# Tubeless commuter setup.



## Johnny K (Mar 14, 2005)

This thread was done on here a while back but I would like to hear any recent successes or failures.

I have finished my new commuter bike and all that is missing is some 35c-40c commuter type tires that work well tubeless.

Bike setup: wagon wheels racing: Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross build - Part 2

I don't care if the tires are heavy, I am looking for durability for tubeless and cushy with minimal knobs. Cheap would be good too...

Any advice appreciated.


----------



## cowboygrrl (Jan 20, 2011)

I'm using WTB Vulpines, their new tubeless TCS tires. They're 1.9, with more side knobs and flat center. I do about an 18 mile commute on them. Oh, and that's a On One Midge bar; I love it! Our builds are very similar; mine's a Vaya with 26" wheels.


----------



## Johnny K (Mar 14, 2005)

cowboygrrl said:


> I'm using WTB Vulpines, their new tubeless TCS tires. They're 1.9, with more side knobs and flat center. I do about an 18 mile commute on them. Oh, and that's a On One Midge bar; I love it! Our builds are very similar; mine's a Vaya with 26" wheels.


Nice build there. How wide do the vulpines measure out to? Thanks.


----------



## CommuterBoy (Oct 4, 2007)

I've been using 2.35" Schwalbe Big Apples tubeless for a couple of years. I live on a dirt road and have a singletrack option on the commute that I ride quite a bit, and other than the obvious drawbacks of being basically a slick, the volume makes them surprisingly confident in the dirt. I do a lot of dirt road exploring on this bike also. They have a narrower model of the Big Apple as well. They were the easiest tires I have ever set up tubeless. No problems.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Set up a slightly-worn set of Vittoria XNs last summer, which were functionally a 700x32C slick with sideknobs. Did not hold air very long. I think it was a combination of bad luck and being too stingy with sealant, Rode (commuting and trail riding) the entire summer on tubeless RK SS (not exactly a commuting slick I know) without issue. going to try again this spring with the CX tires.


----------



## slower_than_u (Sep 28, 2008)

I run Michelin Pilot Sport 700x35 on Stan's No Tubes Arch rims with Stan's sealant on my 29er commuter.
Michelin Pilot Sport 700 x 35 at BikeTiresDirect

They mounted easily and I've been riding them just over a year at 48-50psi without a single flat.


----------



## Turduckenator (Jan 2, 2012)

*ghetto tubeless 35c commuter setup*

Thread necrophilia? I though I'd contribute since this helped me decide to go tubeless (non-UST, non-TLR) for my frankenbike/commuter after getting sick of flats.

Running Mavic TN719 29er rims and Forte Metro 700x35 tires. Set up with homebrew sealant, gorilla tape to seal spoke holes, and XC Stan's strips (I've found the thinner center area really helps get that initial seal better than the ghetto inner tube method).

Did require a compressor and some love pressing down/out on the sidewalls around the valve stem, but once sealed overnight holds easily to 70+ psi.

Running 60 psi rear/45 front and the ride is amazing: great small bump compliance and fast-rolling...


----------



## charlesrg (Oct 17, 2011)

Reviving the undead, can't find this tire: Forte Metro 700x35. Just tried some schwalbe marathon supreme but had lots of leaks on the sidewall. (No sealant yet). Thinking about putting sealant or getting something better.


----------



## Turduckenator (Jan 2, 2012)

charlesrg said:


> Reviving the undead, can't find this tire: Forte Metro 700x35. Just tried some schwalbe marathon supreme but had lots of leaks on the sidewall. (No sealant yet). Thinking about putting sealant or getting something better.


sealant = good idea.

re metro tires:Forté Metro ST Tire
Forté Metro-K Road and Mountain Tires


----------



## charlesrg (Oct 17, 2011)

Thank you 
I just found that schwalbe launched a new one: thats tubeless out of the factory Marathon Supreme HS 469 | Schwalbe North America model 11600831

However this Forte is 1/4 the price of schwalbes. Did yours kept air without tubeless sealant ? When I mount the latest schwalbe tubeless I can mount without any sealant, I just add sealant for puncture protection.



Turduckenator said:


> sealant = good idea.
> 
> re metro tires:Forté Metro ST Tire
> Forté Metro-K Road and Mountain Tires


----------



## Turduckenator (Jan 2, 2012)

charlesrg said:


> Thank you
> I just found that schwalbe launched a new one: thats tubeless out of the factory Marathon Supreme HS 469 | Schwalbe North America model 11600831
> 
> However this Forte is 1/4 the price of schwalbes. Did yours kept air without tubeless sealant ? When I mount the latest schwalbe tubeless I can mount without any sealant, I just add sealant for puncture protection.


Never even tried, doubt it would. A lot of the appeal of tubeless is the presence of that sealant as urban insurance...


----------



## charlesrg (Oct 17, 2011)

I agree, but I add the sealant to add puncture protection, not to make the tire seal.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

ghettocruiser 2012 said:


> Set up a slightly-worn set of Vittoria XNs last summer, which were functionally a 700x32C slick with sideknobs. Did not hold air very long. I think it was a combination of bad luck and being too stingy with sealant,


Since that initial failure in 2012 I've been running the XNs tubeless and flat-free for most of the last 4 years. Granted on tubeless rims, not the ghetto setup first attempted.


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

Sealant is needed in all tubeless tire applications. Although the tires are manufactured as tubeless, the sealant acts to fill any minuscule holes in the tire and irregularities around the bead/rim. A tubeless tire's bead will not seat without sealant.

Personally, I find tubeless a poor application for commuting. Due to the fact that a tube and pump are still required if the sealant fails or the bead falls off the rim. I have yet to ride with someone who is set-up tubeless who doesn't need to "borrow" a tube when their system fails.

Flats are, most commonly, the result of under inflated tires. A 700c tube loses ~5-10psi in a 24hr period. Larger volume, lower pressure tires lose air at a slower rate. Under inflation will cause flats on any tire, even those with flat protection.

I commute on Kenda's 40c Happy Medium at 70psi. I get less than a dozen flats a year. I inflate my tires daily and avoid sidewalks, driveways, and grassy areas. Most flats where I'm from result from the puncture vine, or goat-head. Working in shops, tubeless set-ups are not immune from these devil's thorns, or most glass punctures for that matter.

If tubeless is less hassle for you, have at it. I'll keep patching my tubes.


----------



## CommuterBoy (Oct 4, 2007)

^ I beg to differ on the goathead issue. I pull them out of my tubeless set-up constantly and listen to the glorious pffffffffttt as the sealant takes care of the hole. When I get a super big one I sometimes have to do the "rotate the hole to the bottom for some gravity help, and plug the hole with a finger for a sec" thing. I went tubeless mainly because of goathead flats while using tubes. 

I've been carrying a spare tube for 4 or 5 years...my last one actually started to fall apart in my backpack because I had it rolled up too small and I creased the edges... but I certainly never had to use it. Pointlessly carrying around a new one now.


----------



## charlesrg (Oct 17, 2011)

Have you ever seen someone adding sealant to a car tire ? If the tire is made to be tubeless, it will hold air. If the the tire manufacturer requires sealant, it's not tubeless.

I've sealed several tires without any sealant and the tires held pressure for one month without sealant. After my one month experiment I added sealant to get puncture protection, not to seal. If you want I can even record a youtube video next time I mount them. This are TRUE tubeless tires, not tubeless sealant compatible. Few brands make those.

Last year I did about 1500 miles commuting tubeless and I never carried a pump or a tube. Had only 2 problems, in one case the tire had a 1 inch cut and a tube would not resolve. The other I just filled with Co2 and got home as the air was leaking slowly.

Tubeless is a good choice for any setup as in case of a small puncture air does not leave in 3 seconds like when you have a tube. In my case I reach speeds of 40 mph if a puncture happens in a tube, the tire will loose air before I can reduce the speed safely. While on tubeless a puncture will slowly leak air, allowing me time to safely stop.

Sincerely I would not be happy if I had to patch my tires a dozen times a year. I would even switch to airless tires if that was the case.



rogbie said:


> Sealant is needed in all tubeless tire applications. Although the tires are manufactured as tubeless, the sealant acts to fill any minuscule holes in the tire and irregularities around the bead/rim. A tubeless tire's bead will not seat without sealant.
> 
> Personally, I find tubeless a poor application for commuting. Due to the fact that a tube and pump are still required if the sealant fails or the bead falls off the rim. I have yet to ride with someone who is set-up tubeless who doesn't need to "borrow" a tube when their system fails.
> 
> ...


----------



## wschruba (Apr 13, 2012)

In the bicycle world, tubeless is often referring to the design of the tire bead, colloquially. Yes, UST tires are truly tubeless in that they require no sealant, but like an automotive tire, they are significantly thicker. In an attempt to bring higher performance (read, lower weight) companies moved towards relying on sealant (which people were already using in UST setups) to make the casing airtight, while still supplying the tubeless bead. This is akin to the same tit-for-tat that people bring up when they say a tubeless rim can't have spoke holes drilled in the inner wall. You can have a solid wall, and proprietary spokes, or you can have an easily maintained product made with normal parts, at the expense of a roll of plastic tape.

Not all so called 'tubeless ready' tires are made equally; without a proper square/teardrop bead, they do not interface securely with the socket on (again) a tubeless rim. Without that secure connection, the tire can easily roll off on losing pressure rapidly. That is the bigger issue in my mind, not sealant. If you can not rely on the mechanical connection of the tire/rim, don't do it. Further poor design considerations of rims lead to tires that can't be consistently beaded with a hand pump...but why should the manufacturers tighten their tolerances or revise their designs when their customers have shown their willingness to deal with using compressors?

Like Rogbie, I find that puncture protection is a red herring, so to speak. I don't seek out patches of glass/thorns/loose gravel on my bikes that have tubeless tires, any more than I would with tubes. Yes, they seal tiny holes quickly, but that's about it. Especially looking at smaller volume tires (sub 35mm) they simply don't have the volume of air necessary to sustain the pressure loss over time to seal any significant hole. You still need to re-inflate it, and there's no guarantee that the rise in pressure won't dislodge the seal. Put another way, anything that would put a tubed tire well out of commission has a decent chance of doing the same to a tubeless tire.

I would attribute it to the same thing that I see with newer riders, who get a string of flats, and then move to 'flat protective' tires. Yes, the tires work, but their increasing awareness of how flats occur helps more. Prior to switching to tubeless/sealant setups, I got nearly the same number of flats using $15 tires as I did $50 aramid belted wonder tires (incidently, I think Schwalbe, of all companies has the right idea here; their highest puncture protection? _More rubber!_). Now, rather than getting one or two flats every year, I get...one or two flats every couple of years (which beggars the question...how much money would you spend to eliminate 10 minutes of changing a flat?).

This is a completely different issue from goats head thorns or cactus scrub, mind you...people have been using tubes with sealant in them to combat that since before tubeless bicycle tires, and I see no reason why removing the tube would prompt them to change what worked.

Signed,

A happy tubeless user (for primary reasons other than puncture protection!)

P.S. the argument that you don't use sealant in automotive tires is somewhat spurious. They have very different requirements from bicycles tires, in that they would need a significant mass of liquid sealant to do anything, which would cause severe imbalances at speeds common to a car, but very uncommon for a bicycle. You may not be aware, but automotive tires, even though tubeless, still need to be sealed onto the rim to create an airtight system.


----------



## charlesrg (Oct 17, 2011)

Not looking to dig further on this rabbit hole. 
However my opinions are from experience, not from hearsay. I've had to go through 10 types of tires to find 2 models from 2 brands that would stay inflated without sealant.

I would invite anyone to do a simple test with two of the same tires, wheels, rims combination.
One with a tube. The other tubeless.

Now get a small nail and drill a hole through each. The one with tube will loose all it's air immediately and in seconds it will be flat, the tubeless will loose air much slower.

Based on this, for my safety as I reach 40mph on my daily commute I ride tubeless.

As for the manufacturers, they are in for the profit and they would add another marketing/PR word without having to do anything extra on their product. Until another brand makes it better and forces then to do it. So expect tires going full tubeless and weight being reduced as progress goes on.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2016)

rogbie said:


> Sealant is needed in all tubeless tire applications.


Neither UST nor road tubeless require sealant.



rogbie said:


> Personally, I find tubeless a poor application for commuting. Due to the fact that a tube and pump are still required if the sealant fails or the bead falls off the rim.


How is this different for commuting than for any other type of riding? Is tubeless a "poor application" for all types of riding? You should always carry a pump, tubes, and tools.



rogbie said:


> I have yet to ride with someone who is set-up tubeless who doesn't need to "borrow" a tube when their system fails.


You only ride with dumb partners.


----------



## wschruba (Apr 13, 2012)

charlesrg said:


> Not looking to dig further on this rabbit hole.
> However my opinions are from experience, not from hearsay. I've had to go through 10 types of tires to find 2 models from 2 brands that would stay inflated without sealant.


Not looking for a fight, either, just adding to the dialogue. I worked in the bicycle 'industry' as the shift towards tubeless happened with mountain bikes, and can tell you from personal experience (much like it sounds you can) that there is a very big difference between the setup of "true" (UST) tubeless and a tubeless-ready tire. There is a great deal of misinformation out there (perpetuated, no less, by a company that advocates 'no tubes' in everything...).

UST (universal standard, tubeless) and 'Road Tubeless', as craigsj noted, bicycle tires are the only tires that have a layer of butyl rubber formed integrally to the one bead, across the inside of the casing, and to the other bead. _All_ UST/Road Tubeless tires are airtight, by themselves--it's just a matter of knowing terminology.

Because of their construction, all tires tend to force themselves closed, when an offending piece of debris is removed; in a UST tire, this means the airtight layer of rubber is forcing itself closed, as well--much like a loosely held balloon, air will escape slowly, as you noted. Regular tube/tire combinations will flat faster simply because the tire is not airtight by itself. You could see this easily by beading a normal tire on a tubeless rim, and seeing that the vast majority (certainly of the 'performance' set) will be dead flat in short order. To reference the balloon again, this would be akin to the same circumstances as above, but with it made of woven nylon.



charlesrg said:


> As for the manufacturers, they are in for the profit and they would add another marketing/PR word without having to do anything extra on their product. Until another brand makes it better and forces then to do it. So expect tires going full tubeless and weight being reduced as progress goes on.


I agree, but doubt that that will be the direction things go, seeing as that's where they came from. The bicycle industry is all about "forward" progress; UST, to 'tubeless light' (even lighter than UST!) to 'tubeless compatible' (just add sealant!). Kenda is the only company that I can think of that still offers _any UST tires. As It would require extra money into the product, and from their standpoint, I can only imagine that it would make it even more unattractive. As craigsj said, road tubeless doesn't require sealant to function, but even that has started to change, as the second generation of road tubeless tires begin to appear...the allure of 'self-healing' tires is very strong. To add a layer of rubber that most of their customers won't need is lost money, to them. Making a tire 'tubeless compatible', by comparison, just requires a minor change to the shape of the bead in the mold. Why wouldn't they?

Tubeless in general is a difficult sell to the commuting/leisure/road crowd, as it has few immediately tangible benefits. I imagine the switch in the automotive industry faced similar issues (but then again, most people replace their cars far more often than their bikes--this/other cycling boards are a small slice of the general populace).

For what it's worth? More secure beads (as a result of the shift to 'tubeless compatible') is not a bad thing, even if it's the only thing that comes of all of this. I'd rather deal with flats that don't also come with tires that roll off the rim, than anything else. I can deal with dumping a few ounces of latex into a new tire (I guess the tire companies were right about that!).

To add to the thread itself, I had a pair of Continental Tour Ride (42mm) on some WTB tubeless rims, both with tubes, and without. They sure were tubeless, and that's the best I could say about it. I got no flats in the 2 years I had them mounted (just about half and half, tubes/tubeless). I later switched out for some TCS Nano tires, as I more or less stopped commuting, and use the bike for mixed surface riding, now._


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

craigsj said:


> Neither UST nor road tubeless require sealant.
> 
> How is this different for commuting than for any other type of riding? Is tubeless a "poor application" for all types of riding? You should always carry a pump, tubes, and tools.
> 
> You only ride with dumb partners.


No need for vitriol. We're talking about bicycle tires. I'm not challenging your Fred-cred.

*For me*, tubeless is a poor choice for any type of riding. I don't like the process, and the cost/benefit is not favorable in my situation. I have milk crates full of tubes I saved from my mechanic days. I buy patches in bulk (2000 at a time). Patching tubes is one of my winter activities: coffee, a crate of tubes, a pile of patches, an open can of contact cement and CX races broadcast in Dutch.

In defense of my tubeless riding "dumb" friends: not many people carry extra sealant and an air compressor on a long ride.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Tubeless and tubes both work fine....I always carry a tube for a field fix of either.

Sealant works fine as well...

For commuting I ride only about 3500 km per year these days...

I wear out everything eventually including tubeless and non tubeless tires...

In the end before I chuck a tire it always ends up with a tube in it.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

rogbie said:


> No need for vitriol. We're talking about bicycle tires. I'm not challenging your Fred-cred.
> 
> *For me*, tubeless is a poor choice for any type of riding. I don't like the process, and the cost/benefit is not favorable in my situation. I have milk crates full of tubes I saved from my mechanic days. I buy patches in bulk (2000 at a time). Patching tubes is one of my winter activities: coffee, a crate of tubes, a pile of patches, an open can of contact cement and CX races broadcast in Dutch.
> 
> In defense of my tubeless riding "dumb" friends: not many people carry extra sealant and an air compressor on a long ride.


Do you mt bike? My tubeless set ups work great. 1 flat in 3 years. As opposed to flats every month from thorns and such. No pinch flats either. Plus the fat bike tubes weigh 1 POUND a piece. Nice to get rid of the weight in the tires. I carry extra sealant and a kit to plug a tire, not used yet. Plus the extra traction of low psi is awesome. Most rides with newer bikes run tubeless with great results. YRMV


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2016)

rogbie said:


> No need for vitriol ... I'm not challenging your Fred-cred.


You toss out an insult without the slightest sense of irony.



rogbie said:


> *For me*, tubeless is a poor choice for any type of riding. I don't like the process, and the cost/benefit is not favorable in my situation


Since you don't like it and clearly don't understand it, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on it.



rogbie said:


> In defense of my tubeless riding "dumb" friends: not many people carry extra sealant and an air compressor on a long ride.


No one does, but apparently these imaginary friends of yours never carry a spare tube either since they have to borrow one. Ignorant riders are everywhere, at least one in your very group, but there are plenty of tubeless riders that are prepared to repair flats.


----------



## Volsung (Nov 24, 2011)

I don't know how people can get so worked up about tubeless commuter tires. Compass has a bunch of new tubeless compatibles out now and that's enough to make anyone happy in the pants. Their Rat Trap Pass 26x2.3s make me want to rebuild my Big Dummy wheels. I'm afraid of fixing flats on that thing, even though 90% of my riding is within a 4 mile radius of my house.

I'd make the switch but I'm stuck on Dillinger 5s (tubeless) for at least another month.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

You guys blow my mind... I have been running non tubeless ready tires tubeless for the last 4 years, yes I use sealant but as long as I change my tires 2xs a year I will literally never have a flat tire, but I ride in the cactus ridden southwest so I guess I'm not dealing with the same extremes as you urban comuters


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

craigsj said:


> You toss out an insult without the slightest sense of irony.


Oh, trust me, there was plenty of irony there. _See a Fred gets their chamois in a bunch when their ways of cycling are challenged. It's called "seeing Fred-red". Besides, like I'm going to take advice from someone who finds patching tubes inconvenient?_ #whatpressureyourunnin (That's sarcasm, btw).


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Do you mt bike? My tubeless set ups work great. 1 flat in 3 years. As opposed to flats every month from thorns and such. No pinch flats either. Plus the fat bike tubes weigh 1 POUND a piece. Nice to get rid of the weight in the tires. I carry extra sealant and a kit to plug a tire, not used yet. Plus the extra traction of low psi is awesome. Most rides with newer bikes run tubeless with great results. YRMV


I do mtb. Tubes there as well. I haven't flatted on the mtb in years. Goat heads are only a problem in lower elevations on urban/sub-urban ST and only if you get off line. I rode a tubeless set-up for a while on a long term demo bike. Not my thing. The low pressure approach doesn't play well with the sharp rocks on my local trails. I switched back to tubes b/c I ended up running near the same psi with tubeless and I didn't have to worry about blowing a bead on the trail.

I guess I'm just a retrogrouch.

Tubeless for fat bikes makes more sense, but I play on the snow in different ways... I know fat bikes are for more than snow.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2016)

rogbie said:


> Oh, trust me, there was plenty of irony there. _See a Fred gets their chamois in a bunch when their ways of cycling are challenged. It's called "seeing Fred-red"._


_
No need for vitriol, rogbie. I can't help it if you aren't able to see past your own hate and shortcomings.



rogbie said:



Besides, like I'm going to take advice from someone who finds patching tubes inconvenient?

Click to expand...

_


rogbie said:


> #whatpressureyourunnin (That's sarcasm, btw).


I have no idea what's sarcastic about that or where you got the idea that I find patching tubes inconvenient. I find your posts pathetic.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2016)

rogbie said:


> I guess I'm just a retrogrouch.


I would say you're an ignorant poser that knows nothing about mountain biking (and that is an informed opinion after reading your posts).


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

craigsj said:


> I would say you're an ignorant poser that knows nothing about mountain biking (and that is an informed opinion after reading your posts).


Mountain biking? Is that the thing where you ride a bicycle in the mountains?

Pal, "this isn't a dick measuring contest. Put it away until the tape measures are out."

Also, unless you read my entire post history, you have a pretty low standard for an informed opinion.

One more zinger: Opinions are like *******s: everyone has one and mine's the best.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2016)

rogbie said:


> Also, unless you read my entire post history, you have a pretty low standard for an informed opinion.


In your case, no higher standard is required. You prove who you are with each post.


----------



## charlesrg (Oct 17, 2011)

craigsj said:


> In your case, no higher standard is required. You prove who you are with each post.


I agree.


----------

