tubeless tyres

2»

Comments

  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    hypster wrote:
    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.

    Oh - I didn't know you got your clinchers and tubes for free.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    hypster wrote:
    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.

    Hypster, I was a skeptic just like you. I now run my cross tyres tubeless and there are a number of obvious advantages that come at very little cost. Why Vittoria and Continental are not onto it? I suspect there are royalties to pay for some IP, which makes it less convenient for them... just look at the price of Schwalbe tyres, who possibly have to pay royalties to Hutchinson (much cheaper) to use the solutuion they have developed. Shimano and Campagnolo range of wheels are tubeless, so they do believe in it.
    You can hide your head in the sand, but it's a technology with a number of advantages and comes for peanuts.
    Solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Is it not true for everything this side of the invention of derailleurs?
    Are electric gears the solutuon to what? Artrosis?
    left the forum March 2023
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    ugo.santalucia wrote:

    Hypster, I was a skeptic just like you. I now run my cross tyres tubeless and there are a number of obvious advantages that come at very little cost. Why Vittoria and Continental are not onto it? I suspect there are royalties to pay for some IP, which makes it less convenient for them... just look at the price of Schwalbe tyres, who possibly have to pay royalties to Hutchinson (much cheaper) to use the solutuion they have developed. Shimano and Campagnolo range of wheels are tubeless, so they do believe in it.
    You can hide your head in the sand, but it's a technology with a number of advantages and comes for peanuts.
    Solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Is it not true for everything this side of the invention of derailleurs?
    Are electric gears the solutuon to what? Artrosis?

    It's not a question of hiding my head in the sand Ugo. If tubeless technology was all it's cracked up to be then there would be a much wider take-up from all manufacturers across the board not just the few you cite. Even the ones at the vanguard such as Hutchinson don't seem to be particularly convinced themselves because they only offer a 4 tubeless road models out of the 17 road tyres they make.

    I don't see how you can say it has a number of advantages for peanuts either. All tubeless road tyres are ridiculously expensive and the previous argument about being able to get them at discount just doesn't hold water. You could say the same about any tyre on the market. On your own website this is what you have to say recently:

    So I decided to have a go: spent just over 20 quid for Stans valves and sealant and got on the job. Having tubeless rims help, but I am not interested in tubeless tyres, a little market of uber-expensive rubber, hence I had to make it work with normal clinchers, specifically my beloved Vittoria XN PRO, my gravel and general fun tyre of choice.

    So you don't even use proper tubeless tyres anyway! Also, you have admitted that this can't be done with high pressure road tyres so your argument is fatuous at best.

    If tubeless road tyres ever do come of age and there is the choice of tyre I want to use at a reasonable price (I don't mind paying a premium if it is worthwhile) then I would embrace it. Until that day comes it is an expensive non-issue for me and I suspect the vast majority of cyclists.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    hypster wrote:
    It's not a question of hiding my head in the sand Ugo. If tubeless technology was all it's cracked up to be then there would be a much wider take-up from all manufacturers across the board not just the few you cite. Even the ones at the vanguard such as Hutchinson don't seem to be particularly convinced themselves because they only offer a 4 tubeless road models out of the 17 road tyres they make.

    well, the market is growing, but still small, so they have to sell other products too. As for rims, pretty much all the new crop of alloy rims are tubeless ready. Carbon will follow.
    hypster wrote:
    I don't see how you can say it has a number of advantages for peanuts either. All tubeless road tyres are ridiculously expensive and the previous argument about being able to get them at discount just doesn't hold water. You could say the same about any tyre on the market. On your own website this is what you have to say recently:

    So I decided to have a go: spent just over 20 quid for Stans valves and sealant and got on the job. Having tubeless rims help, but I am not interested in tubeless tyres, a little market of uber-expensive rubber, hence I had to make it work with normal clinchers, specifically my beloved Vittoria XN PRO, my gravel and general fun tyre of choice.

    So you don't even use proper tubeless tyres anyway! Also, you have admitted that this can't be done with high pressure road tyres so your argument is fatuous at best.

    The price is coming down. Hutchinson tyres are probably 10 quid more than the average clincher. Schwalbe are a lot more, admittedly. In the grand scheme of things they're still peanuts... remember lots of people spend thousands for a frame that does the same thing that one that costs 200 quid. I would go for the Hutchinson if I felt the need for higher pressure tyres. I don't, hence I am happy with my conversion for now. I am sure I will try tubeless road at some point not too far in the future.
    hypster wrote:
    If tubeless road tyres ever do come of age and there is the choice of tyre I want to use at a reasonable price (I don't mind paying a premium if it is worthwhile) then I would embrace it. Until that day comes it is an expensive non-issue for me and I suspect the vast majority of cyclists.

    Horses for courses... all the new technologies had some resistance from the public. 5 years ago I was laughed at when I showed up at a club ride with a Genesis Croix de Fer. Now the same people own some form of disc brakes drop bars bike for winter and they are moving on even with their best bikes. Within 5 years it will be a significant chunk of the road market. The thing is that most of those who try tubelss don't seem to be keen to go back, so that must mean something.
    I come from the same place, I was all against it, until I tried for myself and appreciated the benefits. I've not gone full on yet, as my cross tyres are just as fast as a road one. The faff is really minimum and the cost is not prohibitive for anyone other than the ultimate scrimpers out there.
    left the forum March 2023
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    The thing is that most of those who try tubelss don't seem to be keen to go back, so that must mean something.

    I come from the same place, I was all against it, until I tried for myself and appreciated the benefits. I've not gone full on yet, as my cross tyres are just as fast as a road one. The faff is really minimum and the cost is not prohibitive for anyone other than the ultimate scrimpers out there.

    You obviously haven't read a lot of the comments from actual users after this article that magliaceleste linked to earlier in this thread. I suspect the reality is a lot different than the "converted" would have you believe.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ess-40124/
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    hypster wrote:
    You obviously haven't read a lot of the comments from actual users after this article that magliaceleste linked to earlier in this thread. I suspect the reality is a lot different than the "converted" would have you believe.

    http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ess-40124/

    The thing is how many actual users are actual users? You do a lot of talking, but you've not used them. I do a lot of talking, but I have not used road tubeless tyres. I have the feeling a lot of people do a lot of talking without knowing what they are talking about.
    The mess argument is nonsense (and here I know what I am talking about). Fit the tyre, inflate until it pops and then deflate, inject the liquid through the valve, pump the tyre to pressure... allow to spin for a few seconds so that it seals... job done. Where is the mess? I went outside to do the job, but I could have done it inside.
    Mess on the road: if the puncture doesn't seal, it's because the sealant is no longer liquid, so there is no mess. If the tyre doesn't seal because the puncture is too big, then there will be some liquid around, big deal... you should be grateful the tyre stayed on the rim and you're still alive, instead of moaning for having a bit of latex on the gloves.
    There are reports of burst tyres, but in pretty much all cases it's people like me who did their own conversion using inappropriate equipment
    left the forum March 2023
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    hypster wrote:
    All tubeless road tyres are ridiculously expensive and the previous argument about being able to get them at discount just doesn't hold water.
    ...
    If tubeless road tyres ever do come of age and there is the choice of tyre I want to use at a reasonable price (I don't mind paying a premium if it is worthwhile) then I would embrace it. Until that day comes it is an expensive non-issue for me and I suspect the vast majority of cyclists.

    As far as prices go - the Hutchinson Fusion 3s i'm currently using are available for a little over 70 quid a set, the newer Schwalbe One tubeless for a few quid under that. The Schwalbe One is an interesting tyre in that according to their blurb it's their fastest road tyre and they reckon it has lower rolling resistance than the tubed clincher or the tub. Now clearly they're in the market to sell stuff, but it would seem somewhat perverse to go out of their way to promote it over their own offerings of the same tyre if there was not anything good about the tyre.... Anyway, I digress, so - if I had to buy another set now, i'd go for the Schwalbe and that's let's 70 quid for the tyres and the wee bit of sealant needed (that's over-pricing the sealant but hey).

    What do I get for a tubed clincher in the same sort of spec - i'd reckon something around a Michelin Pro4 Service Course or a Vredestein Fortezza Tricomp. Funnily enough, I was pricing up some of the former and they're currently on discount for around 45 to 50 quid a set, add to that a tenner for decent tubes and it's about 55 to 60 quid for the set.

    So for my tubeless vs tubed setup, as i'd spec and buy them, there is roughly 10 or 15 quid a set difference discounting buying extra inner tubes, patches (for either) and / or any extra sealant replaced over their lifetime. For me, and my experiences so far, that is a reasonable price to pay. I've already had two pin-head seals (those are the ones i've noticed) during the commute, which saved me the hassle of patching on the road side, and i've had them for about 3 months worth of riding. I've punctured enough on the routes I use for that commute to believe that's not a totally excessive rate. I also tend to abuse them a lot more than the tubed set I was using, so it's not as though i'm taking it easy with them. If that trend continues, then I consider it a very good choice - for me at least. As it is, I already think i've made a reasonable decision in that i'm buying tangible peace mind and not suffering performance wise for it.

    For me the price is worth it and I don't see it get relatively more expensive in the future; for you it might not work out like that. You can of course continue to ignore what people are saying here, or pretend things are worse than they are, or make up costs to your hearts content, but please also be aware that there are others with valid points of view that don't agree with your assessment, and some of them actually use the things. Are they the saviour of cycling ? No, of course not - but i'd suggest that neither are they something to be dismissed out of hand using tired old clichés and FUD.
  • stanthomas
    stanthomas Posts: 265
    hypster wrote:
    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.
    Well let's look at some numbers...

    In 2011 I bought an Ultegra wheelset (£220), Hutchinson Intensive tyres (£80), Stan's valves (£12) and sealant (£17). That's an outlay of £329 to go tubeless. Driven, as I've said, by frustration at the number of punctures I was picking up, and 3 flats in 2 days was the last straw. Intensives delivered on the punctures but otherwise they were no better than the Conti 4Seasons they replaced.
    So I bought some Hutchinson Fusions to use on my #1 bike. Another £80, running total £409. And I loved these so much I bought an Easton EA90RT wheelset (£450) to run Fusions in summer and Intensive in winter. Running total £859.

    3 years, 14,000kms later. I am still running the same pair of Intensives which have about 8,000kms on them and the rear is just beginning to flatten off. Seems these things last forever! And I've worn out one Fusion and bought another (£30, CRC deal). Running total £889. I wore thru the brake track on the Ultegra wheelset this winter and replaced them with RS61s (£177). Running total £1066.

    So, over three years, Hutchinson have had £190 from me, Shimano £397, Easton £450, Stan's £29. And I don't foresee the need to buy anything more over the coming year.

    Over the same period in the past I would have worn thru two Conti 4Seasons, two Conti GP4000s, several tubes, one or more Mavic Open Pro rims and one or more Ultegra hubs. I'll leave you to add that up, remembering to start with two new wheelsets. And I would have spent hours at the side of the road swapping tubes then patching them when I got home

    I'm paid by the hour and I go out on my bike to ride not mend it. The economics work for me.
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    fukawitribe wrote:
    hypster wrote:
    For me the price is worth it and I don't see it get relatively more expensive in the future; for you it might not work out like that. You can of course continue to ignore what people are saying here, or pretend things are worse than they are, or make up costs to your hearts content, but please also be aware that there are others with valid points of view that don't agree with your assessment, and some of them actually use the things. Are they the saviour of cycling ? No, of course not - but i'd suggest that neither are they something to be dismissed out of hand using tired old clichés and FUD.

    Your replies to magliaceleste earlier in this thread and your attitude in this last paragraph of yours just about sums it up for me. Because you and a few others have had largely positive experiences of using tubeless tyres you refuse to admit that there are a whole raft of others out there who haven't been so lucky and whose experience is wholly different from yours. Because of that fact all you can do is accuse us of ignoring what people are saying when in reality we are weighing up BOTH sides of the argument and deciding that paying any sort of premium for a technology which doesn't completely deliver what it says on the tin is not worth the hassle.

    I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but looking at all the various opinions about the amount of potential problems there still are with tubeless tyres I can say it's not for me at this time. You can of course continue to ignore what people are saying here, or pretend things are better than they are, or make up costs to your hearts content, but please also be aware that there are others with valid points of view that don't agree with your assessment, and some of them actually have used the things AND decided they are expensive crap.
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    hypster wrote:
    Your replies to magliaceleste earlier in this thread and your attitude in this last paragraph of yours just about sums it up for me. Because you and a few others have had largely positive experiences of using tubeless tyres you refuse to admit that there are a whole raft of others out there who haven't been so lucky and whose experience is wholly different from yours. Because of that fact all you can do is accuse us of ignoring what people are saying when in reality we are weighing up BOTH sides of the argument and deciding that paying any sort of premium for a technology which doesn't completely deliver what it says on the tin is not worth the hassle.

    I'm not ignoring them, nor am I hiding the disadvantages i've found - as you might have seen in my previous replies. My point with magliaceleste in the original BR article was that there are not only disadvantages but a mix of pros and cons.
    hypster wrote:
    , but please also be aware that there are others with valid points of view that don't agree with your assessment, and some of them actually have used the things AND decided they are expensive crap.

    I have no problem with that, just that they also accept that others have a differing view and stop shouting them down with unsupported 'facts' , e.g. 'there are no advantages' rather than saying "I didn't work for me".

    With your comments, you appear to have latterly been putting forward the view that you'd try them if you had an affordable choice (the bit about 'spending hundreds' with Hutchinson was a bit silly) - when I simply presented a cost analysis from one point of view, you might have commented on the figures rather than just launch another attack with seemingly nothing to back it up. I have gone out of my way to emphasise that my experiences are personal, but where you have come up with counter-points that can be evaluated (such as cost) I have tried to do so in impartial manner. I'm sorry that's not coming across.

    Anyway - enjoy your view of the world.
  • mmacavity
    mmacavity Posts: 781
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOw-sH15VLU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jix_puHwh8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBa88zZossE

    http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/new ... o-tubeless
  • hypster
    hypster Posts: 1,229
    I'm sold, tubulars it is then!
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    hypster wrote:
    I'm sold, tubulars it is then!

    I do use tubulars too. They have their place and they are the safest tyres to use and the best to ride on. Problem is the choice is even smaller within a sensible price range. Hence they are a luxury!
    Continental Gatorskins are hosepipes, the rest of the range like the excellent Competition is extremely expensive.
    Tufo are hosepipes. Veloflex need a mortgage, same for Challenge... that leaves me with Vittoria CX and Pave' when they are on offer. I have both. Corsa CX Vs Flint is always a puncture, often big enough to require a tyre booth inner patch, which is a couple of hours work. The Pave' work at lower pressure, hence they puncture less and the holes are smaller. You can fix them with a spray can if you are lazy. I can get 2000 miles top out of one of those, often less.
    left the forum March 2023
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    First big flat today... a shard of glass punctured the tyre... sealant sprayed out for a few seconds, then the tyre sealed itself... I was 2 miles from home so didn't bothered topping up the pressure. It was a big cut and I was pretty impressed it sealed (although it lost most of the pressure in the process and was barely rideable). I might have to top up the sealant, or maybe I'll just leave it like that...
    Nice! :D
    left the forum March 2023
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    I thought it would only work with tiny, pinprick-like punctures... boy was I wrong... here's the 3mm beast, sealed!!!! :shock:

    DSC_2782_zpsad39b55d.jpg
    left the forum March 2023
  • fukawitribe
    fukawitribe Posts: 109
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I thought it would only work with tiny, pinprick-like punctures... boy was I wrong... here's the 3mm beast, sealed!!!! :shock:

    Impressive ! Only had pin-prick punctures with them so far, but nice to actually see a larger rip sealed - won't always work I know, but definitely re-assuring. Cheers for the picture.

Categories