Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => The Knowledge => Topic started by: quixoticgeek on 30 September, 2018, 10:43:59 am

Title: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 September, 2018, 10:43:59 am

In April I put a pair of Conti GP 4000s ii 28mm tyres on, I ran them for just shy of 5000km, without a single flat. Even with the broken glass paving of Dutch cycle paths, Belgian "roads", French Pavé, and some off roading.

So just before my planned tour I put a new set of the same tyres on, loaded the bike with a very light touring setup, and headed for Hell.

I had 2 punctures in the first 30km. Which set the precedent. Over the next 600km I had 8 flats. I had to write off an outer as I couldn't fish out the remaining bit of scandi flint, I put on a specialised All Condition Armadillo on the back. This got me the final 800km to Hell without any more flats, but when I got back to Denmark, the Armadillo had it's first flat, and at the same time I noticed a side wall failure on the front conti, with the tube sticking out. All in all I wrote off 2 gp4000s in under 1500km.

Given the faff of fixing flats, I'm seriously considering going tubeless. But I have reservations[1]. Primarily I'm looking at what happened to Bjorn in this years TCR[2], if I'm in the middle of nowhere and can't magic up a compressor, am I looking at basically having to fall back to a normal clincher with a tube? If I've gone for a tubeless rim, can I put a normal clincher in there as a get me moving again fix?

I'm looking at things from an ultra-racing point of view. What failure modes should I be aware of before deciding on tubeless?

Any reason I shouldn't go tubeless for this sort of use case? If I don't go tubeless, what fast clinchers would people suggest for racing? I'm kinda losing faith in the gp4000s.

J

[1] Yes this is yet another geek ponders failure modes thread
[2] For those who didn't follow, Bjorn had big failure on his rear tyre at CP3, he had a new outer, he managed to save the sealant from the original tyre, but then had issues getting the new to fit, until he managed to find a compressor by magic from the caretaker of a hotel.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 30 September, 2018, 11:13:42 am
new tyres are usually much softer than ones that are even six or nine months old.   New tyres grip better but they cut up and puncture very much more easily than older ones, especially when it is wet.  BITD it was SOP to mature tubs and I still do this with HPs; I prefer a bit less grip to lots of punctures.

 Hereabouts I see a lot of people with flats in the winter and most usually they are running new contis and they have succumbed to a flint or similar. I usually stop and give them a hand if they need it and I usually test the tyre with my thumbnail to see how soft it is. 'Pretty soft' is the normal answer. Flints vary by type and quantity depending on where you are; in some places there are lots, in other places not so much.

  After a year or eighteen months the GP4000 is normally so hard that grip is compromised; one of my chums will bin them at this point whether they are badly worn or not.

GP4000 is a racing/training tyre, not a touring tyre anyway.   Note that if you are getting sidewall problems then the tyres are not strong enough for your service conditions; tubeless or not it makes no difference, the tyre is wrecked. Contis have a special problem which is that they have (and need) a chafer ply that stops the rim from gouging the sidewall.  However the chafer tends to fall apart or come unglued from the rest of the tyre. I have seen quite a few tyres fail because the tyre has been on and off the rim a few times and the chafer has been folded over or has fallen apart; the next thing is that the sidewall fails just above the rim.  This process is very greatly speeded up if the rim has ever hit the road (eg running to a halt on a flat tyre or even resting the bare rim on a stony surface); even tiny burrs on the rim edges can cut the tyre fabric in time.

Tubeless tyres vary in their fit on the rim and how easy they are to deal with.  I don't see that for my riding they offer any real advantage, but they come with a whole host of potential problems.  I can't remember when I last had more than two punctures in a year's riding, yet I carry patches and booting fabric wherever I go, and a spare tube if it is more than a few miles.  I think I'd need to carry more stuff if I ran tubeless and I'd be less certain of fixing any major roadside problem well enough to be able to continue.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 30 September, 2018, 11:15:29 am
Non-tubeless:  You have to carry tubes and pump. You'll almost certainly have to use it a few times during the life of the tyre. Sometimes this may be in the pissing rain, with hands so cold you can't move your fingers.

Tubeless: You have to carry tubes and a pump, just like non-tubeless. If you get a gash you'll have to use a boot, just like non-tubeless. But you probably won't have to do either of these things to the extent that you do with non-tubeless. If you get a puncture that won't seal you put a tube in. You don't need a compressor.

Yes, you can use non-tubeless tyres on TL ready rims.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 30 September, 2018, 01:31:02 pm
Aging vulcanised tyres is somewhat meaningless. Handmade tyres can benefit from a little extra time to bond tread and casing. http://www.cxmagazine.com/buying-tubulars-tires-early-aging-process-explained

I've never been a big fan of aging tyres for puncture resistance. Pick the tyre (and tyre construction) for the puncture resistance you want from the beginning. Factories can tailor rubber characteristics for whatever performance is desired straight away. Harder rubber means less grip in wet corners, which can be a significant problem (I've broken too many bones). I tend to agree with Brandt that "aging tyres is a good thing" came from shops needing to move old stock.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 30 September, 2018, 02:51:46 pm
Pick the tyre (and tyre construction) for the puncture resistance you want from the beginning.

Quoted for truth.

Don't expect race tyres to be tough. Don't expect touring tyres to be nimble and fun.

If you want the fun of race tyres, going tubeless mitigates the downsides to a certain degree. In fact, what it means is that all the maintenance time gets shunted to a time and place of your choosing (fitment and sealant top-up), rather than at the roadside. If you get a catastrophic failure that a tube won't solve then you are in the same position as were it to happen with a conventional tyre.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 30 September, 2018, 02:56:43 pm
Mavic UST road tubeless can be inflated with an ordinary pump you carry on the bike. To check this wasn't luck I tried it several times all times they inflated with ease.

If on a long ultra race then you can always carry a small container of sealant with a nozzle applicator to fill through valve.

If you get a hole that won't seal then flexible superglue applied from outside can cure. No need to unmount the tyre bead from the rim.

Without sealant they will still inflate. They will just lose air over a period of hours. My sealant dried out over the heatwave which I disvovered with a puncture in one tyre. So i topped that up and it sealed fine. I forget to top up the front (as well)  so that gradually went soft during my ride.  I found I would get 100km between reinflating, so not the end of the world.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 30 September, 2018, 03:49:14 pm
CO2 cylinders are sometimes required to (re)inflate a tubeless tyre. I’ve never had a problem with it affecting latex based sealants but have switched to Finish Line “Kevlar” CO2 friendly sealant in my tubeless tyres just in case. This also doesn’t dry out and doesn’t need regular replacement. The only puncture I’m aware of having was when I rode over a broken Kilner jar (or whatever the French equivalent is) and no tyre would have survived the gash unscathed. I patched it from inside and fitted a tube. I’m no mile eater, but I was out of work this summer and rode 2-300km a week, with no punctures which was remarkable for me. Unlike Brucey I’d regularly have 4 or 5 punctures every summer with tubed tyres, including GP4000’s, which I found bastard hard to fit and remove from the CXP rims I had. 
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 30 September, 2018, 06:44:09 pm
Aging vulcanised tyres is somewhat meaningless....

Not in my experience.  A large part of the cost of tyres is 'mould time' and the way they reduce that is to reduce the time at temperature in the mould.  The vulcanising reaction is incomplete and continues outside the mould, for an appreciable length of time. Probably it never stops completely  for the entire life of the tyre.

I've ridden enough miles to know the difference for sure; I've ridden hundreds or even thousands of miles alongside folk running exactly the same tyres at the same pressure as mine, only mine are six months or a year old and theirs are new. They have had lots of punctures and I have had virtually none.

cheers


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 30 September, 2018, 06:54:53 pm
OK but tyre manufacturers who make both vulcanised and handmade tyres disagree with you.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 30 September, 2018, 07:49:58 pm
there is a long thread on here about tubeless tyres, worth a read if you have time. tubeless works better with higher volume and lower pressure tyres. i'd say 30mm tyre with 70psi are the ballpark figures where the sealant starts to work reliably (the numbers are made up by me from my own experience/judgement). while tubeless is an obvious choice for mtb tyres, it doesn't always work for the road setup (yet).
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 30 September, 2018, 09:18:13 pm

GP4000 is a racing/training tyre, not a touring tyre anyway.   

How does that square when racing with what some would consider a very light touring rig?

Whilst the trip was a tour/holiday, I was using it as a low stress opportunity to test out kit, techniques, approaches.

Now I'm back, I now need to focus on training for my next race in May.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 30 September, 2018, 10:49:32 pm
The difficulties of tubeless are often overstated and can be addressed.

Find a rim/Tyre combination that works - Kinlin and Schwalbe Ones don’t seem to need more than a track pump for example. Carry Tyre works, superglue and a mini pump, and a small bottle of sealant on a long tour. You could even carry a basic tube repair set up too for insurance.

You can fit non tubeless three to tubeless ready rims, but some are excessively tight, e.g. Challenge Paris Roubaix Open don’t go on to Kinlin rims with my thumbs. Otherwise, many others are fine including the Challenge Almanzo, which is a bit bigger.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 30 September, 2018, 11:07:59 pm

GP4000 is a racing/training tyre, not a touring tyre anyway.   

How does that square when racing with what some would consider a very light touring rig?


a 'light touring load' is like having a bike that weighs two or three times the normal weight sat on the tyres.  As explained in another recent thread, weight on the bike puts far higher dynamic  loads into the wheels and tyres than the same weight in the rider; the reason is that the latter is 'sprung weight' (i.e. it is not coupled to the bike rigidly) and the former is unsprung weight, that smashes the bike into every bump in the road whether you like it or not. Stiff frames and stiff forks don't help either.

If the chafer ply was damaged or wasn't positioned correctly I can see how a light-built tyre could fail in a relatively short distance anyway. With a load on the bike (even a fairly light one) the tyre will just see more, bigger loads than normal.

It is normal to use stronger tyres for touring on; there are several reasons for this, amongst which is the extra loading, the negligible benefits of 'faster tyres' as well as the extra PITA factor in sourcing new tyres in unfamiliar (possibly remote) territory.

The other thing is that a tyre failure in the sidewall usually doesn't happen instantly; a failing tyre usually goes out of shape before it fails completely. If you are doing day rides from home then you ought to spot the damage when you check your bike over before any given day's ride. If the tyre is not out of shape in the morning, the chances are good that it won't fail catastrophically on that day's ride.  If you are going touring for ten days, you arguably need to be ten times surer of your tyres.

If those were good tyres for touring on, that would imply that you could use much lighter-built tyres for unladen one-day events.  What tyres would they be, I wonder?

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 01 October, 2018, 09:01:49 pm

a 'light touring load' is like having a bike that weighs two or three times the normal weight sat on the tyres.  As explained in another recent thread, weight on the bike puts far higher dynamic  loads into the wheels and tyres than the same weight in the rider; the reason is that the latter is 'sprung weight' (i.e. it is not coupled to the bike rigidly) and the former is unsprung weight, that smashes the bike into every bump in the road whether you like it or not. Stiff frames and stiff forks don't help either.

I'm not sure I follow. How is adding 5kg of luggage to a 12kg bike equivalent to riding a 24-36kg bike?

Quote

It is normal to use stronger tyres for touring on; there are several reasons for this, amongst which is the extra loading, the negligible benefits of 'faster tyres' as well as the extra PITA factor in sourcing new tyres in unfamiliar (possibly remote) territory.

When does a race become a tour?

Quote

The other thing is that a tyre failure in the sidewall usually doesn't happen instantly; a failing tyre usually goes out of shape before it fails completely. If you are doing day rides from home then you ought to spot the damage when you check your bike over before any given day's ride. If the tyre is not out of shape in the morning, the chances are good that it won't fail catastrophically on that day's ride.  If you are going touring for ten days, you arguably need to be ten times surer of your tyres.

Does that apply when doing multiple 100km per day? What about going racing for 10 days?

Quote

If those were good tyres for touring on, that would imply that you could use much lighter-built tyres for unladen one-day events.  What tyres would they be, I wonder?

I've no idea, this isn't the sort of bike you would think to ride, what with the lack of bar end shifters, lack of drum breaks, etc...

I used the same tyres that James used for the TCR.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 01 October, 2018, 10:09:12 pm
if you put 5kg over one wheel, that beats the tyre up something rotten IME, worse than (say) 10kg more rider weight, probably.

Philosophical questions aside, it is all balance of the availability of new tyres, the real speed/comfort benefits of using a particular tyre  and the chances/consequences of failure. This isn't an exact science, and different folk will come up with different solutions that work well enough for them.

BTW you don't know what I'd ride in any given circumstance; I have quite a few (very) different bikes. 

cheers

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Frank9755 on 02 October, 2018, 07:05:11 am
I share your uncertainty as to what is best but, unfortunately, no-one can give us the answer. 

I've only ever had two disastrous tyre failures that led to me replacing the tyre.  The first was with tubeless in TCR and the second a tubed tyre in IndyPac.

Tyre failure is a rare event so no-one's experience is representative enough to draw conclusions from, and the data that you would need to make a decision is not available.  Your (semi-informed) guess is as good as anyone elses!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 02 October, 2018, 09:17:42 am
A year ago I had a chat with a bloke in his sixties who was enthusing about the Kinesis Tripster he'd bought himself as a retirement present. In addition to its titanium loveliness, he was very keen on the benefits of the tubeless tyres. "The best thing about them," he said, "is that you can't get a pinch puncture, because there's no tube to pinch. Mind you," he added, "in fifty years cycling I've only ever had one pinch puncture, so I suppose it's not really that much of a benefit."

Which I think illustrates Frank's point; the benefits and disadvantages you experience will be a selection of the entire range of benefits and disadvantages, depending on your present experiences with tubed tyres.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mzjo on 02 October, 2018, 12:37:12 pm
There is an easy answer to this question. Don't bother to torture your brain and suffer sleepless nights. Your technical choices and mine for our bikes are always diametrically opposed. I am using tubes. Nuff said??
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 02 October, 2018, 01:16:50 pm
OK but tyre manufacturers who make both vulcanised and handmade tyres disagree with you.

the effect is usually much larger with the latter type for sure but that is not to say that it is irrelevant with vulcanised tyres; it can be just as important. 

BTW I take anything and everything that tyre manufacturers say with a king-sized pinch of salt. IME they mostly talk a load of hype, nonsense and complete bullsquirt.  Very few of them seem to have adequate QC procedures, judging by the number of new tyres that are NFG.

 Quite recently about half the pro peloton defected from one tyre manufacturer to another, when the previous favourite manufacturer of wet weather tyres managed to supply tyres that had next to nothing in the way of wet weather grip. They seemingly  had no idea that they had managed to make duff tyres and less idea why they had done it (or presumably how to cure it, either).

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 02 October, 2018, 03:53:03 pm
if you put 5kg over one wheel, that beats the tyre up something rotten IME, worse than (say) 10kg more rider weight, probably.

cheers

Really?  10kg extra rider would need a perfect 50/50 split to only load up a tyre by 5kg. So IMO 10kg extra rider is worse for the most heavily loaded tyre. Since a typical weight distribution would be say 60/40 rear/front, 10kg rider adds 6kg to the rear and 4kg to the front.

https://www.vernier.com/innovate/investigating-weight-distribution-on-a-bicycle/
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 02 October, 2018, 03:56:24 pm
Quite recently about half the pro peloton defected from one tyre manufacturer to another, when the previous favourite manufacturer of wet weather tyres managed to supply tyres that had next to nothing in the way of wet weather grip. They seemingly  had no idea that they had managed to make duff tyres and less idea why they had done it (or presumably how to cure it, either).

cheers

Really? How recently?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 02 October, 2018, 04:35:28 pm
if you put 5kg over one wheel, that beats the tyre up something rotten IME, worse than (say) 10kg more rider weight, probably.

cheers

Really?  10kg extra rider would need a perfect 50/50 split to only load up a tyre by 5kg. So IMO 10kg extra rider is worse for the most heavily loaded tyre. Since a typical weight distribution would be say 60/40 rear/front, 10kg rider adds 6kg to the rear and 4kg to the front.

https://www.vernier.com/innovate/investigating-weight-distribution-on-a-bicycle/

the difference occurs because the weight strapped to the bike is pretty much unsprung weight and the weight of the rider is pretty much sprung weight.  Unsprung weight is far more harmful, to the tyres especially.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 02 October, 2018, 04:39:49 pm
Quite recently about half the pro peloton defected from one tyre manufacturer to another, when the previous favourite manufacturer of wet weather tyres managed to supply tyres that had next to nothing in the way of wet weather grip. They seemingly  had no idea that they had managed to make duff tyres and less idea why they had done it (or presumably how to cure it, either).

cheers

Really? How recently?

within the last year or two I think.  Yanto Barker was on about it during the live commentary of the ToB a few weeks ago.  Doubtless there will be others who can clarify the details.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 02 October, 2018, 04:59:54 pm
Quite recently about half the pro peloton defected from one tyre manufacturer to another, when the previous favourite manufacturer of wet weather tyres managed to supply tyres that had next to nothing in the way of wet weather grip. They seemingly  had no idea that they had managed to make duff tyres and less idea why they had done it (or presumably how to cure it, either).

cheers

Really? How recently?

within the last year or two I think.  Yanto Barker was on about it during the live commentary of the ToB a few weeks ago.  Doubtless there will be others who can clarify the details.

cheers

I can't think that it can be recent and accurate. Essentially for the last couple of years Continental are the only manufacturer that has got anywhere near close to supplying "half the peloton" (assuming we are talking WT teams here). They supplied 9 teams last year and 7 this year, out of 22 WT teams. The others are supplied by a mishmash of others.

The only thing I have heard with regards to wet weather was Team Sky dropping Veloflex because the wet performance wasn't good.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 02 October, 2018, 05:41:53 pm
Frankly, they should exercise a little caution and slow down when it rains
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 02 October, 2018, 06:09:00 pm
Teams rub vinegar on their tyres to help prevent cuts andcdmbedded stones.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 03 October, 2018, 10:46:27 am
if you put 5kg over one wheel, that beats the tyre up something rotten IME, worse than (say) 10kg more rider weight, probably.

[Citation needed]

When I first started using Conti GP4000s ii's I was >100kg. On this tour I started weighing 92kg.

The weight I added to the bike in the form of luggage was evenly distributed across 3 bags (Saddle, Frame, Handlebars). All of it within the plane of the bike.

Quote

Philosophical questions aside, it is all balance of the availability of new tyres, the real speed/comfort benefits of using a particular tyre  and the chances/consequences of failure. This isn't an exact science, and different folk will come up with different solutions that work well enough for them.

Yes, hence me asking on here for input.

Quote

BTW you don't know what I'd ride in any given circumstance; I have quite a few (very) different bikes. 

Yes, However you have spent many a thread espousing the benefits of drum brakes over everything else, and of simple shifters like downtube/bar end, rather than anything more modern, such as disc brakes or heaven forfend, Di2. Thus it's not a major leap to suggest that your chosen steed for such a ride would be based on drum brakes and friction shifters...

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 03 October, 2018, 11:05:52 am
You're thinking of going tubeless for a big race thing you've got planned for next year, and you've already got tubeless-ready rims? Or did I imagine you said that? If that's the case, I can't really see any reason not to give it a go now. If it works well for you, you'll already have it in place and hopefully have the little things sorted out by the time this race comes around. If it doesn't work, you go back to your current set up and you've only lost the cost of tubeless tyres, which who knows you might be able to sell on? and have gained the experience. Plus you can tell us all how it worked or didn't for you!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 03 October, 2018, 11:23:25 am
if you put 5kg over one wheel, that beats the tyre up something rotten IME, worse than (say) 10kg more rider weight, probably.

The weight I added to the bike in the form of luggage was evenly distributed across 3 bags (Saddle, Frame, Handlebars). All of it within the plane of the bike.....

that sounds eminently sensible (as I'd expect) but it still beats the tyres up worse than normal; there is no saving the tyres from bumps in the road when there is weight strapped directly to the bike.  If you want to try an interesting experiment, and you have a smartphone with the right widget/app in it, you can monitor vibration in the bike vs vibration in the rider on the same piece of road.  There is quite a big difference and this arises because of your 'suspension' if you like.

Quote
....it's not a major leap to suggest that your chosen steed for such a ride would be based on drum brakes and friction shifters...


yes I can see why you might guess at that.... ;)  but in fact neither of those things would make much difference to the speed of the bike, only the amount of maintenance it is likely to require and the chances of being able to fix stuff if it does go out of kilter.  [In point of fact you might go faster on drums; SA drum brake hubs have amongst the freest running bearings of any bicycle hubs, are very unlikely to drag and the hub brakes are thought to be more aerodynamic than discs or most rim brakes.... but I digress...]

If you are planning a multi-day ride (with little support) of any kind then most folk would only use very light/fast tyres if they were also prepared to carry a spare tyre.  Some folk won't use skinwall tyres on principle; they say they are too easily damaged.  Any tyre can be damaged but the lighter built it is (and the greater load that is carried) the greater the chances. No-one is going to be able to say for sure that tyre A will be OK but tyre B will not.  Personally if I were out for every last bit of speed/energy saving I might use a slightly heavier tyre on the rear than the front, and carry an even lighter tyre (to be fitted to the front only) in case of tyre failure. if the rear tyre fails then the front gets rotated to the rear, and the spare goes on the front.

The difference between fast tyres and slower tyres might well be 3-6W per tyre which is not to be sniffed at. However in the grand scheme of things most of your energy budget is 'spent' overcoming air resistance, so that is arguably the thing to be most concerned about. Quite small changes in riding position, clothing etc can make a big difference, bigger than you might get through selecting a faster tyre.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 03 October, 2018, 11:45:26 am
You are nowhere near correct with those figures, Brucey.

Take  a Vittoria Corsa. It's about 7 watts at 120psi. A Continental Gatorskin is 20. That is a 13 watt difference, which is significant, and that is the difference between a race tyre and a training tyre. With a touring tyre it will be even more pronounced, for example 29 watts for a Schwalbe Lugano (albeit these tyres are run at lower pressure).

A full 22 watts difference.

But, I agree with you in so far as choosing the right tyre for the job, if one of the requirements of the job is to not knacker your tyres.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 03 October, 2018, 11:47:46 am
You are nowhere near correct with those figures, Brucey.

Take  a Vittoria Corsa. It's about 7 watts at 120psi. A Continental Gatorskin is 20. That is a 13 watt difference, which is significant, and that is the difference between a race tyre and a training tyre. With a touring tyre it will be even more pronounced, for example 29 watts for a Schwalbe Lugano (albeit these tyres are run at lower pressure).

A full 22 watts difference.

But, I agree with you in so far as choosing the right tyre for the job, if one of the requirements of the job is to not knacker your tyres.

Double it for 2 wheels, and then factor in that by day 10 of a race putting out more than 100w is starting to be a real challenge, meaning that 44 watts is significant.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 03 October, 2018, 03:52:27 pm

I can't think that it can be recent and accurate. Essentially for the last couple of years Continental are the only manufacturer that has got anywhere near close to supplying "half the peloton" (assuming we are talking WT teams here). They supplied 9 teams last year and 7 this year, out of 22 WT teams. The others are supplied by a mishmash of others.

I think it is unsafe to assume that teams always use a sponsor's/official supplier's product when there is something better available.  Labels from one manufacturer have been known to end up on another's products, etc etc....

You are nowhere near correct with those figures, Brucey.

what figures?  ???  I was (of course) comparing a GP4000S (which has been shown to probably not be strong enough) with something a little bit stronger and a little bit slower, not the fastest tyre you can buy (at an entirely unrealistic pressure to boot) with one of the nastiest training tyres....

BTW you have to take the available rolling resistance measurements with a pinch of salt, for example;

1) you have to assume that chequer plate is like a road surface and interacts with all tyres in a similar way and
2) the fact that torque is transmitted through real rear tyres (without which you would not be moving) is not allowed for in such tests and
3) tubeless tyres are commonly tested without sealant. The effects of adding sealant are usually comparable to those of using an inner tube.

Quote
But, I agree with you in so far as choosing the right tyre for the job, if one of the requirements of the job is to not knacker your tyres.

it is always one of the requirements, isn't it?


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 03 October, 2018, 04:21:31 pm

I can't think that it can be recent and accurate. Essentially for the last couple of years Continental are the only manufacturer that has got anywhere near close to supplying "half the peloton" (assuming we are talking WT teams here). They supplied 9 teams last year and 7 this year, out of 22 WT teams. The others are supplied by a mishmash of others.

I think it is unsafe to assume that teams always use a sponsor's/official supplier's product when there is something better available.  Labels from one manufacturer have been known to end up on another's products, etc etc....

You are nowhere near correct with those figures, Brucey.

what figures?  ???  I was (of course) comparing a GP4000S (which has been shown to probably not be strong enough) with something a little bit stronger and a little bit slower, not the fastest tyre you can buy (at an entirely unrealistic pressure to boot) with one of the nastiest training tyres....

BTW you have to take the available rolling resistance measurements with a pinch of salt, for example;

1) you have to assume that chequer plate is like a road surface and interacts with all tyres in a similar way and
2) the fact that torque is transmitted through real rear tyres (without which you would not be moving) is not allowed for in such tests and
3) tubeless tyres are commonly tested without sealant. The effects of adding sealant are usually comparable to those of using an inner tube.

Quote
But, I agree with you in so far as choosing the right tyre for the job, if one of the requirements of the job is to not knacker your tyres.

it is always one of the requirements, isn't it?

To the bolded....The raw figure yes, but if the same methodology  is used for each tyre then you have a basis for comparison. Besides, what else ate you going to use?

As for requirements not to knacker tyres, no. All riding knackers all tyres. It's a balance of just how soon you don't want it to happen  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 06 October, 2018, 10:37:32 am
In practice, lightweight tyres need to be removed, sometimes discarded, and anyway refitted for a lot of reasons unrelated to pinprick punctures. Tubeless with sealant fixes none of those and makes this recurrent job messier, less certain in success, more time-consuming, and more expensive.

I think you’re better off getting a reliable, easy-to-use combination of non-tubeless rims (or very carefully selected tubeless rims that don’t make fitting tyres needlessly hard), non-tubeless tyres, reputable inner tubes, good rim tape that you’ve carefully fitted yourself, and a mounting method you’ve learned to trust from experience.

Pinprick punctures are infrequent even with light tyres, if you choose the tyre carefully. I ride in glass-strewn Paris and get about one per tyre life with Schwalbe One HS448 tyres. Fixing a puncture with a new inner tube takes five minutes if I’m in a rush (group ride) or a bit over ten minutes to do a perfect, careful job. Even the rush jobs have never caused any problems in practice.

Compare this to hours of expensive fuss by literally every acquaintance who has gone tubeless (two of whom I know reverted to tubes). I don’t see the point, and even less for a long ride where you need to know your system will get you to the finish line, not save you five meaningless minutes in the optimistic case.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 10:41:51 am
Bollocks.

It really would help if posters didn't opine or give advice about things of which they have NO experience.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 06 October, 2018, 11:33:22 am
Bollocks.

It really would help if posters didn't opine or give advice about things of which they have NO experience.

how rude. 

How wrong-headed. "The emperor's new tyres", perchance?

You don't need to try drowning yourself to know that it mightn't suit you; you only need see someone else doing it, and talk to them afterwards... Like opposable thumbs, language is a wonderful evolutionary blessing, except when there is, ahem,  too much of the wrong sort of it.....

If you ride much in groups it is good that folk use different equipment; you get to see what works and what doesn't, without having to, er, 'drown yourself'. (If you talk to people you pretty soon get a good idea if they are liable to talk nonsense or not, too...)

Likewise I always stop and offer to help others;  for one thing it is good manners (if I was stuck and folk just rode past I'd be pretty cheesed off TBH) and for another I often learn something.  For example last winter I stopped and offered help to at least six people who were using the same tyres on one local flint-strewn road that is popular for training rides; as a result that tyre model went on my 'not for winter use hereabouts' list and also went on my 'probably best to mature before actually using it' list too. 

There is a whole list of potential advantages to road tubeless. However the list of actual advantages (that might matter to some people) is rather smaller and there are also lists of potential/actual disadvantages (again that might happen/matter to some folk).  To spit the dummy and  cry 'bollocks' when someone makes a particular choice and explains why is just daft and quite unnecessary. If you think it is likely to sway others to your viewpoint, I suspect you are mistaken.

cheers


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 11:45:55 am
What kind of conceit must a person possess to think that their uninformed opinion should be privileged over those who use this stuff day in day out, and have done so for years?

Second-hand anecdote is of limited value, especially when we know nothing about the people you, or Samuel D, have encountered having difficulties with certain equipment. Maybe they are just incompetant. Plenty of people are. We know you claim to have an almost deistic omniscience when it comes to knowing which tyres and which exact pressures other riders you are with use when they puncture. It's bordering on incredible. Of course the people you encounter having difficulties with equipment are....errr...having difficulties. You seem to assume that these are the only people using it.  :facepalm:  And no, you probably aren't aware of exactly who is using what, even if you think you are.

What we do know is that you have no experience of owning and operating road tubeless tyres, road hydraulic disc brakes, and electronic gears....but plenty to say about it  ::-)



Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 06 October, 2018, 12:03:42 pm
I've probably ridden and worked on more bikes than others get to in a lifetime.  Believe it or not there are certain flavours of crap that I don't need own myself to know that they are indeed crappy in particular ways. You can disagree, that is your prerogative, but you are making some wild assumptions about what myself and others do and don't know and what experiences are valid.

"Ad hominem" attacks are usually the last resort of folk on the losing end of an argument or discussion. Being 'quick draw' with that line is again unlikely to persuade others to your viewpoint. [Personally I think it is hilarious too; it just devalues your opinion further, but that is beside the point...]

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 12:08:08 pm
I've probably ridden and worked on more bikes than others get to in a lifetime.  Believe it or not there are certain flavours of crap that I don't need own myself to know that they are indeed crappy in particular ways. You can disagree, that is your prerogative, but you are making some wild assumptions about what myself and others do and don't know and what experiences are valid.

"Ad hominem" attacks are usually the last resort of folk on the losing end of an argument or discussion. Being 'quick draw' with that line is again unlikely to persuade others to your viewpoint. [Personally I think it is hilarious too; it just devalues your opinion further, but that is beside the point...]

Your first sentence tells us all we need to know  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 06 October, 2018, 12:14:03 pm
Quite easy to get frustrated with tubeless system and to conclude that it is nothing but "hours of expensive fuss" - I know, did that recently. My latest bike's wheels came with mavic open pro UST rims and I requested schwalbe pro one tubeless tyres, because I have had good experience with them on my other bike - but that has stans rims.
It was frustrating because I thought I'd done everything right, but I could not get them to stay up for more than a couple of seconds, they would sort of seat but not in a way that held air for more than a couple of seconds, with all subsequent research pointing at, oh, you need sealant, you can't expect it to stay up without sealant - but I wasn't happy with the amount of "responsibility" that was being placed on the sealant.
Also frustrating not to know exactly whether the leak was the rim tape, the valve, or the tyre/rim interface.
Used tubes for a few rides and contemplated concluding that the TL system was just not advanced enough yet, before deciding to have another go but with the mavic tyres. Night and day difference in terms of air holding. 
Actually quite an enjoyable experience fitting them because as well as them going on fairly easily with just thumbs and them holding air without sealant, it also confirmed that the cause of my previous attempt failing was incorrect tyre/rim combination rather than bad workmanship in fitting the rim tape or valve by myself.

It has taught me that you can't simply buy any tubeless rims, pair them with any tubeless tyres and expect them to work together.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 12:21:55 pm
It's always a good idea to fit tubeless tyres with a tube and let them sit, fully inflated, for a few hours, before removing and fitting without a tube. They seat and seal much better. Many times it's not needed, but you only find out if you don't!

Again, actual knowledge and experience trumps what some guy on the internet (who hasn't any) is telling you  ;)

Funnily enough, I've just remembered who recommended tubeless to me in the first place. It was a guy called Mike. He'd ridden them with no problems....but only three or four hundred miles a week, every week, for a year (and in the process winning the AUK points award and setting a new distance record) so what would he know?  ;D

Glad you've got them working. Remember to top up the fluid every now and again of younger a few punctures.  Best done via valve (with core removed) rather than unhooking the tyre.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 06 October, 2018, 12:33:31 pm
Ben, I think that is a fair point; UST tyres usually do fit and work better on UST rims than a lot of other tyres.  However some of the possible advantages of tubeless appear not to be as good with these tyres; the models I have seen don't seem to be particularly light and they don't seem to roll quite as well as the best tyres either.  Like most  things in life there are swings and roundabouts....

cheers

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 06 October, 2018, 12:35:03 pm
...
Funnily enough, I've just remembered who recommended tubeless to me in the first place. It was a guy called Mike. He'd ridden them with no problems....but only three or four hundred miles a week, every week, for a year (and in the process winning the AUK points award and setting a new distance record) so what would he know?  ;D
...
yes funnily enough it was he who convinced me to first try them as well - he did say that when he had them changed he could see lots of sites where some sealant had plugged a hole. Think tyre and sealant companies should probably sponsor him ;D
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 12:49:49 pm
As ever, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I'll always take my own expertise and experience, coupled with that of people who walk the walk rather than 'some guy on the internet' with no experience but plenty of opinions  ;)

Mike's tyre choice was pretty conservative. He used Hutchinson Sector 28 tyres, which are tougher tyres, rather than going for the lightest and nimblest. I use Sector 32 on my autumn-spring commuter/audaxer. Just into it's third season and I'm still using the same pair. I frequently ramp it down a stony track with full confidence.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 06 October, 2018, 12:53:23 pm
mikey is a bit of a special case though, ideally suited for tubeless use being ultralight (under 60kg?), riding 28mm tyres (pretty wide for his weight), doing huge amount of miles (sealant doesn't dry out in one spot before tyres wear out), outsourcing all the "dirty" work to his lbs (no extra time spent on maintenance). teethgrinder is in similar category. :)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 01:00:35 pm
In a nutshell then tubeless works for people who actually ride their bikes....rather than those who don't   ;)

I think Mikey outsources all his work because he's not particularly competent/interested in doing it. I'd say that further underlines the value of tubeless....that a mechanically-inept rider (Sorry Mikey  :D) can ride 60,000+ miles in year and not encounter problems.

In fact, I quizzed him on the maintenance, because prior to using TL myself I was ignorant and sceptical (like Brucey) and  he reassured me that all his LBS did was occasionally top up the sealant.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 06 October, 2018, 02:10:48 pm

..... because prior to using TL myself I was ignorant and sceptical (like Brucey) .....

sceptical, yes;  ignorant, no.

one would conclude from your comments that before the invention of tubeless, no-one 'rode their bikes' because 'the tyres didn't work'..... ::-)

I have said before that tubeless appears mainly to be of benefit to those who can't/won't fix the odd puncture and want to use rather flimsy tyres for all their riding; training on race tyres, if you like.  Quite why you would want to do this is a bit of a mystery to me but it takes all sorts. 

BTW that a tubeless cover has a cut in it and the sealant appears to 'have worked' is not the same thing as an event that would definitely have resulted in a puncture with a tube fitted. Quite a lot of the time the cover is damaged thusly but the tube is not penetrated, or is just nicked so that you have a slow puncture (about the same leakage rate as you might have with a tubeless setup anyway....?... ;))  and you can ride home and fix it at  your leisure.

FWIW I ride a variety of different tyre weights (from about 200g upwards), none in the 'tractor tyre' category, under a fair mix of conditions. On the bike that sees most use I presently have ~270g tyre on the front and a (wider but similarly constructed) ~350g one on the back. Weirdly the front has punctured a couple of times but the rear (over several set of the same tyres) never has (which is an uncommon outcome).

   I reckon I get a puncture about once every 5000 miles or so, averaged over all my bikes. If I rode sub 250g tyres everywhere I think I would have a lot more punctures, even with tyre savers etc in use.  About half of all the tyres I have owned have eventually suffered carcass failure or have been cut very badly (eg by a piece of broken glass) before they have become properly worn out (yes I do like to get my money's worth).  Since both these types of failure will occur and stop you whether you are running tubeless or not, I don't think it is of great value for me to run tubeless; not enough advantage to be worth the issues that may arise.   I carry booting fabric at all times to mitigate this risk and I can be on my way again in a few minutes. I do not think I would find it anywhere near as easy to fix this kind of problem with a typical tubeless setup.

YMMV may vary, obviously, but to make every discussion one that is peppered with  childish remarks and jibes directed towards anyone who holds a different opinion to yourself  is not necessary. Maybe you are the sort of bloke that like to pick fights in pubs or something.

 

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 02:37:17 pm
So you are intimately acquainted with the tyres which you use.

Great.

But you still have no knowledge of the tyres (and gear systems, brake systems) which you do not use. Even if your own confidence in your own perspicacity means that you feel you can think your way to knowledge.

At least your last post indicates some movement in your thinking. You now acknowledge that TL is of use to people who want to ride light tyres...although because you don't want to do that you are unable to understand why others might. There is a word for that kind of thinking  ;)

It's just a pity that it takes such a heavy-hand to make you realise that what you like doing doesn't mean that other people's preferences are any less rational or effective.



Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: hubner on 06 October, 2018, 02:46:55 pm
Non-tubeless:  You have to carry tubes and pump. You'll almost certainly have to use it a few times during the life of the tyre. Sometimes this may be in the pissing rain, with hands so cold you can't move your fingers.

Tubeless: You have to carry tubes and a pump, just like non-tubeless. If you get a gash you'll have to use a boot, just like non-tubeless. But you probably won't have to do either of these things to the extent that you do with non-tubeless. If you get a puncture that won't seal you put a tube in. You don't need a compressor.

Yes, you can use non-tubeless tyres on TL ready rims.

It seems to me the practical difference is the sealant, which I presume needs to be carried when riding  tubeless along with the pump, spare tube and/or puncture repair kit.

And there's the question whether or not to even use sealant at all, I don't therefore I'm never going to use tubeless.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 02:55:41 pm
Your presumption is incorrect.

I never carry sealant and don't see why anybody would. I carry the exact same items I would with normal clincher. The difference is I almost never have to use them. If you find you get a puncture that won't seal, you put a tube in. Simples. Ive never had a puncture fail to seal because of a lack of sealant. Twice in 3 years Ive had to put a tube in (then quickly sort out the issue at home)

Twice. In 3 years. That's commuting all year round in all weathers, plus 40 mile club run on Sunday, and loads of audaxes. So the on-the-road workload equates to one puncture every 18 months with huge mileage.

There's your advantage right there.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 06 October, 2018, 03:08:12 pm
i do carry a 30ml bottle of sealant in case of emergency (and a spare inner tube which i'd use as a last resort). i'm using very thin and fast tyres without puncture protection - they feel great to ride and the sealant takes care of the punctures, more or less.
one other thing to bear in mind about latex sealant - if it gets sprayed  on your kit/clothes the stains will stay permanently. so if you are precious about your kit use mudguards, long seat pack or similar.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Bolt on 06 October, 2018, 03:30:20 pm
It has taught me that you can't simply buy any tubeless rims, pair them with any tubeless tyres and expect them to work together.

So very true and for me this restriction in the choice of tyres that will work with a given rim is the biggest disadvantage.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 06 October, 2018, 03:51:00 pm

But you still have no knowledge of the tyres (and gear systems, brake systems) which you do not use.

 

Not so; I see problems with bikes every day.  It is sometimes a user error which creates the problem, sometimes is 'a problem by design/manufacture' and sometimes a combination of the two. Telling the difference is not always easy.  No one person can ride every type of gear very many miles nor has sufficient funds (or insufficient brain cells) to buy it either. That does not mean 'no knowledge'. 

There's quite a lot of kit which folk (somehow) make work having bought it but in many cases they have made the best of a bad job, having bought a rod for their own back. The supposed advantages of that kit often don't exist, are not relevant to them or come with downsides that are not at first apparent; hence my 'emperor's new tyres' comment...

Quote
At least your last post indicates some movement in your thinking.


Not really. Look back if you like but I said the exact same thing quite a long time ago.  There are quite a few tubeless users who derive little or no benefit from it, or who would probably be better off with something else, for the reasons described.

I actually have faint hopes for 'road' UST but the new mavic open pro rim is just a bit too light and flimsy, there are not many UST tyres and I have doubts about whether standard tyres always fit well on those rims too (meaning that you have less choice than you thought you did if you buy those rims). Bearing in mind that all the manufacturers who make tubeless tyres have fairly often made tyres that don't fit well on normal rims I remain somewhat sceptical that tubeless tyres will always be made well enough; they need to be made better than standard tyres.  Some previous incarnations of tubeless are very poorly executed indeed and are often a recipe for complete misery.

If tubeless were a panacea for all ills (rather than something that you can make work sometimes by dint of appreciable effort, to take two contrasting viewpoints) then the 'tubeless for dummies' thread probably wouldn't have run and run as it has. One has to presume that there are quite a few ways it can go wrong or there are lots of dummies.

Wanting to train on race tyres all the time is pretty much just daft BTW, whichever way you cut it.  If you ride such tyres and they get cut up by flints etc, they are often on the verge of suffering carcass failure whether they leak air or not.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: grams on 06 October, 2018, 04:52:30 pm
Not so; I see problems with bikes every day.

That's the problem though - you never even meet the people who use the same kit and have zero problems. You have no way to measure actual failure rate, so what you're likely to end up recording is what kit is *currently popular*. Same with your story about noting what type of tyres people who get punctures are using - how does this not just tell you which tyres are currently selling best?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 04:56:02 pm

But you still have no knowledge of the tyres (and gear systems, brake systems) which you do not use.

 

Not so; I see problems with bikes every day.  It is sometimes a user error which creates the problem, sometimes is 'a problem by design/manufacture' and sometimes a combination of the two. Telling the difference is not always easy.  No one person can ride every type of gear very many miles nor has sufficient funds (or insufficient brain cells) to buy it either. That does not mean 'no knowledge'. 

There's quite a lot of kit which folk (somehow) make work having bought it but in many cases they have made the best of a bad job, having bought a rod for their own back. The supposed advantages of that kit often don't exist, are not relevant to them or come with downsides that are not at first apparent; hence my 'emperor's new tyres' comment...

Quote
At least your last post indicates some movement in your thinking.


Not really. Look back if you like but I said the exact same thing quite a long time ago.  There are quite a few tubeless users who derive little or no benefit from it, or who would probably be better off with something else, for the reasons described.

I actually have faint hopes for 'road' UST but the new mavic open pro rim is just a bit too light and flimsy, there are not many UST tyres and I have doubts about whether standard tyres always fit well on those rims too (meaning that you have less choice than you thought you did if you buy those rims). Bearing in mind that all the manufacturers who make tubeless tyres have fairly often made tyres that don't fit well on normal rims I remain somewhat sceptical that tubeless tyres will always be made well enough; they need to be made better than standard tyres.  Some previous incarnations of tubeless are very poorly executed indeed and are often a recipe for complete misery.

If tubeless were a panacea for all ills (rather than something that you can make work sometimes by dint of appreciable effort, to take two contrasting viewpoints) then the 'tubeless for dummies' thread probably wouldn't have run and run as it has. One has to presume that there are quite a few ways it can go wrong or there are lots of dummies.

Wanting to train on race tyres all the time is pretty much just daft BTW, whichever way you cut it.  If you ride such tyres and they get cut up by flints etc, they are often on the verge of suffering carcass failure whether they leak air or not.

cheers

Are you a professional bike mechanic? If not then  I doubt this claim. Unless of course you are referring to your own poorly maintained bikes :demon:

Being serious...You may well see problems. But that is all you are seeing. You aren't seeing equipment working really well. This is a point to which I alluded earlier and relates to your lack of actual experience. You are like an AA man who thinks that cars are crap because he's always seeing them break down.


It's all well and good farting about with somebody else's cock ups but you only get the real picture if you use the stuff yourself. I checked over 4 bikes yesterday. One of them had slipping gears. Turns out the chain had never been replaced and chainwheel teeth were worn. I encountered a similar issue with a clubmates earlier this year. He is a very decent rider on the cusp of getting a 2nd cat licence. Another cat 2 rider with whom I ride gets through parts on a weekly basis. He doesnt own a car, so all transport is by bike. Every time I ride with him there is an issue. Do I conclude from this that Sram is shit and falls apart? No. I recognise that he is mechanically incompetent. Should he go tubeless? Probably not.  But the Tubeless for Dummies is a record of how to make this stuff work well. It is nascent technology, and it is a learning process. That doesnt mean the core notion or the available materials are poor.

Where we may agree is that tubeless should probably not be used by idiots.  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 06 October, 2018, 06:55:35 pm

Are you a professional bike mechanic? If not then  I doubt this claim. Unless of course you are referring to your own poorly maintained bikes :demon:


No, I get the impression Brucey is a professional mechanic, or at least in the cycle trade in some way - hopefully he will confirm or deny?... but if so then that means the people that he sees are necessarily self-selecting as those who have got problems. And therefore any experience based on them will necessarily be biased towards the negative.
Tubeless tyres (like disk brakes and Di2 for that matter) are possibly over represented in problems being presented to bike shops not because they are crap, but because they are relatively new. If you were a bike mechanic in the late 19th century you would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that there are simply far too many people having problems with chains for them to be relied upon, best stick to a penny farthing.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 08:01:59 pm
Brucey is admirably knowledgeable about many if not most things concerning bikes, but not everything. He has a peculiar blind spot regarding other people enjoying benefits which he just can't see or are not important to his riding, and an inability to understand that what he regards as fatal flaws might not be to others. For example, he sees the £250 replacement costs of a Di2 rear derailment as a fatal flaw and doesn't understand that I am fully aware of how much they cost as I am sprinting up a hill banging through the gears with a touch.or a finger-tip and a massive grin on my face in a manner which would be impossible on his steel bike with bar end shifters  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 06 October, 2018, 08:11:33 pm
Everyone seems very keen to make assumptions about what I do and don't do, and the kinds of things that I will see and not see.  I meet and talk to cyclists every day. Few of them have nothing interesting to say about the equipment they use, but I am genuinely astonished at the things that some folk will tolerate or consider a priority.

 I see a lot of bikes that are broken for one reason, but are almost invariably well on the way out for another, or are actually broken.   'I hadn't noticed that...'  'Is that not, normal...?'   Well in many cases it is 'normal', normal for that type of equipment.... ::-)

There are quite a lot of things that you can make work for you, with a little effort, but that doesn't mean that it is the best solution or that it is the only solution. Folk will tolerate different sorts of effort, too.  Everything has its plus points and its minus points. We are all different, too; some folk get very excited about new things and become almost evangelical about them.  Bully for them, but if the real advantages of that thing are limited in scope and/or relevance, (or requires certain sorts of effort to make it work) then it is as well to consider that in a sober way rather than go off on one when anyone (with good reason) says "yebbut....."

For example..... many years ago I got cheesed off at the rate at which my training bike consumed derailleur transmission parts in the winter months. There are many ways of addressing this problem but I thought an IGH might solve it, in good part because it would use a cheap and durable chain and sprocket rather than a load of more expensive/easily damaged stuff.  The idea was that the transmission would tolerate periods of neglect provided I did some maintenance every now and then. I chose about the most complicated IGH then available. Folk said it would be

- unreliable
- expensive
- complicated
- inefficient
- full of the wrong ratios
- difficult to repair
- would let the weather in

 and so on.   In mitigation of this I had a (simpler) spare internal ready in case the original one let go: however I never had to actually use it.  I can report that a few of the possible problems are intrinsic to the device but most of them are not.  I guess I made that transmission work for me, mainly by doing fairly simple things. I would  not recommend that transmission as being 'better' than any other necessarily, I'd just mention the intrinsic shortcomings (things that you can't change and you need to be able to put up with) and explain what to do  if you wanted to avoid the other things.   FWIW I rode that gear on chain gangs (so clearly the inefficiency and the bad gear ratios were no real handicap after all), I learned to fettle it, keep it well lubricated, and in fact only three times has it given any trouble whilst out riding, and two of those were when the adjustment was wrong.  In quite a few years of use and many tens of thousands of miles I overhauled it two or three times and it consumed about £3 worth of new balls and springs. Even these were not worn, but they were a little corroded (my fault).  Eventually it gave me trouble on the road for a third time and this time it was serious; the axle broke in half.  But this was after decades of hard use and about 70000 miles or so, during which time it had spared me countless hours of tedious cleaning and many hundreds of pounds worth of worn and broken transmission parts, not to mention accidental damage and breakdowns on the road (of which I had plenty on other bikes).  The old axle warned me it was on the way out (there was an unusual noise a week before it broke) and it broke for  a reason; I installed an improved version and the experiment continues.....
So I regard that experiment as something of a success; even so I would not recommend the same gear to others in an unequivocal fashion; they may have different needs and preferences, and may have preferred different sorts of 'effort' to me.   So I don't wax evangelical about it, just explain the pros and cons as I see them and why. That is all you can do.

I don't think that tubeless tyres are much different to my IGH, except that this technology appears to 'solve problems' that I don't really have and in so doing creates a load of new ones that I am not sure are any more tolerable than the ones I started with.  I daresay some folk would say the same thing about my IGH (or indeed any piece of cycling kit); that is their prerogative. What I do take exception to is others getting terribly excited if you hold a different view to them, to the point that they go about slandering you, poking childish jibes, second guessing what you do and don't know. etc. There's just no need for that. 

 Are we not here to exchange information/ideas rather than trade insults?

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 08:19:17 pm
So don't use tubeless tyres then. Simples.

Not sure why you keep posting on this thread  ??? ???
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 06 October, 2018, 08:48:59 pm
If I were an advocate of  tubeless tyres, I would at least mention some of the possible downsides to them, and see that folk actually needed whatever advantages they might offer, rather than paint them in a rosy hue, say how wonderful they are, and start insulting anyone who held a slightly different POV.

Why does anyone post on any thread?

  In this case my main objective is to see a more balanced and reasoned discussion than might otherwise arise.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 08:58:43 pm
Perhaps you should have a re-read of this thread.

You've posted more than anybody else on this thread....and you've never even used the tyres in question  ;D ;D
Funnily enough, neither has Samuel D, who is the only other person to post vociferous opinions on tubeless tyres. Im seeing a pattern here  ::-)

Rose-tinted view? Nope, an informed and experienced view. Unlike yours.
 
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 06 October, 2018, 08:59:41 pm
I never carry sealant and don't see why anybody would. I carry the exact same items I would with normal clincher. The difference is I almost never have to use them. If you find you get a puncture that won't seal, you put a tube in. Simples. Ive never had a puncture fail to seal because of a lack of sealant. Twice in 3 years Ive had to put a tube in (then quickly sort out the issue at home)
Doesn't the slime that's inside the tyre make this harder or at least messier than putting a tube in a normal clincher? And what sort of pressure do you then need in the tube? (Probably these questions would be better in the Tubeless for dummies thread, but as it's been raised here... )
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 09:05:48 pm
In most situations necessitating a tube there is unlikely to be any/Much sealant left in the tyre.  If there is, it's easy to tip it out.

Pressure? Same as when normally putting in a tube...which is more than you would need when tubeless, because with tubes you can't run low pressures without risking snakebite punctures. This is another of the advantages of tubeless especially for MTB but also for people who want a more cushioned ride.

As I said earlier, generally, with tubeless you carry what you would carry with any tyre. But the difference is you might never use it.  The workload is when you mount the tyre for the first time...But if you know what you are doing it is quite a satisfying job.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 06 October, 2018, 09:26:12 pm
I was just wondering about this specific situation – I appreciate it's probably quite infrequent. Didn't realise the sealant would just tip out, though it was more a 'slime' than a liquid. Thanks!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 09:28:21 pm
It's like milk. Surprisingly runny.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 06 October, 2018, 09:38:31 pm
is anybody here using tubeless setup on multiple bikes? i'm planning to install tubeless on my second bike, but would also need to start using a task management/tracking software or a system to assist me with the sealant schedules. i think two bikes would be the max i'm willing to maintain (without contracting someone else to manage the fleet! :) ). quite a lot of "failures" happen after the sealant dried out, similar to di2 battery going flat - which is entirely preventable providing there is an automated reminder of some sorts.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 06 October, 2018, 09:40:51 pm
Yes, but I’m using Finish Line sealant which (according to the manufacturer) doesn’t “go off”. Otherwise change/top up quarterly.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 09:44:14 pm
Yes, I am. 3 sets of wheels across two bikes.

Again, the sealant drying out isn't a massive biggie. It's not a panic. You just slap a tube in...just like you have to do with every puncture on a tubed tyre.

A bigger issue is not using the bike for weeks and the tyres going flat. Usually, you can get away with topping up the sealant and re-inflating, but occasionally you have to do a full remount. The only pain is scraping off any dried up sealant from the head.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 06 October, 2018, 09:48:34 pm
It's like milk. Surprisingly runny.

it's somewhere between milk and single cream when fresh. it turns goopy(ier) when stuck to the inside of the tyre and it's quite messy to deal with, something i'd be not willing to do on a ride.

(http://res.cloudinary.com/yaffa-publishing/image/fetch/http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/legacy_bicycle/media/HT-Mech---Small-Cuts-2.png)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 06 October, 2018, 09:53:44 pm
Ive had to put a tube in twice in 3 years. Wasn't a problem, wasn't messy. First time was because I hadn't topped the sealant up and there was none left to plug a fresh hole (this was after almost a year). Second time was when sealant wouldn't plug a hole and dumped all the sealant. I was glad I had mudguards on though.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 07 October, 2018, 01:13:53 pm
Bollocks.

It really would help if posters didn't opine or give advice about things of which they have NO experience.

You mean it would be helpful if no-one who disagreed with you posted.

Ignoring your introduction since this forum has long given you special dispensation for vulgar rudeness, I don’t see how your complaint applies. I didn’t make claims outside my experience.

I’m just another poster on forums like this, but among my riding companions I am a mechanical wizard able to command such magic as indexing gears in five minutes without YouTube. Consequently I have been asked to help people with their tubeless problems. There’s enough of them that I can claim some hands-on experience.

Not that I have your high reverence for experience. Life – experience if you prefer – has taught me that understanding is usually worth more than long, dumb experience. After all, our technical progress has relied utterly on language reducing the need to experience things personally. No-one need reinvent the wheel. Of course experience allied to understanding is the ideal.

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.

If you read my post (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109741.msg2330974#msg2330974) again you will find nothing to complain about except inconvenient truths. Anyone who claims tubeless is a panacea that does not involve more mess, less certainty, more time, and more cost should be dismissed as a shill. Honest advocates accept those downsides for benefits that mean more to them, as they see things, than they do to me.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 07 October, 2018, 01:18:39 pm
Here's what the guy from Hunt Wheels says"

"Have you had any issues with certain brands of tyre not fitting properly?

“Not really, we have to say that pretty much all road tubeless/tubeless-ready tyres we have tested from major brands, especially the 2016/2017 models, seal and fit pretty well nowadays.

“It’s often a case of knowing the tricks.

“While there is a learning process to tubeless we liken it to the first time we had to fit an inner tube in a 23mm tyre; it’s always a struggle get it all in and how many of us have nipped or punctured a tube with a lever or left the tube stuck under the bead creating an almighty bang when it explodes?”

Hunt are strong advocates for tubeless technology

Why do some combinations just not seal?

“While we definitely find some tyres are easier to get sealed, often it’s down to rim tape or valve installation.

“We tend to find even if an initial seal is harder, a few days of being inflated with a good sealant tends to fill any small air leaks.

“Something to note is that seating and sealing in warmer conditions is easier, so a trick can be to put the wheels in a warm house for a couple of days after set-up to help them get a good seal.”


Pretty much accords with my experience. You have to do a good job of setting the wheel up which means a really clean and dry rim bed ready for taping with the correct width tape, fitting the valve properly, prestreching the tyre (not always necessary but easily done), installing tyre with soapy beads, filling with correct amount of sealant, then riding and re-inflating regularly for a couple of days.

It's very easy to do these things.

Samuel D:

You may have attempted to offer roadside help to people using a system you know little about but you absolutely don't know anything about how the tyres were mounted in the first place.  Therefore your comments regarding tubeless tyres are pretty worthless.

In fact, you yourself admit that the people you encounter having problems with tubeless are incompetent mechanics..

Quote
among my riding companions I am a mechanical wizard able to command such magic as indexing gears in five minutes without YouTube. Consequently I have been asked to help people with their tubeless problems. 

It hasn't dawned on you that your sample is self-selecting and provides no basis on which to claim any sort of balanced understanding.

Sorry, but my experience (not dumb, it takes understanding to fit and use the system effectively) is worth more than your hot air. It matters not one shit to me what  equipment you or anybody else chooses to use, but when I read ill-informed comments from people (with a history of equipment bigotry) and no meaningful experience then I will highlight it for the benefit of the person who asked the question in the first place.



Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: teethgrinder on 07 October, 2018, 01:43:41 pm
is anybody here using tubeless setup on multiple bikes?

3 bikes with 8 pairs of wheels.
If I suspect the sealant is dry, I just put some more in. I always carry sealant with me anyway, so if my wheels have dried up and my tyre goes down, I can top it up on the road. The other way would be to put new sealant in every wheel every few months, or maybe just check them.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Chris N on 07 October, 2018, 01:53:36 pm
is anybody here using tubeless setup on multiple bikes?

Yes.  4 bikes, until recently* all tubeless: MTB, 2x road and CX.  Varying degrees of faffage setting them up, but funnily enough it gets easier the more you do it. ;D  I check the sealant about once every 4 months.  Only one puncture in 3 years and about 10,000 km - that sealed well enough to get me home but needed a worm inserting to plug the leak.  Keep them topped up and everything seems just fine.

* I switched back to tubes on one set of wheels because I want to use up a decent set of non-tubeless tyres.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: hubner on 07 October, 2018, 01:54:22 pm
Quote
The main benefit of tubeless is the ability to use low air pressure for better traction without getting pinch flats because there is no tube to pinch between the rim and an obstacle

If that's correct, then tubeless for road use is completely pointless.

If your tyres are that soft, you need to pump them up! Soft tyres are crap because you will dent your rims and because of higher rolling resistance.

It seems sealant is the essential part of tubeless, but you can still get the same "benefit" on a tubed tyre if you can put up with the mess.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 07 October, 2018, 02:04:24 pm
Quote
The main benefit of tubeless is the ability to use low air pressure for better traction without getting pinch flats because there is no tube to pinch between the rim and an obstacle

If that's correct, then tubeless for road use is completely pointless.

If your tyres are that soft, you need to pump them up! Soft tyres are crap because you will dent your rims and because of higher rolling resistance.


TL is ubiquitous in the MTB domain because of the advantages in the comment you quote.

Certainly there is also this advantage on the road should you prefer to ride with lower pressures. In good conditions I don't, but in the winter I'll drop the commuting tyres down to 50psi sometimes, for improved traction. Try doing that on conventional tyres  ;)

For me, the principal benefit is self-sealing punctures occurring at moments when I really wouldn't want to stop and tackle a puncture. This might be wet days when I'll get covered in shite (As happens in winter and spring on wet rides), or freezing days when stopping means getting cold, or when trying to use ungloved hands will be hard, or night-time punctures, or punctures at 11pm in the final miles of a 400k when I really just want to finish. It might also be punctures when in a chaingang or group which would mean everybody has to stop and wait.

But actually it's nice just to not have to stop at all.

As I've said before, with TL it isn't necessarily the case that you save time, it is just that by and large the time you need to spend on the system is at a moment and place of your choosing (ie. a nice dry and warm house, when it is convenient,)



Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: hubner on 07 October, 2018, 02:13:54 pm
Quote
The main benefit of tubeless is the ability to use low air pressure for better traction without getting pinch flats because there is no tube to pinch between the rim and an obstacle

If that's correct, then tubeless for road use is completely pointless.

If your tyres are that soft, you need to pump them up! Soft tyres are crap because you will dent your rims and because of higher rolling resistance.


TL is ubiquitous in the MTB domain because of the advantages in the comment you quote.

Certainly there is also this advantage on the road should you prefer to ride with lower pressures. In good conditions I don't, but in the winter I'll drop the commuting tyres down to 50psi sometimes, for improved traction. Try doing that on conventional tyres  ;)

For me, the principal benefit is self-sealing punctures occurring at moments when I really wouldn't want to stop and tackle a puncture. This might be wet days when I'll get covered in shite (As happens in winter and spring on wet rides), or freezing days when stopping means getting cold, or when trying to use ungloved hands will be hard, or night-time punctures, or punctures at 11pm in the final miles of a 400k when I really just want to finish. It might also be punctures when in a chaingang or group which would mean everybody has to stop and wait.

But actually it's nice just to not have to stop at all.


As I've said before, with TL it isn't necessarily the case that you save time, it is just that by and large the time you need to spend on the system is at a moment and place of your choosing (ie. a nice dry and warm house, when it is convenient,)

My bold.

You didn't quote the last bit of my post:

Quote
It seems sealant is the essential part of tubeless, but you can still get the same "benefit" on a tubed tyre if you can put up with the mess.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 07 October, 2018, 02:20:00 pm
My bold.

You didn't quote the last bit of my post:

Quote
It seems sealant is the essential part of tubeless, but you can still get the same "benefit" on a tubed tyre if you can put up with the mess.

No, apparently you can't - I asked that here https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=87521.msg2329768#msg2329768

...concerns are that sealant is less effective in tubes as they are more flexible than tyres and so move as air escapes hindering the sealing process and also that they remain susceptible to pinch flats

sealant inside inner tubes doesn't work that well as the inner tube constantly moves against the tyre; it does keep the pressure at ~30psi (ime) so enough to get back home. plus, when the sealant dries out there's no way to remove it and you end up with unbalanced wheel (or need to replace the inner tube every few months).
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 07 October, 2018, 03:07:10 pm
FWIW I have fitted multiple sets of tubeless tyres and had to help folk out when their setup landed them in the poop (which is surprisingly commonplace). I vehemently disagree with the comment that putting a tube in is just like with a set of 'normal tyres'.  It is most usually nothing of the sort, for the following reasons;

1) the tyres are a tighter fit, by design
2) the rims have tyre retaining lips, by design
3) you need to remove the valve stem; the locknut that was finger tight when the tyre was inflated now needs pliers to remove it once the tyre is flat.
4) The tyre is full of messy gloop.
5) you then need to fit a (tight) tyre which is busy trying to pinch the tube worse than normal.

The net result of this is that a process that can take a couple of minutes and is very easy usually turns into a messy twenty-minute propergoing PITA. On many winter group rides the tubeless rider who gets stopped this way is liable to be unceremoniously  left by the roadside; if they are lucky someone stops with them otherwise they have to fend for themselves or phone home.

My advice is not to even buy tubeless ready rims unless you are fairly committed to the idea of tubeless tyres; even using normal tyres on them can be unnecessarily awkward, and I have every reason to believe that some tubeless rims don't retain some ordinary tyres adequately.

No, I don't 'use tubeless tyres myself' .  Nor have I sat in a darkened room enthusiastically banging my head with a hammer.

  I don't think that it changes the validity of my views on those things in the slightest.....

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 07 October, 2018, 03:33:18 pm
Re. (1), (2) and (5). With my tubeless tyres it is fairly easy to push them onto the rim with my thumbs, without using tyre levers. It is not that difficult to extend the same process to doing it with a tube in, you just have to make sure the tube is the other side of the rim when you push the bead over it - which is not difficult to do. Mavic recommend that you start opposite the valve, and finish at the valve. If you do it this way with a tube, then the valve holds the tube in the middle of the rim.

(4) doesn't make it any more difficult, and if you have suffered a puncture in the first place it is more likely to be because there isn't be any sealant left.

(3) You can get more purchase turning the nut anticlockwise by gripping it with your fore finger and thumb straddling round the rim, so you are 'pushing' with your thumb and pulling with your forerfinger, than the other way round. When doing it up (clockwise), have your hand in the spokes, so you are still pushing with thumb and pulling with forefinger.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 07 October, 2018, 03:51:56 pm
Indeed.

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. It's all pretty straight-forward.

I'm going to believe my own experience, rather than 'Some guy on the internet' who has a well-known axe to grind with regards to modern equipment.

It's odd though isnt it. Here we are on a forum, used in the main by high mileage cyclists, and not one person has posted to say that they have encountered serious issues. The only people who are highly critical are those presenting second-hand anecdote.

Nor have I sat in a darkened room enthusiastically banging my head with a hammer.

Perhaps you should. It might improve the signal to noise ratio  :demon:
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 07 October, 2018, 03:57:21 pm
Indeed Brucey speaks from an opinion based point of view rather than real world experience.  It is a bit like someone who has never driven offering advice on how to do so.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Zed43 on 07 October, 2018, 09:12:45 pm
I've been riding tyres sans tubes now for a little over 18 months and while I'm on the whole positive, I don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Tyres in question are 35mm Compass Jon Bon Pass, the "extra light" version. A VAR tyre lever (https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tools/var-tyre-levers/) is recommended for mounting on Kinlin XR31 rims, this combo is rather, but not impossibly, tight. The Jon Bons are "tubeless ready", but in my experience the sidewalls are leaky and it takes effort to get them air tight. Orange Seal sealant seems to work better for this than Schwalbe Doc Blue (= Stan's?).

Over the course of ~ 13000km (and 4 tyres) I've had, I think, some seven punctures. Three of them did not seal themselves and needed work. On two of those I put in a tube; on the first puncture I didn't have a tubeless repair set with me. I'd say putting a tube in takes about 10 minutes extra compared to normal change of tubes, provided you have small pliers with you to remove the valve and some tissues (a must-carry anyway IMO) to clean the tyre. My experience (with Doc Blue, maybe the Orange is better) is that at higher pressures sealant may squirt out for a while before sealing, so you probably want to stop and inflate. But wait a bit until the sealant has truly sealed or the puncture will just pop open when the pressure increases.

I will continue using tyres tubeless, as long as they're wide enough to run at less than 3.5 bar / 50 PSI.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 07 October, 2018, 09:16:51 pm
Indeed Brucey speaks from an opinion based point of view rather than real world experience. 

not so.  Read what I have written and tell me that again.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 10:56:03 am
Nevertheless you misrepresent what others have said as a 'rose tinted view, when in fact they have detailed what fitting and using this system entails. You have used emotive language referring to this equipment as 'crap

You post repeatedly, with the attitude that your experience of not actually using this equipment is somehow of equal value to that of those who do. This has reached a farcical level when one of the posters whose choice of equipment you deride has ridden 200,000 miles on tubeless tyres.

Think about that for a moment.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: vorsprung on 08 October, 2018, 11:07:16 am

It's odd though isnt it. Here we are on a forum, used in the main by high mileage cyclists, and not one person has posted to say that they have encountered serious issues. The only people who are highly critical are those presenting second-hand anecdote.


well - I have but on my bike that doesn't have proper tubeless rims, but H Son Plus with an adapter strip
most stories you hear about "tubeless killed my hamster" involve some major miscalculation or avoidable problem like this

I am happy as larry riding 200 miles in poor conditions on a bike with proper rims and tubeless

My other best bike still has normal clichers on it as I didn't want to spend the $$$ on a new pair of wheels with tubeless friendly rims
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 08 October, 2018, 11:45:40 am
Funnily enough, I've just remembered who recommended tubeless to me in the first place. It was a guy called Mike. He'd ridden them with no problems....but only three or four hundred miles a week, every week, for a year (and in the process winning the AUK points award and setting a new distance record) so what would he know?  ;D

Followed by this flip (with the usual gratuitous vulgarity):

It matters not one shit to me what  equipment you or anybody else chooses to use

And then this flop (with trademark grammar):

You post repeatedly, with the attitude that your experience of not actually using this equipment is somehow of equal value to that of those who do. This has reached a farcical level when one of the posters who's choice of equipment you deride has ridden 200,000 miles on tubeless tyres.

Flip, flop, flap!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 11:54:58 am
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. :)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: tiermat on 08 October, 2018, 11:57:09 am
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 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...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 12:07:25 pm
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 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...

Couldn't agree more :)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 12:41:30 pm
Fwap Fwap Fwap

As usual...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 08 October, 2018, 12:57:22 pm
Indeed Brucey speaks from an opinion based point of view rather than real world experience. 

not so.  Read what I have written and tell me that again.
Quote from: Brucey
On many winter group rides the tubeless rider who gets stopped this way is liable to be unceremoniously  left by the roadside; if they are lucky someone stops with them otherwise they have to fend for themselves or phone home.

No, I don't 'use tubeless tyres myself' .

So you don't use tubeless yourself and anyone who does and gets a puncture is left behind.  Does not sound like you have any experience if any of fixing tubeless on the road.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 01:06:01 pm
I ride with a club every week. I've never seen a tubeless rider left behind. Maybe that is because I've never seen a tubeless rider have any issues, apart from myself, once.

I wasn't left behind.

I'm started to wonder whether Brucey's imagination gets the better of him. He says 'on many club rides'...are these many club rides ones at which he was actually present? Or is it second-hand anecdote?

There is a third option  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 08 October, 2018, 01:07:46 pm
Fwap Fwap Fwap

As usual...

There you go again. (Are you like this in real life?) The appropriate response would have been to explain why you care very much what others are riding if they’re using equipment you prefer but don’t care if they aren’t.

It’s impossible to have a debate if you dodge all the hard questions, misquote your opponent, assume bad faith at every turn, and revert to insults about bodily functions when you get stuck.

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 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...

Quixoticgeek has already covered Di2 (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=107971.0) in a thread that widened to the role of technological innovation in cycling. There wasn’t much room for unorthodox opinions there either, but I was pleased to get in a Lewis Mumford quote. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=107971.msg2286710#msg2286710)

And quixoticgeek has plenty of disc-brake threads (she spells it “disk”, which makes finding them easy).

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!

American cycling forums do better at supporting an atmosphere conducive to proper debate rather than this silliness.

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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: grams on 08 October, 2018, 01:11:01 pm
On many winter group rides the tubeless rider who gets stopped this way is liable to be unceremoniously  left by the roadside; if they are lucky someone stops with them otherwise they have to fend for themselves or phone home.

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?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 08 October, 2018, 01:17:53 pm
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!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 01:23:09 pm
bla bla bla

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.

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".

You talk about "dissenting views", but you whine when your "dissenting views" are challenged. Especially when it transpires that you have never even used the products you are critiquing. That is why your opinions  are being treated with a certain amount of weary dismissiveness.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 08 October, 2018, 01:25:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Kim on 08 October, 2018, 01:34:16 pm
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'.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 08 October, 2018, 01:41:48 pm
On many winter group rides the tubeless rider who gets stopped this way is liable to be unceremoniously  left by the roadside; if they are lucky someone stops with them otherwise they have to fend for themselves or phone home.

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?

"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.

 OK it ought to happen less often, tyre for tyre, but IME those who use tubeless are also liable to be using tyres that are not really well suited to winter conditions, so problems are more common than you might expect.

I daresay some of the delays have been due to unfamiliarity with the equipment etc, but I note that a lot of experienced riders favour (say) winter  tyre/rim combinations that allow the tyre to come off the rims without using tyre levers. This makes tube changing an absolute doddle. There are precious few tubeless rim/tyre combos that are anywhere near as fast as this; most of them are far tighter than I'd choose to use with standard tyres and rims.

Without a few voices (eg myself and Samuel) the exaggeration of the benefits of tubeless (which are in many cases based on specious reasoning) would continue unabated  and the numerous possible shortcomings of this approach wouldn't get an airing at all.  As it is, for merely mentioning them, based on my own experience one has to put up with a lot of pathetic childish nonsense. 

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 01:44:35 pm

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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Chris N on 08 October, 2018, 01:58:44 pm
I can vouch for the fact that Hot Flatus is just as obnoxious in person as he is on here, the twat. :-*
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 08 October, 2018, 02:01:12 pm
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.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 08 October, 2018, 02:10:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 08 October, 2018, 02:25:43 pm
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. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109741.msg2330974#msg2330974) 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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 08 October, 2018, 03:06:34 pm
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.

Quote
BTW I believe QG's puncture rate was as described.
Certs. It's not that anyone is actively lying.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 08 October, 2018, 03:23:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 03:52:35 pm
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. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109741.msg2330974#msg2330974) 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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Zed43 on 08 October, 2018, 03:54:28 pm
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  >:(
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 04:00:11 pm
...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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 08 October, 2018, 05:46:08 pm
Here’s my post again. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109741.msg2330974#msg2330974) 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 …
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 06:05:14 pm
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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 06:11:57 pm
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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 08 October, 2018, 06:13:43 pm
I’d be lynched if I did. Maybe if there was a moderator with a big stick standing nearby I’d have the nerve.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 06:34:07 pm

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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 08 October, 2018, 06:39:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 06:41:45 pm
I've just inhaled my tea
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 08 October, 2018, 06:42:07 pm
...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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 08 October, 2018, 06:46:49 pm
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?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 06:48:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 07:07:08 pm

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.  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 07:43:43 pm

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 :(
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 08 October, 2018, 07:46:18 pm
312km of which being Saturday's 300km BRM. Which was also my longest ever ride.
:thumbsup:
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 07:55:41 pm
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...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 07:59:33 pm
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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 08:13:26 pm
There have only been 3 winners in 6 editions, and in such a rarified race I'm not convinced that equipment choice will be the deciding factor. Besides, for the TCR, titanium may well be the safest and best choice, especially if poor road surfaces are a factor in terms of potential damage to bike, and comfort.

For a UK Audax though, it's s different equation.


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 08:19:44 pm
There have only been 3 winners in 6 editions, and in such a rarified race I'm not convinced that equipment choice will be the deciding factor. Besides, for the TCR, titanium may well be the safest and best choice, especially if poor road surfaces are a factor in terms of potential damage to bike, and comfort.

For a UK Audax though, it's s different equation.

Erm, I listed 5 winners in the last 3.

Total list of winners so far is:

Kristof Allegaert
Juliana Buhring
Pippa Handley
Josh Ibbett
Jayne Wadsworth
Emily Chappell
James Hayden
Melissa Pritchard
Ede Harrison

I make that 9 winners across 6 races. (Out of a potential of 12).

Not a bad record when you consider the race so hard that no man as ever won it, has only been won by Sarah Hammond...

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 08:25:44 pm
 :-[ You are quite right.  :-[

I'm a bit embarrassed...especially as I'm acquainted with and have ridden with  one of the female winners.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 08 October, 2018, 08:28:03 pm
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
Well that's your answer, not Samuel's...
But it does show that I was imprecise. I didn't mean "Who are the top TCR riders?" but rather was wondering about the way Samuel seemed to equate "top cyclists" with TCR riders. FTR I do know 3 people who've ridden TCR (one of them multiple times). None of them has ever won (though I've met Emily Chappell a couple of times too; somewhere on the internet there is a photo of my son stealing all the cake that was meant for her...  :D) but they are all, needless to say, far, far faster, stronger and more determined than me. As well as being more competitive. But surely if you're looking for the tops in terms of speed, strength, stamina, you'd be looking at the pro peleton not an amateur race, however demanding.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 08 October, 2018, 08:30:41 pm
let's remember that tcr is not a typical race (the one where you go fast). it's a long ride, where you need to spend as much time on a bike as possible. i am not ashamed to admit that my rolling average was 18.9kph(!) and this was enough to finish way before the finishers party. people put so much thought into bikes, setups, scenarios, but often forget to train on effective usage of time, nutrition/hydration options, willpower to get on a bike and just keep f moving. one short story*: a rider had a custom made to measure bike built for the tcr, the bike broke down somewhere in albania, bike shop couldn't fix it. he left the bike with them and bought their cheap bike which they had on the floor. he finished the tcr fine and found the cheapo bike to fit him better. the broken custom one is still in albania waiting to be collected.

*told by a fellow rider
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 08:39:19 pm
let's remember that tcr is not a typical race (the one where you go fast). it's a long ride, where you need to spend as much time on a bike as possible. i am not ashamed to admit that my rolling average was 18.9kph(!) and this was enough to finish way before the finishers party. people put so much thought into bikes, setups, scenarios, but often forget to train on effective usage of time, nutrition/hydration options, willpower to get on a bike and just keep f moving. one short story*: a rider had a custom made to measure bike built for the tcr, the bike broke down somewhere in albania, bike shop couldn't fix it. he left the bike with them and bought their cheap bike which they had on the floor. he finished the tcr fine and found the cheapo bike to fit him better. the broken custom one is still in albania waiting to be collected.

*told by a fellow rider

That's good to know. I averaged 20.3kph for just over 15 hours of 19 on Saturday. That gives me 5 hours to sleep, and do it all again...

Yeah, I need to train more. And improve my faff to forward ratio...

With your 18.9kph, how many hours did you spend riding in each 24?

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 08 October, 2018, 08:51:07 pm
the average time on a bike was 16.5h/day
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 08:54:37 pm
the average time on a bike was 16.5h/day

Interesting. How much of the 7.5 hours off the bike did you manage to sleep?

I need to improve my faff to forward ratio, the time off the bike isn't being used efficiently enough, and I've got too much of it. I also need to find better shorts...

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 08 October, 2018, 09:02:38 pm
about five hours on average, depending how tired i felt. four or less in consecutive nights is zombie territory (for me). i've spent five minutes a day pumping up latex inner tubes - a worthwhile exercise ime.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mzjo on 08 October, 2018, 09:41:32 pm

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 :(

1) I am sure you are overthinking this. With your attitude/approach/feelings (whatever; I can't find the right word that doesn't sound insulting) to bike technology I would have thought this question shouldn't need asking. Of course youwre always going to go tubeless, that was a no-brainer. What you need to know is what the best combination of tyre and rim would be to do what you want to do (and not all the tubeless users are necessarily using tyre and rim choices that would be appropriate to your needs, although their experiences may give enough data to rule out some options). It wouldn't be an appropriate choice for me but then that's why we are lucky to be able to choose :)

2) With what you are taking on and the experience that you are obviously gaining it won't be long before you will have to stop asking for basic advice because you will already be streets ahead of the rest of us and it's you that will be giving the advice! (You might be already there!)

3)re  carbon and environmental issues. I would need to see a serious study of the carbon footprint of a carbon frame against that of a steel or aluminium one; I think there might be a few surprises! I did look into using flax reinforced plastic with organic resins for a project that is still at the procrastination stage and found that the "natural" environmentally considerate, durable solution had a carbon footprint that was about double that of carbon fibre! (can't remember the exact figure but it was in that order). I think you need to choose frame material on a wide combination of criteria, the purely environmental one is not the most appropriate.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 08 October, 2018, 09:47:03 pm
By the way, custom carbon frames have been around for about three decades. None of them are particularly cheap, though homemade bamboo frames with epoxy/ carbon joints is an option.

https://www.bamboobicycleclub.org
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rob on 08 October, 2018, 09:52:15 pm

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

Try Burls.  My race frame was 1200 quid and custom.

I’ll be on an Ally frame with carbon forks for my first unsupported ultra race next year.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 09:53:31 pm
3)re  carbon and environmental issues. I would need to see a serious study of the carbon footprint of a carbon frame against that of a steel or aluminium one; I think there might be a few surprises! I did look into using flax reinforced plastic with organic resins for a project that is still at the procrastination stage and found that the "natural" environmentally considerate, durable solution had a carbon footprint that was about double that of carbon fibre! (can't remember the exact figure but it was in that order). I think you need to choose frame material on a wide combination of criteria, the purely environmental one is not the most appropriate.

Who said I was talking about the CO2 emissions?

I was more worried about the waste... http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/photos-of-carbon-fibre-bike-dump-reveal-worrying-waste-levels/

I'm trying to find better sources on this one.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 08 October, 2018, 10:43:16 pm
QG I really take my hat off to you for giving tcr a go, I'm sure I couldn't do that.

If you do go tubeless, please be sure that you can manage the tyres at the roadside; not everyone can. If you don't have strong hands you may find combinations that other folk find manageable rather difficult.

BTW what is your rationale for wanting 12mm through axles on the new bike?   Unless they offered a big advantage of some kind I'd be tempted to keep things compatible with the extant stuff.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: fd3 on 08 October, 2018, 10:50:05 pm
Yes, you can use non-tubeless tyres on TL ready rims.
That's potentially more contentious than the stuff you post in the racing forum.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 11:06:53 pm
QG I really take my hat off to you for giving tcr a go, I'm sure I couldn't do that.

I have to get through the first hurdle first. Getting a place. But I've started training, and I have a warm up race on 1st of May. Race around the Netherlands.

Quote

If you do go tubeless, please be sure that you can manage the tyres at the roadside; not everyone can. If you don't have strong hands you may find combinations that other folk find manageable rather difficult.

The bead jack will remain in my tool bag.

Quote

BTW what is your rationale for wanting 12mm through axles on the new bike?   Unless they offered a big advantage of some kind I'd be tempted to keep things compatible with the extant stuff.

The main reason that thru axles have come about is due to QR being a bit risky under very heavy braking with disk brakes, given the amount of descents on the TCR, I want braking I can trust.

And on the rear, the 142mm spacing with disk brakes makes for a slightly stronger wheel.

J

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: jiberjaber on 08 October, 2018, 11:13:15 pm
In my experience, tubeless tyres get easier to get on and off after a while once they have stretched and seated well.. plus with the right sealant they form a 'skirt' which means remounting them is easier - I favour cafe latex sealant.
(perhaps an airshot & soapy water is required on the first mount of the tyre, but subsequent ones can be reseated with just a track pump.)
I use the blue Schwalbe tyre levers which have never let me down.

I still carry a presta valve adapter just in case I get caught out on the road but I have never had to deploy it - none of my tubeless valves are tightened with a set of pliers - there's no need if they have been fitted properly.

The issues I have had at the side of the road which have necessitated a tube to be fitted have been user error (ran out of sealant) - all other issues have been resolved by waiting for the sealant to do its thing or fitting a tyre worm to reduce the hole size.

QG - in terms of rims, worth looking through the Tubeless for Dummies - I have both rims you mention, both tubeless, the 460 is very similar to the Hunt 4 seasons gravel - works well and is a tubeless compatible rim.  The son-plus is not a true tubeless compatible rim but with the right tape it works.

Tape is probably one of the critical components to the success (width and number of wraps), people who pay others to set up their wheels probably miss out on valuable learning about this.

Malcolm Borg has done a good couple of videos on this and when you are ready to talk rims - he's worth talking through with what you are planning to do and he might have some insights based on your requirements...

https://thecycleclinic.co.uk/pages/tech-page
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Bolt on 08 October, 2018, 11:15:23 pm
If you do go tubeless, please be sure that you can manage the tyres at the roadside; not everyone can. If you don't have strong hands you may find combinations that other folk find manageable rather difficult.

Good advice and not wishing to put more petrol on this particular fire, do consider the drill you are going to adopt in the event of a flat.

1.  Do you attempt to plug or patch
or
2.  Fit a new tyre and sealant and pray that it will seat
or
3.  Just fit a tube and go?

The worst scenario I can imagine is trying 1 and 2 before having to resort to 3.



Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 11:21:59 pm

I was more worried about the waste... http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/photos-of-carbon-fibre-bike-dump-reveal-worrying-waste-levels/

I'm trying to find better sources on this one.

J

Just don't dump it then  ::-)

Sure you could find pictures of a steel dump yard and a titanium dump yard if you looked hard enough  :-\
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 11:27:17 pm
Just don't dump it then  ::-)

Sure you could find pictures of a steel dump yard and a titanium dump yard if you looked hard enough  :-\

Those aren't bikes that have been ridden, hit end of life, and been dumped, those are the ones that didn't make QC due to manufacturing mistakes.

Steel bikes can be melted down to make more steel bikes. Titanium bikes can be melted down to make more titanium bikes. Carbon fibre recycling is still not a fully developed art, and as well as the finished product, and those that fail QC, there is also considerable waste from the process.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 11:35:05 pm
Hmmm, still not sure I'd use that as a reason not to get one.

What about all the fuel that gets burnt during welding, heating up the atmosphere, that can't be good for the environment.
All those gases they use to keep the environment inert. They've got to go somewhere.

Shouldn't go browsing pictures of doom and gloom , then you wouldn't have seen it, would be more the wiser , and could have the bike you really want.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Bolt on 08 October, 2018, 11:38:41 pm
Hmmm, still not sure I'd use that as a reason not to get one.

It's the yield and reliance on QC that worries me if that's the size of the reject pile :o
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 08 October, 2018, 11:42:21 pm
Hmmm, still not sure I'd use that as a reason not to get one.

What about all the fuel that gets burnt during welding, heating up the atmosphere, that can't be good for the environment.
All those gases they use to keep the environment inert. They've got to go somewhere.

Shouldn't go browsing pictures of doom and gloom , then you wouldn't have seen it, would be more the wiser , and could have the bike you really want.

Argon is the main gas keeping the environment round the world inert. Being inert... It doesn't interact... As long as you're not trapped in a sealed room with it, it won't hurt you, or the environment.

I've yet to find a carbon bike where I've gone "wow, that bike is beautiful, i have to have it" i have done so for a few metal bikes.

Yes there is Welding gas in the process, but that is tiny amount, and given the distance i cover on a bike, I feel the trade off is acceptable.

But we digress.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 08 October, 2018, 11:43:35 pm
Hmmm, still not sure I'd use that as a reason not to get one.

It's the yield and reliance on QC that worries me if that's the size of the reject pile :o

You don't know what percentage that is, i.e how many successful frames there were for those. Plastic and waste is flavour of the month now though innit. Excuse me, just off to top up my pension with a few more shares in the bamboo cup-for-life industry.   :P
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 October, 2018, 11:47:20 pm
Yes, you can use non-tubeless tyres on TL ready rims.
That's potentially more contentious than the stuff you post in the racing forum.

Do you think?

Loads of bikes are sold with TLR rims...But fitted with conventional tyres.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 08 October, 2018, 11:52:08 pm

....I still carry a presta valve adapter just in case I get caught out on the road but I have never had to deploy it - none of my tubeless valves are tightened with a set of pliers - there's no need if they have been fitted properly.....

the valves can be very difficult to remove when the tyre is flat regardless of how tight the locknut is when the tyre is inflated; the reason is that the base of the valve stem deflects under air pressure. The nut is always appreciably tighter when the tyre is flat as a consequence. Needless to say you will need to remove the valve stem when the tyre is flat....

A typical example is that you mount a tyre (with the locknut finger tight) and the tyre seats OK with an airshot or a compressor, but leaks around the valve stem, eg because the valve stem flange is flat and the rim well is curved. You look at the locknut and it is now pushed clear of the rim. You tighten it finger tight. The leak stops.  Great! Only now, when the tyre is flat, the stem has tried to  deflect back nearer where it started, the  locknut is now much tighter than it ever was before, and in fact you can't undo it without pliers or some other tool.

Again like getting the tyres on and off, seating etc this is something that you can test at home.  One of my chums had to pack in an important (season's culminating)  long MTB race because their tubeless setup developed an intractable flat and they couldn't fit a tube because the locknut was stuck, even though it was never more than finger tight with the tyre at running pressure. They didn't like fitting a spare tube under race conditions for sure but this was enough to make sure that they vowed never to use tubeless again.

BTW the more curved the rim well is, and the higher the running pressure of the tyre, the worse this problem is likely to be. Hexagonal presta locknuts (that can be worked with a small spanner) exist but are not easy to find.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 09 October, 2018, 12:19:34 am

....I still carry a presta valve adapter just in case I get caught out on the road but I have never had to deploy it - none of my tubeless valves are tightened with a set of pliers - there's no need if they have been fitted properly.....

the valves can be very difficult to remove when the tyre is flat regardless of how tight the locknut is when the tyre is inflated; the reason is that the base of the valve stem deflects under air pressure. The nut is always appreciably tighter when the tyre is flat as a consequence. Needless to say you will need to remove the valve stem when the tyre is flat....

A typical example is that you mount a tyre (with the locknut finger tight) and the tyre seats OK with an airshot or a compressor, but leaks around the valve stem, eg because the valve stem flange is flat and the rim well is curved. You look at the locknut and it is now pushed clear of the rim. You tighten it finger tight. The leak stops.  Great! Only now, when the tyre is flat, the stem has tried to  deflect back nearer where it started, the  locknut is now much tighter than it ever was before, and in fact you can't undo it without pliers or some other tool.

Again like getting the tyres on and off, seating etc this is something that you can test at home.  One of my chums had to pack in an important (season's culminating)  long MTB race because their tubeless setup developed an intractable flat and they couldn't fit a tube because the locknut was stuck, even though it was never more than finger tight with the tyre at running pressure. They didn't like fitting a spare tube under race conditions for sure but this was enough to make sure that they vowed never to use tubeless again.

BTW the more curved the rim well is, and the higher the running pressure of the tyre, the worse this problem is likely to be. Hexagonal presta locknuts (that can be worked with a small spanner) exist but are not easy to find.

cheers

That sounds like a tool kit deficiency. I have two multi tools with pliers on me, a leatherman squirt in my jersey Brest pocket, and a leatherman juice in the tool bag.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 09 October, 2018, 12:53:35 am

That sounds like a tool kit deficiency. I have two multi tools with pliers on me, a leatherman squirt in my jersey Brest pocket, and a leatherman juice in the tool bag.

J

that is a fair point. But carrying more junk around on a racing MTB is not something that racers willingly do; suspension or not, weight is all 'unsprung weight' if the bumps are big enough and it really costs you to lug more around.  Maybe ditching tubeless was an emotional overreaction to that event, but they had problems removing and reseating the tubeless  tyres too, even though they were not a particularly tight fit.

 In that race series, in their category, there was often a couple of minutes between places at the end of the race, so realistically a 'normal' tube swap might cost them a place, tops. If tubeless worked perfectly it wouldn't improve matters greatly for them (they only had one or sometimes two punctures in a racing season anyway) but instead cost them a podium place in the big event for that season.

  I think they were unlucky (and didn't practice enough at home first perhaps) but sometimes better the devil you know....

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: jiberjaber on 09 October, 2018, 06:00:54 am

....I still carry a presta valve adapter just in case I get caught out on the road but I have never had to deploy it - none of my tubeless valves are tightened with a set of pliers - there's no need if they have been fitted properly.....

the valves can be very difficult to remove when the tyre is flat regardless of how tight the locknut is when the tyre is inflated; the reason is that the base of the valve stem deflects under air pressure. The nut is always appreciably tighter when the tyre is flat as a consequence. Needless to say you will need to remove the valve stem when the tyre is flat....

A typical example is that you mount a tyre (with the locknut finger tight) and the tyre seats OK with an airshot or a compressor, but leaks around the valve stem, eg because the valve stem flange is flat and the rim well is curved. You look at the locknut and it is now pushed clear of the rim. You tighten it finger tight. The leak stops.  Great! Only now, when the tyre is flat, the stem has tried to  deflect back nearer where it started, the  locknut is now much tighter than it ever was before, and in fact you can't undo it without pliers or some other tool.

Again like getting the tyres on and off, seating etc this is something that you can test at home.  One of my chums had to pack in an important (season's culminating)  long MTB race because their tubeless setup developed an intractable flat and they couldn't fit a tube because the locknut was stuck, even though it was never more than finger tight with the tyre at running pressure. They didn't like fitting a spare tube under race conditions for sure but this was enough to make sure that they vowed never to use tubeless again.

BTW the more curved the rim well is, and the higher the running pressure of the tyre, the worse this problem is likely to be. Hexagonal presta locknuts (that can be worked with a small spanner) exist but are not easy to find.

cheers

This is not the case if the tape and valve are installed correctly. 

Very small hole in the tape, valve fitted and tapped home with blunt instrument.  Hardly any tightness required on the valve stem nut and the sealant takes care of any imperfection of the fit.  There really is no need to tighten the valve lock nut to a level that what you describe happens.

I have never had to use pliers to undo my nuts! My tubeless tyres never have anything more than 80 psi max in them (some usually run around 50psi) :thumbsup:
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: tiermat on 09 October, 2018, 06:35:06 am
Yes, you can use non-tubeless tyres on TL ready rims.
That's potentially more contentious than the stuff you post in the racing forum.

Do you think?

Loads of bikes are sold with TLR rims...But fitted with conventional tyres.

Indeed, go to your favourite bike shop, look at the mountain bikes and /or the gravel bikes. Check out the ones which have tubeless rims, I will guarantee, if they are mass produced, they will be fitted with tubes. This is so even if the tyres are tubeless to, as I don't believe anyone has managed to find an economical way of fitted tubeless tyres in a factory.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 09 October, 2018, 07:10:17 am

....I still carry a presta valve adapter just in case I get caught out on the road but I have never had to deploy it - none of my tubeless valves are tightened with a set of pliers - there's no need if they have been fitted properly.....

the valves can be very difficult to remove when the tyre is flat regardless of how tight the locknut is when the tyre is inflated; the reason is that the base of the valve stem deflects under air pressure. The nut is always appreciably tighter when the tyre is flat as a consequence. Needless to say you will need to remove the valve stem when the tyre is flat....

A typical example is that you mount a tyre (with the locknut finger tight) and the tyre seats OK with an airshot or a compressor, but leaks around the valve stem, eg because the valve stem flange is flat and the rim well is curved. You look at the locknut and it is now pushed clear of the rim. You tighten it finger tight. The leak stops.  Great! Only now, when the tyre is flat, the stem has tried to  deflect back nearer where it started, the  locknut is now much tighter than it ever was before, and in fact you can't undo it without pliers or some other tool.

Again like getting the tyres on and off, seating etc this is something that you can test at home.  One of my chums had to pack in an important (season's culminating)  long MTB race because their tubeless setup developed an intractable flat and they couldn't fit a tube because the locknut was stuck, even though it was never more than finger tight with the tyre at running pressure. They didn't like fitting a spare tube under race conditions for sure but this was enough to make sure that they vowed never to use tubeless again.

BTW the more curved the rim well is, and the higher the running pressure of the tyre, the worse this problem is likely to be. Hexagonal presta locknuts (that can be worked with a small spanner) exist but are not easy to find.

cheers

This is not the case if the tape and valve are installed correctly. 

Very small hole in the tape, valve fitted and tapped home with blunt instrument.  Hardly any tightness required on the valve stem nut and the sealant takes care of any imperfection of the fit.  There really is no need to tighten the valve lock nut to a level that what you describe happens.

I have never had to use pliers to undo my nuts! My tubeless tyres never have anything more than 80 psi max in them (some usually run around 50psi) :thumbsup:

Actually, to be fair to Brucey, it can happen if you use the ‘wrong’ sort of valves. Some valves are formed to fit the bottom of the rim well (e.g. Specalised) and may need more compression than the more user friendly conical section valves I use.

However, I too have never needed pliers with the valves I use.

It’s probably a bit like tyre levers though - some people also have stronger fingers than others.

Mike
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 09 October, 2018, 07:49:54 am

This is not the case if the tape and valve are installed correctly. 


that has not been my experience, nor that of many other people. Maybe there is some systematic difference between valve stems or something.  All it takes is to nip up the lockring when the tyre is at pressure (necessary in many cases because of leaks) and the thing is then very tight when the tyre is flat. Dirt and corrosion then compound the problem.  A lot of riders carry pliers for this exact eventuality.

Note that if you don't nip the locknut up when the tyre is inflated, i.e. deliberately leave the locknut slack, i.e. clear of rim, the nut probably  won't stay in one position anyway, and there is a significant risk that, at speed, the valve stem will centrifuge outwards and let the air out. At 20mph the valve stem 'only weighs' about thirty times more than normal; if you should hit 40mph on a descent, that will turn into about x120 more than normal.  Friction alone is not a reliable way of retaining the valve stem.

 Note that as per tyre levers and tyre fit, not everyone is equally strong; what you find fairly easy may be genuinely impossible for others.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: jiberjaber on 09 October, 2018, 07:57:11 am
Yes I often have to be careful with my super human strength.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 09 October, 2018, 08:05:59 am

the valves can be very difficult to remove when the tyre is flat regardless of how tight the locknut is when the tyre is inflated; the reason is that the base of the valve stem deflects under air pressure. The nut is always appreciably tighter when the tyre is flat as a consequence. Needless to say you will need to remove the valve stem when the tyre is flat....

A typical example is that you mount a tyre (with the locknut finger tight) and the tyre seats OK with an airshot or a compressor, but leaks around the valve stem, eg because the valve stem flange is flat and the rim well is curved. You look at the locknut and it is now pushed clear of the rim. You tighten it finger tight. The leak stops.  Great! Only now, when the tyre is flat, the stem has tried to  deflect back nearer where it started, the  locknut is now much tighter than it ever was before, and in fact you can't undo it without pliers or some other tool.
<...>

this is a non issue as the valve can be pushed down with a thumb or tyre lever(through a deflated tyre) thus making it easy to unscrew the locknut. i'm puzzled why your chum didn't do that. perhaps the locknut was corroded and welded onto the stem? i've never heard that this can happen.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 09 October, 2018, 08:27:00 am

this is a non issue as the valve can be pushed down with a thumb or tyre lever(through a deflated tyre) thus making it easy to unscrew the locknut.

Undoubtedly true, but it's a common initial mistake (yes, I made it, though didn't have a problem thankfully) to assume the valve stem nut needs to be tightened down hard in order to allow the valve seat to seal fully.

As mentioned upthread Malcolm Borg is a good (opinionated, of course  :)) source of info. I've bough from him several times (allow at least 6 weeks for a wheel build) and the quality has been good. The last set, for my Domane build, were a set of road/CX wheels, Velocity Aielrons, which might suit your purpose, with the appropriate hubs (mine are cheap Miche ones but he'll put in what you want of course.) I can hand mount 28mm tubeless (Hutchinson Fusion 5 All Season in this case) on them, but do use two levers to demount. But then I've never been any good at demounting tyres with just my hands, except for some very supple -  and fragile -  Vittoria clinchers.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 08:29:38 am
Yes, you can use non-tubeless tyres on TL ready rims.
That's potentially more contentious than the stuff you post in the racing forum.

Do you think?

Loads of bikes are sold with TLR rims...But fitted with conventional tyres.

Indeed, go to your favourite bike shop, look at the mountain bikes and /or the gravel bikes. Check out the ones which have tubeless rims, I will guarantee, if they are mass produced, they will be fitted with tubes. This is so even if the tyres are tubeless to, as I don't believe anyone has managed to find an economical way of fitted tubeless tyres in a factory.

Absolutely, especially since TL needs aftercare for a few days after fitting (ie. riding and re-inflating). No bike shop would want to open a new bike box, shipped 2 months ago from a factory, to find flat tyres and a pool of sealant.

I'll say it again, TL tyres are not maintenance free, but largely the maintenance is pushed to a time and place of your choosing, and not on a rainy muddy roadside at 8pm in the winter, at the whim of the Fairy.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: PaulF on 09 October, 2018, 08:35:45 am

I'll say it again, TL tyres are not maintenance free, but largely the maintenance is pushed to a time and place of your choosing, and not on a rainy muddy roadside at 8pm in the winter, at the whim of the Fairy.

And that, for me at least, is the major selling point.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: citoyen on 09 October, 2018, 09:42:53 am
I've twice had to fit a tube into my tubeless rear tyre to complete a ride.

The first occasion was due to a stone causing a gash in the sidewall that was too big to seal. The tyres are relatively light and have thin sidewalls, which is both their strength and their weakness. I do like reasonably quick tyres for audaxes - completing the distance is enough of a challenge without slowing yourself down with unnecessarily heavy tyres. At the same time, I don't want to be slowed down by having to stop for repairs so there's an element of compromise. Previously I was using Michelin Pro4 Endurance, which offer a decent balance - reasonably quick and not too puncture prone. I probably get more punctures on the tubeless tyres, but because they nearly always self-heal, I don't have to stop for a repair. The stone that caused the gash in my sidewall would probably have done for the Michelin tyre as well. I'm annoyed because I could have avoided the stone if I'd spotted it. Regardless of what type of tyres you use, many punctures can be avoided by more careful riding. I'd put this one down to rider error.

The second occasion was as a result of not doing a good job of the repair the first time. Since I'd only refitted the tyre the day before, it was full of fresh sealant, which made the job a little messy, but I was able to tip most of the sealant out. Otherwise the job was no more difficult than fitting a tube to a conventional clincher. But again I would call this rider error rather than a flaw in the tubeless concept. No one has claimed that tubeless tyres are idiotproof.

The front tubeless tyre has been solidly reliable and I've not had to touch it since I fitted it in May. I have noticed lately that it needs topping up with air more frequently than when I first fitted it, which suggests it might need fresh sealant. The pressure loss is not rapid enough to be a problem while riding though.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 12:13:24 pm
Yes, you have to do the job properly. Bodgers should not use tubeless.

I've had two issues in 3 years, over constant daily riding in all weathers. The second occasion was my fault. Old tyre, already done 2 winters. Had a puncture that didn't seal easily. At home, I put more sealant in which is a 5 minute job. Really, I knew that I should have partially dismounted the tyre and fitted a patch on the inside, a 10 to 20 minute job, but I chanced it.

Next ride, off road, it shat out all the sealant.

Sum total of bother? I had to fit a tube, which took no longer than changing a tube in a normal tyre.

Yes, the valve can be a bit tight. I've never had a problem getting one off with fingers, but if you think you might then carry appropriate tooling. Don't necessarily believe the drama queens....listen to the people who actually know what they are doing  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: citoyen on 09 October, 2018, 12:31:40 pm
Yes, you have to do the job properly. Bodgers should not use tubeless.

I think this is especially true of the initial fitting. First time I fitted tubeless tyres, I had read all the horror stories and was expecting to encounter difficulties, but I found it all remarkably straightforward and problem-free.

The Schwalbe Tubeless Easy Kit certainly lives up to its name.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 09 October, 2018, 12:40:20 pm
Yes I often have to be careful with my super human strength.

Indeed I bent a steel girder with my fingernails before attempting to remove a tubeless valve.  Pesky things.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 09 October, 2018, 12:46:14 pm
FWIW my chum who had the torrid MTB race wasn't strong enough to push the valve inwards by hand. Nor are lots of other people; I daresay you could improvise an arrangement with a strap and a lever somehow, but carrying pliers is probably easier.

Also I'd comment that on several occasions I have actually seen objects that have gone on to rupture my tyres, but I've either seen them too late to do anything about it (e.g. the guy doing his turn didn't know he ought to point that kind of thing out and as it happens was so myopic he mightn't have seen them anyway) or seen them and thought they were benign.  In the latter case a piece of dark-coloured broken glass can look awfully like a fairly harmless stone....  Either way you feel pretty daft if you see it and it still gets you.

Folk keep saying that fitting a new tube in a tubeless setup is 'as easy and as quick as with a normal tyre'.

 It isn't; you would have to be pretty delusional to maintain that viewpoint.

I would agree that (for any given weight of tyre) with tubeless you ought to largely replace random roadside irritation with other maintenance tasks that you can do at a time of your choosing, but

a) WTF are you doing riding around in the dark and wet on flimsy race tyres anyway....???... ???  :facepalm: and
b) there are (for various reasons) folk who can't or won't be able to do what is necessary with tubeless tyres.

Some people are only able to ride (and keep riding) if they either use the most puncture proof tyres possible (and hope for the best) or they use covers and rims  which come off very easily; the sort which most people with normal hand strength can get off without tyre levers, but which they cannot.  The idea that they would willingly entertain a system that means that they are going to struggle with the tyres every time there is a problem may not be at all appealing to them.

cheers

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 09 October, 2018, 01:25:47 pm
a) WTF are you doing riding around in the dark and wet on flimsy race tyres anyway....???... ???  :facepalm: and

Surely you aren't suggesting that tyres that are not 'flimsy race' tyres are completely immune from punctures?
There are lots of potentially-puncture-causing events that would still puncture 'winter' tyres but that sealant would seal. For some people, as long as other parameters are within acceptable levels, minimization of the occurrence of punctures is the prime concern - everything else - lightness, rolling, how much of a faff it is if it does occur - comes second.
I just think that you are having a hard time arguing that people shouldn't adopt a system that offers that.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 09 October, 2018, 01:32:15 pm
Brucey we speak from experience you speak from what you read in your Boy's own adventure manual.  You do know the latter is fictional?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 01:36:12 pm
Sigh  ::-) @ Brucey

I've had punctures on tubed Durano Plus. I've had punctures on Marathons.

What on earth was I doing riding around after dark on the toughest road tyres you can buy????

(Never punctured after dark on so-called "flimsy race tyres". )

Brucey's posts now read like the last refuge of the scoundrel  :P

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 09 October, 2018, 01:37:48 pm
Wow, somebody is wrong on the internet and they must be corrected!

Sometimes it is me, sometimes others. Regardless, is either side going to change their opponents' opinions by continuing at such length?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 01:40:09 pm
Yes. Incrementally. But we are getting there.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 09 October, 2018, 01:42:28 pm
Good luck on grinding down the bastards, to both sides.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: citoyen on 09 October, 2018, 01:46:14 pm
Folk keep saying that fitting a new tube in a tubeless setup is 'as easy and as quick as with a normal tyre'.

 It isn't; you would have to be pretty delusional to maintain that viewpoint.

Well, I certainly haven't made that claim. 

However, on both occasions when I've had to fit a tube in a tubeless tyre by the roadside, it was easy enough. If QG has difficulty replacing tyres at the roadside in conventional set-ups, she's not going to find it any easier with a tubeless set-up, that stands to reason.

Individual riders have to weigh up the pros and cons for themselves: the convenience of (probably) having to stop less often to deal with punctures vs the inconvenience of it being a bit harder to deal with problems when they do arise.

For me, the balance is tipped slightly in favour of using tubeless but I accept that they may not be ideal for everyone.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 01:50:39 pm
I agree. It is not for the careless nor the inept. I am neither and it works very well for me.

Because it works really well for me, across several rim and tyre brands, I know that those who struggle probably need to look within themselves and not blame the equipment.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 09 October, 2018, 02:16:04 pm
FWIW my chum who had the torrid MTB race wasn't strong enough to push the valve inwards by hand. Nor are lots of other people; I daresay you could improvise an arrangement with a strap and a lever somehow, but carrying pliers is probably easier.

here's why i often can't be bothered to reply to lengthy posts full of misconceptions. lets take the first two sentences.

Quote
my chum who had the torrid MTB race wasn't strong enough to push the valve inwards by hand.

was he even trying to push the valve down? the reason i ask is that you do not need a lot of or any special strength to do that, not more than you need going about your daily activities. some locknuts come with an o-ring that butts against the rim making it easy to undo in any scenario.

Quote
Nor are lots of other people

which other people? lots - how many? how valid is this statement? why would lots of other people find it difficult when in fact it is not?

Quote
I daresay you could improvise an arrangement with a strap and a lever somehow

why complicate things? let's assume that thumb pressure is not enough (although it is) - then take a tyre lever or allen key, press it down onto a valve and lean on it with half your body's weight. the only reason it would not unscrew then would be the valve corroded/welded onto a stem. i've never experienced or heard it happen and if it does, the bike must have been seriously neglected therefore not much sympathy from me for the owner.

Quote
but carrying pliers is probably easier.

carrying pliers is slightly harder as it is extra weight (although there are some tiny ones that weigh v.little).


my point with this post is that not every problem (with the equipment invented in current century) has to turn into disaster. unless people you meet live in some parallel universe (murphy's land) and always experience the worst possible outcome.

(https://pics.me.me/study-finds-that-hearing-an-opposing-viewpoint-causes-no-real-28123600.png)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mzjo on 09 October, 2018, 02:44:37 pm
3)re  carbon and environmental issues. I would need to see a serious study of the carbon footprint of a carbon frame against that of a steel or aluminium one; I think there might be a few surprises! I did look into using flax reinforced plastic with organic resins for a project that is still at the procrastination stage and found that the "natural" environmentally considerate, durable solution had a carbon footprint that was about double that of carbon fibre! (can't remember the exact figure but it was in that order). I think you need to choose frame material on a wide combination of criteria, the purely environmental one is not the most appropriate.

Who said I was talking about the CO2 emissions?

I was more worried about the waste... http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/photos-of-carbon-fibre-bike-dump-reveal-worrying-waste-levels/

I'm trying to find better sources on this one.

J

As your link says the CF frames can and are being recycled, even if establishing the treatment circuit is still a work in progress.
Ferrous metals have been around rather a long time, there is obviously rather more experience and history in their recycling compared to CF which is all young and new.(A lot of scrap mretal yards are no prettier than those pictures of carbon frames and wheels.)
Personally I thought the QC failures were all recycled through E-bay  :facepalm:

My problem with CF is just that no-one I know is yet giving away a frame that they consider obsolete. Also the youngest of my steel frames dates to about 1990, the oldest (my tandem) somewhere late 1920's-early 1930's. I am not sure that CF frames will still be going strong after 40-50 years, although I am reassured by reading that it is not biodegradable or photodegradable.

Of course it may be that fitting S&S couplers to a carbon frame is difficult or of a dubious reliability (I wouldn't know the reality of that) which would be a valid reason for preferring a different frame material (above all for a race bike in difficult support conditions) but that has nothing to do with the environment.

By the way does recycling considerations condition your attitude to electronic components? After all that's a fairly unpleasant recycling circuit when all's said and done.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 02:55:02 pm
Quote from: zigzag
snip

I'm just amazed that Brucey seems to be able to recall the minutest detail of every hapless tubeless disaster that befell his 'friend', but curiously only after the fact, as in after the topic has already been raised in discussion.

It seems that Brucey has a 'friend' for every eventuality. ::-)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 09 October, 2018, 03:07:26 pm
That other tubeless sceptic Samuel D also reports that his "friends" have had issues - but obviously not himself as he would never touch it with a bargepole as he is more than happy with tubes. An obvious pattern.  ::-) :)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 03:17:13 pm
Well not quite. He later revealed that he had in fact some experience of tubeless tyres because he'd fitted a set for a 'friend'. He's that kind of guy. Selfless and obliging. He should have mentioned it from the outset, rather than waiting several days and enduring accusations of no experience.

However, the set that he'd mounted later failed because of course tubeless tyres are bound to fail because they are rubbish.

 ;)



Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 09 October, 2018, 03:29:08 pm
Indeed Bodger Brucey and Stumbling Sam and their floundering friends are deflated by tubeless spigots.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mzjo on 09 October, 2018, 03:36:19 pm
To be perfectly honest the only contact I have had with tubeless was a problem (otherwise I wouldn't have known about it). It was the back wheel of a mate's fatbike which leaked through or past the tape and out through the well of the rim. The rim was a DT Swiss which has a well with rather more hole than metal and I am convinced the tape had moved possibly on fitting. My mate didn't think so and passed the wheel on to another mate with a compresser and competence so I never heard the end of the saga. Of more concern was the hassle lining up the thru axle. In the end we said "stuff it"  (after about 30 seconds of trying) since I was there to dig a hole, not to ride a bike. Why doesn't someone do a thru axle with a nut and washer, like on a motorbike, rather than screwing into the frame?

I don't know anyone else with tubeless - but then it's not the sort of thing you talk about if it's working properly, there are more interesting things on a ride in the countryside. I am certain that no-one in the club uses it though. I use slime-filled tubes on the girls' mtbs, which I find very reliable - but I am the only person I know doing that. It's cheaper to buy a new slime-filled tube than to replace the sealant!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Samuel D on 09 October, 2018, 03:55:31 pm
I'm just amazed that Brucey seems to be able to recall the minutest detail of every hapless tubeless disaster that befell his 'friend', but curiously only after the fact, as in after the topic has already been raised in discussion.

Let’s fix this post-factual statement. Brucey was the first person to mention the possibility of a stuck tubeless valve nut, on page 4 (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=109741.msg2331250#msg2331250). (Of course he did not claim it was anything like a “disaster”; he said it and other problems could lead to a “twenty-minute propergoing PITA” and recommended the simple and reliable solution of pliers.)

When he mentioned this, it turned out that several people had experienced the problem or otherwise given the matter thought, leading to tips for pushing the valve through the flat tyre, using a conical valve to minimise the problem in the first place, etc. This is how forums should work (minus the pointless rudeness).

So common is this stuck-nut problem that a cottage industry has sprung up to make better valves than the next guy, design nuts you can grab better (https://www.boydcycling.com/press/cx-magazine-tubeless-valve-offset-wingnut/), and tell stories about it (https://www.instagram.com/p/BS4UxXYBjrf/). But unless Brucey had mentioned it, you’d never know from this thread that anyone had ever encountered it.

As thanks for this useful warning that may have helped quixoticgeek from finding out the hard way, he gets mocked relentlessly and told he’s a liar.

Quixoticgeek has a 1960s faith in technology, but she’s obviously the opposite of an idiot. She can balance merits and drawbacks in her head like other adults. Why must this forum be so childish?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 09 October, 2018, 04:03:34 pm
To be perfectly honest the only contact I have had with tubeless was a problem (otherwise I wouldn't have known about it). It was the back wheel of a mate's fatbike which leaked through or past the tape and out through the well of the rim. The rim was a DT Swiss which has a well with rather more hole than metal and I am convinced the tape had moved possibly on fitting. My mate didn't think so and passed the wheel on to another mate with a compresser and competence so I never heard the end of the saga. Of more concern was the hassle lining up the thru axle. In the end we said "stuff it"  (after about 30 seconds of trying) since I was there to dig a hole, not to ride a bike. Why doesn't someone do a thru axle with a nut and washer, like on a motorbike, rather than screwing into the frame?

I don't know anyone else with tubeless - but then it's not the sort of thing you talk about if it's working properly, there are more interesting things on a ride in the countryside. I am certain that no-one in the club uses it though. I use slime-filled tubes on the girls' mtbs, which I find very reliable - but I am the only person I know doing that. It's cheaper to buy a new slime-filled tube than to replace the sealant!

Never had any problem with through axles...


Oh yes you have

Oh no...


Light the blue touch paper;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: DuncanM on 09 October, 2018, 04:14:52 pm
Why must this forum be so childish?
The childishness tends to be restricted to relatively few (if somewhat lengthy threads). My conclusion is that those contain elements of "religious war" e.g. vi vs emacs, and the rest of the forum just continues leaving the warriors to it. Your conclusions might be completely different obviously.

Regarding tubeless ready tyres on regular rims, I bought a set of Vittoria Corsa Speed G+ for my TT bike because they are fast rolling (and I got a great deal), but my wheels are old so I'm running them with tubes. Getting the front onto a Planet X wheel was fairly straightforward, the only faf was because they came packed flat unlike any other tyre I've bought! The rear was a complete and utter pain, and I ended up taking it to a bike shop. You might conclude from this information that the tyre wasn't suitable for the rim (Roval 45), except that I managed to break a Pedros tyre lever getting the previous tyre (a well used Schwalbe Lugano) off said rim. My conclusion is that the rim is a PITA, and the tyre was no harder to fit than any other tyre - again, YMMV. :)

Regarding thru-axles, my 2008 Carrera has a strange one on the front where there is a quick release with an expander at each end, and you sort of squish the expander to pull the whole contraption (including the nut at the end) through the wheel. It's a complete and utter PITA, and the ones on my road bike that just screw into a nut in the frame are simplicity itself in comparison. :)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mzjo on 09 October, 2018, 04:37:00 pm
This thru-axle should have been simplicity as well. Quite why it wasn't is hard to explain. David is not the most mechanically adept (which is why I was there to dig a hole!) and if it had been me I would have put the bike upside down (which would halve the number of objects in movement and saved my back a bit in the process). But I still don't like the idea of screwing into the frame - lack of mechanical sympathy = stripped or knackered thread = scrap frame. I am sure this never happens but I still don't like it.

I am waiting for someone to come up with a rear wheel and transmission where the sprockets and chain stay in place when the wheel is removed. It's existed in the motorcycle world for many decades. It wouldn't be very complicated on a bicycle - a bit heavy perhaps?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 09 October, 2018, 04:39:50 pm
Cinelli did that back in the '60s or '70s. My framebuilder (Frezoni Joe) had a set of Bivalent hubs in a drawer but they were never popular and the concept quickly died.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/Cinelli/Cinelli_BiVal_B-Guide.htm
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 04:52:51 pm
bla

You arrive here at this thread with an agenda. We know this because we've seen plenty of posts that betray your reactionary mindset.

You also have an attitude that is underpinned by insufferable arrogance. You once said that people buy modern equipment such as DI2, discs and tubeless tyres because they are "seduced by baubles and trinkets", because of course only Samuel is capable of applying rational thought to what equipment everybody else should use, and only Samuel is able to discern what is mere marketing and what is not. Everybody else is an idiot.

This conceited attitude prevents you from understanding that other people may see tangible benefits in certain products for them in their riding . This is your inability to think outside of your own existence, and not theirs. It is also extremely insulting.

And you wonder why people take the piss out of you??

You once said that other riders in your club sneak up on you and pluck out your leg hairs.  If it helps, think of the drubbing you get on here as a sort of virtual hair-plucking.

p.s. You really should read the links you post a little more carefully. You might find they are arguing against you  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 09 October, 2018, 05:36:06 pm
the chum with the torrid MTB experience could not possibly have managed to push the valve stem in; in fairness I don't even know if they tried or not, but I know they don't have very strong hands. This is not at all uncommon; quite a lot of cyclists (not exclusively but a good proportion the fair sex) don't. I've coached quite a few in tyre changing technique and lots can't even do things that I (and many others) take for granted.

 For example without a great amount of strength you can usually get a tyre lever in, under and hook it on a spoke, but (with even moderately stiff tyres such as marathons) then simply squeezing the tyre carcass so that more of the bead drops into the rim well and there is more slack may be quite beyond them, even using both hands. If this is the case, unseating even a relatively easy UST tubeless tyre is going to be a major challenge too.

BTW I don't know if this is a related thing or not, but I recently discovered that the human race is divided into two distinct groups in the matter of wrist physiology.  In our distant (and in some cases not so distant) past when we swung from the trees and generally cavorted about the place limb from limb, having a big strong tendon that flexed the wrist was required.   However these days some folk have it and others don't.  You can tell if you have got it or not by making a fist and then flexing your wrist inwards. If the tendon is present, you will see a large and pronounced ridge in the middle of the wrist. If you don't have it, there will be no such ridge.  It may be that this is associated with changes in hand strength too, or that there is a comparable thing that is.

FWIW I agree with Samuel. You can, like a juvenile delinquent,  cast stones such as 'reactionary' around but  this is unlikely to be mistaken for anything other than pathetic flailing around when you don't actually  have anything much useful to say.

 Personally I couldn't give a monkey's if folk use tubeless or not, but my participation on this forum is in good part because the one thing I cannot stand to see is folk asking innocent questions and being almost wilfully misled by a bunch of people who are so blinkered that they cannot bear to hear both sides of any rational discussion.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 October, 2018, 05:40:38 pm
So given that pretty much everybody here is arguing against you, that means that pretty much everybody is "blinkered". Except you and Samuel of course. You know better than us poor blinkered folk, especially about things you know less about.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 09 October, 2018, 06:24:33 pm
Personally I couldn't give a monkey's if folk use tubeless or not, but my participation on this forum is in good part because the one thing I cannot stand to see is folk asking innocent questions and being almost wilfully misled by a bunch of people who are so blinkered that they cannot bear to hear both sides of any rational discussion.

Yes but the flip side of that is: people who enjoy the benefits don't like to think newcomers would be put off by naysayers who are against the whole idea purely because when they (sorry, their "friends") tried it, didn't happen to work for them.

Surely a false positive is better than a false negative here? If someone tries it, finds it doesn't work for them or it's too much faff, they can go back to tubes, and they haven't lost anything. They will at least then have experience.
But if they never try it, they will never know - even though it might have suited them down to the ground.

The "pro" argument is - 'try it, and make the judgement for yourself'. But the "anti" argument is - 'don't even try it, move along, nothing to see here'. The former would seem more balanced, even if ones conclusion is the technology is not yet advanced enough to be relied upon.

A bit like how in golf, on the putting green it's better to hit it slightly too hard than slightly too soft, as if you hit it too soft it's got no chance of going in, even if the aim is perfect.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: fd3 on 09 October, 2018, 10:53:15 pm
Yes, you can use non-tubeless tyres on TL ready rims.
That's potentially more contentious than the stuff you post in the racing forum.

Do you think?

Loads of bikes are sold with TLR rims...But fitted with conventional tyres.
I clearly misread.  I thought you meant you could use non-tubeless tyres as part of a tubeless setup on TL ready rims.  (of course you can use regular tyres with a tube on TL rims).
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Bolt on 09 October, 2018, 11:57:02 pm
I just think it's so disappointing that this discussion has degenerated into personal insults aimed largely at Brucey and Samuel D.  Let's show more respect for their opinions and knowledge, even if they don't reflect the experience or aspirations of others. 
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: tiermat on 10 October, 2018, 06:24:59 am
How the hell did we get from tubeless tyres to whether you have one type of tendon in your wrist, or not? Smoke and mirrors?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 10 October, 2018, 09:35:55 am
I'm curious as to whether any of the tubeless sceptics think it necessary to use tubes in their car's tyres?
i.e., is it a fundamentally bad idea, or is it a reasonable idea but the technology is not yet advanced enough for cycles. If the latter, then can they foresee a point in the future at which it is advanced enough, in their opinion ?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: JonB on 10 October, 2018, 09:37:55 am
I just think it's so disappointing that this discussion has degenerated into personal insults aimed largely at Brucey and Samuel D.  Let's show more respect for their opinions and knowledge, even if they don't reflect the experience or aspirations of others.

Totally agree, well said
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 10 October, 2018, 09:39:20 am
Personally I couldn't give a monkey's if folk use tubeless or not, but my participation on this forum is in good part because the one thing I cannot stand to see is folk asking innocent questions and being almost wilfully misled by a bunch of people who are so blinkered that they cannot bear to hear both sides of any rational discussion.

Yes but the flip side of that is: people who enjoy the benefits don't like to think newcomers would be put off by naysayers who are against the whole idea purely because when they (sorry, their "friends") tried it, didn't happen to work for them.


as I mentioned upthread, my comments are based on having fitted multiple sets of tyres and having helped others when they have had problems. Probably this amounts to more happenstances than any one rider might accrue for themselves in a year or two, but that is just a guess.  There is an extensive range of possible difficulties and pitfalls; some folk with some gear (like yourself with UST stuff) have not had a torrid time of it which is great but that doesn't meant to say that others will get on as well even with the same kit. In any event there is a learning curve to be had.

Especially for QG's use, knowing which problems might occur with particular equipment is vital; forewarned is forearmed and all that. Had my chum with the locknuts been better advised maybe they would have had a small pair of pliers to hand; as it was their tyres were fitted by someone else who hadn't any idea that this could even be a problem ('it worked for them', ahem). Anyone reading this thread might have had no idea either, had I not mentioned it.  [BTW having encouraged this person to take MTBing seriously in the first place some years earlier and then seen them get into a position where they regularly got podium positions in their category, I was gutted by proxy, if you like. As it happens I had no idea they were even running tubeless wheels in that race, I only heard about it later.]

I would also comment that there are a number things that have been said which are absolute fictions. For example;

a) that putting a tube in a tubeless tyre is as quick and easy as with a tube setup: It isn't. At best it bears comparison with a rather tight standard setup, but takes a fair bit longer because there is the valve, sealant and FOD to contend with. At worst it turns from a task that is just about manageable for some folk into one that isn't.

b) that if you don't get on with tubeless tyres on tubeless rims, you can always run standard tyres on the same rims:  Well in some cases you can, but in other cases the result is tyres that blow off the rim or tyres that are still so difficult to remove that the rider cannot manage it by the roadside. In extremis I have known of folk who have given their shiny new tubeless-rimmed wheels away, because they were of no use to them.

So my advice is that if you think the possible benefits of running tubeless are worth having, to be sure that you can manage the tyres by the roadside and/or that (occasionally) having a ride spoiled isn't a disaster for you.

A further comment I'd make is that some folk look to try tubeless after a spate of punctures. In the past the cure for this would be to use different tyres (even matured versions of the same tyres rather than new ones) more suited to the conditions, or something simple, like tyre savers or slime-filled tubes.   This is still an approach that costs neither a great deal of time nor effort.  Changing tyres to suit conditions (even if you had just one wheelset to hand)  used to be standard practice; for example at this time of year some rides will be quite summer-like and others might be more wintery. Changing standard tyres can be quick and easy; having decided in the morning you can fit different tyres in a few minutes and be on your way.   It seems to me that running tubeless tyres is a major deterrent to this; it can be a right rigmarole getting the things mounted and seated, and the sealant distributed etc. [UST normally sidesteps a lot of these issues but I still don't see UST users changing tyres to suit the conditions much; maybe they don't feel the  need to, but I suspect that it is just a bit too much faff.]

As I mentioned upthread, not everything suits folk in the same way.  The bicycle is a pretty mature piece of technology, and there are very few novel approaches that are introduced that completely displace previous or alternative technologies.  In fact this only seems to happen in tiny niche competition applications, where marginal gains are seen to be important. [BTW There is a major 'me too' factor at work also; folk who don't have the latest thing can feel like they are "missing out" somehow, quite disproportionately to any actual effect.] Even then it isn't always clear cut; some would (say) see value in using commoditised parts in an event like the TCR (even if they were not quite "as fast") simply because replacements/substitutes would be more easily sourced en route.

I am actually pretty p'd off that simply in attempting to have a sensible discussion about this stuff, there has been so much childish b.s. flying about. No wonder 'groupthink' occurs; God forbid that you should have your own ideas that might not be the same as the shouty types.... ::-)

In answer to a question posed above "why do I think I am in a minority here?' the answer is obvious; the vast majority of cyclists do not use tubeless and in fact neither know nor care about any 'marginal gains' that might arise. You don't hear them here for various reasons, not the least of which is that you need to be pretty thick-skinned or persistent to wade through the torrent of abuse and b.s. that will undoubtedly be thrown in your direction.

 Some ***ing forum this is.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: tonyh on 10 October, 2018, 10:02:03 am
I just think it's so disappointing that this discussion has degenerated into personal insults aimed largely at Brucey and Samuel D.  Let's show more respect for their opinions and knowledge, even if they don't reflect the experience or aspirations of others.

Totally agree, well said

Applause.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 10 October, 2018, 10:24:29 am

I would also comment that there are a number things that have been said which are absolute fictions. For example;

a) that putting a tube in a tubeless tyre is as quick and easy as with a tube setup: It isn't. At best it bears comparison with a rather tight standard setup, but takes a fair bit longer because there is the valve, sealant and FOD to contend with. At worst it turns from a task that is just about manageable for some folk into one that isn't.

In your experience and opinion, but you appear to state it as fact. They are not, as you state, fictions. I have been able to fit Schwalbe One, One Pro, Hutchinson Sector and Fusion 5 tubeless tyres to TL (Pacenti and Velocity) and non-TL but converted (H-Plus Son Archetypes) rims by hand, and I'm not particularly strong. A less strong individual might need a lever for the last section. No different form the tubed tyres I've used, and significantly easier than Marathons.  Similarly I use two levers to remove them. Yep, there's sealant, but we're talking maybe 50ml. Not a huge amount, and no worse than road dirt and rainwater that all cyclists regularly deal with when they puncture. As to the valve issue - be prepared is the key. I'm reasonably sure there are people who overtighten the valve stem nut on tubed tyres, or let it get corroded, and would have trouble with a roadside repair. Again, I've removed a tubeless valve to fit a tube, and thinking back. I had no problem whatsoever, and I hadn't at that time (early days in my use of tubeless) even thought about how tight the nut should be. Added to that, the grip of the latex sealent on the valve seat/rim interface went unnoticed. Folk who fit tubeless themselves will, IMO of course, be reasonably able to deal with the roadside problems that might occur. It may be that when and if bikes are sold with tubless tyres fitted, more people will have such issues, but then they will be the ones who at the moment won't be able to deal with broken cables, snapped spokes etc. etc..

Quote
b) that if you don't get on with tubeless tyres on tubeless rims, you can always run standard tyres on the same rims:  Well in some cases you can, but in other cases the result is tyres that blow off the rim or tyres that are still so difficult to remove that the rider cannot manage it by the roadside. In extremis I have known of folk who have given their shiny new tubeless-rimmed wheels away, because they were of no use to them.

If you don't get on with a tubeless setup, then fit tubes and carry on with the same tyres and rims. Tubeless tyres aren't necessarily more expensive than non-tubeless - though there are fewer really cheap ones for sure. And as noted (by myself, from direct experience) above, nor are they necessarily more difficult to work with than tubed tyres.  There are some combinations of rim and tyre that are bastard hard - we even have a thread about it if you're interested.

[qoute]
So my advice is that if you think the possible benefits of running tubeless are worth having, to be sure that you can manage the tyres by the roadside and/or that (occasionally) having a ride spoiled isn't a disaster for you.
[/quote]

Agreed. It's also why I stopped riding Marathons or GP 4 seasons. I couldn't easily manage them roadside with the rims I had at that time (CXP22's IIRC)

Quote
Changing tyres to suit conditions (even if you had just one wheelset to hand)  used to be standard practice; for example at this time of year some rides will be quite summer-like and others might be more wintery. Changing standard tyres can be quick and easy; having decided in the morning you can fit different tyres in a few minutes and be on your way.   It seems to me that running tubeless tyres is a major deterrent to this...

I wonder how many people do / have ever done this on a daily basis? Othe than yourself I presume.

Quote
As I mentioned upthread, not everything suits folk in the same way.

As you have amply demonstrated. It doesn't however make other peoples choice wrong, jut different.

Quote
I am actually pretty p'd off that simply in attempting to have a sensible discussion about this stuff, there has been so much childish b.s. flying about. No wonder 'groupthink' occurs; God forbid that you should have your own ideas that might not be the same as the shouty types.... ::-)

Then I hope you take the preceding in the spirit it was intended.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Chris N on 10 October, 2018, 10:25:35 am
I just think it's so disappointing that this discussion has degenerated into personal insults aimed largely at Brucey and Samuel D.  Let's show more respect for their opinions and knowledge, even if they don't reflect the experience or aspirations of others.

It's tough do do when Brucey insists on mansplaining everything to everyone and Samuel refuses to accept that not everyone wants to ride an Eroica-legal bike, but I'll try. :P
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 10 October, 2018, 10:34:38 am
I just think it's so disappointing that this discussion has degenerated into personal insults aimed largely at Brucey and Samuel D.  Let's show more respect for their opinions and knowledge, even if they don't reflect the experience or aspirations of others.

In an earlier post, Samuel D suggested that persons disagreeing with him were "shills".

Definition of shill:  "an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others."

That's not very nice either, and thoroughly pissed me off.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 10 October, 2018, 10:36:12 am

as I mentioned upthread, my comments are based on having fitted multiple sets of tyres and having helped others when they have had problems.


Right but I am still unsure as to what context this is in - not to try and get all Paxman on you but when I asked whether this is from you being in the cycle trade, you dodged the question.



Probably this amounts to more happenstances than any one rider might accrue for themselves in a year or two, but that is just a guess.  There is an extensive range of possible difficulties and pitfalls; some folk with some gear (like yourself with UST stuff) have not had a torrid time of it which is great but that doesn't meant to say that others will get on as well even with the same kit. In any event there is a learning curve to be had.

Especially for QG's use, knowing which problems might occur with particular equipment is vital; forewarned is forearmed and all that. Had my chum with the locknuts been better advised maybe they would have had a small pair of pliers to hand; as it was their tyres were fitted by someone else who hadn't any idea that this could even be a problem ('it worked for them', ahem). Anyone reading this thread might have had no idea either, had I not mentioned it.  [BTW having encouraged this person to take MTBing seriously in the first place some years earlier and then seen them get into a position where they regularly got podium positions in their category, I was gutted by proxy, if you like. As it happens I had no idea they were even running tubeless wheels in that race, I only heard about it later.]
Point 1)
Is that no one denies that you should be aware of the problems that might occur.
But can you not update your recommendation to people interested in tubeless that they should at least try it, whilst being aware of the potential issues that could occur - or are you still standing by a position that people shouldn't even try it at all?

Point 2) is that you keep talking in the context of 'podium positions', most people riding around aren't aiming to get on a podium so this is slightly skewed - in that for most people's riding, a tyre failure wouldn't be as 'disastrous' as if a podium position was a possibility. Can you not see how people might start reading your advice, but then come across the bit about podiums, and think 'oh, well I'm not aiming for a podium - that's irrelevant to me', and discount it? This might lead people to miss some of your otherwise potentially valuable inputs. I think you should give advice based on all categories of riding/aims, or at least the most popular/generic.



I would also comment that there are a number things that have been said which are absolute fictions. For example;

a) that putting a tube in a tubeless tyre is as quick and easy as with a tube setup: It isn't. At best it bears comparison with a rather tight standard setup, but takes a fair bit longer because there is the valve, sealant and FOD to contend with. At worst it turns from a task that is just about manageable for some folk into one that isn't.

This is subjective really. People might say it's "as easy" when what they mean is it's easy enough for them. All you can do is point out that there are additional things to take into account and let people judge for themselves.


b) that if you don't get on with tubeless tyres on tubeless rims, you can always run standard tyres on the same rims:  Well in some cases you can, but in other cases the result is tyres that blow off the rim or tyres that are still so difficult to remove that the rider cannot manage it by the roadside. In extremis I have known of folk who have given their shiny new tubeless-rimmed wheels away, because they were of no use to them.


I believe I have seen somewhere although I can't find it now from the horses mouth (could have been in an email - would be easy to confirm) that mavic open pro UST rims are compatible with tubed clincher tyres.
I did ride 1,300km with this set up before I tried tubeless again with the UST tyres.

I am also raising another advantage of UST tyres and rims which is that they are made to tight tolerances specifically to pair with each other. This makes me feel more confident about using them. This is completely independent of the fact they are tubeless. As far as I know you can't get tubed tyre and rim pairs that are made to tight tolerances to go with each other. Can you? I would be interested to know if you can.


So my advice is that if you think the possible benefits of running tubeless are worth having, to be sure that you can manage the tyres by the roadside and/or that (occasionally) having a ride spoiled isn't a disaster for you.
But are you still maintaining that people shouldn't even try it? Or are you saying "these are the potential pitfalls - but try it, and judge for yourself"?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: DuncanM on 10 October, 2018, 10:51:14 am
I thought that this discussion was about tubeless road, where there is still some contention (and there the pros still use tubulars).
I thought the tubeless/not tubeless argument was over for MTB (at least at the racing level) and tubeless has won - mainly because you can use lower pressure, thus having more grip and still avoid snakebites? On all the podcasts, reviews, pro-bike write-ups etc I've seen for MTB, they all run tubeless, though some of them use those anchovy things so if a puncture doesn't seal, they can still fix the hole rapidly and stay tubeless. Are there really high level MTBers using tubed tyres still?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 11:13:14 am
Not to my knowledge.

With regards to equipment choice of pro road riders, I can't see why it should neccesarily equate to normal consumer use. I sometimes use tubulars to commute which is utterly pointless and a has much more hassle potential if you flat...but it's fun. For me using tubeless from autumn to spring is an absolute no-brainer, and I say that off the back of 32 years of using normal tubes, and 3 years of tubeless. I think that gives me a pretty fair understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both systems and the ability to offer a fair appraisal. I don't have a tedious axe to grind. I still use both systems, and tubulars. I think the main disadvantage of tubeless is that it isn't suited to dunderheads.

From my use of DI2 I can totally see an advantage for sprinters, where a decent gear change is more likely to occur going full gas than with cables, but I can see why GT podium contenders don't need it and might eschew it for a simpler system.  For me and my commuting, pack riding and general pissing about it is just great fun to use.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: DuncanM on 10 October, 2018, 11:38:20 am
Tubulars are a pain for mortals without a follow car. I used them (Vittoria Rally, remember them?) to commute in London for a while and a puncture made me late and unhappy (and meant throwing away the tubular). I can see why pro racers who have someone else to do the gluing and general maintenance and don't have to pay for them like them (especially if they come from a track background where they still seem to be the gold standard). I have a stack of tubular rims kicking around in my garage - I need to stick them on eBay as I'm never going to use them!

However, for MTB, the problems on the trail that the pros experience are the same problems that the regular Joe racers have - no support, if anything breaks then you've gotta fix it yourself, snakebites are a consideration. Aside from setup issues (pro -> mechanic), or cost of new wheels, I see no reason to MTB with tubes.

I've not tried tubeless - I have no suitable wheels and don't want to ghetto my MTB (I barely use it). However, I would jump at the chance if I had the opportunity on a bike I used regularly, if only to see what the fuss is about!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 01:02:19 pm
So my advice is that if you think the possible benefits of running tubeless are worth having, to be sure that you can manage the tyres by the roadside and/or that (occasionally) having a ride spoiled isn't a disaster for you.

No shit, Sherlock.  ::-)

So pretty much just the same as any tyre then.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: jiberjaber on 10 October, 2018, 01:26:54 pm
So my advice is that if you think the possible benefits of running tubeless are worth having, to be sure that you can manage the tyres by the roadside and/or that (occasionally) having a ride spoiled isn't a disaster for you.

No shit, Sherlock.  ::-)

So pretty much just the same as any tyre then.

Now you are just being delusional! ::-)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 01:29:19 pm
Really?

I carry tyre levers, pump and tubes. Which of those do I not need when using conventional tyres?

EDIT: I've just read the Borg blog to which you linked earlier.  Interesting that he takes a different approach to me. He advocates carrying patches, superglue and worms on all rides, and, in the rare occurrence of a hole not sealing, to mend the tyre by the roadside. He says not to mount a tube because the system is called tubeless.

I find this unnecessary. I'm not carrying all that stuff just to use it once every 18 months. Slap a tube in, and mend the tyre at home where you can probably do a better job than at the roadside.

But if it works for him, that's fine.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: jiberjaber on 10 October, 2018, 01:42:48 pm
Really?

I carry tyre levers, pump and tubes. Which of those do I not need when using conventional tyres?

Oi don't start on me  :D - I was just being facetious about being accused on being delusional how *in my experience* I didn't have a problem removing tubeless valves on my bike - but obviously I must have dreamt that because it didn't happen to a friend  FFS :o
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 01:49:20 pm
He He, sorry.   ;D

I've added an EDIT having just read the Borg blog you linked to. Just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 10 October, 2018, 02:03:33 pm
QG's original question was about failure modes.

I was in our local falafel palace on Monday and bumped into a Deliveroo rider who I know from audaxes. He said he was looking for some wider, grippier tyres for winter than the 28s he's currently using (can't remember what make or model). I said GP 4 Seasons seem pretty good. But he's running tubeless so they're not for him. He then says – relevant to failure modes – that he's found when he does get a puncture which doesn't seal, the tyre goes down slowly and he never gets a blowout. No, I've only once ever had a tyre blow out* (and that was due to a fault in the GP 4 S, so probably I shouldn't really recommend them  :facepalm:) but I remember a ride with this guy a few years ago where he got several punctures, including at least one dramatic blowout, in 200km. In fact he ended up having to borrow (well, "borrow"!) a tube off me. And generally, while people get punctures, they don't get blowouts. I don't know what he was doing to get so many blowouts, but it does seem to indicate that what benefits one rider might not deliver the same benefit to another (and vice versa). And that one of the failure modes of tubeless is "gentle deflation".

*While riding. I've had a tyre explode at home an hour or so after inflating it, I suspect I hadn't seated the bead properly all the way round.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 02:21:17 pm
Sometimes, with conventional tubed tyres, you can get a puncture, put in a tube then get another puncture or blowout because there is a hole in tyre wide enough for the tube to bulge out of, and abrade on the road, and explode. It's not always easy to spot these tiny holes...especially in the dark and wet.

You see conventional tubed tyres are fraught with potentially catastrophic issues. I once had a blowout on a fast descent on a tubed tyre. I hit the ground and smashed my helmet. Unlikely to get a blowout on a tubeless.

Conventional tubed tyres are not a panacea   ;)

Your exploding conventional tubed tyre was probably as a result of trapping the tube when you mounted it. You see, great care has to be taken when mounting tubed tyres. If that explosion had happened on the road it could have been fatal.

Conventional tubed tyres are not some sort of 'safer' alternative to tubeless.

So my advice is that if you think the possible benefits of running conventional tubed tyres are worth having, to be sure that you can manage the tyres by the roadside and/or that (occasionally) having a ride spoiled isn't a disaster for you. Or indeed being hospitalised because blowout.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Kim on 10 October, 2018, 03:58:46 pm
I'd have thought the most common cause of spontaneous (ie. not caused by the tyre escaping from the rim for whatever reason) blowout in a tubed tyre would be a snakebite, possibly caused by a smaller puncture lowering the pressure first.

A massive cut (eg. broken bottle vs sidewall) would likely have the same rapid-deflation effect on tubed or tubeless, but that sort of thing is pretty rare.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: jsabine on 10 October, 2018, 04:24:33 pm
Yes, you have to do the job properly. Bodgers should not use tubeless.

I don't know - this bodger has been quite happy with tubeless on one bike (and decided it wouldn't suit on several others).

I decided I was a bit sick of repairing punctures mid-ride, which always seemed to go in clusters and often to be unrelated to tyre age or apparent wear, and that although I'm more than sceptical of the latest and greatest technology, Mike Lane and Steve Abraham's mileages on tubeless suggested that it was worth a go.

I needed new tyres anyway, found some Schwalbe Ones cheap, and having read up on ghetto tubeless installed them on Open Pros and used Gorilla Tape, Hutchinson valves and Doc Blue (rebadged Stans) sealant. (I'm now on my second pair of tyres, and using an Open Pro and a Velocity A23.)

Over about two and a half years (and less mileage than I'd have liked, though including WAWA and LEL), I can remember:

- Riding to my first audax on tubeless (and after about 30km in total), I rode over some glass and had a puncture that didn't seal. Removed the valve (can't remember problems with the locknut but I carry pliers anyway), cleaned out the sealant with a handful of grass or leaves, and fitted a tube. Probably took a few minutes longer than a 'normal' tube change, but no harder. Hole wouldn't seal when I refitted it tubeless at home, so I put an inner-tube patch on the inside, and had no further issues.
- Rear-wheel puncture partway through WAWA. Sealed after a couple of minutes with the hole at the bottom of the tyre, pumped it up, no further issues.
- Hit a pothole partway through WAWA, hard enough that the front tyre spilled air and I got to the next overnight control with it very soft. Didn't pump it up before sleeping, and found it flat in a puddle of sealant in the morning. It wouldn't reseal or pump up, so I began to fit a tube: one of the control volunteers took it off me, and sent me off to have breakfast - I know that he nipped a tube refitting it, but I got it back ready to go ...
- Having refitted both tyres with new sealant before LEL, the front (now on an A23 rather than an Open Pro) wouldn't hold pressure fully, dropping from about 70psi to about 30psi in 12 hours or so. Pumping up at every control to Edinburgh was a minor pain, but after that it was fine.
- Low pressure in rear tyre following a puncture on a social ride, pumped up at the lunch stop but it didn't stay as hard as I wanted, added sealant when I got home - but tyre was clearly worn enough to be on its last legs.
- A week or two later, sidewall cut in front tyre, only about half a mile from home, so I walked rather than attempting to fix it at the roadside. Cause unknown. Patching the tyre (with a bit of old tyre) at home was unsuccessful, though I'll probably try a proper tubeless patch when I get round to buying some. Solved by replacing the tyre (with much grumbling, because although the rear was down to the threads and clearly needed to go, the front had lots of rubber left).

Overall, I've found running tubeless on a bike that's used regularly (both for audaxes and round London) to be significantly less of a perceived pain in the arse than dealing with punctures (as I say, I've tended to experience them in clusters, which increases the perception of trouble!), especially as the hassle and effort has mostly been at home, in the dry.

I make sure to check pressure every time I take the bike out, have to top up more often than I'd expect to with tubes, and have found that the valve seal nut often gets sticky enough (presumably from sealant) to need pliers to undo. I wouldn't use tubeless on the bikes I barely use (like the ones at my parents' or my mother-in-law's houses). But I love the fact that over the past couple of years I've barely needed to take any action while on the road, apart from sometimes needing to add a bit of air. It's definitely been more pleasant than fixing punctures two or three times on the one ride ...

(While not having any truck with the ad hominem stuff, it has amused me to see quite how dogmatic Brucey and Samuel D have been - I see several shades of grey.)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mattc on 10 October, 2018, 05:46:24 pm
I've never tried tubeless, but have long been considering it for possible future projects; I respect the knowledge of both Flatus AND Brucey on this matter, and for me it's really useful reading ... "differing" viewpoints! [I must confess to occasionally reading other sources too. Sorry  :-[ ]

Meanwhile I want to say how great this thread has been for keeping the
 First/Longest/Bestest thread (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=87521.0) about tubeless to 99% factual inputs! (even the ones from Brucey/Flatus  :-* )

Keep up the mud-slinging sincere exchange of views chaps  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 05:48:02 pm
I'd have thought the most common cause of spontaneous (ie. not caused by the tyre escaping from the rim for whatever reason) blowout in a tubed tyre would be a snakebite, possibly caused by a smaller puncture lowering the pressure first.

A massive cut (eg. broken bottle vs sidewall) would likely have the same rapid-deflation effect on tubed or tubeless, but that sort of thing is pretty rare.

Except that liquid is thicker than air  ;)

But yes, hitting a stone, or a pothole with tubes is What cause mist blowouts....Or as Cudzo discovered, incorrectly fitting a tube.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 06:08:53 pm
Yes, you have to do the job properly. Bodgers should not use tubeless.

(While not having any truck with the ad hominem stuff, it has amused me to see quite how dogmatic Brucey and Samuel D have been - I see several shades of grey.)

Thing is, if somebody rocks up to a forum populated for the most part by super-experienced and intelligent cyclists, and presents themself as the ultimate arbiter of what equipment is correct to use, as having more experience than anybody else could possibly posses (whilst not really having any) and then derides the equipment choices of the experienced and intelligent cyclists as the feckless actions of headless chickens, swayed by fashion and the lure of the shiny, then sooner or later somebody is going to get jolly batey.

In this case it happens to be me (amongst others) but on the di2 thread it wasn't....it was other people.

Anyhoo, I too take a critical view of all that is presented to me, and am well able to discern which of the "trinkets and baubles" might be of use to me. This is why I waited well into the second iteration of di2 before I stumped up for some. I love it, but I'm not sure I'd buy another di2 bike.Its an expensive luxury. I'd buy tubeless again and hydro discs again and again and again.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Scrantaj on 10 October, 2018, 06:24:59 pm
Some more anecdotal evidence.

I run tubeless on three bikes.  25mm Pro-Ones on the carbon club bike, 30mm on the audax machine and 40mm on the Cross/Gravel/Everything else bike.

In circa 10,000 miles including club rides, multiple audaxes, LEL, National 24 etc I've had to put a tube in once.  That was when a previous repair failed.  I'd used a tyre worm on a hole that wouldn't seal and it had worked so well I'd forgotten about it.  In the very hot weather a few months ago a combination of hot sticky tarmac and the end of the worm going soft in the heat combined to stick it to the road and pull it clean out of the tyre during a club ride.  Sod's law then kicked in and the tube punctured as well an hour later.  I'm calling that an edge case.

Tyres are all Schwalbe, rims are Hed Ardennes+ or a set of Giant SLR 0's that get used for racing.  Forget the brand of sealant but it's not Orange or Stans.

Fitting is a 5 min job now using a track pump with a built in pressure reservoir.  The one trick I'd pass on is to push down on the tyre over the valve when you inflate it, this pushes the bead out on the rim and helps to get it started with seating.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 10 October, 2018, 07:37:06 pm
So on all these miles you have done on club rides, LEL, audax etc, were the roadsides littered with stranded tubeless users, left contemplating their foolish tyre choice, crying as they  try in vain to undo valve stem nuts, and even if they do succeed face hours of struggle to remount the impossibly tight tyre whilst wondering why it never seemed that hard when they mounted it in the first place?

Apparently, it's an actual thing.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Scrantaj on 10 October, 2018, 08:13:23 pm
So on all these miles you have done on club rides, LEL, audax etc, were the roadsides littered with stranded tubeless users, left contemplating their foolish tyre choice, crying as they  try in vain to undo valve stem nuts, and even if they do succeed face hours of struggle to remount the impossibly tight tyre whilst wondering why it never seemed that hard when they mounted it in the first place?

Apparently, it's an actual thing.

Nope.  As an added bonus the club guys get antsy if I sit on the front now, in case they get sprayed with sealant again.  No-one likes a face full of white sticky stuff unless they are expecting it :)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mzjo on 10 October, 2018, 09:42:02 pm
I'm curious as to whether any of the tubeless sceptics think it necessary to use tubes in their car's tyres?
i.e., is it a fundamentally bad idea, or is it a reasonable idea but the technology is not yet advanced enough for cycles. If the latter, then can they foresee a point in the future at which it is advanced enough, in their opinion ?

I don't need to use sealant and gorilla tape in my car's tyres  ;D

I do have a wheel on the big sidecar that has to have a tube because tyres don't seal. The man who changed the tyre tried leaving the tube out with the new tyre but it didn't work.

I am sure the mini I had in the early 70's (student days) had tube type tyres fitted but that's a bit of a long time ago.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 10 October, 2018, 09:48:07 pm
*While riding. I've had a tyre explode at home an hour or so after inflating it, I suspect I hadn't seated the bead properly all the way round.

I had a tube explode on my brompton during inflation, it got to 6bar, and went bang, and split along the seam of the tube. Scared the crap out of me.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 10 October, 2018, 09:56:28 pm
I'm curious as to whether any of the tubeless sceptics think it necessary to use tubes in their car's tyres?
i.e., is it a fundamentally bad idea, or is it a reasonable idea but the technology is not yet advanced enough for cycles. If the latter, then can they foresee a point in the future at which it is advanced enough, in their opinion ?

I don't need to use sealant and gorilla tape in my car's tyres  ;D

I do have a wheel on the big sidecar that has to have a tube because tyres don't seal. The man who changed the tyre tried leaving the tube out with the new tyre but it didn't work.

I am sure the mini I had in the early 70's (student days) had tube type tyres fitted but that's a bit of a long time ago.

One of the key reasons for moving cars from tubes to tubeless was safety iirc. Tubeless significantly reduces the risk of blowouts.

You can run sealants in car and lorry tyres if you wish too of course. Also, tyres are sealed to the rim when they are mounted, with beads that require mechanical assistance to remount. actually this is incorrect, they just use tyre soap to mount like we do with tubeless sometimes
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: andrew_s on 10 October, 2018, 11:14:43 pm
Sod's law then kicked in and the tube punctured as well an hour later.
I wouldn't call it Sod's Law, I'd call it expected.

The cause of the puncture to the tube would probably already have been in the tyre when you fitted the tube.
All those sharp things that the sealant stopped from causing a leak in the casing don't miraculously vanish when you fit a tube, and are ready and waiting to puncture it.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 11 October, 2018, 06:09:47 am
It seems to me that is possible, but likely only in the instance of having to tube up due to dry sealant, or no sealant. Otherwise surely the rush of sealant at high pressure would flush the puncturing object away.

When I removed an old tyre I don't recall finding anything in amongst the sealant, and the tyre had punctured many times. When I've punctured, and the tyre has sealed there is never any evidence if what punctured.  With tubes, the offending object stays in the tyre casing.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: PaulF on 11 October, 2018, 06:21:08 am
That’s probably true for road use but for MTB tubeless you need to remove thorns from the tyre before fitting a tube as the sealant appears to seal around the thorns.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 11 October, 2018, 06:56:20 am
110psi vs 25psi.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: PaulF on 11 October, 2018, 08:01:35 am
Precisely!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Peat on 11 October, 2018, 08:38:39 am
the sealant appears to seal around the thorns.

Isn't that the idea?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Scrantaj on 11 October, 2018, 09:05:42 am
Sod's law then kicked in and the tube punctured as well an hour later.
I wouldn't call it Sod's Law, I'd call it expected.

The cause of the puncture to the tube would probably already have been in the tyre when you fitted the tube.
All those sharp things that the sealant stopped from causing a leak in the casing don't miraculously vanish when you fit a tube, and are ready and waiting to puncture it.

Nope, because I followed standard practice and checked around the inside of the tyre before fitting a tube for just that reason.  If anything a bit more throughly as I went round it wiping the remaining sealant out first.  It was actually a snake bite from a pothole that caused the 2nd puncture.  Which you don't get with Tubeless.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: PaulF on 11 October, 2018, 09:23:49 am
the sealant appears to seal around the thorns.

Isn't that the idea?

Yes, was trying to point out that MTB tyres often keep the cause of the puncture rather than spitting it our as would be the case with higher pressure tyres
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Peat on 11 October, 2018, 09:40:08 am
I'm in the early days of my tubeless enlightenment. DIY converted the MTB with Gorilla Tape and Finish Line sealant, Have proper UST rims/tyres for the roady.

I'll have an opinion come spring, i'm sure.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: citoyen on 11 October, 2018, 10:14:27 am
That’s probably true for road use but for MTB tubeless you need to remove thorns from the tyre before fitting a tube as the sealant appears to seal around the thorns.

I've had one instance of a puncture not instantly sealing itself - or rather, it seemed to seal itself but then started spraying sealant again a few moments later. I stopped to investigate and there was still something stuck in the tyre (a shard of glass IIRC) so I pulled it out and the tyre sealed itself after that.

OK, so I had to stop to deal with it, but a lot less faff than changing tubes. Admittedly, more durable tyres might not have suffered a puncture in that instance, but that's the trade-off with preferring lighter, faster tyres and I'm happy to live with that.

For the record, my tyres are nominally 28mm (nearer 30mm on my rims) and I usually have them inflated to around 65/75psi.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 11 October, 2018, 10:43:01 am

One of the key reasons for moving cars from tubes to tubeless was safety iirc. Tubeless significantly reduces the risk of blowouts.

You can run sealants in car and lorry tyres if you wish too of course. Also, tyres are sealed to the rim when they are mounted, with beads that require mechanical assistance to remount. actually this is incorrect, they just use tyre soap to mount like we do with tubeless sometimes

Re the safety thing; tubeless tyres and radial tyres almost went hand in hand on cars. These tyres/rims  have lips that  retain the tyre; it is this (rather than the presence or not of the tube) which is where the major improvement in safety arises. What folk choose to call "a blowout" is often where the tyre comes off the rim, and this is far less likely to happen with such lips.  Also the way a radial tyre runs when it is soft or flat is somewhat more benign than a cross-ply, so you have more chance of controlling the vehicle if a tyre is soft or even flat.  The main danger when running tubes inside tubeless car tyres is that tyre overheats more easily when run at the extremes of its operating envelope.  You may or may not be aware of this but the maximum load/speed rating of car tyres only applies when they are also inflated to their maximum pressure rating; they got too hot (through internal friction from flexing) otherwise. Adding a second layer of rubber inside the tyre just makes this happen earlier. Provided you are well within  the load/speed rating of the tyre, running a tubeless car tyre with a tube in it is pretty much no problem.

Overheating is not so much of a concern with bicycle tyres. However there have been calls for tyres that don't come off the rim so easily, the argument being that you cannot stop quickly enough at speed if you get a puncture such that you can always avoid having a prang because the tyre comes off the rim. This is of most concern to those that regularly travel at 40mph plus, hence there is a whole article about this in the IHPVA archives (from memory  issue 52 ?) . It would be interesting to see this updated so that the effects of tubeless tyres are assessed and compared.

Breaking the bead on car tyres requires quite a lot of effort.  'Road tubeless' on bicycles aims to replicate that in miniature, only it is a long floppy/stretchy thing wrapped round another long and less floppy thing, so the chances of getting a consistent fit are somewhat reduced.  Having said that, so far (which is not many sets admittedly) UST seem more a more consistent fit than many others. There is presumably a benefit in bicycle tyre retention if tubeless tyres are a tight fit on tubeless rims, but this is only likely to be of any value in the event of a sudden deflation at speed. This (fortunately) isn't a very common event on standard road bikes.

IIRC all car tyre manufacturers do not recommend that you use sealant inside their tyres (unless you already have a problem, hence Dunlop's 'denovo' system).  The reason for this is that leaks are sometimes  nature's way of letting you know your tyres are falling apart. The tyre manufacturers are concerned that the tyre could be in a state such that it will fall apart at speed with no 'warning' (i.e. the air coming out) first.  A similar concern applies to bicycle tyre tubeless; I have seen tyres that are so badly cut up that the carcasses have gone wonky such that I wouldn't ride them any more; the rider had no idea that the tyre was in that state because they hadn't checked. Like self-adjusting hydraulic disc brakes (where you have to check the pads have not worn out yet, else your first clue will be a ghastly scraping sound and wrecked discs) a convenience also turns into an increased proactive maintenance obligation.

Sealant in car tyres also has the capacity to throw the wheel out of balance. The same thing can happen with bicycle tyres, especially if the sealant starts to congeal.  You probably won't notice this unless it is very bad or you are in the habit of riding like a lunatic down hills but when riding in the Alps it is worth making sure your wheels are not too far out of balance and/or that your sealant hasn't turned lumpy. However checking wheels for good balance (without a balancing machine that runs at speed) is pretty much impossible if there is anything loose inside the tyre. I have even had car tyres go out of balance because they used too much tyre soap when fitting the tyre; the soap dries out, turns into 'crumbs' which then roll around the inside of the tyre. Because they don't distribute themselves evenly the wheel can go out of balance.

QG's 'blowout' on a Brompton was (IMHO, if as reported) almost certainly the tyre coming off the rim first, then the tube failing, not the other way round. The reason is that if the tube fails inside a securely mounted tyre, it makes a 'plip- pfffft' sound, not a 'loud bang'. The 'loud bang' happens when the tube swells through a large gap of some kind and then bursts. After the fact it isn't easy to see that the tyre came of the rim first, but this is what happens if you hear a loud bang.  It is made vary much more likely with new tyres; they are covered in mould release compound and this is an effective lubricant. Old Brompton rims didn't have pronounced hook beads and were a fairly loose fit with some tyres, so the tyres can blow off if they are not seated carefully and there is still release compound present.  I have been lucky (or unlucky) enough to see a new tyre creeping off a hookless rim; I'd ridden the bike thirty miles with the new tyre fitted but sat in the sunshine the mould release compound turned fully liquid and the tyre started to come off the rim. I happened to be looking in that direction and I actually saw the tyre move. Ten seconds later I would have had a 'blowout'. Nothing to do with the tube, everything to do with the fit of the tyre and the shape of the rim. A lot of 'blowouts' are to do with a tyre being mounted without being cleaned first; everything to do with fit, nothing to do with tubes.

Car tyres are retained by having a very heavy, stiff bead and no 'clincher' style hook bead. UST bicycle tyres work in a similar way (and are therefore heavier twice over; extra rubber in the sidewalls and extra strength in the bead); there is only a small hook bead on a UST rim and anyway this can play only a small role in retaining the tyre. The reason is that the position of the seal cannot be guaranteed. If the seal is at the tyre lip the tyre is forced into a hook bead lip and the tyre is better retained (as per all tubed tyres on such rims). However if the seal is at the rim lip, a hook bead cannot do any good; there is nothing forcing the tyre bead into the hook; there is air pressure all around the tyre bead and it is not being pushed in one direction. Since there is nothing to dictate that the seal is made at any one position (and anyway the sealant would probably render deliberate leak paths between the tyre lip and the rim lip moot) hook beads are of little value if you want consistent tubeless tyre retention.

This explains some of the observations and comments here https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/ (https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/) although I don't think the author fully understood this when he wrote the piece originally. It is clear that if you don't go about it in the right way, there is not so much a safety benefit in running road tubeless so much as the other thing.

FWIW you can run normal tyres on UST rims but the safe pressures are lower than normal in good part because the rim lips are very small. For example IIRC the maximum pressure rating on the new open pro is just 87psi, regardless of tyre width or type. I suspect this is in part because other tyres will be in danger of coming off the rim (regardless of type) for various reasons.

Non tubeless rims may lack any real benefit in tyre retention in the event of deflation, and may or may not retain (non UST type) tyres in the event of a rim lip seal condition. 'Compromise' rim designs (eg the kinlin ones) are likely to behave in a similar way but may retain tyres (with stiff beads eg UST) better if they are a tight fit to start with. Tubeless only rims have little or no hook; the reason being that if there is a hook and  the seal location changes as you ride, a tyre that appeared to be OK when you started can just blow off the rim.

Doubtless I will be accused of 'mansplaining' things again. What a daft thing to say; only someone who cannot recognise informed comment (as distinct from "it worked for me so far therefore it ought to work for everyone all the time") when they see it would say such a thing.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Chris N on 11 October, 2018, 11:04:40 am
Succinct informed comment is fine.  A wall of dogma is not.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: citoyen on 11 October, 2018, 11:08:55 am
Re the safety thing; tubeless tyres and radial tyres almost went hand in hand on cars.

Talking of radial tyres, I've ridden radials on a bike and they feel really weird, especially when cornering.

Which I think goes to show (albeit in a limited, anecdotal way) that a technology that is suitable for one application isn't necessarily suitable for another application even if those applications seem ostensibly similar, so we need to be careful when making such comparisons.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 11 October, 2018, 11:09:57 am
Yes but if you are desperate...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 11 October, 2018, 11:28:49 am
For example IIRC the maximum pressure rating on the new open pro is just 87psi, regardless of tyre width or type.

You might want to read what Mavic and ETRO say on the subject.  It is not regardless of tyre width nor is it regardless of type. The minimum recommended tyre width is 28mm and Mavic explicity say you can increase the pressure by about 15% if you are using tubes.

http://engineerstalk.mavic.com/en/the-right-tyre-width-on-the-right-rim-width/

"But most importantly, there is a safety issue.

Some tests performed by several tyre manufacturers, including Mavic, have shown that a narrow tyre on a wide rim has a higher chance of severely coming off the rim.

Norms are setting barriers and rules to ensure rider safety.

ISO4210 et ETRTO regulations have recently redefined the tyre and rim combinations usable in the best security conditions. An essential parameter has been added to these combinations: the tyre inflation pressure.

The result of this work is summarized in the table below and applies to use of tubeless tyres.

For the use of an inner tube, you should add about 15% to the pressures indicated in the table."

If you are interested in safety take a look at around 5:42 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALVtgcY1YeM where Mavic test their road UST tubeless up to 174 PSI before it blows.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 11 October, 2018, 10:12:24 pm
Vittoria claim that the Corsa Speed TLR is designer to stay on the rim at pressures of up to 18 bar, or around 270psi! That feels like a sensible margin against a running pressure of, say, 95 - 100 psi.

OTOH, I have seen a 32mm Voyager Hyper ‘pop’ off a rim at 80psi when inflated tubeless and while the head was still wet and soapy. That was quite noisy and food for thought.

Mike
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 12 October, 2018, 06:59:42 pm
We are definitely into tubeless season.

In the space of 24 hours. the leaves have dropped, been rained upon and turned into a slippery mush.

32mm Sectors at 55psi. :thumbsup:

And no pinch flats...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 12 October, 2018, 07:38:28 pm
We are definitely into tubeless season.

In the space of 24 hours. the leaves have dropped, been rained upon and turned into a slippery mush.

32mm Sectors at 55psi. :thumbsup:

And no pinch flats...

Or 23mm Corsa Speed at 95psi?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 12 October, 2018, 07:58:32 pm
You are mental.

I've been getting as much fun out of the 25mm Galaktiks for the past few weeks in the full knowledge that cycling is about to get a bit shit until next May  :-[

Maybe it's my advancing age, but I'm not dead keen on losing my front wheel on a corner these days  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 13 October, 2018, 09:28:51 am

"But most importantly, there is a safety issue.

Some tests performed by several tyre manufacturers, including Mavic, have shown that a narrow tyre on a wide rim has a higher chance of severely coming off the rim.....


this may be  because the bias angle of the installed tyre carcass varies with the width of the rim to which it is fitted. When the bias angle varies so does the load on the tyre bead.

BTW IIRC it says 'maximum pressure 87psi' (for 28mm tyres) on the new OP rims. Doubtless it is more complicated than that in reality but that is the advice facing you as you pump the tyres up. Mind you, Mavic rims have had all kinds of weird stuff written on them; I had one set of rims which recommended a higher maximum pressure for a wider tyre....shurely shome mistake....?.... :o

Using the commonly accepted 15% drop method, 87psi in 28mm tyres is enough for about 100kg all up load, assuming a 45:55 front:rear distribution. In reality the load distribution is usually more heavily rearwards than that and thus the total load (bike plus rider plus luggage) is presumably also lower.

That UST tyres in Mavic's test don't blow off until 174psi isn't overly surprising. It is their test and the tyres are designed to fit those rims. They would hardly be likely to publish results that painted their system in a bad light.  [IIRC when tested similarly (on conventional rims with decent sized hooks) most conventional tubed tyres do about as well as that or better.]

The concern comes with running other (non UST) tyres on UST rims. The rim lips are slightly less high and a lot less hooked than normal. Because of the way conventional tyres are retained by the hook bead and the loads of the tube being passed into that part of the rim, you can expect such tyres (depending on the strength of the bead, the fit and one or two other things such as whether a tube is fitted ) to be substantially less well retained than you might expect. Hence some of  the incidents reported here and elsewhere (eg the Jan Heine link I posted).  UST tyres appear to  have considerably thicker and heavier beads than ostensibly similar tubed tyres, because they are retained in a different way.

Anyway my point was (and is) that tubeless rims are often touted as 'suitable for use with conventional tyres'.  It isn't as simple as that; the rims are different and usually not in a good way if you plan to run conventional tyres.

IIRC one of the comments above was 'you can't have tyres being a tight fit and blowing off rims'. Well, you can. This comment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how different tyres are retained by different rims.

Before dismissing what I write as 'a wall of dogma', you might try actually reading it instead of accepting the daft comments of others about it at face value. Without contributions from myself and others this thread would have continued on its merry way with various issues not discussed at all (sin of omission) and various other things completely misrepresented.

IIRC the OP wishes to be completely self-sufficient and for good reason.  IMHO this ought to work with a good tubeless setup right until there is a problem of some kind. At this point the problem may be (substantially) worse than normal to solve (especially if you have limited hand strength), may require that you carry more equipment to solve it.  Spares en route are likely to be less easily sourced.  The sop/fallback of 'the rims will work OK with tubed tyres too' isn't always as simple as that either, potentially leaving you with a setup that has many of the disadvantages of tubeless but with few of the advantages.

Quite often posts such as the OPs are made merely in order that they receive affirmation of choices that they have in fact already made. If so it doesn't matter what is said, the die is already cast. But at least we can have a discussion where most of the issues are actually raised.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 13 October, 2018, 09:46:28 am
Bad shit can happen with tubed tyres (blow-outs, tyre slashes leaving you stranded, tight fits etc etc) But you don't seem very keen to emphasise these (quite the opposite in fact).

You are a selective doom-monger with an axe to grind, which is why people aren't taking you very seriously. The patronising tone probably doesn't help your case either. 

Many many cyclists will have experienced the issues I mention above (ever tried to fit a Corsa cx to a Kysrium SL rim?) As yet, I dont recall anybody here ever having a tubeless tyre blow-out or blow-off on the road and of my many TL club mates I can't recall  anybody mentioning it.  As for tight-fit...well guess what...you'd probably notice it when you fit the tyre in the first place  ::-) and plan accordingly (ie. carry tyre levers that don't snap....just like you would with a tight non-tubeless combo)

The fact is we TL users know what living with TL tyres entails...because we live with them.

You don't.

Here is part of your post:


Tubeless tyres vary in their fit on the rim and how easy they are to deal with.  I don't see that for my riding they offer any real advantage, but they come with a whole host of potential problems.  I can't remember when I last had more than two punctures in a year's riding, yet I carry patches and booting fabric wherever I go, and a spare tube if it is more than a few miles.  I think I'd need to carry more stuff if I ran tubeless and I'd be less certain of fixing any major roadside problem well enough to be able to continue.

cheers


You think you'd need more stuff. I know what I need.

You would be less certain. Yes, I would be less certain too in your position. How could you be certain if you don't know what the process might entail. I know what the process entails.

p.s. our tyres heal their own punctures too  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Karla on 13 October, 2018, 10:09:30 am
Vittoria claim that the Corsa Speed TLR is designer to stay on the rim at pressures of up to 18 bar, or around 270psi! That feels like a sensible margin against a running pressure of, say, 95 - 100 psi.

OTOH, I have seen a 32mm Voyager Hyper ‘pop’ off a rim at 80psi when inflated tubeless and while the head was still wet and soapy. That was quite noisy and food for thought.

Mike

Wet and soapy heads, tight fits, much fun ... this thread definitely needs moving to NSFW.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 13 October, 2018, 11:40:55 am
Some anecdata. Upthread theire has been mention of leaving tubeless tyres bikes standing and go8ng back to find them dead flat with a pool of sealant. Well yesterday I checked in the shed on two bikes that had been stood for a couple of months. All tyres were down, all to around 1 - 1.5 bar. Still plenty of pressure to maintain a seal, and of course at a lower pressure the leakage rate will slow. There was also a front wheel I’d not used in at least 6 months, still inflated albeit around 1 bar. So for me there isn’t an issue with unused tubeless being any more awkward than tubed. YMMV of course and no doubt Brucey will have vastly more experience than me. (A bit childish that last bit, but I do get irritated by his seeming omnipotence in cycling matters.)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 13 October, 2018, 12:05:58 pm
That's interesting. I've had varying experiences with sometimes one tyre deflated and unseated, and the other not, after 5 or 6 months layoff (sealant still liquid!). Reseating said tyres has entailed quick pump on track pump and bingo...or on occasion unbeading and wiping with soapy water before airshotting. Either way, no drama. No need for wailing and panicking.

I'll say it again, tubeless isn't maintenance free...but by and large you get to do the maintenance at a convenient time and place, rather than a dark, cold  and rainy roadside.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 13 October, 2018, 12:32:35 pm
My anecdata is that Schwalbe Ones loss pressure very slowly on Kinlin rims and resolutely stay seated (even when you descend Greenhow Hill with almost no air).

Compass Bon Jon’s are similar.

Vittoria Corsa Speed take more pressure to seat and can fall off Pacenti SL23’s, but that can be resolved by keeping air in them and riding them - plus they’re now on my carbon wheels and the SL23 wheelset will be in the classifieds shortly
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: De Sisti on 13 October, 2018, 12:42:11 pm
..no doubt Brucey will have vastly more experience than me. (A bit childish that last bit, but I do get irritated by his seeming omnipotence in cycling matters.)
His last but one post was way too long for me to continue reading past the first paragraph
(it was all probably interesting though).
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 13 October, 2018, 12:54:29 pm
..no doubt Brucey will have vastly more experience than me. (A bit childish that last bit, but I do get irritated by his seeming omnipotence in cycling matters.)
His last but one post was way too long for me to continue reading past the first paragraph
(it was all probably interesting though).

And that’s my issue too.  There IS a great deal of knowledge, some of it extremely useful as I’ve said in the past, but sorting the wheat from the irrelevant chaff becomes too tiresome, which I think is a shame.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 13 October, 2018, 01:11:25 pm
The long posts are post-hoc justifications for Brucey's desperate axe-grinding arguments. It's a shame. He's so much better when he is talking about things he knows about.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: teethgrinder on 13 October, 2018, 02:52:27 pm
After talking to Bikey Mikey, who has weak hands, so unable to change a tube, about tubeless, they seemed like a no brainer for my year record attempt, so I built some wheels and road tested them myself, even though Bikey Mikey had ridden over 30,000 miles and did a very good road test for me.
I used them so I could run faster tyres even in winter. I was using Schwalbe Pro Ones, which are really fast summer tyres but I wasn't riding especially rough lanes. I'd use G One Pros for winter or lots of "Wessex SR" type roads as they're almost as fast as Pro Ones but built for some off road.
I carried tubes, spare tyre, pump and tyre levers. I did have to put a tube in a few times when I got a big cut, usually in the sidewall, but I'd expect that with light tyres anyway. They probably could have been patched, but my job was to keep moving so I did whatever would get me going ASAP. I kept the cut tyres so I can repair them at leisure.
If it wasn't for the year record, I'd still be using tubes as it's a lot of money (for me) to switch but I do think they are much better and I noticed improvements even between my 2 record attempts. The tyres roll better now and the sealant is better. I used Schwalbe Doc Blue (rebranded Stans) but have heard from various good sources that Orange sealant is the best of them all. Trek bike store had a faulty tyre they couldn't keep inflated with any sealant and got some Orange sealant from the rep and their faulty tyre stayed inflated.
If you're switching sealat, be sure to clean the rims etc thoroughly, as some sealants don't mix with others and having sealant cocktails can prevent the sealant from working as well.

Ironically, I'm going back to my tubed tyres for the winter. I have a stash of sturdy tyres that are much slower than my tubeless, so I'll run them down purely to save money, or not waste useful equipment. But when spring comes and I am fitter, it'll be even better to get my tubeless tyres out for the proper rides.
Though I'll probably use tubeless for the Full Fat 500 Audax because that's a proper ride.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: teethgrinder on 13 October, 2018, 03:04:48 pm
I also carried some sealant. I did have a few incidents of topping up the sealant on the road. Seen sealant spraying out of a wheel and having to stop once or twice to top up the air. At worst had to put the hole at 6 o clock so that the sealant puddles around the hole and plugs it and that would be a bigger hole than usual. But perhaps with Orange sealant and G One tyres...?
How many tubes I didn't have to replace with tubed tyres with equal performance is unknowable but I do know that it has saved me the need to change tubes at the roadside, having plucked thorny branches from my front tyre a few times and hearing a hiss, followed by silence as the sealant did it's work. One of my concerns riding tubeless was that when I go back to tubes, will I rmember not to ride over thorny branches or even wheel my bike over brambles with impunity if I stop for a pee...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: faster on 13 October, 2018, 03:16:03 pm

One of the key reasons for moving cars from tubes to tubeless was safety iirc. Tubeless significantly reduces the risk of blowouts.

You can run sealants in car and lorry tyres if you wish too of course. Also, tyres are sealed to the rim when they are mounted, with beads that require mechanical assistance to remount. actually this is incorrect, they just use tyre soap to mount like we do with tubeless sometimes

Re the safety thing; tubeless tyres and radial tyres almost went hand in hand on cars. These tyres/rims  have lips that  retain the tyre; it is this (rather than the presence or not of the tube) which is where the major improvement in safety arises. What folk choose to call "a blowout" is often where the tyre comes off the rim, and this is far less likely to happen with such lips.  Also the way a radial tyre runs when it is soft or flat is somewhat more benign than a cross-ply, so you have more chance of controlling the vehicle if a tyre is soft or even flat.  The main danger when running tubes inside tubeless car tyres is that tyre overheats more easily when run at the extremes of its operating envelope.  You may or may not be aware of this but the maximum load/speed rating of car tyres only applies when they are also inflated to their maximum pressure rating; they got too hot (through internal friction from flexing) otherwise. Adding a second layer of rubber inside the tyre just makes this happen earlier. Provided you are well within  the load/speed rating of the tyre, running a tubeless car tyre with a tube in it is pretty much no problem.

Overheating is not so much of a concern with bicycle tyres. However there have been calls for tyres that don't come off the rim so easily, the argument being that you cannot stop quickly enough at speed if you get a puncture such that you can always avoid having a prang because the tyre comes off the rim. This is of most concern to those that regularly travel at 40mph plus, hence there is a whole article about this in the IHPVA archives (from memory  issue 52 ?) . It would be interesting to see this updated so that the effects of tubeless tyres are assessed and compared.

Breaking the bead on car tyres requires quite a lot of effort.  'Road tubeless' on bicycles aims to replicate that in miniature, only it is a long floppy/stretchy thing wrapped round another long and less floppy thing, so the chances of getting a consistent fit are somewhat reduced.  Having said that, so far (which is not many sets admittedly) UST seem more a more consistent fit than many others. There is presumably a benefit in bicycle tyre retention if tubeless tyres are a tight fit on tubeless rims, but this is only likely to be of any value in the event of a sudden deflation at speed. This (fortunately) isn't a very common event on standard road bikes.

IIRC all car tyre manufacturers do not recommend that you use sealant inside their tyres (unless you already have a problem, hence Dunlop's 'denovo' system).  The reason for this is that leaks are sometimes  nature's way of letting you know your tyres are falling apart. The tyre manufacturers are concerned that the tyre could be in a state such that it will fall apart at speed with no 'warning' (i.e. the air coming out) first.  A similar concern applies to bicycle tyre tubeless; I have seen tyres that are so badly cut up that the carcasses have gone wonky such that I wouldn't ride them any more; the rider had no idea that the tyre was in that state because they hadn't checked. Like self-adjusting hydraulic disc brakes (where you have to check the pads have not worn out yet, else your first clue will be a ghastly scraping sound and wrecked discs) a convenience also turns into an increased proactive maintenance obligation.

Sealant in car tyres also has the capacity to throw the wheel out of balance. The same thing can happen with bicycle tyres, especially if the sealant starts to congeal.  You probably won't notice this unless it is very bad or you are in the habit of riding like a lunatic down hills but when riding in the Alps it is worth making sure your wheels are not too far out of balance and/or that your sealant hasn't turned lumpy. However checking wheels for good balance (without a balancing machine that runs at speed) is pretty much impossible if there is anything loose inside the tyre. I have even had car tyres go out of balance because they used too much tyre soap when fitting the tyre; the soap dries out, turns into 'crumbs' which then roll around the inside of the tyre. Because they don't distribute themselves evenly the wheel can go out of balance.

QG's 'blowout' on a Brompton was (IMHO, if as reported) almost certainly the tyre coming off the rim first, then the tube failing, not the other way round. The reason is that if the tube fails inside a securely mounted tyre, it makes a 'plip- pfffft' sound, not a 'loud bang'. The 'loud bang' happens when the tube swells through a large gap of some kind and then bursts. After the fact it isn't easy to see that the tyre came of the rim first, but this is what happens if you hear a loud bang.  It is made vary much more likely with new tyres; they are covered in mould release compound and this is an effective lubricant. Old Brompton rims didn't have pronounced hook beads and were a fairly loose fit with some tyres, so the tyres can blow off if they are not seated carefully and there is still release compound present.  I have been lucky (or unlucky) enough to see a new tyre creeping off a hookless rim; I'd ridden the bike thirty miles with the new tyre fitted but sat in the sunshine the mould release compound turned fully liquid and the tyre started to come off the rim. I happened to be looking in that direction and I actually saw the tyre move. Ten seconds later I would have had a 'blowout'. Nothing to do with the tube, everything to do with the fit of the tyre and the shape of the rim. A lot of 'blowouts' are to do with a tyre being mounted without being cleaned first; everything to do with fit, nothing to do with tubes.

Car tyres are retained by having a very heavy, stiff bead and no 'clincher' style hook bead. UST bicycle tyres work in a similar way (and are therefore heavier twice over; extra rubber in the sidewalls and extra strength in the bead); there is only a small hook bead on a UST rim and anyway this can play only a small role in retaining the tyre. The reason is that the position of the seal cannot be guaranteed. If the seal is at the tyre lip the tyre is forced into a hook bead lip and the tyre is better retained (as per all tubed tyres on such rims). However if the seal is at the rim lip, a hook bead cannot do any good; there is nothing forcing the tyre bead into the hook; there is air pressure all around the tyre bead and it is not being pushed in one direction. Since there is nothing to dictate that the seal is made at any one position (and anyway the sealant would probably render deliberate leak paths between the tyre lip and the rim lip moot) hook beads are of little value if you want consistent tubeless tyre retention.

This explains some of the observations and comments here https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/ (https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/) although I don't think the author fully understood this when he wrote the piece originally. It is clear that if you don't go about it in the right way, there is not so much a safety benefit in running road tubeless so much as the other thing.

FWIW you can run normal tyres on UST rims but the safe pressures are lower than normal in good part because the rim lips are very small. For example IIRC the maximum pressure rating on the new open pro is just 87psi, regardless of tyre width or type. I suspect this is in part because other tyres will be in danger of coming off the rim (regardless of type) for various reasons.

Non tubeless rims may lack any real benefit in tyre retention in the event of deflation, and may or may not retain (non UST type) tyres in the event of a rim lip seal condition. 'Compromise' rim designs (eg the kinlin ones) are likely to behave in a similar way but may retain tyres (with stiff beads eg UST) better if they are a tight fit to start with. Tubeless only rims have little or no hook; the reason being that if there is a hook and  the seal location changes as you ride, a tyre that appeared to be OK when you started can just blow off the rim.

Doubtless I will be accused of 'mansplaining' things again. What a daft thing to say; only someone who cannot recognise informed comment (as distinct from "it worked for me so far therefore it ought to work for everyone all the time") when they see it would say such a thing.

Really interesting post which has raised a few questions for me about the rims and tyres on one of my bikes.

I never realised that the maximum pressure warnings were there to prevent tyres blowing off the rim - I'd always assumed it was something to do with the strength of the rim, which might fail under high pressure, like they do when the brake tracks become very worn.

I have a set of 23mm Conti GP4k tyres on a set of wheels which have what I believe to be the 'compromise' rims (ie tubeless ready Kinlins) mentioned above. The max pressure written on the rims is 80psi, but I've had good results so far running them at 100psi. I actually thought that whilst the rims were relatively new and unworn, I'd be fine!

There is also the other angle mentioned in one of the other posts about narrow tyres on wide rims - in my case 23mm tyres on 24mm wide rims.

How much of a risk am I taking here? They have been absolutely fine for the last 1,000 miles or so - comfortable and quick, so I'd like to keep running them the way they are if it is safe.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Zed43 on 13 October, 2018, 08:49:22 pm
Ironically, I'm going back to my tubed tyres for the winter.
Me too. Expensive Compass tyres (tubeless) for spring/summer when the long brevets are organised and GP 4Seasons (32mm, with tubes) in autumn and winter.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 14 October, 2018, 12:16:17 am

One of the key reasons for moving cars from tubes to tubeless was safety iirc. Tubeless significantly reduces the risk of blowouts.

You can run sealants in car and lorry tyres if you wish too of course. Also, tyres are sealed to the rim when they are mounted, with beads that require mechanical assistance to remount. actually this is incorrect, they just use tyre soap to mount like we do with tubeless sometimes

Re the safety thing; tubeless tyres and radial tyres almost went hand in hand on cars. These tyres/rims  have lips that  retain the tyre; it is this (rather than the presence or not of the tube) which is where the major improvement in safety arises. What folk choose to call "a blowout" is often where the tyre comes off the rim, and this is far less likely to happen with such lips.  Also the way a radial tyre runs when it is soft or flat is somewhat more benign than a cross-ply, so you have more chance of controlling the vehicle if a tyre is soft or even flat.  The main danger when running tubes inside tubeless car tyres is that tyre overheats more easily when run at the extremes of its operating envelope.  You may or may not be aware of this but the maximum load/speed rating of car tyres only applies when they are also inflated to their maximum pressure rating; they got too hot (through internal friction from flexing) otherwise. Adding a second layer of rubber inside the tyre just makes this happen earlier. Provided you are well within  the load/speed rating of the tyre, running a tubeless car tyre with a tube in it is pretty much no problem.

Overheating is not so much of a concern with bicycle tyres. However there have been calls for tyres that don't come off the rim so easily, the argument being that you cannot stop quickly enough at speed if you get a puncture such that you can always avoid having a prang because the tyre comes off the rim. This is of most concern to those that regularly travel at 40mph plus, hence there is a whole article about this in the IHPVA archives (from memory  issue 52 ?) . It would be interesting to see this updated so that the effects of tubeless tyres are assessed and compared.

Breaking the bead on car tyres requires quite a lot of effort.  'Road tubeless' on bicycles aims to replicate that in miniature, only it is a long floppy/stretchy thing wrapped round another long and less floppy thing, so the chances of getting a consistent fit are somewhat reduced.  Having said that, so far (which is not many sets admittedly) UST seem more a more consistent fit than many others. There is presumably a benefit in bicycle tyre retention if tubeless tyres are a tight fit on tubeless rims, but this is only likely to be of any value in the event of a sudden deflation at speed. This (fortunately) isn't a very common event on standard road bikes.

IIRC all car tyre manufacturers do not recommend that you use sealant inside their tyres (unless you already have a problem, hence Dunlop's 'denovo' system).  The reason for this is that leaks are sometimes  nature's way of letting you know your tyres are falling apart. The tyre manufacturers are concerned that the tyre could be in a state such that it will fall apart at speed with no 'warning' (i.e. the air coming out) first.  A similar concern applies to bicycle tyre tubeless; I have seen tyres that are so badly cut up that the carcasses have gone wonky such that I wouldn't ride them any more; the rider had no idea that the tyre was in that state because they hadn't checked. Like self-adjusting hydraulic disc brakes (where you have to check the pads have not worn out yet, else your first clue will be a ghastly scraping sound and wrecked discs) a convenience also turns into an increased proactive maintenance obligation.

Sealant in car tyres also has the capacity to throw the wheel out of balance. The same thing can happen with bicycle tyres, especially if the sealant starts to congeal.  You probably won't notice this unless it is very bad or you are in the habit of riding like a lunatic down hills but when riding in the Alps it is worth making sure your wheels are not too far out of balance and/or that your sealant hasn't turned lumpy. However checking wheels for good balance (without a balancing machine that runs at speed) is pretty much impossible if there is anything loose inside the tyre. I have even had car tyres go out of balance because they used too much tyre soap when fitting the tyre; the soap dries out, turns into 'crumbs' which then roll around the inside of the tyre. Because they don't distribute themselves evenly the wheel can go out of balance.

QG's 'blowout' on a Brompton was (IMHO, if as reported) almost certainly the tyre coming off the rim first, then the tube failing, not the other way round. The reason is that if the tube fails inside a securely mounted tyre, it makes a 'plip- pfffft' sound, not a 'loud bang'. The 'loud bang' happens when the tube swells through a large gap of some kind and then bursts. After the fact it isn't easy to see that the tyre came of the rim first, but this is what happens if you hear a loud bang.  It is made vary much more likely with new tyres; they are covered in mould release compound and this is an effective lubricant. Old Brompton rims didn't have pronounced hook beads and were a fairly loose fit with some tyres, so the tyres can blow off if they are not seated carefully and there is still release compound present.  I have been lucky (or unlucky) enough to see a new tyre creeping off a hookless rim; I'd ridden the bike thirty miles with the new tyre fitted but sat in the sunshine the mould release compound turned fully liquid and the tyre started to come off the rim. I happened to be looking in that direction and I actually saw the tyre move. Ten seconds later I would have had a 'blowout'. Nothing to do with the tube, everything to do with the fit of the tyre and the shape of the rim. A lot of 'blowouts' are to do with a tyre being mounted without being cleaned first; everything to do with fit, nothing to do with tubes.

Car tyres are retained by having a very heavy, stiff bead and no 'clincher' style hook bead. UST bicycle tyres work in a similar way (and are therefore heavier twice over; extra rubber in the sidewalls and extra strength in the bead); there is only a small hook bead on a UST rim and anyway this can play only a small role in retaining the tyre. The reason is that the position of the seal cannot be guaranteed. If the seal is at the tyre lip the tyre is forced into a hook bead lip and the tyre is better retained (as per all tubed tyres on such rims). However if the seal is at the rim lip, a hook bead cannot do any good; there is nothing forcing the tyre bead into the hook; there is air pressure all around the tyre bead and it is not being pushed in one direction. Since there is nothing to dictate that the seal is made at any one position (and anyway the sealant would probably render deliberate leak paths between the tyre lip and the rim lip moot) hook beads are of little value if you want consistent tubeless tyre retention.

This explains some of the observations and comments here https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/ (https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/) although I don't think the author fully understood this when he wrote the piece originally. It is clear that if you don't go about it in the right way, there is not so much a safety benefit in running road tubeless so much as the other thing.

FWIW you can run normal tyres on UST rims but the safe pressures are lower than normal in good part because the rim lips are very small. For example IIRC the maximum pressure rating on the new open pro is just 87psi, regardless of tyre width or type. I suspect this is in part because other tyres will be in danger of coming off the rim (regardless of type) for various reasons.

Non tubeless rims may lack any real benefit in tyre retention in the event of deflation, and may or may not retain (non UST type) tyres in the event of a rim lip seal condition. 'Compromise' rim designs (eg the kinlin ones) are likely to behave in a similar way but may retain tyres (with stiff beads eg UST) better if they are a tight fit to start with. Tubeless only rims have little or no hook; the reason being that if there is a hook and  the seal location changes as you ride, a tyre that appeared to be OK when you started can just blow off the rim.

Doubtless I will be accused of 'mansplaining' things again. What a daft thing to say; only someone who cannot recognise informed comment (as distinct from "it worked for me so far therefore it ought to work for everyone all the time") when they see it would say such a thing.

Really interesting post which has raised a few questions for me about the rims and tyres on one of my bikes.

I never realised that the maximum pressure warnings were there to prevent tyres blowing off the rim - I'd always assumed it was something to do with the strength of the rim, which might fail under high pressure, like they do when the brake tracks become very worn.

I have a set of 23mm Conti GP4k tyres on a set of wheels which have what I believe to be the 'compromise' rims (ie tubeless ready Kinlins) mentioned above. The max pressure written on the rims is 80psi, but I've had good results so far running them at 100psi. I actually thought that whilst the rims were relatively new and unworn, I'd be fine!

There is also the other angle mentioned in one of the other posts about narrow tyres on wide rims - in my case 23mm tyres on 24mm wide rims.

How much of a risk am I taking here? They have been absolutely fine for the last 1,000 miles or so - comfortable and quick, so I'd like to keep running them the way they are if it is safe.


If you look at the Mavic link there is a chart produced by ETRTO giving safe pressure for tubeless tyres by rim internal and tyre width. Tubes are allowed 15% or 15psi more iirc. It isn’t clear whether this is a tubeless ready or UST chart. However, the pressures I run are all well within their suggested limits.


For tubes, I’ve just mounted a set of Challenge Paris Roubaix on some DT Swiss RR511. They are some 30mm wide on these rims,  but only 26mm high. I’ll see if they can be squeezed under the guards in the morning. Been a while since I rode tubes, but I still like open tubulars.

Mike

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 14 October, 2018, 07:00:01 am
The link is here

http://engineerstalk.mavic.com/en/the-right-tyre-width-on-the-right-rim-width/ (http://engineerstalk.mavic.com/en/the-right-tyre-width-on-the-right-rim-width/)

Unfortunately, you have to pay chf138 to buy the full spec from etrto

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 14 October, 2018, 10:47:14 am
Quote from: faster
I never realised that the maximum pressure warnings were there to prevent tyres blowing off the rim - I'd always assumed it was something to do with the strength of the rim, which might fail under high pressure, like they do when the brake tracks become very worn.

in fairness both things can be true.

Regarding the (tyre pressure) stresses in worn rims, I recently did some (not very hard) sums and calculated the effect on stresses in the rim as the rim wears. If you assume that the rim is definitely OK (at the rated tyre pressure) if the braking surfaces are 1.0mm thickness, the stresses double (vs 1.0mm thickness)  once the rim is worn to 0.8mm and triple (vs. 1.0mm thickness) once the rim is worn to 0.7mm.  So things can go bad very quickly. Obviously it only takes one thin area on the rim to allow a failure to occur.

I don't know the answer re your tyres and your kinlin rims for sure. I'd hope that the hooks (which are bigger than on many tubeless rims) are able to retain most tyres well provided they are fitted with tubes. Regarding the rim stresses arising from tyre pressure, this varies with both tyre pressure and tyre section. Thus (to a first approximation) the load on the rim goes with the product of tyre section width and tyre pressure. So a 25mm tyre @ 100psi is likely to load the rim similarly to a 50mm tyre at 50psi.

Tyres can just blow off the rim at very high pressure, but (excepting that the tyre structure itself can fail too)  mostly they come off the rim because the loadings between the tyre and the rim change in some way. The changes can arise variously, eg.

1) the tyre is unstable w.r.t. perturbations. In other words should the bead start to crawl up the rim in one place, that'll be where it moves again; the loads become even higher in that area once the tyre moves. This is how tyres can blow off hookless rims (tubed or not). This imposes high loads in the tyre bead; some beads are stretchy enough to let the tyre escape, in other cases the tyre is badly fitting/fitted, and part of the tyre bead is in the rim well; this allows enough easy movement to allow enough slack for the tyre to crawl off the rim more easily.

2) changes in friction.  The tyre is at least partly held in place (or at least prevented from moving around) by friction. As I mentioned upthread, mould release compound is an effective lubricant and some types just melt when the rim get hot. I have also seen tyres move around when they shouldn't if they are  contaminated with chain lube, talc, you name it. It is possible that liquid sealant can act as a lubricant (between the tyre bead and the rim edge) in some cases. If the 'lubricant' (whatever it is) is able to move around the tyre may be secure one minute and then blow off the next.

3) changes in loading. Tubes push the tyre bead into rim hooks and this helps to retain the tyre. [If you are interested, read up on 'Clincher' brand tyres; these had no reinforced bead at all, just a rubber lip moulded into the edge of the tyre; pressure from the tube forced these lips into a deep 'clincher' rim lip and this retained the tyre. These tyres were used on bicycles, motor cycles and cars. The tyre was only well retained when the pressure was high. For example a 2.5" motorbike tyre might only be secure at 60psi or more; deflation to (say) 45psi could allow the tyre to come off the rim without warning. There has been at least one death of a vintage motorcycle enthusiast in recent years because of this exact thing.]  With most tubed HP tyres the retaining force goes pro-rate with the pressure and this is fine; the tyre is usually flopping around hopelessly before it is in danger of coming off the rim because it is no longer well retained.  However tubeless tyres can seal at the tyre bead lip (in which case the hook bead works in your favour as normal) or at the rim lip (in which case it doesn't; there is no force pushing the tyre bead into the hook any more). If the seal location changes (all it takes is a slight difference in the leak rate at the two locations) then a tyre that appeared to be secure on the rim may suddenly turn into one that isn't at all secure. I believe that this explains many of the occurrences reported in the OTBP link I posted upthread.

Apologies for the length of some of my posts. Unfortunately rims and tyres are not such simple things as folk would hope/suppose. You have a choice; you want to stay uninformed? Don't bother reading/inwardly digesting then. Quite a few people obviously haven't bothered to and confine themselves to making fatuous and inaccurate comments about things they have not read and/or don't understand. Great. Very useful.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 14 October, 2018, 11:13:06 am
Chris N, the person who initially made the comments about your post length ("pages of dogma")  is an engineer. Not saying he is a good one...he might be shit...but I suspect he has no trouble understanding your posts ::-)

Anyway, back to the real world, and away from the hysterical drama-queenery about things that just don't seem to happen to people who use this stuff and actually know what they are doing (ie. almost everyone who has posted on this thread, including 100k+ p.a. riders)...

Tubeless is great  :thumbsup:





Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: De Sisti on 14 October, 2018, 12:59:26 pm
I was on a bike maintenance course a few years ago and the the bike mechanic running it said
that the max recommended tyre pressures on tyre sidewalls are quite conservative figures stated
by the manufacuturers; who are fearful of litigation in case the actual max figures were used
by cyclists, who then suffered from tyres separating from the rim.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 14 October, 2018, 01:04:09 pm
The recommended pressure range can be pretty narrow, maybe 20psi in some cases. 

This is inversely proportionate to the range for the incompetent to get it wrong.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Chris N on 14 October, 2018, 05:25:30 pm
I suspect he has no trouble understanding your posts ::-)
It starts well but I have a tendency to nod off about halfway through. ;D

Tubeless is great  :thumbsup:
Indeed it is.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 14 October, 2018, 11:49:32 pm
Regarding the (tyre pressure) stresses in worn rims, I recently did some (not very hard) sums and calculated the effect on stresses in the rim as the rim wears. If you assume that the rim is definitely OK (at the rated tyre pressure) if the braking surfaces are 1.0mm thickness, the stresses double (vs 1.0mm thickness)  once the rim is worn to 0.8mm and triple (vs. 1.0mm thickness) once the rim is worn to 0.7mm.  So things can go bad very quickly. Obviously it only takes one thin area on the rim to allow a failure to occur.



Rim wear?  ::-)
There's obviously a simple solution to this phenomenon...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 15 October, 2018, 01:49:35 am

QG's 'blowout' on a Brompton was (IMHO, if as reported) almost certainly the tyre coming off the rim first, then the tube failing, not the other way round. The reason is that if the tube fails inside a securely mounted tyre, it makes a 'plip- pfffft' sound, not a 'loud bang'. The 'loud bang' happens when the tube swells through a large gap of some kind and then bursts. After the fact it isn't easy to see that the tyre came of the rim first, but this is what happens if you hear a loud bang.  It is made vary much more likely with new tyres; they are covered in mould release compound and this is an effective lubricant. Old Brompton rims didn't have pronounced hook beads and were a fairly loose fit with some tyres, so the tyres can blow off if they are not seated carefully and there is still release compound present.  I have been lucky (or unlucky) enough to see a new tyre creeping off a hookless rim; I'd ridden the bike thirty miles with the new tyre fitted but sat in the sunshine the mould release compound turned fully liquid and the tyre started to come off the rim. I happened to be looking in that direction and I actually saw the tyre move. Ten seconds later I would have had a 'blowout'. Nothing to do with the tube, everything to do with the fit of the tyre and the shape of the rim. A lot of 'blowouts' are to do with a tyre being mounted without being cleaned first; everything to do with fit, nothing to do with tubes.


Except the tyre didn't leave the rim. There was a loud bang, the tyre went flat, i took the wheel off, took the tyre off, found the tube has a split along its seem. The shop I got it from replaced the tube without question. The tyre was a Schwalbe Marathon Plus, give that fitting one of those is like wrestling with a rubber monster, and requires a bead jack to fit, it's hardly a surprise that it didn't come off.

It was a faulty tube.

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: andrew_s on 15 October, 2018, 10:04:37 am
If there was a loud bang, the tube exploded outside the tyre. End of.

If the tube is trapped between rim and tyre bead, it can be trapped over a fair length (15 cm). Pressure will stop air leaking into the trapped section for quite a while, but once leakage starts there's a runaway, and the tube explodes over the full length of the trapped section, giving what looks like a split along the length of the tube. The tyre then just pops back into place so it looks normal.

The seam in a tube is transverse anyway - any longitudinal marks are mould marks
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 15 October, 2018, 10:07:48 am
[Andrew was quicker to say it than me but I'd typed this anyway...]   ....nonetheless you wouldn't (couldn't) get 'a loud bang' if the tube was entirely confined within the tyre when it failed.

    Another possible explanation is that the tube was pinched and then blew out between the tyre and the rim. That makes a loud bang and almost invariably splits the tube lengthwise. The inside of the tube is covered in talc and if the tyre bead has trapped the tube, the tyre bead can slide (up and off the rim) more easily and there is a good size force pushing it too. The explosion of the tube is normally so violent that the whole tyre moves on the rim and it may not be clear how the tyre was seated beforehand.

BTW a tyre that was tight to fit can still blow off the rim; Marathons are difficult to fit because the carcass is stiff, regardless of bead length.  All it takes is a section of bead to be too low or the tube to be pinched and the tyre is likely to become unstable; it is then only friction that is preventing parts of the tyre from crawling up the rim, and there isn't enough friction in many cases, new tyres being case in point.

I repeat; tubes that fail within tyres do not, indeed cannot, make 'a loud bang'; that only ever happens if part of the tube escapes somehow.

In an LBS near me there is a chap who is often stressed and in a hurry; this is sometimes one step forward, two steps back. At least once a week he inflates a tyre that is not correctly seated and there is a loud bang. On several occasions I have seen him pump to 50psi before he checks the seating of the tyre and realises there is a problem;  the usual thing is to hear him holler a warning, then see him desperately trying to hold the tyre on the rim with one hand whilst trying to work the valve with the other. He doesn't always see the problem and/or isn't always quick enough to let the air out. It is easily done; the tyre can be barely off the bead seat one second and blown off the next .

  The LBS pays two-thirds of stuff all for inner tubes (you might be surprised how little sometimes). They really don't care about the cost of a tube so a customer's tube can be 'faulty' and replaced whether there was or wasn't a problem with it.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 15 October, 2018, 10:16:45 am
[Andrew was quicker to say it than me but I'd typed this anyway...]   ....nonetheless you wouldn't (couldn't) get 'a loud bang' if the tube was entirely confined within the tyre when it failed.


I beg to differ. I stupidly forgot rim tape once, and when pumping the tyre up the tube burst with a very loud bang. It failed where it had been deformed into one of the spoke holes which of course were unprotected.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 15 October, 2018, 10:28:15 am
if you had heard both you would know the difference.   

FWIW if in your case the rim was double-walled, you could get a louder bang than normal; the reason is that the tube wasn't confined fully and could blow into the space between the rim walls.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 15 October, 2018, 10:55:26 am
Never happens with tubeless.

Just saying  :P
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Zed43 on 15 October, 2018, 11:13:55 am
If there was a loud bang, the tube exploded outside the tyre. End of.
Well... I once had a (very) loud bang when the rear tyre had formed a bulged that (increasingly) rubbed against the chain stay and the resulting heat melted a hole in the tube (the tyre was not rubbed through).
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 15 October, 2018, 11:27:39 am
Never happens with tubeless.

Just saying  :P

True. I sold the wheels  ;).
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 15 October, 2018, 12:30:10 pm
(https://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/concours_07.jpg?w=640&h=480)
when the tyre comes off the rim without a tube....
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 15 October, 2018, 01:00:20 pm
^^ that looks like an incompatible rim/tyre combination (or the guy didn't install it properly). if you are trying to make something work that is not designed to, the risk of it going wrong always goes up.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 15 October, 2018, 01:28:52 pm
Quite.

A photo with no context.

Anyone here ever had that happen?

Anyone?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Kim on 15 October, 2018, 01:31:01 pm
Anyone here ever had that happen?

Anyone?

My brief foray into the world of slime-filled inner tubes ended in broadly similar circumstances.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Chris N on 15 October, 2018, 01:34:32 pm
The implication from the article that the photo accompanies is that the tyre was over inflated.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: jiberjaber on 15 October, 2018, 02:15:48 pm
(https://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/concours_07.jpg?w=640&h=480)
when the tyre comes off the rim without a tube....

Context - its all about the context.  I was going to ask if it was one of your 'friends'

Article that Google picture search points to, unclear what the picture still refers to in the article as it is neither the experience related “My tubeless tire blew off the rim yesterday. I almost crashed.” Worried that this might have been one of our tires, I asked about the brand. He mentioned a big maker, known as a pioneer of  ‘Road Tubeless.’ The tester continued: “I had it inflated to 90 psi, well under the max. I was just riding along, when suddenly – bam!”

Nor is it the experiment where the writer mistakenly decides the max pressure (when using a tube) is also the max pressure when tubeless (which for the tyre tested - which may or may not be the one in the picture, but seeing as he tested without sealant, it probably isn't).  No rim stated in the experiment.  Tyre comes off at 109PSI which is only 49psi over the actual 60psi recommended for tubeless with that tyre (perhaps this was added after the article was written?)

I've no idea why you would want to ride a 35c tyre at such a high pressure.... but then I suppose some old myths persist about tyre pressure and rolling resistance eh!

Original article: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/

The tyre: https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/components/tires/700c/compass-700cx35-bon-jon-pass/

ETA: I don't think the tyre in the picture is a BJP tyre, its a chap called Nicola Joly - nice of the article to credit his photo... unlike on here!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: grams on 15 October, 2018, 03:10:02 pm
Pictures of the bike the man and the wall in happier times here if you scroll down:
http://pechtregon.tumblr.com

The bike is a Pechtregon and the tyres are Soma brand on American Classic rims. Haven’t been able to narrow down the models to ascertain their tubeless friendliness.

(I think M. Joly is the photographer)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 15 October, 2018, 03:41:37 pm
Anyone here ever had that happen?

Anyone?

My brief foray into the world of slime-filled inner tubes ended in broadly similar circumstances.

You blew the tyre off the rim?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Kim on 15 October, 2018, 03:50:50 pm
Anyone here ever had that happen?

Anyone?

My brief foray into the world of slime-filled inner tubes ended in broadly similar circumstances.

You blew the tyre off the rim?

Tube split, tyre came off the rim, everything got covered in jizz.  This was a mountain bike under attack from hawthorn, so it wouldn't have been as dramatic as whatever happened in that photo.  But it was enough to convince me that slime tubes were a solution looking for a problem.


FWIW, I've no problem with tubeless.  Seems advantageous if you don't leave your mountain bike to gather dust for six months at a time, and while the benefits are less significant on-road, I can see the logic behind 'moving your tyre maintenance to a warm room'.

I just wish I could find a rim that a 28-559 Schwalbe Pro One would seat on properly...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 15 October, 2018, 04:40:39 pm
Tube split? Ah so this wasnt tubeless then, but some sort of slime tube.

Can't help you with 26" rims, I'm afraid. That is quite an esoteric combo, so I suppose you are stuck between Seeking advice from MTB and Road, but neither sets of tubeless users are likely to use that combination.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 15 October, 2018, 04:57:53 pm

Original article: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/the-trouble-with-road-tubeless/

The tyre: https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/components/tires/700c/compass-700cx35-bon-jon-pass/


If I read that article correctly, his conclusion from one test was "don't run any tubeless at >60psi"??
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 15 October, 2018, 05:02:46 pm

(https://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/concours_07.jpg?w=640&h=480)
when the tyre comes off the rim without a tube....

Context - its all about the context.  I was going to ask if it was one of your 'friends'

Article that Google picture search points to.....

well if you look upthread you will find that I linked to that article some time ago.

  It looks like no-one actually bothered reading it, judging from the excitement generated by the photo, which is pretty much the first thing you see if you click the link I posted.   I deliberately said no more about that photo than I did because it wasn't clear what the exact circumstances were, only that a tubeless tyre had come off the rim.  He could have been doing something chronically stupid for all know.

The article's opening paragraph states

Quote from: Jan Heine
...It’s always interesting when bike industry people talk among each other, off-the-record. On the ride from the airport to Paul Camp a few weeks ago, one bike tester was still visibly shaken when he related: “My tubeless tire blew off the rim yesterday. I almost crashed.” Worried that this might have been one of our tires, I asked about the brand. He mentioned a big maker, known as a pioneer of  ‘Road Tubeless.’ The tester continued: “I had it inflated to 90 psi, well under the max. I was just riding along, when suddenly – bam!”....

Jan Heine owns the 'Compass' brand and they sell tyres (mostly fairly wide ones, made by panaracer to compass designs) that can be run tubeless. He goes on to say that '"on a perfect rim our tyres are already safe at 90psi ......  but we recommend that you don't exceed 60psi..."  i.e. he appears to be blaming rims for any problems at higher pressures. Oddly enough rim manufacturers are wont to blame tyre makers for poor fits too....

  So who is the real culprit?  The answer is 'both of them'.  There is (I think, someone may know better than I do) not a standard to which these things are made, except for UST (which is at present a manufacturer's standard) and various things that have been cooked up between manufacturers. We are still waiting for an ISO standard. On balance I blame the tyre makers more than the rim makers; all tyre makers have shown themselves to be incapable of making tyres 100% consistently and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

It is well worth reading the comments in that article too. There are some from well informed people who have years of experience in these things. Hey guess what? The discussion appears to be civilised with little in the way of childish remarks etc....

However one thing that has seemingly escaped much discussion is the way the position of the seal affects tyre retention in the case of bicycle tubeless. This actually makes any testing pretty hit and miss; the seal position can perhaps move in service in a way that it might not in testing, meaning that a tyre that doesn't come off when 'tested' still might not be truly secure on the rim.


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 15 October, 2018, 05:40:25 pm
Quote from: Jan Heine

without going into detail, that's a reason enough not to click through ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Kim on 15 October, 2018, 06:14:54 pm
Tube split? Ah so this wasnt tubeless then, but some sort of slime tube.

Yes, that's what I meant by "slime-filled inner tubes".


Quote
Can't help you with 26" rims, I'm afraid. That is quite an esoteric combo, so I suppose you are stuck between Seeking advice from MTB and Road, but neither sets of tubeless users are likely to use that combination.

Yeah, it's a PITA.  I suspect the problem is due to the rim being too wide (I've tried it on 17mm and 19mm rims), and as most 26" rims are designed for MTB or touring tyres there isn't a lot of choice.  I've got a 28-406 Pro One on the front wheel, which has a 13mm rim, and while it's into Marathon Plus territory for ease of fitting, once on it seats just fine.

(This is for a fast recumbent, for which the Pro One is an otherwise ideal tyre, with or without tubes.)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: vorsprung on 15 October, 2018, 08:20:19 pm
Quote from: Jan Heine

without going into detail, that's a reason enough not to click through ;)
+1
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mzjo on 15 October, 2018, 09:03:38 pm
(https://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/concours_07.jpg?w=640&h=480)
when the tyre comes off the rim without a tube....

This is only the punishment of the gods (of whichever persuasion) to those who offend the Confrérie by filling their 650B tyres with tacky stuff instead of proper tubes  :demon: Bet they would have lost a lot of points in the Concours if that happened in front of the judges! Of course if there was a tube and tacky stuff that counts double points.

The slime in the Decathlon tubes is transparent and uncoloured. It would still wreck your trousers but at least you have a better chance of not feeling embarassed about it as the results are less obvious.

Seems to me that all these pages of thread have demonstrated is that if you are not a competent  tyre fitter and the bloke in your LBS isn't either you are probably going to have problems somewhere along the line regardless of what you use! If you're competent then you take your chance with the gods!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 15 October, 2018, 09:10:48 pm
Quote from: Jan Heine

without going into detail, that's a reason enough not to click through ;)
+1

even when I have made it clear that the comments are where much of the value in that link lie?

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: DuncanM on 16 October, 2018, 11:11:58 am
Quote from: Jan Heine

without going into detail, that's a reason enough not to click through ;)
+1

even when I have made it clear that the comments are where much of the value in that link lie?
Would those be the comments by someone called Brucey? ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 October, 2018, 11:24:07 am
Quote from: Jan Heine

without going into detail, that's a reason enough not to click through ;)
+1

even when I have made it clear that the comments are where much of the value in that link lie?
Would those be the comments by someone called Brucey? ;)

Is 'Bruce Dance' a sockpuppet of Brucey, who also posts on that blog?

'Bruce Dance' blathers on about sealing round the lip, and compares car tyres with bike tyres, much like Brucey does here.

Interestingly, Brucey posits his view on how tubeless tyres can unseat and is given short shrift by Jan Heine who retorts:

"In your scenario, where the air pressure doesn’t push the tire against the rim wall, the tire bead would be free to move toward the center of the rim until it falls into the well there. I have never heard of this happening as long as there has been any air pressure in the tire.

If a tire doesn’t seal, it’s due to pinholes at the rim/tire bead interface. The tire pressure always pushes the tire bead against the rim. In fact, that is how a tire is seated in the first place. You have plenty of air leaking, but you put in air faster than it goes out. Tire pressure increases, and that pushes the beads outward until the tire seats."


So indeed, there is much value in the comments  ;D


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 16 October, 2018, 11:35:08 am
Certainly the style is very similar, witness also a contribution by the same BD on TommyGodwin.com.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Karla on 16 October, 2018, 11:38:03 am
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 please.


Quote from: Jan Heine

without going into detail, that's a reason enough not to click through ;)
+1
+2
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 October, 2018, 11:59:55 am
Certainly the style is very similar, witness also a contribution by the same BD on TommyGodwin.com.

Similar? It's identical. Didn't Brucey rant on and on about his IGH training bike too?

Tut tut Brucey  ;)

Quote from: Bruce Dance
“Whilst I agree Tommy’s bike was rather different from modern ones, I feel that this idea is somewhat overplayed on your website.A 531 frame and fork back then (as today) would weigh around 6lbs. Although I do not know that they were used, light alloy parts including wheel rims, brakes, handlebars etc were certainly available.

The selection of a hub gear (and doubtless other components) would have been taken not with ultimate speed and efficiency in mind necessarily so much as a compromise with reliability as a dominant factor. Politics/sponsorship aside (Raleigh owned SA and in fact refused to market derailleur gears until the 1950s…) had he wanted them, he could have had a 3×4 derailleur setup at least.


Hub gears are often portrayed as heavy and inefficient. They are neither; tests reported in the IHVPA publication unexpectedly demonstrated that a well-worn humble SA 3-speed (included in the tests on a whim) was more mechanically efficient than modern transmissions, especially when the duty cycle in each gear is taken into account (the direct drive gear, as efficient as a fixed gear, would be the most used in a 3s or 4s SA gear). Back then a 4s derailleur would have been little lighter than a 4s hub gear, but far less reliable. Even today the adoption of an IGH incurs a small weight penalty only.

I happen to own a bike (originally built for training on) with a steel five speed SA hub gear (heavier than TG’s four speed I think), a steel SA hub generator, and a 531 frame. The frame isn’t as nice as it could be (it has PG main tubes and non-531 rear stays) and it doesn’t have especially lightweight components fitted to it. It weighs 28lbs, so I would say a fair estimate of TG’s bike weight (in the absence of any further info) might be 28-30lbs. I’ve ridden this bike somewhere in the region of 40000 miles in all conditions; unlike TG it has taken me many years to rack up these miles, but the bike has been fantastically durable and reliable as intended. [BTW The most I’ve managed is 100 miles a day for about 6 weeks; it nearly killed me, since I physically couldn’t eat enough food to maintain my weight]

Arguably the (absolutely brilliant) invention and production of the hub generator was a key facilitator for TG’s record-breaking efforts; without it he would have been unable to have a reliable and efficient light source. (It might be a good idea if you could show a picture of an SA hub generator and not a tyre-driven generator BTW). Modern hub generators can be more powerful, but it seems they are no more efficient; I have carried out some ad-hoc efficiency tests on SA hub generators from the 1950s, and they indicate ~3W drag @ 1 to 1.5W output, and a no-load drag of

I don’t wish to downplay TG’s achievement in the slightest, but an additional 10lbs bike weight wouldn’t have slowed him very greatly. With the parts he was using vs modern ones I estimate he would have scope for maybe 1% improvement in efficiency in transmission/parasitic losses, not without compromise to reliability etc. Rolling resistance losses are unknown, but I’d be surprised if there is very much to be gained there; modern low CRR tyres are starting to look remarkably like 27×1″ HPs in fact. By contrast modern bicycle aerodynamics could have netted TG a useful benefit; having said this his riding position (for an endurance rider) was already very aerodynamic, and the bulk of the drag is on the rider, not the bike.

I am very pleased to see TG’s record commemorated on this website, and I do hope you find my comments of interest.”

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 16 October, 2018, 12:02:21 pm

Interestingly, Brucey posits his view on how tubeless tyres can unseat and is given short shrift by Jan Heine who retorts:

"In your scenario, where the air pressure doesn’t push the tire against the rim wall, the tire bead would be free to move toward the center of the rim until it falls into the well there. I have never heard of this happening as long as there has been any air pressure in the tire.

If a tire doesn’t seal, it’s due to pinholes at the rim/tire bead interface. The tire pressure always pushes the tire bead against the rim. In fact, that is how a tire is seated in the first place. You have plenty of air leaking, but you put in air faster than it goes out. Tire pressure increases, and that pushes the beads outward until the tire seats."


I'm glad you mentioned that, because JH is quite wrong on both counts.  The only bit he got right is how the tyre is seated in the first place.  Comments close after a short period of time so a refutal was not possible (via that route anyway).

I'll restate this point again because it is crucial:

All it takes is the tyre to make a slightly better seal at the rim lip than at the tyre lip and there will soon be air pressure on all sides of  the tyre bead. When this happens the benefits of the hook  bead and the benefits of simple friction (except at the rim lip itself) are lost.

There is no way (esp with sealant present, any roughness on the outside of the tyre bead, and a remotely stretchy tyre bead) that you can guarantee that you can  maintain (or indeed even know you have made) the seal at the tyre lip not the rim lip. [BTW The tyre bead doesn't have to move per se for the retaining forces to be absent; air gets into all kinds of places it shouldn't....]

If this point is not clear to anyone, I'll draw a diagram and post it later, if I get the chance.


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 October, 2018, 12:08:03 pm
Oh we get the concept. Just wondering where you got the evidence that this ever happens.

As you yourself say, there is no way of knowing

Quote from: Brucey/Bruce Dance
There is no way (esp with sealant present, any roughness on the outside of the tyre bead, and a remotely stretchy tyre bead) that you can guarantee that you can  maintain (or indeed even know you have made) the seal at the tyre lip not the rim lip.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 16 October, 2018, 12:40:19 pm


Is 'Bruce Dance' a sockpuppet of Brucey, who also posts on that blog?



I think, if you search, you will find Bruce Dance is a tandem time trial record holder at Cambridge Uni.

Whether Brucey is Bruce Dance, or even if the Bruce Dances are one and the same, is not known here.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 16 October, 2018, 12:48:58 pm
Oh we get the concept. Just wondering where you got the evidence that this ever happens.

As you yourself say, there is no way of knowing

Quote from: Brucey
There is no way (esp with sealant present, any roughness on the outside of the tyre bead, and a remotely stretchy tyre bead) that you can guarantee that you can  maintain (or indeed even know you have made) the seal at the tyre lip not the rim lip.

Well there is clearly something that happens (occasionally at least) that catches folk out. I think that in many cases if there is a problem the tyre isn't seated properly, someone does something daft or the parts are a bad fit (dunno if to blame the rim or tyre makers but my finger points at the latter more than the former, so far as tolerances go) or become a bad fit (eg the bead stretches).  Even so, tyres that appear to be on the rim and safe (even at much higher pressures than will be seen in service) still sometimes come off the rim when they shouldn't.

Occam's razor and all that... it seems to me that this is a likely explanation. In matters of safety ought it not be a case of proving that this cannot happen?    Anywhichway, proving it 100% one way or another might be tricky; however I would imagine that making a test rim whereby the crevice between the tyre lip and the rim lip is porous and deliberately linked to tyre pressure after the tyre is seated (without sealant) might do it.

Note that one of my concerns is that if the position of the seal is not known (and might change in service), this greatly diminishes the  value of any ad hoc 'testing' you might do, to establish if any given combination is really safe or not. Between lack of standards and manufacturing variations there is plenty of scope for different qualities of fit.

BTW the UST approach appears to be half-way to the car tyre solution; stiff  tyre beads and no real hook in the rim.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 October, 2018, 01:08:32 pm
Ah, ok. So when you post this, so emphatically...

All it takes is the tyre to make a slightly better seal at the rim lip than at the tyre lip and there will soon be air pressure on all sides of  the tyre bead. When this happens the benefits of the hook  bead and the benefits of simple friction (except at the rim lip itself) are lost.


...it is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Right.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Kim on 16 October, 2018, 01:56:45 pm
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?

The main problem with slime tubes is that once they get a puncture the slime won't fix, they're almost impossible to patch successfully.  With a tubeless tyre you can get at the inside of the hole, de-gunk it, and repair, while a slime tube goes in the bin.

In both cases, you can use a regular inner tube as a backup.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: andrew_s on 16 October, 2018, 02:19:15 pm
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?
A tube, when you inflate it, stretches until it fits the tyre it's inside. Because it's stretched, it pulls away from whatever did the puncturing, leaving a bigger hole that's not well plugged by the puncturing object. You can see the same thing happening if you cut halfway through the width of a rubber band, and give it a gentle pull.
The result is that you lose a lot more air than would be the case with a tubeless tyre, and you risk reopening the puncture when you reinflate to a riding pressure, stretching the tube back to tyre size.

If you want to try tubes with sealant, I'd recommend using tubes that are a little over sized (eg a 700x35-50 tube in a 700x32 tyre), so the tube isn't stretched. Slime tubes only come in a couple of sizes, so you would probably have to select the tyre to fit the tube.

Tubeless tyres, on the other hand, don't stretch, so any hole will either be mostly plugged by the puncturing object, or relatively small if it falls out.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 16 October, 2018, 02:23:19 pm
You are probably right but your explanation doesn't account for the fact it is already in the stretched state when the puncture occurs.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 16 October, 2018, 02:55:52 pm
Ah, ok. So when you post this, so emphatically...

All it takes is the tyre to make a slightly better seal at the rim lip than at the tyre lip and there will soon be air pressure on all sides of  the tyre bead. When this happens the benefits of the hook  bead and the benefits of simple friction (except at the rim lip itself) are lost.


...it is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Right.

au contraire; that tyres blow off the rim in the way they sometimes do is quite suggestive. I have also seen numerous tubeless tyres on other vehicles where the tyre lip seal was lost but the air stayed in the tyre because the seal was made at the rim lip instead.   In many cases when the vehicle was used, the air would come out of the tyre faster than normal because lateral loads pulled the tyre away from the rim lip and let the air out.

 I'd ask you (or anyone else including tyre makers) to prove that tyres always continue to seal at the tyre lip as intended and/or to prove that the tyres are secure despite this.  I know very well the seal isn't always made where intended in other tubeless tyre designs and I know that the tyres/rims are engineered so that they are not very greatly adversely affected in this event.

  I am very far from convinced that bicycle tubeless systems always retain the seal where intended and that they tyres are proof by design against blowing off the rim when this occurs.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 16 October, 2018, 03:18:12 pm
could it be that the sealant makes a strong enough bond between the tyre and rim to prevent the bead from moving? we keep talking about this blowing off issue, that is so rare on a properly set up (i.e. not ghetto) system that it's hardly worth discussing. when the bead is snapped onto the "shelf" there is next to no chance (for recommended pressures) for it to pop over the rim hook as the bead is super-tight. even ghetto setups seem to work for many.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 16 October, 2018, 03:27:04 pm
Certainly the latex based sealants "stick" the tyre to the rim bead. When I demounted some recently I need to break that seal - gentle thumb pressure - before the tyre would unseat.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 October, 2018, 03:47:46 pm
Ah, ok. So when you post this, so emphatically...

All it takes is the tyre to make a slightly better seal at the rim lip than at the tyre lip and there will soon be air pressure on all sides of  the tyre bead. When this happens the benefits of the hook  bead and the benefits of simple friction (except at the rim lip itself) are lost.


...it is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Right.

au contraire; that tyres blow off the rim in the way they sometimes do is quite suggestive. I have also seen numerous tubeless tyres on other vehicles where the tyre lip seal was lost but the air stayed in the tyre because the seal was made at the rim lip instead.   In many cases when the vehicle was used, the air would come out of the tyre faster than normal because lateral loads pulled the tyre away from the rim lip and let the air out.

 I'd ask you (or anyone else including tyre makers) to prove that tyres always continue to seal at the tyre lip as intended and/or to prove that the tyres are secure despite this.  I know very well the seal isn't always made where intended in other tubeless tyre designs and I know that the tyres/rims are engineered so that they are not very greatly adversely affected in this event.

  I am very far from convinced that bicycle tubeless systems always retain the seal where intended and that they tyres are proof by design against blowing off the rim when this occurs.

I didn't ask you what you think you know (I know exactly what the answer will be, every time), I asked you for proof.

You then tried to turn it around and put the onus on me to prove that tyres seal where they should, but it isn't me making the assertion.

Then you cite tyres blowing off as evidence.  :facepalm:

Quite apart from none of us ever encountering a carefully mounted tubeless tyre blowing off (I'm sure you'll conjure up one of your supply of convenient "friends"), your logic is a bit silly. A is happening because of B. How do you know it is B? Because A.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 16 October, 2018, 05:02:21 pm
I have also seen numerous tubeless tyres on other vehicles where the tyre lip seal was lost but the air stayed in the tyre because the seal was made at the rim lip instead. 

How can you know? How do you happen to be aware of so many many incidents of this type when no-oe else ever seems to have seen one - certainly not me.? Puzzling.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 16 October, 2018, 05:32:21 pm
It is because Brucey is....

 CLICK (https://youtu.be/5ulswBVqEGU)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Peter on 16 October, 2018, 05:52:24 pm
I've really tried to tube less but every night finds me trawling down the right-hand side and listening to one great blues track after another.  Does the panel think there is any hope?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 16 October, 2018, 06:34:49 pm
I have also seen numerous tubeless tyres on other vehicles where the tyre lip seal was lost but the air stayed in the tyre because the seal was made at the rim lip instead. 

How can you know? How do you happen to be aware of so many many incidents of this type when no-oe else ever seems to have seen one - certainly not me.? Puzzling.

How many people have looked?    I have dealt with hundreds of tyres on other vehicles and I can only report what I have seen and know to be true.  When the tyre lip seal is lost (which in cars and motorcycles is often corrosion of the rim well BTW, and the corrosion in turn is caused by the rubbish that is used as to lubricate tyres when they are fitted) you can help the sealing out by using something between the rim lip and the tyre.  You can tell if the lip seal is lost by pushing the tyre away from the rim lip; bubbles in soapy water indicate that the lip seal in the well  isn't working any more, and if the air isn't coming out of the tyre it is only because the tyre is sealing against the rim lip instead.   

I see absolutely no reason why the same thing shouldn't happen with bicycle tubeless, only here the tyre may be reliant on the added friction/hooking (caused by a pressure differential across the tyre lip seal) to stay safely retained to the rim.

BTW it may be the case that sealant helps to retain tyres in some cases but
a) if the lip seal works as intended there shouldn't be much sealant between the tyre bead and the rim lip and
b) not all sealants work in the same way or cure in the same way to give a bond.
c) depending on the strength of the sealant as an adhesive, you still might be worse off with it than without it, if it creates a good seal near the rim lip, away from the tyre lip.


Car tyre beads contain a lb or two of steel and they need to; it is the only thing keeping the tyre on the rim.

Some years ago I discussed the issue of bicycle tubeless tyres with some others and the conclusion was that it was very likely that the beads in otherwise lightweight tyres would have to be a good deal stiffer/heavier if the tyres were to be properly secure.  This may yet turn out to be more the case than at present.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 17 October, 2018, 09:49:24 am
I've just noticed Brucey is no longer finishing each of his posts with "cheers." I'm not sure if that's a change specific to this thread, but perhaps it's a sign that it's time to make this thread a sticky. Preserve it as an example of YACF at its best and worst. A swamp of abuse, insults, misquotation, distortion and wilful misinterpretation of people's words, bullshit, opinions presented as fact, refusal to admit to gaps in one's knowledge, fabrication of facts, dismissal of direct experience, moral vanity, inability to comprehend that other people might want different things and refusal to agree that this is valid. And then more abuse, insults and bullshit.

And yet it also contains gems of technical insight and experience. And even the occasional calm and on-topic post. Presumably it's these that keep Quixotic Geek and others asking their questions here and finding the information they need.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 17 October, 2018, 10:38:53 am
I am (as I mentioned upthread) pretty cheesed off with the attitude of some of the posters in this thread. A little scepticism is healthy enough but when it immediately turns into a tirade of ad hominem attacks and various other flavours of unrestrained  outright bullshit then this forum has IMHO got big problems.

BTW  there is a fundamental point which is also in danger of being overlooked. That is concerning what failure rate is acceptable in safety-critical parts?

Is it OK for one in ten to be faulty?: Obviously not.... but what about one in a hundred, one in a thousand or one in ten thousand? 

In things like motor cars even a very low failure rate is not tolerated and parts, cars etc are recalled. In structural parts like forks on bikes the same thing happens (but sadly it usually takes someone being serious injured or even dying before the recall is done, even though the manufacturers/suppliers are usually abundantly aware of the problem well before then). Parts that are considered so dangerous that they are no longer to be sold are often in use by a vast majority of folks who would say 'I have had no problems with them'.

My point is that any one person's positive experience with a product counts for very little when trying to prove that a product is really safe. You could (say) have 999 people saying that 'it is OK' yet the product might kill or seriously injure the thousandth and it is all set for a recall (or should be). Obviously if you know about the failures and have some idea why they might have occurred you won't be using the product.

Despite this there have been various attempts to confine discussion only to those who are happily using the product. Some discussion that is; potentially 999 of the blissfully ignorant and one person in hospital or a morgue... ::-)

My take on road tubeless is that at best, it may spare you the inconvenience of some punctures, especially if you choose to run tyres that are not best suited to the conditions.  However when you do have problems, they are likely to be appreciably worse to deal with than a typical tubed tyre.   At worst, road tubeless is potentially a load of half-baked rubbish that shows signs of being inherently problematic and/or intrinsically unsafe, and until there is a proper standard for it in place, you are reliant on the whims of  manufacturers (esp tyre manufacturers with a pretty flakey past record for consistency and quality) for any semblance of real safety. Worse yet, it is doubtful that any simple test you can do will prove that a given tyre/rim combination is really safe or not, or will stay that way in service.


Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: grams on 17 October, 2018, 11:35:37 am
You’re still talking as if road tubeless is a hypothetical idea that no one’s tried in the real world yet. When I was shopping for my last new bike 2+ years ago it was a mainstream technology then! At some point you have to accept that it’s a real thing that *works* with the normal range of pros and cons of any technology, and that it’s not going to kill anyone.

The dearth of dissent seems to be because there are very few people (certainly on YACF, and perhaps in general)  who’ve given tubeless a serious go and hated it enough to recommend others don’t even try it. That should tell you something.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 17 October, 2018, 12:17:56 pm
I've just noticed Brucey is no longer finishing each of his posts with "cheers." I'm not sure if that's a change specific to this thread, but perhaps it's a sign that it's time to make this thread a sticky. Preserve it as an example of YACF at its best and worst. A swamp of abuse, insults, misquotation, distortion and wilful misinterpretation of people's words, bullshit, opinions presented as fact, refusal to admit to gaps in one's knowledge, fabrication of facts, dismissal of direct experience, moral vanity, inability to comprehend that other people might want different things and refusal to agree that this is valid. And then more abuse, insults and bullshit.

And yet it also contains gems of technical insight and experience. And even the occasional calm and on-topic post. Presumably it's these that keep Quixotic Geek and others asking their questions here and finding the information they need.


Yes, this is very true. Shame about the nonsense really, even though it has brought forth some interesting discussion.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 17 October, 2018, 12:36:38 pm
what failure rate is acceptable in safety-critical parts?

Is it OK for one in ten to be faulty?: Obviously not.... but what about one in a hundred, one in a thousand or one in ten thousand? 

In things like motor cars even a very low failure rate is not tolerated and parts, cars etc are recalled. In structural parts like forks on bikes the same thing happens (but sadly it usually takes someone being serious injured or even dying before the recall is done, even though the manufacturers/suppliers are usually abundantly aware of the problem well before then). Parts that are considered so dangerous that they are no longer to be sold are often in use by a vast majority of folks who would say 'I have had no problems with them'.


This is fundamental of course. A key element here is that the parts should be safe by design  and that any failures should be the consequence of faults, which should then be eliminated through manufacture (primarily) and QC (as a check on manufacture). This is basic six sigma stuff really.

I don't think any of us here have the information to actually know about tubeless failure rates in everyday correct useage. Please correct me if I am wrong - certainly that is possible.  That would be more enlightening and helpful, particularly if there was also an analysis of failure modes. (not criticising Brucey's input, but something bigger and statistically valid)

Brucey flags tyre retention issues worth thinking through. Certainly, we expect, and rely on, the manufacturers to have done so and to have found reliable and manufacturable solutions to the challenges. Much the same as the history of the tubed clincher.

The biggest fear is the one raised by Brucey in his comment about the 'culture' of the industry and the well known failures of structural components such as forks. None of us want to be involved in a potentially serious accident as a consequence of poor development, manufacturing or quality management by a corporation that should 'know better'.

Mike

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 October, 2018, 01:33:18 pm
That's the thing about tubeless failures. We will never know.

The dead don't speak.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 17 October, 2018, 02:14:03 pm
That's the thing about tubeless failures. We will never know.

The dead don't speak.


Inquests and post accident analysis do though.

However, I haven't heard any and my only experience of spontaneous demounts involved tube type tyres - once with a presumably poorly installed tube and once experimenting with over inflation in ghetto tubeless mode...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 17 October, 2018, 03:35:42 pm
Brucey may have picked up a failure mechanism that is only rarely seen. It might be similar to disc braked QR front wheels loosening and self-ejecting from fork dropouts. That failure mechanism was rarely seen and misunderstood when it did happen for a long time before it became orthodoxy. Alternatively, it might be nothing at all.

I simply don't have enough knowledge on this subject to say anything sensible, so I'm just watching from the sidelines. So far, I've not found a basic fallacy in his logic.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Si S on 17 October, 2018, 03:46:15 pm
My only bad experience of tubeless over 12k km is a front wheel blow out at moderately high speed in the peak district, this was entirely my own fault as I knew the temporary repair I'd made few days prior using two anchovies was not up to the job but rode it anyway, which is the second time I've blown a front tyre while descending due to laziness. The tyre stayed mounted on the rim somewhat fortunately and has since been repaired properly.

No matter what manufacturers do, irrespective of the tech, there will always be one idiot.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 17 October, 2018, 04:12:44 pm
Brucey may have picked up a failure mechanism that is only rarely seen. It might be similar to disc braked QR front wheels loosening and self-ejecting from fork dropouts. That failure mechanism was rarely seen and misunderstood when it did happen for a long time before it became orthodoxy. Alternatively, it might be nothing at all.

I simply don't have enough knowledge on this subject to say anything sensible, so I'm just watching from the sidelines. So far, I've not found a basic fallacy in his logic.


Agree, the logic is sound and the test is whether the manufacturers have developed a reliable solution.

If the failure rate is 1% we'd see it all over, but if it's only 1 in 1m then it's much harder to observe. In either case, none of us want to be the one.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 17 October, 2018, 04:59:29 pm
It is a hypothesis. Nothing else.

As others have said, if losing a tubeless tyre was common we would hear about it. But we don't. Which means that Brucey's page upon page of warning of 'potential' occurrences are largely pointless and of no use. If anything they detract from real safety issues with tubed tyres, such as blowouts, which could be mitigated by going tubeless, and which may well be more likely to occur.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 17 October, 2018, 05:27:46 pm
I would love to see some statistics too.  Sorting the wheat from the chaff won't be easy (folk will do daft things and one thing this thread has demonstrated is that it isn't always easy to reach agreement even when tubes burst - which leaves physical evidence- let alone with tubeless).

But one thing that struck me quite vividly was that in the OPTB blog, at least half the comments were posted in about twelve hours, and many of the posts reported that they had experienced tubeless tyres blowing off the rim, (fortunately mainly when not actually riding the bike).  To me this suggests that perhaps the blog has a much wider readership than I'd imagined and/or tyres blowing off rims is more common than you might expect.  Nothing is so proven of course, except perhaps that if you want the failure rate to be less than 1 in a million (regardless of cause) then lots and lots of tyres would have to have been sold....

BTW I just noticed that one poster in those comments has seen the exact same thing as I mentioned in relation to other tubeless systems; you can often tell that the tyre lip seal has failed by pushing the tyre away from the rim lip, and seeing leakage. Despite the presence of sealant, he reports seeing air and sealant escape from his tubeless setup (which 'he no longer trusts') when he does this.  Unfortunately I don't think this is an infallible test for a failed tyre lip seal, i.e. I don't think you can definitely prove that you don't have a problem this way.



Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 17 October, 2018, 06:15:29 pm
Nothing is so proven of course, except perhaps that if you want the failure rate to be less than 1 in a million (regardless of cause) then lots and lots of tyres would have to have been sold....



Being pedantic, for fun and not criticism, I think that you'd need to sell a lot of tyres to know the failure rate was below 1 in 1m:)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rogerzilla on 17 October, 2018, 06:28:48 pm
I've just noticed Brucey is no longer finishing each of his posts with "cheers." I'm not sure if that's a change specific to this thread, but perhaps it's a sign that it's time to make this thread a sticky. Preserve it as an example of YACF at its best and worst. A swamp of abuse, insults, misquotation, distortion and wilful misinterpretation of people's words, bullshit, opinions presented as fact, refusal to admit to gaps in one's knowledge, fabrication of facts, dismissal of direct experience, moral vanity, inability to comprehend that other people might want different things and refusal to agree that this is valid. And then more abuse, insults and bullshit.

And yet it also contains gems of technical insight and experience. And even the occasional calm and on-topic post. Presumably it's these that keep Quixotic Geek and others asking their questions here and finding the information they need.
I will add that one of our original members has filed for account deletion, possibly because of some of the vitriol in this thread, in which he/she was a participant.  I've only read two pages and it is pretty depressing stuff.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 17 October, 2018, 08:11:49 pm
I've just noticed Brucey is no longer finishing each of his posts with "cheers." I'm not sure if that's a change specific to this thread, but perhaps it's a sign that it's time to make this thread a sticky. Preserve it as an example of YACF at its best and worst. A swamp of abuse, insults, misquotation, distortion and wilful misinterpretation of people's words, bullshit, opinions presented as fact, refusal to admit to gaps in one's knowledge, fabrication of facts, dismissal of direct experience, moral vanity, inability to comprehend that other people might want different things and refusal to agree that this is valid. And then more abuse, insults and bullshit.

And yet it also contains gems of technical insight and experience. And even the occasional calm and on-topic post. Presumably it's these that keep Quixotic Geek and others asking their questions here and finding the information they need.
I will add that one of our original members has filed for account deletion, possibly because of some of the vitriol in this thread, in which he/she was a participant.  I've only read two pages and it is pretty depressing stuff.


That’s really sad. Hopefully they will reconsider and perhaps the thread should be deleted or moved somewhere less public as a warning.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: vorsprung on 17 October, 2018, 09:52:13 pm
Let's not be depressed about account deletion.  Most people use Facebook now because their aunt is on it

Tubeless is fabulous but it doesn't quite work the same way as clinchers.  But mostly it is ok

People still spend vast sums on titanium frames and they are often prone to failure.  Mostly they are ok

Brucey is just discussing the situation and we all respect his opinion
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 18 October, 2018, 12:03:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 18 October, 2018, 12:08:27 pm
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?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 18 October, 2018, 12:15:36 pm

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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 18 October, 2018, 02:21:18 pm
<...>
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 (https://www.facebook.com/RedBullBike/videos/1528928883919500/) don't seem to be too bothered.. ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rogerzilla on 18 October, 2018, 03:15:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 18 October, 2018, 03:17:24 pm
Should have used tubeless  ;)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: chrisbainbridge on 19 October, 2018, 01:59:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 19 October, 2018, 02:01:39 pm
Agree with ^ wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 19 October, 2018, 02:18:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: vorsprung on 19 October, 2018, 02:41:57 pm
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?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 19 October, 2018, 02:54:01 pm

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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 19 October, 2018, 03:30:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 19 October, 2018, 03:44:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 19 October, 2018, 04:05:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 19 October, 2018, 05:02:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 19 October, 2018, 06:18:51 pm
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...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 19 October, 2018, 06:37:41 pm
(https://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/concours_07.jpg?w=640&h=480)
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...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Phil W on 19 October, 2018, 06:57:32 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 19 October, 2018, 07:40:30 pm
https://road.cc/content/buyers-guide/230838-nine-best-winter-tubeless-tyres-bad-weather-rubber-no-inner-tubes#comment-1620042
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sg37409 on 29 October, 2018, 11:25:27 pm
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.

Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: mattc on 05 November, 2018, 11:33:46 am
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 ...
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: D O G on 08 November, 2018, 05:34:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 08 November, 2018, 06:43:14 pm
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
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: D O G on 08 November, 2018, 11:42:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 November, 2018, 12:00:46 am
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.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Peat on 09 November, 2018, 07:55:07 am
It's worth remembering that folk who rarely get p****** very often don't tend to talk about it. Hence, the bulk of stuff you hear about it will inevitably be the negatives.

I'm currently running Spesh Roubaix Pro's with Caffelatex. No problems thus far. Easy to mount and seal. They lose a bit of pressure if left for a few days. I'm due to renew the sealant soon, as per the manufacturers advice and am considering doing the MTB/Ghetto thing of adding glitter to the solution. The idea being that they act as a binding agent and help seal cuts.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: chrisbainbridge on 09 November, 2018, 09:36:24 am
I am interested in the Finish line comment. Is that the version  with Kevlar?

I have it in my wheels currently and like the ease of inserting it but have not had a puncture yet.
Did you find problems with it sealing compared to stans ?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Jakob W on 09 November, 2018, 09:46:57 am
I'm due to renew the sealant soon, as per the manufacturers advice and am considering doing the MTB/Ghetto thing of adding glitter to the solution. The idea being that they act as a binding agent and help seal cuts.

Also makes your ride approximately 273% more fabulous...

(I did not know that this was a thing.)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 09 November, 2018, 10:32:44 am
I am interested in the Finish line comment. Is that the version  with Kevlar?

I have it in my wheels currently and like the ease of inserting it but have not had a puncture yet.
Did you find problems with it sealing compared to stans ?

It has failed to seal any puncture so far. .
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 09 November, 2018, 10:53:09 am
It could be an interesting experiment to, when somebody has an hour or two, and a tyre, spare, to test the sealing abilities of the various different types of sealant, against various different types of flint/thorn, etc and document the result.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Peat on 09 November, 2018, 10:57:31 am
I'd do it, but i'd want sponsorship. That'd be an expensive experiment!

Most comprehensive independent test I've seen so far is Bike Radar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2OqwuhNGfg

BUT. That's in a clean work shop with clean, round screwdrivers.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: rafletcher on 09 November, 2018, 10:58:10 am
Not quite what you suggested...

https://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/best-tubeless-sealant-52683/

https://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/gear/article/6-of-the-best-tyre-sealant-50481/

EDIT: X-post with Peat
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: teethgrinder on 09 November, 2018, 11:01:24 am
One tip I've heard of to upgrade sealant is to add some glitter so it can plug bigger holes.
I've never tried it myself or know anyone who has.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 22 December, 2018, 05:34:24 pm
(as predicted) it looks like the 5000tl is the new top dog (https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/continental-grand-prix-5000-tl-2018)

corsas tlr are only good for smooth clean roads and even then i reckon the conti's would be faster for their better grip and higher speed they can carry through the corners. i hope the price comes down to below three figures for a pair in few months time as i have a psychological barrier paying that much for the tyres, no matter how great they are..
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 22 December, 2018, 05:48:57 pm
it is an impressive result for sure. Hopefully they won't turn out to have problems; they shouldn't do, they are not built stupid-light or anything like that.

If you shop around they can be had for about £46 each, so not ridiculously expensive for a newish top dog.

cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: quixoticgeek on 22 December, 2018, 08:42:52 pm
(as predicted) it looks like the 5000tl is the new top dog (https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/continental-grand-prix-5000-tl-2018)

corsas tlr are only good for smooth clean roads and even then i reckon the conti's would be faster for their better grip and higher speed they can carry through the corners. i hope the price comes down to below three figures for a pair in few months time as i have a psychological barrier paying that much for the tyres, no matter how great they are..

Looks like ~4W per tyre faster than the GP4000S II, so for a pair, that's 8w. So over an hour you'd save 6.7kcal. So over a 12 hour ride, that's a saving of about ¼ of a mars bar... But on day 10 of an ultrarace when ones FTP has dropped to about 100w, that's an 8% saving...

I'm gonna need new summer rubber in the spring. Am very tempted to give them a try...

J
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 23 December, 2018, 05:58:41 pm
(as predicted) it looks like the 5000tl is the new top dog (https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/continental-grand-prix-5000-tl-2018)

corsas tlr are only good for smooth clean roads and even then i reckon the conti's would be faster for their better grip and higher speed they can carry through the corners. i hope the price comes down to below three figures for a pair in few months time as i have a psychological barrier paying that much for the tyres, no matter how great they are..

I’ve got a set of Corsa Speeds on a pair of wheels at present. I don’t suppose they’ll last long before needing repacked in any case.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 23 December, 2018, 06:08:27 pm
My Hutchinson Fusion Galaktiks give a phenomenal ride. Better than my tubs. But, there is very little in the way of puncture protection. Dry summer use only.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: BrianI on 23 December, 2018, 07:56:52 pm
On the subject of MTB tubeless, are 29er tubeless wheels still available which use ye olde worlde standard q/r hubs and centrelock disc brakes? Seems to be all this 27.5+  boost or throughaxle type things?  ???

Bike is a 2017 Cube attention MTB with cube ZX20 rims which i don't believe are tubeless compatible.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Brucey on 23 December, 2018, 09:08:36 pm
many boost hubs can be converted to QR specification by replacing the axle and/or the adaptors at the axle ends, but the details vary with the model of hub.  Other alternatives are to go fox six-bolt discs (they are cheap enough) and/or to convert the rims to accept tubeless tyres (which is a bit hit and miss) or to get the wheels built how you want them in the first place; plenty of hubs and rims of the sort you want, just not already built in the exact combination you need.
 
cheers
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: sojournermike on 23 December, 2018, 10:08:01 pm
many boost hubs can be converted to QR specification by replacing the axle and/or the adaptors at the axle ends, but the details vary with the model of hub.  Other alternatives are to go fox six-bolt discs (they are cheap enough) and/or to convert the rims to accept tubeless tyres (which is a bit hit and miss) or to get the wheels built how you want them in the first place; plenty of hubs and rims of the sort you want, just not already built in the exact combination you need.
 
cheers


Indeed, which always seems a bit of a poor design choice given that the point of boost is, in part, to give better spoke angles and stronger wheels... still why spoil a good marketing story by actually doing the engineering eh
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: BrianI on 25 December, 2018, 09:09:50 am
many boost hubs can be converted to QR specification by replacing the axle and/or the adaptors at the axle ends, but the details vary with the model of hub.  Other alternatives are to go fox six-bolt discs (they are cheap enough) and/or to convert the rims to accept tubeless tyres (which is a bit hit and miss) or to get the wheels built how you want them in the first place; plenty of hubs and rims of the sort you want, just not already built in the exact combination you need.
 
cheers

I've seen various six bolt standard qr wheels in 29" size on rose bikes for ~£150 a pair which are tubeless compatible.

However what might be an idea is to try a tubeless conversion on my current wheels using a proper tubeless kit and proper tubeless tyres. A previous attempt using a "ghetto" conversion using a split 24" tube and non tubeless tyres (folding Schwalbe smart sam) was less than successful. The tyres went on and sealed, but lost pressure in a few days plus seemed to burp easily...

Certainly worth trying this first of all as the current wheels probably have a fair bit of life in them still.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Alex B on 25 December, 2018, 06:43:43 pm
I am interested in the Finish line comment.

It's the perfect sealant in every respect except one: it's not very good at sealing holes. Very small ones sort of get sealed with a "weeping" wound; slightly larger ones just don't seal.

Shame :-(
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: BrianI on 26 December, 2018, 06:57:58 pm
many boost hubs can be converted to QR specification by replacing the axle and/or the adaptors at the axle ends, but the details vary with the model of hub.  Other alternatives are to go fox six-bolt discs (they are cheap enough) and/or to convert the rims to accept tubeless tyres (which is a bit hit and miss) or to get the wheels built how you want them in the first place; plenty of hubs and rims of the sort you want, just not already built in the exact combination you need.
 
cheers

I've seen various six bolt standard qr wheels in 29" size on rose bikes for ~£150 a pair which are tubeless compatible.

However what might be an idea is to try a tubeless conversion on my current wheels using a proper tubeless kit and proper tubeless tyres. A previous attempt using a "ghetto" conversion using a split 24" tube and non tubeless tyres (folding Schwalbe smart sam) was less than successful. The tyres went on and sealed, but lost pressure in a few days plus seemed to burp easily...

Certainly worth trying this first of all as the current wheels probably have a fair bit of life in them still.

Anyhoo, tessa 4289 "tubeless" tape ordered off ebay, £12 for 66m! of 25mm width. I already have Joe's no flats rim strip and 1l of sealant from  my previous attempt using non tubeless tyres on non tubeless rims Just to get some tubeless tyres and we'll see how the conversion goes. Decathlon seems to have michelin 29x2.1 tubeless ready tyres for £17 a each.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: BrianI on 27 December, 2018, 05:41:03 pm
No Michelin's in stock, so took a punt on BTwin all terrain speed folding tubeless ready tyres, 29x2.10", £16.99 a tyre! Perhaps more tyre shaped objects compared to Schwalbe / Continental etc. Although I'm sure I read somewhere that BTwin tyres are actually made by Hutchison?
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: BrianI on 29 December, 2018, 05:58:54 pm
An update - if the admin think this would be better on the MTB forum, then let me know, and I'll repost it there.

Anyway, in the shed I found half a roll of the rim sealing tape from a Joe's no flats conversion kit I had previously attempted a tubeless conversion with, using the Cube ZX20 rims (non tubeless, made by Alex rims), and standard wire bead Schwalbe Smart Sam non tubeless tyres.  Less than successful as the tyre was quite a loose fit on the bead.

Anyway, this time around, I put on a single layer of the joes tape (I have a 66mm roll of 25mm tesa 4289 tape on its way from ebay, but I thought I'd experiment with what was left of the joe's stuf).

One layer of the tape applied (overlapping the valve hole 2inces either side), then burnished down with a soft tea towel, then I carefully added the joe's rubber rim strip & valve. I fitted the Btwin All Terrain Speed 7 Tubeless Ready (folding bead) tyre. Not a very tight fit on the rim, so perhaps another layer of the adhesive plastic rim tape required.  But the tyre did inflate without any issue using a track pump. No obvious hissing either!  :thumbsup:

So hopefully this tubeless conversion may actually work.  I do have plenty of sealant to hand, but I think I'll wait on getting my tesa tape, and add another layer and compare results.  Long term though, I'll look to get a proper set of tubeless wheels  :)
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Ben T on 30 December, 2018, 01:03:37 pm
Just did the 3 monthly sealant top up on both my bikes. The older set up on my burls (stans alpha 340 rims + schwalbe one TL-easy tyres) did their normal thing of unseating as the pressure gets to zero, but then re-seat fairly easily. But the newer set up on my audax bike (mavic tyres + mavic rims), I was quite impressed that they didn't even unseat at all, so I didn't even need the airshot for them.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: bludger on 30 December, 2018, 06:22:48 pm
Back in from an Audax and had a tubeless learning.

They are cracking tyres (panaracer gravel Kings SK), they ate a monster pothole beautifully, but this morning, 2 days since I'd last inflated them properly, they had in fact lost rather a lot of air which badly affected my speed. I didn't actually notice until I looked down and saw a load of sealant had squeezed out the front.

So if you do go tubeless and do touring/multi day rides be sure to have a quality touring pump with you, or access to a track pump, as they definitely do lose air much faster than clinchers!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 30 December, 2018, 07:14:41 pm
(my) tubeless tyres hold air the same as the tyres with butyl inner tubes, i.e. require once a week top-up. if they leak air faster it means the system is not set up correctly..
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: citoyen on 30 December, 2018, 08:21:06 pm
I had a problem recently with my front tubeless tyre losing air quicker than expected. I guessed it was in need of new sealant so topped it up and went for a ride but it had still lost a lot of air by the time I next went out. Pumped it up and went out again for a much longer ride and it has been fine since.

Had a bukakke moment while out a couple of days ago (knew I should have refitted the mudguards) but it sealed itself after a few attempts, before too much air had been lost, and the mud spray from the roads soon did a good job of covering up any evidence of tyre jizz on my face.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: Hot Flatus on 30 December, 2018, 08:25:20 pm
IME tubeless tyres vary in how much air they lose. Same wheels, same tyres, same valves, same tape, same sealant, same installation method.

I've even had the phantom overnight huge  pressure loss occurrence. Pump them up in the morning and they stay inflated for days. Weird.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: BrianI on 01 January, 2019, 02:21:06 pm
Redid the taping of the MTB rims yesterday, 2 layers of the tesa 4289 tape, along with the joe's no flats rubber rim strip.

Tyres inflated without any difficulty using the track pump.  120 ml of sealant added to each tyre last night, inflated them to 30psi. No drop in pressure overnight, so a quick 31km for a test ride today through some woodland and coastal path.

No issues at all it seems :-)  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: bludger on 07 January, 2019, 12:58:48 am
Unfortunately found that the front wheel was losing air fast when 100 km in to the poor student the other day and had to stop and out in a tube at the next control.

The rear wheel has held up magnificently which is confusing as I thought it was sustaining most of the aggro.

I have faith I can make it work so will take another crack in my next fettling session once my special tubeless pump stuff arrives. I really want to be tubeless for Paris Roubaix.
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: BrianI on 13 January, 2019, 03:35:11 pm
Redid the taping of the MTB rims yesterday, 2 layers of the tesa 4289 tape, along with the joe's no flats rubber rim strip.

Tyres inflated without any difficulty using the track pump.  120 ml of sealant added to each tyre last night, inflated them to 30psi. No drop in pressure overnight, so a quick 31km for a test ride today through some woodland and coastal path.

No issues at all it seems :-)  :thumbsup:

Still no leaks either! I was half expecting to pop into the shedde this afternoon, to see the tubeless conversion with flat tyres. But no, they were still sitting at 30psi front and rear!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: bludger on 13 January, 2019, 04:13:52 pm
Had a bad run in with a sharp object yesterday which put a very big and un-sealable tear in the rear tyre.

Since I've only had the bastard since Boxing Day I am attempting to repair it with stitching and then a tubeless repair kit.

I expect that it'll run best with a tube inside it (which is a shame) but I am tempted to try to mount it tubelessly again depending on how I think the repair has gone.

(https://i.imgur.com/Y97Jwi1.jpg)

Will keep you posted!
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: zigzag on 13 January, 2019, 04:31:18 pm
it's advisable to cover the outer stitching with the shoe goo, to prevent it from abrasion and undoing
Title: Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
Post by: bludger on 13 January, 2019, 04:37:05 pm
where can you get shoe goo from? have shopped around online but would prefer to not pay a fortune for shipping for a toothpaste tube (amazon are quoting £6 postage!).