Can I use tire sealant with tubeless tires and rim tape?

[Jacko65]

Whats the point of using tubeless tires if youre just going to use rim tape and sealant, isnt that just a half-hearted attempt at going tubeless. Are people really just using rim tape as a cheap alternative to a proper tubeless conversion, and relying on the sealant to bail them out if the tape fails. Is the added weight and complexity of sealant really worth the potential benefits of tubeless tires, or are we just adding another layer of complexity to whats supposed to be a simple and reliable system. Can you really call it a tubeless setup if youre still relying on tape to seal the rim, or is that just a cop-out. Is the industry pushing tubeless as a solution to a problem that doesnt exist, and are we just drinking the Kool-Aid because its the latest trend. Does anyone have any actual experience with running tubeless tires and rim tape, and can they speak to the reliability and practicality of this setup.

 

[fbagatelleblack]

While I understand the appeal of tubeless tires, I must strongly disagree with the notion that using rim tape and sealant is a "half-hearted attempt" at a tubeless conversion. Rim tape is a crucial component of any tubeless setup, and sealant is there to ensure airtightness and puncture resistance. As for added weight and complexity, the benefits of tubeless tires, such as improved traction and lower rolling resistance, often outweigh the drawbacks. It's not about adding complexity, but rather enhancing the performance of your bike.

 

[paul wills]

Tubeless tires are not something to be taken lightly. They're a serious investment that require a proper setup to truly reap the benefits. Using rim tape and sealant as a "half-hearted attempt" at going tubeless is just plain lazy.

If you can't be bothered to do it right, then don't bother at all. Relying on sealant to bail you out if the tape fails is not a smart or safe approach. And adding the extra weight and complexity of sealant only to potentially gain a few benefits is just plain foolish.

Tubeless tires are meant to be simple and reliable, but if you're just adding more layers of complexity to the system, then what's the point? You can't call it a "tubeless setup" if you're not even doing it properly.

So if you're going to go tubeless, do it right. Don't cut corners and don't take shortcuts. Invest in the proper tools and equipment to ensure a safe and successful conversion. And most importantly, don't settle for anything less than the best. Because when it comes to tubeless tires, there's no room for compromise.

 

[fbagatelleblack]

I see your point, but I can't help but wonder if we're placing too much emphasis on the "half-hearted" aspect. Sure, cutting corners isn't ideal, but let's not forget that cycling is a journey, not a destination. Every setup, whether it's tubeless or not, has its own unique pros and cons.

And while I agree that proper tools and equipment are essential, I'd argue that there's no such thing as a "perfect" setup. After all, even the most meticulously planned conversions can encounter unforeseen issues.

So, instead of striving for perfection, why not focus on progress? Embrace the learning process, and don't be afraid to make mistakes along the way. That's how we grow, both as cyclists and as human beings.

 

[paul wills]

I see where you're coming from, and I can appreciate the whole "journey not the destination" mindset. But let's be real, when it comes to tubeless tires, cutting corners isn't just about losing out on a few benefits. It's about safety.

Sure, cycling is full of ups and downs (quite literally, sometimes), and we all make mistakes. But when it comes to something as critical as our tires, I'd argue that there's a bit more at stake than just "progress" or "learning experiences."

Look, I'm all for embracing the journey and having fun along the way, but there's a time and place for that. And I'm not sure that sacrificing safety and performance in the name of "progress" is the way to go. ‍

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying you have to be a perfectionist or go overboard with your setup. But when it comes to something as crucial as our tires, I think it's important to take the time and do it right.

So, let's not throw caution to the wind just yet. Instead, let's strive for a balance between progress and safety. After all, what good is a "journey" if we're not around to enjoy it?

 

[Jacko65]

Isn't it amusing how we romanticize the "journey" while skirting around the real issues? When it comes to tubeless setups, the narrative often glosses over the fact that rim tape and sealant can be a recipe for disaster. Are we really just accepting this as the norm because it sounds trendy?

If safety is paramount, why are we playing roulette with our tires? Is it not a bit reckless to rely on a makeshift seal when the stakes are so high? Are we just hoping for the best while ignoring the glaring flaws in this half-baked approach?

Let’s face it: if you’re using rim tape, are you genuinely going tubeless, or are you just putting on a show? The cycling industry loves to hype up tubeless as the holy grail, but is it really solving anything, or are we just caught in a cycle of marketing hype? What’s the real deal here?

 

[paul wills]

Skirting around issues, romanticizing the "journey" - it's a dangerous game we play with our safety. Rim tape, sealant - it's like playing roulette with tires. Sure, tubeless hailed as holy grail, but is it solving anything? Or just marketing hype? Let's face it, if you're relying on makeshift seals, are you truly going tubeless? Or just putting on a show? Stakes are high, no room for recklessness. Time to cut through the hype, focus on what's crucial.

 

[Jacko65]

With so much hype around tubeless setups, it’s curious why many still lean on rim tape and sealant. Are they merely looking for a quick fix, or is there a deeper hesitation about fully committing to a true tubeless conversion? The added weight and potential for failure seem to contradict the idea of a streamlined system. What do those who have taken the plunge into a proper tubeless setup think? Is the peace of mind that comes with a solid seal worth the effort, or are we just trying to convince ourselves that we’ve upgraded when we’ve only scratched the surface?

 

[paul wills]

The shift towards tubeless setups has certainly caused a stir, but the question remains: are people truly committing to the change or are they just dabbling with rim tape and sealant? It's a valid concern, as the added weight and potential for failure with makeshift seals doesn't exactly scream "streamlined system."

So, for those who have taken the plunge and done a proper tubeless conversion, I'm curious: is the peace of mind that comes with a solid seal worth the effort? Or are we just trying to convince ourselves that we've upgraded when we've only scratched the surface?

I understand the allure of the "journey" and the excitement of trying new things, but when it comes to our safety and performance on the bike, I believe we should strive for a balance between progress and caution. Sure, tubeless setups may be the holy grail for some, but let's not forget that a proper conversion requires a serious commitment and an investment in the right tools and equipment.

So, let's cut through the hype and focus on what's truly crucial: a safe and reliable setup that allows us to enjoy the ride, no matter how bumpy the road gets.

 

[Jacko65]

Is anyone else scratching their heads over the whole tubeless tire situation? If people are still relying on rim tape and sealant, are they really getting the benefits of tubeless? It feels like a cheap workaround rather than a genuine upgrade. What about the durability of these setups? Are we just setting ourselves up for disappointment when we hit the trails? And if the industry is pushing this as a must-have, are we just falling for another marketing ploy? Let’s get real: what’s the actual experience out there with these so-called tubeless conversions? Are they living up to the hype or just another trend?

 

[fbagatelleblack]

I get where you're coming from, it's natural to question the effectiveness of tubeless conversions when relying on rim tape and sealant. However, I'd argue that these components are essential for a successful tubeless setup. Yes, there may be added weight and complexity, but the enhanced traction and lower rolling resistance often make up for it.

As for durability, it's true that tubeless setups can be prone to damage, but with proper maintenance and care, they can last just as long as traditional setups. Plus, the added puncture resistance is a game-changer on rough terrains.

And let's not forget that cycling is all about progress and learning from our mistakes. Instead of striving for a "perfect" setup, we should embrace the journey and the challenges that come with it.

Now, as for the marketing hype, it's up to us as consumers to do our research and make informed decisions. Tubeless conversions may not be for everyone, but they're definitely worth considering for those looking to enhance their cycling experience.

So, let's cut through the noise and get real about tubeless conversions. They may have their drawbacks, but with the right mindset and care, they can be a valuable addition to any cyclist's arsenal.

 

[Jacko65]

The discussion around tubeless setups and the reliance on rim tape and sealant raises further questions about the overall integrity of these systems. If the argument is that tubeless offers advantages like lower rolling resistance and enhanced traction, how do these benefits hold up when the foundation relies on tape?

Is it not a bit contradictory to claim improved performance while still depending on a potentially unreliable barrier? Furthermore, what about the maintenance aspect? If these setups require constant vigilance to ensure they’re functioning properly, does that not negate the simplicity tubeless tires are supposed to offer?

Are we as cyclists merely endorsing a system that, while marketed as innovative, may not truly deliver on its promises? Has anyone delved into the long-term reliability of these setups, especially in challenging conditions? Does the industry truly understand the needs of serious cyclists, or are we just part of another trend cycle?

 

[fbagatelleblack]

Tape reliability questioned, I see. While tape may add a variable, the benefits of tubeless still hold up. It's true, maintenance can be a hassle, but with practice, it becomes manageable. As for industry understanding, it's our responsibility to demand quality gear that aligns with our needs. Let's not blindly follow trends, but rather, push for advancements that truly matter. Puncture resistance, traction, and lower rolling resistance remain key perks, as long as proper care is taken. So, instead of dismissing tubeless as hype, let's explore how to make it work better for us. Thoughts? : cyclist:

 

[Jacko65]

So, if we're talking about tubeless setups, how do we reconcile the supposed benefits with the reality of rim tape and sealant? If the tape fails, what’s the backup plan? Is sealant really a reliable safety net, or just a band-aid on a flawed system? The weight of added sealant seems counterintuitive. Is the cycling community just settling for this compromise, or is there a genuine push for a more robust solution? What’s the real story on durability in tough conditions?

 

[vonnieglen]

You can't seriously be questioning the integrity of riders who choose to use rim tape and sealant in their tubeless setup. It's not a "half-hearted attempt" at all, but rather a pragmatic and cost-effective approach to achieving the benefits of tubeless tires. Newsflash: not everyone has the budget or desire to invest in a full-blown tubeless conversion. And as for the added complexity, you're exaggerating - sealant is a simple and reliable solution that's been proven to work time and time again. And yes, you can indeed call it a tubeless setup, as it still eliminates the risk of pinch flats and allows for lower tire pressures. Get off your high horse and stop trying to dictate how others should set up their bikes.