Tubeless ...Why ?????
Comments
-
Northwind wrote:SDK2007 wrote:Also, tubeless setups are so much heavier compared to tubes & normal tyres.
Perhaps in some parallel universe where the meaning of the words "heavy" and "light" have been reversed :? Some UST tyres are heavy. If you don't want heavy, you don't use those. But tubeless on a proper tubeless rim with about 60ml of sealant and your standard tyre of choice will be lighter than the same tyre with almost any inner tube. It's just maths really.
You can get lighter inner tubes but you start to hit the durability tradeoffs harder (in the same way, you can use less sealant and get the same tradeoff).
/decils advocate, not alltyres are designed for sealant.
I do think UST will carry on getting lighter, and will supercede sealant based set ups for weight.0 -
Maybe a bit belt and braces, as my engineer friend likes to say....but I still stick sealant in UST tyres (not just the tubeless ready!)
But given the amount of flats, gashes etc I used to get....who gives a toss about the weight penalty. The 10mins spend mending a flat far exceeds the time penalty caused by weight!0 -
SDK2007 wrote:
Also, tubeless setups are so much heavier compared to tubes & normal tyres.
Perhaps in some parallel universe where the meaning of the words "heavy" and "light" have been reversed Some UST tyres are heavy. If you don't want heavy, you don't use those. But tubeless on a proper tubeless rim with about 60ml of sealant and your standard tyre of choice will be lighter than the same tyre with almost any inner tube. It's just maths really.
You can get lighter inner tubes but you start to hit the durability tradeoffs harder (in the same way, you can use less sealant and get the same tradeoff).
+2
I use about 50g of sealant, and a valve, just with yellow tape. So that's about 55g on top of the weight of the tyre. Any tube that light, such as the Eclipse ones, will last seconds.
I don't think UST will take over, I think all tyres will become tubeless ready and the weights will fall there. All Schwalbe tyres are tubeless ready for 2011, I'd been using them anyway, but now they're confirming that a 295g Furious Fred is designed to work tubeless. I can't see UST tyres getting anywhere near that, and why would you want to, it comes back to the lightweight tube scenario that they'd just be really fragile.0 -
^^^ +3 tubeless is just peace of mind really, spent a week in spain with some friends who were using tubes, they had a fair few punctures every day, I didn't have an issue all week, even running lower PSI than them.
Somebody also mentioned about slime tubes, I have used them, but I find even on normal trail riding they just dont hold un as well compared to tubeless.
Pretty much everybody i know who has switched to tubeless loves them0 -
^^This.supersonic wrote:With low pressures on tubeless I have burped air out whist heavy cornering, and on big front impacts.
Also, instead of getting snakebites, I had large gashes in the tyre walls, but I was running some non UST Maxxis tyres (which have pretty thin sidewalls).0 -
njee20 wrote:SDK2007 wrote:
Also, tubeless setups are so much heavier compared to tubes & normal tyres.
Perhaps in some parallel universe where the meaning of the words "heavy" and "light" have been reversed Some UST tyres are heavy. If you don't want heavy, you don't use those. But tubeless on a proper tubeless rim with about 60ml of sealant and your standard tyre of choice will be lighter than the same tyre with almost any inner tube. It's just maths really.
You can get lighter inner tubes but you start to hit the durability tradeoffs harder (in the same way, you can use less sealant and get the same tradeoff).
+2
I use about 50g of sealant, and a valve, just with yellow tape. So that's about 55g on top of the weight of the tyre. Any tube that light, such as the Eclipse ones, will last seconds.
I don't think UST will take over, I think all tyres will become tubeless ready and the weights will fall there. All Schwalbe tyres are tubeless ready for 2011, I'd been using them anyway, but now they're confirming that a 295g Furious Fred is designed to work tubeless. I can't see UST tyres getting anywhere near that, and why would you want to, it comes back to the lightweight tube scenario that they'd just be really fragile.
When you say 'tubeless ready', what exactly do you mean? Seems to vary!
I think that if liquid sealant can seal tubes, then UST tyre manufacturers will eventually produce a dry variant that will drop the weight and be easier to use.
Sure you can use 50ml of sealant - they recommend much more usually to seal bigger punctures. All systems have pros and cons, UST works well for many, though I still prefer lightweight tubes over all other systems at the minute, then UST.0 -
I think peace of mind says it all about UST. Well....after getting over the initial cost.0
-
RichardSwt wrote:And something that no one else has mentioned yet. - A different noise. Especially if running at higher pressures. You get a really nice hollow 'pippy-ping' kinda sound, even riding through leafs gives a different sound to riding with tubes.
Yes yes yes!0 -
supersonic wrote:/decils advocate, not alltyres are designed for sealant.
Certainly true, but there's no shortage of good standard tyres that work fine with sealant, and most of the real popular workhorse tyres do. You do need to put a bit more thought into your tyre choice though, that's a fair point.Uncompromising extremist0 -
So what makes UST tyres so special then?
Surely you still need sealant, or thorns will still be a problem.0 -
I think UST wheels with tubeless ready (or sealant ready) Like Specialized tyres run with sealant are the future. They weigh about the same as a light tube/tyre combo, sometimes less, but don't puncture (as much) can be run softer, and feel better.I like bikes and stuff0
-
ust tyres dont need sealant to make an air tight seal. this is done by using loads of rubber on the carcass. i think it is tyres like this that gave tueless its sometimes used bad name. without the sealant there is no uncture protection as far as i know.
tubeless ready is the way forward in my opinion, the tyres are lighter and more supple and they go up and stay up plenty easy enough.0 -
Manufacturers can't make tyres to their claimed size; never mind tubeless ready tyres that work on all tubeless convertible rims. What is needed is a Universal System for Tubeless..... :roll:0
-
When you say 'tubeless ready', what exactly do you mean? Seems to vary!
Sheepsteeth got it spot on, UST can be run without any sealant (I did so for several years when it first came out, and didn't have too many flats it must be said). Tubeless Ready have a stiffer bead, so they'll seal, but have a more porous carcass, so you need to use sealant to get them airtight.
The latter makes sense, and is increasingly popular it seems, Specialized, Schwalbe and Bontrager all do them now, Schwalbe ones are about 200g lighter than 'proper' UST tyres, which don't really provide any advantages.
Never burped a tyre myself, seems to be most at risk when using ghetto tubeless.0 -
Sure they can. It's just that there isn't a standard for measuring tyre width. Some measure carcass width, some measure the width including the tread. Some might even measure on a specific width rim.weescott wrote:Manufacturers can't make tyres to their claimed size
Just because you fail to understand it, doesn't make it a lie.0 -
If that was true the Continental tyre sizes would be consistant across the range.0
-
I'm with Yeeha on this, there are of course some inconsistencies, but does it really matter!? The tread makes a bigger difference than the size.
Or do you actually return a tyre because it's 2.5295mm smaller across the tread than you expected?0 -
i use stans and normal tyres with one normal rim and one ust rim. never had a tyre burp yet, although i believe that to be more common with ust tyres with no rim tape and sealant to provide a proper seal. only disadvantage for me is changing tyres for conditions which i always try get away with not doing it i can....I ride/race XC. Change my tyres to suit the conditons/course and run them at 40+ PSI.
is that not quite high for offroading? i go for 25 tops when racing...0 -
Does size matter? Sure it does, if you're using a 2.4 MK and it fits in your frame then you buy a 2.4 Rubber Queen and it doesn't. Or you want a bigger volume tyre than your 2.1 Nevegal so you buy a 2.35 Minion.yeehaamcgee wrote:I'd love to hear your thoughts on how Continental actually make tyres.
What does that have to do with anything? Their sizing is total bulls**t. Blaming different standards doesn't cut it at all, as weescott points out, if they were just using a different standard from others then they'd still be consistent within their own range. As it is a 2.2 Rubber Queen's bigger in every dimension than a 2.4 Mountain King. Why? Because their sizing is total bulls**t.
It's not varying standards and anyone who belives that is a mug. Conti tyre sizes aren't inaccurate, they're just dishonest.Uncompromising extremist0 -
Becasue different tyre ranges are intended for different rim widths, and are measured accordingly?
Or maybe they measure the carcass, so the larger tread throws a curveball?0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how Continental actually make tyres. Do you think they just throw a load of rubber into an oven and hope for the best?weescott wrote:If that was true the Continental tyre sizes would be consistant across the range.
It was an analogy related to recent "tubeless ready" tyres that don't work on some rims. Looks at Stans rims. They have a list of tyres that they recommend actually work. Some manufacturers will warranty tyres that are run tubeless, some won't. Anything bar UST rims and UST tyres demands research by the consumer to gauruntee compatibility See the irony?0 -
i find as long as the tyre is designed to be run without a tube, it will fit any rim whether it is a converted rim or a ust rim. it will also be reliable.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:Becasue different tyre ranges are intended for different rim widths, and are measured accordingly?
Or maybe they measure the carcass, so the larger tread throws a curveball?
Nope and nope. The rim size thing is another common excuse but when you stop and think about it, it just can't account for the differences, there isn't enough variance in rim sizes. You could put a 2.4 Mountain King on a huge fat rim and it'd still come up skinnier by any measurement you care to use than a 2.4 Rubber Queen on a skinny XC rim. And these are tyres designed for the same sort of bikes and usage. And likewise the carcass vs tread explanation doesn't stand up either when you try and apply it.
Both could be the explanation, they just aren't
The actual explanation is, Conti tyre sizes are total bulls**t. Chosen by the marketing man I reckon. "Nobody'll buy a 2 inch wide trailbike tyre these days, we'll just say it's a 2.2". Much the same as penis measuring standards. Uncompromising extremist0 -
Some crazy high tyre pressure been used here!.....I run between 25-30 psi with tubes, think I've had 2 punctures this year (both pinch flats mind) in over 2000miles :roll:0
-
It was mentioned in one of the bike mags a few months ago. "2011 Conti in Mountain King 2.4" actually measures 2.4" shocker!"...or words to those effect!0
-
Northwind, you're talking out of your backside.Northwind wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Becasue different tyre ranges are intended for different rim widths, and are measured accordingly?
Or maybe they measure the carcass, so the larger tread throws a curveball?
Nope and nope. The rim size thing is another common excuse but when you stop and think about it, it just can't account for the differences, there isn't enough variance in rim sizes. You could put a 2.4 Mountain King on a huge fat rim and it'd still come up skinnier by any measurement you care to use than a 2.4 Rubber Queen on a skinny XC rim. And these are tyres designed for the same sort of bikes and usage. And likewise the carcass vs tread explanation doesn't stand up either when you try and apply it.
Both could be the explanation, they just aren't The actual explanation is, Conti tyre sizes are total bulls**t. Chosen by the marketing man I reckon. "Nobody'll buy a 2 inch wide trailbike tyre these days, we'll just say it's a 2.2". Much the same as penis measuring standards.
There's a thing called advertising standards in the UK, and they're far ctricter than they're given credit for. A Car ad was recently banned because it proclaimed it was eco friendly, but it was found out that it's energy use during construction was slightly higher than other cars, negating the emissions saving.
Now if that kind of thing gets pulled up, then you'd better believe that conti have a system of measurement.0 -
Advertising standards will not care about bicycle tyre sizing of which there is no standard.
Or maybe we should write to watchdog about it and complain about my neighbours overhanging rotadendrum's at the same time? Ruining my prize vegetables they are!0 -
What the hell has watchdog got to do with anything?
The advertising standards does not allow selling a product under false pretences, no matter what the market is. It's not the kind of body that only goes after trends.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Northwind, you're talking out of your backside.
There's a thing called advertising standards in the UK, and they're far ctricter than they're given credit for. A Car ad was recently banned because it proclaimed it was eco friendly, but it was found out that it's energy use during construction was slightly higher than other cars, negating the emissions saving.
Now if that kind of thing gets pulled up, then you'd better believe that conti have a system of measurement.
OK, so. By example and by experiment we know that Conti's tyre sizes are total bulls**t. There's no system of measurement that can explain them, no useful dimension on any trail rim that'll come up as 2.4 on a 2.4 Mountain King. And now they've changed the size and the new 2.4 Mountain King is massively bigger than the old 2.4 Mountain King But let's ignore all that because of the advertising standards agency?
Are you using some sort of random illogic generator
Uncompromising extremist0
