Tubeless in the pro ranks

Andymaxy · June 2018

Ryan_W wrote:

Tubeless are heavier and have a higher rolling resistance compared to top line clinchers with latex tubes.

The tires themselves are not heavier, it's the wheels that needs to be heavier.
In terms of rolling resistance tubeless IS the BEST.

Vino'sGhost · June 2018

Nicely aged tub. Expertly glued. A thing of beauty. V technology looking for a home.

Response to tubeless has been mixed, they’re def a faff and punctures are not a thing of the past. Round here where there a flints that cut tyre walls tubeless riders are a right pain, it takes ages to sort and that’s if it can be sorted. Frequently there’s a call for a lift.

Mostly it’s newer riders that buy the nirvana story which makes the mechanical faffing even worse. Mountain bikers love em, but the ones I know that ride on the road don’t rate them because of the associates faff.

Pross · June 2018

ddraver wrote:

As much as I like Tubeless tyres, if I had a dude in a car with a bunch of wheels behind me I'd probably not bother either...

That said, I ve become totally convinced that UK roads are simply not made for road bikes any more so I'd advise people to buy a "gravel" bike. More sensible wide and tubeless tyres, wheels and riding position all round. Plus hopefully someone will put a sensible sodding gearset on one (say...46/32) so that hills are fun for normal people!!

If you are part of the 0.00001%* of UK cyclists that race, then maybe buy a race bike but if not? Save it for the countries where they make roads properly

(rant over, I confess I ve been looking for an excuse to get that off my chest for a few days now)

*statistics may be totally made up

How does a gravel bike vary from a CX bike? As for gearing, my CX has 48/36 and a long cage rear mech so that should provide the option for low enough gearing for anyone surely? Failing that, get a tourer with a triple and it will also allow clearance for a decent sized tyre. Gravel bikes seem to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, I've never quite seen the point. As for UK roads, I still generally ride with 25mm or even 23mm tyres at 90-100psi and in probably 80-90% of cases I don't find the surface an issue. When I do see sections of road that are a problem the potholes tend to be so bad that I'd want an MTB with suspension to risk riding through them.

topper_harley · June 2018

I use tubeless on my giant TCR, love them.....survived the Scottish roads well

DeVlaeminck · June 2018

Pross wrote:

How does a gravel bike vary from a CX bike? As for gearing, my CX has 48/36 and a long cage rear mech so that should provide the option for low enough gearing for anyone surely? Failing that, get a tourer with a triple and it will also allow clearance for a decent sized tyre. Gravel bikes seem to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, I've never quite seen the point. As for UK roads, I still generally ride with 25mm or even 23mm tyres at 90-100psi and in probably 80-90% of cases I don't find the surface an issue. When I do see sections of road that are a problem the potholes tend to be so bad that I'd want an MTB with suspension to risk riding through them.

I call my CdF a gravel bike because it's got disc brakes and big tyres but it's in no way a CX bike because it weights a ton and has quite a long wheelbase - in short it's not built for racing.

There is a legitimate question why not just get a CX bike - it'd be a fair question - I used an old Empella 'cross bike before the CdF for the same sort of riding - the CdF is definitely less lively - it doesn't make you feel like sprinting over small rises - it's a bit of a tank - on the other hand you do feel a bit more relaxed on it - because it takes so much effort to actually make that much weight accelerate you tend to just go with it and roll along at more of a constant pace. Now I know some gravel bikes are much lighter and are more gravel race bikes - maybe that's another sub category ?!

Having said all that on a local climb I did catch and pass some guy 20 years younger than me on his carbon race bike this evening - things like that are sweeter when you have 35mm tyres on - albeit much less frequent !

ryan_w-2 · June 2018

Andymaxy wrote:

Ryan_W wrote:

Tubeless are heavier and have a higher rolling resistance compared to top line clinchers with latex tubes.

The tires themselves are not heavier, it's the wheels that needs to be heavier.
In terms of rolling resistance tubeless IS the BEST.

This is 100% wrong.

25c Schwalbe Pro Ones are IRO 260g.
Tubeless valve - 7g each
30ml sealant - 30g
Total - 297g
11.0w rolling resistance

25c Continental GP4K IRO 215g.
Super light latex tube - 60g
Rim tape - 5g
Total - 280g
10.6w rolling resistance

And as for tubeless wheels weighing more than non-tubeless, that is also incorrect.

Thank you for your input.

thegreatdivide · June 2018

Like disc brakes and 1x it's pointless to the Pros. To the mugs and their wallets it's the next big thing.

ryan_w-2 · June 2018

thegreatdivide wrote:

Like disc brakes and 1x it's pointless to the Pros. To the mugs and their wallets it's the next big thing.

I run 25c Conti’s w/latex tubes on my S5 and 38c SKs on my commuter (discs & 1x too).

Both have their place and both have their perks.

I would only run tubeless and discs on my all season commuter.

thegreatdivide · June 2018

Ryan_W wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

Like disc brakes and 1x it's pointless to the Pros. To the mugs and their wallets it's the next big thing.

I run 25c Conti’s w/latex tubes on my S5 and 38c SKs on my commuter (discs & 1x too).

Both have their place and both have their perks.

I would only run tubeless and discs on my all season commuter.

I'm including myself in the 'mugs' category btw.

ddraver · June 2018

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

stuff

reply to stuff

I think Pross has a point about...erm...US cross bikes. However no one could ride a Ridley CX bike and say it was the same as a road bike (only rode one round the car park and it was bloomin' terrifying, probably why KP is so boring)

Spesh, on the other hand, just say buy the Crux for either...

rick_chasey · June 2018

U.K. roads are fine DD what you mean?

ddraver · June 2018

Pah! Spend 5 years in your father land where the fietspads are laid with irons then come back and say that!

A summer in the Alps won't help you neither. Man even the stupid tiny cols roads they made me drive up were better serviced than the lanes round 'ere #ToryAusterity

cycleclinic · June 2018

I am not convinced any more that the simple rolling resistance tests give a meaningful comparison between tyres when ridden in normal roads.

One problem with crr tests I tyre volume affects rolling resistance so take a two 25mm tyres they both have different head to head distance so inflate to differing volumes and some of the difference seen will be due to the differing sir volumes. The effect is fairly big.

Also different tyres perform differently aerodynamically. Smooth tyres tend to get turbulent air sooner than tyres with tread. Tyres with tread on the side wall are even better on theory as the tread pattern allows a boundary layer of slower moving air to form and the faster moving air further out moves easily if air and becomes turbulent later, lowering drag and increasing stall angle. This effect is real too and is worth a few watts at speed.

Rim width and tyre width is important too. So going by rolling resistance test alone is misleading and too simplistic. If some one can give lots of money and time I will happily get the tests done.
Why stop at 35mm tyres. Go the full hog with a 29er+ wheel set.

DeVlaeminck · June 2018

thecycleclinic wrote:

I am not convinced any more that the simple rolling resistance tests give a meaningful comparison between tyres when ridden in normal roads.

One problem with crr tests I tyre volume affects rolling resistance so take a two 25mm tyres they both have different head to head distance so inflate to differing volumes and some of the difference seen will be due to the differing sir volumes. The effect is fairly big.

Also different tyres perform differently aerodynamically. Smooth tyres tend to get turbulent air sooner than tyres with tread. Tyres with tread on the side wall are even better on theory as the tread pattern allows a boundary layer of slower moving air to form and the faster moving air further out moves easily if air and becomes turbulent later, lowering drag and increasing stall angle. This effect is real too and is worth a few watts at speed.

Rim width and tyre width is important too. So going by rolling resistance test alone is misleading and too simplistic. If some one can give lots of money and time I will happily get the tests done.
Why stop at 35mm tyres. Go the full hog with a 29er+ wheel set.

Surely it's possible to test for rolling resistance and control for variables such as tread, rim width etc etc fairly easily - a badly constructed test of anything will give unreliable results.

Andymaxy · June 2018

Ryan_W wrote:

Andymaxy wrote:

Ryan_W wrote:

Tubeless are heavier and have a higher rolling resistance compared to top line clinchers with latex tubes.

The tires themselves are not heavier, it's the wheels that needs to be heavier.
In terms of rolling resistance tubeless IS the BEST.

This is 100% wrong.

25c Schwalbe Pro Ones are IRO 260g.
Tubeless valve - 7g each
30ml sealant - 30g
Total - 297g
11.0w rolling resistance

25c Continental GP4K IRO 215g.
Super light latex tube - 60g
Rim tape - 5g
Total - 280g
10.6w rolling resistance

And as for tubeless wheels weighing more than non-tubeless, that is also incorrect.

Thank you for your input.

You compared one SPECIFIC tire to another SPECIFIC tire, and jumped to the comparison that tubeless are worse in terms of both weight and rolling resistance compared to other systems. That just hilarious.

Even then, you are still wrong. The best tubeless setup is vittoria corsa speed open tlr. 225 grams and roll at 7.7 watts.

On the wheels side, wheels are now generally tubeless and tubes conpatible, back when tubeless just started, rims designed for just tubes are lighter.

As far as weight goes, all parts on a clincher is rotational weight, on tubeless he sealant always stay at the bottom. Effectively, it's a lot lighter.

inseine · June 2018

As far as weight goes, all parts on a clincher is rotational weight, on tubeless he sealant always stay at the bottom. Effectively, it's a lot lighter.

If that's true, it's amazing.

StillGoing · June 2018

I've ridden my tubeless in wet and dry conditions, over newly graveled roads in the wet and dry and not a problem. As previously posted, they went on without problem and inflated using a track pump. Have I had a puncture? Not that I'm aware of and if I have, the sealant is obviously doing its job.

diplodicus · June 2018

Andymaxy wrote:

As far as weight goes, all parts on a clincher is rotational weight, on tubeless he sealant always stay at the bottom. Effectively, it's a lot lighter.

Have you a link to a study to show this?

Pross · June 2018

Sorry, have to say it - it’s a tyre, tire is what I do when cycling a few miles!!!

ShutupJens · June 2018

diplodicus wrote:

Andymaxy wrote:

As far as weight goes, all parts on a clincher is rotational weight, on tubeless he sealant always stay at the bottom. Effectively, it's a lot lighter.

Have you a link to a study to show this?

Fairly well skeptical about this too, haven't seen anything to disprove the idea that weight close to the rim adds to rotational weight and slows you down

milemuncher1 · June 2018

Tubulars are the best option, if you have support. The main advantage of tubeless is having no inner tube to pinch flat, so you can vary pressures a lot more. If you have a support car with spare wheels / bikes, there’s no point in not running tubulars.

ben@31 · June 2018

thecycleclinic wrote:

I am not convinced any more that the simple rolling resistance tests give a meaningful comparison between tyres when ridden in normal roads.

One problem with crr tests I tyre volume affects rolling resistance so take a two 25mm tyres they both have different head to head distance so inflate to differing volumes and some of the difference seen will be due to the differing sir volumes. The effect is fairly big.

Also different tyres perform differently aerodynamically. Smooth tyres tend to get turbulent air sooner than tyres with tread. Tyres with tread on the side wall are even better on theory as the tread pattern allows a boundary layer of slower moving air to form and the faster moving air further out moves easily if air and becomes turbulent later, lowering drag and increasing stall angle. This effect is real too and is worth a few watts at speed.

Rim width and tyre width is important too. So going by rolling resistance test alone is misleading and too simplistic. If some one can give lots of money and time I will happily get the tests done.
Why stop at 35mm tyres. Go the full hog with a 29er+ wheel set.

How much difference are we talking here... 1% ? 0.1% ?

Is it really noticeable in the real world?

I've used a whole plethora of clincher tyre makes and models and I can't feel much difference, if any, between them.

Andymaxy · June 2018

ShutupJens wrote:

diplodicus wrote:

Andymaxy wrote:

As far as weight goes, all parts on a clincher is rotational weight, on tubeless he sealant always stay at the bottom. Effectively, it's a lot lighter.

Have you a link to a study to show this?

Fairly well skeptical about this too, haven't seen anything to disprove the idea that weight close to the rim adds to rotational weight and slows you down

It wouldn't slow you down when you are holding a steady speed, but it leads to slower acceleration.

diplodicus · June 2018

I meant the claim that the sealant stays at the bottom while riding along. This is what I find hard to believe.

Is there some sort of evidence or is it an opinion?

bobmcstuff · June 2018

diplodicus wrote:

I meant the claim that the sealant stays at the bottom while riding along. This is what I find hard to believe.

Is there some sort of evidence or is it an opinion?

Yeah, if cycling at 20-30kmh the tyre will be rotating with quite some speed. I don't see the sealant staying at the bottom.

DeVlaeminck · June 2018

I think we can discount that can't we ?

Vino'sGhost · June 2018

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I think we can discount that can't we ?

On the basis that it’s b ollocks ? YES

rick_chasey · June 2018

ben@31 wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

I am not convinced any more that the simple rolling resistance tests give a meaningful comparison between tyres when ridden in normal roads.

One problem with crr tests I tyre volume affects rolling resistance so take a two 25mm tyres they both have different head to head distance so inflate to differing volumes and some of the difference seen will be due to the differing sir volumes. The effect is fairly big.

Also different tyres perform differently aerodynamically. Smooth tyres tend to get turbulent air sooner than tyres with tread. Tyres with tread on the side wall are even better on theory as the tread pattern allows a boundary layer of slower moving air to form and the faster moving air further out moves easily if air and becomes turbulent later, lowering drag and increasing stall angle. This effect is real too and is worth a few watts at speed.

Rim width and tyre width is important too. So going by rolling resistance test alone is misleading and too simplistic. If some one can give lots of money and time I will happily get the tests done.
Why stop at 35mm tyres. Go the full hog with a 29er+ wheel set.

How much difference are we talking here... 1% ? 0.1% ?

Is it really noticeable in the real world?

I've used a whole plethora of clincher tyre makes and models and I can't feel much difference, if any, between them.

Go read up on how meticulous Contador was about his kit.

ryan_w-2 · June 2018

Andymaxy wrote:

Ryan_W wrote:

Andymaxy wrote:

Ryan_W wrote:

Tubeless are heavier and have a higher rolling resistance compared to top line clinchers with latex tubes.

The tires themselves are not heavier, it's the wheels that needs to be heavier.
In terms of rolling resistance tubeless IS the BEST.

This is 100% wrong.

25c Schwalbe Pro Ones are IRO 260g.
Tubeless valve - 7g each
30ml sealant - 30g
Total - 297g
11.0w rolling resistance

25c Continental GP4K IRO 215g.
Super light latex tube - 60g
Rim tape - 5g
Total - 280g
10.6w rolling resistance

And as for tubeless wheels weighing more than non-tubeless, that is also incorrect.

Thank you for your input.

You compared one SPECIFIC tire to another SPECIFIC tire, and jumped to the comparison that tubeless are worse in terms of both weight and rolling resistance compared to other systems. That just hilarious.

Even then, you are still wrong. The best tubeless setup is vittoria corsa speed open tlr. 225 grams and roll at 7.7 watts.

On the wheels side, wheels are now generally tubeless and tubes conpatible, back when tubeless just started, rims designed for just tubes are lighter.

As far as weight goes, all parts on a clincher is rotational weight, on tubeless he sealant always stay at the bottom. Effectively, it's a lot lighter.

You are full of absolute shite.

I compared the ‘go to’ tyres for many choosing either clinchers or tubeless.

The Vittoria is a fragile TT tyre that wouldn’t stand a chance on 99.9% of roads, essentially a track use only tyre.

And your physics chat about rotational weight is hilarious.

What about the internal friction and drag the sealant has on the tyre? Please explain that one to me in layman’s terms.

FYI, I’ve been running tubeless for years as well as traditional clinchers and tubes.

Andymaxy · June 2018

bobmcstuff wrote:

diplodicus wrote:

I meant the claim that the sealant stays at the bottom while riding along. This is what I find hard to believe.

Is there some sort of evidence or is it an opinion?

Yeah, if cycling at 20-30kmh the tyre will be rotating with quite some speed. I don't see the sealant staying at the bottom.

At that point it doesn't matter. Weight matters only during acceleration. When you are slow, and trying to get up to speed that's when you need light weight the most, and that's when the sealant is sure to be at the bottom of the tire. Once you are up to that speed, the weight doesn't matter anymore.

Tubeless in the pro ranks

Comments

Categories