Tubeless meme

I did it to my XC bike. Like how it goes through the lots of san, volcanic gravel and rocky terrain thanks to the low pressures it enables me to use with 2.2" 29ers.

However, maintenance piss me off a bit and i am considering a fat bike... Since they adapt really well to said conditions.

>>1077459
San=sand. I live in a volcanic area close to the desert.

>>1077455
>Be me
>MTB up a sandy climb.
>Constantly spinning out
>Hikeabike.jpg

>Convert to tubeless meme
>Movinonup.mp3

>>1077460
>>1077461
>>1077459

I made this post to antagonize people obviously.

I've never heard of this Sand benefit.

So you can't run low-pressure on clincher MTB because of pinch-flats? I run low-pressure fat road clinchers all the time with no problem, but I'm not hitting bumps

How much does it suck getting a flat tire on your tubeless mtb in the woods?

>>1077468
What about tube in a backpack?

>>1077468
Flatting on tubeless is the same as flatting with a tube. You just swap in a new tube.

You can run low pressure with tubes on clinchers, but you will pinch flat much easier. With tubeless you can run very low pressures without problems.

>>1077455
thread sucks, o/p is a waste of sperm, sage

>>1077468
As has been said if you get a puncture you can just use a tube normally to keep going.

And by low pressure i am talkin 14psi front wheel and 20psi rear aprox i guess. (Really i think in bar so i am talkin 1.0-1.2 front and 1.4-1.8 rear). Being that as said i weight 67kg and ride 29 2.2s.

File: Photo0153.jpg (941KB, 1277x1017px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 1277x1017px

If I run low pressures on my tubed setup, even if I don't get pinch flats, my sidewalls chafe through to the casing which at some point bursts open exploding my tube.
Does tubeless somehow help with that or are my tires just shit (Schwable professional bike tires)?

>>1077480
Do you at least know what pressure they are on in PSI?
Is it lower than the minimum specified tire pressure on the sidewall?
Are you a clydesdale?

>>1077482
I was around 80kg back then, pressure was always a good deal above the low limit because the tail would get floaty if they were too soft.
Those are 2.25s on a 19mm rim, so there's some lightbulb effect going on.

>>1077480
RIGID 29ers are
E
T
A
R
D
E
D

File: 1.png (140KB, 545x341px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 545x341px

>>1077490
It's a bike, it can't be retarded.

>>1077479
>As has been said if you get a puncture you can just use a tube normally to keep going.
>And by low pressure i am talkin 14psi front wheel and 20psi rear aprox i guess. (Really i think in bar so i am talkin 1.0-1.2 front and 1.4-1.8 rear). Being that as said i weight 67kg and ride 29 2.2s.

dang that is low

the ability to replace it with a tube changes everything. I am less dumb now. thnx

>>1077490
>RIGID 29ers are
>E
>T
>A
>R
>D
>E
>D

Defend your position, pleb. Are you implying rigid 27.5" is fine, but 29" is not?

Explain

File: retarded.jpg (61KB, 818x464px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 818x464px

>>1077493
Congrats, you are retarded.

>>1077499
>this table is foolish or stupid

No u.

>>1077484
I'd try different tires from a diff. brand.

Schwalbe mtb don't really do it for me either with their paper thin and rather damage prone sidewalls.

>>1077455
i'm thinking about it, my tires are fairly low pressure i think they have tubes in now, but the rims and the tires are both tubeless ready in theory.

it's the fucking goatheads man, i had flats every day before i went with slime tubes. then it stopped like magic. no more flats.

so i gather you can do the same thing except without tubes which weight like 100g? hat sounds nice.

>>1077804
100g per tube isn't heavy at all and your's likely weigh at least 170g. Slime tubes typically weigh about 100g more than ones without sealant which is fuck all.

They also function pretty much the same as tubeless with sealant, the upside being that they're not as messy or as much of a hassle to fit and there's no risk of burping when running low pressures, the downsides being they're a bit heavier, have more rolling resistance, and the sealant doesn't last forever so you need to replace the whole thing (it's easier to chuck more sealant in a tubeless setup). Price is probably lower initially, especially if you don't have a compressor or decent track pump, but could work out more expensive in the long run. Also I'm not sure how well sealant works on pinch punctures (not a problem with tubeless) but that may not be an issue for you.

>>1077809
maybe i was unclear my previous bike had slime tubes, the new one has normal tubes, and come fall i'm sure it will have defects every day. it was the pattern with the previous bike before slime.

the nice thing about tubes is they pack small and no hassle to replace them (unless they had slime in them) it the hole is big while tubeless is kinda fucked if the hole is not tiny right?

can you set up a tubless bike and carry spare tires? just rinse out the goo and install a tube if you run into a nasty gash so that you can go home at least?

Tubeless are the same as disc brakes. Useless meme on a roadbike but very useful on bikes that aren't roadbikes.

File: s-l300.jpg (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>1077903
>tubeless is kinda fucked if the hole is not tiny right?
If the tear is so large that the tyre is fucked then it's fucked. It would be just as fucked if you had a tube in it. If it's not fucked but the hole is too big to seal back up from the sealant alone you can patch it from the inside with tube patches and solution, or even tape.
If its a middling kinda-sorta seals but not really there are flossy, gooey strips you can punch through the puncture hole to help it seal. Just like car tyres. Pic related.
>can you set up a tubless bike and carry spare tires?
Technically yes, but needless.
>just rinse out the goo and install a tube if you run into a nasty gash so that you can go home at least?
That's what people generally do if they have a bad burp or puncture and it won't pop back.

What about a hybrid setup? Would be perfect if you could have tubeless but with a tube inside that you pump up through a second valve when it goes flat.

>>1077459

Just go 29+, thank me later.

>>1078143
it's amazing how much easier it is to ride a 29er. i got a 26 out of nostalgia for my childhood and it sucked ass i sold it for half of what i spent on it and went for a grand canyon al 29 budget hardtail. loving it so far.

>>1078349

no offence but it's probably just old shit was new shit.

we mad quite a bit of prgress since 26"

File: what_is_that_a_heresy.jpg (79KB, 1024x723px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x723px

>>1079637
>just old shit was new shit
the fuck this is supposed to mean?

>>1080063
it means 26" is obsolete and we've progressed into 'newer' technologies 650b/29er

>>1078143
How much difference is there between 27+ and 29+?
Reason I'm asking is there's a grand total of like 4 29+ bikes, 2 of which are Surly gaspipe and the other being a Niner costs as much for a frameset as a complete 27+ bike.

>>1080070
27.5 is the 29 for children and manlets... if you are a full size human don't even consider it.

>>1080073
Kindly re-read what I wrote.

>>1080075
27.5 is the most expensive here, that's some weird shit you got there.

>>1080077
Please try reading it again.

>>1080077
29+ and 27.5+ are different than 29" and 27.5", you blithering idiot.

>>1080063
I think he meant versus instead of was.

>>1080068
No, it means the difference was probably down to things other than the wheel size, such as modern geometry.

>>1080070
Fuck 29, I would say fuck 27.5 too but it's slowly killing off 26 so go for 27.5+.

>>1080085
it's just the height of the tire wtf you are talking about?

>>1080095
>No, it means the difference was probably down to things other than the wheel size, such as modern geometry.
both bike was modern a few years between them, the 26L was too small for me but the 29L is just right if everything is maxed out.
but the size of the tires makes a real difference and the gear ratios are somehow infinitely better.

>>1080115
>but the size of the tires makes a real difference
Sure, but it depends on what type of riding you're using the bike for as to which is better.

> and the gear ratios are somehow infinitely better.
Assuming they both have the same cassette range then they can be made to have identical gearing by changing the chainring size on one of the bikes (26 should have a chainring 1.06x that of the one on the 29 bike, for example 34/36 or 32/34 would be close enough).

>>1080114
>just
Just like a fatbike is """just""" a 26" with a different tyre. Never mind fucking everything is adapted to actually fit them. Retard.

Are hydraulic brakes and dropper posts a meme too?

>>1080138
If by that you mean "are they worth spending extra for?" then yes they are. My dropper post is one of my purchases which I'm most glad I made, it's a lot better than having to stop to lower the seat using a quick release clamp.

>>1080123
fatbikes have wider forks, nothing must be changed for a plus tire.

>>1080150
wrong and you already know that, why even make this post

>>1080122
i don't know what makes the real difference but on the 29 the crank gears are smaller and the difference between them is less (looked it up, 44/32/22:11-32 is the 26 and 40/30/22:11-36 on the 29). the relative position of the bottom bracket to the rear cassette is different too.

it's possible the other changes in the geometry play a big part, but this bike climbs insanely easy compared to the 26. often times i found on level terrain i don't even have to pedal to keep up with others who had a 26 that is probably due to a largely decreased ground resistance (part of which is the new continental tires i'm sure but also partly due to larger diameter).

overall the difference is staggering i should never have gotten the 26.

>>1080152
>wrong and you already know that
faggot literally hundreds of hits in google for bikes running on plus sized tires without problems. you don't have to redesign the bikes for it a 2.8" tire fits into most standard mtb.

>>1080156
oh yeah people manage to squeeze 27x2.8 on a narrow rim into select few 29er frames running a 1x setup with ridiculous chainring offset to avoid chain rub. Perfect compatibility.

>>1080157
nah actually it just simply fits. a 2.8 is not much bigger than the 2.2-2.3 standard tire.
i imagine it would cause more problems if your rim develops spoke misalignment tho.

>>1080160
Sure thing, link me to some pics of people fitting a 2.8 tire of the same wheel size into a regular frame. Not fork, frame.

>>1080150
>wut

>>1080154
>44/32/22:11-32 is the 26 and 40/30/22:11-36 on the 29
The lowest gear on the 29 is lower by about 6% but the highest gear is also lower by nearly 4%, and thus the total range of the 29 is also slightly greater.

>the relative position of the bottom bracket to the rear cassette is different too
That has no relevance to the gearing, that's geometry which determines how the bike handles.

>it's possible the other changes in the geometry play a big part, but this bike climbs insanely easy compared to the 26
As above, it is geared lower. That may be combined with geometry differences that make it more suited for climbing but the wheel diameter plays almost no part in that.

>often times i found on level terrain i don't even have to pedal to keep up with others who had a 26 that is probably due to a largely decreased ground resistance
It could be due to the greater inertia of the heavier wheels (which means more energy to get them up to the same speed), better aerodynamics of the bike and you, differences in rolling resistance based on the bearings in the wheels, tyre choice, and inflation pressure. Being larger in diameter doesn't mean that otherwise identical tyres will have lower rolling resistance.

>>1080160
>a 2.8 is not much bigger than the 2.2-2.3 standard tire.
Fuck off, it's a massive difference especially combined with a suitably wide rim.

>>1080150
And wider bottom brackets. And wider hubs. And special frames. And special chainline/chainset solutions. And special everything. Why not just admit that you were wrong you cock-gobbling heinie-hobbit?

>>1080170
>the wheel diameter plays almost no part in that.
well when it has to roll over crap like rocks and roots and stuff there is distinctly lot less resistance.
>It could be due to the greater inertia of the heavier wheels
it has lighter wheels actually the entire bike weights less than the 26 had by a few grams.
>Being larger in diameter doesn't mean that otherwise identical tyres will have lower rolling resistance.
definitely not what i have been told, but they are not identical tires either.

>>1080162
i just checked my bike it has almost an inch but at least half an inch of clearance around the 2.2 tires in all directions.

>>1080177
>well when it has to roll over crap like rocks and roots and stuff there is distinctly lot less resistance.
There really isn't. The difference just from the increased diameter (so with identical geometry) is imperceptible to the majority of riders, you'd need to be the sort of person that can feel a half degree difference in head angle.

>it has lighter wheels actually the entire bike weights less than the 26 had by a few grams.
Hub weight doesn't count. So are the rims and tyres lighter? If so even with the increased diameter it's likely a higher end wheelset in which case it's not all that surprising it rolls better. Also lighter tyres usually have less rolling resistance.

>>1080179
Be sure to post a pic when you fit a 2.8 tire in there!

>>1080181
i'm thinking about it, read such a nice things about wider tires. it's not gonna happen until i wear the current ones down tho. i can definitely upgrade to 2.4 without issues. if i understand correctly it sucks in mud but improves riding performance in almost all conditions aside from wet.

just went from 25mm ultra sports to 30mm tubless schwalbe g one.

they are really fucking nice.

>>1080182
2.8. Not 2.4 fuckturd. Saged.

>>1083007
Are 30mm tires worth the extra air resistance if my bike+me are below 65kg?

>>1083021
Depends on how rough your roads are. On the balsa floor of a velodrome - nope.

I put tubeless on my mtb and every time I didn't ride it for a few weeks, all of the air leaked out and I had to put more shit in to make it seal properly.

I sticked with that system for about a year, but then I changed back to tubes since I was sick and tired of doing the whole adding the goop and removing the tire and spinning it around routine all over again.

Afterwards I just binned the tires wich were still in decent shape, but they had a shit ton of goop stuck to them so fuck that.

What did I do wrong?

>>1083033
nothing, tubeless is a meme

>>1083012
i could put in 2.8 too there is room for it, but 2.4 would definitely work. if i convert to 2x10 the 3x10 drivetrain i will give 2.8 a try (if i can borrow some wheels) i promise and post pics. but conti only makes 2.4 and 2.2 and i love my conti shit.

>>1083022
Ond on your average german city road?

>>1080142
Why would you ever need to adjust saddle height? Do your legs change length depending on the moon phase?

>>1083033

You either had non tubeless ready wheels/tyres, poorly done conversion, or dented rims/bad valves. I've only added the sealant once recently after installing tubeless 6 months ago. And they keep the air in better than with tubes.

>>1083036

It's not. It is superior in MTB. For road it is okay I guess, but offers little benefit other than eliminating pinch flats.

>>1083273
The rims had the tubeless ready rim tape put on them in the factory and were brand new. The tires were tubeless ready and were brand new. The valves were brand new too and everything was done according to instructions.

Even the goop was brand new.

>>1083273
>eliminating pinch flats
>on a road bike
How do you get pinch flats with tires pumped to +5 bars? Or do people just not take care of their tire pressure and then blame their tires for all the flats instead of their own stupidity?

>>1083289
>Or do people just not take care of their tire pressure and then blame their tires for all the flats instead of their own stupidity?

Yes thats pretty much it,but they won't tell you that they haven't topped up their tires since buying from the lbs 10 months ago.

>>1083289
Have you ever watched a road race? Ever?

>>1083291
>pros riding on tubs get pinch flats
You just went full fucking retard. First of all it's really fucking hard to pinch flat a tub even if you're running it with super low pressures. I never claimed people don't get flats on road bikes. Shit happens and sometimes you get a flat, especially if you use delicate race oriented tires. However if you pinch flat on a road bike in practically all the cases it's your own fault for not having proper tire pressure.

>>1083272
Have you ever ridden a mountain bike?

>>1083309
>I'm not saying pros don't get flats it's just a rare occasion

Then why do they have wheels and bikes at the ready in support cars with home base semi-retired trailers filled with wheels, frames etc

>there are people on this board that don't know the difference between pinch flats and flats caused by foreign objects piercing the tire

i got two types of flat so far
1) goatheads
2) a sharp edge cut the entire fucking tire in half

the first type is a non-issue if you go tubeless but the second doesn't give a fuck what you do it will happen.

i didn't even knew about pinch flats until i started watching mtb vids on youtube.

>>1077455
>Wasting money
It cost me $15 to convert. If you can't spent $15 on a fad you just hate fun.

>>1077490
Getting this upset at a fad. I own one for keks and I still ride it quite a bit.

>>1077490
most people who know their shit recommend you to get a rigid fork instead of a cheap ass low end suspension fork. you know why? because it's not actually worse to ride but is lighter by 4 pounds and not in the slightest noodly.

>>1077490
I'm considering it. I keep my fork locked out most of the time anyway. My fork works ok without any problems though so I don't need anything new at the moment.

>>1077482
Who the hell doesn't ride lower than the "minimum" pressure on a mtb? I tried the minimum 30psi/2bar and it was almost impossible to ride offroad, I was bouncing around like a basketball and struggling for control on basic singletrack.

I run about half of that usually (around 1 bar), with tubes and I've never had a pinch flat.

I'm tempted to try tubeless, but seems like it's fixing something that isn't broken (for me) and possibly causes issues like burping.

Bike: Rigid 27.5, "2.1 inch" tires that are actually 2.25 with wider rims, original tubes that came with the bike (because I've never flatted with them)

File: 1449437805930.jpg (701KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 1024x768px

>>1077455
>You do not need tubeless
>fails to present an argument as to why I don't need them.

Uhh how about a fuck you. Sounds like you don't even ride MTB.

pic unrelated