Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Touring (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=47)
-   -   Tubeless touring? (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=1129977)

dim 12-11-17 02:47 PM

and another intersting fact .... more and more new road bikes (top end) are now being sold with tubeless ready wheels as standard

something is happening behind the scenes and my gut feel is that tubeless tyres are here to stay and will be the norm ... (same as hydraulic disc brakes)

nickw 12-11-17 06:36 PM


Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 20046585)
There isn't a tire made where you can't find someone who passionately loves that tire right alongside someone who just as passionately hates it. That said, this tire works just fine for me and has been very robust in gravel. No issues. Please understand, I'm not advocating this tire as a be-all tire for everyone. My point is this: There are some innovations happening in the tubeless world in the development of tires that is having a big impact and the ride quality and the tire capability is changing rapidly.

My normal road tires are tubulars which I ride because I like the suppleness and the ride quality. I rarely get flats (i.e. no pinch flats). Riding the G-1's, I find that the ride is just as nice, more plush and not harsh at all. That has been the traditional problem for me with most tubeless tires to date - they feel like truck tires on a bike.

My choice in tubular has been the Clement LGG in 25c which is a tubeless tubular. I've been riding those (or similar tires) since I got rid of clinchers about 10 years ago. When I made the change, I went from 6-8 flats per year to 0-1. In the last two years I have not had a flat in either of those years over multiple tires. So that would be around 15 total flats avoided. I attribute that to largely the elimination of pinch flats and any small punctures are sealed by the sealant. Tubeless clinchers, especially in the wider tire sizes offer the same advantages but the ride quality as been pretty lousy to date. I think that tide has turned.

With that history of punctures (or lack there of), I have no issues with the Schwalbe tubeless which are just as robust as my tubulars. Granted most of that has been on the road, but the experience on gravel in the last two years has been parallel to the experience on the road. I'm expecting we're going to see a lot more tubeless tires that have superb ride quality show up in the next 18 months.

Carrying an extra tire on tour is something you have to do anyhow. If that's the price I pay for getting great ride quality then I'd far rather do that than use some boat anchor of a tire won't be as much fun to ride and will drag on my legs every stroke of the pedals. I see absolutely no reason not to use tubeless tires on a tour.

J.

My point wasÖyou canít have your cake and eat it too. You want a light tubeless tire, they are going to be more vulnerable to rocks PARTICULARLY on a touring bike on an unimproved road. I canít speak for 18 months from now, but technology as it exists today doesnít support the notion you can have both.

You must be riding bigger tires than the 25cís tubulars you are comparing against, the G-1 donít come in that size as far as I am aware.

I rarely get flats on my high end Vittoria clinchers with tubes either. Actually, I had 0 flats last summer, riding in the city, racing and trainingÖgo figure. They feel just as good as any tubular out there.

And no, never carry an extra tire with me on tour Ė do you?

JohnJ80 12-11-17 09:28 PM


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20047093)
My point wasÖyou canít have your cake and eat it too. You want a light tubeless tire, they are going to be more vulnerable to rocks PARTICULARLY on a touring bike on an unimproved road. I canít speak for 18 months from now, but technology as it exists today doesnít support the notion you can have both.

You must be riding bigger tires than the 25cís tubulars you are comparing against, the G-1 donít come in that size as far as I am aware.

I rarely get flats on my high end Vittoria clinchers with tubes either. Actually, I had 0 flats last summer, riding in the city, racing and trainingÖgo figure. They feel just as good as any tubular out there.

And no, never carry an extra tire with me on tour Ė do you?

Yes I do carry an extra tire and this one will be easier than most since itís fairly light. Just paranoid, I guess although Iíve never needed them. Iíve done this when I toured with tubed clinchers too.

Apparently you didnít take the time to look up the specs on the tire but it comes in a 30c version for gravel etc. Your information is old and I believe Schwalbe changed around a lot of their naming nomenclature. Theyíve proven for me to be pretty reliable on a lot of gravel as well as pavement but YMMV (bad joke). And theyíre also fast. Try them and see what you think. My bet is youíll be surprised at how good they are too.

For the record, when I tour itís with my wife and we each carry about 20 lbs each including camping gear - fast and light. So the extra tire is neither a space nor a weight issue. But thanks for your concern.

You really ought to check them out, pretty interesting tire. Enjoy your heavy clinchers with tubes.

J.

DeepSpace 12-11-17 10:34 PM

I have been tubeless for about 8 years on my mountain bikes. 2 years on the road and this year switched my fat chance when I put a SON hub on the front. Before I switched to tubeless on those wheels I got 3 flats in 2 weeks. Needless to say I wasn't feeling that good about the Compass tires. But since the switch until yesterday I was flat free for about 1000 miles. While the sealant didn't seal (35į) a quick install of tube and on my way. My little experience to share.

chrisx 12-11-17 10:58 PM


Originally Posted by DeepSpace (Post 20047479)
While the sealant didn't seal (35į)

switch to Orange Seal

nickw 12-11-17 11:25 PM


Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 20047386)
Yes I do carry an extra tire and this one will be easier than most since itís fairly light. Just paranoid, I guess although Iíve never needed them. Iíve done this when I toured with tubed clinchers too.

Apparently you didnít take the time to look up the specs on the tire but it comes in a 30c version for gravel etc. Your information is old and I believe Schwalbe changed around a lot of their naming nomenclature. Theyíve proven for me to be pretty reliable on a lot of gravel as well as pavement but YMMV (bad joke). And theyíre also fast. Try them and see what you think. My bet is youíll be surprised at how good they are too.

For the record, when I tour itís with my wife and we each carry about 20 lbs each including camping gear - fast and light. So the extra tire is neither a space nor a weight issue. But thanks for your concern.

You really ought to check them out, pretty interesting tire. Enjoy your heavy clinchers with tubes.

J.

Yup - very familiar with Schwalbes, been running them for multiple years, you were comparing them to your 25c tubulars, that's what I was pointing out...they don't make them in 25c.

If you stick to the buffed routes you'll likely be fine with those tires. Offroad / gravel / unimproved touring is going to overwhelm them quickly. Who said my tires were heavy? Not me. Besides, heavy tires/wheels don't necessarily roll slower, but you know that...

If you truly want a performance tubeless tire that is going to be another notch over those those G1's and it sounds like you put a lot of focus on tire weight, I'd recommend you look into these at a minimum:

https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/co...-bon-jon-pass/

Lighter, bigger volume and can run much lower pressure than the G1's. You may be stuck with a 30c size due to frame clearance, but most touring / CX bikes can swing tires in the upper 30's. I'd recommend looking into a larger volume tire, but it sounds like your miles DO vary :)

DeepSpace 12-11-17 11:38 PM


Originally Posted by chrisx (Post 20047512)
switch to Orange Seal

I use Orange Seal. Have for several years. So far no sealant has worked in my area WITH a major cut in the winter.

linus 12-12-17 12:24 AM


Originally Posted by DeepSpace (Post 20047554)
I use Orange Seal. Have for several years. So far no sealant has worked in my area WITH a major cut in the winter.

Here is my take.

A couple of years ago. I was just truing rear wheel of my winter commuter(Stan's IronCross rims with 45nrth Xerxe Studded tires) and saw a little metal stuck on the tire. So I thought it was just a metal shaving stuck on the tire surface not enough to puncture it.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4558/...42e8a0a9_h.jpg

And this happened.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4571/...11933cee_h.jpg

And it was a BOY! No, just a nail.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4685/...d445756a_h.jpg

I honestly don't know how long I had it in there. All I know is that I didn't have to walk home at -10c.

Even after I pulled the nail out, the Stan's sealant seal the tire. I'm still using the tire this winter. The reason I started using Tubeless system was to avoid flat tires in winter. I almost lost a finger trying to change flat in the middle of nowhere.

DeepSpace 12-12-17 09:51 AM

All I can say is for several years now when its cold and wethttp://shiningstarcycles.com/cycling/tubeless.jpg no sealant has sealed. Stans "Race" has actually been the poorest. The flat I mentioned sealed immediately when I got back and re mounted with Orange Seal in a warm room.http://shiningstarcycles.com/cycling/tubeless.jpg

pbekkerh 12-12-17 10:23 AM

I have tubeless on my MTB for use around my home but not on my touring bike. The tubeless are so much tighter on the rim, that i can't imagine having to pull them off on the road and they are impossible to get back on. I have not tried CO2 but even my small home compressor has trouble blasting the tyre back on the rim.
And I don't see the benefits. They are a bit lighter but how many tenth of a percent are you saving on a loaded touring rig? In the terrain, they can be ridden at a lower pressure but on the road I run my tyres at high pressure anyway. My current tyres are even a bit heavier than standard because I use Schwalbe tyres with all the protection available, I hate to puncture.

****If you have to bring, and some of the time, ride with tubes, where is the weight saving?*****

If you use tubeless with anti puncture solution, that adds weight, and its a mess you don't want to have on your fingers and bike, in the middle of the desert or in the middle of town

I have just been forced to buy TL tyres (tubeless ready) and they are much tighter on the rim. Where I used to be be able to remove and install a tyre by hand, I now HAVE to use a tool.

Rob_E 12-12-17 11:09 AM


Originally Posted by msbiker (Post 20045887)
It is very unlikely that you will be able to pop a tubeless bead back onto to the rim with a hand pump.

I have two sets of tubeless tires. Both were set up with a hand pump. One set wouldn't seat with handpump at first, so I put a tube in, inflated it until the bead popped into place, then removed the tube, leaving one bead locked, and pumped it back up.


Originally Posted by seeker333 (Post 20046318)
That's a pretty good argument for sticking with inner tubes.

1. Probably can't refit tire on the side of the road, forcing inevitable tube use regardless.
2. Carrying all the stuff for tubes and tubeless, so more load.
3. Every time I've compared, tubeless is a net increase in rotating weight of tire over a lightweight inner tube.
4. Tubeless costs more and materials have lower availability than inner tubes.

People should stick with inner tubes if that's what they're comfortable with. However I wouldn't consider all of your points as being valid to all riders.

1. I feel like I probably would be able to seat my tire by the side of road, unless the tire was so damaged that it couldn't hold air, in which case it probably wouldn't last long with a tube, either. Also, I can't think of a flat that I've had to deal with on tour that would have even been an issue with tubeless. There's no "refitting" of a tire because there's far fewer reasons to remove the tire in the first place.

2. True. More stuff. Maybe. Depending on the length of your trip and how much you weigh the odds of needing to fix a tire against the value of the extra stuff for tubeless repair. I carry some tire plugs and a spare valve core with the core remover all in a container a little larger than a thimble. Sometimes I carry a small bottle of sealant. My trips are two weeks at most, and I've never used any of that stuff, so if I wanted to shed the weight, it would be easy to just leave it behind and plan to use a tube in the unlikely event that I had some unfixable failure of my tubeless tire. On the other hand, when commuting, I usually have a spare tube handy, but when touring, I used to carry two tubes. Now that I'm tubeless, I carry one, plus my tubeless repair kit. It might weigh a little more, but it doesn't take up more space.

3. This may be true. I don't use lightweight tubes, and I can't say I notice a weight difference. But then I use a different tire on my tubeless set up. I do notice that the tire feels more supple and I can ride it at a lower pressure with less concern of pinch flats, or flats in general, and that's something I appreciate. I know some people claim tubeless weighs less, and maybe it does for a lot of people, maybe even me, but when I'm putting 30 lbs of gear on my bike, the weight difference between an inner tube and a few ounces of sealant isn't worth worrying about.

4. Certainly I had a limited rim and tire selection available when I decided to go tubeless, and I could have possibly built a wheelset cheaper if I didn't care about tubeless compatibility. But building a wheelset is one-time cost (or at least a very infrequent cost), so the price difference between rims is negligible over the life of a wheel. Especially for me, since my main rims where bought at a big discount. As for tires, looking at my order history, it looks like I actually paid a little more for my Big Bens than I did for the tubeless-compatible Almotions I replaced them with. So the only real place to compare costs is the cost of sealant vs. the cost of tubes. Sealant is more expensive. I've converted two wheelsets to tubeless this year and spent about $25USD on about 20 ounces of sealant. I still have 8 ounces left, which should last me for another couple of months at least, but in the same amount of time, I likely would have bought at most two tubes, which would probably come in between $15 and $20. And tubeless tires are going to need a little extra sealant from time to time just to keep them running, whereas a tube keeps going until it gets irreparably punctured. So, yes, I would say tubeless costs more, but not prohibitively more, at least not for me. Add to that the fact that I've had to unload my bike by the side of the road in the middle of a long day just so I could remove my tire and fix a flat. And it's almost always a small puncture that wouldn't have been an issue with a tubeless tire. So is it worth $10 to avoid even just one of those situations? It is to me.

But really that's just why those points don't really affect my decision, because in my circumstances I've found that either they're not valid or are outweighed by other factors. Someone else might find it different. For instance, if you have a perfectly functional wheelset that isn't tubeless-ready, then obviously it could be very expensive to redo your wheelset. Or you could lose some of the dependability of a tubeless set-up by converting a non-tubeless rim/tire to tubeless use. And if you're running a skinnier, higher pressure tire, that can make increase the odds that your tubeless set-up will fail/not seal a puncture properly. But for me, it's been a reliable set-up at a reasonable cost with no noticeable weight difference.

nickw 12-12-17 11:37 AM

Something else to add to this discussion that I think needs to be considered....sometimes, not often and certainly not always, but tubeless tires cannot be removed in the field at all (or in the shop for that matter).

I’ve heard a few stories online of this happening, I’ve experienced it myself for the first time a few months back and had a buddy who also had to deal with it. The tires can get so unbelievably tight on the bead that they are impossible to remove. My solution, as was my buddies, was to CUT the damn thing off. I had used the tire for 6-7 weeks and was getting pretty hammered and was going in the trash anyway, so wasn’t a major loss, but was still aggravating.

Now I’ve been full tubeless MTB and Cross for years now, I’ve changed I’d guess close to 100 + tires, I’ve never had a major problem until this experience 3 months ago. So again, not common but something that needs considerin’….particularly if you haven’t removed them in a while. Its good practice to remove once every couple months anyway to remove all the boogers and inspect, but here’s another reason too.

Probability – LOW…..Impact to a tour – could be a game ender.

nickw 12-12-17 11:52 AM


Originally Posted by Rob_E (Post 20048279)
I have two sets of tubeless tires. Both were set up with a hand pump. One set wouldn't seat with handpump at first, so I put a tube in, inflated it until the bead popped into place, then removed the tube, leaving one bead locked, and pumped it back up.



People should stick with inner tubes if that's what they're comfortable with. However I wouldn't consider all of your points as being valid to all riders.

1. I feel like I probably would be able to seat my tire by the side of road, unless the tire was so damaged that it couldn't hold air, in which case it probably wouldn't last long with a tube, either. Also, I can't think of a flat that I've had to deal with on tour that would have even been an issue with tubeless. There's no "refitting" of a tire because there's far fewer reasons to remove the tire in the first place.

2. True. More stuff. Maybe. Depending on the length of your trip and how much you weigh the odds of needing to fix a tire against the value of the extra stuff for tubeless repair. I carry some tire plugs and a spare valve core with the core remover all in a container a little larger than a thimble. Sometimes I carry a small bottle of sealant. My trips are two weeks at most, and I've never used any of that stuff, so if I wanted to shed the weight, it would be easy to just leave it behind and plan to use a tube in the unlikely event that I had some unfixable failure of my tubeless tire. On the other hand, when commuting, I usually have a spare tube handy, but when touring, I used to carry two tubes. Now that I'm tubeless, I carry one, plus my tubeless repair kit. It might weigh a little more, but it doesn't take up more space.

3. This may be true. I don't use lightweight tubes, and I can't say I notice a weight difference. But then I use a different tire on my tubeless set up. I do notice that the tire feels more supple and I can ride it at a lower pressure with less concern of pinch flats, or flats in general, and that's something I appreciate. I know some people claim tubeless weighs less, and maybe it does for a lot of people, maybe even me, but when I'm putting 30 lbs of gear on my bike, the weight difference between an inner tube and a few ounces of sealant isn't worth worrying about.

4. Certainly I had a limited rim and tire selection available when I decided to go tubeless, and I could have possibly built a wheelset cheaper if I didn't care about tubeless compatibility. But building a wheelset is one-time cost (or at least a very infrequent cost), so the price difference between rims is negligible over the life of a wheel. Especially for me, since my main rims where bought at a big discount. As for tires, looking at my order history, it looks like I actually paid a little more for my Big Bens than I did for the tubeless-compatible Almotions I replaced them with. So the only real place to compare costs is the cost of sealant vs. the cost of tubes. Sealant is more expensive. I've converted two wheelsets to tubeless this year and spent about $25USD on about 20 ounces of sealant. I still have 8 ounces left, which should last me for another couple of months at least, but in the same amount of time, I likely would have bought at most two tubes, which would probably come in between $15 and $20. And tubeless tires are going to need a little extra sealant from time to time just to keep them running, whereas a tube keeps going until it gets irreparably punctured. So, yes, I would say tubeless costs more, but not prohibitively more, at least not for me. Add to that the fact that I've had to unload my bike by the side of the road in the middle of a long day just so I could remove my tire and fix a flat. And it's almost always a small puncture that wouldn't have been an issue with a tubeless tire. So is it worth $10 to avoid even just one of those situations? It is to me.

But really that's just why those points don't really affect my decision, because in my circumstances I've found that either they're not valid or are outweighed by other factors. Someone else might find it different. For instance, if you have a perfectly functional wheelset that isn't tubeless-ready, then obviously it could be very expensive to redo your wheelset. Or you could lose some of the dependability of a tubeless set-up by converting a non-tubeless rim/tire to tubeless use. And if you're running a skinnier, higher pressure tire, that can make increase the odds that your tubeless set-up will fail/not seal a puncture properly. But for me, it's been a reliable set-up at a reasonable cost with no noticeable weight difference.

#1 is very dependent on tire/rim combo. Some simply won't seat with out a compressor, I've tried all the tricks in the book. Not that it matters because you can just throw in a tube and be done with it.....but at that point you are probably more likely to flat again since the tires may not be as robust / puncture resistant as a tubed tire...

I also don't have enough fingers to count the number of times I've punctured a tubeless tire that wouldn't seal but worked perfectly fine with a tube, for months. Generally they are small sidewall slits the open up when the tires flex under weight. This happens to me at least once a year, probably closer to 2-3 times.

#4 another point is Tubeless wheels have more residual value since they have demand in the market place.

J.Higgins 12-12-17 12:13 PM

I'm just going to run Marathon Plus for my Southern Tier tour. I'm running Orange Seal in the Chupacabras on my ECR. Good stuff, and no issues.

manapua_man 12-12-17 12:49 PM


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20048399)
#1 is very dependent on tire/rim combo. Some simply won't seat with out a compressor, I've tried all the tricks in the book.


I just realized I haven't tried seating a tubeless tire with ether yet.

Rob_E 12-12-17 03:22 PM


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20048399)
#1 is very dependent on tire/rim combo. Some simply won't seat with out a compressor, I've tried all the tricks in the book. Not that it matters because you can just throw in a tube and be done with it.....but at that point you are probably more likely to flat again since the tires may not be as robust / puncture resistant as a tubed tire...

I also don't have enough fingers to count the number of times I've punctured a tubeless tire that wouldn't seal but worked perfectly fine with a tube, for months. Generally they are small sidewall slits the open up when the tires flex under weight. This happens to me at least once a year, probably closer to 2-3 times.

Fortunately I've not had that experience. Most of my riding for the past year has been on tubeless tires, but the only failure so far was when the sealant dried up, and I had to deal with a slow leak until I added more sealant.

Little confusing, though, because you say that if you have to use a tube, you'll end up with a tire that's more susceptible to failure, but then say that when your sidewall fails, you can go happily for months with a tube. I guess it depends on what kind of failure and what kind of tire.

My Almotions seem very robust. I would rather they were a little more supple. I suspect that if I ran them with tubes they'd be almost as stiff as the Marathon Plusses, but running them tubeless, they are okay. They have flat protection that, in a tubeless tire, seems overkill, but I'm sure not worried about getting flats should I ever need to put a tube in.


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20048399)
#4 another point is Tubeless wheels have more residual value since they have demand in the market place.

Really a non-issue for me because I've never sold a wheel. I've used a wheel to the point where no one else would want it, but I've never sold one.

JohnJ80 12-12-17 03:31 PM


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20047543)
Yup - very familiar with Schwalbes, been running them for multiple years, you were comparing them to your 25c tubulars, that's what I was pointing out...they don't make them in 25c.

If you stick to the buffed routes you'll likely be fine with those tires. Offroad / gravel / unimproved touring is going to overwhelm them quickly. Who said my tires were heavy? Not me. Besides, heavy tires/wheels don't necessarily roll slower, but you know that...

If you truly want a performance tubeless tire that is going to be another notch over those those G1's and it sounds like you put a lot of focus on tire weight, I'd recommend you look into these at a minimum:

https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/co...-bon-jon-pass/

Lighter, bigger volume and can run much lower pressure than the G1's. You may be stuck with a 30c size due to frame clearance, but most touring / CX bikes can swing tires in the upper 30's. I'd recommend looking into a larger volume tire, but it sounds like your miles DO vary :)

Thanks for the link. Interesting tires. Going to see lots more innovation in tires for tubeless in the coming months and years.

I have run the G-1 speeds over a considerable amount of gravel without a problem. But, I get it, this discussion is no different from any other tire debate - someone thinks they are great. Someone thinks they were the tire invented by the devil. It's almost as bad as bike seats. That said, I haven't had any trouble and the performance has been great, so I'm going to stick with them. For my application and for my use, they are right up there and I like them a lot.

What is more interesting to me though is the performance I get in the avoidance of flats. Going from clinchers to tubulars, one of the big benefits for me was an almost complete elimination of flats. Going from 6-8 per season down to 0-1 is outstanding, from my perspective. It's hardly possible to improve on that record. So far, using the tubeless clincher set up I'm using, I'm in the same ballpark. For that reason alone, I am never going back to tubes. Living where I do, there is a special hell in changing a tire on a hot day with no wind in a swarm of mosquitoes. No desire to go back to that again.

J.

nickw 12-12-17 05:07 PM


Originally Posted by Rob_E (Post 20048871)
Fortunately I've not had that experience. Most of my riding for the past year has been on tubeless tires, but the only failure so far was when the sealant dried up, and I had to deal with a slow leak until I added more sealant.

Little confusing, though, because you say that if you have to use a tube, you'll end up with a tire that's more susceptible to failure, but then say that when your sidewall fails, you can go happily for months with a tube. I guess it depends on what kind of failure and what kind of tire.

My Almotions seem very robust. I would rather they were a little more supple. I suspect that if I ran them with tubes they'd be almost as stiff as the Marathon Plusses, but running them tubeless, they are okay. They have flat protection that, in a tubeless tire, seems overkill, but I'm sure not worried about getting flats should I ever need to put a tube in.



Really a non-issue for me because I've never sold a wheel. I've used a wheel to the point where no one else would want it, but I've never sold one.

Point was that you can use, and many do us, lighter weight tires tubeless since they don't flat as often. If you do flat and throw in a tube, you'll have a higher chance of flatting again. Nothing absolute as it depends on a number of factors.

nickw 12-12-17 05:54 PM


Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 20048890)
Thanks for the link. Interesting tires. Going to see lots more innovation in tires for tubeless in the coming months and years.

I have run the G-1 speeds over a considerable amount of gravel without a problem. But, I get it, this discussion is no different from any other tire debate - someone thinks they are great. Someone thinks they were the tire invented by the devil. It's almost as bad as bike seats. That said, I haven't had any trouble and the performance has been great, so I'm going to stick with them. For my application and for my use, they are right up there and I like them a lot.

What is more interesting to me though is the performance I get in the avoidance of flats. Going from clinchers to tubulars, one of the big benefits for me was an almost complete elimination of flats. Going from 6-8 per season down to 0-1 is outstanding, from my perspective. It's hardly possible to improve on that record. So far, using the tubeless clincher set up I'm using, I'm in the same ballpark. For that reason alone, I am never going back to tubes. Living where I do, there is a special hell in changing a tire on a hot day with no wind in a swarm of mosquitoes. No desire to go back to that again.

J.

I wasn't speaking in absolutes like that - just offering a different opinion and the experience of a few who use them. This is a touring forum after all, some folks tour around the world and in extreme conditions, you may differ...it's your call.

You went from multiple flats to minimal for a number of reason, none of which likely have anything do with using tubulars. If you went with a high end / expensive tubular, something like a cotton casing handmade FMB with latex tube, you'd be flatting often. Your essentially running a tubuless tire with the tubular you picked.

And if your carrying an extra tire, any offset of weight using lighter tubeless tires is largely a moot point. I'd consider it a moot point regardless since you and your load are going to be varying by more than a couple hundred grams a day anyway...

JohnJ80 12-12-17 07:10 PM


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20049169)
I wasn't speaking in absolutes like that - just offering a different opinion and the experience of a few who use them. This is a touring forum after all, some folks tour around the world and in extreme conditions, you may differ...it's your call.

Sure. And agree.


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20049169)
You went from multiple flats to minimal for a number of reason, none of which likely have anything do with using tubulars. If you went with a high end / expensive tubular, something like a cotton casing handmade FMB with latex tube, you'd be flatting often. Your essentially running a tubuless tire with the tubular you picked.

Actually, it did have a lot to do with tubulars for two reasons: First, no pinch flats on tubulars. Secondly, I was using tubeless tubulars from Tufo and then from Clement. These have no tubes and you run them with sealant. The first case takes care of one class of punctures which is an issue around here with potholes and pavement defects on the road and gravel/road defects on back roads. The second case is really the precursor to why tubeless tires are becoming popular on the road now and have been popular in mountain biking for a long time. With no tube, any puncture is more directly sealed by the sealant in the tire than with a tube.


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20049169)
And if your carrying an extra tire, any offset of weight using lighter tubeless tires is largely a moot point. I'd consider it a moot point regardless since you and your load are going to be varying by more than a couple hundred grams a day anyway...

Disagree here. There is a major difference between heavy weight rotating and the same weight carried statically. and is roughly a factor of two different. Definitely not moot - taking a quarter of a pound (~100g) out of a tire makes them noticeably easier to accelerate. Taking ~200g out of a wheel set is not at all insignificant. Not to mention, of course, that the location of that rotating weight was in the worst possible place at the outer edge of wheel.

But, be that as it may, I already said I carry an extra tire as a matter of course while touring regardless of whether is tubeless, clincher or tubular. So it is moot with respect to the tire type since I have one either way. So you'd be wrong again here.

I also gain the fact that a puncture can be fixed with a tubeless tire repair kit such as from Blackburn, Dynaplug or Bontrager without having to remove the tire. That is fast and simple and cannot be be done with a tubed clincher.

J.

Western Flyer 12-12-17 09:11 PM


Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 20046585)
I see absolutely no reason not to use tubeless tires on a tour.

I can give my reason for not touring with tubeless tires. I typically pack a set of knobby dirt/gravel tires, 40mm, in my panniers. When I see and interesting Forest Service road or some challenging single track my 28/32 road slicks come off and as often as not go back on later in the day. I canít imagine the time and mess it would mean to switch out tubeless tires on the road.

nickw 12-12-17 10:38 PM


Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 20049290)
Sure. And agree.



Actually, it did have a lot to do with tubulars for two reasons: First, no pinch flats on tubulars. Secondly, I was using tubeless tubulars from Tufo and then from Clement. These have no tubes and you run them with sealant. The first case takes care of one class of punctures which is an issue around here with potholes and pavement defects on the road and gravel/road defects on back roads. The second case is really the precursor to why tubeless tires are becoming popular on the road now and have been popular in mountain biking for a long time. With no tube, any puncture is more directly sealed by the sealant in the tire than with a tube.



Disagree here. There is a major difference between heavy weight rotating and the same weight carried statically. and is roughly a factor of two different. Definitely not moot - taking a quarter of a pound (~100g) out of a tire makes them noticeably easier to accelerate. Taking ~200g out of a wheel set is not at all insignificant. Not to mention, of course, that the location of that rotating weight was in the worst possible place at the outer edge of wheel.

But, be that as it may, I already said I carry an extra tire as a matter of course while touring regardless of whether is tubeless, clincher or tubular. So it is moot with respect to the tire type since I have one either way. So you'd be wrong again here.

I also gain the fact that a puncture can be fixed with a tubeless tire repair kit such as from Blackburn, Dynaplug or Bontrager without having to remove the tire. That is fast and simple and cannot be be done with a tubed clincher.

J.

Did you read what I wrote? I realize what kind of tubulars you were using, which is why I said they are essentially 'tubeless' tubulars. That's why you are not flatting and further to my point of if you used a high end race tubulars that have a latex tubes (like the FMB's I mentioned) you'd be flatting often. It has nothing to do with it being a tubular per se but rather a tubeless version of them.

I honestly can't remember the last time I pinch flatted a tube on a road bike, it's been 10 years....at least.

The whole rotating weight thing has been played out and hashed out ad naseum. Acceleration up may be slower but you gain on the back end...they carry inertia better and will pull you further along once you stop pedaling. For racing, sprinting, quick accelerations it (kinda) matters (but probably overstated), for sustained riding it doesn't matter. Particularly not for touring, of all things. I could post links but you can google as easily as me. Regardless, it's a total weight game that matters, aka total bike weight, that's going to hinder you on climbs. Tires are the last place you wanna skimp on a tour.

DeepSpace 12-13-17 12:04 AM

Let's be civil. One of the reasons I don't do forums is how out of control have to be "right" poster's can be. I simply was asking a question. Personally I have been in the industry since mid 70's, a lot of the statements made have been beat back and forth continuously. Stored energy of heavier tire, bigger rim, the list goes on.
And I have 12 sets of wheels set up tubeless. Only 1 would be hard to service on the road. Maybe I am lucky because of rim choice/tire conbo.
You leave on your trip tubeless or not. End of story..

Andrew1240 12-13-17 06:28 AM

I'm sure tubeless is fine if you're touring somewhere you're not too far from a bike shop, but I would not want to take them to Central Asia or somewhere. Sure, they'll probably be fine, but if they're not...

JohnJ80 12-13-17 09:45 AM


Originally Posted by nickw (Post 20049637)
Did you read what I wrote? I realize what kind of tubulars you were using, which is why I said they are essentially 'tubeless' tubulars. That's why you are not flatting and further to my point of if you used a high end race tubulars that have a latex tubes (like the FMB's I mentioned) you'd be flatting often. It has nothing to do with it being a tubular per se but rather a tubeless version of them.

I honestly can't remember the last time I pinch flatted a tube on a road bike, it's been 10 years....at least.

YES - thank you. We agree on the tubeless nature of the tubulars that I use being a benefit in avoiding flats. I'm glad you now agree that the tubeless nature of my tires contributed to the marked improvement in flats. Seems to me that strongly supports my argument for tubeless tires while touring. Not the only choice certainly, but a very good choice. Please note that was part of my argument above.

FWIW, I did get pinch flats and those have been eliminated with tubeless clincher tires and with tubulars (I have also run tubed tubulars and have never gotten a pinch flat with them either). I did get pinch flats on occasion with tubed clinchers.



The whole rotating weight thing has been played out and hashed out ad naseum. Acceleration up may be slower but you gain on the back end...they carry inertia better and will pull you further along once you stop pedaling. For racing, sprinting, quick accelerations it (kinda) matters (but probably overstated), for sustained riding it doesn't matter. Particularly not for touring, of all things. I could post links but you can google as easily as me. Regardless, it's a total weight game that matters, aka total bike weight, that's going to hinder you on climbs.
I have two bikes that are virtually the same weight, or at least that I have set up that way. One has a heavier frame and I equipped it with my significantly lighter wheels and tires. The other has a lighter frame and I equipped it with my somewhat heavier wheels and tires. Difference between wheel sets with tires is about 400g. I then rode the same relatively hilly routes multiple times and compared them through Strava. Without question, there was a speed benefit to using the lighter wheels. Same weight bikes only difference was moving weight from wheels to frame. If you want to run heavier wheels, far be it from me to tell you otherwise and I wouldn't presume to. I am very comfortable with my choice.


Tires are the last place you wanna skimp on a tour.
I'm not skimping, quite the opposite.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.