I ride with more confidence when tubeless, not so tippy toey in the rocky stuff, just blast through. Also more grip on techy climbs which is nice. All in all I ride faster with less dabs and less punctures which over rides all the negatives. 
Bike Forum
Tubeless set up. what are the benifits ?
-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
I would go back to V-brakes and rigid frame & forks before going back to tubes, due to the frequency of thorn punctures I used to get.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I knew my post would be picked on!
If you carry a tube, fixing a puncture can be done in less than a minute trailside, its clean, simple and quick, if you do it right, so many people don't. if you run tubeless and puncture badly, you will get VERY messy and sticky.
I have destroyed tyres running them tubeless due to burbing. i used stans flow rims with the green rims strip at my last go, i will NEVER go back to it. as far as i am concerned its all hype.
It helps that i only puncture once or twice a year it seems, so for me there really is no contest, Tubes all the way.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Daver27, not picking on you mate, offering a differant experiance.
If you are only getting 1 or 2 punctures a year then you are better off with tubes, i'd say.
The final staw for me was 8 punctures (thorns and pinch flats) between 3 riders in 3 hours (should have been a 2 hour ride) all with six miles of home.Posted 4 months ago # -
sorry double post
Posted 4 months ago # -
The weight difference is noticeable cos I've ridden bikes with tubes in before - think we all have haven't we?
But UST are (often far) heavier than their tubed equivalents. A standard Rocket Ron + tube weighs less than a UST one. Add in lightweight tubes and there's a marked difference. Plus UST wheelsets are often heavier, the rims certainly are.
I agree about not needing sealant - I had some very early UST Crossmax, the only tyre one could buy was a Michelin Wildgripper and sealant hadn't even been thought of, I got very few punctures, fewer than with tubes. However... a tubeless ready (or converted normal tyre) weighs far less than a UST tyre, with the benefit of more puncture resistance, so even fewer punctures.
I have about 8 sets of (normal) tyres that will go straight up on either of my wheels with a track pump and I can ride on them 30 seconds later. If I encountered the faff some seem to, with needing compressors etc I'd be less keen I suspect!
Posted 4 months ago # -
It was a joke, just showing the exasperation i had with my experiences of tubeless, showing the darkside of it if you like!
I know it works for a lot of people, but it would appear to not be my thing.
Posted 4 months ago # -
The puncture thing is why i really like it, 4 years and 1 puncture which was actually a badly ripped tyre.
Posted 4 months ago # -
The weight difference is minimal (if any), the ride characteristics and grip gains are noticeable (but you'll want to experiment a bit with pressures which takes time), the lack of pinch flats the significant bonus for me, it takes more effort/damage to flat a tubeless tyre (IME)
Obviously nothing is totally failure proof - you'll still need to take a spare tube and pump with you just in case...
TBH though it's not worth spunking £50+ on Stans strips, not when there are equally effective "Ghetto" methods that achieve the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
Google "Ghetto Tubeless" - there's a few How to pages and some videos knocking about... You Do Not need to spend a fortune...
Posted 4 months ago # -
IME, tubless is great when it works, but an absolute ball ache when it doesn't.
great for thorn punctures, especially in the winter when it's cold and muddy
bad, it's wasteful when you do have a failure, tubes you can take home and repair, tubless you just leave a puddle of latex.
sidewall splits and holes, make it difficult to use the tyre tubless again, still looking for the best repair method.
worn tyres don't work well tubless, you'll get more life out of a tyre running tubes.
you still have to stop on occasion to pump your tyres up, due to breaking the latex repair on a previous puncture (bad jump landings do it for me) or reluctant sealing on a new puncture.
Having a compressor helps especially on big volume tyres, though this can still be a pain as some tyres just don't like playing ball.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I accept ust rims and tyres are heavier due to their double sidewall and most I'm reading was exactly my opinion until my newest bike came with stock ust I was blown away. I've lost very little pressure (don't want to say none as some science buff will probably shoot me down)
I also carry an innertube in case of a puncture as don't want to be messing about with that nonsense on the streets of Nottingham.
Yes ust are heavier but require no sealant
Tubeless are lighter but DO require sealant which is both messy and costly (and builds up in the tyre negating the extra weight loss) - I'm trying to be biased but ant help myself - sorry
Tubes are familiar, friendly and easyEr .... Guess the debate goes on
Posted 4 months ago # -
Tubeless/UST isn't some sort of panacea...
Any damage bad enough to split a tubeless tyre sidewall would still have wrecked a tubed tyre as well so I can't see that as a legitimate criticism of tubeless.
Nothing is ever perfect.
And whatever tubeless setup you use, you will no doubt run into some frustrating issue or another eventually, but then tubes are hardly infallible either, we've all been on rides where some poor bugger gets through several tubes.
I wouldn't say tubeless removes the issue of flats, simply that IME failures are less frequent with tubeless, obviously the trade off is more faff getting the tyres fitted (just don't try to do it 10mins before a ride) and more mess when you do have to fix a flat, it generally suits people who will ride the same tyres most of the time, rather than "serial tyre changers"...
Posted 4 months ago # -
Any damage bad enough to split a tubeless tyre sidewall would still have wrecked a tubed tyre as well so I can't see that as a legitimate criticism of tubeless.
any future side split repair is held in position and protected by the tube, even if its as simple as the piece toothpaste tube. IME flexing in the sidewall has the tendancy of weakening permanent repairs and breaking any latex seal.
Posted 4 months ago # -
i went tubeless a couple of years ago, initially ghetto and then proper stans rims. I used to pinch flat nearly every ride despite running high pressures. Since then i've flatted once (thorn) stopped, pumped it up and carried on.
won't use tubes again
Posted 4 months ago # -
I accept ust rims and tyres are heavier
But you said about the saved weight as one of your 4 benefits - are you saying that's not really a benefit at all, and it's psychological?
UST certainly has it's benefits over other tubeless systems, but it's big detractor (IMO) is the weight.
You'll never totally get rid of tubes, there will always be a place for them, but that shouldn't be a high end MTB
Posted 4 months ago # -
INRATS but
For me, you swap mid-ride faff for some non-riding faff. Personally, I prefer messing about with my bike in my garage rather than out on the trails so tubeless is spot on.
I've got three bikes tubeless now - two mtbs and a CX.
The two mtbs are a doddle - One with a Bontrager rim/strip, normal tyre and sealant, the other with a Mavic non-UST rim, rim strip and normal tyres. Basically I put it all together, inflate, ride. That's it. No more puntures (pinch in particular) but I do usually have to pump up my tyres a bit before each ride.
My CX bike has been more troublesome probably because of the higher pressures but once it's right (sometimes takes a couple of attempts at fitting, leaving overnight, riding it etc to get it just right and not deflate through a ride) it's great as it allows me to run much lower pressures without getting pinches as soon as I look at a rock.
I can't see myself ever going back to tubes.
That all said, if I rarely got punctures with tubes, I would probably stick with them.
Oh and I'm not convinced that they're faster/feel better to any significant degree.
Posted 4 months ago # -
FWIW - I went tubeless using Schwalbe bmx innertubes and stams sealant for less than £20, on the stock Alex ZX 24 rims that came with my bike, and Schwalbe Nobby Nic's. The tyres are billed as 'tubeless-ready' as far as I know. Not a problem so far, I just carry my spare tube in a ziplock bag, so if I need to swap out the sealant covered 'rim strip' I've got something to put it in to keep my pocket clean..
Minimal weight saving I guess, but the ability to run lower pressures without pinching is worth the minor faff to begin with IMO.
Posted 4 months ago # -
im obviously missing something, why dont you need sealant with UST tyres? what stops punctures?
Posted 4 months ago # -
UST, Stans + Yellow tape + UST or normal tyres, ghetto +normal tyres. Use them all and never going back to tubes except as a trail fix. Go with Mavic or Stans rims and Maxxis tyres and you'll miss much of the faff that many get. Ok so you might not get your fave condomesque tyre on reliably but if weight weenieism is your goal then you should look elsewhere.
Posted 4 months ago # -
im obviously missing something, why dont you need sealant with UST tyres? what stops punctures?
UST tyres are a bit thicker, but that's all. Nothing seals any holes you do manage to put in them obviously.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Just swapped out a Nobby Nic and a Spec Control for a pair of Mud Xs, all the sealant had dried up, managed to pump up the tyres with a normal (not track) pump.
5 thorns in front tyre, 3 in rear, so that's 8 punctures (at least) that I've been saved since I rode over a spike or something that shredded my rear tyre in June.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Ust rims and tyres are heavier than tubeless. Standard tyres with tubes are heavier still. That's what I meant by heavier
As for ust filling holes - nothing does but the magic of air pressure in the tyre. Like Dynamo - magic
Posted 4 months ago # -
So if I use a ust tyre with ust rim should I use sealant? Surely I should....
If I just have ust rims it is my understanding I can use some normal tyres (with sealant), what is the advantage of using a proper ust tyre - just tougher?
Sorry for idiot questions...
Dave
Posted 4 months ago # -
UST tyres are tougher than their tubed equivalents and are therefore heavier.
If you don't use sealant with your UST tyres then you have the same puncture protection as a normal tyre.
I don't know how easy it is to use normal tyres with UST rims, I would assume you will need sealant.
I used Stans Crest rims and can get Nobby Nics, Spec Controls and Mud Xs to seal with out sealant (for how long I haven't bothered finding out), all have gone up and stayed up increadably easily, only 1 puncture and that was a nail or spike that went right through and gouged the centre of the rim, put a tube in and because it was dark I then went on to ride 30 miles in the dark with the inner tube bulging out of the centre of the tread
Posted 4 months ago # -
Ust don't need sealant. Some use for peace of mind. I use the thought that if it's good enough for motorcycles it's good enough for me
Lots of negativity on here regarding ust (not tubeless). Wonder how many doubters actually run ust's?
Posted 4 months ago # -
I've been using tubeless for several months now. Only downside I can see is that is was hard work inflating.
So many pluses. The ride is noticeable nicer and can run a lower pressure. No punctures, the sealant has fixed all holes. I don't spend for ever fixing tubes and I now have a huge pile of them in the corner of the shed which I just won't use. I cannot see me going back to tubes long term ever again.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Ust rims and tyres are heavier than tubeless. Standard tyres with tubes are heavier still. That's what I meant by heavier
You're sort of comparing apples with oranges, but they're not really.
Schwalbe (and Conti among others) UST tyres are about 200g heavier than their tubed counterparts. A tube weighs about 150g. The lightest UST rim is the XM819, at 450g+. Even Crossmax SLRs are nearly 1500g.
A pair of DT 240s on ZTR Alpines would be about 150g lighter and cost less (if you use the same hubs/spokes with an XM819s the difference is over 250g). Combine with a tubeless ready Rocket Ron (or whatever you fancy) and you can either add 150g of tube, or 50g of sealant and 10g of valve.
UST setups are reliable, they're not light.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Lol
Well they feel more agile and lighter?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Probably because the wheels and tyres you used before were heavier, so for you, they are! That's not to say that UST is lighter than an equivalent tubed or non-UST tubeless set up.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I ran tubes which are heavier which is EXACTLY my point
Posted 4 months ago # -
So you ran UST tyres and wheels, with tubes? Of course UST was lighter!
Posted 4 months ago # -
Jes - your now making this up. Forget it
Posted 4 months ago # -
sticking with tubes as i only get about 2/3 punctures a year so not really a prob even on the side of the trail at night can get the whole shebang done in about 10 mins inc a quick wee break in the middle
Posted 4 months ago # -
I love my mavic 819's with ust ready nobby nics and one more positive is the cushioning effect of softer Tyres due to the lower pressure which can help soak up bumps
Posted 4 months ago # -
Coming back into MTBing after 10 years off, does anyone use latex innertubes nowadays? How do they compare to going tubeless?
I always swore by them as they are lighter, comfyer and (fingers crossed) punctured less.
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
