|   tubes vs tubless I'm confused | SpiderX927
Jan 8, 2004 1:35 PM | | when it is all said and done which is lighter? |
| Generally ....... | Ratt
Jan 9, 2004 12:08 AM | | tubes are lighter. Your average UST tire is around 700 grams. If you take a 90 gram tube and add an ultra light tire it will be lighter than a UST tubeless tire. But if you take a ultralight tire and add a sealant you will be tubeless for about the same weight. In the past and currently tubeless has not been lighter than a tube setup, I know it is one of the advertised advantages but we are not there yet. But what is there, better roll, better traction, and smoother ride is enough for me to stay tubeless all these years. |
| re: tubes vs tubless I'm confused | Dirthead
Jan 9, 2004 12:29 AM | | Tubeless using a rimstrip and sealant weighs about the same as a lightweight tube, and lighter than using a standard tube. Lightweight tube and tire is lighter than tubeless. Standard tube might be a little lighter than tubeless, depending on which tires you are comparing to.
The beauty of using a sealant with or without rimstrip and light tires is virtually no flats! I live in Central Texas. We have lots of cactus and mesquite trees. One trail I ride is a 10.5 mile loop and every living plant on the trail has some type of thorn on it. There is so much cactus on that trail that at times you just have to ride through it. Before I went to a sealant, I fixed flats on every ride, and slow leakers in between every ride. I have not fixed one flat this year using a sealant. All my riding buddies have converted too, and have never flatted. Don't know what conditions you ride in, but I am a big supporter of lightweight tires run tubeless with a latex sealant.
Some weights, all using UST rims for comparison: Tire weights using my scale:
Kenda Karma (440g) tubeless with Stan's sealant (60g) = 500g.
Kenda Karma (440g) with light tube (100g) = 540g.
Karma (440g) with standard tube (200g) = 640g
Panaracer (~600g) with light tube (100g) = 700g.
Explorer Pro UST = 720g
Standard rims are a bit lighter than UST. The rimstrip needed to run tubeless adds ~50g or so to the rim weight.
|
| re: tubes vs tubless I'm confused | SpiderX927
Jan 9, 2004 3:13 AM | | This is really helping thanks. So I guess part of my confusion is around sealant. So you use sealant with no tube on a tube tire to make it tubeless? I thought you used sealant on a tubless tire to help it hold air. Would you mind explaining the process?
I rode with an employee of Stan's the other day and I should have asked him. I thought I knew something I didn't, worst kind of ignorance. |
| diff methods | thebronze
Jan 9, 2004 4:54 AM | | Spider, what he's basically saying is you can convert your tube setup to use a rim strip and sealant and lose the tube and its a light weight setup. I have some friends that do this, and it leaks a little but still works pretty good.
Or you can get a UST Rim, a UST tire, and run the sealant and the whole shebang and its heavy.
What I want to know is how much better the full UST setup is compared to normal tube rim and tire since it requires new rims.
Like longevity, seals better?, tire durability?, maintenance?
I dont really care if its heavier as long as the tires last a little longer then one season, esp since they cost twice as much and weigh 50% more.
I've had a ton of flats this year and am getting tired of it. I did recently run in some slime lite tubes and have not had one flat yet and pulled a big thorn out of the tube yesterday. |
| I have a related question | oldfart
Jan 10, 2004 9:09 AM | | How well will this work?
UST rims (Mavic 3.1)
regular tire (Schwalbe Big Jim 2.25)
stan's goop, no tube
no extra rim strip (no Stan's strip), just whatever is normal on the 3.1,
What is normal on the 3.1? I am buying sight unseen.
Any size issues (big tire, small rim) or tube-type tire on UST rim? |
| |
