Tires set up tubeless are more comfortable?
08-17-19, 03:09 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 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!
08-17-19, 05:25 PM
#2
- Soli Deo Gloria -
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: 235 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6844 Post(s)
Liked 736 Times
in
469 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-
"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-
08-17-19, 05:31 PM
#3
Non omnino gravis
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.
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.
__________________
08-17-19, 05:41 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 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-
"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-
08-17-19, 05:50 PM
#5
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,087
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3410 Post(s)
Liked 3,542 Times
in
1,782 Posts
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?
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. ROUVY: terrymorse
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse
08-17-19, 09:45 PM
#6
Senior Member
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.
08-18-19, 02:19 AM
#8
Senior Member
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."
"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."
08-18-19, 04:17 AM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
https://gravelbikes.cc/methodology/
08-18-19, 12:05 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 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-
"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-
Who cares about puncture protection at all if they never lead to flats. It's synonymous to flat protection.
Likes For Happy Feet:
08-19-19, 02:59 AM
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 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.
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.
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.
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.
08-19-19, 08:17 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times
in
173 Posts
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!
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!
08-19-19, 11:43 AM
#15
Senior Member
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!
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
08-19-19, 12:19 PM
#16
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,605
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10947 Post(s)
Liked 7,473 Times
in
4,181 Posts
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?
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?
08-19-19, 12:36 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times
in
173 Posts
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?
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?
08-19-19, 12:56 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,537
Bikes: yes
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1281 Post(s)
Liked 643 Times
in
329 Posts
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?
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?
08-19-19, 02:04 PM
#20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
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
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
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.
08-19-19, 02:10 PM
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
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
Last edited by sweetspot; 08-19-19 at 04:21 PM.
