A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is the point of tubeless tires?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old January 17th 19, 03:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Eric Pozharski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

with John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:39:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:


*SKIP*
And you a teacher. What else is "education", but telling inexperienced
people what someone else thinks or believes. If you remember, the sun
going around the earth was the de facto truth for about the first 1500
years of .the Christian era. And even today about 1/4 of the U.S.
population still believe it is true.
http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-american...-orbits-earth/


Well, look at it this way, education sold central-sun to 75%. BTW, I
remember reading that Made in Russia(TM) education scores 35%
central-earth'ers -- looks like there's room to grow.

p.s. I've had a discussion with flat-earthener recently. I've failed.
He used to be a teacher.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
Ads
  #172  
Old January 17th 19, 05:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On 1/16/2019 11:45 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:29:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 9:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something...

If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.

With that said, the bike does matter. The question is how much and how long. It may just mean that you're dumped a little closer to the top, or it may mean that you get over the top with everyone. Or it may change nothing.

I ride with the same guys all the time, and the gaps between us change based on bikes, e.g. if some guy is on his rain bike and everyone else is on their fast bike -- or even rain bike versus rain bike. I have a really fast rain bike. It rolls way better than my best pal's rain bike, and I can narrow or close the gap between us on that bike. When we are on our fast bikes, I slaughter myself to keep the gap down, but I never close it. And I have a great fast bike. He's younger and faster, and its always been that way.

I just don't believe the people who say they are just as fast on their Surley moon units as the Pinarello F10. I can feel the difference between 10-15lb pressure added to my front tire on the commuter, but full disclaimer, the 32mm Zaffiro Pros cheap-o tires on my commuter become very sluggish when not pumped up pretty high for a fat-ish tire. It's kind of startling.


Well, one might say everything matters - but to what degree?

The weight factor is easy to quantify. Some here may remember when it
was shown, using some magazine's test data, that the difference in speed
between old steel bikes and new CF bikes during a long climb were
perfectly predicted by the change in weight. The article's claim about
the new frames' stiffness, aero drag or whatever were shot down by their
own data - not that they noticed.

Assuming the gearing is not badly inappropriate, weight is pretty much
all that matters. Tire rolling resistance is a small factor in a climb,
but tires have to be very dead to make as much difference as a couple
pounds. And unless you're climbing in a raging headwind, aero stuff
makes no difference.

The unquantifiable bit is the placebo effect. Athletic performance is
heavily psychological, so I guess if a person _believes_ their red bike
climbs faster, it may actually do so.

So obviously, every pro team should have a regular doctor plus a witch
doctor. ;-)
--
- Frank Krygowski


I remember two MIELE road bicycles I had at the same tie in the mid to late 1980's. One was the BETA with clincher rims and tires and Shimano New 600 groupset. The other was the Equipe Pro with Columbus SL frameset, Dura Ace groupset and tubular rims and tires. That Equipe Pro climbed like a homesick angel compared to the Beta and no, it was not a placebo effect.

Even today I see a noticeable difference in required effort when I ride my bicycle with the tubular tires instead of the usual clincher tires.


Nobody disputes that there are tires that roll faster and tires that
roll slower. The difference can be very noticeable on level ground where
other losses are small.

But on a climb (which is what I was talking about) the difference
between different but decent tires' rolling resistance is much smaller
than the effect of a few pounds of bike weight. IOW, if you put great
tubulars on a heavy bike, it's not going to fly up hills.

And BTW, how could one tell that something was not the placebo effect?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #173  
Old January 17th 19, 06:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 11:45 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:29:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 9:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something....

If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.

With that said, the bike does matter. The question is how much and how long. It may just mean that you're dumped a little closer to the top, or it may mean that you get over the top with everyone. Or it may change nothing.

I ride with the same guys all the time, and the gaps between us change based on bikes, e.g. if some guy is on his rain bike and everyone else is on their fast bike -- or even rain bike versus rain bike. I have a really fast rain bike. It rolls way better than my best pal's rain bike, and I can narrow or close the gap between us on that bike. When we are on our fast bikes, I slaughter myself to keep the gap down, but I never close it. And I have a great fast bike. He's younger and faster, and its always been that way.

I just don't believe the people who say they are just as fast on their Surley moon units as the Pinarello F10. I can feel the difference between 10-15lb pressure added to my front tire on the commuter, but full disclaimer, the 32mm Zaffiro Pros cheap-o tires on my commuter become very sluggish when not pumped up pretty high for a fat-ish tire. It's kind of startling..

Well, one might say everything matters - but to what degree?

The weight factor is easy to quantify. Some here may remember when it
was shown, using some magazine's test data, that the difference in speed
between old steel bikes and new CF bikes during a long climb were
perfectly predicted by the change in weight. The article's claim about
the new frames' stiffness, aero drag or whatever were shot down by their
own data - not that they noticed.

Assuming the gearing is not badly inappropriate, weight is pretty much
all that matters. Tire rolling resistance is a small factor in a climb,
but tires have to be very dead to make as much difference as a couple
pounds. And unless you're climbing in a raging headwind, aero stuff
makes no difference.

The unquantifiable bit is the placebo effect. Athletic performance is
heavily psychological, so I guess if a person _believes_ their red bike
climbs faster, it may actually do so.

So obviously, every pro team should have a regular doctor plus a witch
doctor. ;-)
--
- Frank Krygowski


I remember two MIELE road bicycles I had at the same tie in the mid to late 1980's. One was the BETA with clincher rims and tires and Shimano New 600 groupset. The other was the Equipe Pro with Columbus SL frameset, Dura Ace groupset and tubular rims and tires. That Equipe Pro climbed like a homesick angel compared to the Beta and no, it was not a placebo effect.

Even today I see a noticeable difference in required effort when I ride my bicycle with the tubular tires instead of the usual clincher tires.


Nobody disputes that there are tires that roll faster and tires that
roll slower. The difference can be very noticeable on level ground where
other losses are small.

But on a climb (which is what I was talking about) the difference
between different but decent tires' rolling resistance is much smaller
than the effect of a few pounds of bike weight. IOW, if you put great
tubulars on a heavy bike, it's not going to fly up hills.

And BTW, how could one tell that something was not the placebo effect?

--
- Frank Krygowski


Simple Frank. #1 It took a LOT LESS ENERGY to make the same climb. #2. It took less time to make the same climb.

Cheers
  #174  
Old January 17th 19, 10:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:53:50 PM UTC-8, bob prohaska wrote:
wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?


A tubeless tire offers
1. lower cost, the impermeable membrane is cheaper than a tube
2. lower rolling resistance, the membrane is more flexible
3. better air retention, membranes that don't need to stretch leak less
4. (slightly) lighter weight, the membrane is thinner than a tube
5. (neat, small) punctures can be plugged without dismounting

A tubeless tire requires
1. a close tolerance interference fit at the beadseat
2. a positive bead retention scheme in the case of air loss
3. an airtight mounting surface (no spoke holes)
4. a reliable method for mounting and dismounting the tire bead on the seat

The advantages are marginal, the requirements are showstoppers for bicycle
applications. As tires get bigger, around motorcycle sizes, the requirements
can be met more easily and the (slender) advantages remain. As manufacturing
precision gets better and cheaper, tubeless bicycle tires might make sense

bob prohaska


That is a very nice listing. I find the advantaged of running over a large sharp rock and not getting a flat far superior to dismounting on a narrow road and trying to fix your tire with cars flying by on a blind turn.
  #175  
Old January 17th 19, 10:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 6:02:55 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something...


If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.


With that said, the bike does matter. The question is how much and how long. It may just mean that you're dumped a little closer to the top, or it may mean that you get over the top with everyone. Or it may change nothing..

I ride with the same guys all the time, and the gaps between us change based on bikes, e.g. if some guy is on his rain bike and everyone else is on their fast bike -- or even rain bike versus rain bike. I have a really fast rain bike. It rolls way better than my best pal's rain bike, and I can narrow or close the gap between us on that bike. When we are on our fast bikes, I slaughter myself to keep the gap down, but I never close it. And I have a great fast bike. He's younger and faster, and its always been that way..

I just don't believe the people who say they are just as fast on their Surley moon units as the Pinarello F10. I can feel the difference between 10-15lb pressure added to my front tire on the commuter, but full disclaimer, the 32mm Zaffiro Pros cheap-o tires on my commuter become very sluggish when not pumped up pretty high for a fat-ish tire. It's kind of startling.

-- Jay Beattie.


If you are still fresh it doesn't matter what the gear ratios are as long as you have the strength to turn the cranks. If you shift lower and pedal faster you don't climb any faster. I know that I can climb anything in the bay area with a 50-23 so I carry a 50-28. When I'm completely bushed I can still climb anything around.
  #176  
Old January 19th 19, 07:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Doug Cimperman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On 1/11/2019 11:11 PM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?

To help with the arduous task of parting fools and their money.

After pondering this a few days, I would not be surprised of
bicycle-tubeless retreated back to being an MTB-only thing,,, and a
*limited* MTB thing at that. -And of the demise of road-tubeless. In
maybe 20 years or so.

The one clear advantage of bicycle tubeless is in cases of MTB use where
there are a lot of un-avoidable things regularly puncturing tires--such
as desert-climate riding (with lots of cacti), or anywhere dry enough to
suffer goat-heads. This is the one instance that I've seen a lot of
people online say that the mess of tubeless is worth it.

In SOME tests,,, tubeless tires have shown slightly less rolling
resistance than regular tires using butyl inner tubes--but then again,
the difference was not that great and steel-belted tires have already
been shown to have drastically less rolling resistance than regular
tires, even when using butyl inner tubes. So tubeless, bias-ply
un-belted tires aren't going to win the rolling resistance contest.

Tubeless tires don't have the issue of pinch flats when used at lower
pressures on MTBs, but then again, a -radial- casing tire would have
much better ground compliance than a bias-ply tire does, even at a
higher inflation pressures. It's just that tire companies are loathe to
make radial tires for bicycles, due to the limited past experience.

I said before in another post that I didn't think that bicycle-tubeless
would become truly widespread (entering into the Wal-Mart bicycle realm)
until 1) it was standardized to one bead type, and 2) there was a way to
do it without the internal tire sealant, because dealing with the
internal sealant is the messiest part. I now see that time being a very
long way off, if I get to see it at all. And even so, dealing with a
tubeless flat would require considerable cleanliness to take the tire
off and apply an internal patch.

I think that most people don't get flat tires enough that they would see
the messy sealant as worth putting up with. And really, most non-bicycle
vehicles that use tubeless tires,,,, also don't bother with internal
sealant. -The *concept* of internal tire sealant was invented over 100
years ago, by the by. It's certainly had time to catch on with
motorists, and for some reason, isn't found to be that beneficial.
  #177  
Old January 19th 19, 10:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 10:30:44 PM UTC-8, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 1/11/2019 11:11 PM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?

To help with the arduous task of parting fools and their money.

After pondering this a few days, I would not be surprised of
bicycle-tubeless retreated back to being an MTB-only thing,,, and a
*limited* MTB thing at that. -And of the demise of road-tubeless. In
maybe 20 years or so.

The one clear advantage of bicycle tubeless is in cases of MTB use where
there are a lot of un-avoidable things regularly puncturing tires--such
as desert-climate riding (with lots of cacti), or anywhere dry enough to
suffer goat-heads. This is the one instance that I've seen a lot of
people online say that the mess of tubeless is worth it.

In SOME tests,,, tubeless tires have shown slightly less rolling
resistance than regular tires using butyl inner tubes--but then again,
the difference was not that great and steel-belted tires have already
been shown to have drastically less rolling resistance than regular
tires, even when using butyl inner tubes. So tubeless, bias-ply
un-belted tires aren't going to win the rolling resistance contest.

Tubeless tires don't have the issue of pinch flats when used at lower
pressures on MTBs, but then again, a -radial- casing tire would have
much better ground compliance than a bias-ply tire does, even at a
higher inflation pressures. It's just that tire companies are loathe to
make radial tires for bicycles, due to the limited past experience.

I said before in another post that I didn't think that bicycle-tubeless
would become truly widespread (entering into the Wal-Mart bicycle realm)
until 1) it was standardized to one bead type, and 2) there was a way to
do it without the internal tire sealant, because dealing with the
internal sealant is the messiest part. I now see that time being a very
long way off, if I get to see it at all. And even so, dealing with a
tubeless flat would require considerable cleanliness to take the tire
off and apply an internal patch.

I think that most people don't get flat tires enough that they would see
the messy sealant as worth putting up with. And really, most non-bicycle
vehicles that use tubeless tires,,,, also don't bother with internal
sealant. -The *concept* of internal tire sealant was invented over 100
years ago, by the by. It's certainly had time to catch on with
motorists, and for some reason, isn't found to be that beneficial.


Around here they have something called "Goat's Head Thorns" that appear about August all over the roads. They can give you almost an instant flat and you can't see them on the roads. Especially on fast downhills. More than once I've been in a turn above 25 mph to have the tire go flat. I became quit expert at sliding out without a crash.

Today I rode my tubeless 25 mm's down 15 or 16 miles of gravel. The top layer was fresh and nice and rounded off but the stuff underneath is broken and sharp. I wouldn't even have known if I got a puncture.

What's more, you can run a lot less pressure to ease the ride over this sort of terrain.

My guess is that within 10 years you won't see any more clincher tires. Of course you'll still be able to buy a tubeless tire and run it with a tube if you like.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tubeless Tires. [email protected] Techniques 0 November 18th 18 10:09 PM
Tubeless Tires [email protected] Techniques 16 August 20th 18 03:57 PM
Tubeless Tires [email protected] Techniques 5 April 12th 17 03:49 AM
tubeless tires steve Techniques 2 March 14th 08 12:18 PM
Tubeless tires MT Techniques 2 March 30th 05 09:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.