# Is tubeless lighter than regular tube-filled tires?



## BCTJ (Aug 22, 2011)

I really like my Diamondback Recoil 29 because it is a really comfortable ride. However, it is also _heavy_. I'm looking at ways to decrease weight and one option seems to be switching to tubeless. However, there is some debate online whether going tubeless actually reduces weight or if people run tubeless for other reasons...more comfortable, less tire pressure required, etc. Interested in the board's feedback.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

Are you talking about new UST wheels and tires? Or ghetto tubeless?
Either way, probably not enough to noticeably lighten the bike. I mean, you may see some incidental weight loss in the neighborhood of 1/4 lb with ghetto, and new UST wheels may be lighter, but the UST tires are often heavier, so it can be a wash.

Tubeless isn't for weight loss. It's for the loss of flats by thorns and rim pinches. Some also say there's an improved ride quality. That's not something I've noticed, but I won't say it isn't true.


----------



## BCTJ (Aug 22, 2011)

I was talking about ghetto as I assume that buying new UST wheels and tires might cost more than my bike cost ($475)?


----------



## tomikazi (Jun 12, 2013)

I didn't notice a big difference in ride quality when I went tubeless. But when I had to put a tube in rear mid ride I noticed a huge difference. I don't think you will lose significant weight just by going tubeless, but you eliminate many headaches involved with tubes.


----------



## _Neo (Sep 19, 2014)

I live where there are a lot of goat-heads and thorns which necessitates the use of flat-attack or slime sealant in the tubes to prevent flats, so when I switched to ghetto tubless I still had sealant (Stan's this time) but eliminated the weight of the tubes. It is a great upgrade and I feel the trail better now, and the bike is snappier and quicker to accelerate/decelerate. I lost about a 1/2 lb. but it felt like a lot more than that. Losing weight from the wheel is the most effective place to get lighter.


----------



## BCTJ (Aug 22, 2011)

I also use the slime-filled tubes, which are heavier than the regular tubes. Is it difficult to convert the tires to tubeless? Why is it referred to as ghetto?


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

You can lose a little weight with tubeless, but as mentioned it allows you to run lower pressures that would otherwise cause "pinch flats" as the tube gets squished by the outer tire. Also, with smallish punctures it gives you the chance to have it seal up via the fluid instead of needing to repair on the trail. The fluid will also fill pinholes in tires when trying to run tubeless that would otherwise slowly deflate your tire over time.

As for UST, this system was originally designed by Mavic, and technically does not even need tire sealant. It works via specially designed tire beads, and in the case of Mavic their rims don't even need tape to cover the nipple holes. The drawback is that true UST tires are a bit heaver, and I suspect the rims would be too.

Most non-Mavic, or non-UST rims and tires are listed as "tubeless ready", or various other wordings. While not officially UST brand/technology, they generally will work pretty well. You will need rim tape, and the sealant.

"Ghetto" is the term for making tubeless work for rims & tires not necessarily designed for it, or doing it super-cheaply. This could include using layers of various tapes (like Gorilla tape) to seal up the rim. It can be a bit hit-or-miss.

In your case, no harm in trying it, and feel free to post for help/advice.


----------



## Duckman (Jan 12, 2004)

Since it eliminates the tire/tube friction as they rub each other..its also incrementally decreases rolling resistance.


----------



## _Neo (Sep 19, 2014)

Watch these videos (part 1 linked and part 2) for how to go ghetto. It can work really well, it can be kind of a pain. It depends a lot on the rim/tire combo you use.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

If you have tubeless-ready rims and don't need to use conversion like Stan's strips etc., yes...its lighter by likely 1/4-1/2 a pound. If you have to use a conversion (Stan's strips, ghetto, etc.), it will be lighter but not my much. If you go full UST, it will probably be heavier.

Remember:
UST = rim and tire designed to be run tubeless. A system. Like you car tires. Tire is butyl lined so you don't need sealant but you typically run it for flat protection. Not that common anymore but the most bullet-proof/easiest to deal with.

TLR = tubeless ready. Rim is designed to be taped to seal spoke holes and you run TLR tires with sealant. Lighter than UST, better system than ghetto. Many bikes come this way now but with tubes installed. Yank the tubes, drop in the valve stems, add sealant, inflate.

Ghetto = used to convert non-TLR rims. Split tube or Gorilla tape. Can be hit or miss w/r to compatibility. Many cheaper bikes won't have TLR rims so this is the way to go. I personally like the Stan's conversion kit with the rubber rim strips for this purpose.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

I switched to tubless and noticed a slight increase in traction but I mean slight. The only reason I noticed is because I ride the same trail a lot. Otherwise I would not have noticed anything other than no more flats. None. Not one since I switched.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

Personally I noticed a weight loss, close to 100grams a wheel, but I had cheap strips and ur basic $8 29er tube which is heavy.

I did notice bike felt different as tire at the time had really thin sidewalls. Took some playing with but ended up getting something with some wall thickness and everything fell into place.

But my biggest reason, some how I am always the one to find the big a** thorns that deflate my tire at a rate I don't catch immediately yet next hard bump pinch flats my damn tube. Never any issues now except one burp courtesy of a stick jammed in the ground at the perfect angle to blow a bead off. I make sure not to accidently get off the side of the trail after that mess.
Sent from my Nokia Stupid Phone using Tapatalk


----------



## purdyboy (Nov 15, 2005)

I found almost 200g weight loss. Had 'TLR' rims/tyres and 180g tubes.
Weight is noticeable in that bike feels a little more agile. Grip/handling improved and NO punctures. In my exp, def worth doing.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

You get other benefits, but it's not lighter.

A regular tire: Maxxis Ikon 29x2.2 3C 520g
A lightweight yet rideable tube: Schwalbe SV19A 140g
Total 660g

Same tire but Tubeless Ready version: Maxxis Ikon 29x2.2 3C/TR 590g
2 scoops of NoTubes sealant 120g
Valve 9g
Total 719g


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

In most circumstances it is lighter. Using 2 scoops is more than you need;1 to 1.5. 1 scoop is 50g, not 60g by my scale. Also, the tire issue is manufacture dependent; with Specialized, there isn't a lighter non-TLR option for example. I agree it can vary, but for most folks with TLR rims/tires, yanking the tubes and dumping a cup of Stan's in will save weight over the tubed setup.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

TiGeo said:


> In most circumstances it is lighter. Using 2 scoops is more than you need;1 to 1.5. 1 scoop is 50g, not 60g by my scale. Also, the tire issue is manufacture dependent; with Specialized, there isn't a lighter non-TLR option for example. I agree it can vary, but for most folks with TLR rims/tires, yanking the tubes and dumping a cup of Stan's in will save weight over the tubed setup.


1 scoop may have been enough in some 26" tires, but it certainly isn't in 29" ones.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

I think even 2 scoops of stans and a valve is lighter than a tube so if you use the same tire and compare apples to apples you will save or equal the same weight.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Terranaut said:


> I think even 2 scoops of stans and a valve is lighter than a tube so if you use the same tire and compare apples to apples you will save or equal the same weight.


Yep.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

sfer1 said:


> 1 scoop may have been enough in some 26" tires, but it certainly isn't in 29" ones.


I have run 1 scoop in my 29s but as k said 1.5 works well.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Terranaut said:


> I think even 2 scoops of stans and a valve is lighter than a tube so if you use the same tire and compare apples to apples you will save or equal the same weight.


Some non-TLR tires have very porous sidewalls and are hard to seal, especially for people with no experience. Other non-TLR tires react badly to sealant. I've seen this with various tires over the years:









It's best to use Tubeless Ready tires if you want to run sealant.

That being said, comparing apples to apples (exactly the same tire), 2 scoops and a valve weigh about the same as a tube. My point was that there aren't 1/4 to 1/2 pound weight savings as some people claimed.



TiGeo said:


> I have run 1 scoop in my 29s but as k said 1.5 works well.


Most of that scoop probably went to sealing the sidewalls, leaving too little sealant left to actually seal a puncture if you had one.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

sfer1 said:


> Some non-TLR tires have very porous sidewalls and are hard to seal, especially for people with no experience. Other non-TLR tires react badly to sealant. I've seen this with various tires over the years:
> 
> View attachment 930813
> 
> ...


Well I can't possibly see how a latex sealant could do that to a tire unless it was a home brew sealant. Also when I switched my Ground Controls over to tubless I used 2 oz of stans as suggested. When I bought my ardents and pulled of the ground controls there was still almost 2oz left in the tire. Maybe a 1/2 oz gone tops. These were a 29x2.1. So I backed off to 1.5 oz in the 29x2.4 ardents I switched too. Not arguing. ..just stating what I did/saw.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Kenda Nevegals had a known allergy to Stan's Sealant that caused tire hives like that. The No Tubes website had a list of tires that shouldn't be converted to tubeless with their system.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

rockyuphill said:


> Kenda Nevegals had a known allergy to Stan's Sealant that caused tire hives like that. The No Tubes website had a list of tires that shouldn't be converted to tubeless with their system.


Thanks. This is the first I have heard of this.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

NoTubes Recommended Tires

It's a shorter list than it used to be...

*Not Recommend Tires*


 WTB TCS and UST 29 inch tires are too tight for Stan's Notubes rims and NoTubes licensed rims such as Sun Ringle Black Flag.

 Specialized Grid UST Tires are very tight on Stan's Rims.

 Hutchinson Air-Light tires - the bead is too weak for tubeless use resulting in tire blowing off the rim at low inflation pressures.

 Hutchinson Tubeless Cyclocross tires - carbon fiber tire bead requires excessive pressure to seat properly often leading to tire blowing off the rim.

*Use of sealant in non-tubeless tires may void the tires manufacturer's warranty.


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

But it also says all Maxxis tires are ok.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Terranaut said:


> But it also says all Maxxis tires are ok.


Not always. That's why the released the Tubeless Ready versions early this year.

Regular Maxxis Ignitor:









Maxxis High Roller UST:


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

Well seeing as the high roller says "tubless ready" right on it I would consider it a manufacturer defect and not blame the sealant. I will keep an eye on my Ardents and post up if they fail right away but I doubt there will be any issues.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

Terranaut said:


> Well seeing as the high roller says "tubless ready" right on it I would consider it a manufacturer defect and not blame the sealant. I will keep an eye on my Ardents and post up if they fail right away but I doubt there will be any issues.


No, it doesn't say Tubeless Ready. It says UST Tubeless, which isn't the same. UST tires were originally designed to run on a UST rim without sealant. They can hold air on their own.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Yes, but UST still needs a sealant (or you should want to run a sealant) in the case of a puncture. Slime works. Just haven't had these issues before with Specialized, Schwable, WTB, or Maxxis tires...I have set up plenty of tubeless tires for my group without an issue...some of which were with non-TLR tires.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

sfer1 said:


> Some non-TLR tires have very porous sidewalls and are hard to seal, especially for people with no experience. Other non-TLR tires react badly to sealant. I've seen this with various tires over the years:
> 
> View attachment 930813
> 
> ...


I change my tires/sealant often. Currently, I still have plenty of free-flowing sealant (can here it sloshing around) in my Specy TLR tires when I used 1.5 scoops over a month ago. 1.5 scoops = 75g. A valve stem has to weight 10g. So 85g of TLR vs. a tube that weights twice that. Go crazy and use 2 scoops...110g. Still....50g/wheel = 100g which is nearly 1/4 of a pound. Again...I am talking about normal tubes etc. here that would come with a bike..sure..you can run lighter tubes and you don't get as much of a weight savings. Also, some bikes come with a heavier rim strip (rubber etc.) that is yanked and replaced with v. lightweight Stan's-type yellow tape during a conversion....call that the balance to get you to the 1/4 of a pound. For the majority of conversions, its lighter...and you get so many positives..the only negative to me is the hassle factor for some that are inexperienced, lack an air compressor (yes..I know that some will air up with no problem using a floor pump), or just generally don't want to mess with this as it takes some maintenance.


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

1 scoop = 60ml

1.5 scoops = 90ml

2 scoops = 120ml

60ml of NoTubes sealant = 58.6g

90ml = 87.9g (not 75g)

120ml = 117.2g

117.2g + 9g valve = 126.2g

Schwalbe SV19A tube









Actual weight savings: 8.3g per wheel


----------



## Terranaut (Jun 9, 2014)

Is that a 29" tube? Also you compared it to 2 caps of stans not 1.5 as suggested. At that the savings is about 38gm/ wheel. Again unless racing I don't see this as a gain or loss really. Splitting hairs. Having a good BM before a ride is probably more effective for weight loss for the average rider ;-)


----------



## sfer1 (Feb 22, 2009)

It's a 27.5-29 x 1.5-2.35" tube.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

What I am saying is that your new 29er isn't going to have that tube, its going to have a 150g+ 29er tube in it...which is what you are replacing. I understand what you are saying - that you can lighten up a tubed setup to the point of matching a tubeless one..but what I am saying is that for a new bike off the shelf, the conversion to tubeless often sheds a bit of rotational weight. I will do it again when I get home tonight, but when I weighed my homemade sealant, it was ~50g for a scoop. Also, remember the rim strip being replaced by v. lightweight Stan's tape...which I also understand that you can run in a tubed setup to reduce weight. But at the end of the day, tubeless will win (IMHO of course!) b/c of the flat resistance and ability to run lower pressures without pinch flatting which is the main reason to do it.

Edit: looks like OEM type 29er tubes can weigh as much as 200g!! So sure, if you want to drop weight and not go tubeless, grab some lightweight 150g tubes and shed 100g for $20...but you might get more flats! Also, re-weighed a scoop of my sealant...50g.


----------



## jeffrey j (Jul 10, 2010)

For me, it's not so much the weight lost, it's the difference in feel. Just seems like the tire "wraps" around the trail much better tubeless. Think there is a slight bit of weight difference, but it won't be as much as the difference you feel when cornering and just riding in general.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

I'm debating not running sealant at all. I get about one flat per season, with the most recent one being a sidewall gauge, so the sealant did nothing. Had to insert a tube to get back.

Last season, I got a puncture near the end of the ride. The sealant (Stan's) slowed the leak, but didn't stop it- at least not at riding pressure or weight, so If I wasn't close to the car, I'd have to use a tube then too.

I've just moved to a new wheelset, new tires, and my test tubless setup sealed fine without sealant (sometimes pinholes in the sidewall will necessitate sealant just to get tubeless going). Since I pretty much always need a tube for a fix, and always carry one with me, I might as well save another 88g per wheel.

We'll see how this works out.


----------



## jeffrey j (Jul 10, 2010)

phlegm said:


> I'm debating not running sealant at all. I get about one flat per season, with the most recent one being a sidewall gauge, so the sealant did nothing. Had to insert a tube to get back.
> 
> Last season, I got a puncture near the end of the ride. The sealant (Stan's) slowed the leak, but didn't stop it- at least not at riding pressure or weight, so If I wasn't close to the car, I'd have to use a tube then too.
> 
> ...


Not a bad idea for the ultimate weight weenie-ness. I had some road tire/rims that worked great with no sealant, and in the 4 years I've been running tubeless mtb tires, I've never (knock on wood) had an issue/flat either. I DO always carry an extra tube just in case, but have yet to use it.

I had been running my current wheels tubeless for over 8 months without any maintenance, and after my ride a couple weeks ago had a flat. Just added another scoop and was back on track.

But in the meantime...once that old sealant dries up, does it really weigh that much?? Seems like the liquid portion would weigh the most, but once it actually dries up, do the leftover bits still weigh 50+ grams??


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

This tread was started by the OP with the question of whether or not going tubeless will reduce the weight of his bike. There is every indication that he will if he has TLR rims/tires and OEM-weight tubes, even using a full 2 scoops of sealant.

To the point about not using sealant to save weight – that is only possible if you are using UST tires/rims which are just like your car. The tires are heavier to make them air-tight and resistant to punctures – most folks still run some sealant in the case where you do get a puncture. If you are going the TLR route which is the most common system at current, you need sealant to 1) prevent reoccurring flats from small punctures and 2) to help seal the casing (which is not air-tight), bead, and rim in general (sometimes the tape doesn’t seal well). You can certainly vary the amount of sealant you need depending on your needs the porosity of the tires (the 1 vs. 2 cup debate). For those that have been running tubeless for a while and have not got any flats…you likely haven’t got any flats b/c the sealant has done its job..you are probably getting small punctures from time to time that you don’t even notice b/c the sealant is doing its job. If you let it all dry out and the tape becomes unseated etc., you will go flat and not be able to hold air any longer. That is how folks many times find out they need to refresh their sealant. Finally, yes..when the sealant dries your wheels are lighter. I am total weight nerd and have seen a loss over time as the sealant dries up…dare I say I can tell when to refresh by simply doing the math on the weight w/r to the amount of sealant I added when I refreshed/changed tires.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

TiGeo said:


> To the point about not using sealant to save weight - that is only possible if you are using UST tires/rims which are just like your car. The tires are heavier to make them air-tight and resistant to punctures - most folks still run some sealant in the case where you do get a puncture.


We're getting a bit OT, but your point is well made. I've used full UST before, and to be honest, it is super-easy to mount a tire and no sealant is needed. But that was a long time ago in my case, and Mavic in particular hasn't kept up with light rim tech IMO.

Re my experiment - and probably reinforcing your point - I still have a slow leak in my non-sealant tires. I had never tried without sealant for almost 10 years, so figured I might have missed something. Looks like no way to beat the system. That said, I'll try to use a minimal amount. As mentioned, in my 2 flat experiences in recent memory, the sealant didn't really help in practical terms. Also, if you get a serious sidewall cut, the sealant isn't going to do anything - you always need a tube in your kit.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

One 29er wheel layer of the 19mm width gorilla tape is 20 grams (yes the notubes tape is lighter but its thinner so you might need a few layers to build the rim up to a tight fit) and I've had to use several layers of tape to get a tubeless ready racing ralph to inflate even with a compressor. At a certain stage, you quickly go past the weight of lightweight rim tape and tube, and for that matter, you might as well then use a lightweight conti or schwalbe tube with a removeable valve core and put an ounce of the sealant inside the tube. Easy tire inflation even with a mini-pump and still will seal punctures, better still, no mess inside the tire casing.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

DeeEight said:


> One 29er wheel layer of the 19mm width gorilla tape is 20 grams (yes the notubes tape is lighter but its thinner so you might need a few layers to build the rim up to a tight fit) and I've had to use several layers of tape to get a tubeless ready racing ralph to inflate even with a compressor. At a certain stage, you quickly go past the weight of lightweight rim tape and tube, and for that matter, you might as well then use a lightweight conti or schwalbe tube with a removeable valve core and put an ounce of the sealant inside the tube. Easy tire inflation even with a mini-pump and still will seal punctures, better still, no mess inside the tire casing.


To me, you shouldn't need to tighten up the tire on the rim if it is truly TLR - yes..it may not be tight enough to inflate with a floor pump but I can bet it will with a compressor. One layer of tape is all I have ever used with TLR - with ghetto, I have used all manner of things including weather-stripping to get the rubber rim strip to sit tightly under the bead per Stan's instructions.


----------



## jimification (Apr 12, 2011)

I think whether it’s better or not depends a lot on where you ride and what your local trail hazards are. 

Around us, the hazards are flints cutting the tyre casing (when tubeless) or thorns puncturing (when using tubes) I think the most practical solution for folks who aren’t too bothered about the weight or absolute ride quality / grip is tubes with a Panaracer flataway Kevlar strip – 35g per wheel and that stops most thorns. Using a tube does seem to drastically reduce sidewall cuts too. It’s not rocky here, so pinch punctures are rare unless you’re very unlucky or ride heavy.

That said, I use tubeless because I like the weight and ride but I don’t think it’s a real “solution” as such, just a different set of problems. Over the last couple of years running both I’ve had more issues with tubes but they were all a very straightforward fix. In my experience, tubeless issues are less frequent but more hassle when they occur.


----------



## Ramborage (May 7, 2013)

I would never run no sealant in a tubeless tire. Good luck getting the bead to seal up and even if it does you'll eventually have issues of it leaking air all the time. Too much headache. Most tubes i've ran have been 200+ grams so 2 scoops of sealant, tape and valve stem is still a little bit lighter by like 35grams. Plus you get the added bonus of dropping the tire pressure into the mid 20's and not have to worry about pinch flats.


----------

