Anyone running tubeless tyres? The rims on my new bike (DTswiss Tricon) are better than I expected 🙂 and are also tubeless compatible. Anyone know if you must use tubeless specific tyres to run tubeless (I’m assuming so with the pressures involved) and is there any great advantage? (pinch flat avoidance/sealant to stop small punctures I’m also guessing?)

Thanks all.

Yes, you have to use tubeless specific tyres, the Hutchinsons seem to be the best in all the reviews though Maxxis look pretty good too.

Don’t expect sealant to prevent punctures like on mtb tyres – you can drop 50psi in a second through a thorn puncture meaning it’s unrideable.

Can’t really see much advantage other than a tiny weight saving and pinch flat resistance at lower pressures.

I looked into it, and it doesn’t seem worth the cost and disadvantages and faff for a few tiny gains (if any).

And I’m a massive tubeless fan on the mtb.

Can’t really see much advantage other than a tiny weight saving

I’d be surprised if there is any actual weight saving.

You save the weight of 2 innertubes and add a tiny bit of sealant. Road tubeless rims don’t need rim strips.

You save around 150g, which doesn’t sound much, but in terms of the percentage weight of a 1400g wheelset, it’s fairly significant.

Yeah but aren’t tubeless tyres going to be a bit heavier then normal ones. And if you really want to be picky, you’ve got to consider the valves too.

the tyres weigh about 100g more though so the weight saving is negligible

EDIT: too slow! wot he sez ^^

I was expecting the tyres to be heavier, which why I thought it unlikely there would be a weight saving. I expect the same is true with MTB tubeless as well – in that case there are good reasons to do it, but weight saving isn’t really one of them.

Can’t really see much advantage other than a tiny weight saving and pinch flat resistance at lower pressures

Rolling resistance, surely?

And, if you run sealant you might lose 50psi before it seals, but then it’s sealed so all you have to do is re-inflate it, which would be much quicker than faffing about with changing tubes… no?

Ran Stans Alpha rims with Fusion 3 tubeless tyres for a short while but changed back to clinchers as the difference was not great.

Tyres (Fusion 3s) weighed in at 310g each and whilst I never used sealant, that is still heavier than a decent clincher and tube.

Pros
I ran mine at 90psi so comfy and good RR, feel a bit like tubs.
Seemed pretty puncture proof – no pinches

Cons
Lost air faster than clinchers
Tyres expensive and limited choice
Still have to carry around spare tubes just in case

I know a couple of folk running them. Lower rolling resistance and not needing to changes tubes etc in the event of punctures being the main reasons rather than any weight savings. They both swear by them. And, yes, as mentioned above, you need tubeless tyres.

molgrips – Member

Rolling resistance, surely?

Why? What difference would it make? I’ve heard people talk about less friction between tyre and tube, but frankly I think this is nonsense. If it were the case, your innertubes would look shiny after prolonged use – mine tend to show an imprint of the inside of the tyre suggesting there’s no movement.

I’ve heard people say that they feel more like tubs, which “apparently” roll faster than clinchers. Again, I think this is tosh as tubs have an innertube, it’s just enclosed within a stitched tyre!

The only reason tubs seem to roll quicker is that the whole rim/tub combo is lighter than a clincher.

And yes, just looking at the weight of tubeless tyres, the advantages are starting to look less pronounced!

Why? What difference would it make?

The idea is that a tubeless tyre can deform more then a normal tyre and tube can, therefore deform quicker over bumps in the road and roll quicker.

What do TDF riders use?

What do TDF riders use?

Tubs usually. Although I think one team might have been running tubeless last year?

They’ll roll quicker for the same reason that latex tubes roll quicker than butyl ones. I have no idea of the science behind it though….

If the tyre casing is thicker (which it would appear to be considering the extra weight) then any theoretical benefit in terms of rolling resistance would be diminished.

I suspect that the only reason any pro tour teams use them is due to sponsorship money!

Francais Des Jeux ran Hutchinson tubeless at tour (not all the time but ran them nonetheless)

Just run some normal tyres and superlight latex tubes for racing – lower weight and rolling resistance (just like tubs have). Sorted.

Um, you boys do know that normal tyres + tubes have a lower rolling resistance than tubs, don’t you?

crikey – Member

Um, you boys do know that normal tyres + tubes have a lower rolling resistance than tubs, don’t you?

I’m rather skeptical about “rolling resistance” – I think it’s marketing hype and the speed of a tyre is primarily dependent on tyre pressure and rider weight.

But if you can back that up, I’d be interested to know how…

Have a look on this page.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2007/06/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-rolling-resistance_12493

thats a good article, not seen thats one before. I run tubs on my road bike, for me, they seem give a more comfortable ride. i realy like them. I do have a set of open pro clincher rims though that i am toying with building up on CK hubs to have another go at clinchers.

I wouldn;t have thought tubless on a road bike would have yielded a massive advantage to be honest, but i’d be willing to listen to anyone who has used it sucessfully and what advantages it gave.