Tubeless tires with tubes the best setup?

[strayduck]

So I've got some 2019 Zipp 303's and Continential 5000s 700x25 tires. The rims are tubeless compatible but I have no interest in the maintenance and problems with tubeless goo.

Problem is, the tubed version of the Contis require gorilla strength to get on and off. I have a Kool Stop Tire Bead Jack which helps, but it would be nice to just use my hands.



I've heard whispers around the Internet that just buying the tubeless tires and running tubes in them works--does anyone here have any firsthand experience with that setup? If so:

• How much easier is it to get tubeless tires on and off these carbon wide-profile rims?
• Have you had any problems with setting (and keeping set) the bead using a tube?
• Have you experienced any other problems with this setup?

Thanks!

[joevers]

The tubeless ones are actually much harder to get on. In general but with that tire specifically.

You can run tubes in any tubeless tire/rim combo but you lose the weight and suppleness of regular tube type tires and you also lose the performance and sealing advantages of a tubeless tire with sealant. Stick with regular tube-type versions or run tubeless.

[tepextate]

Yeah, seems like you'd just be getting the worst of both worlds.

Tubeless tires have higher RR, if I recall correctly, which is somewhat offset by reduced RR by eliminating the tube. If you add the tube back in, isn't that a double whammy?

[denapista]

I struggled recently getting a tubeless tire + tube onto a rim. The front took me forever.. For the Rear I simply pulled on one side of the tire and inserted the tube and inflated the tube. The remaining side of the tire went on with ease with my bare hands! Adding air stretches the tire, making it super easy to mount.

[batman1425]

Tubeless tire will make it worse. Beads are tighter and don't stretch at all. Some rim and tire combinations are just a real PITA. Might try a different brand and see if you have better luck. An old set of Zonda's I had were brutal to get tires on and off, no matter what brand but they were especially bad with Michelin Pro Race 2-4

[tepextate]

Thanks, guys. I stand corrected!

[joevers]

Originally Posted by tepextate

Tubeless tires have higher RR, if I recall correctly, which is somewhat offset by reduced RR by eliminating the tube. If you add the tube back in, isn't that a double whammy?

They for sure used to, but the 3 current fastest tires are the Corsa Speed Tubeless, the Pro One TT Tubeless, and the GP5000 Tubeless.

With tube tires you're actually creating quite a bit of friction with the tube deforming and moving around inside the tire. Yknow how latex tubes are faster because they take less energy to deform when you're rolling over road surfaces? Tubeless can be even faster because it eliminates that entirely. Of course you need a tire with slightly different materials, coating, or design which may somewhat offset that, but they still can be (and are!) faster than "regular" clinchers. I'd imagine tubeless tires with a tube in them might even be slower than regular tube type tires though.

[pdonk]

This is odd, I have found the tube version of the conti 5000 to be one of the easiest tires I have ever tried to mount.

One thing you may want to do is change your rim tape to tubeless tape, it is slipperier than regular tape.

In terms of your questions, I ran Schwalbe pro one TLE with tubes on HED Belgium+ rims and while they rode great, they were impossible to change in the field, and I ended up toasting a rim because I could not get the tire to seat properly during a ride.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by joevers

They for sure used to, but the 3 current fastest tires are the Corsa Speed Tubeless, the Pro One TT Tubeless, and the GP5000 Tubeless.



With tube tires you're actually creating quite a bit of friction with the tube deforming and moving around inside the tire. Yknow how latex tubes are faster because they take less energy to deform when you're rolling over road surfaces? Tubeless can be even faster because it eliminates that entirely. Of course you need a tire with slightly different materials, coating, or design which may somewhat offset that, but they still can be (and are!) faster than "regular" clinchers. I'd imagine tubeless tires with a tube in them might even be slower than regular tube type tires though.

Jan Heine says a tire with a lightweight tube has lower rolling resistance than one with sealant sloshing around inside. https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth...s-roll-faster/

[kppolich]

Originally Posted by tepextate

Yeah, seems like you'd just be getting the worst of both worlds.

Tubeless tires have higher RR, if I recall correctly, which is somewhat offset by reduced RR by eliminating the tube. If you add the tube back in, isn't that a double whammy?

Top 3 fastest road tires are all tubeless tires without a tube.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews


OP - do a load of towels and leave your tires in the hot towel basket out of the dryer for 5-10 mins if they are difficult to mount. Or leave them out in the sun during the summer to become more pliable. This works for tubed clincher tires and tubeless.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by joevers

You can run tubes in any tubeless tire/rim combo but you lose the weight and suppleness of regular tube type tires and you also lose the performance and sealing advantages of a tubeless tire with sealant.

Originally Posted by joevers

They for sure used to, but the 3 current fastest tires are the Corsa Speed Tubeless, the Pro One TT Tubeless, and the GP5000 Tubeless.

Originally Posted by kppolich

Top 3 fastest road tires are all tubeless tires without a tube.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews

It appears all of the above statements are based on the BicycleRollingResistance.com tests, but none of these statements is entirely correct. Of the 3 fastest tires, only 1 is a true tubeless tire (GP5000 Tubeless) - the other two are tubeless ready and must be used with sealant. This is an important point, because sealant adds both weight and rolling resistant. Tests by BicycleRollingResistance.com show that the extra rolling resistance of sealant is about equal to the rolling resistance of a latex tube (and about the same weight also). Testing by AeroCoach have similarly shown no significant difference in rolling resistance and weight between latex tubes and sealant.

So a tubeless ready tire will have the same weight and rolling resistance with a latex tube as it does when using sealant.

(Note: The BicycleRollingResistance test protocol is biased toward tubeless tires. In an attempt to standardized testing, all non-tubeless tires are tested with the same type of medium weight butyl tube - even though lightweight racing tires like the ones mentioned above are far more likely to be used with latex tubes, or at least with lightweight butyl tubes, both of which will reduce their rolling resistance.)

[joevers]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Tests by BicycleRollingResistance.com show that the extra rolling resistance of sealant is about equal to the rolling resistance of a latex tube (and about the same weight also). Testing by AeroCoach have similarly shown no significant difference in rolling resistance and weight between latex tubes and sealant.

Did not know that! I assumed they were all tested 'ready to ride'. Good catch. I don't run tubeless because of speed at all but for those that do that's really good to know and I wish BRR made that more clear.

Originally Posted by MikeD

Jan Heine says a tire with a lightweight tube has lower rolling resistance than one with sealant sloshing around inside.

I don't respect Jan Heine's opinions unfortunately. But! The comments on that article link to the data from Bicycle Rolling Resistance that the article was based on.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...beless-sealant

It seems the amount of sealant you'd run in a road bike, about 40ml adds a little over half a watt. The GP5000TL is 1.7 watts faster than the tubed version, so the gap is narrowed down to about a watt.

But! I'd still say that if you're going to run tubes, just run a regular tube-type tire. Way easier to get on and off, lighter, and occasionally a more comfortable casing. Also, almost always cheaper. There are more important things for a tire than watts lost to rolling resistance, even on a race bike.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by joevers

It seems the amount of sealant you'd run in a road bike, about 40ml adds a little over half a watt. The GP5000TL is 1.7 watts faster than the tubed version, so the gap is narrowed down to about a watt.

That depends on the amount of sealant, and the type of tube. The GP5000TL was tested with 20 ml of sealant, which is less than most people generally use (another example of bias toward tubeless tires). BicycleRollingResistance.com went back and re-tested the GP5000 (tube-type) tires with latex tubes, and found that with a latex tube, the tube version had nearly identical rolling resistance as the tubeless GP5000TL with 20 ml of sealant. Specifically:

GP5000TL (700x25c):
8.3 Watts @ 120 psi, 8.9 Watts @ 100 psi, 10.0 Watts @ 80 psi, 11.8 Watts @ 60psi

GP5000 (700x25c):
8.4 Watts @ 120 psi, 8.9 Watts @ 100 psi, 10.0 Watts @ 80 psi, 11.8 Watts @ 60 psi

The slight difference at 120 psi probably falls within the margin of error in the test, and I'd expect even wider sample variations in both tires due to manufacturing tolerances.

Also of note was that the GP5000TL sample weighed 295 grams, and the GP5000 sample weight 221 grams and then added an 80 gram latex tube. After adding the sealant and a valve stem the GP5000TL would tip the balances at maybe an ounce more system weight, but it's probably close enough to call equavalent.

Another note from the GP5000 tube-type tire test: The GP5000 was tested in 4 sizes: 700x23c, 700x25c, 700x28c & 700x32c. At the same pressure, the wider tires had less rolling resistance. But of course, you wouldn't use the same pressure in all tire widths, the actual pressure would be closer to inversely proportional to tire width (for example, a rider that might use 60 psi in a 32mm tire might use 80 psi in a 25mm tire). When compared at pressures inversely proportional to tire width, all the tires had roughly similar rolling resistances.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by joevers

But! I'd still say that if you're going to run tubes, just run a regular tube-type tire. Way easier to get on and off, lighter, and occasionally a more comfortable casing. Also, almost always cheaper. There are more important things for a tire than watts lost to rolling resistance, even on a race bike.

Agreed.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

It appears all of the above statements are based on the BicycleRollingResistance.com tests, but none of these statements is entirely correct. Of the 3 fastest tires, only 1 is a true tubeless tire (GP5000 Tubeless) - the other two are tubeless ready and must be used with sealant. This is an important point, because sealant adds both weight and rolling resistant. Tests by BicycleRollingResistance.com show that the extra rolling resistance of sealant is about equal to the rolling resistance of a latex tube (and about the same weight also). Testing by AeroCoach have similarly shown no significant difference in rolling resistance and weight between latex tubes and sealant.

So a tubeless ready tire will have the same weight and rolling resistance with a latex tube as it does when using sealant.

(Note: The BicycleRollingResistance test protocol is biased toward tubeless tires. In an attempt to standardized testing, all non-tubeless tires are tested with the same type of medium weight butyl tube - even though lightweight racing tires like the ones mentioned above are far more likely to be used with latex tubes, or at least with lightweight butyl tubes, both of which will reduce their rolling resistance.)

I think that they also run the non tubeless tires with a latex tube. At least they have in the past and published the data.