Author Topic: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires  (Read 1645 times)

ToddW

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 200 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #45 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

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2012, 06:19:02 pm »



Pretty funny, Todd. Lynn will love this once she gets back to civiization.
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #47 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!

« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 06:53:47 pm by Svend »

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #48 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.

bushwacka

  • Instructor
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 471
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #49 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.

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #50 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)


bushwacka

  • Instructor
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 471
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #51 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......


Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #52 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. 

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #53 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?  ;)

Liam

  • Ski Shop/Ski Patrol
  • 200 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 399
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #54 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!

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #55 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).
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

jim-ratliff

  • 6+ Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ******
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #56 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.

  • Hutchinson is the only company that makes road tubeless tires. As Meput said, if they remain the only company then road tubeless will probably die, but all of the reviews are as positive as the mtb reviews. Hutchinson (and a couple of other companies, including Kenda) don't recommend using latex based (i.e. Stan's) sealants.  They have their own products that they say last two years.
  • A video of two guys racing to mount tubeless tires on Shimano and Compagnola rims --   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPPjkMvKKtE  -- and people say tubeless is hard to mount.
  • Hutchinson Rep'Air (version for mtb and for road bike). fix a tire along the road without taking the tire off the rim.   http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/11/23/reviewhow-to-hutchinson-repair-tubeless-tire-patch-kit/
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).
« Last Edit: June 12, 2012, 11:33:12 pm by jim-ratliff »
"If you're gonna play the game boy, ya gotta learn to play it right."

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #57 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. 

« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 05:28:50 am by Svend »

Svend

  • 4-6 Year Member
  • 1000 Posts
  • ****
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #58 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!

« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 05:54:51 am by Svend »

bushwacka

  • Instructor
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 471
Re: Jim (a non-racer) and tubeless MTB tires
« Reply #59 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.