Just gone tubeless. In dire emergencies can I fit an inner tube as normal?

KiwiMike wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

beless, friends who have still have problems, and still need to carry tubes/tyres/patches/levers etc, so I don't see the point.

The point of going tubeless is NOT to remove the need to carry an inner tube or pump, although plenty of people do realise they can now forego carrying these things with only an extremely remote chance of being caught out.

The points are:

1. You will never again have to stop for a flat due to a snakebite or penetrating puncture.

2. You will never again have to pay for or repair a replacement inner tube for 1.

3. You can run lower tyre pressures all the time, meaning every single metre you ride is grippier, more comfortable/less exhausting and more energy-efficient/faster for the same energy input.

1. I've never had a snake-bite puncture in 35 years of road riding and circa 185,000 miles

2. I've spent less on inner tubes over 35 years than the cost of a new basic pair of tubeless wheels, you will still continue to pay for 'gloop', valves and more expensive tyres however and tyres that when they are cut are utterly US unless you invest in a flexible polymer based repair.

3. I can run various pressures without losing grip or speed that makes any difference whatsoever because I'm not riding for my living, I can do that on any tyre. Your measure of being 'less exhausted' by the difference is not quantified at all and even if it was it'd be minute.

Schwalbe Almotion 40mm TUBED tyre ran at 17.7watts, the guy at Bicycle rolling resistance reckoned going by other Schwalbe tubeless tyres they (the tubeless) would be 5% higher "my experience with the Schwalbe MTB tires has been that rolling resistance of the TL-Easy version will be at most 5% higher at the same air pressure when compared to the regular versions"

If you and others claim better efficiency based on 1 or 2 watts better rolling resistance in SOME cases that's utterly laughable. it's so tiny as to be not important.

If you want a tubeless set up, that's fine, in fact off road use is where tubeless tyres are probably going to be significantly better but please don't start giving situations that are either not true or are so small in being more efficient like for like with the tube version as to be not worth all the aggro and cost that tubeless brings.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

KiwiMike wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

beless, friends who have still have problems, and still need to carry tubes/tyres/patches/levers etc, so I don't see the point.

The point of going tubeless is NOT to remove the need to carry an inner tube or pump, although plenty of people do realise they can now forego carrying these things with only an extremely remote chance of being caught out.

The points are:

1. You will never again have to stop for a flat due to a snakebite or penetrating puncture.

2. You will never again have to pay for or repair a replacement inner tube for 1.

3. You can run lower tyre pressures all the time, meaning every single metre you ride is grippier, more comfortable/less exhausting and more energy-efficient/faster for the same energy input.

1. I've never had a snake-bite puncture in 35 years of road riding and circa 185,000 miles

2. I've spent less on inner tubes over 35 years than the cost of a new basic pair of tubeless wheels, you will still continue to pay for 'gloop', valves and more expensive tyres however and tyres that when they are cut are utterly US unless you invest in a flexible polymer based repair.

3. I can run various pressures without losing grip or speed that makes any difference whatsoever because I'm not riding for my living, I can do that on any tyre. Your measure of being 'less exhausted' by the difference is not quantified at all and even if it was it'd be minute.

Schwalbe Almotion 40mm TUBED tyre ran at 17.7watts, the guy at Bicycle rolling resistance reckoned going by other Schwalbe tubeless tyres they (the tubeless) would be 5% higher "my experience with the Schwalbe MTB tires has been that rolling resistance of the TL-Easy version will be at most 5% higher at the same air pressure when compared to the regular versions"

If you and others claim better efficiency based on 1 or 2 watts better rolling resistance in SOME cases that's utterly laughable. it's so tiny as to be not important.

If you want a tubeless set up, that's fine, in fact off road use is where tubeless tyres are probably going to be significantly better but please don't start giving situations that are either not true or are so small in being more efficient like for like with the tube version as to be not worth all the aggro and cost that tubeless brings.

Actually that piece on the allmotion was poorly worded; that's 5% higher with a tube due to stiffer sidewalls, and down to 15 watts or so when set up tubeless. It's further down the page.

I think a lot of your reasons are valid, I'm happy with tubeless but let's not spread bad information around.

KiwiMike wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

beless, friends who have still have problems, and still need to carry tubes/tyres/patches/levers etc, so I don't see the point.

The point of going tubeless is NOT to remove the need to carry an inner tube or pump, although plenty of people do realise they can now forego carrying these things with only an extremely remote chance of being caught out.

The points are:

1. You will never again have to stop for a flat due to a snakebite or penetrating puncture.

2. You will never again have to pay for or repair a replacement inner tube for 1.

3. You can run lower tyre pressures all the time, meaning every single metre you ride is grippier, more comfortable/less exhausting and more energy-efficient/faster for the same energy input.

 

 

I think  you overstate the advantages KiwiMike. It's still a rubber casing that can be penetrated by sharp objects that can exceed the self sealing properties of the system. But the incidence will be much reduced. The lower pressures one is interesting. On a road bike there is a seriously limiting curve of 'return for investment' on lower pressures and grippiness. Below about 80psi there's nothing I've seen that shows that grip is improved in the real world. Less exhausting: as others have pointed out the 1 or 2 watt saving is both undetectable and ephemerous. On the point of energy efficiency, everything I have seen shows that a higher pressure tyre has lower rolling resistance due to lower hysteresis. However, a larger tyre at the same pressure as a narrower tyre has lower rolling resistance, again due to less hysteresis. That doesn't follow that a lower pressure, larger tyre is more energy efficient. And again, the improvements are low single digit watts only.

madcarew wrote:

On a road bike there is a seriously limiting curve of 'return for investment' on lower pressures and grippiness. Below about 80psi there's nothing I've seen that shows that grip is improved in the real world.

If you think an 80PSI tyre grips as well as a correctly-proportioned 50PSI tyre, I don't think you're riding in the real world

madcarew wrote:

Less exhausting: as others have pointed out the 1 or 2 watt saving is both undetectable and ephemerous. On the point of energy efficiency, everything I have seen shows that a higher pressure tyre has lower rolling resistance due to lower hysteresis. However, a larger tyre at the same pressure as a narrower tyre has lower rolling resistance, again due to less hysteresis. That doesn't follow that a lower pressure, larger tyre is more energy efficient. And again, the improvements are low single digit watts only.

Several things here: 

1. 'less exhausting' means less hysterisis loss because the tyre is suspending the weight of the rider and bike, reducing the vertical movement, muscle vibration and related fatigue. The seminal Bicycle Quarterly article quoted US Army research showing tank drivers suffered significant fatigue due to vibration, that was alleviated by suspending their seats. Anyone who's been beaten up for a day on a rigid bike over rough roads knows the feeling. This is why bike firms invest millions in vertical compliancy of frames via seat stays, posts etc.

2. Hysterisis loss is the vertical bit. Rolling resistance due to sidewalls flexing isn't hysterisis loss. It's rolling resistance, due to heat generated in the flexing tyre carcass.

3. the quantative improvements of a larger tyre at lower pressure, like for like, on a real-world road, are considerably larger than 'low single-digit watts'. Go ride a bike with a power meter, over a crap road, first on 100psi 23mm and then 50psi 35mm.