To tubeless or not to tubeless

[Brucey]

There is an assumption at work that if there were a significant (from a safety perspective) problem with tubeless (or presumably any tyre) then 'you would hear about it'.

I very much doubt that to be the case.  Firstly, products that are defective enough to be withdrawn from sale often have very low failure rates, but if the consequence might be serious, then the risk x consequence value becomes unacceptably high anyway. Tyres ought to be in that category if they are at any risk of spontaneous failure that cannot always be predicted (which I think might be the case in this instance). Most of the users will have no idea that the product is faulty.

Secondly the mechanism of feedback and (particularly with tyres) the diagnosis of failure modes and the way the manufacturer hears/deals with it is not as you might suppose.  For example suppose a manufacturer makes a bad batch of tyres, in a factory far away, and it doesn't get picked up before the tyres were shipped. They sit on a boat and they are then landed in Europe and distributed to the four corners.  Arriving in the UK, they then go on to wholesalers and thence onto retailers.

Joe Bloggs buys the tyres and fits them. They seem to be OK at first but they soon fail. He contacts the retailer. The retailer may choose to do one of two things.

- tell the customer that they did something to the tyres and that is why they failed. They may or may not have the tyres to return through the supply chain in the event that the customer goes away vowing never to return to that  shop etc
- they admit wholly or in part that they tyres were faulty and take them back.

In the latter case they have the tyres but
a) they might not bother to return them to the wholesaler and just chuck them in the bin (they would certainly do this with an inner tube, without doubt)
b) they might return them to the wholesaler and they throw them in the bin
c) they might get right back through the retail chain to the importer, who then refuses any warranty claim and throws them in the bin
d) they might get back to the importer who passes them on to the manufacturer who then blames the user and throws them in the bin

and so forth.  At all stages in the chain folk are incentivised to spend as little time on it as possible and to refuse any warranty claims because it costs them both time and money. It is easiest to chuck 'em in the bin even if it means eating the cost, if this event is only occasional and it means you keep a customer. In any event other punters using the same product are unlikely to hear about it.   In some cases I am sure that the manufacturer knows there is a problem but they won't even admit it to themselves, so that in the event that someone dies in some horrible accident, they have a level of 'plausible deniability'. You can bet that in the event of faulty goods being returned, those parts are likely to be destroyed PDQ, as part of some needlessly frequent 'routine housekeeping', rather than kept as some potentially damning evidence.

If the failure occurs in service when the conditions are such that not all users are affected, one might assume that there isn't a problem of any kind, or that it affects only a small percentage of the whole. This could mean that something that is in fact consistently faulty continues to be sold.

Now you might think this is all far fetched, and couldn't possibly happen. 

You would be wrong.

A major tyre manufacturer has quite recently produced batches of tyres where every single one was faulty.  It wasn't at first known that there was a problem of any kind, and failures were blamed on user error. Eventually the problem was both known and understood. Under certain conditions the tyres would definitely fail. But other users fitted the tyres and used them under slightly different conditions and they (miraculously) usually worked OK.  Eventually (a year or eighteen months after the fault first appeared) a simple test was devised whereby the fault could be diagnosed in a non-invasive fashion.  I checked stocks of tyres in several retailers and they were all faulty and all still on sale, recently supplied by the manufacturer/distributor. The manufacturer/distributor must have known that the problem existed by then, it was fairly widely reported. I advised several retailers to return the tyres and not to accept any that did not pass the test.   They were replaced in short order by tyres that were manufactured correctly and didn't manifest the same fault.

This strongly suggests that the manufacturer/distributor was still prepared to sell tyres that they knew to be faulty, which is a complete disgrace.   FWIW a faulty tyre could usually pass any pressure test etc immediately after it was fitted, and yet the fault could later manifest itself by the tyre blowing off the rim without any warning;  i.e. it was about as bad a fault as you could possibly have in a tyre.

The manufacturer concerned also makes tubeless bicycle tyres. Needless to say I am somewhat sceptical that they can consistently make those to the required standards, and that in the event of a systematic problem they will deal with it properly.

[Hot Flatus]

Just goes to show how dangerous tubed tyres are.

Besides, the assumption is not that you would hear about defective tyres, but that you would hear about the impact of this from cyclists. Unless we are all riding around on ticking time-bombs...

Anyway,  to bring this back to reality...anybody had any issues with tubeless tyres? Anyone?

[rafletcher]

A major tyre manufacturer has quite recently produced batches of tyres where every single one was faulty.....

The manufacturer concerned also makes tubeless bicycle tyres.

So these were not faulty bicycle tyres? And why not name the company - I would assume Continental but I guess Pirelli are a possibility?

ETA all I (well Google) could turn up was this, relating to HGV tyres.

https://www.commercialmotor.com/news/continental-recalls-12-000-possibly-defective-tyres

[zigzag]

<...>
FWIW a faulty tyre could usually pass any pressure test etc immediately after it was fitted, and yet the fault could later manifest itself by the tyre blowing off the rim without any warning;  i.e. it was about as bad a fault as you could possibly have in a tyre.
<...>

still, some riders don't seem to be too bothered..

[rogerzilla]

I had a tyre pop off in the middle of Paradise Circus Queensway in Birmingham.  Had to stand on a traffic island for about 15 minutes because no moton would let me cross the road.  Steel rim, splayed from hitting potholes.  I bought new wheels after that.

[Hot Flatus]

Should have used tubeless 

[chrisbainbridge]

I presume Brucey is a professor of engineering or other senior academic.  Alternatively he has a job as a senior bike engineer?
it would help my assessment of his contributions if I knew his academic status. 

I am not being gratuitously rude but if I offer a response in a thread where i am offering more than the casual internet level advice I give my academic background on the subject so that other people can weigh the opinion.

[rafletcher]

Agree with ^ wholeheartedly.

[Hot Flatus]

I think Brucey knows shit loads about bikes, their parts and how they work, I really do.

I also think that for the most part he has a genuine desire to help, as well as a love of sharing his obsession.

However, I do think he is coming at this (and indeed any discussion on things modern) with a bit of a chip on his shoulder. I dont think he is approaching this topic with an altogether open attitude and this extends to his selective deafness to the views of others, as well as extreme genuflexions If he feels it will lend support to his argument.

Which is a shame.

[vorsprung]

I think Brucey knows shit loads about bikes, their parts and how they work, I really do.

I also think that for the most part, he has a genuine desire to help, as well as a love of sharing his obsession.

However, I do think he is coming at this (and indeed any discussion on things modern) with ...

With a thing
Aren't we all?

[quixoticgeek]

I kinda tuned out due to having to deal with a conference at work. Just been reading the back log.

Ye gods.

Some people can get annoyed when their thread gets steered off course and/or gets heated. I generally am entirely fine with that, it usually goes somewhere interesting and I learn a lot.

Brucey appears to know his stuff on a lot of bike related topics, but does appear to have scepticism of most of this new fangled kit, meaning my threads on such topics have invariably led to us being on opposing sides, hence my somewhat snide comments about Brucey riding round on a bike with drum brakes and down tube shifters. But having Brucey here on the forum makes the forum a better place, and I hope we haven't driven him away. I also hope others haven't been driven away by threads like this one.

I realised that I have tubeless ready rims already. So I am tempted when I swap from the summer rims to the winter ones, to set the summer rims up as tubeless to see how I get on. No major outlay needed.

Still need to work out which rims to use on my new build. But that's a different thread.

Be nice to each other!

J

[zigzag]

sounds like a plan. only i haven't discovered decent tubeless winter tyres, i.e. a bit tougher and grippy, something like conti 4 seasons.

[rafletcher]

sounds like a plan. only i haven't discovered decent tubeless winter tyres, i.e. a bit tougher and grippy, something like conti 4 seasons.

Have a look at the Hutchinson range. Sector 28’s or perhaps the new Fusion5 “storm11” all seasons.

[zigzag]

sectors are slippery, fusion5 all season don't know much about (got fusion5 galactics which seem a bit delicate for the  winter). might just stick to 4000s2's like last winter, only considering adding a tyre liner for extra protection.
hopefully conti releases gp4seasons tubeless by next winter. in 30-32mm and at 60/70psi it would be an ideal winter tyre.

[Hot Flatus]

Sectors are as tough as old boots, but if inflated 70+psi they are a bit slippery, I agree. I tend to run them at 55psi in winter, although for 32mm the minimum is about 65psi IIRC. I've not died yet.

I've got Galaktiks on another bike and they are very very good. I prefer them to Pro One....but I don't think they are likely to fare well in winter use.   Also got some All Seasons in the cupboard.

[sojournermike]

There’s also the Fusion 5 ‘silly name’ performance - a half way house between Galaktic and All Season. Not tried them, but sound good.

How big do the Fusion 5s get on 19mm internal width rims? Really interested in the 25 and 28s, so I can see what will fit under my guards. 28mm Ones are more like 31mm wide and too tall. 25mm Ones are about 27mm wide and fit easily. Paris Roubaix (with tubes) are about 30mm wide, but only 26mm high and just sneak in. Not much room for leaves though...

[Phil W]

when the tyre comes off the rim without a tube....

Something not quite right with that photo.  The white stuff indicates he was stood in that position when it went. The back wall has a few splats.  There is absolutely no spray on the down tube or front fork. The tyre appears to have a stupid amount of sealant still in it. Far more than recommended for tubeless. The tyre looks like it has only just been unfolded and they did not even finish mounting it, let alone inflate it. Anyone  had a tyre look like that after use, with a regular pattern from its fold?  That photo is fake, a setup.

Fake news in action. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

[Phil W]

Enquiring (tubed) minds wish to know, why does sealant work better in tubeless tyres than in slime tubes?  Is it because the Tue is thicker?

Answers in less than 100 words

Stick a pin in a balloon full of water, do the same with a hose pipe. Now trying plugging the hole in each with chewing gum.

[Hot Flatus]

https://road.cc/content/buyers-guide/230838-nine-best-winter-tubeless-tyres-bad-weather-rubber-no-inner-tubes#comment-1620042

[sg37409]

About 80% of my miles are on tubed. I've had tubeless on my racer for the last couple of years.

The biggest benefit about tubeless seems to be puncture resistance, but I don't seem to puncture much at all (not in over a year) so this is moot for me.
They seem fast on my racer, so I've suck with them for that, but I'm not planning to go tubeless on any other bikes.  I don't like the hassle of an extremely tight tyre, the hassle of keeping sealant fresh, extra fitting hassle for little benefit for me. Mine still lose quite a bit more pressure  than that tubed which may just be mine, but thats another minor hassle for me.

[mattc]

I've dipped my toe in Cyclocross this season. Using a cheapish used bike with clinchers+tubes - cos that's what it came with.

I'd assumed that everyone else would be on tubs or tubeless - but it seems to be quite a mix. Even amongst riders with a strong leaning to modern kit (e.g. discs are almost universal amongst new bikes), tubeless is far from dominant.

Pure #anecdata of course, and CX requirements are somewhat different to leisure road-riding! But I thought it was interesting ...

[D O G]

I ran tubeless for around 18 months, on three bikes.  Tyres were Schwalbe Pro One (on Ultegra wheels), Hutchinson Fusion 5 All Season (DT Swiss R460 rims), and Hutchinson Sector 32's (Fulcrum Racing 6's 2 way fit). Stan's sealant.

I did about 14,000 miles on them, including LEL, where they did actually save me from having to fix the puncture once.   However I did get a non sealing puncture with 7 miles to Loughton in the rain on the last night which required a noodle.  That was a high point.

They were....OK.  They ride really nicely and I didn't find the tyres difficult to fit or to seal, particularly on the Ultegra wheels which have no need for the tape.  I was even able to change the tyres and sealant without making a mess.

I did not, however, have fewer punctures which required attention.  I had many more.  I probably shoved in a dozen 'noodles'/anchovies over that time, and replaced at least two tyres well before they were worn because of cuts which did not seal.  I had to tube one tyre because of puncture which still wouldn't seal with the noodle. 

In the end I was carrying a set of anchovies, some sealant, a boot and a spare tube, plus a CO2 inflator and a pump in case I needed to reseat a tyre.

I finally binned them off when my brand new Sector 32's punctured and failed to seal on their first ride after less than 10 miles, requiring me to ride home on a flat tyre (no tube on that occasion), on brand new rims.

Since changing back to tubes I have had one puncture (32mm GP4 Season) in 6500+miles, using either GP4's, GP4000's and Durano Pluses.  Prior to tubeless I exclusively used Schwalbe tyres but I've found the Conti's really rather good.  The GP4000's are so nice that they feel like tubeless, especially on a wide rim with ~90psi.

I can honestly say that I gave tubeless a really good go, I like the way they rolled, they feel super nice to ride, however in my experience the puncture resistance was pretty crap, and the sealing properties were poor.

Somebody suggested I try the 'race sealant' which had bigger grains, but by that point I was so pissed off with them I could not be swayed.

So yeah, I had problems with tubeless and cannot recommend them.

[Hot Flatus]

Fair enough. That's a good breadth of experience from  which to judge. However, as you can read in this thread your experience is quite unusual compared to the rest of us (discounting, of course, the vociferous opinions of our two honourable friends who have no experience of actually using them)

I'm curious as to what sealant you used. I have had 3 incidents in 3 years (And about 24k miles) of tyres failing to seal, and I'm pretty sure that two of these are down to using sealant that is utter crap (Finish Line).

I'm also curious as to why you went down the anchovy route. I've found that putting in a tube (when hole won't seal) at the roadside then patching the inside of the tyre when at home to be an easier and more effective solution.

I did actually have a problem last Sunday (one of the 3 mentioned above)  which I put down to Finish Line sealant being crap, and had to get a lift home.

Why? Because I'd left my puncture kit at home by mistake 

[D O G]

I'm curious as to what sealant you used

Stans No Tubes.

I'm also curious as to why you went down the anchovy route. I've found that putting in a tube (when hole won't seal) at the roadside then patching the inside of the tyre when at home to be an easier and more effective solution.

I went that way because that is what was suggested to me by tubeless users, and they work.  The first one made me feel so pleased that I HADN'T needed to put a tube in, I kept them as my emergency repair kit, in the end I used loads.  Not all worked perfectly, but they were pretty decent.  At £5 for 5, 5cm strips of rubber and a jabby thing they were costly though.

I really wanted tubeless to work for me, as I liked the system and the idea, but I just suffered lots of punctures which would not seal.  Perhaps it is the Hampshire flint - punctures here are typically cuts of 1-2mm, which I do wonder if they pushing the boundry of what is possible with sealant, particularly when the weather is wet.

There is a post on here, from me, speaking positively of tubeless after LEL, because when they sealed a puncture on day 3 I was truly grateful.  However, after a winter of poor performance I cut my losses.

People should try it though, and make up their own minds.

[Hot Flatus]

Indeed, they should, and although your experience has been different to mine (And, I think it is fair to say, most actual users who have posted here) I welcome and am interested in your views.