Is tubeless ready to roll?

[Pavel]

This is what one source, with a bit of experience behind it has to say on the topic:

--------------------------
Does it make any sense to deflate tires for transport by air?

This regulation is unfortunately required insistently at many airports. From our point of view it makes little sense.

Pressure compensation in the cargo hold of a passenger plane is standard today. But even in case of a transport in a space without pressure compensation, the change of the inflation pressure at a height of 10000 m / 32800 feet would
be minimal compared to the pressures a tire must withstand in any case. In a completely air-evacuated space, the pressure would be exactly 1 bar higher than under normal atmospheric conditions.

On the other hand, the risk of damage is much greater for tubes or rims when transporting the bicycle with flat tires. For this reason we recommend that you keep the tires inflated during transport by plane. We are, however, also aware of the fact that even convincing arguments will be of little help against the regulations of an airport company.
-------------------------
Lots of good information there:  http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/Special

[Pavel]

But back to the idea of tubeless with respect to long distance touring.

I've noticed about myself that I will spend hours, days, weeks, or whatever it takes twiddling, tweaking, honing, fussing; to get something just perfect - so that I never have to twiddle, tweak or fuss ever again.  I'm probably not the only cyclist to take that approach.  I don't mind how long it takes, but I want to reach a state that nothing drives me crazy (and that is easy to do) while trying to find zen on the road.

In that way certain elements of tubeless are very appealing. Lower rolling resistance is nice and the belief that the machine is as honed to task as can be, may be a strange placebo - but it works for me. Well, as long as it does not involve skinny tyres and carbon fibre

So I'd fuss if Dan's description was necessary and pay if it was not. But then how will life on a long tour, far, far from home be on tubeless?  Will it be as rare as a crankset breakdown to be looking at a completely deflated tyre - or is the danger of that, and the prospect of a six hour, or six day walk, likely enough to be a fools experimentation in rolling resistance?

I wonder what a tour on tubeless, done with the best components available right now, would be on a tour through South America, and the same in a completely different environment; say a Tour of England and Scotland or a Tour of the US Southern Tier? The first is a completely different risk/benefit ratio from the other two.

Who would and what kind of tour would you take, sans a butyl tube?  I'm intrigued since I want to buy another frame. Something with 700cc or 28 or 27+ at least.  And since I'm the kind of guy who gets joy from a perfectly trued wheel and is willing to spend the time to do it, tubeless may be just the thing for me to incorporate into my next "perfect" lightweight American asphalt tourer. Besides, Americans drive a lot of trucks.  How hard can it be to get a lift across the country in search of a tyre repair? 

[AndyE]

If it ain't bust don't fix it! Tubes glue and patches for me. They have worked well for me so far and I do not see any reason for them not continuing to do so.  If you are going to carry a spare tube for that moment when your tubeless system fails, then you will not also need glue and patches to repair it. It kind of defeats the whole tubeless argument for me. Tubeless on a long distance tour, a split side wall with gunk oozing out onto dusty sandy off road trail, I don't think so, that just complicate matters. Sealant in the tubes? maybe.

 I am sure that tubeless works well for commuters, who will no doubt be pressed for time to clock in at work, it will get them there and possibly home too. Bicycle tubeless technology will develop beyond what we have now and until sealant is as widespread as coca cola is, in every one horse outpost in the known universe, we will have to rely on the old school method of tubes glue and patches, they still work  
 

Andy

[mickeg]

At the Schwalbe link under tubeless:  http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/tubeless

For reasons I do not understand, on my computer I had to look under the topic of "What to do in case of a puncture?"   to see the topic of:  "How often do I have to refill or replace the sealing liquid?"

Answer:  Renew the sealant every two to seven months.  If I had to put in new sealant every year when during a typical year I ride four or five different bikes, that is four or five times a year at a minimum I have to work on two tires per bike, or eight to ten tires.  And that is if I am lucky and only have to deal with sealant once a year per wheel. 

I typically get about one flat a year.  (Which actually occurred this past Thursday, tire was low when I got home, but it was still rideable so did not change the tube on the road.)

Thus in a typical year, that is one flat I have to repair.  Or, I could spend a lot of time doing sealant in lots of wheels.

I will stick with tubes.

I did not get into the topic of changing tires for other reasons, such as switching to studded tires on one bike in the fall and reverting back to normal tires in spring, or putting different tires on for a tour.  But that has to be done whether I have tubes or not.  I suspect that tubes makes it easier and cleaner than dealing with some sealant when I want to switch tires.

A side note:  Several friends of mine did the Southern Tier a year ago (cross the USA on a southern route).  One of them used his skinny tire race bike, he had up to seven flats per day in the southwest part of the country where thorns are common.  If I was looking at that many flats, I might be convinced otherwise.  But one of the others commented later he was glad he used his touring bike instead of a skinny tire bike, only had a total of four flats for the entire trip.

I did comment above that one friend of mine likes tubeless for mountain biking.  But I think he uses tubes for road riding.  I am not sure if the pinch flats or thorns or both is the reason for liking tubeless for mountain biking.

[Danneaux]

...Renew the sealant every two to seven months.

At this rate, the DIY job I did for my friend is just about due to start leaking unless the goo is renewed.

Best,

Dan.

[Pavel]

This tubeless stuff came to my attention when I read the update to the Thorn "mega" bro-sure.  Andy seemed to on the cusp of some serious enthusiasm about the tech ... but what you all have written is very convincing.  Simple is best, I guess, for leisurely long distance riding, like we Thorn masters like to do. So that's about it for me and tubeless. Perhaps one day the technology will evolve up to the standards of Car tires, with no slime in the tire? I'll re-visit, then. 

[Andre Jute]

So that's about it for me and tubeless. Perhaps one day the technology will evolve up to the standards of Car tires, with no slime in the tire? I'll re-visit, then. 

You may have to be extremely patient.

I seem to remember that the handbook for my Maserati 3500, which ran on Borrani wire wheels*, admonished me not to use tubeless tyres. Certainly, when I was designing nostalgicars, all the handful of available wire wheel manufacturers specifically withdrew their warranty for fitting tubeless tyres.

*For the Americans, I mean real wire wheels, built like a bicycle wheel but of heavier gauge materials, not those "wire wheel trims" that are basically just kitsch hubcaps which had a vogue on American cars back in the days when they were the size of tugboats, and wallowed like it too.

PS Of course, nothing is impossible. We can all remember when bicycle lamps used heavy batteries merely to create a glimmer for car drivers to spot, yet now bicycle lamps can be dynamo-driven to produce car-like illumination, because of the advance of the LED and, to a much lesser extent, the optics. There is no fundamental engineering reason I know of that a bicycle spoke should not make a permanently airtight mechanical seal in the rim. The current reasons for the kludge of tape and slime and whatnot are all to do with cyclists' attitude to weight and, less and less important, cost. I think that what will defeat tubeless is not engineering difficulties or cost but weight: tubeless will never be much chop on road bikes (unless mandated by the UCI, which won't happen because the UCI is a luddite body, not at all interest in the advancement of bicycle design).

[Danneaux]

I see support products like home floor-type pumps are catching up to tubeless needs. Topeak has engineered a new (and expensive version) of their Joe Blow series to store a liter of air at high pressure (11bar/160psi)  to better seat tubeless tires:
http://topeak.com/products/Pumps/joeblow_booster

Hmm. One wonders how rims would fare with wide tires even briefly overpressurized to seat the beads. Would there be a greater incidence of rim cracking as a result of increased lateral bead-jacking forces on the rim sidewalls? How much would 1l of highly pressurized air affect overall chamber pressure?

Pondering,

Dan.

[Pavel]

And at some point, we can all be sure that someone will be over-eager and we shall read the tale of the newly deaf, exploded cyclist. How fast can a fragment of wheel be propelled, I wonder? 

[mickeg]

I see support products like home floor-type pumps are catching up to tubeless needs. Topeak has engineered a new (and expensive version) of their Joe Blow series to store a liter of air at high pressure (11bar/160psi)  to better seat tubeless tires:
http://topeak.com/products/Pumps/joeblow_booster

Hmm. One wonders how rims would fare with wide tires even briefly overpressurized to seat the beads. Would there be a greater incidence of rim cracking as a result of increased lateral bead-jacking forces on the rim sidewalls? How much would 1l of highly pressurized air affect overall chamber pressure?

Pondering,

Dan.

One liter won't go very far in a fat tire.  Lets say tire diameter 27 inches (I picked a number between 26 and 29), that correlates to a tire circumference of 85 inches, if width of tire air space is 2.0 inches and if that is circular in cross section, that becomes a volume of roughly 267 cubic inches for the tire, or 4.35 liters.  Add the one liter reservoir to that volume (1 + 4.35 = 5.35 liters) and your liter of 160 psi air drops to 30 psi gauge pressure when put into the tire.

If any rims crack, I expect that in many cases nobody will notice until later when the crack opens up on the trail somewhere.  And at that point nobody will put two and two together to think about rim strength during initial pressurization. 

As a wheel turns with weight on it, the rim is continuously deformed slightly, I would expect that continual deformation to extend any cracks that are initially created.  That is why I think the rim would fail later, not initially when put under pressure.

I only have talked to one person that cracked and blew a rim, a neighbor that commutes to his bicycle mechanic job on his bike and he said that he could feel his wheel acting a bit odd while he rode his bike before it blew.  In his case I think the cause was worn out braking surface.

Putting high pressure in a small air tank is not easy.  I have a small air horn for my kayak that has a small tank with a shrader valve, it is hard work to put high pressure air in that tank and it holds less than a liter.

[Dave Whittle Thorn Workshop]

I think there are a few myths that need dispelling about tubeless.

- If you use a proper Tubeless ready rim, inflating is usually really easy, a few jabs with a track-pump its all thats needed, a garage airline, or Co2 canister for a really tough one.  Even with the stans strips i've managed in 8/10 cases to infalte with a normal track pump.
- The sealant isn't anything like slime, its not free floating about in the tyre, it coats the inside of the tyre and forms a film on the inside of the tyre. It's really amazing stuff, checkout youtube for chaps riding across beds of nails, we've tried this it really does work! 
- If all else fails a normal tube can be fitted, this really is worth remembering, you will never be in a worse position than anyone with a normal tyre setup if the tyre fails.
- Its been around in MTB bikes for years, its proven technology and really does work.   

I'd never have a bike without it now and haven't for about 5yrs.

[Bill C]

I think there are a few myths that need dispelling about tubeless.


- If all else fails a normal tube can be fitted, this really is worth remembering, you will never be in a worse position than anyone with a normal tyre setup if the tyre fails.

sorry to contradict
you are in a worse position
the tubeless tyres i used were wafer thin with no puncture protection (rely on sealant instead of kevlar)
and with  normal tubes in they flatted in a few miles, swapped out the tubeless tyres for continental travel contacts and the puncture demons disappeared, btw it was a long time ago around 2004/6 Klein Attitude xv with Bontrager  tubeless tyres and Racelite tubeless ready rims, the tyres were factory fitted with tubes, came supplied with the proper valves in a plastic bag

they might be ok for a short xc race where weight  and rotational mass count but day to day cycling, i wouldn't try it again
i never went tubeles in the end  as getting fllats in tubes meant i had no back up if a tyre failed with a hole bigger than the sealant could cope with
i suppose i could of carried spare tubes filled with slime but it never really seemed worth all the extra effort

[John Saxby]

Well, maybe ... I'll wait and see.  For the moment & for my purposes, tubelessness looks like a solution in search of a problem.

This isn't a quibble about the idea itself, nor its established applications: I used tubeless tires on Hans, my airhead, for nearly a decade, with no problem, and I've had good luck (i.e., no flats) with much longer experience on several cars across several countries.

Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but I've never had enough problems with puncture flats in bike tires to yearn for tubeless tires.  The problems I have had--sidewall cuts--would not have been aided or avoided with tubeless tires.

[mickeg]

I think there are a few myths that need dispelling about tubeless.
...
- The sealant isn't anything like slime, ...

I am aware of two brands of tire sealant, Stans (which I have read about but never used) and Slime.  (I would not be surprised if there were other brands that are sold globally, but not in USA where I live.)

I actually accidentally bought Slime Tire Sealant instead of Slime Tube Sealant that I wanted to buy before my North Dakota trip, thus I had to go back to the store to get the right sealant.
http://www.slime.com/us/products/auto/sealants/tire-sealant.php
http://www.slime.com/us/products/bike/sealants/tube-sealant.php

When I talked about Slime in my previous posts, the Slime brand tire or tube sealant is what I was referring to. 

Thus, I am a bit confused when Dave says the sealant is nothing like Slime when Slime is a brand of sealant.

[Pavel]

I think Dave explained away the confusion when he elaborated that the difference between regular tube tire sealants (regardless of brand name) and the new tubeless sealant is that the new one does not stay in liquid form, that it coats, dries to a dry latex form (my understanding) and is then a thin layer which when exposed to air on the tyre rubber side, via a puncture - it instantly reacts and seals punctures.

That is my take, for what it's worth (normally about 3 cents, sometimes pesos)

With Dave's added input, I'm quite enthusiastic again.  That description changes much of what I think we all have understood the state of the tubeless art to be at. Coupled with Andy's enthusiasm, perhaps it bears investigating.

I also feel that it is not a solution looking for a problem.  Some changes are/were, such as Ahead Stems, the long ago now removal of brazed fittings for derailleurs (anyone else remember that bit of progress?) and 11 gears at the back completely killing 10 speed or 14 speed setups.

But the object here is about a comfortable ride such as that given to us right now via moving from 28mm to 40mm or wider tires.  I'm sold on the comfort of wide tires. I'm not sold on the added unsprung weight. Both characteristics are notable.

The way I understand the rolling resistance and weight advantage of this technology is that it is the best of both worlds.  The comfort of a 44mm tire weight and centripetal mass of a 28mm.  Am I right Dave, or missing the usual bit?  If that is the case I may build my next bike around this new tech.  I want a tourer that is lighter than the Nomad, because the Nomad is meant for loads higher than the 35-40 pounds I carry and for rough roads such as don't exist on a tramac tour like some of those available to me in North Carolina or across country routes such as the Southern or Northern tier (which I'm contemplating)

I'd like a larger wheel for its gyroscopic effect, but don't want the rubber weight penalty.  For that limited criteria (my world) it seems worth the gamble. Not much to cut my sidewalls on my roads and if it should happen that would mean a few days wait, holled up at a air-conditioned hotel, drinking beer - hey what can I do! Then back on the easy rolling tarmac.

I've got handbuilt 700cc wheels and all the parts to build a bike such as a Club Tour, Velo-Orange Campeur or other similar such.  The wheels are from longleaf here on the East Coast, USA. (http://www.longleafbicycles.com) they are the best built wheels I've had in ~ 35 years as a semi enthusiast cyclists.  Peerless.  That is about all that gives me pause in trying the tubeless experience.  The cost of the new stuff, while staring at sublime old tech wheels in guilt.  Any ideas about the costs involved for a good middle weight setup? Not being bound to special pumps puts this in the "may do" category for me. 

My Nomad is an indestructible beast. As set up it is ~ 42 pounds. On road USA style touring made me see that I had about 16 pounds of extra weight in bicycle than I needed, next to the typical cyclists I'd meet.  I'll save the "beast" for its intended domain should I ever do the continental divide, Mongolia or Peru (I wish)   Could one get a club Tour with racks set for about 35 pounds, with tubeless 28mm tyres into the 24 -26 pound range?  Any ideas? Am I over-extimating the role/roll of tubeless towards a lightweight but comfortable tarmac tourer? Dave .... is there a secret "skunk-works" project bike at thorn with 650B tubeless tyres?  Please. We won't tell anyone.