Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
for whatever reason i just cant get into the tubeless thing. when UST first started i totally thought it would be a fad, but boy was i wrong.
messing with sealants, and trying to get beads to sit right just turns me off. i just tear open that little cardboard box and throw in a new tube. i can do it in my sleep, why should i go tubeless???
 

·
Just passing through....
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Jersey said:
for whatever reason i just cant get into the tubeless thing. when UST first started i totally thought it would be a fad, but boy was i wrong.
messing with sealants, and trying to get beads to sit right just turns me off. i just tear open that little cardboard box and throw in a new tube. i can do it in my sleep, why should i go tubeless???
I won't try to convince you to go tubeless, as it may not be for everyone. but I will tell you the reasons why I choose to go tubeless:

1. Flat resistance - It may not eliminate flats, but they are greatly reduced. I have not flatted in over 2 years of using tubeless conversion on the trails. These are the same trails that I flatted almost weekly on prior to going tubeless. I did get my first flat in 2 years the other day (I happened to be using tubes on my backup bike) but I would have flatted regardless as a 3/8" diameter stick impaled my tire through the sidewall. Pinch flats are all but eliminated. They are still possible without a tube, but very rare. Because of this, you can run lower pressures without the fear of pinch flats, thus increasing cornering traction.

2. Decreased rolling resistance - Tests done on Schwalbe's rolling resistance machine showed a significant decrease in rolling resistance at a given pressure, I've heard numbers up to 9 watts.

3. Weight savings - Tubeless conversion such as Stans or Eclipse saves weight over all but the lightest and most fragile tubes, and as much as 1/2 pound over thicker tubes.

Initial setup takes a little more time than with a tube, but its not difficult at all and I can setup a wheel in just a few minutes. You don't have to do anything to get the bead to sit right, you just inflate it and the bead closes against the rim. I will rock the tire around to get the sealant to fill all the pinholes along the bead, but that doesn't take long and you don't really even have to do that, as they will seal up after a few rides anyway.

The trade-offs for me, in order of how they affect me are:

1. I don't use tubeless on my back up bike, as it it only ridden a few times a month, and the sealant will not last long enough to make it worthwhile as it will dry in the tire after a few months. Also, I use my back up bike on the trainer and I like to use higher pressures on the rear tire.

2. In the event that you do get a flat, you must deal with the sealant which can be kind of messy. Fortunately, I have not had to deal with it on the trail (except for one experiment 2 + years ago with homemade tubeless). You are only dealing with 60 ml of solution, so its not really that bad.

3. It is more difficult to change tires at will for riding in different conditions, such as removing your racing tires to put on trail or mud tires. It just takes a little more time and again, you have to deal with the sealant mess.

So far, going tubeless conversion (I use Eclipse) has been virtually trouble free for me and I don't regret it for a second. As I said, there are trade offs and it may not be right for everyone, but as for me, I don't see myself ever going back to tubes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Couldn't state it better.....

DaFireMedic said:
I won't try to convince you to go tubeless, as it may not be for everyone. but I will tell you the reasons why I choose to go tubeless:
.
The only thing I can add is to mention that my wife and I over the last 2+ years and hundreds of rides and scores of races have not flatted once when running Stans with Conti Explorers, Python Airlights, Maxxis Ignitors, or Kenda Karmas. Oh, and these tires have been run on a variety of rims, e.g., 517's, 917's, 317's, American Classics and more. The only problem I ever experienced was hitting a sharp edge curb when running Klimax Lites at a very low PSI and burping out air and flattening the rim -- obviously my fault and not Stan's.
 

·
I dig trails!
Joined
·
5,602 Posts
DaFireMedic said:
I won't try to convince you to go tubeless, as it may not be for everyone. but I will tell you the reasons why I choose to go tubeless: ...
Stellar answer, DaFireMedic. Thanks for that. I am like Jersey, sitting on the tubeless fence. And tho I have done a lot of research, your answer really brings clarity.

Is there any confirming research or thoughts on the lower rolling resistance?

Is lower rolling resistance becuase the tire can better conform to the variations in the ground?

I view lower rolling resistance as a great benefit.

Thanks,

Mr. P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
Mr.P said:
Stellar answer, DaFireMedic. Thanks for that. I am like Jersey, sitting on the tubeless fence. And tho I have done a lot of research, your answer really brings clarity.

Is there any confirming research or thoughts on the lower rolling resistance?

Is lower rolling resistance becuase the tire can better conform to the variations in the ground?

I view lower rolling resistance as a great benefit.

Thanks,

Mr. P
Yes I believe some German mtb magazines have done rolling resistance tests on verious tyres- running them both tubeless and with tubes- tubeless won out. Tubeless also provides lest rotational weight as they are much lighter. Veriation in terain may well have something to do with it also.

Grip - Tubeless runs lower pressures, I run my presure reasonably high- as I am pretty heavy, but in comparison to tubeless vs tubes; tubeless provides more grip with lower presures- and without the the hastles of flats.

I definatly recommend running, somekind of rimsprip set up- be it Stans or Eclipse; I current run UST and while it's fool proof it has its problems. Building a similar wheel with different rims and rim strips as opposed to using Mavics XM819's I can save well over 100g... I am actually looking to save about 150g in my case...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Proof is in the pudding for me...

Let's just say that I'll echo everything that DaFireMedic said. Plus, I'll add that I've been running tubeless for two years (Eclipse) with regular tires (Pythons) and have yet to flat. Leakdown is comperable to what I've experienced with ultra-lightweight tubes. I typically have to add 2-3lbs after the bike has been sitting a few days. I originally planned to run the non-tubeless tires only as a race setup, but they work so well that I use them for every day riding as well. I'm a believer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
Three seasons with Stans

I have run Stans on two sets of NON ust rims and three different sets of tires, including Kenda Klimax Lites.

1) No pinch flats, or any other flats

2) Weight savings, when I ran my Kendas for my last race, I was two minutes faster than my best time, on a course that had one more mile added.

3) Tubes suck, they just do.

4) I'm not using Stans because other people are, I'm using it because it's work without problems for me for three years, I simply see no reason to go back to tubes.

Gripshift :D
 

·
almost there!
Joined
·
341 Posts
the benefits outway the inconveniences:

the gains:

- almost no chance of getting a pinch flat

- a cushier ride due to the lower tire pressure (more important if you are riding a hardtail)

- more traction

1 drawback:

- putting the tire on the rim can be harder if you are putting a UST tire on a UST rim
or if you're using the Stans setup it takes a few extra steps compared to the tubed setup

Today I rode in 5" inches of snow on UST Conti Verticals and my tire pressure was around 25 psi and the traction was amazing and no worries about pinch flatting.
 

·
almost there!
Joined
·
341 Posts
get the Stans kit

- not that I am using the full kit - but I have used the Stans sealant with the Bontrager Tubeless Ready Revolt Super X tire, this line of tires is much lighter than UST tires - the only difference is that you HAVE to use a sealant with these tires.

The Super X is a good dry condition tire I bought one and tried it on the front and back, it served me really well in one race at around 27 psi (on the front), which gave me really good traction and very little rolling resistance. Check out their site they have other "Tubeless Ready" light tires.
 

·
Maromero
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Jersey said:
thanks so much fellas, thats exactly what i was looking for....
now, what are my options to go tubeless with my Mavic 517s???
I would go with Eclipse rimstrip and Stan's sealant, it has been working for me for about six months. I was using before homemade sealant and changed to Stan's because it is easier, now available here in Mex. Eclipse's sealant is OK but, not available here and the price is higher. You also have the benefit of a separate rimstrip and valve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
AJ541 said:
- not that I am using the full kit - but I have used the Stans sealant with the Bontrager Tubeless Ready Revolt Super X tire, this line of tires is much lighter than UST tires - the only difference is that you HAVE to use a sealant with these tires.

The Super X is a good dry condition tire I bought one and tried it on the front and back, it served me really well in one race at around 27 psi (on the front), which gave me really good traction and very little rolling resistance. Check out their site they have other "Tubeless Ready" light tires.
i have those tires on my bike i like them a lot. i rode on the road to work in the snow with them like (25psi) i thought i was on dry pavement. I'm using the bontrager sealent its cheap seems to be working.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
whats the total weight on an Eclipse setup using Stans sealant (with the proper amount of sealant in each tire)?
i could see switcing to tubeless if i could genuinely save some weight, but my flats are few and far between and to be honest the tubes never bothered me .....
 

·
Too busy looking good
Joined
·
361 Posts
Thanks to everyone for sharing their tubeless expertise. I'm also considering Stans and have the following question. As your installation ages, and the sealant dries, is it leaving a residue? If this is true, then a true weight weenie would need to clean the dried sealant out of a tire before adding additional sealant, otherwise you'll accumulate weight over time.

How do you guys deal with this issue, is the cumulative weight gain significant? How often are you adding additional sealant?
 

·
Just passing through....
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
HOser said:
Thanks to everyone for sharing their tubeless expertise. I'm also considering Stans and have the following question. As your installation ages, and the sealant dries, is it leaving a residue? If this is true, then a true weight weenie would need to clean the dried sealant out of a tire before adding additional sealant, otherwise you'll accumulate weight over time.

How do you guys deal with this issue, is the cumulative weight gain significant? How often are you adding additional sealant?
The sealant does dry after several months and you need to add additional sealant to "refresh" your puncture sealing capability. I use homemade sealant for economy and convenience reasons, and add sealant every 2-3 months. This seems to keep my flat protection up pretty well. The weight of the sealant is mostly in the water, so as the water evaporates inside the tire the weight drops until you add more sealant. I have not found the accumulated sealant to add any noticeable weight. I usually wear a tire out by the time I have refreshed the sealant once or twice anyway, but with thicker trail type tires you may have to add sealant a few more times before you wear out the tire. Still not significant, only a few grams of dried sealant, a very thin layer. Pealing the sealant off is not worth it IMHO.

Jersey: The weight of the Eclipse system for my Mavic 517's is about 109 grams per tire with 80 grams sealant, 29 grams for rimstrip and stem. (218 grams front and rear). I have been using approx. 60 ml instead of 80 ml and have not had a problem with it, but 80 is the "proper" amount with Eclipse sealant. Stans still recommends 60 in their system I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
ok, so running the Eclipse or Stans setup would be equal to a pretty lightweight tubeset? in my case: i run thicker/heavier Salsas because my area is one huge rock garden so by going tubeless i may save ~50-70grams total.
not terrible
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Yes.

Yes, tubeless with rimstrips is about equal to light tubes all things considered. I would have stopped mountain biking long ago if tubeless hadn't com around. Lots of thorns & pinch flats around here. It's nice going months without flats vs. days (if that).
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top