realskiers

Other Stuff => Biking and other Non-Skiing Activities => Topic started by: jim-ratliff on May 30, 2012, 01:55:27 pm


Title: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on May 30, 2012, 01:55:27 pm

As many of you know, we beat this topic to death last year.  However, Lynn and I recently upgraded the wheels on our Mountain Bikes, which led to some playing around.  First of all, here's where I started.

1. My primary goals are avoiding dealing with flats (either pinch-flats or real-flats) with as little rotational inertia and rolling resistance as possible.
2. What the racers are riding and the pressures they are using has little relevance to me.  They are wanting to win races, I'm not wanting to fix flats in the middle of the poison ivy and mosquitoes, and I certainly don't generate enough power that i have trouble getting it to the ground.
2. I didn't want to deal with the hassle of Bushwacka's ghetto tubeless or with Stan's approach to making regular wheels tubeless.  No educated reason behind this other than the requirement for a "high-volume" air source to seat the tire, but it just didn't excite me.
3. I bought a slime tube last year and tested that on the front of my mtb. No flats last year, but I pinched it when we changed wheels this year and it didn't heal itself (and it was a small hole). Discarded Slime Tubes as a viable way of preventing flats.

So once we decided to buy wheels that happened to be Mavic UST compatible, I decided to play with tubeless. The two tires we are using are the Continental X-King RaceSport (me) and the Kenda Karma (Midwif). The Karma is a 460 gram tire with "very supple" sidewall that seems to work well for her.

All of the X-King's are tubeless compatible (meaning they have a tubeless bead) but only the UST model is truly tubeless. The Racesport and Supersonic have a lot of web traffic about how porous the sidewalls are, but that they seal quite nicely with Stan's.
And then I realized that, even with tubeless, I was still going to need Stan's (or similar) in the tire to deal with punctures. And if that were the case, then why lug around the 290 gram difference between the UST version and the RaceSport version?  They would both need the Stan's anyway.

Test A. I mounted the front tire tubeless. I found that the CO2 cartridge inflator I carry for my road bike does a great job of inflating the tubeless tire. I stuck the tire in a sink full of water and was amazed (but not surprised) at the sidewall porosity -- I was surprised at how quickly the Stan's sealed everything up. The next morning I still had an inflated tire, I went for a 12 mile ride that evening and it worked fine. I lowered the air pressure some, but any difference in the ride characteristics was minimal. I pronounced that a successful test; tire + Stan's was 30 grams less than tire with tube and I felt that it would seal any punctures.

Test B. I did the same with the rear tire.  This was a little bit easier, because I was careful to only unseat the bead on one side (to get the tube out). After inserting the valve stem and pouring in the Stan's, I manually worked the loose bead closer to the rim.  I managed to inflate this one with just the hand pump (and immediately patted myself on the back).  Did the same routine with water in the sink, this tire didn't seal up quite as well.  Next morning it was flat -- the next evening I aired it back up and rode the neighborhood slowly figuring that was a good way to circulate the Stan's.  By the end of the ride it seemed good, and next morning it still had air in it.  WOW, I'm a genius.  Lynn's bike happened to still be down here, her tire is next.

Test C. I did the same with Lynn's front tire. Her tires are not UST anything. Did the same trick when I removed the tube of not loosening the bead on one side of the tire. Had to use the cartridge inflator for air volume, but the tire popped right into place and I inflated with the hand pump. Stuck the tire in the water. Her sidewall (on a tire that is now three years old) didn't leak air at all like mine -- however, her tire did have a lot of leaks around the bead. These didn't seal until after I rode the tire around some the next day.

Real World Test. This past weekend we went riding in the 14,000 acre Ten Mile River Boy Scout Camp. Started out on level asphalt getting to the camp, and rode a loop that ended up with us coming down a long hill on asphalt at 27 miles per hour. In between was lots two lane rock covered jeep trails that the hunters and Boy Scout maintenance trucks use.  I would still say that I really never felt much difference in the performance of the tires, except that we both found ourselves bombing down some sections at 18 miles per hour with enough control to pick which parts of the road we wanted to ride on (avoiding the mud and standing water in lots of sections of the trail). That may show a better level of control than before, in places where we have used the brakes to slow down in the past. (or maybe we are just getting more "one with the bike").


CONCLUSION: After the ride and then sitting two days, my tires were way down on pressure, but I'm ok with pumping them up before each ride (we have to do that for the road bikes anyway). The sink full of water seems to confirm my guess that the flexing of the sidewalls (especially over the really rocky trail) resulted in some really slow sidewall leakage when the tire was just sitting (no sealant being spread around). 
I'm pretty pleased with the results thus far. In fact, I'm planning on ditching the air pump that I carry on my bike -- but I might add a CO2 inflator to my back pack.


CONCLUSION 2: I think there may be building acceptance of tires that are tubeless ready but that rely on the sealant to truly hold air. I've seen that in Continental and WTB and Svend was mentioning the new SCT (Sealant Compatible Tubeless) categorization for Kenda tires.



Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on May 30, 2012, 07:34:01 pm
the real reason to run tubeless are these.

more supple easily more controllable ride that roll faster and has more grip. You do not have to be a racer to like that. I would mount them on any bike that is never going to be raced I am not good enough to ride on a tubed tire.

with that said you will start to notice a difference riding rougher terrain and you have more grip.....but most people have gotten so use to the shitty grip of tubed tire setups that it can take some time to take advantage of the new grip that there but unuseable untill you take advantage of it....and you need a lower pressure than a tubed tire to make the difference.

also IMO overall weight is pretty meaning less. If lighter was faster we would all be running fully rigid fixied gears with no brakes and cross tires.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on May 31, 2012, 07:15:07 am
also IMO overall weight is pretty meaning less. If lighter was faster we would all be running fully rigid fixied gears with no brakes and cross tires.
If lighter isn't faster, then why do racers use bikes made of aluminum, titanium, or carbon.
Obviously, the weight "penalty" associated with multiple gears and with being able to stop pays for itself in other areas of performance. But that doesn't make weight meaningless, and people still pay to have those components as "weight effective" as possible.
I will say from first hand experience that lighter makes it easier for me to pedal up the hill.


And, IMHO, not wanting to have to deal with flats on the ride is a very valid reason for riding tubeless.  Your reasons may differ, obviously, but that doesn't make your reasons the only "real reasons".   8)
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on May 31, 2012, 05:20:28 pm
Jim,

I'm just curious -- have you ever actually had a flat on your mtn. bike? That is, in your antediluvian pre-tubeless days?  ;)  The reason I'm asking, is that you seem very concerned with flats and not having to fix them, hence one of the two main reasons for going tubeless.  I have been mtn. biking since 1989, very actively for the first 10 years, now back at it again after a hiatus.  Nevertheless, I have had hundreds of days out in the woods, and have only ever had two flats, and that was about 12 years ago on my old rigid bike with cheap tires.  It was caused by a hole in the sidewall of the tire from the rubbing of an out of alignment brake lever, but not by a pinch flat.  I presently run my tires at 35 to 40 psi, which is not super hard, and hit all manner of obstacles with nary a pinch flat in sight.  And I'm about 50 lbs heavier than you! FWIW, no one else in our family of riders has ever had a pinch flat.  Never....   And their tires are down around 30 to 35 psi, being that much lighter than I am.

What I'm trying to say, is that your fear of pinch flats might be a bit overblown.  In other words, don't worry so much, and just go riding.  I'm sure that as long as you keep your tires (with tubes) above, say, 35 psi, you will be fine.  And I hear what Josh is saying about grip and suppleness, but unless you are on some really rooted, rocky trails, you will not have any issues with grip on firm hardpack.  Besides, you've got a nice light full suspension bike to absorb the bumps and give you a supple ride, and high quality tires which I'm sure will give you good grip with or without tubes.

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on May 31, 2012, 07:24:38 pm



Yeah, I did have apinch flat last year. Fortunately, Lynn and I were riding together and she rode back and got the car while i walked the bike out to the road.  But that was before I started carrying a spare tube and bought a pump.


But I also will admit that much of this is just me deciding to play with tubeless.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on May 31, 2012, 07:54:24 pm
Jim,

I'm just curious -- have you ever actually had a flat on your mtn. bike? That is, in your antediluvian pre-tubeless days?  ;)  The reason I'm asking, is that you seem very concerned with flats and not having to fix them, hence one of the two main reasons for going tubeless.  I have been mtn. biking since 1989, very actively for the first 10 years, now back at it again after a hiatus.  Nevertheless, I have had hundreds of days out in the woods, and have only ever had two flats, and that was about 12 years ago on my old rigid bike with cheap tires.  It was caused by a hole in the sidewall of the tire from the rubbing of an out of alignment brake lever, but not by a pinch flat.  I presently run my tires at 35 to 40 psi, which is not super hard, and hit all manner of obstacles with nary a pinch flat in sight.  And I'm about 50 lbs heavier than you! FWIW, no one else in our family of riders has ever had a pinch flat.  Never....   And their tires are down around 30 to 35 psi, being that much lighter than I am.

What I'm trying to say, is that your fear of pinch flats might be a bit overblown.  In other words, don't worry so much, and just go riding.  I'm sure that as long as you keep your tires (with tubes) above, say, 35 psi, you will be fine.  And I hear what Josh is saying about grip and suppleness, but unless you are on some really rooted, rocky trails, you will not have any issues with grip on firm hardpack.  Besides, you've got a nice light full suspension bike to absorb the bumps and give you a supple ride, and high quality tires which I'm sure will give you good grip with or without tubes.

I would argue 35 psi is too high for anyone riding XC I run as low as some high teen sometimes on a full suspension bikes. The deal is most people do not the benefit because well they have never tried it.  Ignorance is bliss. Even on smoothest trails ever the gains in rolling restiance and grip are worth it, it makes it easier to ride faster or much easier to ride at the same speeds your riding at pre tubeless.  Off course you would never get a flat running a tubed tire near 40 psi, but that a lame comparo because 40 psi sucks. I am not good enough to ride 40 psi on any trail.

Gerry Pflug recently rode a 2.4 ardent(a 1000 gram tire plus sealant) at 14 psi in 78 mile mountain bike race to single speed win. I am sure he beat tons of people who had weight weenied out tire setups that actually rolled slowed and gripped less.



Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on May 31, 2012, 08:31:43 pm
Josh, I totally understand what you are saying, and I am not disagreeing with you.  But the point I was trying to make to Jim, was that worrying about pinch flats should not be a reason to go tubeless.  Unless you are riding across sharp rocks, or jumping off 10 ft. drops, or hitting gnarly roots at warp speed, pinch flats are just not an issue.  I have not ridden the trails in Virginia where Jim rides....maybe he rides in some way gnarlier stuff than I do.

OTOH, if Jim wants to go tubeless, then do it for the performance benefits that you are talking about.  It sounds like the process is easy with the new UST wheels that he has.  If it improves the ride, then by all means go for it. 

One of these days, when I wear out my present Slant Six tires (which are not sealant friendly, according to Kenda), I will get some UST or sealant-compatible tires and try tubeless too, as my rims are tubeless ready.  In the meantime, if, as you say, ignorance is bliss, then I must be very ignorant, because I am having a great time on my bike this year.  That machine is just humming a sweet tune lately, and I am having no trouble navigating the single track in our local woods. 

BTW, I just put a new flat, wider handlebar on the Paragon and had my first ride with it tonight.  Great improvement in handling.  I can really grab the bike by the scruff now and make it do anything I want.  Between that and the new tires I put on last autumn, I've finally got it handling like an agile 26er.  Love it!

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 01, 2012, 07:36:40 am
Jim, do post back here once you have more time on the trails, and let us know if you notice much difference in performance.  You being a critical and objective thinker makes your opinion of great interest to me.

Did you get much time on the trails this spring prior to going tubeless? Do you think you can do a good before-after comparison, based on recent rides?

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 01, 2012, 07:55:49 am
Jim -- one more comment:  Josh has a point about not going overboard on the lighter-is-better thing.  You may end up spending a lot of time and money lightening your ride, but then end up making the bike too fragile to handle rough terrain or more aggressive riding.  Lighter components sometimes means easily broken.  I have seen guys carrying their super-light race rigs out of the park with a wheel folded like a pretzel, or some other component snapped right off.  There is usually blood involved, too.  :P

I know you and Lynn come from a long background of road riding, and may feel that light weight is paramount, but trying to get your mtn. bikes down near the weight of your road bike may be unwise.  IMO, it's better to try to find that balance between durability and strength, which gives you confidence that the bike can take a bashing and still keep the rider intact, and lighter weight for an easier pedaling effort.  It's no fun having to carry or push your bike through a rock garden because you're afraid of blowing a sidewall or denting a rim, all while wearing hard-soled bike shoes.  Tougher tires and other components may be a bit heavier, but you will have more freedom to have fun and not fear the rocks.  Besides, blasting through a rock garden on a full suss bike is a hoot.  Just don't fall!  :o

Hope you get out in the woods this weekend.  It's supposed to rain here until Monday (figures  ::)) so unless there's a break in the weather, I'll be riding in my daydreams.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 01, 2012, 09:03:59 am
Jim, here is a video that shows a neat way of mounting a tubeless tire without a compressor.  Sounds like your method is working well for you, but perhaps the little trick shown here will make it even easier.

http://www.mountainflyermagazine.com/view.php/macky-franklin-blog-tubeless-setup-without-a-compressor.html (http://www.mountainflyermagazine.com/view.php/macky-franklin-blog-tubeless-setup-without-a-compressor.html)

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 01, 2012, 11:17:38 am



Svend:  Thanks.  I was doing something similar with my fingers, just pushing the tire out to the edge of the wheel.  Never thought of using a tire lever to pull the tire out to the edge.  Good idea.  Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 02, 2012, 06:26:54 pm
it weird that i show up to races/rides better equiped than the giant team techs.

http://www.amazon.com/Shinn-Fu-Co-W1010A-10GAL/dp/B000LNUFRO

with this guy I can seat and tire that is going to seat. Best way to change tires quickly at an endurance lap race.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 02, 2012, 08:38:15 pm
That is a very good idea.  I had been thinkimg tank with compressor, but the tank is all you need. Thanks.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 02, 2012, 08:51:19 pm
Cool! That is something Jim could strap to his back to take on a trail ride.  8)  He did say he'd ditched his hand pump, didn't he? And if he needs a boost up a long hill, just point the valve rearward, and open 'er up.

Hey Josh...question for you:  is it OK to run tubeless on the front, but tubed on the rear? Or will that invoke some weird handling quirks? I want to put a wider tire on the front for better float through some of the many sand and gravel patches that we have here.  If I don't hit those at a fast clip, I'm sunk....literally.  I want to keep the existing Slant Six on the rear, but Kenda does not recommend sealant for that version (last year's), so can't go tubeless on the rear. 

For a new front tire, as the Slant Six is working extremely well for me in our smooth hardpack terrain, and the new versions are now sealant-compatible, a 2.2 version of this tire is my first choice.  Or a 2.2 in. Ignitor or Saguaro....we'll see.  But since I will be pulling the non-sealant-compatible Slant Six off the front, I have an opportunity to try tubeless as replacement and see how it works.  Just concerned that staying with a tubed tire on the back will not work well.  Let me know what you think....  Thanks.

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Liam on June 03, 2012, 11:30:42 am
The only real down side to very low pressures is excessive rim damage over long time use in rough areas.   Since I started riding tubeless several years ago, I've noticed lot more scuffing around the surface of my rims.  That said, I haven't had any truly significant damage.

35psi is way too high for mountain riding these days.  Depending on the tire and rim I find 25-28psi to be just about perfect...that was even with a tubes.  A little lower in really slick technical trails and Much lower in sand or snow.

I have run combo's of tubed on rear and tubeless on front (and vice versa) which was usually the after effect of a stan's blow out on one tire or the other that I on-trail fixed by popping tube in and continued to ride that way for a few weeks or until the tire went out.

I never noticed any counter acting effects of riding with one tired tubed and the other tubeless.

Kenda- all kenda's ride a lot better in a stan's set up ( I think the Nevegal with tubes is one of the worst tires ever made, but I really like it tubeless).

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 03, 2012, 01:29:58 pm
Thanks Liam, that's good to know that I can mix-n-match tubeless and tubed.  I will get a new front tire soon, and will try running it tubeless.

As for your pressure recommendations, I guess a lot depends on the rider's weight.  Not sure your dimensions, but I am about 220 lbs., so 35 psi does not feel too hard to me.  Feels much more supple than 45 or 50 psi, which I run when I do a flat rail-trail ride.  Luckily, the Slant Six is a large-volume tire with reasonably sturdy sidewalls, so I have not had any pinch flats at 35 psi, even with hard hits on big roots.  OTOH, if you are my size, then your recommendations are interesting.  Much lower pressures than I would normally be comfortable with.

Everyone is talking about Stans sealant.  Is that the best? Or just the cheapest? What about the others? Caffelatex? Slime? Bontrager? (I have Bonty wheels).
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 03, 2012, 10:33:21 pm
Liam:
Tell me what you mean by a "Stan's blowout"??


Svend:
Will share my thoughts as they accumulate.
I really like the X-King tires.

By the way, Stan's has a formulafor tubeless pressure: 
body weight/7 (+1 for rear, -1 for front)
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Liam on June 04, 2012, 05:04:04 pm
Jim,

Anybody who tells you they've been using stand for years without any problems or flats is :

a.  lying
b. about to experience a stans blow out (famous last words).

When you gouge a sidewall or blow through a bead or just get a hole that's too big to reseal (and it doesn't take much)-and your tubeless system fails and won't reseal no matter how much you shake it, inflate (or even add more sealant)...you are then left fumbling with goo, removable valve stems and an often hard to remove (and reseat) tubeless tire on the side of a trail.   The remedy being popping in a tube.

The one thing about tubes, is that when they flat, it's a very easy and quick fix....just the opposite with the tubeless system.  Yep, you'll experience less problems, get to benefits of a better ride and lower pressures with tubeless (which is why I use them)  but when problems do occur, they tend to be far more significant than those experienced while using a good ole basic tubed tire.   


I've had slime tubes in the past, I've used caffe latex, and stand.  Stans is the best.  Stans on a stans rim is the double best.   Stans, true UST tire on a true use rim is the most bomb proof, but does not deliver the same ride quality of a stand rim system and a regular or tubeless ready tire.  Of course your results may vary...but my experiences seem pretty typical from what I can tell.

Svend, I am a 190lbs right now.  The Slant Six can't handle lower pressures with tubes so 35psi makes good sense.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 04, 2012, 08:23:32 pm



Liam:


Thanks.  Lots of good insight there.
I like your assessment of the lesser ride quality with a full UST setup (due to stiffer sidewalls on heavier tires)?
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 05, 2012, 05:20:00 am
What Jim said.....    Good info to know.  Thanks Liam.

You're right about the Slant Six -- it has significantly thicker sidewalls than the paper thin SB-8, but certainly not bomb-proof.  I won't be going lower than 35psi with tubes, at least at my weight.   ::)

I was reading last night about the need to top up the sealant every 4 months, presumably because the liquid is by then evaporating and becoming gummy and will no longer circulate to reach and seal a puncture.  But does the bead-rim seal also start to lose integrity and start leaking air? In other words, let's say I wasn't worried about punctures and didn't bother to top up the sealant.  Will the tire hold air for say, another year? Or two? (assuming I keep it pumped up, of course).

Basically, I have this unappealing thought that if I put a tire on and leave it on for two years, in which time I will have added about 200ml+ of sealant (if I follow the regular top-up recommendation), there will be an unholy mess of sticky 2-year-old glop all over the rim when I finally do take it off.  The alternative being that I have to strip the tire off every 4 months, clean it all out, then remount with fresh sealant.  I sure hope it just rinses clean with a garden hose. 

OTOH, if I can just mount it once, squirt some stuff in, and forget it for two or three years until I decide the tire needs replacing, then this is suddenly looking much more promising.

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Liam on June 05, 2012, 06:14:15 am
Sealant will completely dry up and cake the inner tire wall long before two years....and sealant (especially Stans because it has ammonia in it) does shorten sidewall life...I change tires every 6 months (and sooner depending on use). 

Supposedly the Caffe Latex, because it lacks certain chemicals in Stans, is less corrosive of tires...which may be true, I just didn't think it sealed anywhere near as well as the stand sealant.

All sealant based tubeless designs and uses still have a bit of that 'Backyard inventor' feel to them and tinkering around and being willing to suffer a few mishaps along the way is a part of the learning curve to get the most out of them.

Bring rags, degreaser wipes, a leatherman ('cause your valve stem might get 'glued in or up' and need pliers to remove or open) and a tube and an air source on every ride once you start using a sealant based system....eventuall y it will come in handy.

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 05, 2012, 03:56:10 pm
All sealant based tubeless designs and uses still have a bit of that 'Backyard inventor' feel to them and tinkering around and being willing to suffer a few mishaps along the way is a part of the learning curve to get the most out of them.

Liam, your "backyard inventor" comment is most insightful.  Jim and I were musing about this over the past couple of days, and saying that if you look forward a few years, the tubeless bike tire will evolve into something like the car tire wrt. mounting, sealing, rim and bead profiles, etc..  There will be a single standard rim profile, standard valve type, standard tire bead profile to seat into the rim.  The tires will be thin and light but made of tough and airtight compounds that will not require any sealant.  The only sealant will be like when you get a car tire installed -- a single one-time swish application on the rim and bead when the tire gets mounted, that lasts years.  Now that makes sense. All this messing around with liquids will be a thing of the past. 

At present, UST is that standard, but it is not universally adopted yet, and has the drawback of being so much heavier and stiffer.  When they figure out how to make a sub-600g UST tire (or even sub-700g), then people like myself (the late adopters; fence-sitters) will really take notice.  That will basically remove all the obstacles that presently prevent us from going tubeless, which you've done a great job of highlighting for us. 

Thanks for your help with all my questions.  Very interesting feedback.

Cheers,
Svend
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: LivingProof on June 06, 2012, 07:03:40 am
Life is so simple in the land of road bike clincher tires!  :-*
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 06, 2012, 07:54:42 am
And much cleaner too!  :D
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 06, 2012, 09:49:53 am



It seems that most reviews on road bike tubeless are equally enamored of the superior ride.
However, apparently development of tubeless tires is considerably more challenging on road bikes due to the higher pressures.  Hutchinson developed a carbon fiber bead for their tubeless road bike tires because the Aramid beads stretched too much at road bike pressures and would blow off.  Not as much of a problem for Mountain Bikes, but may explain why Bushwacka was saying not to run high pressures with ghetto tubeless for fear of blowing the tire off the rim.


In a 2006 article Hutchinson recommended their "StickAir bead lubricant" for mounting, and also recommends against the use of latex based sealants.


Hutchinson recommends 90-95 psi road bike pressures, and said that their tires behave much more like automobile tires, that even with a puncture it results in a slow leak and you can often still finish the ride.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 06, 2012, 06:16:57 pm
tubed road bike tires? yeah dont run those either.....

I have tublulars and I couldnt see running a tubed road biked tire. again grip, comfort, speed and more reliable. We waste so much time on forums like these any who that whats a some time out of your days to glue some tubulars. or set up some tubeless tires.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 06, 2012, 09:57:31 pm
I think my boss would object to  me working with bike tires during my 10 minute restroom break?
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: midwif on June 07, 2012, 10:27:28 am
I remember those road bike tubulars!
I am sure that the technology has improved, but I see absolutely no reason to go tubular again.
Clinchers have improved in weight and endurance.
I almost never get flats and they grip fine for what I am riding.

BW almost has me convinced on the mountain bike tubeless thing though.
Giving it a try. May need to upgrade my tires for stronger side walls.

Looking forward to biking this weekend with lower pressures and if I can feel the difference.

Lynn
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: meput on June 07, 2012, 07:01:15 pm
I have avoided posting on the thread since my mtn bike experience is essentially zero. But BW opened the door:

tubed road bike tires? yeah dont run those either.....

I have tublulars and I couldnt see running a tubed road biked tire. again grip, comfort, speed and more reliable. We waste so much time on forums like these any who that whats a some time out of your days to glue some tubulars. or set up some tubeless tires.

When I was making the decision to go with tubed vs. tubeless/stan's mtn bike tires, my shop guys made a very salient point. They said "look what you ride for tires on the road. The difference between tubulars (sew-ups) and clinchers is the same as tubeless/stan's vs tubed mtn bike tires." Needless to say, I went with the tubeless/stan's.

Played with clincher road wheels for about 3 yrs, 7 to 10 yrs ago. Had decent wheels, Mavic kysriums and Topolino's. Ran decent tires with Michelin RacePros being the best. 6 yrs ago, my wife surprised me with a pair of Bontrager XXX carbon tubular wheels for Christmas (got to love her  ;D). I haven't ridden clinchers again. My old love with tubulars from graduate school yrs was awakened. They ride smoother, more lively and are more responsive. My good wheels have Veloflex carbons which give me 1700 - 2200 miles per tire. My everyday wheels are Bontrager Race X  with Conti Sprinter tubulars. They give me ~2500 miles per tire.

I have followed the tubeless road tire development with interest because I carry a spare tubular when I ride any distance from home. Carrying a spare tube, to be a back up, would appease my weight weanie nature (road bike weighs ~ 14.5 with the good wheels).

Lynn, I chuckle at your comment 
I remember those road bike tubulars!
I am sure that the technology has improved, but I see absolutely no reason to go tubular again.
Clinchers have improved in weight and endurance.
I almost never get flats and they grip fine for what I am riding.

Look at all the skis that you trialled to find a replacement for the Every thangs. You were looking for a ski that gave you  improved performance and the same comfort that the old Heads gave you. Now, say you wanted a new road bike or improve the old one, to give you improved performance and good comfort over what you are currently riding (I don't know what you are currently on for a road bike). I think the least expensive option to significantly improve your ride would be to get a decent tubular wheel/tire combo (~$1,000 total). I have put my set of aluminum tubular wheels on friends bikes and they have all been significantly impressed over their clincher wheels.

Give me my road tubulars and mtn tubeless; or give me skis  ;)
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 07, 2012, 09:51:01 pm
Meput: I never let lack of knowledge restrain my posting, so feel free to post away. I'm curious though, do you use Stan's in your tubeless mtn bike tires?  What about Stan's in your car tires?  I'm skeptical of the value of comparing car and bike tires. But I also remember a time when car tubeless were much more prone to flats and tubeless plugs.

What is your opinion of road tubeless??

Lynn's Bike - 8 year old GT Titanium frame, Dura-Ace components, Zipp 404 carbon clincher wheels, Michelin or Continental 4000s tires.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 08, 2012, 08:10:59 am
Hey Lynn -- sounds like a sweet ride.  Ti frame, no less.....very nice.  I gotta say, as much as I love my mtn. bike, if I could change only one thing about it, it would be a Ti or Reynolds steel frame.  There's something about the feel of a bike frame made from those, that aluminum just can't beat.

On the subject of tires, here's one for Jim, who is never far from his Android:
http://www.geax.com/download/app/ (http://www.geax.com/download/app/)

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: midwif on June 08, 2012, 12:07:40 pm
Meput: I never let lack of knowledge restrain my posting, so feel free to post away. I'm curious though, do you use Stan's in your tubeless mtn bike tires?  What about Stan's in your car tires?  I'm skeptical of the value of comparing car and bike tires. But I also remember a time when car tubeless were much more prone to flats and tubeless plugs.

What is your opinion of road tubeless??

Lynn's Bike - 8 year old GT Titanium frame, Dura-Ace components, Zipp 404 carbon clincher wheels, Michelin or Continental 4000s tires.

Slight! Correction.
My bike is 15 years old at least. Still working, a little worse for wear looking.

Meput, you are absolutely right. Technology has progressed and tubulars on road bikes may be light years ahead of the old sew ups.
I should be open, because yours truly NEVER LEARNED TO CHANGE HER OWN G*d D*mn tires!
Sad, but true. Especially with the clinchers. And certain men in my life tried their best!

Tubless road tires might be in the future. And you ARE a lucky man to get such a spiffy set of rims.

L.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 08, 2012, 12:52:54 pm
Lynn, who cares how old it is.  Ti frames are still coveted as being a superior material.  Expensive, but excellent characteristics for frame building. 

Besides, beautiful bicycles have been around for decades, and are still being ridden and enjoyed today.  Who says old is not beautiful?  A friend of mine has a gorgeous, hand made in Italy, Basso Brothers road bike.  Campagnolo drivetrain, thin and elegant Chromoly frame, wonderful paintwork -- the bike is light and strong and wicked fast.  The frame build is a work of art.  He rides a Century on it every summer, and kicks the butts of his teammates riding shiny new carbon rigs.  Such a bike is a classic.  Like an old Jaguar E-type or 1960's Porsche 911, it will never look out of style and gives the impression that it was born to fly.

For anyone interested in craftsmanship vs. mass production in the world of bicycle making, I would highly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Its-All-About-Bike-Happiness/dp/1608195384/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1314641677&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Its-All-About-Bike-Happiness/dp/1608195384/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1314641677&sr=1-1)

If anyone recalls, I posted a review of it here:  http://www.realskiers.smfnew.com/index.php/topic,1894.0.html (http://www.realskiers.smfnew.com/index.php/topic,1894.0.html)

When you finish reading it, you may be rethinking your ideas of what constitutes a really good bicycle.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 08, 2012, 01:15:39 pm

Not Lynn's bike, but the GT Edge model, minus the decals, and her's has a carbon fork.


(http://www.pedalroom.com/p/1998-gt-edge-titanium-2329_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 08, 2012, 01:37:50 pm
Sweet! Looks like it would be a hill-killer.  A climbing beast (and I mean that in the good sense), with the rear wheel tucked in tight under the seat like that.  Jim, when you ride with Lynn and hit the hills, do I need to guess from which aspect you would most likely be viewing the lady and her bike?

GT used (or maybe still does) that frame design on their hard tail Zaskar mtn. bikes.  Supposedly this gave them fantastic stiffness (too stiff, apparently, for the aluminum versions, which was a punishingly harsh ride; but not so for the Ti builds) and great climbing ability.  Time proven GT design.

Nice bike, Lynn!

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 08, 2012, 02:03:25 pm
Jim, when you ride with Lynn and hit the hills, do I need to guess from which aspect you would most likely be viewing the lady and her bike?

I think you would probably guess correctly.  My bike is actually lighter than hers, but my body is 50% heavier and doesn't make 50% more power.  'Nuf said?  When we get to the hills, the Lynn/Bike combo are a beast!! (and I too mean that in a good sense).


But I also have to admit that drafting her up-hill has it's advantages, over and above that she's better than me at setting and maintaining a sustainable pace up-hill.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: meput on June 08, 2012, 03:36:06 pm
Jim: I have followed road tubeless wheels/tires with some interest. Other riders, that I trust, find them on a par with good clincher wheels with an open clincher tire. Due to few manufacturers for the wheels and basically only Hutchinson for the tires, I am afraid the technology and development may die due to rider apathy.

Lynn: Glad the bike picture that Jim posted is not your bike. If it was, your bike fitter needs to be shot  :D or you have grown (a lot) since I last saw you  :o.

Changing a tubular on the road is much simpler than changing a clincher tire. Just rip the old one off, put the the new one on with the rim tape oriented to the rim and inflate. Old glue and the tire pressure will hold on the tire to get you home. Just plan to slow down for any corners so you do not roll the tire  :-\.

Svend: I agree that a well made Ti or steel tubed frame can be a work of art. Richard Sachs, Tom Kellogg, Dario Pegoretti and many others make truly beautiful bikes. Even semi-custom bikes by Seven and Independent Fab can be great bikes. I would love to find a California built Masi Gran Criterium from ~'80 in my frame size (remember the movie "Breaking Away"?) I do have a Trek from that era that I had made up for me with Reynold's 531 fully double butted. Nice bike but nothing special (should have spent the couple hundred dollars more for the Masi and had a classic -my bad).

Jim: Where is your man-pride? How can you let Lynn beat you to the top of hills? Although your comment about drafting her up a hill does make some sense. I am on record as saying "I have never found a wheel that I will not suck!" I suspect if you found someone a little bit bigger, the wheel sucking would be better (speaking of getting up the hill, not necessarily the scenery). Just find the bike and rider of the photo you posted, that would be a nice wheel to suck  ;D.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 09, 2012, 06:06:47 am
Jim2 -- the custom frame fitting and building process described in the book that I mentioned is fascinating.  Small family shop in England, personal service.  Everything starts with a road test to see how the rider moves and interacts with the bike.  After that, it's half engineering and half Jedi intuition, it seems, to get a perfect fit.  The chapter on visiting the wheel builder in California is equally interesting.

I have heard of Richard Sachs, but not the others.  Will check them out.  Independent Fab....I think Gary's good friend has a Ti mtn. bike made by them.  Very nice rig.  I took it for a little spin, and was impressed.  Very responsive, agile, instant connection bet. pedal and wheel.

Like you, I regret not waiting a year, putting a few more dollars in the piggy bank, and getting a REAL mtn. bike.  As much as I love my 29er (Fischer Paragon, '09), if I were to do it again, I would get a Ti or Reynolds frame, made in North America, not mass produced in China.  Whether I would go custom or std. cut, I'm not sure.  Moots is a company I would look at.  Niner makes some nice rigs too, but not in Ti.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 09, 2012, 09:45:08 am
Jim: Where is your man-pride? How can you let Lynn beat you to the top of hills? Although your comment about drafting her up a hill does make some sense. I am on record as saying "I have never found a wheel that I will not suck!" I suspect if you found someone a little bit bigger, the wheel sucking would be better (speaking of getting up the hill, not necessarily the scenery). Just find the bike and rider of the photo you posted, that would be a nice wheel to suck  ;D .


OK, I guess I have to confess that the scenery makes it easy to subjugate my pride.
The interesting race is to the bottom of the hills. On my side is weight and gravity, on her side is a smaller profile cross section and those damn Zipp wheels (above 18 or so they really make a difference). 


More seriously, in order to draft Lynn I have to be down in the drops when she is on the handlebars, and when she drops down there's no way I can stay in her wind shadow.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: meput on June 09, 2012, 12:18:41 pm
Svend: If my memory banks serve me, Moots was doing mountain bikes before road bikes. Seven and Ind Fab each do beautiful work on road bikes, no knowledge re: mtn bikes.

Tom Kellogg is Spectrum Bikes. Dario Pegoretti is over in Italy.

Jim: Does Lynn's Zipp's have ceramic hub bearings? I ride with a couple of guys who recently got ceramic bearing hubs/wheels and their descending speed has significantly increased. The 404's do have a slight aerodynamic advantage over a shallower rim, but I suspect she may have an aerodynamic advantage over you by less frontal area than yourself.

Subjugate. I like the word, makes you sound very erudite  ::).
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 09, 2012, 02:12:37 pm
Subjugate. I like the word, makes you sound very erudite  ::).

I'm sure it's because Jim eat Alpha-Bits for breakfast every day.   ;)

Jim2 -- I just did a quick, but not exhaustive, check of some major US and Canadian bike makers websites, and it looks like only Marin and GT are still offering frames made from Ti, and those are only for mtn. bikes.  GT does not show Lynn's Ti frame as a current model.  After that, it's the smaller makers and custom shops.  But at least it shows that there is still a market for Ti bikes, if a rather small one.  The prices would certainly deter most -- frames alone list for $2200, $2900, and up.  Chromoly/Reynolds, OTOH, are slightly more common -- Jamis, Marin, Niner, etc. still making Chromoly or Reynolds frames.  They are less expensive, but with the obvious weight penalty.  I will have to check around where I live to see if there are any custom frame builders here.  With so many Italians in Toronto (2nd largest Italian city in the world, apparently), there has got to be a little shop with a craft frame builder somewhere around here.

My biggest complaint with my bike, is that the rear triangle feels too flexy, and does not seem to transmit pedal power efficiently to the wheel.  I can almost feel it bending and flexing when I step on the gas pedal and really crank it hard.  Not sure if this has anything to do with it being an aluminum frame, or just the design and build of that part of the frame.  But when I get on my 24-year-old steel frame bike, or Gary's friend's Ti bike, the difference is marked.  Much better acceleration and response, and I miss it.  It's not time to go shopping yet, but one of these years I'll be on the hunt. 



Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 10, 2012, 06:02:29 am
for how pretty I think Ti bikes are heck I think that GT is drop dead sexy. I have found that compared to steel that they tend to be heavier for the same stiffness and/or more flexy.

I have ridden the Salsa Selme ti and felt its was too flexy although very complaint, it still was not light for sure not as light as the old scadium/carbon first gen selma's.

Steel on the other hand, I have a  mass produced cheap steel frame. it light for the price, and IMO way stiffer where it needs to be well still having the magic carpet like steel ride. The only hardtails I have liked better than the redline are the Niner steel bikes(SIR and MCR), the Old salsa Selma/mamista, the Niner Air Nine carbon , the giant XTC 29er carbon, and my next potential SS bike the Kona Honzo(game changing bike though due to its progressive geo). For how much I would love a boutique steel frame from Hubcup, spot,, elect the cost is absurdly high and IMO not any more value than the mass produced frames. I can build a whole carbon bike for the cost of a frame in many cases and trust me carbon is the best material (short term) for making a bike out of.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: midwif on June 10, 2012, 09:24:48 am
Clearly, I should have been less cavalier with my bike!
It does not look nearly as nice as the one in the picture.

Guys, remember, all speeds are relative. As is beastliness :P
I aspire to be more beastly. ;D

I have always been a poor hill rider, IMO. Slow, steady and determined is my pace.

As far as the zipp wheels, they are first generation zipp. They were my husbands racing wheels for flat triathlons.
I was considering selling them, but Jim convinced me to use them myself instead!

 Wonderful downhill and flat. Others give the bike admiring nods.
They are a **** to handle in crosswinds though.

But Jim thinks they look really sharp with the bike, and as you know Svend, Jim is all about fashion and style. ;)

I will post a picture later in the week so you can admire my middle-aged set up. 8)

Lynn
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: meput on June 10, 2012, 07:12:00 pm
I have always been a poor hill rider, IMO. Slow, steady and determined is my pace.
Gee Lynn, Jim has been implying that you are a rabbit up the hills, drafting you, etc.

What are your other wheels? Might be time to experiment with them for non competitive riding. Might also help going up hill. 404's are not thought of as a climbing wheel.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 11, 2012, 08:06:15 am
Gee Lynn, Jim has been implying that you are a rabbit up the hills, drafting you, etc.

What are your other wheels? Might be time to experiment with them for non competitive riding. Might also help going up hill.
Meput:  But the Zipp's look so much better!  ::) 
B'sides, I never said she was a rabbit, only that she was faster than me!!  :o


Lynn couldn't keep up with her husband (a Nationally ranked tri-athlete) who lovingly suggested that she not try to climb Mt. Mansfield in VT.  She can't keep up with her son, or with the many good riders in Central Park going up the hill at the north end.
I'm sure we couldn't keep up with you, or with JBotti or Helluva or Bushwacka, but it's all about who you compare yourself with.
My guess is that she can't remember the last time she was passed by another 50 year old woman.

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: ToddW on June 11, 2012, 09:35:05 am

My guess is that she can't remember the last time she was passed by another 50 year old woman.

I've been passed by a 50 year old woman on Zipps and a Ti frame.  And in April, a 60 year old  was skiing circles around me at Hintertux.  Just goes to show that maybe we should respect our elders after all  :D
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 11, 2012, 06:19:02 pm



Pretty funny, Todd. Lynn will love this once she gets back to civiization.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 11, 2012, 06:47:43 pm
for how pretty I think Ti bikes are heck I think that GT is drop dead sexy. I have found that compared to steel that they tend to be heavier for the same stiffness and/or more flexy.

I have ridden the Salsa Selme ti and felt its was too flexy although very complaint, it still was not light for sure not as light as the old scadium/carbon first gen selma's.

Steel on the other hand, I have a  mass produced cheap steel frame. it light for the price, and IMO way stiffer where it needs to be well still having the magic carpet like steel ride. The only hardtails I have liked better than the redline are the Niner steel bikes(SIR and MCR), the Old salsa Selma/mamista, the Niner Air Nine carbon , the giant XTC 29er carbon, and my next potential SS bike the Kona Honzo(game changing bike though due to its progressive geo). For how much I would love a boutique steel frame from Hubcup, spot,, elect the cost is absurdly high and IMO not any more value than the mass produced frames. I can build a whole carbon bike for the cost of a frame in many cases and trust me carbon is the best material (short term) for making a bike out of.

BW -- interesting comments on Ti frames.  I was under the impression that they were lighter and more supple feeling than Reynolds, but not necessarily that much more flexy.  But wanting a Ti frame is different from actually owning one.  In reality, the price would probably keep me away, as we've invested a lot in good quality bikes for all four of us in the family in the past few years, so buying a $3000 Ti frame is not in the cards anytime soon.  A really good Reynolds frame, on the other hand, might just tempt me.  I've stumbled upon a couple of sweet 29ers in the past year -- a Jamis Dragon, and a Marin Pine Mtn. single speed.  Had the shop stocked the Jamis in my frame size, or the Marin in a geared setup, I might have pulled the trigger.  I have not seen Niner bikes anywhere in this area, but I hear they are very nice.  Not sure what the difference is between the SIR 9 and the MCR.  I'll do a dealer search and see if I can do a test ride somewhere.

As for scadium, is anyone even making bikes out that anymore? Supposed to be great material, though.  I know a guy with an older Kona scandium hard tail, and he says it's the best bike he's ever owned (and he has a low of high end bikes in his stable, including some pricey carbon numbers).

But Jim thinks they look really sharp with the bike, and as you know Svend, Jim is all about fashion and style. ;)

Lynn -- quite so.  He cut a dashing figure in his bright yellow and blue rain gear last fall for our ride along the Potomac.  And he seemed proud of his ensemble -- he most certainly chose the shade of yellow of his jacket to match the paintwork on his bike.  Fashion is all in the details, eh Jim?

Hey, if your GT is lookiing a bit scuffed, put Mr. R to work with a can of metal polish and a buffing cloth.  That can be his penance for not saying you're the fastest rider on the road.  With a bike like yours, you outta be.  Nice rig, Miss Lynn!

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 11, 2012, 07:19:15 pm
....and my next potential SS bike the Kona Honzo(game changing bike though due to its progressive geo).

BW -- I just checked out the Honzo....interestin g bike.  I like the short chainstay length -- very uncommon for a 29er.  Not sure I would like the slack head tube, though.  Would have to test ride to see how it felt.  It's taken me some time to get my bike's handling dailed in to an agile and quick steering feel -- shorter stem, flat wide bars, etc. -- and I would not want to give that up.  I don't see it on their site as a single speed, though -- just geared.  The only SS for Kona seem to be the Big Unit (scandium) and Unit (Chromoly).  The geometry of those is pretty conventional, though.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 11, 2012, 08:44:09 pm
honestly the slacker head tube makes it easier to lean into a turn. Its less agile when upright but more agile when on edge. The short chain stays keep the rear wheel planted better on climbs and make it much easier to drift. if you do not race or race and want to against the status quo then its worth trying to ride. it rides like a big hoop BMX bike and is very fun for lack of a better word. easy to loft the front end/pump it.

The frame is SS able.The complete bike has a pretty crappy build besides the fork which is a pretty nice. I would buy just the frame, and build it up working in a bike shop this is much cheaper and Ill end up with a nicer bike. It appeals to me because I like simple but capable bikes. A SS 29er with slack angles, a stout wheel set, and 140mm 20mm axle fork can be ridden anywhere you legs can take it.

Ti- the frame I have ridden have all had significant flex when pedaling, except for an IF that was built as a  SS but that thing weighed more than most steel frames and rode worse IMO,I am sure the buyer thinks its the best bike ever since he paid 2k for the frame.  the thing is I can produce alot of power and tend to flex weak frames.

SIR(steel is real) and MCR(Magic carpet Ride) are the same except the SIR has an eccentric BB, and no cable stops for derailuer cables. It can be run as a Single Speed or 1xwhatever with no way to run a front derailuer. MCR is gears only.  These bike IMO are amoung the nicest tradional geo steel(reynolds 857) bikes on the market with a pretty good price.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 11, 2012, 09:10:13 pm
honestly the slacker head tube makes it easier to lean into a turn. Its less agile when upright but more agile when on edge.

Got it -- I knew about the handling when upright, but wasn't aware that there was a benefit when leaned over.  Like I said, I would have to test ride a bike like that to see if it suited me.  To be honest, I prefer a steeper HTA because there are a lot of low speed switchbacks and tight corners in our singletrack.  That, and I just don't ride that fast that I really get huge lean angles in the corners.   ::) 

But there is such a thing as too steep a HTA as well -- I rode a Specialized Stumpy Comp 29er that was so twitchy as to be almost dangerous.  One little hiccup and you'd be in the trees.

When I tire of my Paragon, I will seriously look at the Niner MCR.  Other than the sllightly flexy rear triangle and the aluminum frame ride feel, I am really liking the Paragon.  It has a bit shorter chainstay length than most so the climbing qualities are good.  HTA is just right at 70 deg. so the handling is not too twitchy and not too lazy; just feels natural.  Drivetrain and fork are good (X-9; Fox).  Above all, it is a lot of fun to ride, and can take a beating with a big rider like me.  I will not outgrow it in terms of skill and demands on the performance, so I'll definitely be keeping it for another year or two at least. That is, unless I stumble across a really great deal on a Reynolds frame bike....  8)

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 11, 2012, 09:16:03 pm
the thing is alot of people at the fore front of bike design would say this, one stat doesnt make a bike.

for instance a a ski with a 120 tip and 100 waist will ski alot different than a 120 tip and a 80 mm waist.

The MCR is a reynolds steel frame......

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 11, 2012, 09:22:10 pm
the thing is alot of people at the fore front of bike design would say this, one stat doesnt make a bike.

for instance a a ski with a 120 tip and 100 waist will ski alot different than a 120 tip and a 80 mm waist.

The MCR is a reynolds steel frame......

Yes, I knew that.  It was the alumimum frame of my Paragon that I was referring to. 
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 12, 2012, 07:08:40 am


Pretty funny, Todd. Lynn will love this once she gets back to civiization.

Is she presently in Canada?  ;)
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Liam on June 12, 2012, 07:42:48 pm
On Titanium:  IN my experience, Titanium is unlike steel, in that cheap Chi-Tanium does not yield very desirable ride characteristics, but premium titanium absolutely does.   Whereas, even cheaper steel bikes have many of the desirable qualities of a quality steel frame.

The problem is this: Titanium is very, very hard to work with and lay-up correctly for bike frames.  Cheap titaniums feel pingy and harsher--and flex in all the wrong ways (I can still remember the Carver Chi-Tanium bike I had...worst riding bike ever). The low budget outfits can't take the the, nor do they possess the know-how to get the most out of titanium, plus they use pretty **** poor titanium tubes to begin with.

However, I have spent time on an IF, and Eriksen and Titus (original RX titanium-awesome ride) and a Strong Ti frame...and the ride is heavenly...not 4000.00 frame alone heavenly, but heavenly none the less.  Light, smooth, responsive-feels like you're riding on air. If you ever spend time on a high-quality ti frame built by a Ti master you'll get what all the fuss is about.

Geometry:  Presently my main bike is a Banshee Paradox-one of those modern 29ers with a slack head angle (68 degrees), 120 mm fork, short chain stays and low bottom bracket all held together with very beefy tubing.   I like it, and I would like it more with a more compliant steel frame.  Handles like BW says bikes with these dimensions handle-carvy on  down hills, sure footed in technical sections, it climbs pretty quick, but the short stay coupled with the slack and long front end allows the front wheel to wander on technical, steep climbs (it doesn't have that super-planted feel of most 29ers...which is neither good nor bad, just different).  I'd love to get a custom steel bike from Wojcik or Strong (or titanium if I win the lottery) with similar geometry but better overall alignment an fit and finish...someday.

Oh, I have been also riding the new Giant XTC 29er carbon...if I was a carbon bike buyer I'd by that bike!
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 12, 2012, 10:31:16 pm
Liam:

I've heard the same thing, that the quality of Ti frames is largely in the skill of the craftsmen. Partly design, but definitely the quality of the materials and how well they execute the design.

I think Lynn's GT is in that category as well.  She frequently has knowledgeable road bikers identify the frame and manufacturer and compliment her on what a good bike it is. In fact, she once got such a compliment from a Police Officer in his cruiser as they both waited at a stop light (New York is sometimes a surprising place).
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 12, 2012, 11:18:55 pm
I want to thank all, and especially Liam, for all of the education and insight around tubeless tires. Not only did it give me a lot of information, but it pointed out areas that led to a lot of googling, and I thought I would share some of the things I have found.  As Bushwacka predicted last year, I am now riding tubeless on my mountain bike at 30 lbs front and rear, and liking it.  On my most recent ride on a gravel road along the Delaware river I was going downhill at about 30 mph and hit two consecutive sharp-edged potholes that were hidden in the shadows. To my surprise, this was pretty much a non event -- at higher pressures I never had been comfortable enough to be going down a gravel road at those speeds and would certainly gotten bounced around. I was surprised that there seemed to be no after effects, we just kept riding.
My reading has found a lot of interesting stuff, so I thought I would share with any who want to spend the time reading. My reading has also included reading about road tubeless, so that's here as well.

Three categories of mtb/road wheels and tires are emerging. 1) standard wheels and tires converted to tubeless, 2) tubeless, and 3)   tubeless ready.
In category 1 Stan's is clearly the product of choice.  This category doesn't exist for road bikes.  The beads of normal tires stretch too much to stay on the wheel.  In fact, Hutchinson developed a Carbon Fiber bead specially for road bike tubeless.
In category 3, the tire and wheel have the UST bead but are not airtight and not UST rated. Some recommend Stan's (WTB, for example), many of the bigger tire companies recommend against Stan's because of the chemical base, and recommend their own products (and rate them as lasting longer than Stan's, 2 years for a couple I read). Hard to know how much is marketing hype, but using Stan's on Kenda voids your tire warranty.
Category 2 is truly tubeless.  The wheel and the tire are airtight. You can run sealant inside if you are overly worried about flats (like I may have been). Hutchinson says that most flats on their road bike tires are much like car flats, the leak is so slow that you can usually complete the ride.

I am intrigued by the idea of road tubeless and the increased comfort and decreased rolling resistance of riding at 80 lbs of pressure instead of 110. And I am especially intrigued by the Hutchinson internal/external repair kit for road tubeless.
Many of the reviews that I have read said that they mounted the Hutchinson Fusion III tubeless, no sealant, and never had to unmount the tire until it wore out 3,000 miles later (that's pretty maintenance free and attractive).
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 13, 2012, 05:22:16 am
Hey Jim, thanks for the great post and all the info.  This discussion has certainly helped me a lot too.  Liam and Josh have put up a lot of useful sutff of the pros and cons of this whole tubeless thing.  I'm going to need therapy after this chat is over....in form of a good long ride in the woods. 

I gotta say I was really turned off this whole tubeless thing, when faced with the prospect of adding more Stans every 3 months, stripping the tires off and trashing them after a single season because they were eaten away from the inside, trying to fix a flat trailside with messy goop all over my bike and myself whilst being eaten by mosquitos the size of hummingbirds (we grow 'em big here in the north woods).  I've got three other performance bikes in the family to keep maintained and tuned, never mind a business to run and active teenage girls to keep happy -- I don't have the time or the patience for this sort of thing.

But....Jim uncovered some products that (apparently) actually last longer than 3 months.  Hurrah! So this prompted me to contact Bontrager regarding my wheels, which are "tubeless ready", but not true tubeless, to find out what it is I actually need to do to run tubeless with minimum fuss and aggravation.  Their response was that I still need sealant, but only to seal the bead, not the rim strip or valve seat.  This is good news, since the trails around here have almost no sharp rocks or thorns, I am therefore not concerned about flatting out, so do not feel I need sealant for puncture sealing.  If I do get a flat, I carry a tube to get me home. 

So here's what I think I can do (Liam, Josh, feel free to bust on this):

-- buy UST tires that don't need sealant to make them airtight

-- seal the bead with Hutchinson or Geax sealant, which lasts 2 years (supposedly), only needs about 30ml added at the start to do the job, and apparently is a cinch to clean up when the tire eventually does come off

-- go riding, and don't worry about the tires until they wear out 2 years later from all the miles I've ridden  :)

Sound good, guys? I am optimistic that this will be doable. 

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 13, 2012, 05:41:32 am
On Titanium:  IN my experience, Titanium is unlike steel, in that cheap Chi-Tanium does not yield very desirable ride characteristics, but premium titanium absolutely does.   Whereas, even cheaper steel bikes have many of the desirable qualities of a quality steel frame.

The problem is this: Titanium is very, very hard to work with and lay-up correctly for bike frames.  Cheap titaniums feel pingy and harsher--and flex in all the wrong ways (I can still remember the Carver Chi-Tanium bike I had...worst riding bike ever). The low budget outfits can't take the the, nor do they possess the know-how to get the most out of titanium, plus they use pretty **** poor titanium tubes to begin with.

However, I have spent time on an IF, and Eriksen and Titus (original RX titanium-awesome ride) and a Strong Ti frame...and the ride is heavenly...not 4000.00 frame alone heavenly, but heavenly none the less.  Light, smooth, responsive-feels like you're riding on air. If you ever spend time on a high-quality ti frame built by a Ti master you'll get what all the fuss is about.

Geometry:  Presently my main bike is a Banshee Paradox-one of those modern 29ers with a slack head angle (68 degrees), 120 mm fork, short chain stays and low bottom bracket all held together with very beefy tubing.   I like it, and I would like it more with a more compliant steel frame.  Handles like BW says bikes with these dimensions handle-carvy on  down hills, sure footed in technical sections, it climbs pretty quick, but the short stay coupled with the slack and long front end allows the front wheel to wander on technical, steep climbs (it doesn't have that super-planted feel of most 29ers...which is neither good nor bad, just different).  I'd love to get a custom steel bike from Wojcik or Strong (or titanium if I win the lottery) with similar geometry but better overall alignment an fit and finish...someday.

Oh, I have been also riding the new Giant XTC 29er carbon...if I was a carbon bike buyer I'd by that bike!

Liam -- good info on Ti frames.  Thanks for that.  I had no idea that there was such a difference in quality.  But I guess my first impressions of the Ind. Fab. bike that I rode were correct -- it sure felt nice.  Strong, light, supple ride, responsive and agile.  If it had been a 29er, I would have offered to buy it from the guy.

Like I said, my next bike will likely not be a Ti frame.  Just too expensive...I would rather buy another pair of skis with that money  8).  But a high quality Reynolds frame, or even scandium (Kona?), with a good drivetrain and fork -- now that would interest me greatly.  Oh well....in a few years, for sure, but for now I am having fun on my Paragon.  I have not outgrown it yet, and am not likely to for a while yet.

And interesting notes regarding the geometry.  I will have to keep that in mind, and not reject a bike just because it has a slack head tube angle.  It's interesting, though, to see how much difference there is in chainstay length.  Not sure if that has a noticeable impact on climbing ability and acceleration, but my impression has always been that shorter is better.

Thanks for the insight!

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 13, 2012, 05:55:34 am
basically I do not know why everyone makes a big deal about running sealant. I would run even on a full on UST set up. Why? it can seal gaping holes and let you finish with out ever stopping.

messy? it is but so are things in life. I just work on a concrete floor and wipe it up after I am done.

I wear out tires way to fast to be concerned with them being so often from the inside which BTW only happen on some tire brands.

the difference between tubeless and tubes is the difference between a sharp ski and a dull ski.

In all honesty i could have convertered a tire in as fast as some of these post have taken to make.


my new test is the no pedal test. Everyone I ride with who has gone on splats about how tubeless sucks I just ride downhill with no pedaling and tell them to do the same and see if they can hold my wheel. So far they all have not been able to do it why? well I may be a good rider but their tubes are holding them back.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 14, 2012, 08:47:51 am
I moved the following post to a new thread (http://www.realskiers.smfnew.com/index.php/topic,2129.msg19412.html#msg19412 (http://www.realskiers.smfnew.com/index.php/topic,2129.msg19412.html#msg19412)), not wanting to drift too far from Jim's original post.  Please reply in the other thread.

Jim -- sorry for the thread drift.  ::)

Back to Reynolds bike frames for a moment, and some feedback from Liam and Josh, if possible....

I happened upon what seems like a pretty good deal on a brand new frameset of a Jamis Dragon 29er, 2009 model.  Price is ~$425, which is about 1/3 of list.  Full lifetime warranty on the frame.  Online reviews of this bike are good, at least of the ride quality.  Complaints seem to be only about components, but then I am buying only the frame, so this is not relevant.

Question is.....is this a good bike? A good brand? Jamis is little known up here in Canada, so I don't know their reputation.  You just don't see them around much, except their lower end stuff in the big box sports stores.

The specs look OK on the frame:  Reynolds 853 steel main tubes; chromoly stays; 72 deg. HTA (steeper than my present bike, which is OK, but maybe too twitchy?); 74 deg. STA; 17.72"/450mm chainstay (not bad, could be shorter; still a good climber?).

I am thinking of either stripping all the parts off my Paragon and selling the frame, or just slowly acquiring new parts for the Jamis when they come on sale and building up the frame from scratch, then selling the complete Paragon.  The advantage of the latter is that I can add what I want -- UST wheels, 2x10 drivetrain, etc..  Disadvantage of this is the cost -- adding everything up may equal the cost of a complete bike.

Any thoughts, guys?

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 14, 2012, 06:37:50 pm
Jim have you actually ridden this bike on singletrack yet?
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: meput on June 14, 2012, 07:01:00 pm
Back to road tubeless. Interesting review of American Classic tubeless road wheelset: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=10480&status=True&catname=Latest%20News

Price for the weight is very good. Lighter than most carbon wheels with aluminum breaking characteristics. Lynn, these would be good climbing wheels for the lurking hill rabbit that is in you  :D.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 18, 2012, 09:06:14 am
Wow.  Lot's of good information -> which leads to lots of questions.

So you've been running full UST mtb "mostly dry" since 2004 with no flats? Verrry interesting.  What's your plan if you do have a flat? Hutchinson's??

How do you like the 7800's?  And good to hear that you are running them dry. What do you weigh and what pressures do you use?  I'm considering a pair of 7900-c24's and am trying to decide between the Fusion 3 and the Maxxis Padrone. Any thoughts? Any history of flats with the Fusion 2's, or any experience with the Hutchinson Rep'Air?

Thanks for the review information on the Hutchinson sealant. Does the Hutchinson sealant really last two years? 
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 18, 2012, 09:41:57 am
Good post Epic, and welcome to our forum!

In my own wheels I run full UST though I've dabbled with a little bit of TLR. I mostly run them dry though I have one 819 that won't seal without a little dab of juice for the bead.

This comment stirred up a question for me too.... I have TLR wheels on my mtn. bike, and want to go tubeless with the least fuss and maintenance possible.  I am thinking that I can use UST tires mounted with just enough sealant to seal the bead, and that's all.  Especially if I use a sealant like Hutchinson, I am hoping I can basically set it and forget it.  Is this going to work? What has your experience been with TLR wheels?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: epic on June 18, 2012, 12:56:33 pm
So you've been running full UST mtb "mostly dry" since 2004 with no flats? Verrry interesting.  What's your plan if you do have a flat? Hutchinson's??

I used to carry a tube and a CO2. Theory was that if I had a flat, I'd pull the UST valve, put in teh tube and be on my way. After a few years of giving away tubes to flatted companions and never needing one myself I've stopped carrying the tube. Now I just shrug and say "good luck".  :o For myself, I carry a Hutchinson Tubelees Patchkit box is big enough to hold extra brake pads and retaining pin, one SRAM quicklink, and a couple of zipties too. I could use this to repair a large hole. I also have a 16g CO2 and a Huntchinson Fast'Air. If I had a puncture and stopped without losing the bead, I'd just use the Fast'Air. If I had a large hole, I'd pull one bead (or at least try to keep the other one) repair hole w patchkit, and then inflate w CO2. Fast'Air would then be my failsafe. On longer rides, I've carried more Fast'Airs and or CO2s. I wouldn't want to have just the one, because if I had trouble getting the bead on the first shot, I'd like to have a 2nd chance.

btw: I take back the no flats thing. I have had one on my DH bike. Skidded across a nail when a guy crashed in front of me on a wooden structure. Tore a 6" long gash in the tire. Nothing would have prevented that or repaired it tubes or no.

As for pressures in the D/A wheels, I am 200 lbs and just got back from a ride at 80 front 90 rear. I'm still conditioned to go for 100 psi and it feels weird to stop pumping before I get there. A few years ago, I was riding with a friend and we were talking in the parking lot as we got ready. We did a 70 mile ride. About halfway through the ride, I felt the rim touch the ground on a bump and realized that I had only pumped up the front tire. When we got back I checked, and I was only at 45 psi on the rear. I barely noticed. This ride was 50% dirt roads, btw.

I used a Fast'Air once on my first set of road tires. I got a puncture at the halfway point of a century ride. Shot in a Fast'Air and never touched the tire again until I took it off due to wear. Another cool thing about it was how slowly it went down. I heard it going "psssh" each revolution and had tons of time to pull over and fix it. The tire never even really had a chance to get very soft.

As for the Padrones, I have no opinion. If I were getting new tires today, I'd probably do just Fusion3s or Intensives (to get the extra width).

Now as far as TLR wheelsets go, all of mine have been UST. TLR rims come in different flavors. To my knowledge, there is no standard for what constitutes a TLR rim. With UST you have a sealed rim-bed and a bead of a particular shape. UST is a certification. Somebody could make a UST rim and not get it certified and it wouldn't be UST. So for example Fulcrum and Campy's 2-Way Fit rims are for all intents and purposes UST rims and can be treated as such, but are not UST certified.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 18, 2012, 01:28:09 pm
Now as far as TLR wheelsets go, all of mine have been UST. TLR rims come in different flavors. To my knowledge, there is no standard for what constitutes a TLR rim. With UST you have a sealed rim-bed and a bead of a particular shape. UST is a certification. Somebody could make a UST rim and not get it certified and it wouldn't be UST. So for example Fulcrum and Campy's 2-Way Fit rims are for all intents and purposes UST rims and can be treated as such, but are not UST certified.

Hmmm...interesting.  I guess I should just try it -- put a UST tire on the rim, pump it up and see if it catches and holds air.  If not, just add some Hutchinson sealant.  FWIW, I have Bontrager Rhythm Comp TLR 29er wheels.  I haven't found any comments on the web from people who've run this wheel as a true UST.

Have you ever tried Geax Tubeless Therapy sealant? It looks like a similar product to the Hutchinson stuff.  Claimed to last 2 years.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 18, 2012, 06:50:51 pm
The main issue with 29er right now is the lack of UST tires. I would run one on the rear of my SS if one existed with a good tread. that bike is eating some burly tubeless ready tires that get mounted on the rear.

I normally get my tube back at the end of a ride. I called it the tube of running tubed tires shame. Wish I had a tire as tough as the 26 inch UST I use to run.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 18, 2012, 08:58:45 pm
Josh -- I hear you.  I did some checking of the manufacturer's sites tonight, and true UST tires in a tread pattern that would work for me are not exactly numerous.  In fact, I found exactly....nothing  ???  So much for that idea  ::).  I guess I'm stuck with tubeless ready tires and sealant.  Geax TNT tires seem like they are as close to UST as any.  I will try them first and see how it works out.  With any luck, they will work dry with the Bonty TLR rims, although I am not optimistic.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 19, 2012, 04:40:27 am
I have some Geax TNT AKA on their way. If they are anything like the other Geax I am sure they grip great and roll fast.

I shreded a non TNT Gato on the rear of my SS the other day. If you saw how I did I totally blame me, but can not help to think a UST tire would have survived.

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 19, 2012, 05:28:13 am
I heard the AKA is a great dry-season tire.  Let me know how that works out for you, and how it performs. 

I am impressed with Geax.  They seem to wear well, in addition to having great performance.  I recently put a Saguaro on the back of my daughter's bike, replacing an Ignitor, and she noticed a difference in rolling resistance immediately. 

Are you going to try mounting the TNT AKA dry? Or will you still need sealant for your wheels? (ie. non-TLR?)

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 19, 2012, 05:56:01 am
yeah it will need sealant, which like "I run dry" himself(epic) says is not such a big deal.

My dry race set up is going to be 2.25 ardent up front and 2.2 AKA TNT rear. I might even try to totally weight weenie out and go AKA front Mezcal rear.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Liam on June 19, 2012, 08:36:09 am
The main issue with 29er right now is the lack of UST tires. I would run one on the rear of my SS if one existed with a good tread. that bike is eating some burly tubeless ready tires that get mounted on the rear.

I normally get my tube back at the end of a ride. I called it the tube of running tubed tires shame. Wish I had a tire as tough as the 26 inch UST I use to run.

You haven't tried the Ardent 2.25 LUST 29er yet?  I'm told it's bombproof (true UST 29er...one of the very few).  I haven't had any trouble with the regular ardents so I haven't bothered with the UST version...but it certainly catches my interest.
Title: A definitive discussion / review of sealants
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 21, 2012, 02:58:48 pm

An excellent overview of the various sealants from the Slowtwitch Tri-athlete site.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Things_that_Roll/Tires/Tire_Sealants_2765.html (http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Things_that_Roll/Tires/Tire_Sealants_2765.html)


My goal, I think, is to be like Epic   ;D   Ride dry and count on Fast'Air to seal the flat if/when it happens.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 21, 2012, 06:18:26 pm
if you run full UST it should be easy.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 21, 2012, 09:31:32 pm
Jim -- well done, and a good find.  Some very useful information in there.  Detailed and very thorough.  Thanks for posting that.  It is most helpful.

As a aside, I had a bit of "incentive" to go tubeless during a ride last evening.  My front tire developed a leak during a ride.  Nothing drastic - just noticed it was mushy on my way back to the truck after exiting the forest.  Must have hit a big root and had a small pinch flat.  Slapped the pump on the valve to get enough air in to get me the last 2 km, and promptly snapped the valve stem right off.  #&@%!!!  Said more blue words, and changed the tube.  This was my first pinch flat in 15 years.  Not impressed.  ::)   Can I blame it on the Kendas? Had I been running tubeless, this would not have happened.

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 22, 2012, 08:30:05 am

You lucky dog!   ::)   At least your ride was almost over with.
Too bad you can't validate it as a pinch flat. Maybe the valve stem was failing/leaking before you put the pump on it.
Or maybe you just need to be a little bit more gentle with those Viking arms?
Fast'Air may have fixed it too.  I believe I read that it works in tubes or tires?
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on June 22, 2012, 12:34:05 pm
so let me get this straight Jim complained about how much full on UST weighs but now wants to run a tubeless system without sealant?

Which one is it Jim?
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: Svend on June 22, 2012, 01:16:08 pm
You lucky dog!   ::)   At least your ride was almost over with.
Too bad you can't validate it as a pinch flat. Maybe the valve stem was failing/leaking before you put the pump on it.
Or maybe you just need to be a little bit more gentle with those Viking arms?
Fast'Air may have fixed it too.  I believe I read that it works in tubes or tires?

Yeah, I guess so.  But I was getting eaten by deer flies and huge mozzies, so was kind of distracted and rushed, swatting and swearing.  My wife standing there doing the same, saying "Hurry up! Aren't you done yet?" didn't help matters.  Next time I'll let the beasts get their pound of flesh and take it nice and gentle-like on the valve stem.   :D

Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 22, 2012, 01:39:10 pm
so let me get this straight Jim complained about how much full on UST weighs but now wants to run a tubeless system without sealant?

Which one is it Jim?


Both?   ;D   I don't know, but now both have become an option (again).  Before, I was feeling like tubeless still required the intelligent rider to add sealant, so tubeless was no better than "tubeless ready" (but I wasn't overly enamored of the hassle). But learning that "some people" ride with no sealant and have a good approach to fixing a flat quickly (with little likelihood of breaking the valve stem), then all of a sudden I'm rethinking.  Of course, you (Bushwacka) may wind up telling me that the "intelligent" rider does use sealant.   ;)
Epic's post describes an approach that is very appealing (and, honestly, more like tubeless on car tires). And not using an ammonia based product seems to be desirable.  The anecdote of the Fast'Air sealing the road tire for the duration of it's life was pretty surprising given the difference in air pressure required by the two types of tires. A good endorsement.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on June 22, 2012, 02:29:51 pm
Jim,

I'm just curious -- have you ever actually had a flat on your mtn. bike? That is, in your antediluvian pre-tubeless days?  ;)  The reason I'm asking, is that you seem very concerned with flats and not having to fix them, hence one of the two main reasons for going tubeless.  I have been mtn. biking since 1989, very actively for the first 10 years, now back at it again after a hiatus. 

What I'm trying to say, is that your fear of pinch flats might be a bit overblown.  In other words, don't worry so much, and just go riding. 


The likelihood may be overblown, but as you said today, the physical PITA factor is still fresh in my memory. I've had a couple of road bike walks as well, once for a flat and another a broken derailleur but those didn't stick with me the way the flat out in the sticks did. In fact, for the derailleur I called a taxi for a ride home.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: epic on July 15, 2012, 04:28:16 pm
Hey guys, I rode my first Stan's setup today on a demo bike. I didn't really know quite what it was when I got on it. It was inflated to a normal for me 30 psi. The rims were DT-Swiss and tires were Maxxis Minion DHFs. The tires/wheels rode fine up the climb, but could have used a bit more air since the sidewalls are thinner than a typical UST sidewall. I could occasionally feel the rim bounce off the ground. At that point I thought there were tubes in there as the Stan's valve doesn't have the telltale nut of a UST valve. What really gave it away for me was on the very first turn (for Bushwacker, this was the first spine on the top of Spear) of the downhill where it made a huge racket and the tire had the biggest burp I've ever experienced. There was a ring of dried Stan's hanging from about 150 degrees of the tires bead. This is where I feel that the ghetto solutions are a fail relative to true tubeless setups. IMHO you need to have that dedicated tubeless interface between tire and rim. On the plus side, the wheel did reseal itself at once without too much loss of air for me to continue. I kept rimming the wheels when I hit stuff, and I  had to slow down for corners, but I could still ride pretty fast as long as I made sure that things were hitting the back wheel dead-on. They felt pretty bad on sidehills though even before the burp, you could feel it trying to roll. About halfway down, I caught up with some Quebecois guys and borrowed their pump (it even had a gauge) re-inflated to 35 psi and continued with no further problems. At 35 psi though, I felt that a lot of the advantage of tubeless was negated. It was bouncier for sure.
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: bushwacka on July 15, 2012, 06:14:26 pm
stans rim(which seams to be working) or stans rim strips(which I loath and think should die)
Title: Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
Post by: jim-ratliff on July 15, 2012, 07:26:30 pm
DT Swiss rims, so must be Stan's rim strips. From what I've read, burping that bad is the result of the wrong rim strips or not enough layers or rim to rim coverage.  My take is that Stan's relies on the strips under the bead to wedge the tire bead against the clincher part of the wheel.

So we all agree on the importance of the bead/wheel interface? That is the crux of all of the "tubeless ready" products that may not be leak proof or be UST certified, but do have the UST bead design.


Bushwacka, would you say that the ghetto tubeless works better than Stan's rim strips??