Author Topic: To tubeless or not to tubeless  (Read 15421 times)

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2018, 06:09:00 pm »
Teams rub vinegar on their tyres to help prevent cuts andcdmbedded stones.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 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
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 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!
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 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

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 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.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 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
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 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?



Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 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  ;)

Samuel D

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #33 on: October 06, 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.

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #34 on: October 06, 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.

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #35 on: October 06, 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



Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #36 on: October 06, 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  ::-)




Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #37 on: October 06, 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...]


Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #38 on: October 06, 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  ;)

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #39 on: October 06, 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.
It is what it is. It's not what it's not, so it must be what it is.

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #40 on: October 06, 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.


Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 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


Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 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
It is what it is. It's not what it's not, so it must be what it is.

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 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.

zigzag

  • unfuckwithable
Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 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. :)

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #45 on: October 06, 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.

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #46 on: October 06, 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.

 


Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #47 on: October 06, 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.




Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #48 on: October 06, 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.

Re: To tubeless or not to tubeless
« Reply #49 on: October 06, 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.