# Apart from me and Screenman, who is tubeless?



## Cubist (4 Dec 2012)

What system do you use, UST, Tubeless ready or ghetto?

I'll start. I have Stans rims on both MTBs, running Tubeless ready with stans tape, valves and fluid.


----------



## lulubel (4 Dec 2012)

I'm going to lurk, if that's OK.

It's just occured to me that my OH is a bit heavier and a lot less gentle with her bikes than I am, so I may learn something useful.


----------



## Cubist (4 Dec 2012)

For the record, I tried ghetto on an old pair of Superstar rims, (apparently they're made by Alexrims for Superstar,) but they were small in diameter, so no amount of effort would get them to behave. I used to be able to take tyres of and put them on with pretty gentle thumb pressure, so I guess those rims were a non-starter. 

I still have the BMX tubes and plenty of sealant, so I'll try it on Cubester's EX500 rims next time he needs a new tyre.


----------



## AlanW (4 Dec 2012)

Best thing I ever did was go tubeless, Mavic Tubeless rims with std Nobby Nic/Racing Ralph tyre combo and Stans "No Tubes"......unbeatable combination IMHO


----------



## screenman (5 Dec 2012)

Cubist, I run the same as you on 3 bikes here.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> What system do you use, UST, Tubeless ready or ghetto?
> 
> I'll start. I have Stans rims on both MTBs, running Tubeless ready with stans tape, valves and fluid.


When you say ghetto do you mean stan's kit plus normal rim and tyre ghetto or hacked about 20" tube and some sealant ghetto.


----------



## Cubist (5 Dec 2012)

GregCollins said:


> When you say ghetto do you mean stan's kit plus normal rim and tyre ghetto or hacked about 20" tube and some sealant ghetto.


Hacked about 20 inch BMX inner tube and sealant.

Life's too short. 

I'll try it on a larger rim, but that Superstar one was tiny.


----------



## lulubel (5 Dec 2012)

Can someone explain what UST is, and why none of you use it?


----------



## screenman (5 Dec 2012)

I know I promised but here goes,

*Tubeless*

A tubeless tire system requires an airtight rim — capable of being sealed at the valve stem, spoke holes (if they go all the way through the rim) and the tire bead seat — and a compatible tire. Universal System Tubeless (UST), originally developed by Mavic, Michelin and Hutchinson[10] for mountain bikes is the most common system of tubeless tires/rims for bicycles.[11] The main benefit of tubeless tires is the ability to use low air pressure for better traction without getting pinch flats because there is no tube to pinch between the rim and an obstacle.[10]


----------



## lulubel (5 Dec 2012)

So, that quote says it's the most common, but none of you seem to be using it. Why are you guys using tubeless ready instead? What's different/better about one compared to the other?


----------



## screenman (5 Dec 2012)

Using Stans bit and bobs I have just converted normal wheels and tyres to tubeless. I think that is the most common in terms of buying off the shelf, what most of us use is a way of converting standard parts to tubeless with excessive expense.


----------



## Drago (5 Dec 2012)

Tubeless on my Giant only, Mavic rims. Thats proper tubeless, not some nasty kit to bodge a cheap rim and tyre together. That rubbish is more if a pain in the arse than fixing a puncture.

And the benefits... Seeing as I wasn't exactly in puncture central to begin with, very little. A bit lighter, but then my wallet would have been seriously lighter too if I'd bought it all myself.

If they'd not come my way gratis I still wouldn't bother.


----------



## 02GF74 (5 Dec 2012)

I've been toyinig with going tubeless but been put of by what happens if you get puncture or a flat so the tyre goes down. a small hand pump does not supply enough air to seat the tyre; and since I don't plan to buy expensive co2 cartridges, then taking 2 spare inners would mean nay weight saved goes out the window due to carrying 2 tubes instead of 1 that I nirmally carry.

sure there is the ablility to run lower pressure plus less rolling resisitnace, I doubt I'd notice the latter....


----------



## screenman (5 Dec 2012)

Drago, you do talk some rubbish sometimes. The conversion kits are extremely good value and do the job well, but how would you know as you have stated you have the proper one's so have not tried the conversion kits.

02GF74, it is not about weight saving and lower air pressure I am sure increases rolling resistance. Why carry 2 inner tubes? how many do you carry now?


I wonder why tubeless is used in most other modern forms of transport, cars, motorbikes, etc.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Dec 2012)

things may have moved on but on my old SP370 I used to have to bolt the tyres to the rims to stop them creeping under accelleration/braking at low pressure.


----------



## lulubel (5 Dec 2012)

GregCollins said:


> things may have moved on but on my old SP370 I used to have to bolt the tyres to the rims to stop them creeping under accelleration/braking at low pressure.


 
My tubes slide round so the valves aren't straight. Is that what you mean by creeping?

That's why I've started to express a sudden and unexpected interest in tubeless, but having read up on it some more, I think it will be less hassle to just take one side of the tyre off and straighten them up every few weeks.


----------



## Drago (5 Dec 2012)

screenman said:


> Drago, you do talk some rubbish sometimes. The conversion kits are extremely good value and do the job well, but how would you know as you have stated you have the proper one's so have not tried the conversion kits.
> 
> 02GF74, it is not about weight saving and lower air pressure I am sure increases rolling resistance. Why carry 2 inner tubes? how many do you carry now?
> 
> ...


I got a box of 30 DT conversion kits to try on the fleet I maintain to teach with, so I rather think I've had more first hand experience than you. Sometimes they work first go, sometimes they never seal at all for reasons unknown to mankind. I fed back my experience to the supplier who conceded that they seemed to often simply not work, and advised Stans aren't any more consistent.

I still carry 1 spare tube and a patch of pond liner to act as a makeshift boot because if I split or tear a tyre I'm going to look mighty foolish. 

Tubeless is used in heavier vehicles such as cars, motorbikes etc, mainly because friction between the tyre and the tube would often cause the tube to fail through abrasion. Not so bad up until the 70's, but as cars especially became heavier and more powerful it started to become a rear problem, so tubeless became the norm - the reasons and benefits are practically unrelated to the reasons for going tubeless on a bicycle.

I'm not against it, but I don't get a trouser tent over it either. In my case I was careful with tyres and pressures and have never, ever, suffered a pinch flat, and I teach mountain biking for most of my living. In my case its an answer to a question I hadn't really asked.


----------



## lulubel (5 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> I'm not against it, but I don't get a trouser tent over it either.


 
 

I'd never heard that expression before, and I had to look it up. Priceless.

I really must get out more.


----------



## screenman (5 Dec 2012)

I bow to your superior knowledge sir, where do your train people? It sounds an interesting subject.


----------



## Cubist (5 Dec 2012)

lulubel said:


> So, that quote says it's the most common, but none of you seem to be using it. Why are you guys using tubeless ready instead? What's different/better about one compared to the other?


You can use tubeless ready tyres on most rims, as long as you use the conversion kit. If you like there are three main ways to go tubeless, without resorting to ghetto, but I 'll get to that in a bit.

1. Stans tubeless strips (not to confused with Stans tubeless tape) are like half an inner tube with a valve attached. Other makers also do them, such as Bontrager. They sit in the well of the rim, sealing air from the spoke holes, but also help the tyre to seat in the rim. You can use them on some ordinary rims. 

You are best using tubeless ready tyres as they are less porous and have a consistent bead that will seat under the rim clincher. You seat the tyre on the stans strips, then inflate and add latex fluid. The strip is pushed into the clincher by the tyre. The latex fluid contains granular material and this creates a seal at all points where air escapes, and after a few minutes forms a perfectly airtight seal. Using a conversion kit like this gives you the performance advantage of tubeless but without the weight benefit. 

2. Tubeless rims with tubeless tape and valves. I'll use Stans as the example. The tubeless rims are wrapped with very adhesive, thin strong tape. This seals the spoke holes. You then push a tubeless valve through the tape and out of the valve hole. It screws up tight and has a rubber flange to make it airtight. You then put tubeless ready tyres onto the tyre and pump until they seal into the clinchers on both side. You then deflate them, and inject 60ml of fluid per tyre in through the valve stem (they screw in half) and repressurise them. They're very simple, and give both a performance and a weight benefit. 

3. UST on UST rims. These work like car tubeless, where the tyre seats in a tubeless rim and seals without sealant. They reason no one uses them is that they are much heavier and more expensive than Tubeless ready. I can't see the point personally. Others may disagree. 

Ghetto is a sort of cheap version of 1. You can theoretically use any rim, as you use a 20" BMX tyre, which you stretch onto a 26" rim, seating the valve as normal, and then slice it open along the outside diameter. You then seat your tyre on top of the BMX tyre and pump it up. The BMX tyre forms a seal between the tyre and the clincher. You fill it with sealant and trim away the excess bmx tube which is visible outside the tyre.


----------



## Cubist (5 Dec 2012)

This guy clearly enjoyed his ghetto tubeless experience


----------



## screenman (5 Dec 2012)

Cubist brilliant write up, only point I differ on is that I do not put sealant through the valve hole, I just pull a part of the tyre to one side at the bottom and and the sealant that way. I find this quicker and neater with no chance of spillage etc.


----------



## Drago (6 Dec 2012)

screenman said:


> I bow to your superior knowledge sir, where do your train people? It sounds an interesting subject.


Whichever police force wants me. We've done work at most of the southern and central forces, and sone Northern ones. Done some private tuition locally at the Tiifield Estate and Salcey Forest. Done a bit at Cannock to, but wasn't welcomed with open arms, possibly due to being qualified 2 levels higher than their resident trainers.

Rarely do private work now, a lot of effort, petrol and grief for not much money, not to mention wear and tear on my own equipment, although I do get invited to do a spot for kids organisations and charities etc, which I do if I'm available.

Found it - March 2011 MBR, they also had trouble with Stans, 3 attempts to get it to seal a Conti tyre on a Commencal rim.


----------



## Motozulu (6 Dec 2012)

I'm in the Lulubel camp here (about tubeless - I knew about trouser tenting ) I'm a comparative novice and thus far have'nt suffered problems with pinch flats so fail to see the benefits of what looks like a lot of expense and hassle for what gain?


----------



## lulubel (6 Dec 2012)

My inner tubes slipping round inside the tyre is irritating, and will require a bit of maintenance I wasn't expecting.

I decided to read up on tubeless, and was starting to think the UST system looked like it might be promising (at some point, when I did a wheel upgrade) because it doesn't use sealant. Then I found another site where it said most people still use sealant with them, and that kind of spoilt it for me.

I've also read that you need very high pressure to get the tyres to seal onto the rims, which isn't that big a deal - although I'm not a fan of CO2 pumps, I'm not against getting an air compressor for home because those have a lot of other uses - but I'm not sure how I'd deal with a puncture on the trail with that system.

Besides which, there's no benefit in weight terms, and if you use sealant, they actually weigh more.

Stan's (and similar systems) still looks like a lot of faffing to me.


----------



## Cubist (6 Dec 2012)

Faff and Forget 
Stans system on Stans rims is as easy if not easier than changing a tube on Cubester's Minion/ EX500 setup. 

You take an inner tube just in case and simply stick a tube in to get you home.


----------



## simon.r (6 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> This guy clearly enjoyed his ghetto tubeless experience


 
The infamous badger of STW fame IIRC? The photo-shopped images on that thread were fantastic

http://www.lost-soul.co.uk/drac/Singletrack - Mountain Bike Magazine.htm

http://petefagerlin.com/yes_tubes/testimonials.htm


----------



## screenman (6 Dec 2012)

I fear this could turn into a helmet style thread, so best if we all agree to differ.

I tried Stans and liked it, many have not tried it and do not like it. Drago has a lot more experience on the subject than I do, however with my limited experience I have had no problems getting a seal.


----------



## lulubel (6 Dec 2012)

I don't think there's any need for it to turn into a helmet style debate. Some of us use tubeless, some of us don't. Some of us have tried it and loved it, some of us have tried it and can't really see the benefit (or at least one of us has).

I think helmet debates get so heated because the people who don't choose to wear helmets feel as if they're being pressured to wear them by some helmet-wearing members (and society as a whole) so they can tend to get very defensive.

What made you decide to try Stans? Ease of use? Affordability? Same as your daughter-in-law uses? (I think it was your DIL you mentioned in the other thread?)


----------



## screenman (6 Dec 2012)

I think I chose Stans for all those reason. I think one of the major reasons I changed is we are blessed in Lincolnshire with very aggressive hedge cutting, which is a massive bonus for the puncture fairies. Going tubeless was another way of getting away from them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Dec 2012)

Drago said:


> Whichever police force wants me. We've done work at most of the southern and central forces, and sone Northern ones. Done some private tuition locally at the Tiifield Estate and Salcey Forest. Done a bit at Cannock to, but wasn't welcomed with open arms, possibly due to being qualified 2 levels higher than their resident trainers.
> 
> Rarely do private work now, a lot of effort, petrol and grief for not much money, not to mention wear and tear on my own equipment, although I do get invited to do a spot for kids organisations and charities etc, which I do if I'm available.
> 
> *Found it - March 2011 MBR, they also had trouble with Stans, 3 attempts to get it to seal a Conti tyre on a Commencal rim*.


and no one has ever pinched a tube between rim and tyre have they....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> You can use tubeless ready tyres on most rims, as long as you use the conversion kit. If you like there are three main ways to go tubeless, without resorting to ghetto, but I 'll get to that in a bit.
> 
> 1. Stans tubeless strips (not to confused with Stans tubeless tape) are like half an inner tube with a valve attached. Other makers also do them, such as Bontrager. They sit in the well of the rim, sealing air from the spoke holes, but also help the tyre to seat in the rim. You can use them on some ordinary rims.
> 
> You are best using tubeless ready tyres as they are less porous and have a consistent bead that will seat under the rim clincher. You seat the tyre on the stans strips, then inflate and add latex fluid. The strip is pushed into the clincher by the tyre. The latex fluid contains granular material and this creates a seal at all points where air escapes, and after a few minutes forms a perfectly airtight seal. Using a conversion kit like this gives you the performance advantage of tubeless but without the weight benefit.


I read somewhere it was necessary to drill the valve hole in the inner side of the normal rim. At which point I did lose a lot of enthusiasm for the idea.


----------



## 02GF74 (6 Dec 2012)

screenman said:


> Drago, you do talk some rubbish sometimes. The conversion kits are extremely good value and do the job well, but how would you know as you have stated you have the proper one's so have not tried the conversion kits.
> 
> 02GF74, it is not about weight saving and lower air pressure I am sure increases rolling resistance. Why carry 2 inner tubes? how many do you carry now?
> 
> I wonder why tubeless is used in most other modern forms of transport, cars, motorbikes, etc.


^^^^ say some one else is talking rubbish then you say that? how much thicker and how much reinforcement does a motor vehicl tyre compared to a bicycle tyre? you can dribe over glass and thorns no probs, like to see you do that with a bike tyre and not get a puncture.

anyways, I carry one spare plus repair kit - there is a tube in each wheel. if I get a puncture, then I always try to repair it, failing that I use the inner, and I may have used the spare inner 1 in 20 pucntures? dunno exact amount but I like to cycle knowing I have back up.

If I carry one spare with tubeless set up, once I have used the spare, what do I do if I get puncture?

Despite what I see on the web, I am not convinced about the sealant stuff, my firend has used slime tyres and I am forever fixing her flats; all I can see they do it block up the valve.

you can tell me Stans is better thant Slime and that Stans seals a tyre better than Slime seals an inner tube and I will not dispute.

maybe I should give it a go??


----------



## Cubist (6 Dec 2012)

02GF74 said:


> ^^^^ say some one else is talking rubbish then you say that? how much thicker and how much reinforcement does a motor vehicl tyre compared to a bicycle tyre? you can dribe over glass and thorns no probs, like to see you do that with a bike tyre and not get a puncture.
> 
> anyways, I carry one spare plus repair kit - there is a tube in each wheel. if I get a puncture, then I always try to repair it, failing that I use the inner, and I may have used the spare inner 1 in 20 pucntures? dunno exact amount but I like to cycle knowing I have back up.
> 
> ...


you carry a puncture repair kit to mend the inner tube of course!

And yes, Stans is far,far better than Slime.


----------



## screenman (7 Dec 2012)

I do not think some people can read the title of the post.


----------



## lulubel (7 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> And yes, Stans is far,far better than Slime.


 
Having never used either, my initial thought was that running tubeless with sealant was much the same as putting slime in your inner tubes. And everything I've heard about slime is that you just squirt it into the tubes, where it adds a lot of weight, is horribly messy if you get a leak, and it blocks the valves after a while.

I read up a bit on Stans, and the difference (apart from the sealant itself being different - presumably) seems to be that you use a very small amount, and spend some time when you first fit the tyre making sure that the inside surface of the tyre and the join between tyre and rim are coated with sealant.  The impression I get is that Stans sealant is more of a liquid consistency, whereas slime is sticky goop.

As a result of this, Stans tubeless system is lighter, less messy and does a much better job than inner tubes filled with slime.

Is that anywhere near correct?


----------



## Motozulu (7 Dec 2012)

Not sure the weight is an issue with slime - the bottle was 8 oz - can't see that as crucial? It has blocked my valves though, but that may have been my fault for not inflating/deflating at the 10 or 2 o'clock position. One of the inner tubes developed a split near the valve so when I replaced it I did'nt slime it - so now I'm riding one slimed one not - I ride with a spare tube now. Since the change, I've still not had a flat and the slimed tyre no longer blocks up now that I inflate it correctly.

All of which probably proves bugger all


----------



## Cubist (7 Dec 2012)

Instructions are to put 60ml per tyre up to 2.35. That's a lot lighter than standard butyl tubes. It stays fluid in most circumstances. It isn't unpleasant to work with, and so far has proved pretty effective up to date.


----------



## lulubel (7 Dec 2012)

Motozulu said:


> Not sure the weight is an issue with slime - the bottle was 8 oz - can't see that as crucial?


 
8oz is 226.8g

How much did you use?

If you use a whole bottle split between 2 tubes, that's an extra 113g roughly per wheel, which is more than half again as much as the weight of my inner tubes. Considering that's rotating mass, I'd say it's significant if you're someone who's trying to shed weight off his bike. Otherwise, not so significant. (I added considerably more than that per wheel when I went from Schwalbe tubes and Racing Ralphs to Conti tubes and Mountain Kings.)


----------



## lulubel (7 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> Instructions are to put 60ml per tyre up to 2.35. That's a lot lighter than standard butyl tubes. It stays fluid in most circumstances. It isn't unpleasant to work with, and so far has proved pretty effective up to date.


 
Do you know how much the tape that you stick inside the rims weighs? I'm curious about the weight side of things now we're talking about it.


----------



## Cubist (7 Dec 2012)

lulubel said:


> Do you know how much the tape that you stick inside the rims weighs? I'm curious about the weight side of things now we're talking about it.


It's lighter than standard rimcloth. My guess is that it's a bit heavier than sellotape. I've got some somewhere, I'll weigh it in comparison with say sellotape or masking tape.


----------



## Cubist (7 Dec 2012)

Cubist said:


> It's lighter than standard rimcloth. My guess is that it's a bit heavier than sellotape. I've got some somewhere, I'll weigh it in comparison with say sellotape or masking tape.


No, can't find it. Mrs Cube may have "tidied" it away.


----------



## Cubist (7 Dec 2012)

Research suggests about 10 grammes per wheel on a 25mm rim (Flow etc) . Don't forget it's instead of standard rimtape. The fluid weighs about 50g and the valve about 12g. So, is 72g a saving over a lightweight tube and ordinary rimtape? 

You can get 2.25- tubes as light as 150g or thereabouts. Add 10g ordinary rimtape, and you're at 160 g. Stans weighs less than half that. However, lightweight tubes are a nightmare for pinch- and thornflats whereas Tubeless isn't. 

Proper Stans Tubeless system for me. Weightwise, performance (grip) wise, and keeping the air in.


----------



## lulubel (7 Dec 2012)

I'm certainly not going to argue that the weights are impressive. It might be something to consider once I get over the whole "MTBing is just such amazing fun" stage and start seriously chasing Strava segments. (Although not if I go touring and want to keep swapping tyres, as I was saying in my suspension vs tyres thread.)


----------



## AlanW (7 Dec 2012)

I cannot see why the big debate on weights, surely the major benefit with going tubeless above all is the fact that you can run much lower pressures than you can with inner tubes and have no fear of getting a pinch puncture.

But another plus, I been running tubeless for just over two years now and have not had a puncture that required me to fit a inner tube as a "get out of jail" option. Loads of some pretty serious thorns, but the Stans latex liquid have sealed it every single time once the offending item has been removed.


----------



## lulubel (7 Dec 2012)

AlanW said:


> I cannot see why the big debate on weights, surely the major benefit with going tubeless above all is the fact that you can run much lower pressures than you can with inner tubes and have no fear of getting a pinch puncture.


 
Because I'm already running 8f/12r with tubes, so I don't need to run lower pressures.


----------



## Motozulu (7 Dec 2012)

Yes Lulu I used the full bottle - s'pose it comes down to the fact that once you are riding a 13.8kg bike and you yourself are upwards of 13st an extra 8oz of weight is neither here or there.


----------



## lulubel (8 Dec 2012)

Based on some of your other threads, where you talk about wanting the lightest bike you can afford, that was kind of what I was thinking around. Yes, adding slime to your tubes is minimal in overall weight terms, but it's in the worst place possible because it's all added to the rotating mass at the outer edge of the wheel.

My thinking was, if weight is a concern to you, it's probably worth staying away from the slime and looking at Stans when you get your new bike. You could easily save 200g of rotating mass per wheel (probably more) by using Stans instead of inner tubes with slime. Plus, you then have the advantage of being able to run lower pressures.


----------



## Motozulu (8 Dec 2012)

Good advice Lulu - I like your thinking - the position of the 8oz of weight is something that had'nt occurred.
Weight is an issue - I've gone at it hard this year and probably won't lose much more from 'the engine' so will be looking for a much lighter bike in February so's I can start flying up cardiac hil instead of going up it faster than the speed of molasses  . I'll move away from the slime and will just be prepeared for trackside faffing with flats, but will most deffo look at going tubeless on the new mount in Feb. Good advice all.


----------

