tubeless tyres

eyepic
eyepic Posts: 58
edited May 2014 in Workshop
Coming from a mountain bike background I need advice.

Are advantages in going tubeless?

Do people do it?
«1

Comments

  • stanthomas
    stanthomas Posts: 265
    Yes. And I know I'm beginning to sound like a stuck record but it's a resounding yes. Go tubeless.

    It is a change in mindset so, for an easy introduction, start with dedicated road tubeless wheels. Shimano RS61s are a good entry point; Easton EA90 RTs are nice. Fit Hutchinson Fusion 3 tubeless tyres (only use designated tubeless tyres), inflate to around 6 bar (90psi) and go ride your bike.

    The ride is smoother, they role faster and you'll forget what fixing a puncture at the side of the road was like.

    Other folk on here will tell you they're difficult to fit. And here I must declare my interest, I make the tool in this 4 minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIAV_TBoFP0.
    So they're not difficult to fit at home but perhaps a bit of a pain to have to fix out on the road. However, flats on tubeless are so rare it should be seen as a major mechanical, like the chain breaking or the freewheel packing up.
  • pinarellokid
    pinarellokid Posts: 1,208
    Looks a very nifty tool you have there,,

    Couple of queries about tubeless,
    by the time you add the sealant to the tube, does it weigh more than a tube set up.?
    Are my Campag zonda wheels tubeless ready?
    Are the tyres more expensive,
    And lastly do you actually stop getting punctures with normal riding ? Apart from big cuts of course

    Might go for this
    Specialized S Works SL2 . Campagnolo Record 11spd. rolling on Campag Zonda wheels

    http://app.strava.com/athletes/881211
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    I have just converted my cross bike to tubeless. My rather chunky tubes were about 280 grams for the pair and that's how much lighter the bike is as two scoops of Stans sealant add very little weight... maybe 40 grams?

    The ride is not significantly different, but the bike feels more responsive and quicker in acceleration. Handling is the same. It's not a life changing difference, but it's an improvement rather than a downgrade.
    Now, with cross tyres, you can convert most of them to tubeless but with road tyres you can't and you need tubeless tyres, which are few and pretty much all only available as 23 mm. Basically you've got a handful of tyres to choose from against a sea of clinchers of all sizes and constantly on offer.
    The faff involved is a lot less than I thought... it's a 10 minutes job.
    I would say if you don't mind riding Hutchinson 23 mm, then go for it, but if you have your favourite tyres, then don't.
    left the forum March 2023
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    pinarellokid wrote:
    Looks a very nifty tool you have there,,

    Really like the look of that ! Any chance of more details / links ? I use a bead jack for fitting tubeless (and recalcitrant clinchers), which helps, but this looks much better.
    pinarellokid wrote:
    Couple of queries about tubeless,
    by the time you add the sealant to the tube, does it weigh more than a tube set up.?

    Depends but in general i'd say 'not noticably', e.g. a bog standard inner tube is going to be 100-120g, and the TLR tyres i'm using (Hutchinson Fusion 3) seem to be about 50-90g more than a decent clincher (e.g. 295g vs Michelin Pro4 Endurance @ 225g). Add in 50-60g of sealant and (for me) there's going to be sod all difference. You can get lighter clinchers, lighter tubes and so on, and heavier ones - ditto with the TLR tyres - but generally i'd say there's not much in it.
    pinarellokid wrote:
    Are my Campag zonda wheels tubeless ready?

    Should be, yes.
    pinarellokid wrote:
    Are the tyres more expensive,

    Yep - generally they are. Places like xxcycle can be pretty cheap (they had a pair of Schwalbe Ultremo 700x23 for about $ 70 + shipping until quite recently) but you need to look around to get deals. That said, all the ones that the manufacturers actually produce in TLR or UST form are damn fine tyres - Schwalbe Ultremo ZX / One, Hutchinson Fusion 3 / Secteur, Bontrager R2 / R3, all excellent.
    pinarellokid wrote:
    And lastly do you actually stop getting punctures with normal riding ? Apart from big cuts of course

    In the first 3 months of using them for everything, including commute, I noticed a couple of little white pin-heads on the tyre (both front) and a bit of loss of pressure on one of those occasions - so for me, yes they most certainly did work. There is also a knock-on effect in that I tend to bomb around with a lot less care and attention with them on, as opposed to when running straight clinchers - which is not only a great feeling, but makes me value the lack of stops even more given the extra abuse they get.
    pinarellokid wrote:
    Might go for this

    Might be worth a punt, although i'd say a lot depends what you're doing it for - for general purpose robustness i'd say it's a great choice, for ride quality i'd say it's a good choice on the road (as opposed to a no-brainer off-road) but there are a hell of a lot of really good clinchers around too, so it's tough. If you already have a TLR wheelset however, i'd definitely say go for it.

    Just me 2p worth.
  • magliaceleste
    magliaceleste Posts: 748
    No and not many.

    Despite the fact it's been around for years, the uptake is tiny because it is a faff. Hardly anyone makes tubeless tyres (many are re badged Hutchinson) and they are expensive. The whole thing doesn't really solve any problem, unlike MTB where makes perfect sense.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ess-40124/
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Hardly anyone makes tubeless tyres (many are re badged Hutchinson) and they are expensive.

    I suspect the uptake is slow due to some intellectual property issues related to the tyre. If you look at tubeless rims, then half of the wheels on the market are tubeless ready these days, including Shimano... and when Shimano does something, the rest will follow.
    I think it will catch up, maybe there needs to be another technological step or maybe it's just a matter of other players joining the market, but it's coming, same as disc brakes... MTB first, then cyclocross, then road. Is there any MTB on the market with V brakes and tubes? Not many CX bikes with Canti left... they are coming, both and fast!
    left the forum March 2023
  • magliaceleste
    magliaceleste Posts: 748
    Yes but on MTBs tubeless (and discs) make sense (just like discs on Cyclocross make sense). I am submitting the case that on the road, they do not add anything.

    They may sell, but it will be because the manufacturers will effectively make it happen through marketing, not because it solves a problem or adds anything useful - at least in it's current form.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    magliaceleste wrote:
    They may sell, but it will be because the manufacturers will effectively make it happen through marketing, not because it solves a problem or adds anything useful - at least in it's current form.

    For 20 years they have been selling us stuff that adds nothing useful... the market is ALWAYS driven by the urge to sell you more crap.
    With my 1980 bike I match and beat the 10 miles times of my similarly fit mates on carbon bikes, which are 30 years "more modern"... so what's the fuss about?

    At least going tubeless doesn't cost a grand or two like going electronic... :wink: and it will catch, nobody likes to puncture
    left the forum March 2023
  • drlodge
    drlodge Posts: 4,826
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    At least going tubeless doesn't cost a grand or two like going electronic... :wink: and it will catch, nobody likes to puncture

    Can you please explain to this ignorant fool how going tubeless prevents punctures? I get the bit about having some goo inside the tyre which will prevent air leaking out if a thorn or what not penetrates the tyre, but that goo will only last so long - either the thorn will work its way into the hole eventually creating a puncture that the goo will not stop, or the thorn needs to be taken out then you have a hole???
    WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
    Find me on Strava
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    magliaceleste wrote:
    No and not many.
    Incorrect and correct.
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Despite the fact it's been around for years, the uptake is tiny because it is a faff. Hardly anyone makes tubeless tyres (many are re badged Hutchinson) and they are expensive.

    A few - but not many - do make them, hardly any are rebadged. They are expensive however I doubt the uptake is tiny purely because it's a faff (it *is* a faff to get the tyres on on road rims without a doohickey, sometimes also with one).
    magliaceleste wrote:
    The whole thing doesn't really solve any problem, unlike MTB where makes perfect sense.

    Well from my experience, and that of a number of others i'd heard from, it provides a more robust ride with less vulnerability to a large class of punctures, and with a generally safer result when they do suffer small scale punctures - whether you call that a solution to a problem I don't know. I would. They may also provide other advantages, but no others come to mind that would particularly be seen as a 'problem' per se (maybe pinch flats in pot-holes, but that's fairly niche) - nice-to-haves maybe.

    Anyway, you clearly don't agree with them - fair enough - but to discount *any* of the advantages that others (who have used them) talk about smacks of pig-headedness to be honest. They are most certainly not a 'game-changer' or some bloody paradigm shift in road cycling - and they are not without their disadvantages - but they have a place and can be very useful. Please bear in mind that reality cares not one whit about your, or my, prejudices or preferences.
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    drlodge wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    At least going tubeless doesn't cost a grand or two like going electronic... :wink: and it will catch, nobody likes to puncture

    Can you please explain to this ignorant fool how going tubeless prevents punctures? I get the bit about having some goo inside the tyre which will prevent air leaking out if a thorn or what not penetrates the tyre, but that goo will only last so long - either the thorn will work its way into the hole eventually creating a puncture that the goo will not stop, or the thorn needs to be taken out then you have a hole???

    The goo fills the hole and hardens. The thorn could be left in place by the pathologically insane, or removed. If if goes through the tyre outer, the goo would hopefully fill the hole and harden again - having a thorn rattling around in the inside of a tyre may be irritating but probably no big deal unless you're running really low pressures. The little pin-prick of goo on the outside of the tyre quickly flattens. You lose some pressure, you may need to top up but i've personally not had that big of a pressure drop that it couldn't wait till I got home. YMMV

    Over time, the goo eventually dries up, you either top-up or clean out and put it back in (which is not as much hassle or as messy as some would have you believe).

    If the hole or rip is too big to be fixed by the goo then you'll get a whole bunch of goo splattered over the place and a flat tyre. In that case you'd have to resort to putting in a tube, and maybe patching the hole from the inside if it's really big, in exactly the same way as with a clincher and for the same reason. The problem with that is the tyre is most likely going to be a git to get off and on - that's the real disadvantage with tubeless.. .for small stuff it's cracking, for big stuff it's worse than a straight clincher in general (and certainly messier). As for carrying a tube with you, no big deal - I do as a matter of course anyway, if not for me then for people i'm with or meet.
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Yes but on MTBs tubeless (and discs) make sense (just like discs on Cyclocross make sense). I am submitting the case that on the road, they do not add anything.

    I, and others, are submitting they do add something - but there is a cost for that (financially and otherwise). There is a difference in being able to recognise there is a trade-off - how ever you see the ultimate balance - and denying there is anything to trade-off with.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    fukawitribe wrote:
    I, and others, are submitting they do add something - but there is a cost for that (financially and otherwise). There is a difference in being able to recognise there is a trade-off - how ever you see the ultimate balance - and denying there is anything to trade-off with.

    Agree, the cost is actually minimum... using cross tyres I had already tubed, I went tubeless for 20 quid (sealant + valves). I have been skeptical for a long time, but now that I have tried I see the skepticism was mostly scaremongery put around by people who can't fit a tyre on a rim. (Fitting a tyre on a rim with a bit of liquid inside is no different)
    The only drawback I see is that for road users, they have to use tubeless tyres and the market is still very small. But road users are likely to benefit significantly, consider the rate at which they puncture.
    I'd say the most pointless conversions are commuting and touring... there are enough real puncture PROOF clinchers on the market to make the conversion pointless... then if commuters keep using light road clinchers, that's another story
    left the forum March 2023
  • eyepic
    eyepic Posts: 58
    Why do road tyres need to be tubeless specific?
    For my mountain bike I have used non-tubeless and the latex stuff just sealed them up.
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    eyepic wrote:
    Why do road tyres need to be tubeless specific?
    For my mountain bike I have used non-tubeless and the latex stuff just sealed them up.

    In a word - pressure. With a MTB / CX tyre running at 25-40 PSI, and a bit of Stans tape or similar, the bead is reasonably happy at staying in the rather sturdy rim - you might get some burping with non-tubeless rim/ tyre combination but generally it's not going to result in a catastrophic accident. The beads also tend to hook into the rims a bit better.

    With a road tyre running at 85+PSI on a skinny rim, the danger is that the thing is just going to blow off - if not when you inflate then probably later on with nasty consequences and probably higher speed than off-road. Road TLR tyres tend to run with tighter beads, and the rim shelf on the TLR rims tends to run higher and/or with a beak hook inboard of the rim wall. You really wouldn't want to have one let go at 60-70kph downhill.

    For that reason, although you can build up your own bead hook with tape, strips or whatever in the rim, no-one is likely to risk running a non-tubeless tyre on it or even on a pucker TLR or UST compatible rim.
  • magliaceleste
    magliaceleste Posts: 748
    Why is it when I have an opinion it's pig headed yet when those who feel that tubeless does have some benefit are fine to write massive essays on the subject, basically trying to browbeat anyone else who disagrees into submission.

    I do not think they offer ANY advantages as they are today (for road use). Your opinion may be different. Your opinion/experience is no more valid than mine.
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Why is it when I have an opinion it's pig headed yet when those who feel that tubeless does have some benefit are fine to write massive essays on the subject, basically trying to browbeat anyone else who disagrees into submission.

    It's not your opinion i'm taking issue with - it's your refusal to acknowledge any possible advantages against all evidence.
    magliaceleste wrote:
    I do not think they offer ANY advantages as they are today (for road use).

    ...and that is why I take issue - because there is a clear advantage when it comes to resistance to a large class of punctures. That is a fact, and one you can't wish away. You may argue that it is not enough of an advantage to counter the disadvantages (of which there are a number, and have been partly discussed here) and i'd say that's a valid argument. I'm not saying you can't conclude that, from your experience (you do have some with road TL I take it) but rather that you can't use that opinion to contradict reality.
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Your opinion may be different. Your opinion/experience is no more valid than mine.

    Unfortunately it is precisely my experience, and that of others, that makes your assertion there are no advantages invalid. There is an advantage - a clear, demonstrable advantage - that you deny exists and that is the point at which your 'opinion' has to take second place to 'experience'. Anyway, this may soon descend into something that won't help the OP one bit - I suggest if you want continue to discuss the finer points we take this elsewhere. Bottom line is, road TL works for some and not for others - I hope we can find out whether it might be suitable for the OP.
  • magliaceleste
    magliaceleste Posts: 748
    It's simple maths: There is no advantage when the advantages are out numbered by disadvantages. Here, I'll spell it out for you.

    - Tyres more expensive
    - Need to mess around with sealant
    ...which leads to other problems like clogged valves, needing to clean out old sealant, mess etc
    - Bloody hard to fit tyres
    - Very limited tyre choice (and hardly top-end tyres)
    - when you puncture and the sealant doesn't work (bigger cuts) you get a mess and then need to fit a tube
    - more limited wheel choice (getting better)

    + Small cuts are easily repaired by sealant
    + Can run lower pressures

    +/- Debatable rolling resistance test results

    Or you could have just read the article on BR that I linked to previously which I agree with.
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    magliaceleste wrote:
    It's simple maths: There is no advantage when the advantages are out numbered by disadvantages. Here, I'll spell it out for you.

    Good grief, please just re-read that to yourself. I think what you wanted to convey was that there is no net benefit when the "advantages are out numbered by disadvantages" - otherwise you have advantages defined in terms of advantages. I have no problem with people saying they think there is no net benefit, no problem at all - I do take issue with statements that parade opinion as fact however. An advantage is an advantage, a disadvantage is a disadvantage - add them up, the one with the most points wins - that's what is being discussed and something I was trying to do. Using nonsense tautological arguments gains nothing.
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Or you could have just read the article on BR that I linked to previously which I agree with.

    I had, and responded to you on that article as well, e.g.
    You're completely missing the point.. i'm not defending my decisions, desperately or otherwise, merely pointing out that you asserting that road tubeless ONLY add problems is nonsense. Neither did I disagree with the author. Had you said that your comment was an opinion, or even that it was based on experience, that would be different - you didn't, just made a statement served up as fact.

    I can't see much has changed, so I can't see any point in continuing this. Your list of advantages and disadvantages is grand, and pretty much spot on, much like had already been discussed - redefining 'advantage' hardly adds to that discussion.
  • magliaceleste
    magliaceleste Posts: 748
    edited April 2014
    Oh it's you...OK if you want to play point scoring and be all clever, go right ahead...

    You need to understand that people are entitled to make their own decisions and there are two sides to every argument. You keep taking everything written (even opinion) as literal (and promptly get on your high horse about it). Although it is my belief that the above list are facts? Whatever, I've made my points. If road tubeless makes you happy great.

    p.s. I forgot to add expensive to the - list above.

    It used to make me sad when I had a slightly bigger hole in a tubeless tyre that sealant would handle and had to chuck a new tyre (or run it tubed..kind of crap)
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Oh it's you...OK if you want to play point scoring and be all clever, go right ahead...

    You need to understand that people are entitled to make their own decisions and there are two sides to every argument.

    I do - that's exactly what i've been trying to say, there are two sides - remember this ?
    @magliaceleste
    "For MTBs it solved a real problem. For road, just adds to them."

    No - it doesn't 'just' add to them. There are pros and cons, that's what the article was discussing. For the author, it didn't work out. For myself and some others, it does. YMMV
    magliaceleste wrote:
    You keep taking everything as literal

    True - but it's hard not to when someone is seemingly presenting facts.
    magliaceleste wrote:
    (although it is my belief that the above list are facts?).

    They are mostly, I just wish you'd posted that to begin with and said you didn't think it added up. I might have disagreed with the conclusion, at least in my own use case, and the odd point, but i'd be happy with it.
    magliaceleste wrote:
    Whatever. I've made my points. If road tubeless makes you happy great.

    Indeed you have - and we can agree to disagree about the merits, which is fine. As far as road tubeless goes - for me, although it's a pain in arse sometimes overall it's worth it. If I had 2 or more wheelsets, i'd maybe not bother - it'd depend.
    magliaceleste wrote:
    p.s. I forgot to add expensive to the - list above.

    Yep - the price of tyres in particular is a major downer.
  • stanthomas
    stanthomas Posts: 265
    magliaceleste wrote:
    It's simple maths: There is no advantage when the advantages are out numbered by disadvantages.

    Let me respond to your points, one at a time:
    "- Tyres more expensive"
    Current Wiggle prices: Hutchinson Fusion 3 t/l - £41 -vs- Michelin Pro4 Comp - £35 + Conti Race 28 Inner Tube £5. Yes, deals can be had on tyres (I bought some Fusions for £30 last year). Shop around.

    "- Need to mess around with sealant "
    I run my Fusions without sealant in the summer. A couple of times the tyre has gone soft overnight and sure enough one of those armour piercing hawthorns has been poking thru. But I have never noticed it during the ride or had to fix it by the side of the road. And anyway, adding sealant is no big deal. It's a bit like complaining that you have to oil your chain.

    "- Bloody hard to fit tyres"
    The bead has to be tight. Which is why I made a tool to make fitting quick and easy.

    "- Very limited tyre choice (and hardly top-end tyres)"
    Wiggle stock Hutchinson and are now listing the new Schwalbe One. Your local Trek dealer will sell Bontrager. All these are as top end as Conti GP4000s or Michelin Pros. There are several other makes too which are not so readily available in the UK.

    "- when you puncture and the sealant doesn't work (bigger cuts) you get a mess and then need to fit a tube"
    I haven't had a flat in a tubeless tyre for 3 years / 12,000 miles. Punctures become so rare that it has to be seen as a major mechanical.

    "- more limited wheel choice (getting better)"
    You will easily find a tubeless wheel at your price point and feature level.

    "+/- Debatable rolling resistance test results"
    I've only seen one article where a back-to-back freewheel test was conducted. The tubeless tyre came between a Michelin Pro 4 and a Pro4-SC but I don't think they ran it at the ideal pressure (if I can find the link, I'll post it).

    "Or you could have just read the article on BR that I linked to previously which I agree with."
    I think the review you linked is rather negative. And, as you might expect, I don't agree with it.
    There are plenty of positive ones too:
    http://road.cc/content/review/95313-schwalbe-ultremo-zx-tubeless-tyres
    This guy's gone quiet of late but there's lot's of useful information http://roadtubeless.blogspot.co.uk/

    And you just have to love this from Schwalbe http://www.schwalbe.com/gb/road-tubeless.html. See "How often does the sealing fluid have to be renewed or refilled?"
  • Fat-Boy-Roubaix
    Fat-Boy-Roubaix Posts: 413
    Any details on that tool it looks fab, having broken both my thumbs trying to get a Hutchinson 3 on to a set of Fulcrum Zeros and then having to break the rules and lever the last bit I would pay a reasonable amount for one of those. Looks like the same principle as the lay flat powered car ones?
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    Here's my two-penneth worth in the great tubeless tyre debate.

    As far as I can see the only supposed advantage with tubeless tyres revolves around a claimed reduction in punctures. I ride with seven friends, one of which uses Hutchinson Fusion tubeless tyres and I can honestly say we have spent more time by the side of the road faffing around trying to get his punctured tyre to seal with sealant spewing out all over the place than all the rest of us put together.

    Magliaceleste has adequately detailed all the disadvantages as far as I can see but there are other factors to consider as well. We tend to be comparing like-for like race tyres here but for a lot of cyclists there are other puncture reduction options. I use Bontrager Race Lite Hardcase tyres for instance which are very cheap (usually <£15) for the majority of my training rides. I can honestly say that I have had one puncture in five years or so of using these tyres and must have covered at least 25,000 miles in that time.

    Admittedly, these are not race tyres but why would you want ride something like a Michelin Pro4 year round? I want heavier, tyres that don't roll quite so well for training because it gives me more resistance and helps make me fitter. When I do use the Pro4s for sportives etc. I get the benefit of the better quality tyre when I appreciate it most. It also means that I am using the Pro4s in a relatively unused condition which seems to help puncture resistance as well when I do use them.

    As far as I can see there are no real advantages with tubeless tyres but a whole raft of disadvantages. In actual fact it seems to make more sense to me to run tubular tyres with sealant in as there are a number of additional advantages to using tubs over clinchers that tubeless tyres just don't have.
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    hypster wrote:
    Magliaceleste has adequately detailed all the disadvantages as far as I can see..
    hypster wrote:
    As far as I can see there are no real advantages with tubeless tyres but a whole raft of disadvantages.

    That is perfectly understandable if that's all the experience you've had. Indeed when tubeless tyres don't seal, it's going to be a major pain - especially as getting them off and on the rims is often a right bitch. However there are people for whom it works rather well, and some of us have listed disadvantages and advantages (as they see them) in this thread as well. Are all those contributions 'inadequate' for some reason ?
    hypster wrote:
    In actual fact it seems to make more sense to me to run tubular tyres with sealant in as there are a number of additional advantages to using tubs over clinchers that tubeless tyres just don't have.

    That's not a bad idea at all, one i've been pondering for a while. Alas it does suffer from a couple of the disadvantages of tubeless tyres, not least cost - unless you're going to permanently run on Conti Giros or Vittoria Rally (or lucky enough to have multiple wheelsets). That said, i'd certainly prefer to change a tub on the road-side than tubeless, and a light spare with or without some tub tape fits in my seat bag with loads of room for tools etc. Again there are pros and cons but even if it's not worth it on the whole for me, i'm loath to subscribe to the "it doesn't fit with my world view so it must be wrong" school of thought that seems to plague the tubeless debate.
  • term1te
    term1te Posts: 1,462
    magliaceleste wrote:
    It used to make me sad when I had a slightly bigger hole in a tubeless tyre that sealant would handle and had to chuck a new tyre (or run it tubed..kind of crap)

    I've been running Schwalbe Ultremo TL since last spring, very pleased with them. They do cut up and wear quite fast, but no more than other "race" tyres. Not training tyres for that reason, but for special occasions I love them. I got a small screw stuck in the rear wheel which the sealant couldn't do anything with. Put a tube in at the side of the road and fixed it with a regular patch when I got home, back tubeless and as good as new. Just make sure the area around the hole to be patched is completely free from the sealant and dry before patching it as you would an innertube.

    Using Stans No-tube Alpha rims, I can get the Schwalbe tyres on without any levers.
    The Master
    The Moser
    The VN
  • stanthomas
    stanthomas Posts: 265
    hypster wrote:
    ...
    As far as I can see the only supposed advantage with tubeless tyres revolves around a claimed reduction in punctures.
    ...
    Oh there's more. Much more. I went tubeless because it seemed I was getting a puncture every time I went out (Eddy Grundy and his hawthorn hedges :cry: ). But once I'd bitten the bullet I found, as have many others, they ride smoother, role faster and grip better.
    Try it.
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    stanthomas wrote:
    hypster wrote:
    ...
    As far as I can see the only supposed advantage with tubeless tyres revolves around a claimed reduction in punctures.
    ...
    Oh there's more. Much more. I went tubeless because it seemed I was getting a puncture every time I went out (Eddy Grundy and his hawthorn hedges :cry: ). But once I'd bitten the bullet I found, as have many others, they ride smoother, role faster and grip better.
    Try it.

    No thanks, it sound like you've bought into the hype. If tubeless tyres provided all that then all the major tyre manufacturers would be falling over themselves to offer them. The fact that the choice is so paltry just suggests to me that tubeless tyres are an expensive solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
  • stanthomas
    stanthomas Posts: 265
    hypster wrote:
    No thanks, it sound like you've bought into the hype.
    Ah but it's not hype. It's 3 years and 1000s of kms direct, personal experience.
    hypster wrote:
    If tubeless tyres provided all that then all the major tyre manufacturers would be falling over themselves to offer them. The fact that the choice is so paltry just suggests to me that tubeless tyres are an expensive solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
    I suspect it's more a question of demand, driven (or not) by the innate conservatism of roadies. But the choice is quite adequate if you like what's on offer - in that long forgotten past when I used tubes I only used Continental so picking from Hutchinson's range works for me.
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    stanthomas wrote:
    Ah but it's not hype. It's 3 years and 1000s of kms direct, personal experience.

    Yes, and hundreds of pounds spent needlessly on tyres and sealant. Hutchinson must be loving you.

Categories