Korbach

The final answer for tubeless vs standard road clincher will probably come in the form of a magazine shoot-out on the subject. That will probably only happen if the tubeless tyres start moving in big volumes. At this point that seems unlikely as the downsides in road tubeless far outweigh the positives and at this point it looks very niche market on a price basis. Meantime, the claims made in any test can always be checked and disputed if necessary. But the tests and the results are needed for the guidance of all and it's good that someone is doing it.

The test results are doing the rounds in Europe. Apparently done at the Continental test facility where the equipment for such tests exists. No doubt the tests are being conducted by all major manufacturers which would be normal in any new tech advance. Cannot say why the snake-bite results in tubeless tyres were so low. Possibly the fact that the pinch impact of the tyre casing against the wheel rim crotchets is cushioned by a thinner layer of sealing rubber in the t/less tyre that the thickness of the standard inner tube used in standard tyres.

On the tyre side, with tubeless road tyres, what you're experiencing is subjective (ie new technology so it must be good). Not so. The real facts: Tubeless vs tube tyre: Rolling resistance in % : The lower the figure the better: Hutchinson Fusion Tubeless. TL 23-622 0.48 Continental G.Prix 24-622 0.40 Continental Gp4000 Tubular 28 x mm 0.38 Michelin ProRace 3 23-622 0.35 Vittoria Open Corsa Evo KS 23-622 0.31 Continental GP4000S 23-622 0.28 Pinch flat resistance: The higher the better. Measurements in DaN Continental G.Prix 4000 Tubular 96 Continental G.Prix 4000S 88 Continental G.Prix 58 Michelin Pro Race 3 55 Hutchinson Fusion Tubeless 50 Vittoria Open Corsa 47 Weight in g. The lower the better: Michelin Pro Race 3 202 Continental G.Prix 4000S 209 Continental G.Prix 232 Vittoria Open Corsa 238 Continental GP4000 Tubular 273 Hutchinson Fusion Tubeless 304 A good quality light butyl tube would add around 75g in weight to the above (excepting obviously the tubular tyre). These figures would explain the lack of enthusiasm by most major manufacturers into releasing tubeless road tyres against Hutchinson's brave entry. Their Fusion tyres may prove to be a good bet as the technology improves, but right now there is no earth shaking feed-back from any top level competitor utilising the products. Tubeless tyres do puncture. What then? Carry a tube as spare? Back to square one. A tubeless tyre being converted to tube type. In MTB, tubeless make sense where low pressures are often needed. Who needs low pressures in narrow clinchers on tar roads? That's asking for handling problems in high speed bends and on fast long descents. Most premium grade manufacturers have reportedly got tubeless tyres in waiting (just in case), but the rush to market them is singularly unenthusiastic. Hutchinson are to be commended for taking the first brave leap into the unkown.

Go for Conti Mountain King 2.4" if you want tip-top handling and good casing strength. The MTN team are using the 2.2" versions of these tyres and winning everything. Only downside of the wider tyre is weight (marginal) but punture resistance is better, more comfortable ride, and the bigger footprint means longer tyre life.

Tyre liners aren't worth the effort. Most of them are too thick and hard which means they tend to get brittle with age and lift at the edges giving the tubes a great place to chafe against until air loss starts kicking in. They also add unecessary weight where you least need it. The better quality thin ones are too thin to really offer much protection against sharp and hard thorns or other debris. All liners move around during riding regardless of quality. This results in chafe damage to tyre and tube. Rolling resistance is increased and handling compromised. The previouse comments about going tubeless or using Sludge or Slime are good advice.

New Conti Race Kings cooking up a storm in Europe. A few World Champs won on Supersonic versions (Kalienkeva in particular). MTN guys apparently trying them now.

Non tubeless tyres have much thinner sidewalls than tubeless tyres. UST's have what is basically a tube vulcanised to the inside of the tyre and it serves 2 purposes. The first and primary one is air retention. The second is that it supports the sidewall at lower pressures and thus reduces sidewall flex. Non UST tyres which are converted to tubeless, have unsupported sidewalls which will flex a lot more than they would with tubes supporting them. Lower pressure would aggravate the flexing and cause material degeneration. All this will lead to porosity developing in the tyre's casing and allowing air to bleed through the sidewalls even though they have been sealed with latex milk like Sludge or Stan's or Slime etc. Sometimes 2 or 3 applications of sealant may be needed to seal the tyre. At the end of the day, genuine UST's are a much safer bet than converting.

Continental have been supplying tubes with removable valve cores (presta) for some time. Easy to fill with sealant. Some of their older tubes with non removable cores are still around so check before you buy. Locally produced Sludge seems to be one of the best sealants available and now comes in different compounds for road and MTB. Sludge supply Schwalbe in Germany who market the stuff in Europe under their own label of Doc Blue. The box states "Made in South Africa" which is just great!

Problem with tubbies these days is cost. A competitive set will set you back between R1200 and R1600. A top set will cost R1800 or more. Who can afford that? Generally most cyclists will throw a tubby away if it gets punctured or cut. Very few will go the open-repair-restitch route which results in a suspect tyre at top level performance anyway. Konica Minolta's Martin Velits and Yolande de du Toit won the mens and ladies elite section of the 94.7 a couple of years ago on training clinchers after they had a tyre supply problem. There were a number of pro riders behind them (Malcolm Lange for one) on top quality tubbies. So, how big is the performance gap between tubbies and top quality clinchers (never mind entry level training clinchers) on the day? At current prices and with the deteriorating Rand and SA road conditions, is there any sustainable future for the high tech carbon wheel/tubby explosion which has erupted in the last 3 or 4 years? I doubt it. It'll go back to niche market levels.

A fair warning from the Mavic importers I would say. People are obsessed with the idea that they're being ripped off by unscrupulous distributors, importers, get-rich-quick retail shops, and everything in between. The shops who've been in business for years and survived are not thieves. They are passionate about what they do. They have to make a profit to survive and 99% of them do not give any indication that they're getting rich quick. Just because some get-rich-quick artists have found ways to buy questionable products which have been dumped or rejected or stolen or sold in job lots at overseas auctions, is no reason to assume you're dealing with hoods at your LBS. Are these guys hoods out to steal your money? Tony Impey, Bruce Reyneke, Willie Engelbrecht, Cycle Lab, Olympic Cycles, Bridge Cycles, Cycle Centre Durban, Alpha Beta Cycles, Coimbra Cycles, Cyclopro, Willie Marx, Cycle HQ, Pro Cycles, Cyclopro, Morningside Cycles, West Rand Cycles, Westdene Cycles, The Cycle Hub, Dave Wiseman Cycles, Road Cycles, Pro T Cycles, Knysna cycle Works, The Bike Shpo Plett, Crown Cycles, Cycle Tech, Linden Cycles, Cycle World, Trimid Cycles, etc etc etc etc. This list could go on for a long time. No, they are not thieves and profiteers. They are dedicated professionals who will look after your best interests because if they don't they will not survive. Be very suspicious of those who imply that because they can pull moves, know shady suppliers overseas, and can land stuff super cheap, that they are the saviours of the cycle trade in South Africa and will rescue you from the dealers mentioned above.

If you've used Pliobond (Polybond) or someother contact adhesive, try using some WD40 lubricant. Works like magic on most tacky adhesives.

Wendell Bole of The Cycle Hub in Panorama reports excellent results using Stan's sealant in his tubbies. This whole explosive trend of high tech carbon and alloy wheels and expensive tubular tyres in SA seems doomed due to conditions on our roads (glass etc - thanks, taxi commuters). Replacing tubes in clinchers is far less painful than throwing away (often new) tubbies costing anywhere between R400 and R900 away because of punctures.

The trend to wider tyres is developing here now (it's been going that way overseas for a couple of years) so maybe you should consider that option. Bigger volume means a bigger footprint which reduces wear and improves grip and handling. You can also run lower pressures. Frame clearance can be a problem sometimes.

Continental guarantee their tyres agains material and manufacturing defects. Maybe you should ask your LBS to have the tyres checked by the distributor. Sometimes cracked tread can be a compound problem. It can also be caused by under inflation which results in excessive tyre flex.

Conti Mountain Kings worth a try. Now being used by Kevin Evans and the rest of the MTN and producing great results. UST's weigh in at less than 700g. Air volume on 2.2 is ideal for our conditions and can run right down to 1.9bars.

Attack/Force tyre sets have been used by the Microsoft Team for past 3 years and those guys have won just about everything.

The figures I used are abritrary ones for example purposes. I have no idea what the manufacturers make on OE supplies, I know it is only marginally above production cost. We used to supply you guys direct on a semi-sponsor basis as at that time, very few dealer's would keep tubbies as shelf stock so we only imported for track racing. Since the huge growth in fancy tubular composite and hi-tech wheels over the past 18 months or so, demand for tubbies has outsrtipped supply on a few occasions. Shelf stock is now the norm at many specialist shops and has become a standard stock line at wholesale level. CWC's prices on group sets or any other of the products he sells would be dependent on what he can buy from grey market suppliers at any given time. You would observe over a passage of time that his continuity of supply for many things would be very much hit-and-miss. Always shop around. If a product is expensive at one shop and cheap at another it may be due to stock levels which were imported at good/bad exchange rates and not just discounting or profiteering by the LSB. Saying the bike shops should consider moving out of expensive premises and operate out of warehouses would definitely be good for pricing. However, display and lighting, and visibilty are huge factors in allowing you to see and consider what you're buying. A pile of group sets in a crate in a dingy warehouse is not going to light your enthusiasm for spending money as easily as you think if the presentation is lousy. On-line business will continue to grow I think.

This is going to be a bit long winded but it will give some insight into the grey market pricing being practised by CWC. Manufacturers of bicycle components number in their thousands around the world and the fight for market share is fierce. Big volume orders which are awarded to any manufacturer, means the economies of scale kick in and they in turn, can push for higher discounts from their own suppliers of either raw material or finished and semi finished components. Bicycle manufacturers are the best source of big volume orders for component manufacturers as they have annualised production runs of tens, to hundreds of thousands, of units per bike model. Any component supplier winning a contract to supply these bike manufacturers becomes an OE (Original Equipment) or OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) supplier. Component manufacturers and suppliers are forced to discount their products heavily to win these contracts. They are prepared to do this in the interests of exposure for their brands in the retail markets of the world. A second important factor is that they are automatically the first consideration for replacement or upgrade by cyclists owning machines with these parts fitted as original equipment. Keeps the wheels turning. The working profit for component manufacturers comes from the retail trade, not from parts supplied as OE at huge discounts. This working profit operates throughout the supply chain and is what keeps the industry alive. We are now talking about the entire profit structure which is essential to keep cycling a going concern. The manufacturer sells to the wholesaler, the wholesaler to the retailer, and the retailer to the end-user. Each of these is entitled to a reasonable profit (they would be dead without it), and market forces, as in everything else, will keep these prices honest. Manufacturers have to factor in warranty claim costs (nothing is 100% perfect), wholesalers have to factor in promotional, advertising, and distribution/delivery costs, and bike shops have their own long list of expenses from stock holding through to rent, staff, advertising, etc. So, how are Chris Willemse and other grey market distributors able to sell goods in their retail shops at prices which are often cheaper (believe it or not) than the importer or wholesale distributor can buy from their own suppliers overseas who are, often as not, also the manufacturers of the components? It boils down to two things. Greed, and unscrupulous business practices. Here's what happens in the main. Bicycle manufacturer ABC calls for contract tenders on a planned production run of 250,000 premium grade bikes. To a wheel rim, or crank, or tyre manufacturer, that means a standing production run in their factory of 500,000 units if their product has been accepted and specced on the bike. Unhappily, saddle or handle bar manufacturers will only get orders for 250,000 units if they win a contract! This is business to die for. There are (say), maybe 5 or 6 manufacturers who can supply the volumes of this size with the necessary quality control measures to ensure the integrity of the brand-name bike being built. These component manufacturers now submit their tender contracts with prices shaved to the bone as the orders are big enough to keep their production lines running for months. They are all in a severe price war where winner takes all. It is under these conditions that the greed and unscrupulous business methods emerge. Let's let's assume ABC Bikes wants to make some quick easy money on the side. Here's what he does. He has actually planned to produce 240,000 bikes, not the 250,000 he's asked for tenders for. He knows that the wheel, or tyre, or group-set manufacturer he awards the supply contract to, has come in with prices which are even lower than those extended to their own distributors around the world. The wheel maker may have gone in at cost plus 10% or 15%. The tyre guys may be looking at 5% or 10% and the group-set maker at 20%, give or take a few percent. Only the huge manufacturing volumes are able to sustain such low pricing. Correcting profits have to be recovered from supplies to wholesale purchasers at normal margins (say 50% mark-up), so the manufacturer can survive. ABC Bikes now cashes in on the extra 10,000 wheels (and cranks, tyres, levers, etc) by selling them off as loose parts for cash at (say) cost plus 20%, to anyone willing to buy them. ABS Bikes may even smoke-screen this by saying they're selling the stuff as OE replacement parts. Brand name products like Mavic, Shimano, Campagnolo, Continental, Michelin, Fizik, etc etc, are generally the hardest hit by this type of marketing because of their status as industry leaders where quality comes at a price which makes these discounts financially rewardable. CWC is doing nothing wrong. He has, in some way, found a supplier or suppliers probably selling under these circumstances and, because of it, has an unfair pricing advantage over local retailers. Great for CWC who advertises retail prices at (or even below), dealer cost in nationally distributed magazines and is regarded (by some), as the saviour of cyclists in South Africa. The situation is false and raises huge negative perceptions in an industry which (on the whole), is a long way from being owned or run by wealthy people. The sad point to the whole scenario is that distrust is developing at all levels in the cycling fraternity. Cyclists think their regular shop is ripping them off. Shops who experience lost business to CWC think their wholesalers are ripping them off. Wholesalers (who's prices are dictated by market competition, not huge profit margins) suspect that their own manufacturing suppliers are profiteering at their expense. The whole thing is destabilsing the cycle trade here and around the world and creating an unhealthy atmosphere of mistrust between suppliers, cycle shops, and cyclists. CWC is not looking after cyclists (as many appear to believe judging by comments now being posted on this forum). He's looking after No. 1 and it's costing him very little. He does not have to carry the costs of nationwide distribution, sponsorship of cycle teams like Microsft MTN, Proline, Neotel, Harmony Gold , or pay for expensive national promotional and advertising programs and campaigns for the products he is importing. The official importers of the brand-name products which CWC pirates carry these costs for him, yet he points a finger at them because these costs have made the goods more expensive. CWC is merchandising brand-name components and accessories without any commitment to things like product loyalty or passion for the brand. He merely makes money out of them and when they are no longer available, he'll move onto something else. And make more money. CWC's confrontational attitude and threats of legal action against people involved in the industry are not going to do it any good. There are precious few bike shops that make a lot of money, and to point a finger at them and their suppliers and say they are rip-off artists is unfair and opportunistic.