Tubeless?

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Some advice please.
I am looking for a good alround tyre and like the look of the
below.

Its says tubeless compatible which has confused me.
I assumed tyres were either tubeless of not tubeless.

You can run a tubeless tyre with a tube inside - and, unless you have a
rim with sealed spoke holes, you'll have to. So the tyres are 'tubless
compatible' - if you use them with a 'tubeless' rim, they're tubless.
Otherwise not.

Quoted message said:

Presumably tubeless means no inner tube required.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Do such tyres
therefore come with the valve attached to the tyre?

No. The valve is separate, as with a car tyre.

Quoted message said:

Are tubeless any good?. Typically heavier and ride not as
comfortable
in some cases?

The overall weight is lighter (because no tube), and can be run much
softer without attracting pinch-flats. Really only for mountain bike
racing in conditions where traction is at a premium. The downhillers use
them, but they aren't bothered about having to pedal the damn thing back
up.

Quoted message said:

Any advice appeciated. I am obviously no expert just someone who
enjoys on road and off road rides.

=========================================
Michelin Wildgripper XLS
Pair F&R26x2.1 FoldingUST Green-Blk

Singletrack magazine recently did an enormous group test on tyres, the
results of which surprised and interested me. Their findings were, in
brief:

* fancy tread designs offer little benefit
* soft sticky rubber really makes a difference
* lightweight tyres were on the whole disappointing

Their top picks over all were front: Kenda Nevegal (630g), rear: Kenda
Blue Groove (630g), although they had more specific picks for different
surfaces. The best of the sub-500g tyres was probably Maxis Larsen TT
1.9, which was rated as sketchy on roots but OK on other surfaces, but
at 490g per tyre it's not very light.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

Pete said:

Some advice please.
I am looking for a good alround tyre and like the look of the below.

Its says tubeless compatible which has confused me.
I assumed tyres were either tubeless of not tubeless.

You can use a tubeless tyre with an innertube (if you must) but its less
advisable the other way round.

Quoted message said:

Presumably tubeless means no inner tube required. Do such tyres
therefore come with the valve attached to the tyre?

No, the valve is sealed to the rim.

Quoted message said:

Are tubeless any good?. Typically heavier and ride not as comfortable
in some cases?

I will not be using them, as I prefer to carry a spare tube and replace
a punctured one rather than the faff of having to repair the tyre while
out in typical puncture weather conditions.

Quoted message said:

Any advice appeciated. I am obviously no expert just someone who
enjoys on road and off road rides.

When you have a team manager who says the sponsors want you to ride
them, consider 'em - or be a fashion victim.

Quoted message said:

=========================================
Michelin Wildgripper XLS
Pair F&R26x2.1 FoldingUST Green-Blk

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=2151

50% off I see - looks like they're not wanted.

Tubeless tyres make sense on cars because its not practical to take the
equipment to remove car tyres from rims with you on a journey. For most
cyclists, they are not sensible by the same reasoning IMHO.

JimP

--
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to
grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after
all. - DNA

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Some advice please.
I am looking for a good alround tyre and like the look of the
below.

Its says tubeless compatible which has confused me.
I assumed tyres were either tubeless of not tubeless.

You can run a tubeless tyre with a tube inside - and, unless you have a
rim with sealed spoke holes, you'll have to. So the tyres are 'tubless
compatible' - if you use them with a 'tubeless' rim, they're tubless.
Otherwise not.

Quoted message said:

Presumably tubeless means no inner tube required.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Do such tyres
therefore come with the valve attached to the tyre?

No. The valve is separate, as with a car tyre.

Quoted message said:

Are tubeless any good?. Typically heavier and ride not as
comfortable
in some cases?

The overall weight is lighter (because no tube), and can be run much
softer without attracting pinch-flats. Really only for mountain bike
racing in conditions where traction is at a premium. The downhillers use
them, but they aren't bothered about having to pedal the damn thing back
up.

Quoted message said:

Any advice appeciated. I am obviously no expert just someone who
enjoys on road and off road rides.

=========================================
Michelin Wildgripper XLS
Pair F&R26x2.1 FoldingUST Green-Blk

Singletrack magazine recently did an enormous group test on tyres, the
results of which surprised and interested me. Their findings were, in
brief:

* fancy tread designs offer little benefit
* soft sticky rubber really makes a difference
* lightweight tyres were on the whole disappointing

Their top picks over all were front: Kenda Nevegal (630g), rear: Kenda
Blue Groove (630g), although they had more specific picks for different
surfaces. The best of the sub-500g tyres was probably Maxis Larsen TT
1.9, which was rated as sketchy on roots but OK on other surfaces, but
at 490g per tyre it's not very light.

Thansk for the detailed repsonse. I think i will stay away from the
tubeless and go with what i know
Any idea whats considered a typical/average tyre weight?. I've got mavic's
on but
ive no idea of their weight.

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Some advice please.
I am looking for a good alround tyre and like the look of the
below.

Its says tubeless compatible which has confused me.
I assumed tyres were either tubeless of not tubeless.

You can run a tubeless tyre with a tube inside - and, unless you have a
rim with sealed spoke holes, you'll have to. So the tyres are 'tubless
compatible' - if you use them with a 'tubeless' rim, they're tubless.
Otherwise not.

Quoted message said:

Presumably tubeless means no inner tube required.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Do such tyres
therefore come with the valve attached to the tyre?

No. The valve is separate, as with a car tyre.

Quoted message said:

Are tubeless any good?. Typically heavier and ride not as
comfortable
in some cases?

The overall weight is lighter (because no tube), and can be run much
softer without attracting pinch-flats. Really only for mountain bike
racing in conditions where traction is at a premium. The downhillers use
them, but they aren't bothered about having to pedal the damn thing back
up.

Quoted message said:

Any advice appeciated. I am obviously no expert just someone who
enjoys on road and off road rides.

=========================================
Michelin Wildgripper XLS
Pair F&R26x2.1 FoldingUST Green-Blk

Singletrack magazine recently did an enormous group test on tyres, the
results of which surprised and interested me. Their findings were, in
brief:

* fancy tread designs offer little benefit
* soft sticky rubber really makes a difference
* lightweight tyres were on the whole disappointing

Their top picks over all were front: Kenda Nevegal (630g), rear: Kenda
Blue Groove (630g), although they had more specific picks for different
surfaces. The best of the sub-500g tyres was probably Maxis Larsen TT
1.9, which was rated as sketchy on roots but OK on other surfaces, but
at 490g per tyre it's not very light.

Thansk for the detailed repsonse. I think i will stay away from the
tubeless and go with what i know
Any idea whats considered a typical/average tyre weight?. I've got
mavic's on but
ive no idea of their weight.

that should say ive got tioga (tyres) not mavic!

Pete said:

Quoted message said:

Thansk for the detailed repsonse. I think i will stay away from the
tubeless and go with what i know
Any idea whats considered a typical/average tyre weight?. I've got
mavic's on but
ive no idea of their weight.

that should say ive got tioga (tyres) not mavic!

Do you have kitchen scales? ;-)

Anorak on, weigh tyres, look up others tyres on manufacturer/dealer
websites, compare weights, consider what you're getting for that weight
and whether you need it, etc.

~PB

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Thansk for the detailed repsonse. I think i will stay away from the
tubeless and go with what i know
Any idea whats considered a typical/average tyre weight?. I've got
mavic's on but ive no idea of their weight.

Mavic don't make tyres; they do make (very good) wheel rims and wheels.
The average mountain bike tyre is /about/ 600 grammes for a 2.1" wide
tyre; the range is from about 400 grammes per tyre to about 900 grammes
per tyre. Tubes weigh of the order of 150 grammes each. The lightest
mountain bike tubes are under 100 grammes but are said to be more
vulnerable to punctures.

Obviously narrower tyres are lighter than equivalent wider tyres, but
won't be so good on loose/friable surfaces, tyres with fewer smaller
knobbles are lighter than ones with more bigger knobbles but aren't so
good on muddy or rough surfaces; and tyres which are just thinner are
lighter than thicker tyres, but /much/ more vulnerable to punctures.

Getting weight off tyres is reckoned to be a good thing, because
accelerating the rotating mass is said to take more work than
accelerating mass elsewhere on the bike, but I have to confess I don't
really understand thy it should be so.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Thansk for the detailed repsonse. I think i will stay away from the
tubeless and go with what i know
Any idea whats considered a typical/average tyre weight?. I've got
mavic's on but ive no idea of their weight.

Mavic don't make tyres; they do make (very good) wheel rims and wheels.
The average mountain bike tyre is /about/ 600 grammes for a 2.1" wide
tyre; the range is from about 400 grammes per tyre to about 900 grammes
per tyre. Tubes weigh of the order of 150 grammes each. The lightest
mountain bike tubes are under 100 grammes but are said to be more
vulnerable to punctures.

Obviously narrower tyres are lighter than equivalent wider tyres, but
won't be so good on loose/friable surfaces, tyres with fewer smaller
knobbles are lighter than ones with more bigger knobbles but aren't so
good on muddy or rough surfaces; and tyres which are just thinner are
lighter than thicker tyres, but /much/ more vulnerable to punctures.

Getting weight off tyres is reckoned to be a good thing, because
accelerating the rotating mass is said to take more work than
accelerating mass elsewhere on the bike, but I have to confess I don't
really understand thy it should be so.

Because it's far away from the centre of the wheel.

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/flywheel.htm explains the principles, even
though it's car based. 1kilo off the flywheel is equal to 39 kilos off the
car in his example for first gear. Most people's legs don't get up to
7000rpm though.

in message <[email hidden]>, Doki

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Getting weight off tyres is reckoned to be a good thing, because
accelerating the rotating mass is said to take more work than
accelerating mass elsewhere on the bike, but I have to confess I don't
really understand why it should be so.

Because it's far away from the centre of the wheel.

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/flywheel.htm explains the principles, even
though it's car based. 1kilo off the flywheel is equal to 39 kilos off
the car in his example for first gear. Most people's legs don't get up
to 7000rpm though.

OK, thanks. No-one's ever been able to explain that to me before, but
that's really straight forward. The stored energy actually doesn't do
you a lot of good on a bike, either, since it only adds a little to the
coasting distance when you stop pedalling.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Doki

(') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Getting weight off tyres is reckoned to be a good thing, because
accelerating the rotating mass is said to take more work than
accelerating mass elsewhere on the bike, but I have to confess I don't
really understand why it should be so.

Because it's far away from the centre of the wheel.

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/flywheel.htm explains the principles, even
though it's car based. 1kilo off the flywheel is equal to 39 kilos off
the car in his example for first gear. Most people's legs don't get up
to 7000rpm though.

OK, thanks. No-one's ever been able to explain that to me before, but
that's really straight forward. The stored energy actually doesn't do
you a lot of good on a bike, either, since it only adds a little to the
coasting distance when you stop pedalling.

And getting over bumps / directional stability. Stop the wheels of a bike
that's in the air and it's a lot harder to keep it going where you want.
More applicable to DH MTB.