Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:13 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:38 pm 
Dirt Disciple
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:16 pm
Posts: 98
Location: In the Ghetto Walthamstow
Tubeless in the motorcycle industry is still only mass produced for cast wheels nearly all trail and or Smoto machines that run spokes still use tubes..

Cant really comment on the cycle market as I have never run a store or looked at sales trends but this guy seemed to think in the long run they would be loosing a heap of cash through tube sales, I suppose it is repeat custom with them???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:47 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:31 pm
Posts: 3949
Location: a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam
triniriderz wrote:
Tubeless in the motorcycle industry is still only mass produced for cast wheels nearly all trail and or Smoto machines that run spokes still use tubes..

Cant really comment on the cycle market as I have never run a store or looked at sales trends but this guy seemed to think in the long run they would be loosing a heap of cash through tube sales, I suppose it is repeat custom with them???


Good point well made, there arent many cast MTB wheels!

Repeat business is where most money is made, but I still fail to see how large bike manufacturing companies would be worried themselves as they dont tend to produce the inner tubes.
However, I wouldnt be surprised to see tubeless die out as an option. Maybe ill have a better idea after ive finally ridden mine!

Like other have mentioned, It must be harder to be light weight after factoring in a sturdier tyre and the addition of slime/sealant.... which is a real shame.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:02 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
Posts: 1747
Location: Fairfax, California
I have been using tubeless tires for 3-4 years now without one flat! I just mount them and ride 'til worn out and then fit another pair. I ride about 3 thousand miles a year in the dirt and was getting tired of pinch flats and thorns, so I went tubeless and never looked back! After some research I found that a lot, but not all of the UST tires are quite heavy- I use PanaRacer Fire XC Pro UST tires in 2.1 size and they weigh 770 grams apiece. This compares to, say, a Smoke in 2.1 at 560 grams + tube at 180 grams = 740 grams. So they compare favorably. I also use the Conti Mountain King UST in a 2.2 in the summer time that weighs only 650 grams, thus lighter than the previous tire/tube combo mentioned. The peace of mind that comes with no tube to pinch is great! Also, the Stan's Sealant only weighs about one ounce.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:27 pm 
Anglian AEC / Prison Ship Captain
Anglian AEC / Prison Ship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:26 am
Posts: 6049
Location: LOWESTOFT the worlds smallest bore fest
KeepItSteel wrote:
triniriderz wrote:
Tubeless in the motorcycle industry is still only mass produced for cast wheels nearly all trail and or Smoto machines that run spokes still use tubes..

Cant really comment on the cycle market as I have never run a store or looked at sales trends but this guy seemed to think in the long run they would be loosing a heap of cash through tube sales, I suppose it is repeat custom with them???


Good point well made, there arent many cast MTB wheels!

Repeat business is where most money is made, but I still fail to see how large bike manufacturing companies would be worried themselves as they dont tend to produce the inner tubes.
However, I wouldnt be surprised to see tubeless die out as an option. Maybe ill have a better idea after ive finally ridden mine!

Like other have mentioned, It must be harder to be light weight after factoring in a sturdier tyre and the addition of slime/sealant.... which is a real shame.


i can see why the big manifactures would worry as tubes are produced by specialized and bontrager (trek) cannondale do there own tubes as well as giant :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

for cheaper model bikes the big companys dont want the extra expence of making them tubless. alot of the cheap cheap models use shin chen tubes and shin chen tyres so if the tube side of that company went bust there's a good chance the tyre side would to as they support each other :wink:

just my two pence

plus tubless is good at what it does not a massive leap forward but still a good little one :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:38 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:31 pm
Posts: 3949
Location: a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam
FairfaxPat wrote:
I have been using tubeless tires for 3-4 years now without one flat! I just mount them and ride 'til worn out and then fit another pair. I ride about 3 thousand miles a year in the dirt and was getting tired of pinch flats and thorns, so I went tubeless and never looked back! After some research I found that a lot, but not all of the UST tires are quite heavy- I use PanaRacer Fire XC Pro UST tires in 2.1 size and they weigh 770 grams apiece. This compares to, say, a Smoke in 2.1 at 560 grams + tube at 180 grams = 740 grams. So they compare favorably. I also use the Conti Mountain King UST in a 2.2 in the summer time that weighs only 650 grams, thus lighter than the previous tire/tube combo mentioned. The peace of mind that comes with no tube to pinch is great! Also, the Stan's Sealant only weighs about one ounce.


Is it accepted then that Stans sealant is the sealant of choice even when running a dedicated tubeless rim?
Or will any old sealant do?

Also, never having experienced installing the stuff....how messy is the process, particularly when it comes to changing the tyre?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:48 pm 
Retro Guru
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:07 pm
Posts: 2676
Location: 52 Festive Road. (Nr. Lincoln)
Tubeless is great if you live somewhere that's really thorny - as I do! :evil: Tried a conversion kit with great success several years ago and for the last what... almost 3 years I reckon, have been using Mavic 819 UST with 100% success (touches wood). I get loads of thorns in my tyres, but with UST I used to pull 'em out then carry on riding, the sealant would squirt out for a second or two then seal the hole. Nowadays I don't even bother pulling them out unless it's a big thorn that sort of "worries away" in the tyre.

I've tried all the other options of tyre liners (nylon and kevlar) even glued 'em together but they still didn't stop the dreaded thorns. Slime, well that was next to useless just as the latex filled tubes were. I can't remember them ever sealing one puncture. I don't know why but the stuff didn't seem to go off and convert to a rubbery compound before the tyre flattened. Maybe it stays in a liquid solution because the deflating inner tube moves and slides against the tyre thus not allowing enough air to the sealant which stops it going off? By the time the air gets there the tyre is flat and half the sealant is sloshing around in your tyre. Anyway, whatever the reason gloop filled inner tubes never worked for me and tubeless does, I've witnessed it first hand.

If thorny tracks are where you ride you can't go wrong with tubeless or a conversion kit. I used to hate it in the depths of Winter having to fix a puncture in the icy, freezing cold rain while the wind was blowing a gale only to get another puncture a few miles later. :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:12 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:31 pm
Posts: 3949
Location: a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam
stevek wrote:
Tubeless is great if you live somewhere that's really thorny - as I do! :evil: Tried a conversion kit with great success several years ago and for the last what... almost 3 years I reckon, have been using Mavic 819 UST with 100% success (touches wood). I get loads of thorns in my tyres, but with UST I used to pull 'em out then carry on riding, the sealant would squirt out for a second or two then seal the hole. Nowadays I don't even bother pulling them out unless it's a big thorn that sort of "worries away" in the tyre.

I've tried all the other options of tyre liners (nylon and kevlar) even glued 'em together but they still didn't stop the dreaded thorns. Slime, well that was next to useless just as the latex filled tubes were. I can't remember them ever sealing one puncture. I don't know why but the stuff didn't seem to go off and convert to a rubbery compound before the tyre flattened. Maybe it stays in a liquid solution because the deflating inner tube moves and slides against the tyre thus not allowing enough air to the sealant which stops it going off? By the time the air gets there the tyre is flat and half the sealant is sloshing around in your tyre. Anyway, whatever the reason gloop filled inner tubes never worked for me and tubeless does, I've witnessed it first hand.



Sounds great, but im confused.
First you mention sealant sealing your UST tyre puntures perfectly, then you mention sealant being useless and not working.

Is this the same sealant in two different set ups?

I want the first 'zero puncture' option!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:17 pm 
Retro Guru
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:07 pm
Posts: 2676
Location: 52 Festive Road. (Nr. Lincoln)
Two different set ups.

If you use tubeless or UST the solution works great.

BUT...

The same solution inside inner tubes doesn't seem to work for whatever reason (In my experience).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:18 pm 
Anglian AEC / Prison Ship Captain
Anglian AEC / Prison Ship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:26 am
Posts: 6049
Location: LOWESTOFT the worlds smallest bore fest
you still need to use sealent with ust tyres mate and stans is by far one of the better ones and you dont have to use ust tyres with ust rims you can use normal tyres as long as there tight on the rim

and not messy as long as your a tidy person :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:20 pm 
Retro Guru
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:07 pm
Posts: 2676
Location: 52 Festive Road. (Nr. Lincoln)
cannondale king wrote:
you still need to use sealent with ust tyres mate and stans is by far one of the better ones and you dont have to use ust tyres with ust rims you can use normal tyres as long as there tight on the rim :wink:


I'd agree with that. I've been using Joe's solution, probably the same stuff as Stan's...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group