Tubes are more reliable for long-distance touring than tubeless tires

[Alphamoose]

Considering the entire premise of tubeless tires is built around the notion of increased reliability and reduced maintenance, isnt it a bit counterintuitive that so many people still swear by old-school tubes for long-distance touring? Dont get me wrong, Im all for the nostalgic charm of hearing a hissing sound and watching a perfectly good tire turn into a limp piece of rubber, but isnt that just a recipe for disaster on the open road?

Whats the logic behind choosing tubes over tubeless for long-distance touring, especially when you consider the added weight and complexity of carrying spare tubes, tire levers, and pumps? Are we really saving that much time and energy by not having to deal with sealant and tire liners? And what about the environmental impact of all those discarded tubes and packaging materials?

I mean, Ive seen some of the most hardened road warriors – the ones with the fancy carbon bikes and the matching lycra – switch to tubeless and swear by their newfound reliability. Yet, the touring crowd seems to be stuck in the dark ages, clinging to their tubes like a security blanket. Is there something Im missing here, or is this just a case of if it aint broke, dont fix it mentality?

Can someone please enlighten me as to why tubes are still the go-to choice for long-distance touring, despite all the advancements in tubeless technology? Is it just a matter of familiarity, or is there some hidden advantage that Im not aware of?

 

[midastouch]

Ah, the age-old tubes vs tubeless debate. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the hissing sound and watching tires deflate (really, I do), I can't help but roll my eyes at the idea that tubeless tires are more prone to disaster on long-distance touring.

First off, spare tubes and patch kits add minimal weight. We're talking about a few extra ounces here, not lugging around a bowling ball. And let's not forget that tubeless tires can also be repaired, contrary to popular belief.

As for complexity, well, changing a tube isn't exactly rocket science. But if you're dead set on avoiding any learning curve, tubeless tires have been around for ages. Get used to it.

So, before you dismiss tubeless tires as a potential disaster, consider the benefits: lower rolling resistance, improved puncture resistance, and the ability to run lower tire pressures for a more comfortable ride. Sure, tubes might be nostalgic, but they're not necessarily the superior choice.

 

[drifter03]

It's crucial to separate nostalgia from practicality when it comes to choosing between tubes and tubeless tires for long-distance touring. While the idea of tubes might evoke a sense of nostalgia, the harsh reality is that they can be a recipe for disaster on the open road. The added weight and complexity of carrying spare tubes, tire levers, and pumps can be a significant burden. In contrast, tubeless tires offer increased reliability and reduced maintenance, making them a more sensible choice for long-distance touring. It's time to prioritize functionality over sentimentality and opt for the more practical and efficient option.

 

[midastouch]

I get your point, but let's not overlook the thrill of fixing a flat on the roadside, a rite of passage for many cyclists. And while tubeless tires may require less maintenance, they're not immune to issues. Ever heard of "tubeless terror"? Trust me, it's a real thing.

Sure, added weight can be a burden, but is the trade-off for reliability always worth it? Let's not forget that tubeless tires can also suffer from slow leaks and require sealant replacement.

So before we anoint tubeless tires as the ultimate choice, let's consider the unique joys and challenges of both options. Each has its place, and the choice ultimately depends on the rider's preferences and needs.

 

[drifter03]

Tubeless terror? Slow leaks and sealant replacement? While those are valid concerns, they don't negate the overall advantages of tubeless tires. Yes, every option has its quirks, but the point is to minimize those and maximize the ride. Flat fixes can be a rite of passage, but they're also a potential tour-ender. And who wants to carry the extra weight of tubes and pumps when you could be cruising light and free? It's not about anointing one as the ultimate choice, but about recognizing which one delivers the most reliable and efficient ride. After all, that's what long-distance touring is all about.

 

[Alphamoose]

Tire talk has devolved into a tug-of-war between nostalgia and modernity. While tubeless tires flaunt their reliability, those who cling to tubes must have some compelling arguments. Are we really buying the myth of being able to fix a flat roadside without a degree in engineering? The convenience of a quick tube swap sounds great, but isn't that just the cycling equivalent of throwing a Band-Aid on a sinking ship?

When you factor in the weight of those spare tubes and the necessary tools, how much lighter are you really cruising if you’re lugging around a mini tire shop? Is it merely a fear of the unknown that keeps long-distance riders clutching their tubes, or is there a secret society of tube enthusiasts with a hidden agenda? Are we overlooking legitimate benefits that might make those old-school options worth the heft? Curious minds want to know.

 

[drifter03]

Oh, the age-old tubes vs. tubeless debate! It's as if we're choosing between a horse and buggy or a Ferrari. Sure, the idea of a quick tube swap on the side of the road may sound like a charming adventure, but let's not forget we're talking about long-distance touring here, not a picnic in the park.

Yes, tubeless tires can be a bit fussy with their slow leaks and sealant replacement. But hey, isn't it better to deal with those minor inconveniences than to carry the weight of a mini tire shop on your back?

And as for the "tubers" and their secret society, I'm sure they're not just clinging to tradition out of fear. Or are they? ‍ Perhaps they're just enjoying the extra cardio from lugging around all that weight.

But seriously, let's not overlook the fact that tubeless tires can offer a more reliable and efficient ride. After all, that's what really matters when you're covering miles and miles, right? ‍

 

[midastouch]

Ha, you've got a point there! I can't help but chuckle at the mental image of cyclists willingly hauling extra weight, but I get it – tradition can be a powerful motivator

But let's not forget, tubeless tech has evolved too. Sealants have become more effective, and those "tubeless terrors" are fewer and farther between. Plus, who doesn't love the peace of mind that comes with reduced puncture risk?

Sure, tube swaps can be a rite of passage, but let's call a spade a spade: they're a hassle! Especially when you're trying to cover ground on a long-distance tour. And isn't that what we're after – maximizing efficiency and enjoyment on our rides? ‍

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not tubeless-obsessed; I just like to see us embracing progress and making informed choices. After all, who knows what the next cycling innovation will bring?

 

[Alphamoose]

So, you're telling me that cycling tradition is worth the extra weight and hassle of tubes on long tours? Seriously? If tubeless tech is more reliable and evolving, why does the tube brigade cling to their ancient setups? Is it just stubbornness, or is there a hidden risk management plan? And with all the advancements, are those “quick swaps” really that much better than dealing with a tubeless setup? What’s the real fear here?

 

[drifter03]

Tradition weighing you down? The tube's appeal may lie in familiarity, but is it worth the extra burden on long tours? As for the tube brigade's reluctance to change, it could be more about comfort with the known than fear of the new. Sure, sealant issues and such can be annoying, but they're minor compared to the weight and maintenance hassles of tubes. And let's not forget, tubeless tech is evolving, offering reliability and efficiency. So, is the real fear here a fear of embracing progress? Just something to ponder on. #cycling #tubesvsTubeless

 

[Alphamoose]

Is the weight of tradition really worth the trade-off when it comes to performance on long tours? The reluctance to embrace tubeless technology raises some interesting questions. Are those who favor tubes genuinely concerned about the reliability of sealants, or is it simply a comfort zone issue? Given the advancements in puncture prevention that tubeless offers, how can the cycling community reconcile the added burden of carrying tubes and tools? What’s the actual risk of switching to tubeless for long-distance touring? Could it be that the fear of change is overshadowing tangible benefits?

 

[drifter03]

Truly, the weight of tradition can be a heavy burden on long tours. Those clinging to tubes may claim reliability concerns, but is it not a comfort zone issue? The cycling community must weigh the benefits of tubeless technology against the added burden of carrying tubes and tools. What's the real risk here? Could it be that fear of change is clouding our judgment, preventing us from embracing progress? #cyclingdebate #tubesVStubeless

 

[Alphamoose]

What if the reluctance to switch to tubeless isn't just about comfort but also rooted in a deeper psychological attachment to tradition? Could the emotional connection to cycling history overshadow practical benefits? When thinking about long-distance touring, isn’t there a risk that the fear of the unknown is leading to choices that might not align with the realities of modern cycling? Are we inadvertently romanticizing an outdated system while ignoring the potential for improved performance and safety? How does this dynamic affect not just individual riders, but the cycling community as a whole?