Tubeless Tires

[DaneM]

They're more expensive but are they any better or worse, can I have an opinion from someone who uses both? What are any advantages and disadvantages

[cat-i]

 

I've used both. my own bike currently has tubeless.

 

took a borrowed bike down breedtsnek today (with tubes) and prompty snakebited (is there such a word?) ... at least i then could use the very cool bomb-thingy that i always carry with me but never had a use for

 

i can't remember when last i punctured on my own bike (with tubeless). there was a particularly thorny shortish adventure race in november, where we had 16 punctures between the 4 bicycles in the team. none on mine, and none on the tubeless backwheel of one of the other bikes. All 16 punctures on tube-wheels. I've removed about 7 thorns from my tyres after that race; 2 of the holes wouldn't seal and i had to plug it - but that was after the race and i could plug it in the comfort of my own home. (just leave the thorns in during the ride, and carry plugs with you for bigger holes, or if the thorns cause a leak)

 

sidewallcuts you unfortunately will still get.

And if you do, or something else happens and the hole wouldn't seal, then it's a mess to put a tube in

 

I love mine, and if i do decide to buy the bicycle that i tested today, that's the first thing that i'll replace; tubeless is well worth it.

 

 

 

cat-i2009-01-24 08:30:44

[vanniri]

I been using tubeless tyres for the best part of 8 years and can only recommend them for all the same reasons as above.

 

 

 

We did the 2005 Cape Epic and between six riders - zero punctures.

 

 

 

Use tubeless in Balkans (very rocky terrain, virtually no thorns) for two years - since access to tyres was limited I had to have good security - Stans + tubeless did it! I only had one cut the entire time

 

 

 

Converted normal tyres into tubeless a few months ago - even better than using tubeless specific (less weight, cheaper, less hassles to fit) yet some conditions (thorns and very rocky areas) a clear no-no. Currently I live in Brazil and the environment suits this conversion perfectly, would not do it in SA unless racing only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tumbleweed]

use both. much of a muchness to me.

[Daxiet]

 

 

 

I must say I run with self sealing tubes, I clocked 3000kms on my front Specialised self sealing tubes before a large hole brought them down. In those 3000kms I pulled many thorns out and they sealed 100%. Never got let down. After Hill 2 Hill the rear (~1800kms) Specialised tube was unable to seal due to water that had got in between the tyre and the tube. In trying to recover it, the sealant was so good it sealed the nozzle on the tube.

 

Been using the cheaper heavier CST self sealings and they have treated me well considering the cost, however they have gone flat on training rides. Pump them and and they seal unless the hole is too large.

 

All in all I have had to resort to my spare tube only twice - once for the water bound rear tyre and once for a ~7-8mm cut.

 

My old Crossmark tyres have 2 cuts in the sidewalls a piece, I know tubeless sidewalls are thicker than these, however such cuts would have required a gator patch or for me to insert a tube had I been on Tubeless.

 

Hence I have yet to find a convincing reason (apparently weight is much of a muchness, only running at lower pressures has come up as a possible plus) to fork out for a tubeless conversion and tubeless tyres. My Crossmarks set me back R200/tyre a lot cheaper than the UST versions. Plus R85/specialised tube = R285/wheel.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm not trashing tubeless, just saying I too would like to hear a major advantage so that I can justify the upgrade. Till then my trust in self sealing tubes and standard tyres hinders me from making the jump.

 

Daxiet2009-01-26 01:45:50