Tubeless tires



cyclintom

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2011
1,347
220
63
I'll cover two subjects here.

1. wide tires: These are growing in popularity for a couple of reasons. Firstly wider tires roll with lower friction than narrow though that seems to be very counter-intuitive. Tubulars used to be 20 mm tires pumped to 200 psi and even our common 23 mm tires used to be pumped to 120 psi. And with these we would pretend to have low rolling resistance as our butts were being hammered through our skulls and the bikes were being thrown all over the place.

With wider racing tires becoming more common it rapidly became clear that they ran lower pressures and would roll over objects that would throw a bike into the air losing momentum.

Then along came Carbon Fiber. This material is so stiff that you simply cannot ride most of the modern bikes on 23 mm tires and hope to walk after the ride without holding your crotch.

But with sufficient clearances and a 28 mm tire pumped to 80 psi it was like a miracle performed. These super stiff machines could ride even better than the old steel machines that people were going back to because of the awful CF or Al rides. You did have to get a little used to the bouncy ride by finding the correct pressure for your bike and your weight. Then they transformed an unrideable, almost uncontrollable machine into a near perfect ride. What's more the cushioning started reducing CF failures which was caused by impact stresses on gradually hardening and embrittling resins.

So by all means go to wider tires if possible. A large number of older bikes can just barely accommodate 25's but that is where tubeless comes in:

2. Most modern high quality tires can be run tubeless. But you need rims that are tubeless capable. That means you can't use older wheelsets for the most part. Then, having a compatible wheelset you have to have a tubeless rim liner and tubeless filler valves. These are readily available in most shops or off of Amazon.

The first problem: rims and tires should be matched. But as far as I know the only ones to do that is Mavic who make the tires fit the rims tight enough without them fitting so tightly that it is very difficult to get them on or so loosely that they can blow off.

This means that when you're buying a new wheelset you ask the manufacturer what tires they recommend for tubeless use. Then like we all do - ignore their advice. My Michelins fit my Campy and Fulcrum wheels really tight because I'd rather fight them on than have them blow off from hitting a bump.

There are a couple of ways to getting the slime inside of the tire but the easiest and most effective way is to buy a 4 ounce road bike tire bottle. After mounting the tire you remove the filler valve end using the $5 Park valve tool. Then you connect the plastic tube that comes with the bottle over the filler and connected to the sealer bottle. With the filler at the bottom you inject half of the bottle into the tire (2 ounces) and then you roll the tire a little so that the filler is now about a third of the way up. You do this so that there is no sealant in the tube when you release your hand pressure which would draw the sealant back into the bottle. Remove the tube, reinsert the valve body and tighten. Now many of these tire/rim combinations cannot be filled with a pump because the sides haven't snapped over the ridges. I use a CO2 filler which SNAPS!!! the tire on. Then make sure that the bead is straight all the way around. There is a little ridge that you can use as a reference comparing it to the rim. Then roll the tire around sideways and turn it to the other side and do the same. This is because the most common place for a leak isn't the tire but the rim/tire interface.

If you have used a CO2 cartridge your pressure will be high. But after the tires are in place a pump works the same as always.

Do the same with the other wheel.

With the wheels mounted on the bike you can now go for an easy ride. The bouncing distributes the sealant about inside the wheels and they will then hold air as well as a rubber innertube. As the pressure reduces over time you can then run tire pressure at about 3/4ths of what the recommended tire pressure for your weight is.

My Pinarello Stelvio steel bike will only fit a 25 mm tire but recommended tire pressure for my weight is 109 psi and I run it around 85 and often don't even bother looking at it for several days so that it goes as low as 60 psi without feeling low.

Now there is a range at which the rolling resistance remains relatively constant so that I really can't tell the difference between 90 psi and 70.

The improvement in the ride is good and with Orange Sealant you simply cannot get a flat without destroying the tire almost completely. This would strand you if you were using an innertube just as certainly.

The problem with Orange Sealant is that they recommend it be replaced every couple of months. I don't know about the others since Orange tested so much better than most of the others that I simply didn't bother looking them up. Punching a 6 mm hole in a tire (1/8h inch) the tire would still hold 30 psi. That would be a pretty scary ride and you'd have to ride pretty slowly but it would get you home. I broke a chain on Father's Day and couldn't find anyone to give me a ride until my wife got out of church. So I'm a little sensitive about failures that could leave you walking home from Bumfuck, Egypt.

Try it, you'll like it.
 
If you look at that chart it shows perhaps as much as a 40% increase in rolling resistance over a range of 120 psi to 60 psi. Firstly, the rolling resistance of a tire is of importance only to a bike traveling less than about 5 mph. At 10 mph the rolling resistance and the wind resistance are about equal and wind resistance at 15 mph is 3 times as much as the rolling resistance and at 20 mph, the drag is 9 times as much as the rolling resistance. 4 watts of change in rolling resistance is undetectable when there is greater variation between tire brands and models.

More importantly - those measurements of rolling resistance are on a dynamometer with a traction surface and not anything that begins to resemble normal roads these days. The implications of this is that the difference in rolling resistance on any particular tire across that 120 psi to 60 psi is misleading. On the course road surfaces there is actually an increase in the opposite direction because the surface is moving the bicycle at higher pressures rather than the tire only being moved at lower pressures.

You have to be extremely careful of what passes for "scientific research" these days. It is too easy to instrument things and make measurements entirely away from the real world and present them as "fact". Well, they are fact but only within their stated parameters. And that is always open to interpretation.

Locally there is a swooping downhill where you can coast down at about 20 mph, it flattens and then rises again. The road was repaired in the flat section and smooth asphalt put on perhaps 40 meters. As you were coasting down the lead-in at 20 the road would flatten and, on a coast, you would start losing speed. Then as you rolled onto the smooth asphalt you would actually gain speed which would then begin reducing from all normal drag. Now that appears to break the laws of physics but I tried it again and again with the same results. And then over a year as the new surface weathered to the same consistency as the lead-in section, it stopped doing that.

So what physics allowed this? The bike rolling down the grade was balancing the acceleration of gravity against the total frictional losses of the bike and rider. As the road flattened the input power of gravity was eliminated but there was still a given number of watts rolling the bike along. As it hit the smooth section of road rolling resistance took a sharp hit and the same amount of power allowed it to accelerate to the point at which the increase in aerodynamic drag counteracted the decrease in rolling resistance. This just happened to be a case in which it was dramatically seen.

When I posted that here during that time everyone argued it could not happen. Well, at higher speeds you couldn't see it occur because aerodynamic drag increases so rapidly that the difference in speeds would normally be so slight that you couldn't detect it.

Now during this time I was still riding 23 mm tires at 120 psi. And the very course texture of the normal road surface had a great deal higher rolling resistance than that chart showed. I suppose that if you looked up the exact manner in which it was obtained you'd discover that a motor ran a flywheel with a positive traction surface such as sandpaper. Advanced methods also include the flywheel being slightly elliptical. But high pressure and substantially textured road surfaces are something I haven't seen comparison tested.

I would love to be able to test various tire widths and pressures on highly textured surfaces at road bike speeds but I can tell you from experience that I ride with people still using high pressure tires and that with wider tires at lower pressures I am coasting away from them while they are pedaling.
 
Well, I've been riding the 25 mm tubeless tires that generally have about 60 psi in them for a month now. I just love them. They make rotten California roads livable. The only thing I've discovered is that on very fast downhills you have to beware of those depressions if you have the incorrect pressure in the tires. This will cause the bike to take a bounce that could conceivably cause you to lose control.
 
What do you weigh?

I'm 156 pounds and the 25 MM Conti's at 85 PSI on my Ribble R872 feel like molasses. 60 PSI? Insanity. Hell. I ran my old Schwinn 'Puff' 1-1/4" at more PSI than that.

The Pave stage (Mini P-R) at the Tour this year, 59 PSI was the least I saw in the tech report and that was for a featherweight pro with spare wheels waiting on the car, on the motos and at every secteur of pave. One rider flatted FOUR times...in the name of comfort & speed...as the sales guys all tell us.

I'm rolling out in 15 minutes at 100 PSI front and 105 PSI rear on 23 MM's. I'll be plenty fast enough I won't need wide tires running close to automobile pressures. LOL!
 
What do you weigh?

I'm 156 pounds and the 25 MM Conti's at 85 PSI on my Ribble R872 feel like molasses. 60 PSI? Insanity. Hell. I ran my old Schwinn 'Puff' 1-1/4" at more PSI than that.

The Pave stage (Mini P-R) at the Tour this year, 59 PSI was the least I saw in the tech report and that was for a featherweight pro on 28 MM with spare wheels waiting on the car, on the motos and at every secteur of pave. One rider flatted FOUR times...in the name of comfort & speed...as the sales guys all tell us.

I'm rolling out in 15 minutes at 100 PSI front and 105 PSI rear on 23 MM's. I'll be plenty fast enough I won't need wide tires running close to automobile pressures. LOL!
 
"Then along came Carbon Fiber. This material is so stiff that you simply cannot ride most of the modern bikes on 23 mm tires and hope to walk after the ride without holding your crotch."

You're so full of **** your eyes are brown.

I've been on nothing but carbon since 2007, 6 different bikes, and put 100% of my road miles on 23 MM tire this year and every other year except two Winter ago when I rode the Ribble almost 2000 miles on 25 MM tires. That's TREK, Wilier, Ribble and Douglas frames.

I put in innumerable Imperial Centuries and even more Metric Centuries on 23's and I can walk just fine, thank you very much. And that's over roads so tore up from Ohio Winters that it makes Cali road look like they were paved by Swiss watchmakers.

I don't know where you get your 'facts', but they're pretty much BS. And yeah, any opinion can be backed up with an internet link. Not impressed. At all.
 
"So I'm a little sensitive about failures that could leave you walking home from Bumfuck, Egypt."

Credit card. Cell Phone. Uber. Lyft. Taxi.

BTW. Ride the tires and pressure you enjoy. Be advised, your preferences don't work for everyone though.
 
Tell you what Bob, you just go right ahead using narrow tires with tubes at high pressure. It is obvious that that is so much better simply by reasoning that every other rubber tired vehicle has changed to tubeless so they must all be wrong and you must be right.
 
Table shows Watt consumption of the Pro 4 Service Course increases as inflation pressure decreases (with tubes).

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews

120 PSI uses 14.9 Watts.

80 PSI uses 17.6 Watts.

60 PSI uses 20.1 Watts.

Note graph of top 10 tires showing Watt consumption CRR dropping as pressure increases.
Swalbe: " professional road racers are tending to ride wider tires more and more. The tire widths of 18 and 20 mm are hardly available anymore. And instead of the current standard width of 23 mm, the professional road racers choose more and more tires with widths of 24 or 25 mm."

Continental: "At the same air pressure, a wider tire has less rolling resistance. Rolling resistance of the 25C GP4000S with a real width of 27 mm is close to the rolling resistance of the 23C GP4000S. The 28C GP4000S does have a noticeable lower rolling resistance"

Or of course you COULD have paid attention to my insistence that on the bad road surfaces I ride on that the wider tires at lower pressures rides better and exhibits lower rolling resistance. Surprise: when the tests are actually run on actual surfaces. Gee whizz, who would have guessed:

http://trstriathlon.com/talking-tires-with-joshua-poertner/

The second chart down shows that the more coarse the surface the higher the rolling resistance at higher pressures. My guess is that the surface I was riding on yesterday was probably rougher than the textured concrete.

But I'm full of **** because you already knew this didn't you?
 
"So I'm a little sensitive about failures that could leave you walking home from Bumfuck, Egypt."

Credit card. Cell Phone. Uber. Lyft. Taxi.

BTW. Ride the tires and pressure you enjoy. Be advised, your preferences don't work for everyone though.
I always find it interesting how easily some people spend other's money. You're not married are you?
 
"I always find it interesting how easily some people spend other's money."

You're the loon dispensing advice on tires. ******** advice, at that.

"Rolling resistance of the 25C GP4000S with a real width of 27 mm is close to the rolling resistance of the 23C GP4000S."

Close. Good enough for hand grenades and Tommy.

Like I said, ride whatever you want and ignore the professionals still riding 19 and 22 MM tubular tires, Conti's two most popular choices among the pro's for paved road use.
 
"I always find it interesting how easily some people spend other's money."

You're the loon dispensing advice on tires. ******** advice, at that.

"Rolling resistance of the 25C GP4000S with a real width of 27 mm is close to the rolling resistance of the 23C GP4000S."

Close. Good enough for hand grenades and Tommy.

Like I said, ride whatever you want and ignore the professionals still riding 19 and 22 MM tubular tires, Conti's two most popular choices among the pro's for paved road use.
Bob, read https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/othe...tting-wider-and-the-pressure-lower/ar-AAAmtXN

This contradicts everything you've said - pros are riding 25 mm and lower pressure, In the Tour coverage they said that they wee using 27 - 28 mm tubulars

Look for the part that says that as CF frames get stiffer there is increasing need for wider and softer tires. Though I'm sure that they weren't talking about your Alan and Vitus.