Metaluna

I thought that got answered several times?

Anyway, I believe the answer to your first question is NO, from the point of view of someone using tubes, there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between tubeless, tubeless-ready, and conventional clincher tires. Unsuitable is a strong term. They are all suitable for use with tubes on any hooked rim of the correct diameter, and will work pretty much exactly the same as conventional clinchers.

There are however, qualitative downsides to using a tubeless or tubeless ready tire when you don't need to:
1) Tighter-than-necessary beads that might give you trouble during road repairs
2) Possibly heavier construction that *might* affect the ride characteristics (i.e. slightly slower, harsher ride).

#2 is really all over the map though. Unless there exists a tubeless and non-tubeless version of the same tire (e,g, Conti GP5000), you really can't make any predictions based on the tubeless rating. Even if there IS a tubeless and clincher version of the same tire, sometimes they have different features, e.g. Schwalbe sometimes puts extra flat protection on the clincher version, as someone else already mentioned. You really have to look at the reviews on a case-by-case basis.


Edit: I forgot to answer your second question. In some cases, "tubeless" means a tire that can hold air on its own without sealant (e.g. it has a butyl liner or something like that). Tubeless-ready (or TLR, or TL-Easy, or 2Bliss, etc.) tires *might* rely on sealant impregnating the casing to make them fully airtight (like the Hutchinson Sectors I had for a while). So a true tubeless tire might be heavier than a tubeless ready tire. Or not. These days the terminology is all over the map and I wouldn't worry about it when using tubes.