Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The main draw back, that nobody seem to think about is that fact that when you flat a tubular tire, you can still ride it at a fast pace to the pit to switch bikes. Anybody you has flatted with clinchers knows that when you flat you dont have the same control. And when you add in sealant to tubeless tires, it acts as a lubricant and it makes the slipping of the tire on the rim 10X worse. Tubeless for training? Yes, Tubeless for racing? a decent alternative, but still not the same advantage as tubulars.
 

·
Former Roadbikereview Editor
Steelman Eurocross bike
Joined
·
3,151 Posts
CycloCross said:
The main draw back, that nobody seem to think about is that fact that when you flat a tubular tire, you can still ride it at a fast pace to the pit to switch bikes. Anybody you has flatted with clinchers knows that when you flat you dont have the same control. And when you add in sealant to tubeless tires, it acts as a lubricant and it makes the slipping of the tire on the rim 10X worse. Tubeless for training? Yes, Tubeless for racing? a decent alternative, but still not the same advantage as tubulars.
When talking about tubeless for cyclocross, there's two avenues:

1) convert any cross tire and any rim into tubeless and use Stans sealant to seal it up.

2) use Hutchinson tubeless tires with beadlock with a tubeless compatible rim. Perhaps use sealant as well. One can still use Stans in this setup for extra flat protection.

In case #1, there's no chance of riding a flat. The tire will flop around and probably fall off the rim. Case #1 is hokey and risky I believe. I wouldn't do it unless I'm assured the seal is really, really good. Burping a tire on asphalt can be disastrous.

In case #2, the bead is locked onto the rim and the manufacturer is claiming you can ride with a flat. I don't know if this is true.

The other thing to consider is a tubeless tire with sealant is not likely to flat. There is no tube to pinch and if you poke a hole in the tire, the sealant should seal it.

Anybody have ANY experience? What's your setup and how's it working out?

fc
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,249 Posts
why go to all that hassle?

when you can just use a tub?
a better solution already exists
why do all that work for something that will never be as good?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
atpjunkie said:
when you can just use a tub?
a better solution already exists
why do all that work for something that will never be as good?
How do you know it will never be as good? You don't. It is debatable whether it is as good currently (completely subjective and dependent on who you ask), but you have no idea what the future tech. will bring.

I would prefer tubeless over tubular currently for the ease of change, better rolling resistance, and the ability to throw a tube in if I needed to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
I'll add that if you already own a clincher rim that is tubeless compatable (*like my Ksyrium SL's) then it makes dropping the cash on a pair of tubeless tire look real attractive compared with dropping another (at least) $400 on another wheelset alone.
 

·
More Cowbell!
Joined
·
4,832 Posts
Lord Taipan said:
I'll add that if you already own a clincher rim that is tubeless compatable (*like my Ksyrium SL's) then it makes dropping the cash on a pair of tubeless tire look real attractive compared with dropping another (at least) $400 on another wheelset alone.
Perhaps all of the tubular wheelsets are off the market now? I've scored all kinds of great tubular wheels used on Ebay. My top price is $200 per set and I've scored great wheels for less.

The reality of tubeless for cross is that you can't take an off-the-shelf rim and convert it to tubeless, there is some significant risk of burping during a race. That can be as bad as a flat. I've read reports of K users having mixed results with tubless. I'd prefer to have a sure thing.

I've heard guys having really good results with Stans rims and certain tires (Muds, for one). Building up a wheel set with Stans rims is going to cost you more than a comparable tubular set.

I'm with atpjunkie. We've got a good system already and I'm not convinced that tubeless is better.

HTH YMMV NTTAWWT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,229 Posts
So far, I'm enjoying my Hutchinson tubeless on Roval Pave wheels with the stan's kits installed, they seem to hold well at pretty low PSI, I'm going to keep trying to roll them off as time goes by.

I think they will be a good setup for some courses and I suspect they will end up being the technology that really suits cross. The girth of the Hutchinson Bulldog tire is a liability, if they made one about the size of a standard Grifo, it would be a lot nicer. I'm curious if that big beefy tire will roll ok at 40 psi or less, if so it may be a really nice setup.

I love how cyclists are so quick to reject change, something about the sport I guess and I'm guilty myself sometimes.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
SleeveleSS said:
How do you know it will never be as good? You don't. It is debatable whether it is as good currently (completely subjective and dependent on who you ask), but you have no idea what the future tech. will bring.
We know because tubeless clinchers are still clinchers, and as such continue to suffer many of the weaknesses inherent to the design of clinchers tires and rims.

Tubless clinchers only even offer to address a couple of these weaknesses. They won't pinch flat, which is good. They might save some weight, but if they requier stronger beads, modified rims and "beefier" sidewalls and sealants, that is an open question.

We don't know what future tech will bring, but if you understand the entire issue, you will see that future tech that rivals tubulars will not be a modified clincher system.

SleeveleSS said:
I would prefer tubeless over tubular currently for the ease of change, better rolling resistance, and the ability to throw a tube in if I needed to.
Ease of change is the only actual advantage that tubeless clinchers have over tubulars, though I don't count that as an aspect of performance. Regarding resistance, I am not so sure that the claimed advantages of road clinchers translate as well to cyclocross.

Throwing a tube in is pretty irrelevant. You wouldn't have time to do this during a race, and even if you did (or you are not racing), you now have a regular clincher which was the problem that was to be solved in the first place. Handy in an emergency, but again not a performance advantage.

The key here, from a racing perspective, is performance and the idiosyncratic factors that define performance in cyclocross. These factors work against any clincher system rivaling tubulars. They go beyond riding low pressure and they trump the convenience factor of clinchers.

One thing is for sure -- tubeless offer some worthwhile improvements on tubed clinchers.
 

·
Former Roadbikereview Editor
Steelman Eurocross bike
Joined
·
3,151 Posts
jroden said:
The girth of the Hutchinson Bulldog tire is a liability, if they made one about the size of a standard Grifo, it would be a lot nicer. I'm curious if that big beefy tire will roll ok at 40 psi or less, if so it may be a really nice setup.
I think a lot of frames will not fit the Bulldog tires. I thought my Steelman had ample rear tire clearance but it barely fits.

In muddy conditions the clearance might be an issue on my setup

fc
 

·
Former Roadbikereview Editor
Steelman Eurocross bike
Joined
·
3,151 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
We know because tubeless clinchers are still clinchers, and as such continue to suffer many of the weaknesses inherent to the design of clinchers tires and rims.

...
Good points. That is the racing perspective. I think we'll learn a lot on this coming season of racing.

On the non-racing perspective though the verdict might be very different. I want to ride my cross bike every day. Big rides that traverse road and trails. The new system seems to hold a bit of promise.

fc
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
jroden said:
I think they will be a good setup for some courses and I suspect they will end up being the technology that really suits cross. The girth of the Hutchinson Bulldog tire is a liability, if they made one about the size of a standard Grifo, it would be a lot nicer. I'm curious if that big beefy tire will roll ok at 40 psi or less, if so it may be a really nice setup.
It seems to me that tubeless clincher tires will always have to be bigger to protect the rim sidewalls. If you hit a square edge on a tubular wheel hard enough for the rim to make contact, you have a decently reinforced rim structure and even a ding in it won't necessarily put it out of commission. On a tubeless clincher, the sidewall is much more likely to get bent. If that happens your rim is destroyed and your tire is likely going to blow.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
francois said:
On the non-racing perspective though the verdict might be very different. I want to ride my cross bike every day. Big rides that traverse road and trails. The new system seems to hold a bit of promise.

fc
I agree, though for this kind of riding I would not recommend tubulars anyway.

I did some training and course recon on a ghetto tubless set-up using 34C Vittoria clinchers last year. It was deinitely an improvement over using tubes in many ways, but I never trusted the integrity of my set-up enough for racing.

For training or just recreational riding when I can ride a little more conservatively, I would definitely give a reliable tubelesss system a look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
We know because tubeless clinchers are still clinchers, and as such continue to suffer many of the weaknesses inherent to the design of clinchers tires and rims.

Tubless clinchers only even offer to address a couple of these weaknesses. They won't pinch flat, which is good. They might save some weight, but if they requier stronger beads, modified rims and "beefier" sidewalls and sealants, that is an open question.

We don't know what future tech will bring, but if you understand the entire issue, you will see that future tech that rivals tubulars will not be a modified clincher system.

Ease of change is the only actual advantage that tubeless clinchers have over tubulars, though I don't count that as an aspect of performance. Regarding resistance, I am not so sure that the claimed advantages of road clinchers translate as well to cyclocross.

Throwing a tube in is pretty irrelevant. You wouldn't have time to do this during a race, and even if you did (or you are not racing), you now have a regular clincher which was the problem that was to be solved in the first place. Handy in an emergency, but again not a performance advantage.

The key here, from a racing perspective, is performance and the idiosyncratic factors that define performance in cyclocross. These factors work against any clincher system rivaling tubulars. They go beyond riding low pressure and they trump the convenience factor of clinchers.

One thing is for sure -- tubeless offer some worthwhile improvements on tubed clinchers.
I did not realize we were only speaking of racing. I will probably never race cyclocross, and I think that a vast majority of riders are in that category. And though I might be sympathetic to some of your points, I wholeheartedly disagree that the ability to throw a tube in is irrelevant, if you are not looking strictly at racing. When you flat a tubular you don't have this option, and you yourself said it would be useful in an emergency. An emergency would be the only time you would need to do it.
 

·
Number 2 on the course.
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
SleeveleSS said:
I did not realize we were only speaking of racing. I will probably never race cyclocross, and I think that a vast majority of riders are in that category.
That perspective is the root of many a misguided post on this board with respect to which technologies are good for cyclocross.

Cyclocross is racing. Cyclocross bikes can be used for any number of things, but if you say "I participate in cyclocross", nobody is going to think you are talking about all-weather commuting or skinny tire trail riding.

The vast majority of 4WD vehicles are never driven off road. But if you say you are going four wheeling, nobody is going to think you are talking about driving your Subaru to the grocery store.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
Cyclocross is racing.
That is your opinion. We have a separate forum for racing. Cyclocross to me is a type of bicycle. My girlfriend owns a cyclocross bike, one that she will most likely never race. She could benefit from the advantages tubeless tires have. That does not mean that my posts are "misguided."
 

·
NeoRetroGrouch
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
That perspective is the root of many a misguided post on this board with respect to which technologies are good for cyclocross.

Cyclocross is racing. Cyclocross bikes can be used for any number of things, but if you say "I participate in cyclocross", nobody is going to think you are talking about all-weather commuting or skinny tire trail riding.

The vast majority of 4WD vehicles are never driven off road. But if you say you are going four wheeling, nobody is going to think you are talking about driving your Subaru to the grocery store.
'Cyclocross' is no more just racing than 'road' or 'mountain'. If you want a forum that only considers technologies, techniques and training for CX racing, then you better ask the moderators for one called "CX Racing". - TF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,229 Posts
I think you are both right, in that using much of the life of a cyclocross race bike is spent logging training miles, either on the roads or on the cross pitch. To clarify, my posts were very much directed at my long term goal of living in a house without tubular tires darkening my doorstep, a goal which has eluded me for 25 years, I'm sorry to say. I think these new tires are clearly something that deserves some exploration. Recall that both Fausto Coppi and Eddy Merckx were known for pushing the envelope in their day when it came to technology. They would have been the first to abandon wool shorts and toe straps if they had the chance.

I've raced in wool shorts, leather chamois, Detto shoes, Binda toe straps, crashed with leather helmets and lost sprints because I had the downtube shifter in the wrong gear or pulled my foot out. I don't have an ounce of nostalga for that stuff and tubulars will hopefully be the next technology in the rubbish pile, just not quite this year, I fear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,229 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
Again, misguided. And yes IMO. This forum is where we talk about training for CX racing, post CX race reports, post about CX Nationals and European CX racing, CX course design, CX race tactics etc.
Yes, but I've answered about a jillion questions about "do it all bikes" and suchlike and don't mind helping people get a cross bike set up for their non-racing pleasures, maybe we can get them out for a race in the future...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
PeanutButterBreath said:
Again, misguided. And yes IMO. This forum is where we talk about training for CX racing, post CX race reports, post about CX Nationals and European CX racing, CX course design, CX race tactics etc.
Of course you do, but that's not all that is discussed here. Regarding that, I don't see how we could disagree, and therein lies my point. Not everyone who posts on a topic within the "Cyclocross" forum, will approach the topic from the perspective of racing. That might be misguided in your opinion, but it is a reality you have to accept.
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top