Tubeless tyres what are the benefits?

redvision

Don't want this to turn in to a full on debate but just wondering what exactly are the benefits of tubeless tyres?

I have always been happy on clinchers but have heard over and over again from clubmates and friends that tubeless are much better, yet they didn't explain exactly why, only that they feel better.

After watching Shane Miller's experiences with them I am struggling to understand why riders would ditch clinchers for them, but keen to hear experiences from BR members.

Btw here are the Shane miller videos:

https://youtu.be/q6VUdf9U9BY

https://youtu.be/KYBM-WCAcsE

lemonenema

Pros
If used with sealant then they self heal if you get a puncture or small cut. That in itself is a huge benefit especially on longer rides, one less thing to worry about. I use tubeless on my gravel and mtb and no dont carry a spare tube any more unless on a multi day ride.
No risk of pinch flats - unless you hit a pothole so hard it destroys your tyre then no more snakebites - the main cause of punctures for me on a road bike.
Can be lighter than tyre+tube so less revolving weight
More supple - some say that having one less layer of rubber means the tyre deforms better but the main thing for me is you can safely run lower pressures for increased grip and ride comfort as well as reduced rolling resistance especially using a slightly wider tyre (e.g 28vs23)

Cons
Generally more expensive than tyre + tube
More faff if you swap tyres regularly
Im not convinved that the current tubeless tyres are better than clinchers in terms of grip and wear rate - although ive not yet tried the conti Gp5000 due to the price.
There is a new technique to learn to use tubeless tyres, but in general its not that difficult and once you know how to do it its really not a problem - much less faff than repairing a tube roadside.

Conclusion - Im still using tubed clinchers on my road bike because I think the technology isnt quite there yet in comparison to the Michelin Pro4 or Conti GP I regularly use, but when the right combination of price and durability is reached I will be changing over without question.

singleton

I used them for about 15 months / 5000 miles and I really, really wanted them to work, but I've gone back to tubed clinchers.

Pros:
They feel lovely, ride really nicely - maybe similar to a latex tube and good supple clincher.
They need maintenance, but you get to do that indoors at a time of your choosing
Small punctures should heal themselves (with sealant) before you lose too much pressure and the tyre pops off the rim

Cons:
There is not enough of a standard - so the tyres can be either very, very difficult to get onto the rim, or, of they go on easily then they can be difficult to seat on the rim.
If you do get a roadside puncture - it's harder to mend. If the tyre comes off the rim you probably won't get it back on at the roadside, so you'll need to put a tube in - which can be a nightmare if you have a tight tyre combination.

I spent 15 months doing regular top-ups of sealant and hoping that I wouldn't get a roadside puncture. A mate did get a catastrophic roadside puncture and it was very difficult and messy to fix.

JBVRV

Another big pro for me is that larger punctures (those that don't seal themselves) can be fixed without taking the wheel off - just stick a plug in and off you go. Often don't even have to pump the tyre up if you catch it quickly enough.

cycleclinic

comfort, tyres can be repaired externally often permentaly with plugs, grip, rolling resistance...

cons well none so long as you have a proper tubeless setup rather than a semi tubeless setup. Think of how car tyre behave when you flat a bicycle tyre should remain firmly seated.

Of course this all means new tricks. they do cost more though however tubeless tyres last me lnoger than tubed tyres so they are paying for themsleves.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/prod ... rly-406530

lincolndave

I have been running tubeless on all of my bikes for 2. 2 1/2 years, at first I was a bit sceptical (but after reading certain posts on here, the positive posts about tubeless tyres )
I soon realised the benefits, different tyres for winter and summer use as you would with clinchers , and installing the tyres correctly you cannot go far wrong
I must admit I still do carry an inner tube round as once I had a puncture which left a 4 mm split in the tyre , so the inner tube was fitted along with a gel packet which was inside the tyre as a tyre boot I managed to cycle the 14 miles home,
If you remember to top up the sealants when required, running the tyres at a lower pressure means more comfort especially on Lincolnshire’s crappy roads
Besides that I will not be going back to clinchers any time soon,

angry_bird

Been running tubeless for a few months, my experiences are limited to conti, in those months I had one puncture on a GP5000 which sealed itself nicely. In that time I’ve ridden identical wheel sets with GP4000S and 4 Seasons. I’ve not yet ridden the 5000 clincher but others have as direct comparisons.

The conclusions we’ve reached. The tubeless, while more of an effort to set up do roll and feel better, and we feel much less concerned about pinching, going off-road, riding through general crap/hedge trimmings etc.

I’ll probabaly continue to ride them until summer when hopefully chances of puncturing are lower, then I may swap back to clinchers, or maybe not, depends on costs and wear rates.

sloppyschleckonds

You have to buy an inflation device
Ideally a new hand pump that doesn't screw/ unscrew valve cores
Co2 just incase a tyre unseats
Copious amounts of rim tape, just to be sure
Tubeless rims/ wheels
More sealant as it evaporates sooner than everyone says
Did I mention tubeless specific valves
Specific tubeless tyre levers, so you dont er, cause any damage to the bead
More expensive tyres £ for £
Less choice of tyre availability
Those worm/ plug thingies and insertion device
Probably need to carry a spare tube as well

drlodge

I think a lot of the issues noted above come down to the choice of tyres/rim and how the tyres are put on and maintained. The overriding disadvantage with tubeless in my view, is that a lot more thought has to go into the selection of tyres, rims, worms etc and how the tyres are fixed/maintained including application of rim tape. Get that right, which is not straight forward, and the Pros out weigh the negatives. If you can get that right or don't care to put in the time beforehand, stick with tubed tyres.

StillGoing

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

You have to buy an inflation device
Ideally a new hand pump that doesn't screw/ unscrew valve cores
Co2 just incase a tyre unseats
Copious amounts of rim tape, just to be sure
Tubeless rims/ wheels
More sealant as it evaporates sooner than everyone says
Did I mention tubeless specific valves
Specific tubeless tyre levers, so you dont er, cause any damage to the bead
More expensive tyres £ for £
Less choice of tyre availability
Those worm/ plug thingies and insertion device
Probably need to carry a spare tube as well

My experience using Mavic Cosmic Pro carbon and Yksion Pro UST and Prime wheels and Hutchinson Tubeless.

Both inflated perfectly using a standard foot pump.
I carried a pump and CO2 canisters when riding clinchers so no difference.
The rim tape on the wheels has worked perfectly so no need for additional rim tape.
Yep tubeless tyres on tubeless rims, but plenty have converted their clincher rims. Their risk though.
I used sealant with my clinchers so no change with tubeless.
Tubeless valves came with the tyres.
Yes they're currently more expensive, but not by much.
Choice is getting better now road bikes have evolved to tubeless.
The worm plugs are a bonus allowing you to seal larger punctures at the roadside without needing to remove the wheel and insert an inner tube.
I carried a spare inner tube when riding clinchers so no difference.

singleton

drlodge wrote:

I think a lot of the issues noted above come down to the choice of tyres/rim ....... Get that right, which is not straight forward, and the Pros out weigh the negatives.

thecycleclinic wrote:

so long as you have a proper tubeless setup rather than a semi tubeless setup

I concluded something very similar when I was trying some different combinations, and it seems that the people ho have good experiences do so with specific combinations.

The issue is that it is difficult to know what will work and what won't - there are not enough good standards which make it all a bit hit-and-miss.

The benefits of road tubeless are listed as being:
No pinch flats,
Self sealing small flats when they happen,
Lighter as there is no tube,
More comfort,
Better Rolling resistance as there is no tube.

In truth, I don't believe that you can get all of these at the same time - along with something that is reliable.

redvision

Some really interesting replies.

From reading the comments and peoples experiences i think i will definitely stick with clinchers as i don't think i would have the patience it sounds like you need getting the tubeless tyres installed.

Tyresome

You don’t get pinch flats, so you can run much lower pressures than with a normal set up, meaning better comfort. In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

imposter2.0

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

I take it that that is MM in one of his other incarnations?

redvision wrote:

Some really interesting replies.

From reading the comments and peoples experiences i think i will definitely stick with clinchers as i don't think i would have the patience it sounds like you need getting the tubeless tyres installed.

They're no different to putting a clincher on in my experience. Things have evolved in a short time with road tubeless and tubeless wheels and they're now building tubeless tyres to a common diameter to ease fitting. Initially, manufacturers just made tubeless tyres with no thought of the user getting the bead over the rim. Mavic and Hutchinson now make tubeless tyres to match the rim diameter, with other manufacturers also coming to the same conclusion. I think Schwalbe and Conti have the same approach.

https://youtu.be/ALVtgcY1YeM

Tyresome

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

I take it that that is MM in one of his other incarnations?

redvision wrote:

Some really interesting replies.

From reading the comments and peoples experiences i think i will definitely stick with clinchers as i don't think i would have the patience it sounds like you need getting the tubeless tyres installed.

They're no different to putting a clincher on in my experience. Things have evolved in a short time with road tubeless and tubeless wheels and they're now building tubeless tyres to a common diameter to ease fitting. Initially, manufacturers just made tubeless tyres with no thought of the user getting the bead over the rim. Mavic and Hutchinson now make tubeless tyres to match the rim diameter, with other manufacturers also coming to the same conclusion. I think Schwalbe and Conti have the same approach.

https://youtu.be/ALVtgcY1YeM

They are very different. They often fail to seat without a charge pump. If they do that, you’ll end up using an inner tube, you’ll need to get the tubeless valve out to fit that. That’s a mare in the dark, during the winter months.

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

I take it that that is MM in one of his other incarnations?

Yes. The king of internet trolls is back again...

joe_totale-2

Tyresome wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

I take it that that is MM in one of his other incarnations?

redvision wrote:

Some really interesting replies.

From reading the comments and peoples experiences i think i will definitely stick with clinchers as i don't think i would have the patience it sounds like you need getting the tubeless tyres installed.

They're no different to putting a clincher on in my experience. Things have evolved in a short time with road tubeless and tubeless wheels and they're now building tubeless tyres to a common diameter to ease fitting. Initially, manufacturers just made tubeless tyres with no thought of the user getting the bead over the rim. Mavic and Hutchinson now make tubeless tyres to match the rim diameter, with other manufacturers also coming to the same conclusion. I think Schwalbe and Conti have the same approach.

https://youtu.be/ALVtgcY1YeM

They are very different. They often fail to seat without a charge pump. If they do that, you’ll end up using an inner tube, you’ll need to get the tubeless valve out to fit that. That’s a mare in the dark, during the winter months.

LOL. If a tubeless tyre unseats as a result of a puncture which it shouldn't do if it's on a tubeless ready rim then you use a CO2 canister to seat it back.
I imagine though that your backpack contains an air compressor inside it, hence it's 40kg weight.

Tyresome

Joe Totale wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

I take it that that is MM in one of his other incarnations?

redvision wrote:

Some really interesting replies.

From reading the comments and peoples experiences i think i will definitely stick with clinchers as i don't think i would have the patience it sounds like you need getting the tubeless tyres installed.

They're no different to putting a clincher on in my experience. Things have evolved in a short time with road tubeless and tubeless wheels and they're now building tubeless tyres to a common diameter to ease fitting. Initially, manufacturers just made tubeless tyres with no thought of the user getting the bead over the rim. Mavic and Hutchinson now make tubeless tyres to match the rim diameter, with other manufacturers also coming to the same conclusion. I think Schwalbe and Conti have the same approach.

https://youtu.be/ALVtgcY1YeM

They are very different. They often fail to seat without a charge pump. If they do that, you’ll end up using an inner tube, you’ll need to get the tubeless valve out to fit that. That’s a mare in the dark, during the winter months.

LOL. If a tubeless tyre unseats as a result of a puncture which it shouldn't do if it's on a tubeless ready rim then you use a CO2 canister to seat it back.
I imagine though that your backpack contains an air compressor inside it, hence it's 40kg weight.

CO2 inflators. may work to reseat the tubeless tyre, but in my considerabke experience, they won’t. They’ll just end up blowing the tyre off the rim.

imposter2.0

Tyresome wrote:

CO2 inflators. may work to reseat the tubeless tyre, but in my considerabke experience, they won’t. They’ll just end up blowing the tyre off the rim.

Says the guy who's never actually used tubeless...or a CO2 inflator by the sound of it...

joe_totale-2

Tyresome wrote:

Joe Totale wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

I take it that that is MM in one of his other incarnations?

redvision wrote:

Some really interesting replies.

From reading the comments and peoples experiences i think i will definitely stick with clinchers as i don't think i would have the patience it sounds like you need getting the tubeless tyres installed.

They're no different to putting a clincher on in my experience. Things have evolved in a short time with road tubeless and tubeless wheels and they're now building tubeless tyres to a common diameter to ease fitting. Initially, manufacturers just made tubeless tyres with no thought of the user getting the bead over the rim. Mavic and Hutchinson now make tubeless tyres to match the rim diameter, with other manufacturers also coming to the same conclusion. I think Schwalbe and Conti have the same approach.

https://youtu.be/ALVtgcY1YeM

They are very different. They often fail to seat without a charge pump. If they do that, you’ll end up using an inner tube, you’ll need to get the tubeless valve out to fit that. That’s a mare in the dark, during the winter months.

LOL. If a tubeless tyre unseats as a result of a puncture which it shouldn't do if it's on a tubeless ready rim then you use a CO2 canister to seat it back.
I imagine though that your backpack contains an air compressor inside it, hence it's 40kg weight.

CO2 inflators. may work to reseat the tubeless tyre, but in my considerabke experience, they won’t. They’ll just end up blowing the tyre off the rim.

:roll:

In my considerable experience of road tubeless this has never, ever happened. Were you using a CO2 fire extinguisher?

imposter2.0

Tyresome

Joe Totale wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

Joe Totale wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

In all other respects, they are a liability on a road bike, a great thing on a MTB though YMMV.

Liability? You don't know what you're talking about. Although to be fair, anyone who knows your history on here would already understand that..

I take it that that is MM in one of his other incarnations?

redvision wrote:

Some really interesting replies.

From reading the comments and peoples experiences i think i will definitely stick with clinchers as i don't think i would have the patience it sounds like you need getting the tubeless tyres installed.

They're no different to putting a clincher on in my experience. Things have evolved in a short time with road tubeless and tubeless wheels and they're now building tubeless tyres to a common diameter to ease fitting. Initially, manufacturers just made tubeless tyres with no thought of the user getting the bead over the rim. Mavic and Hutchinson now make tubeless tyres to match the rim diameter, with other manufacturers also coming to the same conclusion. I think Schwalbe and Conti have the same approach.

https://youtu.be/ALVtgcY1YeM

They are very different. They often fail to seat without a charge pump. If they do that, you’ll end up using an inner tube, you’ll need to get the tubeless valve out to fit that. That’s a mare in the dark, during the winter months.

LOL. If a tubeless tyre unseats as a result of a puncture which it shouldn't do if it's on a tubeless ready rim then you use a CO2 canister to seat it back.
I imagine though that your backpack contains an air compressor inside it, hence it's 40kg weight.

CO2 inflators. may work to reseat the tubeless tyre, but in my considerabke experience, they won’t. They’ll just end up blowing the tyre off the rim.

:roll:

In my considerable experience of road tubeless this has never, ever happened. Were you using a CO2 fire extinguisher?

It’s a fair point, it depends on how cold / wet it is as well. I tried tubeless for about 3 months last year in the winter, and they were a nightmare YMMV.

imposter2.0

Tyresome wrote:

I tried tubeless for about 3 months last year in the winter, and they were a nightmare YMMV.

So much for 'considerable' experience, ffs...you just keep on lying, until you get found out... :roll: :roll:

zest28

Pro:
- Rolls faster
- More durable / puncture resistant
- More comfortable

Cons:
- You have to pump them up every week or so as they do loose pressure over time.
- Costs more

Tubeless is by far the best setup if you don't mind pump your tyres up more than usual.

Tyresome

Zest28 wrote:

Pro:

- Rolls faster

Depends on the tyre.

Zest28 wrote:

- More durable / puncture resistant

Not at all in my experience. They still puncture, and if it’s significant in size ( more than about 5 mm) the sealant won’t help, and then you’ve got a massive ball ache on your hands. Add to that, that even a small puncture will result in significant loss of pressure, which you almost certainly won’t notice, until the next corner ( especially if it’s dark ) and you have another issue.

Zest28 wrote:

- More comfortable

Usually because of the lower pressures you can use because you can’t pinch flat, but it’s of little consequence compared to the benefit of this bit on a mountain bike.

Zest28 wrote:

Cons:
- You have to pump them up every week or so as they do loose pressure over time.
- Costs more

You’ve missed out the fact that the sealant dries out over time, which it does, rendering the whole system useless

Zest28 wrote:

Tubeless is by far the best setup if you don't mind pump your tyres up more than usual.

On a mountain bike, certainly, on a road bike, it’s just a cracking job done by the snake oil salesmen that are pervasive in the cycle industry.

imposter2.0

Tyresome wrote:

On a mountain bike, certainly, on a road bike, it’s just a cracking job done by the snake oil salesmen that are pervasive in the cycle industry.

Says the clown who's ridden tubeless for three months, or probably less. Really don't know how you manage to keep up this absurd pretence to knowledge...

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

Tyresome wrote:

On a mountain bike, certainly, on a road bike, it’s just a cracking job done by the snake oil salesmen that are pervasive in the cycle industry.

Says the clown who's ridden tubeless for three months, or probably less. Really don't know how you manage to keep up this absurd pretence to knowledge...

https://gfycat.com/scratchyinsignificantcrocodileskink

OnTheRopes

I turned up at the meet point for a ride today and one guy was on tubeless, he was just telling me how great they were when he noticed his tyre was low and signs of white sealant. No easy way to fix it apparently so he had to go home.
I have never ridden them but i think I will stick with clinchers.

Tyresome

OnTheRopes wrote:

I turned up at the meet point for a ride today and one guy was on tubeless, he was just telling me how great they were when he noticed his tyre was low and signs of white sealant. No easy way to fix it apparently so he had to go home.
I have never ridden them but i think I will stick with clinchers.

That’s poetry in motion. Exactly what I was alluding to, demonstrated.

imposter2.0

Tyresome wrote:

OnTheRopes wrote:

I turned up at the meet point for a ride today and one guy was on tubeless, he was just telling me how great they were when he noticed his tyre was low and signs of white sealant. No easy way to fix it apparently so he had to go home.
I have never ridden them but i think I will stick with clinchers.

That’s poetry in motion. Exactly what I was alluding to, demonstrated.

If you read your own posts (which you obviously never do), that's actually nothing like what you were alluding to...