Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational)
Reload this Page >

Tires set up tubeless are more comfortable?

Notices
Cyclocross and Gravelbiking (Recreational) This has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course or riding the off pavement rides on gravel like :The Dirty Kanza". We also have a dedicated Racing forum for the Cyclocross Hard Core Racers.

Tires set up tubeless are more comfortable?

Old 08-17-19, 03:09 PM
  #1  
sweetspot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Tires set up tubeless are more comfortable?

I heard that opinion many times. But is it true? I tested Panaracer Gravelking SK both 43mm and 50mm (700c wheel) with 30 psi and 20 psi air pressure and to my suprise it turns out that tubeless setup is most of the time less comfortable than tires with inner tubes! If you want to find out more please read my test (https://gravelbikes.cc/tests/is-tube...e-comfortable/) and share your thoghts here. I am very interested in your take on that matter!
sweetspot is offline  
Old 08-17-19, 05:25 PM
  #2  
TimothyH
- Soli Deo Gloria -
 
TimothyH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,779

Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix

Mentioned: 232 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6814 Post(s)
Liked 634 Times in 403 Posts
With all due respect, I didn't get past the first sentence of the article.

"The main benefit of going tubeless is an increased puncture protection."

Again, with due respect, tubeless does not protect against punctures. Both tubeless and non-tubeless get the same punctures. Tubeless only reduces the risk that a puncture will result in a flat.


-Tim-
TimothyH is offline  
Old 08-17-19, 05:31 PM
  #3  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 7,116

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3870 Post(s)
Liked 367 Times in 238 Posts
If you're uncomfortable on 50mm tires @ 20psi, you're either doing something very wrong, or I'm doing it very right, because I have a near-cloudlike ride on tubeless 700x35s @ 60psi.

I have no direct comparison to make, though-- my only "hold out" bike with tubes has 700x28 Panaracer RibMos on it, and I could ride those tires across a beach made entirely out of thorns and broken glass. They're hard as rocks, and they roll like it.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 08-17-19, 05:41 PM
  #4  
sweetspot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by TimothyH View Post
With all due respect, I didn't get past the first sentence of the article.

"The main benefit of going tubeless is an increased puncture protection."

Again, with due respect, tubeless does not protect against punctures. Both tubeless and non-tubeless get the same punctures. Tubeless only reduces the risk that a puncture will result in a flat.


-Tim-
You are absolutely right! I meant a flat protection but used wrong words for describing that. Thank you for your comment. I will change the wording on my website accordingly.
sweetspot is offline  
Old 08-17-19, 05:50 PM
  #5  
terrymorse 
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 3,346

Bikes: Scott Addict R1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by TimothyH View Post
Tubeless only reduces the risk that a puncture will result in a flat.
I don't think a tubeless reduces the chance of a flat, except maybe a "snake bite" or "pinch flat" type of puncture.

Compare a slimed tubeless tire with a conventional tire and slimed tube. Under what conditions is the tubeless less likely to result in a flat?
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat
terrymorse is offline  
Old 08-17-19, 09:45 PM
  #6  
u235
Senior Member
 
u235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 928
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 24 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse View Post
I don't think a tubeless reduces the chance of a flat, except maybe a "snake bite" or "pinch flat" type of puncture.

Compare a slimed tubeless tire with a conventional tire and slimed tube. Under what conditions is the tubeless less likely to result in a flat?
I have used a few tubes on a bike with slime. Some observations... Did nothing at all for a small slice and once a small nail and I know other times where it did nothing for me. To the point I gave up on it and went with liners instead. A few times Slime did stop a leak and got me home but in every case the tire was totally flat the next day or at random a few days after sitting unused. I had similar experiences with my other tubed and tubeless things with slime like wheelbarrow, dolly, garden tractor etc.. the slime works for the most part but too many times those tires randomly end up totally flat after sitting for a few days. Statistically I can say tubeless with a latex sealant (not slime brand) has eliminated getting flats on my bike.

Last edited by u235; 08-17-19 at 10:00 PM.
u235 is offline  
Old 08-17-19, 09:51 PM
  #7  
wsteve464
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
How did you measure the different percentages?
wsteve464 is online now  
Old 08-18-19, 02:19 AM
  #8  
raisinberry777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Hobart, Australia
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by wsteve464 View Post
How did you measure the different percentages?
From his website:

"It starts with the mobile phone (Huawei Mate 10 Pro) and a Vibration meter app that uses a phone accelerometer to measure, as the name suggest, vibrations. The less overall vibration score measured in m/s2 the more comfortable the ride."
raisinberry777 is offline  
Old 08-18-19, 04:17 AM
  #9  
sweetspot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by wsteve464 View Post
How did you measure the different percentages?
Originally Posted by raisinberry777 View Post
From his website:

"It starts with the mobile phone (Huawei Mate 10 Pro) and a Vibration meter app that uses a phone accelerometer to measure, as the name suggest, vibrations. The less overall vibration score measured in m/s2 the more comfortable the ride."
Yes, my methodology is quite simple yet I think very useful. I measure both front and rear vibrations and compare results between different solutions. If you want to find out more please visit the section where I describe my testing methodology in more details.
https://gravelbikes.cc/methodology/
sweetspot is offline  
Old 08-18-19, 06:01 AM
  #10  
Gconan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 295

Bikes: Norco search xr

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked 30 Times in 11 Posts
Maybe it's just the gravel Kings that are not very supple.


Gconan is online now  
Old 08-18-19, 12:05 PM
  #11  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,394
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1331 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times in 128 Posts
Originally Posted by TimothyH View Post
With all due respect, I didn't get past the first sentence of the article.

"The main benefit of going tubeless is an increased puncture protection."

Again, with due respect, tubeless does not protect against punctures. Both tubeless and non-tubeless get the same punctures. Tubeless only reduces the risk that a puncture will result in a flat.


-Tim-
meh. That's a semamtic argument at best. I'm sure no one was confused by the term.

Who cares about puncture protection at all if they never lead to flats. It's synonymous to flat protection.
Happy Feet is offline  
Likes For Happy Feet:
Old 08-18-19, 12:36 PM
  #12  
Spoonrobot 
Senior Member
 
Spoonrobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,297
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1051 Post(s)
Liked 70 Times in 48 Posts
I don't think your testing methodology is appropriate to the information you are attempting to study.

This is the app you are using? Based on the sample video and other information it seems like this app is the wrong choice to provide meaningful data for bicycle tire testing when mounted on the tester's body.

I'd like to see the phone mounted to a specific point on the bike and a series of tests for consistency run, with proper regression analysis performed as well. I'd also like to see the same testing run with the weight of a tube added to the wheels for the tubeless set-up. An accelerometer app is going to be very sensitive to small changes and even adding a 100 grams/3.5 ounces can create what appears to be a large difference due to additional damping that is unable to be perceived by the human body. The shock-stop stem and seatpost are also adding noise into your testing environment and should be discard for a test of this nature.

To measure the front I ride on the hoods (to put more weight on the handlebar that will allow more flex from the handlebar and/ or flexing stem) with a phone mounted just in the middle of my left forearm
The human body expresses vibration is vastly different ways depending on water retention, salt content, muscle state and other factors. I do not think this is a scientifically sound mounting solution.

This is another issue:

I also can’t totally accuretaly measure a very small difference for example between 5 psi of air pressure change in the tire. This means that results that show a marginal difference like 1% or even 2% should be read as basically the same.
If you can't measure a delta of 5 psi then the window for discarded marginal difference is not 1-2% it's 15%-25% marginal difference. Which would rule every result obtained in your trials as statistical noise. For tires being tested at 20/30 psi you need to be able to accurately measure a change of smaller than 1 psi using a laboratory-style consumer grade gauge.

As someone who attempted and gave up on using accelerometers to test tire speed/comfort I respect what you're trying to do but I don't believe you're producing robust data at this time.
Spoonrobot is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 02:59 AM
  #13  
sweetspot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Spoonrobot View Post
I don't think your testing methodology is appropriate to the information you are attempting to study.

This is the app you are using? Based on the sample video and other information it seems like this app is the wrong choice to provide meaningful data for bicycle tire testing when mounted on the tester's body.

I'd like to see the phone mounted to a specific point on the bike and a series of tests for consistency run, with proper regression analysis performed as well. I'd also like to see the same testing run with the weight of a tube added to the wheels for the tubeless set-up. An accelerometer app is going to be very sensitive to small changes and even adding a 100 grams/3.5 ounces can create what appears to be a large difference due to additional damping that is unable to be perceived by the human body. The shock-stop stem and seatpost are also adding noise into your testing environment and should be discard for a test of this nature.



The human body expresses vibration is vastly different ways depending on water retention, salt content, muscle state and other factors. I do not think this is a scientifically sound mounting solution.

This is another issue:



If you can't measure a delta of 5 psi then the window for discarded marginal difference is not 1-2% it's 15%-25% marginal difference. Which would rule every result obtained in your trials as statistical noise. For tires being tested at 20/30 psi you need to be able to accurately measure a change of smaller than 1 psi using a laboratory-style consumer grade gauge.

As someone who attempted and gave up on using accelerometers to test tire speed/comfort I respect what you're trying to do but I don't believe you're producing robust data at this time.
Thank you for your input, very appreciated! I am glad that there are other people who tried to do the same what I am trying to do. But I think I must clarify some things.

The whole gravel challenge project was brought to live because I am genuinely interested in finding the most comfortable bike setup possible. My spine and my knee are not in the best shape so I really need a bike that will be as comfortable as possible. So, apart from subjective feelings (which is all you can get from professional bike reviewers), I needed some more objective way of defining what is more comfortable. Thus I came up with my method of measuring vibrations and thus I measure those vibrations on my body. I am not interested in finding exactly how frame is compilant alone (that is why I do not measure frame vibrations) but how my body vibrates when I do my usuall riding (both forrest and fast gravel). Based on your comment I should probably stop calling my method scientific at all because I know that scientific means that not only measurement are controlled (which are in my case) but also are easily replicable (which are not in my case because they are applicable only to my specific case, my specific body and my specific test routes).

For my purposes my methodology is enough because it shows in repeatable tests which solution adds comfort to my bike and which is not. I am aware of limitations of my measurement that is why I created a marging of error like 2%. Maybe it should be even bigger like 5% and I should not try to measure impact of a marginally different setup like tubeless vs tubes but again, if I constantly get a readings around 10% (and above) less vibration I can with 99% certainty say that in my case this solution is indeed more comfortable and thus more beneficial to my rides. And to be honest it is all I want to achieve. I am not interested in scientific lab tests but a real life objective (as objective as possible) measurments.

Maybe all of above should be on my website so people will not be mistaken and know exactly what I am after...

Again, thank you very much for your input!

Last edited by sweetspot; 08-19-19 at 03:09 AM.
sweetspot is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 08:17 AM
  #14  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,387
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1772 Post(s)
Liked 72 Times in 55 Posts
Originally Posted by sweetspot View Post
Thank you for your input, very appreciated! I am glad that there are other people who tried to do the same what I am trying to do. But I think I must clarify some things.

The whole gravel challenge project was brought to live because I am genuinely interested in finding the most comfortable bike setup possible. My spine and my knee are not in the best shape so I really need a bike that will be as comfortable as possible. So, apart from subjective feelings (which is all you can get from professional bike reviewers), I needed some more objective way of defining what is more comfortable. Thus I came up with my method of measuring vibrations and thus I measure those vibrations on my body. I am not interested in finding exactly how frame is compilant alone (that is why I do not measure frame vibrations) but how my body vibrates when I do my usuall riding (both forrest and fast gravel). Based on your comment I should probably stop calling my method scientific at all because I know that scientific means that not only measurement are controlled (which are in my case) but also are easily replicable (which are not in my case because they are applicable only to my specific case, my specific body and my specific test routes).

For my purposes my methodology is enough because it shows in repeatable tests which solution adds comfort to my bike and which is not. I am aware of limitations of my measurement that is why I created a marging of error like 2%. Maybe it should be even bigger like 5% and I should not try to measure impact of a marginally different setup like tubeless vs tubes but again, if I constantly get a readings around 10% (and above) less vibration I can with 99% certainty say that in my case this solution is indeed more comfortable and thus more beneficial to my rides. And to be honest it is all I want to achieve. I am not interested in scientific lab tests but a real life objective (as objective as possible) measurments.

Maybe all of above should be on my website so people will not be mistaken and know exactly what I am after...

Again, thank you very much for your input!
so did tubed actually feel smoother? You can also run lower pressure tubeless since you don't have to worry about pinch flats that would make a much bigger difference if your goal is comfort, like can you run the GK at 20psi tubed consistently on real terrain and not get pinch flats? That seems on the low side for a non tubeless setup
redlude97 is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 08:21 AM
  #15  
ksryder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,180

Bikes: yes

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 953 Post(s)
Liked 239 Times in 142 Posts
LOL people still use Slime?
ksryder is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 11:43 AM
  #16  
Caliper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 824

Bikes: Many

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by sweetspot View Post
Thank you for your input, very appreciated! I am glad that there are other people who tried to do the same what I am trying to do. But I think I must clarify some things.


The whole gravel challenge project was brought to live because I am genuinely interested in finding the most comfortable bike setup possible. My spine and my knee are not in the best shape so I really need a bike that will be as comfortable as possible. So, apart from subjective feelings (which is all you can get from professional bike reviewers), I needed some more objective way of defining what is more comfortable. Thus I came up with my method of measuring vibrations and thus I measure those vibrations on my body. I am not interested in finding exactly how frame is compilant alone (that is why I do not measure frame vibrations) but how my body vibrates when I do my usuall riding (both forrest and fast gravel). Based on your comment I should probably stop calling my method scientific at all because I know that scientific means that not only measurement are controlled (which are in my case) but also are easily replicable (which are not in my case because they are applicable only to my specific case, my specific body and my specific test routes).


For my purposes my methodology is enough because it shows in repeatable tests which solution adds comfort to my bike and which is not. I am aware of limitations of my measurement that is why I created a marging of error like 2%. Maybe it should be even bigger like 5% and I should not try to measure impact of a marginally different setup like tubeless vs tubes but again, if I constantly get a readings around 10% (and above) less vibration I can with 99% certainty say that in my case this solution is indeed more comfortable and thus more beneficial to my rides. And to be honest it is all I want to achieve. I am not interested in scientific lab tests but a real life objective (as objective as possible) measurments.


Maybe all of above should be on my website so people will not be mistaken and know exactly what I am after...


Again, thank you very much for your input!

A) spend $20 to get a tire pressure gauge off Amazon. I have a 0-60psi range unit that I set my pressures with, plenty for 40-50mm tires. It has markings every 2psi and they are widely enough spaced that getting to a 1psi resolution is reasonable. Plus it has a built in valve to bleed pressure and easily set exactly the pressure you want. Pump the tires 5psi or so above your target pressure and then bleed the pressure down.


B) Mounting the phone on your body is pretty suspect, IMO. There is a lot of damping there, and the acceleration measured on your skin surface is nothing like what your bones and joints are getting. I've got that same phone mount and it was forever slipping and moving about so I would not trust numbers from that. As others have said, measure on the bike if you are trying to get data on the tire. Adding in the compliance of your body and body contact points obscures the data from just the tire.


C) What is the actual data from the phone? It is measuring acceleration in m/s^2, but what is the "score" you are using? Peak? Average? Something else? What are the numbers? Just saying that one is a few % better than the other doesn't really say much.


D) What are your subjective impressions? Do you agree with the data?



Personally, I have never really noticed a subjective change in ride quality from tubeless. Then again, I set my tire pressures with rolling resistance in mind (205lb bike + rider, ran 34/50psi on 700x40's). I know I can run lower than I do (and lower is indeed more comfortable) but have also done rolldown tests that show those lower pressures do not roll as far. The pressures I run are comfortable enough, far lower than I ran in the past, and roll really well. Right now I want the speed
Caliper is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 12:19 PM
  #17  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,670

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '87 Schwinn Prelude, Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo, '18 Diamondback Syncr

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3175 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 280 Times in 193 Posts
Originally Posted by ksryder View Post
LOL people still use Slime?
Laughing at people using slime...is that necessary?
I half dont think it is necessary, but the other half is curious since I dont even use tubeless, much less slime. LOL at me too, I guess.

Seeing as how I will go tubeless in a few weeks, why is it so bad to use slime that its worth laughing at those who use it?
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 12:36 PM
  #18  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,387
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1772 Post(s)
Liked 72 Times in 55 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
Laughing at people using slime...is that necessary?
I half dont think it is necessary, but the other half is curious since I dont even use tubeless, much less slime. LOL at me too, I guess.

Seeing as how I will go tubeless in a few weeks, why is it so bad to use slime that its worth laughing at those who use it?
slime works for pinpricks in tubes. The main problem is that is ineffective if the tire gets a decent enough slice that won't seal and it generally will leak and make a mess of the inside of the tire as well. Slime tubes are pretty heavy overall and not exactly comparable to a tubeless setup
redlude97 is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 12:56 PM
  #19  
ksryder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,180

Bikes: yes

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 953 Post(s)
Liked 239 Times in 142 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
Laughing at people using slime...is that necessary?
I half dont think it is necessary, but the other half is curious since I dont even use tubeless, much less slime. LOL at me too, I guess.

Seeing as how I will go tubeless in a few weeks, why is it so bad to use slime that its worth laughing at those who use it?
Just being ornery. Orange Seal is superior in every way, Slime is terrible and doesn't work and I assumed that was common knowledge.
ksryder is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 01:13 PM
  #20  
tdilf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Southeastern PA
Posts: 74

Bikes: Trek Remedy 9.8 | Niner RLT RDO

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by ksryder View Post
Slime is terrible and doesn't work and I assumed that was common knowledge.
This is the first time I have ever heard this…
tdilf is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 02:04 PM
  #21  
sweetspot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Caliper View Post
A) spend $20 to get a tire pressure gauge off Amazon. I have a 0-60psi range unit that I set my pressures with, plenty for 40-50mm tires. It has markings every 2psi and they are widely enough spaced that getting to a 1psi resolution is reasonable. Plus it has a built in valve to bleed pressure and easily set exactly the pressure you want. Pump the tires 5psi or so above your target pressure and then bleed the pressure down.


B) Mounting the phone on your body is pretty suspect, IMO. There is a lot of damping there, and the acceleration measured on your skin surface is nothing like what your bones and joints are getting. I've got that same phone mount and it was forever slipping and moving about so I would not trust numbers from that. As others have said, measure on the bike if you are trying to get data on the tire. Adding in the compliance of your body and body contact points obscures the data from just the tire.


C) What is the actual data from the phone? It is measuring acceleration in m/s^2, but what is the "score" you are using? Peak? Average? Something else? What are the numbers? Just saying that one is a few % better than the other doesn't really say much.


D) What are your subjective impressions? Do you agree with the data?



Personally, I have never really noticed a subjective change in ride quality from tubeless. Then again, I set my tire pressures with rolling resistance in mind (205lb bike + rider, ran 34/50psi on 700x40's). I know I can run lower than I do (and lower is indeed more comfortable) but have also done rolldown tests that show those lower pressures do not roll as far. The pressures I run are comfortable enough, far lower than I ran in the past, and roll really well. Right now I want the speed
answering your comments:

A - thank you for the advice, I will buy this tool but to be honest my current pump is quite accurate in terms of showing actual tire pressure. It will be more useful when using a hand pump because right now I need to go back home after one test run, change the pressure and go back. With the tool you are recommending I will be able to change pressure accurately also with my hand pump.

B - I know what you have in mind - it can move that is why I always setting it tight before each run and if it starts to slipp I go back and start again.
I hear your comment about a difficulty of measuring a tire impact with my current methodology. Like I said before - the reason I am measuring vibrations on my body is because I want to know how much vibrations is reaching my body. But I feel challenged by you guys to find out a way of mounting my phone both to my handlebar and to my saddle to see if my measurement (percentages) will be similar or different to my current measuring methodology.

C - Of course I am using average vibration score. I am not interested in peak nor in the lowest reading because they can change much more than an average reading. In near future I will post an article about all my current findings (something like a summary) where I will also put the numbers. Right now I am using a % because I feel it is far easier to draw conclusions from this than from raw data that you have to calculate on your own.

D - I try to sum up my every test with my subjective opinion but you may be right - it will be beneficial to all when I will say more about my subjective feelings too. Right now I can say that for shockstop stem my subjective opinion is very much in line with the measurements. In terms of Ergon CF3 Pro seat post I was under impression that it provides more comfort than the readings say. I do not (like you) felt any improvement in terms of comfort when going tubeless and I felt that 50c tire with 30 psi pressure was much less comfortable than 43c tire with the same pressure but interestingly I also felt improvement both front and rear when riding on 50c at 20 psi but my measurement showed moderate improvement only on front wheel.
sweetspot is offline  
Old 08-19-19, 02:10 PM
  #22  
sweetspot
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
so did tubed actually feel smoother? You can also run lower pressure tubeless since you don't have to worry about pinch flats that would make a much bigger difference if your goal is comfort, like can you run the GK at 20psi tubed consistently on real terrain and not get pinch flats? That seems on the low side for a non tubeless setup
Honestly like I said above, I did not feel any difference in terms of comfort but I definetely felt a difference in terms of safety when riding on 43mm at 20 psi. With tubed I quickly got a pinch flat and when set up tubeless I was riding in the forest rather confidently (but I much more liked 50c tire at 20 psi). So yes, tubeless is better when you want to run at 20 psi type of pressure and thus overall tubeless is better for comfort (but this is the case with 43mm tire).

Last edited by sweetspot; 08-19-19 at 04:21 PM.
sweetspot is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

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