Originally Posted by
msbiker
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
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.