go back to tubes.

I've also been using Hutchinson Pirrahna 'tubeless ready' cross tires on Mavic
Kyrisium wheels. Tubeless ready means you need to add Hutchinson fast air (or in my case
stans). This setup has been more problematic. I was running too low preasure and
the tire 'burped' on corners lowering the presure still more till they flatted completely
and I couldn't get the bead to lock back up with a pump, and had to put in 
a tube. Guess i should carry CO2.



wankski said:


> why wait... eurus are be two-way fit for tubeless for 09... be out soon... 09 centaur groups and 09 vento wheels are already out.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

Hutchinson introduced a number of new tubeless tires at Eurobike, so hopefully they show them at Interbike. They're finally going to release the Atom, a 21 road tire (265 g); can't say I'm too excited by it. Several new MTB/cyclocross tubeless tires.


----------



## LuisBe (Aug 25, 2007)

nowatt said:


> I've also been using Hutchinson Pirrahna 'tubeless ready' cross tires on Mavic
> Kyrisium wheels. Tubeless ready means you need to add Hutchinson fast air (or in my case
> stans). This setup has been more problematic. I was running too low preasure and
> the tire 'burped' on corners lowering the presure still more till they flatted completely
> ...



nowatt, 

My Hutchinson Bulldog cross tires were burping as well. I installed the Stan's cyclocross rim strips and the tire won't burp no matter how hard I try!


----------



## kef3844 (May 30, 2008)

Whats wrong with just using tubulars? No interest in road tubeless, whats the advantage on the road..... you can run lower pressure?? Yawn... I only see this as advantage in MTB racing.
The advantage for the cycling industry is that they have convinced you all that you will go faster.


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> The advantage for the cycling industry is that they have convinced you all that you will go faster


Thanks for speaking for all of us. :thumbsup: And thanks for letting us know you have no interest, but felt compelled to provide you insight into the topic in a thread on road tubeless.

I like the ride a lot, and don't feel like dealing with tubulars on the roads I ride.


----------



## LuisBe (Aug 25, 2007)

It still amazes me how people can voice an opinion about something they have never tried. 

...yawn


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

notubes_pete said:


> I think conti is still in the early prototype stage. maybe we will know more after interbike.
> 
> Most rims work fine with tape and valves, The open pro rims we tested the rim was vary small and we could not inflate the tire. So we had to use a cyclocross rubber strip. But your rim might work with just the tape and valve.


thanks no tubes pete !

its a very interesting system ! glad i didn't try to build a set recently..... do you guys have a list of compatible rims tried thus far? i'm interested particularly in zonda and dt RR1.1 rims.

thanks so much mate!


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

kef3844 said:
 

> Whats wrong with just using tubulars? No interest in road tubeless, whats the advantage on the road..... you can run lower pressure?? Yawn... I only see this as advantage in MTB racing.
> The advantage for the cycling industry is that they have convinced you all that you will go faster, never mind the engine, which i get the distinct impression here(as in most folk posting on this forum) that it is far from well tuned.


ahh, apart from your arrogant tone as a newbie here - i'll ignore that as cooler heads prevail.... pretty presumptuous on your part - apart from that, I for one have never seen advertising that suggests we should train less.. 

back on topic... what is the DISADVANTAGE?? it was progress in leaps and bounds in cars - as i understand it - and as seen demonstrated, its a leap in safety - no blow outs from high pressure tubes.... you can drive a nail thru it and still have a seal no problems...

advantages over tubulars - well list all the disadvantages of tubbies over clinchers.... expensive, need to carry a spare tire vs tube or patches, glue.... chance of a roll-off etc...

clinchers for training, at least for me is more convenient... the chance to let go of tubes, and to have a self-sealing tire like what cars have enjoyed for decades is pretty alluring too. nuff said. i hardly flat as it is... but with tubeless i'm looking forward to carrying patches, and a single C02... just for long rides.... training inside 50km from home, i'd prolly chance it with NOTHING, muhahah.


----------



## the Inbred (Feb 28, 2004)

Conti has "had a tubeless tire for 3yrs" according to the local rep. i thought that was a shitty answer. If it isn't in my hands, it doesn't exist.

I've converted:
RR 1.1s (twice, both my personal wheels)
R-SYS
Ksyrium
D/A C24s
Fulcrum R0, R1, R3
Last gen D/A


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

the Inbred said:


> Conti has "had a tubeless tire for 3yrs" according to the local rep. i thought that was a shitty answer. If it isn't in my hands, it doesn't exist.
> 
> I've converted:
> RR 1.1s (twice, both my personal wheels)
> ...


thanks mate, appreciate it.... hrmmm, have u run the R3s tubeless yourself? or converted for some1 else.... i'm between building up 1.1 rims with a record hub i have or buying zondas.... better compatibility w/ tubeless will prolly push me over the edge.... which did you prefer as wheelsets? compatibility wise.... i know both campy and the r1.1 has a rep for being a tight fit for clinchers (prolly a good thing in this context)....

cheers


----------



## the Inbred (Feb 28, 2004)

well, personally, i'd go with RRs and Record hubs. Better wheelset all around. Nothing sticks out about either set up, so i guess nothing crazy was going on.

i'm in the process of building some 1.1s with Record hubs now for a friend.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

thanks... hmm... too many damn options! haha... do you build urs with the dbl eyelet in the rear... i was thinking that and a 28h single front... worst case scenario i figure 1550g... dt comp DS revo all else....

i was dead keen on zondas, but i ordered a mate some, weighed them.... 1610g advertised 1700g actual.... i'm no WW, but its a factor... as are expensive/unobtainium spokes....if it was closer to advertised, i'd be onto them in a heatbeat... they look sick.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

How about the new Vittoria Open Corsa Pave CG and Vittoria's claim that it rides like a tubular? Does anybody ride them that can give a report?

The tires were recommended to me and I have purchased a set but not mounted them yet. It is a clincher tire that is made like a tubular. Since it is designed for a clincher rim it might be safer than a tubeless conversion?


----------



## the Inbred (Feb 28, 2004)

wankski said:


> thanks... hmm... too many damn options! haha... do you build urs with the dbl eyelet in the rear... i was thinking that and a 28h single front... worst case scenario i figure 1550g... dt comp DS revo all else....
> 
> i was dead keen on zondas, but i ordered a mate some, weighed them.... 1610g advertised 1700g actual.... i'm no WW, but its a factor... as are expensive/unobtainium spokes....if it was closer to advertised, i'd be onto them in a heatbeat... they look sick.


set A is a 28h white set, like the Mon Chasserals...they are double eyeleted.
set B is 32h and single eyeleted. 

set A is somewhere around the 1550 range with Comps all around and alloy nips.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

woot, thanks!


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*just something to think about*

when riding on sh*te roads and the perception of going fast versus really going fast while being safer, more traction and being more comfortable..

http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Downloadable Docs/Rolling Resistance Eng illustrated.pdf

and with a low rr tire think of the possibilities!!

just my lousy 2cents..


----------



## LuisBe (Aug 25, 2007)

Here are some pix of my new Leo XR300 wheels. The Hutchinson/Stan's system works very well on them. I'm really sold on tubeless...I've converted my cross bike, single speed and now my new/old DeRosa. I've been running tubeless on my mountain bikes since it came out years ago. I am really looking forward to other tire manufacturers jumping on board soon!


----------



## thedips (Mar 26, 2007)

fulcrum racing zeros??? 
hmm i would love to try it..... anything i need to keep in mind when trying to convert them? im just very scared that they will roll off my rims and ill have some problems...


----------



## Dizzy812 (Feb 20, 2007)

I like the Vittoria Open Corsa Pave CG, great road feel in a durable (we'll see) tire. Way nicer than Conti 4 season grand prix 25mm in terms of comfort and feedback.

Tread has gotten several small cuts though . . .


----------



## gambo2166 (Oct 20, 2004)

Dr_John said:


> I've been using a Shimano/Hutchinson set up for about six months.
> 
> No, I don't bother and with the Shimano/Hutchinson system, it's not necessary.
> 
> ...



I agree 100% :thumbsup:


----------



## garciawork (Aug 14, 2008)

So, as far as the OP goes, I don't what was up with all that hate at the beginning, he's no Stan's marketing guy, he works at the shop I frequent. He actually convinced me to buy, and then set up my new tubeless tires. All I can say, is ride quality. I have the stock wheelset on my tarmac elite that I am sure is nowhere near light, so even if there was weight savings, I would not have noticed. But, ride quality... its amazing. I couldn't be digging it more. Those little divots on the side of the road that keep drivers awake if they veer over the line, I used to have to stand up to go over those comfortably, now I barely notice. I also dig the improved handling. Don't have much else to say. If your on the fence, hop over to the tubeless side and at least give it a shot, what have you got to lose?


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

i ve read some about the impossibility to mount the stan rimtape on open pros. is that right ? i got a 32h open pro set that i wanted to change to tubeless fusion2...

and: is there another type on the market now, that can be used with clincher rims? means: is the 
INTENSIVE 25c tubeless from hutchinson OK for clinchers with stan´s tape ?
http://www.hutchinsontires.com/en/catalogue-route.php?fiche=intensive-rtl.php&univers=4&pid=8


----------



## mylesofsmyles (Mar 20, 2007)

dragon said:


> i ve read some about the impossibility to mount the stan rimtape on open pros. is that right ? i got a 32h open pro set that i wanted to change to tubeless fusion2...
> 
> and: is there another type on the market now, that can be used with clincher rims? means: is the
> INTENSIVE 25c tubeless from hutchinson OK for clinchers with stan´s tape ?
> http://www.hutchinsontires.com/en/catalogue-route.php?fiche=intensive-rtl.php&univers=4&pid=8


It is unfortunate, but there aren't many options yet available, for road tubeless. Stan's conversion kits are awesome, and work well with most setups. One need not concern himself with the tire; so long as the tire is certified Road Tubeless, you are set. Currently, I think the only Road Tubeless tires are the three Hutchinson models, Atom, Fusion2 and Intensive. There isn't a best, in terms of compatibility; they will all work just the same. Your issue is your Open Pro rim; they are known for burping on a Road Tubeless setup. Stan's or no Stan's, you'll have a hell of a time getting your setup to work.


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

mylesofsmyles said:


> It is unfortunate, but there aren't many options yet available, for road tubeless. Stan's conversion kits are awesome, and work well with most setups. One need not concern himself with the tire; so long as the tire is certified Road Tubeless, you are set. Currently, I think the only Road Tubeless tires are the three Hutchinson models, Atom, Fusion2 and Intensive. There isn't a best, in terms of compatibility; they will all work just the same. Your issue is your Open Pro rim; they are known for burping on a Road Tubeless setup. Stan's or no Stan's, you'll have a hell of a time getting your setup to work.


so, all 3 hutch models WORK with STANS conversion kit ? or only the fusion 2?


----------



## notubes_pete (Aug 7, 2007)

http://www.velonews.com/article/85574/hutchinson-road-tubeless-tires

The others tires will work with Stan's bundle. We have the new models on order and expect them sometime in March.


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

notubes_pete said:


> http://www.velonews.com/article/85574/hutchinson-road-tubeless-tires
> 
> The others tires will work with Stan's bundle. We have the new models on order and expect them sometime in March.


hey pete, i guess i just had you on the phone. 
your bundle is great, but the shipping isnt. 
there is the possibility to ship with tracking and insurance with USPS priority air to europe. so the bundle is not almost 200 usd, but about 20usd cheaper. 

perhaps you can talk to your guy at the shipping office. thanks so much :thumbsup:


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

*tire sealant*

hi
who used STANS tire sealant for road tubeless?

cos: there is written that the sealant stays liquid only 2-7 months:idea: 

WTF... so what is after this time? do i have to reomve the hutchisons and refill after cleaning?


----------



## LuisBe (Aug 25, 2007)

I've been using it since September of last year...so 7 months this month and it is still good to go. On my mountain bike, Stan's has held up for almost 2 years now! Any time I have the wheels off my bikes, I always do the "slosh" test to make sure it's still liquid. I've got 4 bikes, 2 road/2 mountain, using the Stan's system and couldn't be happier.


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

and why says STANs that it lasts only 2 monts liquid.. what to do "officially" after that time?!!! fill more in? to get heavier?

what is a slosh test


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

up...


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

dragon said:


> hi
> who used STANS tire sealant for road tubeless?
> 
> cos: there is written that the sealant stays liquid only 2-7 months:idea:
> ...


It does dry out. Just remove the valve core and add some more sealant. Don't have to take the tire off and clean it all out.


----------



## tyro (May 15, 2005)

I rode with a guy twice this week and he loves his Shimano tubeless wheels with Hutchinson tires. Nothing bad to report there.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

tyro said:


> I rode with a guy twice this week and he loves his Shimano tubeless wheels with Hutchinson tires. Nothing bad to report there.


I purchased the 7801SL's and Hutchinson Fusion 2 tubeless and am using Stan's sealant. I am very pleased with the ride and performance.


----------



## mdplayer (Oct 13, 2007)

In case anyone is interested, I will be selling off my Dura-Ace Wheel set with the Hutchison Fusion tires. I got picked up by a new team and will be riding something different this year. I have about 400 miles on the wheels/tires and am working on pictures later today to get everything posted in the classified section. I am going to be selling them for less than dealer cost just to get them out of my basement...

PM me is you are interested.


----------



## dougrocky123 (Apr 12, 2006)

*Making a change*

I'm glad I found this thread as I haven't been that happy with my switch to road tubeless. It seems that I've been running them with too high of pressure. I'm gonna try 95 psi and see if it reduces the jarring ride


----------



## mdplayer (Oct 13, 2007)

dougrocky123 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread as I haven't been that happy with my switch to road tubeless. It seems that I've been running them with too high of pressure. I'm gonna try 95 psi and see if it reduces the jarring ride


I weigh in about 205 right now and have been running the tires at around 90 psi and have never had any "jarring" issues. I felt that at that pressure, the ride was super smooth and there was enough air in there to not have that "flat tire" feeling.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

dougrocky123 said:


> I'm glad I found this thread as I haven't been that happy with my switch to road tubeless. It seems that I've been running them with too high of pressure. I'm gonna try 95 psi and see if it reduces the jarring ride


I put too much air in mine and was really surprised by how "jarring", and that is the perfect description, the ride was.


----------



## rspecker (Apr 8, 2009)

*Shamal Ultra 2-way*

I've been out on 3 rides so far, and really like them. Very smooth--noticeably so compared with tube clinchers. 

But, I haven't flatted yet.

I did not install the tires initially, so I have no idea what is in store for me if I flat on the road.

Have any of you flatted with this wheel/tires? My plan was simply to put a tube in and ride home. Will I be able to do this with similar ease to a typical clincher/tube? I have heard that the tires are hard to get on and off (perhaps extremely hard). Campy specific feedback would be great.

Also, any experience with Hutchinson Fast Air? I have ordered the product but haven't used it.

I'm not wild about being 40+ miles from home with untested system for fixing a flat.

Thanks!


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

> I have heard that the tires are hard to get on and off (perhaps extremely hard).


Once installed, in my experience (about 8,000 miles on road tubeless) with Fusion 2 tubeless and 7850-SL's, it's no more difficult than a conventional clincher. I can tube up in the event of a flat just as quickly as if I were on a standard clincher. Because of that, I don't bother with sealant. Most of the flats I've had would not have sealed with it anyways.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

rspecker said:


> I've been out on 3 rides so far, and really like them. Very smooth--noticeably so compared with tube clinchers.
> 
> But, I haven't flatted yet.
> 
> ...


It is an expensive way to fix a flat. But if you want speed and the hole is small enough that sealant will work, it is definitely faster. I would rather use Stan's sealant when I install the tire. Much more economical in the long run if you purchase a large bottle and if installed upfront it will prevent flats instead of fixing them. Then you will know for certain if you do flat that a tube is required to get you going again. Then again, there are tubeless users that never use sealant. You will just have to figure out what works for you.


----------



## mdplayer (Oct 13, 2007)

rspecker said:


> I've been out on 3 rides so far, and really like them. Very smooth--noticeably so compared with tube clinchers.
> 
> But, I haven't flatted yet.
> 
> ...


I had no issues when mounting my tires. I haven't changed them, but when I mounted them the first time, they went on much easier than expected. From reading the forums here, I thought it was going to be a problem, but POP, right on they went. Then again, I worked for Michelin for 3 years and was the tire tech at major races, and have changed a few tires in my day...


----------



## dougrocky123 (Apr 12, 2006)

*Fast Air*

I had a difficult time with mounting and getting the tires to "pop". I also wasn't too keen on flating so I went the fast air route. Very expensive as the LBS was priced at $17.95 ( per tire- 2 cans needed) vs the catalogs $12.95. Air and sealent went in slowly and some leaked out around the attached nozzle. One tire has a big cut but hasn't flatted so maybe its working? I had the Stans valve stems and sealent but I could not get the stems to seal on my Shimano tubeless wheels so I went back to stock. Tires lose 2 psi a day even with Fast Air.


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

installed the fusion2 tubelesss on my c24 cl shimanos (stans tape). no problem with the installation. flat free until now. but: comfort is not as good as i thought it would be! (and i ride only with 5 bar!)
i guess youll have at least the same comfort with a vittoria cx open corsa with a normal tube in it (with 7 bar!). advantage: better flat protected with the milk. but if michelin or conti would make the same tubeless-tire... i guess it would be even smoother than with hutchinson (which is a bad brand with normal clinchers, theyre only average, only 127dpi, not so smooth etc.)

tires lose 1-2 bar in 1 week. quite good. rest is average and not a milestone. hoping for better compound for even smoother ride.


----------



## dragon (Jul 31, 2007)

bought them 2 weeks ago. 
looks are ok, but too pimpy for mee. i hate red nipples. 
ride is ok, smooth, but the rear wheel could accelerate better. 
bad: braking "rubble" (donno what is in english). vs my open pros, the braking is not so smooth. must be a diifrent alu-mix.


----------



## akatsuki (Aug 12, 2005)

Anyone seen the Hutchinson RT1/Corima Aero+ tubeless carbon wheels anywhere yet?


----------



## dynamic213 (Mar 15, 2009)

Hey everyone, noob here in the road cycling forum. 

I've been running tubeless setup on my MTB for the past 2 years with none UST tires and they've been bombproof. My questions is, can I run standard none tubeless specific road tires (Conti Ultra Race kevlar) on my Mavic SpeedCity rims which has no spoke holes?


----------



## dougrocky123 (Apr 12, 2006)

*Short answer*

No. Long answer is I've never tried it but the experts say no.Higher pressures of road tires will blow off the rim without a tube. Hutchinson spent several years to develope the carbon bead and so far is the maker of the only road tubeless tires. A Stans kit will allow you to use road tubeless tires with almost any wheel.


----------



## Walkinshaw (Jan 19, 2009)

I just fitted up a set of Hutchinson tyres to my 2009 Eurus wheels, piece of cake to get the bead to seat with a simple floor hand pump, I'd be confident to almost say that I could have done it with a frame pump.

Havent ridden them yet (still building the rest of the bike) however is there any major risk in running these without stans no tubes good???? (will take a tube as per riding clinchers)


----------

