Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Any practical reviews or testing of Muc-Off Inner Tube Sealant?

Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Any practical reviews or testing of Muc-Off Inner Tube Sealant?

Old 04-17-21, 08:30 AM
  #1  
tomtomtom123
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 122 Times in 90 Posts
Any practical reviews or testing of Muc-Off Inner Tube Sealant?

Does anyone know of practical reviews or tests of Muc-Off No Puncture Hassle Inner Tube Sealant?

It seems to be glycol based going by the MSDS, similar to Slime. (Edit: I thought there was an MSDS For the Muc-off inner tube sealant that indicated glycol base, but I could be mistaken. The MSDS that I saw might have been for their tubeless sealant, but I can't find it anymore. Some websites claim the Muc-off inner tube sealant is water based, but what the manufacturer's website says is "water soluble". But their tubeless sealant says the same thing too.) The only practical test of similar sealants I know of is this website:
https://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/...rt_1_4147.html

It seems to indicate glycol sealants being less effective than latex sealants for larger punctures on butyl tubes.

I currently have Stan's/Schwalbe Doc Blue (latex based) in my lightweight Butyl inner tubes. But I have Big Ben Plus tires with greenguard strip, and haven't experienced any punctures, so It's unknown to me whether the Doc Blue is effective. I was thinking of switching to lighter weight tires without a plastic protection strip. But the Latex based sealants dry up over time and require a refill every 3 months or so. The Glycol based sealants like and the Muc-Off inner tube sealant claim not to dry up and don't need a refill, although requires an initial fill which is equivalent to approximately 3 times the refill of a latex based sealant.

I've also read recommendations to use normal thickness butyl instead of the thinner lightweight versions, for sealants to be more effective. Is this true? I would prefer to save a little bit of weight with the lightweight tubes.

Last edited by tomtomtom123; 04-17-21 at 08:44 AM.
tomtomtom123 is offline  
Old 04-17-21, 11:30 AM
  #2  
squirtdad
Senior Member
 
squirtdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,856

Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque

Mentioned: 104 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2304 Post(s)
Liked 2,742 Times in 1,499 Posts
no experience, sounds interesting, so far of the sealants I have tried with tubes and tubular caffelatex has worked the best (but have way fewer flats since i went from vittora corsa clinchers to conti gp5000 clinchers and/or vitorria corsa control tubular)
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)



squirtdad is offline  
Old 04-21-21, 08:23 AM
  #3  
BikeLite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,174
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked 145 Times in 93 Posts
https://road.cc/content/review/muc-i...sealant-277333

Verdict: 7/10
Impressive sealing capabilities and long lasting, but a bit more Presta-specific compatibility would be nice

Pros
Seals small holes quickly
Remains liquid for a long time

Cons
Installation tube and valve core key are Schrader specific

Weight: 347g

Last edited by BikeLite; 04-21-21 at 08:42 AM.
BikeLite is offline  
Old 04-23-21, 07:55 AM
  #4  
tomtomtom123
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,064
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 122 Times in 90 Posts
Yes I saw that webpage already on the top of the Google search results but the content of the review wasn't very metrics based or comparative with other existing sealants on the market.

I understand from the review that this sealant can be effective under certain conditions. But I would like to know more. Like what kind of inner tube was used for the test, what is the base for the sealant to estimate how closely it may perform to other brands of similar composition, or to guess how realistic their claim of no refills is compared to how long other similar sealants have lasted. And most useful would be a test like the slowtwitch test with multiple brands with almost identical and repeatable conditions.
tomtomtom123 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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.