|   Does Stan's No-Tubes really save that much weight? | Jester-rider
Feb 25, 2003 10:33 PM | | I'm convinced that the product works, and I understand the value of added traction - I'm questioning weight savings.
If my average tube weighs 150 grams (that's heavy).
Stan's system uses 60gm of juice, and the rim strips are not defined as to their weight. Let's assume (they include a valve, don't forget) 50gm. That's 110gm total package vs. 150gm for a tube. Perhaps average savings = 80gm = 2.82 ounces, or, 2 french fries and a swig of coke. Am I missing something, Stan claims hundreds of grams saved?
How about some testimonials on weight savings. Any actuals out there? |
| re: Does Stan's No-Tubes really save that much weight? | Fingerpicker
Feb 25, 2003 11:23 PM | | I think it depends on what you have. If you have heavy tires and tubes and you switch to lighter tires and no tubes you might save weight. I run light (525 gm) tires and light (110 gm) tubes. I think his web site said I would be adding about 60 gm per wheel. I think that might hurt on climbs, but I'm guessing I should make it up on the flats ond downhills. Sorry this isn't an actual, I think I'll order a kit tommorow. But I don't have a scale to weigh it on. |
| Not really | Ratt
Feb 26, 2003 1:08 AM | | Stan's new rim strips are practical a tube in itself so add in another 90 grams in there. Although one of the hyped points of going tubeless is a weight saving, obviously an 800 gram UST tire is not lite. Another hyped point is pinch flats, they still happen, reduced, yes but it still happens. For me the true advantage is roll speed, tubeless roll faster. But tubeless also offers better grip, a smoother ride, with Stan's goop offers good thorn resistence and even without the goop you just push the thorn or a smooth stick in the hole and it slows the leak down enough to finish the ride, |
| re: Does Stan's No-Tubes really save that much weight? | Oyster
Feb 26, 2003 1:56 AM | | Ok, so better traction, faster rolling and self healing tires is not enough.And if all you get is 40gm saveings per wheel than use that 60 bucks for a titainium watter bottle holder.
All kiding aside, I'm sporting 600 gm 2.3s with Stan's rather than 1.8 Mosquitos with tubes at no weight loss, and I'm as happy as a lark. |
| roll faster schmoll faster. | mt
Feb 26, 2003 8:13 PM | | Everyone says tubeless tires roll faster - I don't get it. You go tubeless in order to use reduced air pressure. Reduced air pressure will actually increase the rolling resistence. I have also read that friction between the tire and tube slows down conventional systems. This is another load of BS. Don't get me wrong - I love all the new technology but when they try and sell us this crap it really insults me. If they came out and said tubeless systems offer better pinch flat resistance and increased traction due to lower air pressure that'd be fine, but they have to push it by saying they roll faster and are lighter. Tubeless tires are the best ever RAH RAH RAH.
RAH this you slimy marketing snakes. |
| Mommy didn't love you as a child?.....nm | Mr.RahRah
Feb 26, 2003 11:02 PM | | |
| its true, she didn't : ( nm | mt
Feb 27, 2003 1:17 PM | | |
| It ADDS weight for me! BUT thats my choice I guess | TM
Feb 26, 2003 2:43 AM | | Well It doesnt really add weight per se, But I have chosen to use UST tyres that weigh 710grams as opposed to my 450gms standard Hutchinson Python Air Lights.
Why? I really didnt like the feel of normal tyres tubless so chose tubeless tyres, which do feel better than std with no tubes. This is good enough for me when I train because when I go back to my lighter set up I have better strength.
Damm does that make sense!? literally havent had a true flat for several months, so thats good enough for me when doing casual rides etc! |
| Weight savings maybe. Flat protection yes. (nm) | DirkFH
Feb 26, 2003 8:59 AM | | |
| RELIABILITY W/LOW PRESSURE IS WHY I LIKE IT NM | mooseknuckle
Feb 26, 2003 9:41 AM | | NM |
| Significant weight savings over UST | Benno
Feb 26, 2003 10:57 AM | | I don't think stan's has a huge weight advantage over a really light tube. With an air compressor and a lot of patience you can use electrical tape instead of the rim strip, or use a UST rim with no rim strip, but that doesn't save you hundreds of grams.
For me the real weight savings was in going from 2.0 UST tires (approx 750 to 800g each) to 2.0 comp s lights (non-UST, 450g). 750 * 2 - (450 + 60) * 2 = 480g savings, or 1.05 lbs of rotating weight. I didn't use any rim strips, just bare UST rims, and yes it was a pain. You can _really_ feel the weight difference. Ride quality is not quite as good as the heavier UST pythons or explorers though. On my non-race bike I run 2.4 mutanos with stan's, and the ride quality and grip is comparable to UST tires. Once I ran them at 14 lbs by mistake (bad tire guage), and the grip was truly remarkable. I normally run them at 30lbs or so.
Anyway, besides the weight savings over UST, stan's system offers excellent flat protection. I have a pile of punctured tubes at home, and my old UST tires sport double digit numbers of patches. Since using stan's (4-5 months) I have had zero flats. |
| |
