By golly, sealant actually works

[Clancy]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Nope.

Tubeless tires themselves weigh more than non-tubeless clincher tires. After adding a tube, a tubeless tire weighs virtually the same as a non-tubeless. TLR (Tubeless Ready) tires weigh about the same as regular clinchers. But TLR tires need sealant, which weighs about as much as a tube.

For example, the Continental GP 5000 TL tire weighs 300 grams, but the GP 5000 (non-tubeless) tire weighs 220 grams. Add an 80 gram tube, and the two tires weigh the same. Or add 2 1/2 oz. of sealant to the GP 5000, and it again weighs the same.

Contrary to the marketing claims, tubeless do not have lower rolling resistance, better grip, nor lower weight, than standard tires.

I was with you up until that last sentence. I thought that data, proving benefits, was pretty much accepted. Not marketing, but data.

Maybe I drank the koolaide too quickly

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by tombtfslpk

Clearly this is directed at you.....you don't ride tubeless tires....you repeat myths spouted by biased internet "experts" who also don't ride tubeless.
In this thread you made multiple references to opinion pieces published on the internet which must be more accurate than actual operator experience.

I like this line....."When it comes to most characteristics, "Trying it yourself" is about as unscientific as you can get. Look up the various work on observer bias to understand why (plus a small dose of dunning-kruger effect as well)."
Sure....If I try it and am pleased with the result.....I must be wrong, mistaken, biased.....stupid.
Just go ahead and say 'It only pleases you because you're not as intelligent as I am'.....that's the gist of your conversation!
Dunning-Kruger effect.....Holy Crap....Do you even have any friends with an attitude like that......Have you looked in a mirror lately! You're the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger. Heck I even know how to capitalize names.
I try to offer up some common ground and you respond with arrogance.
........You know what they say about wrestling with PIGS or arguing with fools.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoy it.
I'll let you have the last word now.....which I expect to be TLDR.
BYE!!!

Whoa. Nothing he said was untrue or exaggerated. Just some facts and truths, no arrogance or smugness. I think you have taken things to personally here and have become a bit too invested. Perhaps the personal attacks are not warranted. Mark’s posts are always even and well substantiated.

[tombtfslpk]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Whoa. Nothing he said was untrue or exaggerated. Just some facts and truths, no arrogance or smugness. I think you have taken things to personally here and have become a bit too invested. Perhaps the personal attacks are not warranted. Mark’s posts are always even and well substantiated.

Personal attacks? Look up Dunning-Kruger. How about; "Trying it yourself" is about as unscientific as you can get. as a response to actually riding tubeless. How do we generate data without "trying it yourself"? Is that arrogant or not? Does that qualify as a personal attack?

Well substantiated? If you are willing to accept biased reporting as the truth.

Facts? I actually weighed tubeless vs. tubed as you ride them on the bike. Vittoria Open Pave 27mm vs Hutchinson Sector 28mm....both tires inflated to riding pressure. Care to guess the outcome? I think not, because it goes against the "published facts" (what a joke).
All I was trying to say was; try tubeless, actually ride them, you might find you enjoy them (others have). Don't just read (and repeat as fact) the internet "birther ism" about tubeless tires.
Perhaps we should allow Mark to have the final say on the "girls on bikes getting sore" thread. I'm certain he has some "well substantiated" facts he read somewhere on the internet to prove us all grossly misinformed.

[Keith A]

Ok guys...let's back off the bickering, or this discussion will be closed.

[ariw]

I have been riding road tubeless for several years now, across multiple wheelsets and different brands of tires. I have never found it to be lighter than a tubed combination, but that hasn’t been my goal. My experience is that they ride significantly better than tubed, but not quite as nice as tubulars. The reliability is awesome, I have ridden right through small leaks without stopping many times. When I get home, I just pump back up to pressure to see if the tire holds. I have also patched tires from the inside using vulcanizing fluid and quick grips, getting many more miles. It’s a solid system, don’t knock it until you try it

Ari

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by ariw

I have been riding road tubeless for several years now, across multiple wheelsets and different brands of tires. I have never found it to be lighter than a tubed combination, but that hasn’t been my goal. My experience is that they ride significantly better than tubed, but not quite as nice as tubulars. The reliability is awesome, I have ridden right through small leaks without stopping many times. When I get home, I just pump back up to pressure to see if the tire holds. I have also patched tires from the inside using vulcanizing fluid and quick grips, getting many more miles. It’s a solid system, don’t knock it until you try it

Ari

Arrgggg, 35 posts and now tubulars into the MIX...put sealant in them tubulars and have the very best...riding clinchers yer a nancy, riding tubeless and yer an..............olivia..

Note-, note-

Geez, they are bike tires...not the tire design for the moon rover..

50th anniversary BTW..Apollo 11...
True American Heroes..those guys.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by kppolich

So when weighing the options of latex tube/clincher vs tubeless the fact that tubeless provides protection against flats that any tube does not should be worth it for anyone. If it is indeed the same performance why bother with the chance a tube flats when you could keep riding along on tubeless tires for the same price?

I think this question is not about tubeless per se, but about tubeless with sealant vs. tubes. While riding performance may be similar, tubes and tubeless/sealant are different in installation and maintenance. While initial installation is only a little more involved for tubeless/sealant, these tires need more maintenance than tubed tires. When using sealant, one has to continuously maintain the sealant, which may require replenishing it several times a year, and periodically cleaning out old sealant (DMurphey's post went into more detail). With tubed tires, it is largely a matter of install and forget. And if one swaps tires for different conditions, it is quicker and easier without dealing with the sealant.

The choice between tubeless/sealant and tubes therefore becomes very situational. If a rider experiences frequent tire punctures, then the trade-offs may favor using sealant (and maintaining it). But if one experiences infrequent punctures, then the using sealant may require more work than fixing the occasional flat (which usually only takes a few minutes to replace a tube). If one experiences few flats and has many wheels they switches between, (which all need to be continually maintained), the lesser maintenance for tubes may be become even more attractive.

Here's something I'm curious about, but don't know the answer to: There are many bike share companies, and more seem to be popping up all the time. Any time these bikes have flat tires mean time that they aren't generating revenue (plus the costs in retrieving and fixing the bikes). Do bike share bikes typically use tubeless tires? If not, why not?

[kppolich]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I think this question is not about tubeless per se, but about tubeless with sealant vs. tubes. While riding performance may be similar, tubes and tubeless/sealant are different in installation and maintenance. While initial installation is only a little more involved for tubeless/sealant, these tires need more maintenance than tubed tires. When using sealant, one has to continuously maintain the sealant, which may require replenishing it several times a year, and periodically cleaning out old sealant (DMurphey's post went into more detail). With tubed tires, it is largely a matter of install and forget. And if one swaps tires for different conditions, it is quicker and easier without dealing with the sealant.

The choice between tubeless/sealant and tubes therefore becomes very situational. If a rider experiences frequent tire punctures, then the trade-offs may favor using sealant (and maintaining it). But if one experiences infrequent punctures, then the using sealant may require more work than fixing the occasional flat (which usually only takes a few minutes to replace a tube). If one experiences few flats and has many wheels they switches between, (which all need to be continually maintained), the lesser maintenance for tubes may be become even more attractive.

Here's something I'm curious about, but don't know the answer to: There are many bike share companies, and more seem to be popping up all the time. Any time these bikes have flat tires mean time that they aren't generating revenue (plus the costs in retrieving and fixing the bikes). Do bike share bikes typically use tubeless tires? If not, why not?

Bold areas above are incorrect.
-Once a year check for me, sealant still liquid in my tires.
-Also if you are installing rim tape up on the sidewall of the rim you are doing it wrong. Don't blame user error on the rim tape, it only goes where you put it.
-Install a tube once and forget? Sure, until its flat then you have to repeat it as many times as necessary...talk about less maintenance give me a break.

To keep with the Thread Title, yes- sealant works and keeps you riding with less overall maintenance and more miles than riding tubes on the road.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Clancy

I was with you up until that last sentence. I thought that data, proving benefits, was pretty much accepted. Not marketing, but data.

Comparing weight is any easy one: A lightweight tube weighs about 80 grams. 2 oz. of sealant plus a valve stem also weighs about 80 grams. Some tubeless tires don't require sealant - but these tires have an extra layer of rubber for air sealing, which adds about the same weight as a tube (see the previous example of the GP 5000 TL tubless tire at 300 grams vs. the GP 5000 at 220 grams, at least according the manufacturer). So on weight, it's basically a tie.

For rolling resistance, selection of the tube becomes important, but with a lightweight tube, there is little measureable difference in rolling resistance. I previously referenced a comparision of the rolling resistances of the GP 5000 TL tubeless tire with GP 5000 (non-tubeless) tire with a latex tube. It was also basically a tie. Other parties that do independent testing of rolling resistance have similar findings. For example, Tom Anholt has tested many tires, including tubulars, tubeless and standard clinchers and publishes them on his web site. In this post, he presented his results when testing the Vittoria Corsa Speed TLR (one of the lowest rolling resistance tires on the market) with either sealant or a tube. He found no difference in the results:

To cut to the chase...I tested the Corsa Speed in 3 ways:
1.First, on my standard test wheel (Mavic Open Pro) with a latex tube inside, 120psi.
2.Next, on a Jet6+ wheel with a latex tube, 100psi
3.Lastly, on the Jet6+ wheel set up tubeless, with 40ml of Orange Seal.

As I've described in the past, I've found that the 120psi results on the Open Pro rim match the 100psi results on the Jet6+ rim, and this way I could confirm that once again while having a result (on the Open Pro) that can be more directly compared to the majority of tire test conditions in my spreadsheet. Here's the results:


Vittoria Corsa Speed TLR 23C, latex tube, Open Pro (120 psi) = .0025, 23W for pair @ 40 kph
Vittoria Corsa Speed TLR 23C, latex tube, Hed Jet6+ (100 psi) = .0025, 24W for pair @ 40 kph
Vittoria Corsa Speed TLR 23C, tubeless, Hed Jet6+ (100 psi) = .0025, 24W for pair @ 40 kph

Traction is a more difficult thing to test. The traction limit is basically the maximum shear force between the tire and the road before the tire slips. This is difficult to measure in a both safe and realistic way. A few groups have done some testing, including Tour Magazine, in a which a well padded test rider rides a bike through the same corner at higher and higher speeds until the tires slip out (often resulting in a fall). The tubeless tires that have been tested this way were neither the best nor the worst. In this test, no clear conclusion can be reached about the affect on tubeless tires on traction, either one way or the other. This may end up being a tie as well. Of course, maximum traction is only one aspect of feel and handling. But to my knowledge, no well controlled test of differences in feel and handling between tubes and tubeless has been published. I don't see why this couldn't be done though, if a blind test protocol was incorporated, where the same model of tire was mounted either with or without a tube, and the test riders had no prior knowledge of whether they were riding with or without tubes.

Finally, there was an article on the Velonews web site 2 weeks about riders using clinchers in this year's Tour de France. Here's an interesting portion of the article:

But here’s the most interesting part: Yates was running Pirelli P Zero Velo tires, which are not tubeless-compatible. In other words, he was running tubes in those tires. (Tony Martin, too, ran tubes in his time trial wheels when he used clinchers.)

While conversations with Mitchelton-Scott staff members suggest they’re confident tubeless setups are the future in the racing world, their arrival is still two or three years out. For example, while Pirelli does offer a tubeless tire – the Cintauro – it is currently considered too heavy for use in the WorldTour.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Comparing weight is any easy one: A lightweight tube weighs about 80 grams. 2 oz. of sealant plus a valve stem also weighs about 80 grams. Some tubeless tires don't require sealant - but these tires have an extra layer of rubber for air sealing, which adds about the same weight as a tube (see the previous example of the GP 5000 TL tubless tire at 300 grams vs. the GP 5000 at 220 grams, at least according the manufacturer). So on weight, it's basically a tie.

For rolling resistance, selection of the tube becomes important, but with a lightweight tube, there is little measureable difference in rolling resistance. I previously referenced a comparision of the rolling resistances of the GP 5000 TL tubeless tire with GP 5000 (non-tubeless) tire with a latex tube. It was also basically a tie. Other parties that do independent testing of rolling resistance have similar findings. For example, Tom Anholt has tested many tires, including tubulars, tubeless and standard clinchers and publishes them on his web site. In this post, he presented his results when testing the Vittoria Corsa Speed TLR (one of the lowest rolling resistance tires on the market) with either sealant or a tube. He found no difference in the results:



Traction is a more difficult thing to test. The traction limit is basically the maximum shear force between the tire and the road before the tire slips. This is difficult to measure in a both safe and realistic way. A few groups have done some testing, including Tour Magazine, in a which a well padded test rider rides a bike through the same corner at higher and higher speeds until the tires slip out (often resulting in a fall). The tubeless tires that have been tested this way were neither the best nor the worst. In this test, no clear conclusion can be reached about the affect on tubeless tires on traction, either one way or the other. This may end up being a tie as well. Of course, maximum traction is only one aspect of feel and handling. But to my knowledge, no well controlled test of differences in feel and handling between tubes and tubeless has been published. I don't see why this couldn't be done though, if a blind test protocol was incorporated, where the same model of tire was mounted either with or without a tube, and the test riders had no prior knowledge of whether they were riding with or without tubes.

Finally, there was an article on the Velonews web site 2 weeks about riders using clinchers in this year's Tour de France. Here's an interesting portion of the article:

Really think this should have been your first reply to the topic. It's reasoned with verifiable sources and facts, instead of citing rogue references to "marketing claims."

That being said you're still being very selective in your numbers and scenarios. The 80g tube you keep referencing is obviously for a Latex Tube, which introduces it's own installation and maintenance hassles.

90-95% of cyclists will use butyl tubes for everyday clinchers, and those weigh anywhere from 90-130g. Obviously you can use a 90g race tube in a 28mm clincher, but it will stretch out so much that the reliability is compromised. And the "set and forget" nature of clinchers you cite leaves out a huge part of the equation - you have to fill up the tube much more often than tubeless and you often have to perform periodic checks for deep slashes/punctures/embedded sharp objects as well.

For tubeless, the 2oz figure you continuously reference as the sealant install amount is up to interpretation as well. 30-60ml (1-2oz) is usually the number quoted for 23-28mm tires, and even the amount doesn't have to go larger depending on use. Less sealant will obviously provide less puncture resistance and more topping off, but it's a similar boat as clinchers with regards to variability based on end user. From experience tubeless loses MUCH less air vs butyl tubes, and if using endurance sealant you have to to off at MOST every 4 months with cleanup of residue once a year.

But the crossroads of air pressure, comfort and grip shouldn't be ignored. The difference in grip between tubeless/clincher/tubular tires simply by type hasn't been proven yet, but what has been proven is the effect of contact patch area on grip. With clinchers you HAVE to run higher pressures than tubeless to mitigate the risk of pinch flats. While this gets you less rolling resistance it also makes the ride less comfortable and provides less grip since the tire can't deform as much, thus the contact patch is smaller. For tubeless the scenarios are reversed - higher rolling resistance, but increased comfort and grip.

So it really depends on the end user and their priorities. If weight and performance is the #1 factor then yes, a clincher with latex tubes is the way to go. But if comfort, grip, after-install maintenance and puncture resistance are on the wish-list it just makes sense to go with the goo.

[Mark McM]

As I said, its situational. What would you recommend for this rider:

Rides about 3500 miles a year, including fast rides, training, about half a dozen criteriums, plus some long "fun" rides including a century or two. Owns and rides 5 road bikes, with tires from 25mm - 28mm, with an additional 3 sets of wheels (mostly used for racing), so 8 sets of wheels total. At 160 lb., this rider uses 70 - 80 psi in 25mm tires, and 60 - 70 psi in 28 mm tires. This rider has gotten 3 flats in the past 5 years (roughly 1 every year and a half), so he has spent about 15 minutes changing flat tires in the past 5 years. Is it worth it for this rider to tubeless tires with sealant? (This rider is not fictitious, it is an accurate description of my recent riding.)

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

That being said you're still being very selective in your numbers and scenarios. The 80g tube you keep referencing is obviously for a Latex Tube, which introduces it's own installation and maintenance hassles.

90-95% of cyclists will use butyl tubes for everyday clinchers, and those weigh anywhere from 90-130g. Obviously you can use a 90g race tube in a 28mm clincher, but it will stretch out so much that the reliability is compromised. And the "set and forget" nature of clinchers you cite leaves out a huge part of the equation - you have to fill up the tube much more often than tubeless and you often have to perform periodic checks for deep slashes/punctures/embedded sharp objects as well.

Butyl tubes are available down to about 50 grams (such as Continental Supersonic tube). I've been using these in my hill climb wheels, and have yet to get a flat with them - although admittedly, not a lot of miles have been done with these tubes. I'm using 80 gram butyl tubes in most of my wheels, and only use latex tubes in my racing wheels. I've only started using 28 mm tires in the past 3 years or so, and I've yet to get a flat with them (butyl or latex).

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

For tubeless, the 2oz figure you continuously reference as the sealant install amount is up to interpretation as well. 30-60ml (1-2oz) is usually the number quoted for 23-28mm tires, and even the amount doesn't have to go larger depending on use. Less sealant will obviously provide less puncture resistance and more topping off, but it's a similar boat as clinchers with regards to variability based on end user. From experience tubeless loses MUCH less air vs butyl tubes, and if using endurance sealant you have to to off at MOST every 4 months with cleanup of residue once a year.

I'm just quoting the sealant manufacturers (see here). Stan's says to refill every 2 to 7 months, and Orange Seal says 1 to 3 months. They're trying to sell sealant, so you can probably go longer - but based on your numbers, its still more than once a year (plus the occasional cleanup). That's still multiple times the time and effort that I spend fixing flatted tubes.

[QUOTE=yinzerniner;2568172]But the crossroads of air pressure, comfort and grip shouldn't be ignored. The difference in grip between tubeless/clincher/tubular tires simply by type hasn't been proven yet, but what has been proven is the effect of contact patch area on grip. With clinchers you HAVE to run higher pressures than tubeless to mitigate the risk of pinch flats. While this gets you less rolling resistance it also makes the ride less comfortable and provides less grip since the tire can't deform as much, thus the contact patch is smaller. For tubeless the scenarios are reversed - higher rolling resistance, but increased comfort and grip.

While I don't use road tubeless, I have used MTB tubeless. And from that I know that you still don't want to run pressure so low that the tire flattens against the rim too often, because that can lead to damaged rims or at least wheels going out of true.

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

So it really depends on the end user and their priorities. If weight and performance is the #1 factor then yes, a clincher with latex tubes is the way to go. But if comfort, grip, after-install maintenance and puncture resistance are on the wish-list it just makes sense to go with the goo.

I agree that it absolutely does depend on the end user and how and where they ride. But as far as after-install maintenance, it's obvious that the some riders (see above example) do less of it when they don't use the goo.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

As I said, its situational. What would you recommend for this rider:

Rides about 3500 miles a year, including fast rides, training, about half a dozen criteriums, plus some long "fun" rides including a century or two. Owns and rides 5 road bikes, with tires from 25mm - 28mm, with an additional 3 sets of wheels (mostly used for racing), so 8 sets of wheels total. At 160 lb., this rider uses 70 - 80 psi in 25mm tires, and 60 - 70 psi in 28 mm tires. This rider has gotten 3 flats in the past 5 years (roughly 1 every year and a half), so he has spent about 15 minutes changing flat tires in the past 5 years. Is it worth it for this rider to tubeless tires with sealant? (This rider is not fictitious, it is an accurate description of my recent riding.)

For that rider clinchers is definitely the way to go. With their lower rider weight, apparent focus on riding cleaner/better roads, and stable of bikes with lots invested in current wheels it doesn't make sense to make the transition over to tubeless. But if you were starting from scratch would that not be a totally different stories, as some of the newer bikes and wheels that are now available come with tubeless setups from the get-go?

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Butyl tubes are available down to about 50 grams (such as Continental Supersonic tube). I've been using these in my hill climb wheels, and have yet to get a flat with them - although admittedly, not a lot of miles have been done with these tubes. I'm using 80 gram butyl tubes in most of my wheels, and only use latex tubes in my racing wheels. I've only started using 28 mm tires in the past 3 years or so, and I've yet to get a flat with them (butyl or latex).

Consider yourself lucky - seems like your weight, riding style and road choice are conducive to minimal flatting.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I'm just quoting the sealant manufacturers (see here). Stan's says to refill every 2 to 7 months, and Orange Seal says 1 to 3 months. They're trying to sell sealant, so you can probably go longer - but based on your numbers, its still more than once a year (plus the occasional cleanup). That's still multiple times the time and effort that I spend fixing flatted tubes.

So you're citing an article from 2014 regarding sealant quantity and turnover time?
This is true of flatted tubes, but you also have to take into account the inflation and inspection time. Granted your roads seem better so maybe you don't even consider tire wear and tear, but for people like myself who deal with much crappier surfaces it was a weekly necessity to ensure longer life on the tire and tube.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

While I don't use road tubeless, I have used MTB tubeless. And from that I know that you still don't want to run pressure so low that the tire flattens against the rim too often, because that can lead to damaged rims or at least wheels going out of true.

I don't understand why you included this snippet. Obviously the pressure needs to be maintained so that there's minimal rim hits and/or possibilities of snake bites in the tires. It's just that with tubeless this pressure is going to be lower than clinchers, and in case it does hit there's less of a chance of flatting since the sealant will clog the hole vs a tube getting cut and going flat.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I agree that it absolutely does depend on the end user and how and where they ride. But as far as after-install maintenance, it's obvious that the some riders (see above example) do less of it when they don't use the goo.

Absolutely. Different strokes for different folks. But it's somewhat disingenuous to wholly disregard differing viewpoints by constantly introducing straw men and skewed numbers.
Like the example above - citing a five year old article on a rapidly maturing product since it supports one of your statements and arguments. Or completely disregarding another person's viewpoint by referencing "observer bias," but never ONCE ascribing such misgivings on your own thoughts. And then citing the numbers from bicyclerollingresistance tests, then somewhat dismissing the results when they don't match up to an argument you're making and instead referencing another testing protocol.

If you want to explain your own positions that's totally fine, but straight dismissal of other's opinions by constantly moving the goalposts is not a good look.

[simonov]

I've used both extensively and settled on clinchers with tubes. In my experience, the maintenance of tubeless is higher than tubes. With sealant I got less flats, but when I'd get a puncture that wouldn't seal, the effort to get going again was equivalent to getting a bunch of flats. And I have multiple bikes, so sometimes the tubeless bikes would sit long enough for the sealant to start to harden or the bead seal to break, and then I had to do the setup all over again. And at the pressures that make sense for me with 25-28mm tires, I'm not at risk of pinch flats so there's no benefit there on the tubeless side. I'm sure I'll give it a shot again and it is a good system for some people, but it's not universally better.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

For that rider clinchers is definitely the way to go. With their lower rider weight, apparent focus on riding cleaner/better roads, and stable of bikes with lots invested in current wheels it doesn't make sense to make the transition over to tubeless. But if you were starting from scratch would that not be a totally different stories, as some of the newer bikes and wheels that are now available come with tubeless setups from the get-go?

Okay, lets add some more information: Several of my current wheels have been purchased in the last few years, and are tubeless ready. Given the other information, does it make sense for me to switch to tubeless on thse wheels? Probably not.

And why do you assume that I have an "apparent focus on riding cleaner/better roads?" If you ask anybody in my cycling club (Northeast Bicycle Club), they'll tell you that I'll ride over just about anything. I've gotten complains that the road rides I lead often include unpaved sections. This sounds like an attempted strawman, or a goalpost movement.

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

I don't understand why you included this snippet. Obviously the pressure needs to be maintained so that there's minimal rim hits and/or possibilities of snake bites in the tires. It's just that with tubeless this pressure is going to be lower than clinchers, and in case it does hit there's less of a chance of flatting since the sealant will clog the hole vs a tube getting cut and going flat.

You brought up the topic of tubeless tires being resistant to flatting when pinched. I merely commented that there are reasons that you still don't want to allow the tire to be pinched. This is a strawman is of your making, not mine.

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

Absolutely. Different strokes for different folks. But it's somewhat disingenuous to wholly disregard differing viewpoints by constantly introducing straw men and skewed numbers.
Like the example above - citing a five year old article on a rapidly maturing product since it supports one of your statements and arguments. Or completely disregarding another person's viewpoint by referencing "observer bias," but never ONCE ascribing such misgivings on your own thoughts. And then citing the numbers from bicyclerollingresistance tests, then somewhat dismissing the results when they don't match up to an argument you're making and instead referencing another testing protocol.

What strawmen? What skewed numbers? The need to maintain sealant is a valid response to reasons one may not always want to use tubeless tires. Observer bias? I am prone to it as much as anyone. That's why I mentioned none of my own riding impressions (regarding things such as comfort, or resistance, or handling), and instead stuck to verifiable facts and independent evidence. And I dismissed none of the data from bicyclerollngresistance tests, merely commented test conditions, and pointed to different test on bicyclerolllngresistance that was a closer apples-to-apples comparison.

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

If you want to explain your own positions that's totally fine, but straight dismissal of other's opinions by constantly moving the goalposts is not a good look.

What goalposts did I move? I merely provided counter-arguments to resist the movement of goalposts by others. I'd say we all need to look into our mirrors.

[Clancy]

Originally Posted by Keith A

Shimano said using sealant would void any warranty for their wheels. In all these years, I've only had a few flats with my road tubeless, and I just popped in a tube and kept on going.

I have used my Shimano tubeless wheels with tubes for this reason. Sealant etches away the aluminum (?) was what I heard. The rim bed on Shimano Wheels is solid, no spoke holes so no rim tape.

But I was told recently that was true with some sealants years ago but now all of them have change formulas and can be used with Shimano wheels.

True?