Dumb Tubeless question

[shankldu]

So if I have to add more sealant as time goes by, and the old is all stuck like glue in the tire as it inevitably drys out , am I not adding the weight that im supposed to be saving in the first place . I wana believe in the tubeless option just tryin to get there .

[p nut]

So if I have to add more sealant as time goes by, and the old is all stuck like glue in the tire as it inevitably drys out , am I not adding the weight that im supposed to be saving in the first place . I wana believe in the tubeless option just tryin to get there .

It’s a good idea to periodically remove the tire and clean off all the gunk. It just all peels off. Do this maybe once a year. Dried sealant doesn’t add a ton of weight.

[robt57]

So if I have to add more sealant as time goes by, and the old is all stuck like glue in the tire as it inevitably drys out , am I not adding the weight that im supposed to be saving in the first place . I wana believe in the tubeless option just tryin to get there .


I raised the question recently, "is the weight of the dry sealant significant to worry about?" What % of the weigh is lost to the fluid portion evaporating.

If you are using this bike/tire only, you'll probably wear the tire out [maybe?] before having to worry too much about it??

[thermalattorney]

Recently I cleaned all the dried out "knards" from a 2.6in MTB tire, which originally took ~4oz of Orange Seal. The weight: a whopping 38g.

So to answer your question, no it doesn't negate the weight savings.

Thinking about using tubeless for the weight savings for the road isn't really the right approach. For me, tubeless is about running lower pressures. I run my 31mm (actual) tires at ~60PSI, enjoy the cush every second I'm on the bike and never worry about pinch flats. The fact that small punctures will seal up is just icing on the cake.

Having to deal with dried out sealant is definitely a hassle, but it's been worth it.

[bikinchris]

Don't forget that at road pressures, punctures don't always seal. Then you have sticky sealant spraying everywhere. When the hole is bigger and at higher pressures, the hole just becomes a spray gun for sealant. Some people include plastic based glitter in the tire to help plug the hole at higher pressures.
If tubeless would give a real advantage for racing, then great. But if you're not racing, why care?

[Mark McM]

So if I have to add more sealant as time goes by, and the old is all stuck like glue in the tire as it inevitably drys out , am I not adding the weight that im supposed to be saving in the first place . I wana believe in the tubeless option just tryin to get there .

What weight savings? Contrary to many of the performance claims that have been made, tubeless tires do not have lower weigh, lower rolling resistance, or better traction than standard clinchers. Their only performance advantage is less likelihood of puncture. Specialized is now claiming that tubeless rims are heavier, and BicycleRollingReistance.com has measured several cases were the tubeless version of some tires have more rolling resistance than standard clincher version of that same tire.

[AngryScientist]

It’s a good idea to periodically remove the tire and clean off all the gunk. It just all peels off. Do this maybe once a year. Dried sealant doesn’t add a ton of weight.

do this once per year?

how many years do your tires last??

[Robot870]

I use Stans and their Dart system. 7 days a week in Manhattan and it works perfect.......6 months so far and I've never been stranded........yet. It's very nice not ever having to remove the tire for a fix.

[makoti]

I figure to burn through the tire long before I have to worry about this issue

[yinzerniner]

What weight savings? Contrary to many of the performance claims that have been made, tubeless tires do not have lower weigh, lower rolling resistance, or better traction than standard clinchers. Their only performance advantage is less likelihood of puncture. Specialized is now claiming that tubeless rims are heavier, and BicycleRollingReistance.com has measured several cases were the tubeless version of some tires have more rolling resistance than standard clincher version of that same tire.

Some selective comparison there Mark. For the same PSI it's a tossup in traction and rolling resistance between tubeless and latex tubed clichers for the latest rubber compounds, while tubeless wins in puncture resistance while the latex wins for weight. But in a typical setup between the two you can run tubeless at lower pressures due to the increased puncture resistance which will add a bit of comfort, rolling resistance and grip vs the higher PSI of the latex tubed clincher.
But the great majority of people will run butyl tubes, in which case the weight is even while the other attributes stay the same. So it really depends on what the rider prioritizes.

Anyone who's made the claims of tubeless being the end-all, be-all are very disingenuous, while conversely anyone saying that tubeless aren't worth the effort are also disingenuous since they don't factor in needs other than their own. But for sure tubeless is a BIG effort, where initial setup can be a huge pain and sealant spray is a PITA when it happens.

To the OP - fully dried out sealant is about 1/10th the weight of liquid.
https://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weenies/weight-stans-liquid-599805.html#:~:text=I%20just%20ran%20an%20experime nt,at%2023C%20and%2055%20RH.
So if it fully dries out (which is NOT advisable) then you'll have an extra 10-12g of rotating mass. So if you fully fill up every month then it's an extra 120-150g at the end of the year, but more than likely small topoffs of 50-60ML a month should have about 60-75g of dried stuff to take out of the tires every year.

[Ken Robb]

do this once per year?

how many years do your tires last??

That depends in part on how many bikes a person has. :)

[Mark McM]

Anyone who's made the claims of tubeless being the end-all, be-all are very disingenuous, while conversely anyone saying that tubeless aren't worth the effort are also disingenuous since they don't factor in needs other than their own. But for sure tubeless is a BIG effort, where initial setup can be a huge pain and sealant spray is a PITA when it happens.

This was kind of my point. The decision between tubes and tubeless really isn't about performance (weight, rolling resistance, traction) - neither has any real advantage over the other. No, the decision is about the trade-offs between puncture resistance vs. the time and effort of installation and maintenance.

[makoti]

Anyone who's made the claims of tubeless being the end-all, be-all are very disingenuous, while conversely anyone saying that tubeless aren't worth the effort are also disingenuous since they don't factor in needs other than their own. But for sure tubeless is a BIG effort, where initial setup can be a huge pain and sealant spray is a PITA when it happens.

I'd say that tubeless is more effort, not a BIG effort. Initial set up is harder than tubed wheels, unless you get one of those tires that will not mount to whatever rim you have. Maybe I'm lucky, maybe I did research on how to mount them first, but 3 sets and not a problem.

[Mr B]

Has anyone developed a tyre jizz that doesn’t ruin clothing yet?

[giordana93]

as noted, the weight is mostly the evaporated liquid, so nil. I would not advise pulling ALL of the old buggers out to super clean, as I did it once then found a bunch of micro punctures that had been sealed but no longer were once the thin film of dried sealant was removed. Not worth it. What this did show, however, was that I had at least 3-4 small punctures that would have required a tube change on the road that I was completely unaware of (as in, not enough pressure lost or sealant spray to even notice). So it worked as advertised. Picked up a rock shard about 3 weeks ago that was loud enough to hear; stopped to flick it out--crap, air escaping--gave wheel a quick spin and in 3 revolutions had a seal and finished the ride and rest of week/month without issue. There are a few more maintenance things you have to do for set up and upkeep with tubeless, but happily they are mostly done at home. Biggest weakness of the system now is getting the proper rim tape job done right and holding up to a few tire changes, but after about 2 years, I'm not running back to tubes or tubulars

ps if you have to add an ounce every month you should check your tape; that's an unusually high loss. it would be nice to have an x-ray or endoscope to check reserve sealant, but a shake of the wheel for sound or "dip stick" check every month should suffice with top off every 2-3 months

[grilledcheese]

Some sealants stick more to tires than others.
Orange Seal leaves a lot of residue as it dries out but Stan's has been much cleaner in my experience.
They have different properties as actual sealants, but I switched to Stan's 2 years ago to avoid the mess on my cyclocross wheels.

[muz]

I hate getting rear flats on fixed gear (takes longer to fix), and at the early miles of a brevet, where you are basically riding alone and playing catch-up the rest of the ride. With tubeless, these are much less of an issue. Plus I can run lower pressure and stay fresher on rough roads.

[MikeD]

https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-7-tubeless-tires-roll-faster/

[robt57]

https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-7-tubeless-tires-roll-faster/

I raise your link's content with this link's content.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/continental-grand-prix-5000-tl-2018

[Mark McM]

https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-7-tubeless-tires-roll-faster/

Jan Heine isn't the only one to find that tubeless tires don't have less rolling resistance than standard clinchers. For example, AeroCoach has measured rolling resistance of a number of tires, and found no advantage with tubeless tires. Here's a quote from a Cycling Tip article on AeroCoach's tests (https://cyclingtips.com/2020/02/whats-faster-tubes-or-tubeless-the-answer-remains-the-same-it-depends/):

Overall, the biggest takeaway from AeroCoach’s latest round of testing seems to be that casing flexibility is the most important single determinant when it comes to rolling efficiency. However, it’s also interesting that AeroCoach found no difference in rolling resistance between a tubeless-ready tire that is set up tubeless with a latex-based liquid sealant, and one that has a high-performance latex inner tube installed.




I raise your link's content with this link's content.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/continental-grand-prix-5000-tl-2018

This is an older test from Bicycle Rolling Resistance, and the data in the test shows that the tubeless GP5000TL has a little less rolling resistance than the standard GP5000 with tubes. But Bicycle Rolling Resistance has more recently changed their test protocol for standard clinchers. In the data from this more recent test of the GP5000 (https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/grand-prix-5000-comparison), the standard clincher had essentially the same rolling resistance as the tubeless GP5000.

What changed in the Bicycle Rolling Resistance Test? Originally they tested all clincher tires, from heavy duty commuting tires to super light TT tires, with the same butyl inner tube. This was done to for consistency to remove extra variables. But readers pointed out to them the type of inner tube used affect s rolling resistance, and users were unlikely to use the same tube in a super light TT tire as they would in a heavy duty commuting tire. So BRR now tests clincher aimed at racing and higher performance with high performance inner tubes (usually latex).

Of course, anything that that is installed in an tire, such as an inner tube, will affect its rolling resistance. Different inner tubes will have greater or lesser effects on rolling resistance. But the same is true with sealants, as well. In this BBR test on the affect of sealant on rolling resistance (https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/road-bike-tubeless-sealant), they found that more sealant results in more rolling resistance. It's probably not a stretch to think that if users periodically add more sealant to their tubeless tires (without cleaning out the old sealant), then they will be increasing their tires rolling resistance.

As a final note, it should also be pointed out that the original BBR test on the GP5000TL used no sealant. It is likely that if a typical amount of sealant is added, then this tubeless tire will have more rolling resistance than the standard GP5000 clincher.

[robt57]

I didn't post that to agree or disagree. In my minds eye a thicker stiffer side wall alone VS not....