tubeless: poll

mrmonkfinger

bit late so this might not be explained well:

rolling resistance has a lot to do with the amount of energy needed to flex the tyre.

with no tube, the tyre doesn't have to flex a tube any more = reduces the amount of energy needed when the contact patch forms = reduced rolling resistance

knacker all to do with weight or goop

obv an extremely lightweight tube would have a similar effect

cooldad

mrmonkfinger wrote:

bit late so this might not be explained well:

knacker all to do with weight or goop

obv an extremely lightweight tube would have a similar effect

You're right, not explained well.

bennett_346

mrmonkfinger wrote:

with no tube, the tyre doesn't have to flex a tube any more = reduces the amount of energy needed when the contact patch forms = reduced rolling resistance

Sorry but this sounds like codswallop, assuming the same amount of energy was put into the tyre to begin with, if the tyre with the tube needed more energy to create the same size contact patch as the tyre without tube, the one with the tube would simply make a smaller contact patch. It doesn't have a mind of its own and it can't draw energy from the rider! :roll:

Bugger all to do with rolling resistance, you are talking about grip here. And if anything the one with larger contact patch is gonna roll worse.

cooldad

So what we need are smart tyres with minds - would solve the problem and argument.

But I remain unconvinced that tubeless is significantly faster than tubes.

TBH unless you are a racing snake timing your rides to the split second it hardly seems relevant.

I would stuff up my timing the first time I stop for a smoke.

bennett_346

cooldad wrote:

So what we need are smart tyres with minds - would solve the problem and argument.

But I remain unconvinced that tubeless is significantly faster than tubes.

TBH unless you are a racing snake timing your rides to the split second it hardly seems relevant.

I would stuff up my timing the first time I stop for a smoke.

It is an irrelevant argument because as you say whichever way round it is its barely noticeable at all.

Northwind

DodgeT wrote:

Tried it, didn't like it. Far too much faff. I'm sure if you add up all the extra set-up time / cost versus how many times you do actually puncture, its prob not worth it.

The main difference is that the faff time happens when you want it to, in a warm garage or kitchen, instead of when you least want it, halfway up a mountain in the rain. I've only had 1 puncture in the last year, I think, but that was one of the very few rides I did with a tube in, and knackered a race run- imagine my delight. I'd have traded a lot of faff in the garage for that.

Proper rims and standard tyres for me, usually, best of both worlds- lighter but still very reliable. Some tubeless-ready tyres too since there's no downside to them (I'd probably be using Eskar Controls even if I used tubes). And I'd be using the same rims too. And sealant costs much the same as inner tubes. (a pint does 6 or 7 tyres for me and costs £12). There's plenty of downsides to tubeless done badly but the way I do it, there's very few IMO and they're worth it for the benefits.

I have never noticed any difference in rolling resistance though, and I run my tyres at the same pressure as I always did with tubes- sure you're not likely to get pinchflats with tubeless but if you keep rimming out you'll bend the rim instead!

Beatmaker

I've gone tubeless on my XC bike as the route I mostly ride on it is full of gorse bushes, and it's not uncommon to puncture 5-6 times a ride on my commute. I'm happy with tubes on my trail bike.

VWsurfbum

DodgeT wrote:

I'm sure surfbum will be along to tell us that he timed himself before and after going tubeless and it saved 1 second avg per mile

Or does that only apply to 29ers??





Sorry surfbum, couldn't resist

No not timed the difference but there is an imediate rolling resistance feel.
I do run my tyres a little lower pressure now than i did with tubes with no loss off rolling speed.
I made a mistake once of running too low on a rooty track, went through a large bombhole and and it burped it off the rim. only the mistake once.

thekickingmule

Never done it, mainly because I CBA, as Cooldad said.

I think Northwind's hit the nail on the head though, the faff is moved to the garage, rather than out in the wilderness. However, the number of punctures I get don't warrant me bothering with the effort of tubeless*

*Sacrifices child to trail pixies, strokes rabbit foot and throws a black cat over shoulder

cat_with_no_tail

Careful, you'll have someones eye out with that damned cat!

My only mistake with tubeless so far was to over-inflate a tyre once to get it seated properly, then left it sat overnight. When I came back in the morning it'd blown the tyre off the rim and spaffed sealant all over the walls, floor, ceiling....
Plus it'd completely ruined the (brand new) tyre, warped it. after that it just wouldn't seat properly with any kind of pressure in it.

Don't think I'd ever go back to tubes now tbh.

pilch

Did the same thing, but the tyre went whilst I was inflating it with a compressor....couldn't be ar5ed to use a bit of soapy water on the tyre... just a little bit more air to 'crack' the last stubborn bit of bead onto the rim BOOM! sealant all over me and tinitus for an hour or 2...

mrmonkfinger

bennett_346 wrote:

the one with the tube would simply make a smaller contact patch.

There's your mistake...

The contact patch size is determined by rider weight and tyre pressure, its size is dictated by the pressure increase caused by the deformation. The tyre will deform as much as needed to form that patch.

Talk of different contact patch sizes is a bit irrelevant - that's only due to the average tubeless rider using a lower PSI in the tyres. Sure you can run lower PSI and get a larger patch, but for equal PSI in tube & tubeless the patch will stay the same size.

Cycling is Forever

Tubeless on the 29er using bontrager TLR
A little faff in the beginning setting up, but overall pleased with the outcome. Mainly I like that I can run lower PSI.

CiF

mingmong

Yep, CBA in this camp also.

My friend swears by tubeless for puncutures.

Anyway, I've 50% less chance of taking a wheel off as I ride Lefty

VWsurfbum

MingMong wrote:

Anyway, I've 50% less chance of taking a wheel off as I ride Lefty

LOL never thought of that!

P-Jay

New bike came OE with Fulcrum Red Zone tubeless LUST wheels, switched the Conti's for Maxxis.

I genuinely cannot see the advantage for me, the wheels are much lighter than my old Pro2 / EN521 set-up, so spin up easier, but are knocked off course by mid-corner rocks much more than my old ones - it's as much of a hindrance as a help - if I was being super cynical I could say it makes the bike accelerate quicker on the straights and corner slower so it's more point and squirt than flow-flow-flow than my old bike. It's not nearly as obviously as that makes it sound though.

But really does the fact they're tubeless make them lighter, of are they just a much lighter set-up? Probably more of the latter.

They lose the odd bit of air, which is a pain, the cores of the valves screw out with the caps all the time, which is a pain, it's a full-on mission to try to get the tyres off and on again, which is a pain, the tyres cost waaay more and I can get a 2.3 highroller LUST in supertackie which is a pain.

On my old set-up I got maybe 4 flats a year, maybe 2 of them were pinch flats - tube out, spare tube in, JD and off we go - now it's a full on mission to sort and there's alllllways something going on with them. I know I would solve most of my tubeless problems by using sealant, but that just another thing to fuck about with.

If anyone wants to buy a ready-made tubeless set-up - Fulcrum Red Zone 2011 wheel set and nearly new Maxxis 2.3 Highroller tyres for the cost of a set of Hope Hoops, just let me know...

YeehaaMcgee

Tried it, still got catastrophic punctures. Gave up.
May try again using proper tubeless rims and tyres someday.

Northwind

P-Jay wrote:

I can get a 2.3 highroller LUST in supertackie which is a pain.

Presuming you mean can't- why would you want to? Use a proper highroller, they tubeless up very easily.

Frosticles

Just converted mine today. On one maxel rims with panaracer xc fire pro 2.1 tyres. Used stans system and was a piece of pish to do. Looking forward to trying them out tomorrow.

njee20

Just converted mine today. On one maxel rims with panaracer xc fire pro 2.1 tyres. Used stans system and was a piece of pish to do. Looking forward to trying them out tomorrow.

Assuming it's a 'normal' Fire XC it's specifically recommended you don't use them because of their propensity for blowing off the rim in spectacular fashion...

mrmonkfinger

njee20 wrote:

Just converted mine today. On one maxel rims with panaracer xc fire pro 2.1 tyres. Used stans system and was a piece of pish to do. Looking forward to trying them out tomorrow.

Assuming it's a 'normal' Fire XC it's specifically recommended you don't use them because of their propensity for blowing off the rim in spectacular fashion...

are there any internet resources where people have collected this info, a sort of 'do' and 'dont' for tyre brands/models?

fat_homer

Not tried and won't until I get new wheels with TLR rims. From what I've read setting up 717's isn't easy and I can't be arsed trying!

Frosticles

njee20 wrote:

Just converted mine today. On one maxel rims with panaracer xc fire pro 2.1 tyres. Used stans system and was a piece of pish to do. Looking forward to trying them out tomorrow.

Assuming it's a 'normal' Fire XC it's specifically recommended you don't use them because of their propensity for blowing off the rim in spectacular fashion...

Normal folding Fire Pro tyre. Been out for a test ride today and all seems fine. Pressures are set at 45psi but may lower them.