Fenwicks Airtight sealant warning

stubs
stubs Posts: 5,001
edited April 2014 in MTB general
If anybody is thinking of using Fenwicks Airtight tubeless sealant then dont till you read this.

I have spent 3 hours trying to get a tyre to seal using the blue goop, the tyre went on easy and I got a good bead seal within 3 or 4 strokes of the track pump. However air was coming out of the sidewall of the tyre (Specialized Ground Control tubeless ready) never had this trouble before using Stans. Thought I hadnt put enough in so put more sealant in went for a ride as per instructions still air is bubbling out of sidewall.

Went on web reread instructions on Fenwicks site then started googling and after reading several pages of forum rubbish I found a review on bikeradar read all the reader comments and lo and behold there was a comment from Fenwicks saying this system is not suitable for tubeless ready tyres only UST tyres and non UST tyres. Thanks Fenwicks I have wasted 3 hours and £20 how about putting this useful titbit of information on the box and on your website.
Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap

Comments

  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    only UST tyres and non UST tyres.

    Err... All tyres are either UST or non-UST, tubeless ready are non UST. The trouble with any of those sealants that aren't latex based (Bontrager, RRP, Slime etc), is that they're just too thick to seal those tiny porous holes, particularly in new tyres. Stan's FTW.
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    njee20 wrote:
    only UST tyres and non UST tyres.

    Err... All tyres are either UST or non-UST, tubeless ready are non UST. The trouble with any of those sealants that aren't latex based (Bontrager, RRP, Slime etc), is that they're just too thick to seal those tiny porous holes, particularly in new tyres. Stan's FTW.

    Exactly what you would think but not in Fenwickland. Couldnt find any Stans goop locally but got a Bottle of Joes goop half price it looks and smells similar to Stans just a little thicker more full fat Jersey milk than semi skimmed.
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • rockmonkeysc
    rockmonkeysc Posts: 14,774
    I use fenwicks. Never had any trouble at all.
    Transition Patrol - viewtopic.php?f=10017&t=13070235
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    I found it very easy to use, easier than Stans goop the tyre seated with 3 strokes of the pump and if only it had sealed the sidewalls I would have been very happy.

    Put Joes goop in last night and it sealed the sidewalls instantly apart from a few little spots and they sealed when I shook the wheel and laid it flat. The Fenwicks works but just not on my Specialized 2Bliss tyres
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    Sealing sidewall holes is the 'non-UST' bit like I said, so it is meant to work. It's not incompatible per se, you're either doing it wrong, or it's crap.
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    njee20 wrote:
    Sealing sidewall holes is the 'non-UST' bit like I said, so it is meant to work. It's not incompatible per se, you're either doing it wrong, or it's crap.

    Its not crap I imagine it works very well with the right tyres its just not suitable for tubeless ready tyres. The Joes sealant worked well today I landed clumsily onto a square edged rock that would have popped an inner tube 90% of the time and I was the only one out of 4 that didnt have a puncture.

    Might just have doomed myself now :lol:
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    *bangs head on wall*

    But if it's advertised as working with "UST and non-UST", then it should work with TLR. All they are is a reinforced bead on a standard carcass. TLR tyres aren't something magical. What makes you think a tyre designed to run tubeless would be needing a better sealant than one which isn't?

    Either it doesn't work properly with non-UST, or you're doing it wrong.
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    njee20 wrote:
    *bangs head on wall*

    But if it's advertised as working with "UST and non-UST", then it should work with TLR. All they are is a reinforced bead on a standard carcass. TLR tyres aren't something magical. What makes you think a tyre designed to run tubeless would be needing a better sealant than one which isn't?

    Either it doesn't work properly with non-UST, or you're doing it wrong.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/accessories/tyre-sealant/product/review-fenwicks-airtight-tyre-sealant-46875/

    Scroll down and read the reviews
    Jon Fenwick

    Posted Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:27:27 GMT

    Hi Xcbarny,Some MTB Tubeless Ready tyres have extremely thin tyre walls to keep the weight to a minimum with a thick rubberised tyre bead to make a good seal. Our product makes a good bead seal, you can paint it on to the bead and it will stay in place so it's easier to make standard tyres into a tubeless system (chose a tyre with a good rubberised sidewall). As for thin tyre walls on MTB Tubeless Ready tyres our product struggles as it needs rubber recovery to work correctly ie where the rubber tries to close the puncture its self. MTB Tubeless Ready tyres are designed so that a thin layer of latex skin dries and covers the tyre wall. Our product only dries to a rubber when it has the moisture squeezed out of it ie around the bead seal / rim or the puncture area. It has a 2 to 3 year life span and does not form balls, bogies or a dry skin inside the tyres. It is always mobile even in freezing conditions.I hope that helps.Kind regards,Jon
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    Got an email from Jon at Fenwicks. He apologised said he thought the website had info on Tubeless ready tyres not being suitable but when he checked it didnt, so an admin mix up not an evil plan to take over the world. He is going to alter the website so it mentions Tubeless ready.

    If you have the right tyres it is dead easy to use no soapy water or compressors needed.
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    edited April 2014
    Mmm... I'm calling bollocks on that, tubeless tyres (ready or otherwise) vary substantially. A Conti Supersonic or Maxxis Maxxlite is non-UST, and non tubeless ready, and they're infinitely thinner than a Spesh Control TLR or Schwalbe Double Defence carcass.

    All tubeless ready means is that the bead's a little stiffer/tighter, it's not a standard (like UST), so not that clear cut.
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    I'd agree, especially the "MTB Tubeless Ready tyres are designed so that a thin layer of latex skin dries and covers the tyre wall" (WTH?) .......what they are saying is that their product won't work (not fit for purpose arguably) on thin sidewall tyres as it doesn't seal small porous holes well, or in other words isn't as good as their competitors stuff that will!
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    I like tubes. I can't remember the last time i punctured a tube.
  • pesky_jones
    pesky_jones Posts: 2,890
    bennett_346 wrote:
    I like tubes. I can't remember the last time i punctured a tube.


    It will be next time you ride now!
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    This isn't a problem with punctures, this is using sealant that appears not to work. Bit like saying tubes are rubbish because your pump doesn't do presta valves!

    Tubeless is very good indeed.
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    njee20 wrote:
    This isn't a problem with punctures, this is using sealant that appears not to work. Bit like saying tubes are rubbish because your pump doesn't do presta valves!

    Tubeless is very good indeed.
    Tubeless is about reducing punctures though. I'm curious as to what you guys are riding on to get so many of them. Nail beds do not a good trail material make.
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    It has a number of advantages, reducing punctures is one. It also means you can run lower pressures, get more grip and reduce rolling resistance without risking pinch flats, it generally saves weight over a 'standard' tube set up.
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    Just get fitter and more skilled and both those benefits are irrelevant outside of racing.
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    Pros of tubeless = fewer punctures (I have had one in 6 months when the sidewall ripped) you can run a slightly softer tyre for better grip and you can shed a few grams.

    Cons = Bit of a faff setting it up, expensive at first and you have to be careful with your tyre choice some tyres wont work.

    If you puncture a lot go for it what have you got to lose you can go back to tubes in about as long as it takes to fit a tube. If your lightweight, have rad gnarly skillz and never puncture then its probably not worth it.
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    Just get fitter and more skilled and both those benefits are irrelevant outside of racing.

    1) you're an idiot
    2) I race

    I assume you also add lead weights to your bike, and use an iron bar instead of a handlebar?
  • RevellRider
    RevellRider Posts: 1,794
    bennett_346 wrote:
    Just get fitter and more skilled and both those benefits are irrelevant outside of racing.

    The lower rolling resistance and more grip make my bike more fun to ride, therefore it is relevant to my riding
    Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Epsilon.
  • Chunkers1980
    Chunkers1980 Posts: 8,035
    I get the deformation making rolling resistance less against tubes at the same PSI, but running them at a lower PSI (for more grip) would actually make more resistence so it's one or the other unless you have the same PSI and that doesn't give more grip.
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    Nope, on rough terrain tyres roll better at lower pressure, as they're able to deform more.

    Higher pressures are only faster on smooth terrain. There's obviously a limit to that though.
  • ilovedirt
    ilovedirt Posts: 5,798
    tl;dr
    your tyres are tubeless ready, not UST. Presumably somewhere it says that the fenwicks stuff is UST only. amirite?
    Production Privee Shan

    B'Twin Triban 5
  • njee20
    njee20 Posts: 9,613
    ilovedirt wrote:
    tl;dr
    your tyres are tubeless ready, not UST. Presumably somewhere it says that the fenwicks stuff is UST only. amirite?

    No, read the OP:
    lo and behold there was a comment from Fenwicks saying this system is not suitable for tubeless ready tyres only UST tyres and non UST tyres

    Hence my comments that they're talking rubbish, as tubeless ready isn't a standard, all tyres are either UST or non-UST.

Categories