To tubeless or not to tubeless

[Ben T]

The thing is, a forum with no dissenting opinions is a pretty useless thing, but that is what YACF will become if no-one stands up to bullies. YACF has always been cliquey – thence perhaps the reluctance of moderator action even where it’s needed – but now we’re supposed to toe the line on choice of minor equipment or be branded a “bigot”? Come on. And what irony that those in favour of substantial debate are the ones called bigots!

Your first posting may have come across as bitterness at the system not having worked for you hence denigrating it generically.
I think exception was taken because of others not wanting people to be put off from trying it because it didn't happen to work for you specifically.
You (in fact, others as well, not just you) seem too bothered about trying to influence what other people do.
I don't care what other people do, I've simply posted facts about what's worked for me and what hasn't, as I think that's more useful to someone who's trying to decide whether to go tubeless or not. It isn't as much a black and white argument as could be inferred from the development of this thread, it's not so much a melodramatic oh yes it is oh not it isn't, tubeless is good or bad - in reality, it should be more a case of - it can work for some people with some bikes in some scenarios, for others, it might not.

[Chris N]

I can vouch for the fact that Hot Flatus is just as obnoxious in person as he is on here, the twat.

[Brucey]

Hang on, is this actual personal experience or a made up hypothetical? How many winter group rides are you doing for this to have come up often enough to be a pattern?

But you readily believe quixoticgeek’s opening claim that she got eight punctures in 600 km after none in 5,000 km?

Do you see how a debate cannot be conducted on these grounds? You have to assume good faith, at least for the purpose of the debate, for useful discussion to proceed. Otherwise you get Trump.

Play the ball!

There's a fundamental difference between QG's claim and Brucey's, and it's not that either of them is lying. QG is relating her own experience. She, presumably, knows how many punctures she got in what distance. Brucey is relating other people's experience. He does not know how many punctures or other problems they've had or not had and in what distance; he only sees the incidents that happen to them while he's with them.

That is not entirely true; if one has any curiosity about these things at all one asks how far a rider might have gone between punctures on any given tyre. Also the state of wear of the tyres tells its own story. 

BTW I believe QG's puncture rate was as described. I don't think GP4000S is really well suited to adverse conditions; in hard use they cut up, the carcasses can fail, etc. Pretty much as you might expect from a light tyre with a low Crr value.  It isn't so long ago that it was near enough the lightest and fastest tyre that you could buy; the tyres have not changed but I sense that expectations might have.

As I mentioned upthread new GP4000S tyres are really very soft indeed.  They consequently cut up rather easily (esp in the wet); all it takes is some heavy summer rain to wash flints out in the road and new GP4000S tyres may well suffer a rash of punctures.  If you are away from home you may be riding where there are many more flints than normal too.

Only yesterday I fitted a set of GP4000S tyres except they weren't a matched set; there was one new tyre (about as soft as chewing gum) and a choice of part-worn tyres of the same model which were six months or a year old. The difference in the rubber hardness was astonishing and obvious; I advised my chum that some of the possible combinations would actually be dangerous because the grip would be so much different on one wheel than the other.  He agreed; he normally 'retires' those tyres on his summer bike after a year even if they are not worn out because they are so lacking in grip by comparison with new tyres. However in situations where punctures are very likely, I'd maybe prefer the (harder) year-old tyres.

Needless to say both tyres were on, seated and inflated within a couple of minutes. Stark contrast to most tubeless installations IME.

[Samuel D]

bla bla bla

You can stop this sort of thing. It isn’t necessary, since the rest of your posts make it perfectly clear what you think of my posts.

Am I like this in real life? You'd have to ask some of the many forum members I have met, often socially, perhaps those that are godparents to my children, or stay at my house regularly, or go on holiday with me. In fact eight of the people who have posted on this thread have met me on several occasions.

I knew some of that and could guess the rest. It’s a large part of the problem. It makes moderators more reluctant than they should be to tell you to knock it off. And other members who should speak up can’t be bothered with the friction of telling you to sort yourself out. Especially if they prefer tubeless anyway and mildly dislike me for some reason … which is conceivable.

You see you've been here a mere 3 years. Many of us have been here a lot longer, in my case 13 years. So it is with a wry smile that I read your words on what the forum "has always been like".

Nonetheless, it’s cliquey and always has been. You’ve just said you know half the people in the thread. Again you’re obsessed with the man (me in this case) rather than the ball. Mention the material facts for once!

You talk about "dissenting views", but you whine when your "dissenting views" are challenged.

Show me one instance of my whining. One!

I enjoy robust debate and enter it without personal baggage … and leave the same way. Why is it so personal for you anyway? What odds if I prefer tubes? You’re even on the right side of the argument in terms of where things will probably go in the future. It’s not you who will have to search ever-harder for suitable tyres.

Am I like this in real life?

It's all real life.  We're all real people, even if some of us are playing games.

Much as Anonymous are a bunch of attention-seeking wankers, I heartily approve of their deprecation of 'IRL' in favour of 'AFK'.

I agree with all of that and shouldn’t have used the clumsy “in real life”. I’ll use “away from the keyboard” now that I’ve heard of it.

[Samuel D]

Your first posting may have come across as bitterness at the system not having worked for you hence denigrating it generically.

Here’s my post again. Which bit came across as bitter?

I did say that tubeless makes tyre replacement “messier, less certain in success, more time-consuming, and more expensive”, none of which is sensibly deniable. The question is whether those downsides are worth the upside of a reduced puncture rate on the road. Obviously the answer to that question is highly subjective.

Now, I am indeed a little bitter that cyclists buy every new bauble that is waved under their noses without considering or even understanding its functional merits, since that eventually kills the market for the durable, affordable stuff that I prefer. But I’m not bitter that tubeless doesn’t work for me. Tubes work better! As I said, I have a couple of punctures a year that are trivially fixed with 100% reliability. I’m proud that I’m not afraid of getting my hands dirty. So punctures are not a significant problem for me … certainly not to the tune of spending hundreds of euros on new wheels, tyres, and supporting contraptions like pumps with compressed-air tanks and then allocating precious mind-space to things like the state of my sealant after six months.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Hang on, is this actual personal experience or a made up hypothetical? How many winter group rides are you doing for this to have come up often enough to be a pattern?

But you readily believe quixoticgeek’s opening claim that she got eight punctures in 600 km after none in 5,000 km?

Do you see how a debate cannot be conducted on these grounds? You have to assume good faith, at least for the purpose of the debate, for useful discussion to proceed. Otherwise you get Trump.

Play the ball!

There's a fundamental difference between QG's claim and Brucey's, and it's not that either of them is lying. QG is relating her own experience. She, presumably, knows how many punctures she got in what distance. Brucey is relating other people's experience. He does not know how many punctures or other problems they've had or not had and in what distance; he only sees the incidents that happen to them while he's with them.

That is not entirely true; if one has any curiosity about these things at all one asks how far a rider might have gone between punctures on any given tyre. Also the state of wear of the tyres tells its own story. 

But those are the ones with punctures!

I've never ridden with someone when they had a puncture in a tubeless tyre. But for all I know (apart from the bloke on the Tripster I mentioned a few pages back) I've never ridden with anyone who's been using tubeless. (I know some people who use tubeless but they all have multiple bikes, so whether they've been riding that bike in my company I can't say for sure). Or maybe I've been riding with people who've ridden many thousands of miles puncture-free on tubeless. Can't really say.

BTW I believe QG's puncture rate was as described.

Certs. It's not that anyone is actively lying.

[zigzag]

a lot of arguments arise from miscommunication and hyperbolisation of facts and scenarios. i can't be asked to reply to lengthy rationalising posts (which often bend the truth towards the poster's beliefs), just one piece of anecdata about the gp4000s2 - i rode all last winter on them on wet, scoggy, flinty lanes in kent, essex and chilterns and haven't suffered a single puncture. there are quite a few tiny surface cuts, but otherwise they are fine. now, based on these facts - how can i take some of the posts seriously? i know and accept the risks of riding "flimsy" tyres in winter, and find it tiresome to read some of the "truths" blown out of proportion (again and again). perhaps i've used up all my luck with the racing tyres in winter, so now contemplating to continue using tubeless mainly because i don't want them to sit idle and have the sealant dried out before spring.

[Ben T]

Your first posting may have come across as bitterness at the system not having worked for you hence denigrating it generically.

Here’s my post again. Which bit came across as bitter?

The fact that you've obviously tried it, it failed, and you've decided that it failed because it's crap, rather than because you did it either wrongly, or correctly but with a combination of  components that just don't work together. You therefore seem to have quite a lot of beef with people for whom it has worked.

Why did you even try it in the first place if you're so happy with tubes?

I did say that tubeless makes tyre replacement “messier, less certain in success, more time-consuming, and more expensive”

I deny that it's messy. If you do it right, the sealant start off in a bottle, goes into a syringe, and then goes into the tyre. None of it needs to go anywhere else.
The only part that could be vaguely described as messy is when you clean the old sealant out and put fresh in, but you only have to do that once a year, and it needn't be any messier than cleaning anything else out especially that you only clean out once a year. Just tip any remaining liquid down the drain and brush off any stringy bits with a brush.

In terms of certainty of success, I would say that it's not random. If it's not successful, it's not because you're unlucky, as you seem to think, but there's a physical reason for it, either that you've done it wrongly, or are using combinations that don't work together.

[Zed43]

Anyway, quixoticgeek has disappeared as she often does after starting a discussion

Perhaps the amount of bickering that results has something to do with that. This board needs a "Kindergarten" in the off-topic section 

[Ben T]

...IME those who use tubeless are also liable to be using tyres that are not really well suited to winter conditions...

I am curious about this statement as it appears to be in contradiction to what you said earlier that the mavic UST tyres that I have said I'm using were "[not] particularly light" (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109741.msg2331005#msg2331005)

So are you saying they are heavy but not in a way that makes them suited to winter conditions? Or are they an exception to the above?
In other words, is there a non-linear relationship between weight and winter-suitability/durability?
If so, what in your experience is an example of a tyre (tubed or tubeless) that is similar weight, but more durable, thus 'better value'?

What I'm getting at is: I would have thought there is a trade off between weight, and durability. You can have a tyre that is slightly heavier, but that is durable, or you can have a tyre that is light, but not quite so durable. You are criticising mavic tyre because it is heavy, but you are criticising 'most' tubeless tyres because they are not durable. Surely that is a glass half empty attitude, why is it not that the mavic tyre is durable, but 'most' are light... and surely the fact that there is a difference proves there is enough of a choice.

[Samuel D]

Here’s my post again. Which bit came across as bitter?

The fact that you've obviously tried it, it failed, and you've decided that it failed because it's crap, rather than because you did it either wrongly, or correctly but with a combination of  components that just don't work together.

I only installed tubeless tyres once, with components I built into wheels for someone else. It didn’t fail in that case; it worked with some palaver, at least until I handed over the footery things.

Zed43 brought up air pressure. Those with the worst tubeless problems have tried to use traditional road pressures. A friend (who is 6' 4" or 5" and commensurately heavy but slim) went tubeless with 23 mm Schwalbe Pro One tyres. He must have spent north of 100 euros getting up and running, not counting the extortionate tyres (are prices coming down, by the way?), and suffered most of the common tubeless problems before giving up and going back to tubes.

If you like fat and squishy tyres you’re far more likely to see success. In fairness, you probably should like fat and squishy tyres if you’re a lot heavier than a pro racer, ride a lot slower, and go a lot farther at a time – which describes many of us.

All the same, my bicycle currently has 23 mm tyres, and sealant basically doesn’t work at the required pressures. In that sense, going tubeless limits your choices. I don’t believe this would bother quixoticgeek.

Why did you even try it in the first place if you're so happy with tubes?

I didn’t for my own bicycle. For my use, tubeless is a solution desperately casting around for a problem, any problem …

[Hot Flatus]

I use sealant in tubulars at 120psi. It works

I use sealant in 25mm tubeless at 100psi. It works.

Schwalbe One are available for the same as 4000s. About £30. I've never paid more than £28 for a tubeless tyre. As with everything it pays to shop around. RRP for a 4000s is £60

[quixoticgeek]

I don’t have much respect for the equipment choices of top cyclists either. It doesn’t take great insight to see that many of the Transcontinental Race bicycles are perfectly on-trend but ill-suited to their job. Riding ability is distinct from the ability to exercise fine judgement on technical matters in a consumerist maelstrom.

Ok. Please elaborate in more detail on this point.

J

[Samuel D]

I’d be lynched if I did. Maybe if there was a moderator with a big stick standing nearby I’d have the nerve.

[quixoticgeek]

I am hoping she follows it up with "Should I go for Disc Brakes?" then "Electric gears, yay or nay?"

Should provide entertainment for the next 6 months at least...

Pfft, someone hasn't been paying attention!

The Di2 thread happened already, you can find it here:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=107971.0

On the disc brakes. I converted to them a decade ago, don't think I'll ever go back to rim brakes if I can avoid it. I think we touched on this topic on the Di2 thread, brucey tried to convert me to the idea of drum brakes for some reason that boggles the brain...

J

[Cudzoziemiec]

I don’t have much respect for the equipment choices of top cyclists either. It doesn’t take great insight to see that many of the Transcontinental Race bicycles are perfectly on-trend but ill-suited to their job. Riding ability is distinct from the ability to exercise fine judgement on technical matters in a consumerist maelstrom.

Ok. Please elaborate in more detail on this point.

J

I’d be lynched if I did. Maybe if there was a moderator with a big stick standing nearby I’d have the nerve.

No, I really don't think you will. Not for voicing opinions and explaining them. If you were to spout opinionated bullshit and disguise it as personal experience, you would and should be. But not for explaining what you mean.

[Hot Flatus]

I've just inhaled my tea

[Brucey]

...IME those who use tubeless are also liable to be using tyres that are not really well suited to winter conditions...

I am curious about this statement as it appears to be in contradiction to what you said earlier that the mavic UST tyres that I have said I'm using were "[not] particularly light" (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109741.msg2331005#msg2331005)

So are you saying they are heavy but not in a way that makes them suited to winter conditions? Or are they an exception to the above?
In other words, is there a non-linear relationship between weight and winter-suitability/durability?
If so, what in your experience is an example of a tyre (tubed or tubeless) that is similar weight, but more durable, thus 'better value'?

What I'm getting at is: I would have thought there is a trade off between weight, and durability. You can have a tyre that is slightly heavier, but that is durable, or you can have a tyre that is light, but not quite so durable. You are criticising mavic tyre because it is heavy, but you are criticising 'most' tubeless tyres because they are not durable. Surely that is a glass half empty attitude, why is it not that the mavic tyre is durable, but 'most' are light... and surely the fact that there is a difference proves there is enough of a choice.

there are swathes of folk who have used tubeless before road UST came onto the market. I think that a lot of them choose tubeless because they think that they might get fewer punctures even if they run fairly flimsy tyres in poor conditions. And they might be right; however there is a huge variation in people's experiences based on conditions of use and, well , luck amongst other things.  In fact there is so much variation that all you can do is say what might happen, or what is more likely to happen than normal; there is no such thing as 'will definitely happen' with a lot of this stuff; it is the nature of the beast.

Re the mavic tyres they are not in the very lightest/flimsiest category, but they do have more rubber in the sidewalls (to keep the air in) than is strictly necessary otherwise.  So they might weigh about 260g but perhaps they are built more like a skinwall tyre of ~220g, but with ~40g of rubber  added to the sidewalls.  The extra rubber does little to improve the strength of the tyre (except what little there is on the outside of the tyre which may help prevent scuffing damage)  but does make the tyre feel and roll differently.

  I'm not sure which is preferable tbh; lots of sealant, extra rubber in the sidewalls (and a little sealant), or an actual tube. However I do know that in the latter case I can choose to run nice zingy latex tubes if I want to, whereas with the others it is what it is and you are stuck with it.  In a few cases a tyre manufacturer has produced the same tyre in tubeless and non tubeless format; often the tubeless tyre has been slower when measured and if (because the manufacturer has withdrawn the latter type) you are forced to run a tube inside a tubeless tyre, it is quite  lot slower again.

cheers

[Cudzoziemiec]

I’d be lynched if I did. Maybe if there was a moderator with a big stick standing nearby I’d have the nerve.

As a starter, what do you mean by "top cyclists" particularly in the context of Transcontinental Race?

[Hot Flatus]

Brucey

A page or two back you were poo-pooing attempts to measure 'speed' of tyres. Now you are quoting it in support of your anti-tubeless tirade.

Got any actual numbers?

I've just tried to look up Schwalbe One tubeless and tubed. Can't find tubed. But interestingly the One tubeless had considerably less drag than the One tubular.

[Hot Flatus]

I am hoping she follows it up with "Should I go for Disc Brakes?" then "Electric gears, yay or nay?"

Should provide entertainment for the next 6 months at least...

Pfft, someone hasn't been paying attention!

The Di2 thread happened already, you can find it here:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=107971.0

J

Both of the Deatheaters were highly vocal on that thread too, despite neither of them using DI2 or Road discs either. 

[quixoticgeek]

My absence from this thread seems to have been conspicuous. Since I started this thread I've been busy with work, and riding my bike. Although it's been a quiet month so far. I've only done 394km, 312km of which being Saturday's 300km BRM. Which was also my longest ever ride.

Anyway I digress, onto the matters at hand.

It would be interesting to know whether the OP has decided to go with tubeless or not, if she has already made the decision that is - and if so what tyre/rim combination she went for. Hopefully she didn't get too bored of the thread long ago.

I am pretty much certain that I will go tubeless. As this is on a new build bike, both the wheels and the bike are yet to be built (Expect a what rims should I get thread, in due course, tho DT Swiss R460 and H+Son Archetype are currently under consideration, but that's for another thread).

As for tyre, I'll probably go with something from Schwalbe, I've had recommendations from them, and I also have a good relationship with the Schwalbe UK people.

The main thing to consider is that I hope to be in a position of having 2 bikes. One is my existing bike, which has a set of wheels with Pacenti TL28 rims, a second set with Pacenti CL25, and a third set with Ryde DP18 rims. Both pacenti sets of rims are tubeless ready. The CL25's are currently fitted to the bike, and have a GP4000s ii on the front, and a Specialised Armadillo all condition wooden block on the rear. I'm likely to fit a pair of Conti GP Four Seasons for the winter. The second set currently have some Schwalbe G+one allround 40-622's that I fitted for the Trans Germany. I will soon be fitting Schwalbe Marathon Winter's so that I can do an easy swap when the ice arrives. The third set currently are home to a pair of Schwalbe Marathon Green guard 622-28 tyres. Technically this wheelset is from an old bike and I really only have them because I can't see the point of getting rid of a perfectly good wheel set, they are however the only set without a dynamo. Maybe I'll build up a hack bike round them or something...

The 2nd bike is going to be designed more with ultra racing in mind, it's going to have 12mm thru axles, 142mm OLN rear, 100mm front. S&S couplers, and is going to be custom built, as soon as I finalise the design with the frame builder. Being that this bike is going to be built round different axle configuration, wheel sets will not be interchangable (conscious and intended choice). Which means that in winter I may configure one bike with spikes, and one without, rather than the wheel set changing.

This multiple bike setup, each with potentially multiple wheelsets, means that I have to balance the ease of use vs puncture hassle. If when I go to put the spiked wheels on I find the sealant has formed a solid lump in the bottom of the wheel, that's rather suboptimal. But then so is sub zero puncture fixing (oh, I could do a whole seperate thread on my winter glove games...), I had 1 puncture on the marathon winter's last winter on my festive 500 attempt. It was quick to fix, I put a new tube in, having pulled out the hawthorn thorn that was poking in. Even in the near zero temps, I did the swap in a few minutes and still made the train I was chasing down. A VAR bead jack is always in my bike tool kit. Conversely a flat marathon green guard in similarly low temps was an utter bitch to fix, the cold made the rubber even less flexible that it normally is, making it a real fight. I even accepted help from a passer by (practically unheard of for me), and it took 2 of us, even with a bead jack, to get the thing off, get the new tube in, and get it back in. Ironically the flat wasn't due to a puncture, but the valve core wasn't tight enough.

So in answer to your question, yes I am going to go tubeless, but it's gonna take a little time and effort, and consideration.

Anyway, quixoticgeek has disappeared as she often does after starting a discussion, maybe for one of her country-crossing jaunts. I wish her more success with tubeless than my friends and I have had. But even if it’s ten times more problematic than tubes it won’t make much difference to the recreational cyclist, so it’s hard to ruin your fun whatever you choose.

Oh I dunno, there was quite a range of robust anglo saxon screamed at the world by the side of Scandinavian cycle paths this past September. The number of flats I had was maddening.

What made it even worse, is it wasn't just an equipment failure, it was my failure. As is probably very apparent from my threads on here. I over think my bike. Every part of my bike has been thought through. Right down to changing the screws used on some parts to make sure that I have redundancy, and so I can carry one fewer screw driver bit. With the exception of the bottom bracket, I carry a tool to fix every single part of my bike that can be fixed at the side of the road, and even then I would question if there is anything I could do to fix a buggered bottom bracket at the side of the road, and thus probably not worth worrying about. So having so many flats, in such a short distance was a failure of my equipment choice process. I had done 5000km on the previous set of tyres, subjecting them to Pavé, subjecting them to Belgium, and even commuting along the glass paved fietspaden of Amsterdam. All completely flat free. I used them for my Ride to the start of the TCR, where I carried my heaviest touring load of the summer (I included a 1.4kg tent). All flat free. So I thought I'd be ok going to Hell on them. Turns out I was wrong. My research had failed to identify the issues with flints in Denmark and Southern Sweden. Across the 1700km I did on my holiday, the most northerly flat I had was somewhere between Varberg and Gothenberg. Now I changed the rear to the Specialised in Gotherberg[1], so it doesn't make for a perfect comparison, but the front GP4000s didn't get any issues until I got back to Denmark. So perhaps I'd have been fine once I got out of flint country. Who knows...

But part of this trip was testing kit, testing methods, and testing myself in prep for next years TCR. It was a holiday so I was only doing 120-170km per day, not a 300km+ I'd hope to do next summer, but that makes it even more critical. Replacing a tube in day light, in the dry when you've had a warm nights sleep in a hotel, is different to doing it on a mountainside, in the dark, in the rain, when you've done 280km since you last slept, and that sleep was under a tree in a bivvi bag. For 5 hours. Hence this thread. I'm rerunning my kit choice process. I'm looking at what I did, I'm looking at what worked, what didn't, and what could be improved. If I could do 4000km across Europe without a flat, that would be ideal. But as with every part of my bike setup, I have to consider the failure mode. How can it go wrong? if it goes wrong how can I fix it? what are my bodge options?

Some say I over think things...

But you readily believe quixoticgeek’s opening claim that she got eight punctures in 600 km after none in 5,000 km?

Do you see how a debate cannot be conducted on these grounds? You have to assume good faith, at least for the purpose of the debate, for useful discussion to proceed. Otherwise you get Trump.

I have the logs, I can give you the lat and long of where I stopped to fix each flat if you want...

"enough"....   Similar events have been reported to me by others. On winter rides rather than get cold it is normal for the bulk of the group to ride a mile (and then double back ) whilst a tube is changed (or in the old days a spare tub is fitted). This stops everyone from getting cold unnecessarily. Group etiquette (much as forum etiquette...... ) varies of course but you could ride five miles in the length of time it takes deal with a tubeless puncture and it is much less likely that a group intent of doing some training will wait that long.

This isn't a major issue, I'm too slow for the local club rides[2], and noone I know is crazy enough to join me for the sort of rides I do. Of the last 2500km, I think I've had company for less than 200km of that. And ultimately I'm focusing on 2 ultra races next year, both of which are solo, self supported, no drafting. So while I recognise that for some this may be a consideration, I'll worry about it when I find a group crazy enough to let me ride with them.

BTW I believe QG's puncture rate was as described. I don't think GP4000S is really well suited to adverse conditions; in hard use they cut up, the carcasses can fail, etc. Pretty much as you might expect from a light tyre with a low Crr value.  It isn't so long ago that it was near enough the lightest and fastest tyre that you could buy; the tyres have not changed but I sense that expectations might have.

As I mentioned upthread new GP4000S tyres are really very soft indeed.  They consequently cut up rather easily (esp in the wet); all it takes is some heavy summer rain to wash flints out in the road and new GP4000S tyres may well suffer a rash of punctures.  If you are away from home you may be riding where there are many more flints than normal too.

The singular of Data is Anecdote, the plural of anecdote is data.

I used one pair of GP4000s ii for 5000km without any flats. I used another 1.5 pair, and had 8 in 600km. It's the contrast between the two experiences that surprised me the most. The first set gave me the (misjudged) confidence to choose them for this trip.

Now, I am indeed a little bitter that cyclists buy every new bauble that is waved under their noses without considering or even understanding its functional merits, since that eventually kills the market for the durable, affordable stuff that I prefer. But I’m not bitter that tubeless doesn’t work for me. Tubes work better! As I said, I have a couple of punctures a year that are trivially fixed with 100% reliability. I’m proud that I’m not afraid of getting my hands dirty. So punctures are not a significant problem for me … certainly not to the tune of spending hundreds of euros on new wheels, tyres, and supporting contraptions like pumps with compressed-air tanks and then allocating precious mind-space to things like the state of my sealant after six months.

Yet I'm not buying every bauble. I'm looking at each one. I'm doing the maths. How does it work? how does it fail? how do I fix it? how do I bodge it? what is the failure mode? I am running the exact thought process that you are suggesting.

I’d be lynched if I did. Maybe if there was a moderator with a big stick standing nearby I’d have the nerve.

Well send me the info in a PM. I'm in the process of finalising the design for the frame I'm having built. I'd love any input now that will stop me messing it up.

I’d be lynched if I did. Maybe if there was a moderator with a big stick standing nearby I’d have the nerve.

As a starter, what do you mean by "top cyclists" particularly in the context of Transcontinental Race?

Well a quick look at the finishers list, I'd say Kristof Allegaert, James Hayden, Ede Harrison, Melissa Pritchard, and Emily Chapell. Between them, they have won the last 3 years of races.


J


[1] The staff of the specialised concept store in Gotherberg were somewhat surprised by this very wet crazy brit on a weird bike turning up in need of a new tyre. They couldn't lift the bike into the work stand, so wouldn't work on it for me, but were happy for me to fix it in the dry of their store, they also fed me coffee and were generally friendly and helpful.

[2] And the local club rides are all way too short

[Cudzoziemiec]

312km of which being Saturday's 300km BRM. Which was also my longest ever ride.

[Hot Flatus]

Years and years ago (Well, about 13) there was a mirror image of this debate concerning using carbon bikes on audaxes. Apparently it wasn't an 'appropriate' choice of frame material. The same sort of people with the same sort of attitude were telling other people what they should and shouldn't use. Unsurprisingly, none of them had ever owned or used a CF frame, despite having a well-voiced opinion on them.

I did my first audax on a pure race CF bike. It was absolutely the right choice, and I used exactly the same machine for a hilly 1000k a few years later.

Turns out these people were right, and nobody uses CF on audaxes anymore. Oh hang on a minute...

[quixoticgeek]

Years and years ago (Well, about 13) there was a mirror image of this debate concerning using carbon bikes on audaxes. Apparently it wasn't an 'appropriate' choice of frame material. The same sort of people with the same sort of attitude were telling other people what they should and shouldn't use. Unsurprisingly, none of them had ever owned or used a CF frame, despite having a well-voiced opinion on them.

I did my first audax on a pure race CF bike. It was absolutely the right choice, and I used exactly the same machine for a hilly 1000k a few years later.

Turns out these people were right, and nobody uses CF on audaxes anymore. Oh hang on a minute...

And yet curiously, not a single TCR has been won on a purely carbon bike... Tho many use a carbon fork...

I've looked at CF bikes, but so far I have discounted them on environmental grounds, and I want custom, which means steal or titanium, and unless I can negotiate one hell of a pay rise, titanium ain't happening.

But that's a whole different thread.

J