Tubeless vs. tubes - the weighty truth please

ashleymp777

Please can someone clear something up for me - on one hand I'm told tubeless is lighter, then on the other I'm told tubes are (assuming you buy the lightweight versions).

So, which is it to be?

CraigXXL

Tubeless tyres are heavier than standard tyres but when you add an inner tube to the equation they are about equal. Standard tyres that are run tubeless may work out slightly lighter with a sealent but not by much.
Weight isn't really the benefit of tubeless it's added grip, small puncture repair using sealant and reduced rolling resistance.

supersonic

I'm not sure added grip and reduced rolling resistance is always is the case though. The deforming of the carcass will be different - UST has stiffer sidewalls, while a converted normal tyre doesn't, so more differences there too. Does a tube really increase it for a given pressure? I'm not sure!

njee20

You can sway the figures however you want!

Tube = 150g
Light tube = 100g
Really light tube = 50g

Tubeless sealant = c60g to be reliable

So assuming you use the same tyres, and a similar rim tape (one turn of Stan's tape works well either way), tubeless is marginally heavier than the absolute lightest tubes, but has other advantages. It is lighter than a standard tube.

UST tyres tend to weigh about the same as a conventional tyre and tube. But as most people then add sealant it ends up weighing more. I wouldn't bother with UST any more personally.

CraigXXL

Using tubeless ready Nobby Nics 2.4 snakeskin there is a noticable difference in the rolling resistance when running tubeless as opposed to tubed.
A tubeless tyre with it's thicker sidewalls probably won't deform as well as a tubeless ready or standard tyre. Again I find this noticable with less deflection off obstructions with a tubeless tyre. This is probably helped with the lower pressures I am able to run the tyres at when tubeless.

supersonic

I started getting problems with my tubless at low pressures ie 20-25psi - in hard corners, or funny sideways landing - it would burp air out.

Fenred

Hmmm, good thread! I'm very interested to hear the views here, I like the concept of running tubeless but in reality I'm not totally convinced of the benefits... :?

supersonic

It is a very complex subject with a lot of variations. A lot depends on how you weigh up certain points.

Some just don't like the thought of sealant - if you do get a tyre rip on a ride, it may all leak out. Carrying a spare tube with tubeless may seem pointless to some lol. Others it is no probs, while some think UST is just too weighty for whatit offers.

So need to try and list the pros and cons, and certainly give a try anyway.

02gf74

funnily enough I asked this question on another forum.

What is missing from the above equation is the repair kit - I run lightwieght tubes and carry puncture repair kit plus one spare tube. I would not rely on the sealant so to be totally protected, I would carry two inner tubes.

The reduced rolling resistance and ability to run lower pressure since no possiblity of snake bikes has been touted as a good advantage.

supafly1982

if it aint broke...dont fix it...tubes FTW lol

ride_whenever

supafly1982 wrote:

if it aint broke...dont fix it...tubes FTW lol

I assume you still fide a rigid clunker then...

allthegearnoidea

ive just changed mine over from tubed to tubeles, run on tubeless rims, using the same tyres but the tubeless version instead on quoted weights will save me about 100g a wheel, the hutchinson sealant weighs vey little, so is a weight loss but for me is more about running a low pressure without pinching, being on or about 100kg and with a riding style similar to the old Bouncing bombs pinch flats were common unless i was 45psi! so now happily drop them down to 33! 8)

goign ghetto weight wise really isnt a lot in it as youve still got the tube and generally more sealant, was tempted to but waited and did it with proper rims and tyres,

njee20

What is missing from the above equation is the repair kit - I run lightwieght tubes and carry puncture repair kit plus one spare tube. I would not rely on the sealant so to be totally protected, I would carry two inner tubes.

I don't. I carry a CO2 pump and nowt else.

legin

i run crest rims with ordinary non ust tyres there is a difference in the feel and the system is at least 100g lighter per wheel.
ive had no problems and feel the tubless rotate quicker and yes the ambility to run less pressure increases grip.
in my opinion its a worthy upgrade

Northwind

Lots of people get confused and think they need UST tyres, luckily not... Way I see it is that they're the tubeless equivalent of dualplies, they're not something you choose unless you absolutely need to.

Still, it's perfectly possible to make tubed lighter than tubeless, especially if you're not using a UST rim.

Stiff_Orange

legin wrote:

i run crest rims with ordinary non ust tyres there is a difference in the feel and the system is at least 100g lighter per wheel.
ive had no problems and feel the tubless rotate quicker and yes the ambility to run less pressure increases grip.
in my opinion its a worthy upgrade

+1

This weekend I went Tubeless on my Stan's Alpine rims with Schwalbe Rocket Ron's (Non-UST). My Hardtail felt fast before, but now it flys. Acceleration, grip, and general feel were all much better.

Only prob I had was that I did get a nick in the front tyre at speed, so me and the bike got sprayed with latex until it sealed. The dust then stuck to it making it a pig to clean later.

homeronabike

I have tubeless tyres and wheels and prefer the feel of the bike more now. Less pressure for more grip helps too.
I have a CO2 pump if I'm out with mates (tubed riders) or I throw a spare tube in the bag if I'm on my own.
I've had a sealant spray too - great fun!!
I did try and convert my normal wheels, but had a lot of problems as the rims were fairly narrow so I bit the bullet and got some UST wheels

njee20

Still, it's perfectly possible to make tubed lighter than tubeless, especially if you're not using a UST rim.

That's the thing though isn't it, you can move the goal posts indefinitely. You could run 20g of sealant, be lighter than any tube, but no puncture proofing. But then neither do tubes!

Assuming you convert your existing wheels and tyres and use normal tubes you'll probably save a bit. But you may not :-)

pilsburypie

I used to run tubeless specific tyres until I noticed that the weights quoted were heavier. I now run normal tyres (Maxis High roller and Ignitors) with a bit of sealant no problems to reduce the weight..... Took a while to seal, but now are fine.

twonks

I changed from tubes to stans rims and sealant around 2 years ago.

Went from a puncture every other ride and sometimes 2 or 3, to nothing since I went tubeless.

Over the same terrain and riding conditions.

Not really noticed the increased grip or light weight tbh - I just did it to avoid punctures from thorns and snakebites.

Don't carry a spare tube either, as to put it into a tyre that could well have loads of thorns would be a pain.

Tubeless repair kit, pump and phone will do for me

Northwind

pilsburypie wrote:

I used to run tubeless specific tyres until I noticed that the weights quoted were heavier.

They aren't always, frinstance Bontrager's Mud X is tubeless ready (not UST) and don't have a weight penalty, lots of 2011 Schwalbes are too, Specialized 2bliss... Just normal tyres that happen to have UST-style beads, they still need sealant but it's a good option.

u05harrisb

im thinking of doing this when i upgrade my wheel set too, ive currently got mondrakers on-off own brand wheel set with tubes and maxxis XC crossmarks. im gonna upgrade to stans crest and then am going to start running tubless, in theorie will a "normal" set of 2011 racing ralphs do the job? and how would my current exception series crossmarks fair? i only do very light XC and im only about 60ish Kg and im still gonna keep them at the normal 35ish psi, do you think those tyres would cope?

thanks guys!

njee20

2011 Schwalbes are tubeless ready, but are phenomenally tight on newer Stans rims. To be honest id stick with the 2010 Schwalbes, which can be had for about half the price, and work fantastically on Stans rims.

kevolution

If you're setting up your tyres to deform and act as part of the suspension system, there's a problem with your suspension that your not addressing. If you need 20mm of undamped suspension from your tyre, you're running your settings too firm on your suspension. It's probably hurting your climbing performance too as you don't feel the extension under pedal loads as much as you may think.
You should be able to run latex tubes with plenty of talc and get similar deformation performance to a tubeless setup and as Stan's recommend 100g of sealant per tyre it'll be lighter running latex tubes with fewer problems from "burping" or sealing the tyre initially, and definately after a deflation when the bead has loosened up a bit.

But you shouldn't need to run your pressures so low. DIRT mag tested the Millyard bike with the tyres at 40psi, claiming the "custom MOD" suspension was so good they didn't need to drop the pressures. It ran a standard fork though. it had just been set up very well.
Irun 33psi front and 37psi rear on 2.25 ardent crossmark mix on my trail bike, and never suffer with punctures or lack of grip.

Northwind

kevolution wrote:

If you're setting up your tyres to deform and act as part of the suspension system, there's a problem with your suspension that your not addressing. If you need 20mm of undamped suspension from your tyre, you're running your settings too firm on your suspension.

And who said they were doing that :?

kevolution

If you're running lower pressures to get grip, by definition, you are doing just that.
The suspension is designed to keep the tyre in contact with the ground, and the tyres have recommended pressure settings printed on the carcass.
If you're setting lower tyre pressures, you're effectively compensating for a poor suspension setup. Your suspension is speed sensitive to cope with high speed hits your tyre pressures are fixed.
if you have no suspension, use higher volume tyres which are recommended to run at lower pressures.
I used to do this in 1988 when we didn't have suspension bikes for racing, and I very rarely flatted in races.

Northwind

kevolution wrote:

If you're running lower pressures to get grip, by definition, you are doing just that.

Er, no, that's mince. Tyre deformation can be a suspension effect- most obviously as on a hardtail at the back, or on my rigid- but that's not the only effect it has obviously.

kevolution

That's why i suggested running higher volume for those applications.

Running tyres below recommended settings will reduce the performance of the tyre.
Tyre companies spend millions in R&D every year and publish the results to include deformation at recommended pressures for the intended use. To run in line with current suspension technologies.
Running a tyre tubeless at lower pressure that's not designed for this application will result in reduced performance. They have data to back this up.

I currently work for a guy that oversaw the distribution of Maxxis tyres for the the UK prior to going into business for himself.
I think I'll stick with his opinion on tyre peformance and usage that i've been quoting all through this thread. And what he doesn't know about tyre technology, isn't worth knowing.

kevolution

I post here to try and helpfellow riders. but i'm beginning to wonder why.

supersonic

People will have different opinions! It is a forum. And you are certainly not always right, nobody is.

Northwind

kevolution wrote:

I post here to try and helpfellow riders. but i'm beginning to wonder why.

The problem isn't the information you're posting, it's the conclusions you're jumping to about what people are trying to achieve. And also I have to say your arrogant attitude to those people's posts. Let's follow the train of thought here:

kevolution wrote:

If you're setting up your tyres to deform and act as part of the suspension system, there's a problem with your suspension that your not addressing. If you need 20mm of undamped suspension from your tyre, you're running your settings too firm on your suspension. .

Absolutely nobody's said that's the effect they're going for. Not one person. But then:

kevolution wrote:

If you're running lower pressures to get grip, by definition, you are doing just that.

So you've apparently decided that everyone who runs low pressures must be doing it because they want it to act like part of the suspension system. With even a basic understanding of tyres and a bit of rational thought, that's clearly not the case, since that's only one variable among many. You've just read between the lines and come to a wrong conclusion. Then, based on that wrong conclusion you start laying down the law and telling people they're wrong!

Then:

kevolution wrote:

"Running tyres below recommended settings will reduce the performance of the tyre. " "Running a tyre tubeless at lower pressure that's not designed for this application will result in reduced performance. They have data to back this up."

What is your definition of performance? Again a big assumption, that all riders are trying to get the exact same results from a tyre and that there's one best way, when of course it's actually a matter of personal preference, and it's possible to get a range of results from a tyre to suit your tastes and needs. There's no simple sliding scale "Good performance-bad performance". If only there was!