# German Tubeless-Systems comparison Test



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

here's a test out of actual november issue of german Mountain Bike:

finally the germans did a scientific comparison on the different options we bikers have when looking at tires.

-regular tires with inner tubes
-UST tires (tubeless)
-regular tires used with sealant (tubelesskit)

what they did is test head to head on the same rim and at same pressures tires of the same brand which are either available as tubed version (regular tire supposed to be used with inner tube) and UST-tire and also the same , tube-type tire used with sealant.

they not only measured the weight of the system but also the puncture resistance and resistance to snakebites and rollingresistance.

you'll see some graphs below with 100% always beeing the highest number (means WORST!) and the according percentage numbers of the better above or below.

what can we see?
*-tubelesskits are lighter than the tubed or UST version!*

*-tubelesskits ALWAYS have the lowest rollingresistance!*
by looking closer at the numbers below we can see that a Schwalbe Racing Ralph UST for example has more rollingresistance than the regular Racing Ralph used with tubelesskit. that's a 7,5% difference in favour of the tubelesskit! and the tubelesskitted tire rolls 25% faster than the same tire used with inner tube!!!!!!!!! that's a HUGE difference.

also the Michelin UST rolls slightly slower than his regular brother. the Maxxis UST has dramatically higher rollingreistance than it's regular brother.

*so the myth about UST rolling faster IS NOT TRUE !!!*

-*UST tires have best punture resistance* BUT, and this is a HUGE but: they still can be flattened and without selant you are faced with the same problem than with a inner tube. regular tires used with Tubelesskit may get punctures easier than UST BUT in most cases re-seal punctures immediately giving an edge over UST again.

there is a whole article as well with detailed analysis but tomake it short here's the final verdict:

"Tubeless has some advantages against tubetype. nevertheless the market of UST tires is pretty slim (Schwalbe says it's just 6% of the sold MTB tires). when asked about why the industry will telly you that UST rims can't be laced as easily with machines as they do with regular rims/spokes. if manufacturers would have to do all by hand wheels would become too expensive. then there is the common air-loss of tubelesstires. if ia bike sits in the shelf/showroom for a longer time tires will be flat and dealers don't like that.

german MB-magazine did an online survey and found out that 26% of the bikers name flats as their major gripe with tires, 21% rollingresistance cloesly followed by durability and grip. so it's clear that tubeless systems (either UST or tubelesskits) would be THE solution here.

bikers preferring low weight and fast rolling should have a close look at tubelesskits. because of the tricky 1st installation we rate this for RACERS and enthusiasts."


----------



## yannbzh (Dec 25, 2004)

Thanks for all this informations.

But, they did not compare the rigidity of tires when they are inflate. We usually say that it is necessary to have more pressure in a tube type tire with a inner tube (2,3 bars) whereas the pressure for a tubeless tire is 2 bars.

I think it will be interesting to have Tubeless Ready tests. Python (Hutchinson) and Jones XR (Bontrager) seems to roll fast....


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*correct...*



yannbzh said:


> Thanks for all this informations.
> 
> But, they did not compare the rigidity of tires when they are inflate. We usually say that it is necessary to have more pressure in a tube type tire with a inner tube (2,3 bars) whereas the pressure for a tubeless tire is 2 bars.
> 
> I think it will be interesting to have Tubeless Ready tests. Python (Hutchinson) and Jones XR (Bontrager) seems to roll fast....


but the difference is minimal. i found it to be about 0,2 bar / 3 psi

all those UST tires (also the new generation of tubeless-ready tire) make only sense if you ride in real rocky terrain where tires can get cuts easily. other than that there is no need for all those heavy tires.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

yannbzh said:


> Thanks for all this informations.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think it will be interesting to have Tubeless Ready tests. Python (Hutchinson) and Jones XR (Bontrager) seems to roll fast....


 Agree! I'm using a Bontrager Revolt Super X tubeless ready at the rear and I'm liking it! Faster than the Nobby Nic, slightly less grip braking... But faster. 513gr in 2.0 measure. Will try the new Specialized Captain too, when available...


----------



## kdiddy (Jul 14, 2005)

Does it say how they measured rolling resistance? On a drum? With a power meter while riding on dirt or another controlled set-up? Just curious.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Weeno, They did not test the best setup, UST rim with 2bliss Ready tire. This is the way to rock. Specialized has a bunch of new offerings in 2bliss ready, weights are good, the interface between tire and rim is superior to the ghey kits Eclipse and Stans are pimping.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*sorry....*



snowdrifter said:


> Weeno, They did not test the best setup, UST rim with 2bliss Ready tire. This is the way to rock. Specialized has a bunch of new offerings in 2bliss ready, weights are good, the interface between tire and rim is superior to the ghey kits Eclipse and Stans are pimping.


but Specialized seems to have the patent on the SLOWEST rolling tires!

no honestly, Specialized tires so far ALL have been very,very slow rolling. in each and every test these tires stink. i would really like to see them improve but this still has to be seen. so far Specialized tires are amongst the slowest tires on the market!


----------



## Dragoneyes (Aug 12, 2007)

Nino hasn't actually ridden a Specialized Captain tire then. I have used a lot of tires over the years and the only tires I've found that roll better than these are semi slicks. Try before you make a statement.....


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Sauser winning races on them.

Regardless of rolling resistance, 2bliss ready on a UST rim is the future, at least for me. I've ran tubeless kit type wheels, and UST wheels, UST is far less trouble some. They should have added this combo to their test. 

I mounted a set of 2.3 Specialized Eskars a few weeks ago. 1 tire @693grams, 1 tire @ 713grams. This is pretty damn good for a large volumne All Mtn type tire, rolling resistance is not bad, and the control sidewalls are an added bonus over their previous crappy sidewalls.

I'm not a Specialized Homer, but 2bliss ready is the way to go, we just need more offerings.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Dragoneyes said:


> Nino hasn't actually ridden a Specialized Captain tire then. I have used a lot of tires over the years and the only tires I've found that roll better than these are semi slicks. Try before you make a statement.....


He doesn't sell them or get them for free, so they SUCK! It's ok though, we can ride these nice tires with UST beads at low weights:thumbsup:


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Weeno, one other note, why didn't they test a Stans Rim and Standard tire? If tubeless kits are the fastest, then a Stans Rim without kits would be even that much faster?


----------



## Dragoneyes (Aug 12, 2007)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*you didn't get the point...*



snowdrifter said:


> Weeno, one other note, why didn't they test a Stans Rim and Standard tire? If tubeless kits are the fastest, then a Stans Rim without kits would be even that much faster?


this test was about the different systems not about a specific product.

it doesn't matter which tubelesskit exactly...fact is that regular tires used in general are faster and lighter than other systems. no, Stans isn't any faster but it sure has the same low readings.

@Snowdrifter + Dranoneyes:
i clearly statet that SO FAR those tires have been the slowest. if they got faster it's ok and it was about time :thumbsup:

and you seem to forget that a couple of years ago i was a big fan of Specialized products. i was riding s-works bikes for years, tires and everything too. but the numbers and tests of past S-tires just didn't help them. they do have a bad reputation regarding rollingresistance for a reason!


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> no, Stans isn't any faster but it sure has the same low readings.
> !


Why wouldn't it be faster, there's no rimstrip, less weight to roll, fess up Weeno!


----------



## Focus_ua (Dec 13, 2004)

Snowdrifter + Dranoneyes + me 
2Bliss rocks! I've ridden all races in 2007 season on Fasttrak LK(535grams) with SLRs - that's amazing setup!
BTW Fasttrak SLK is about 480 grams, for 2bliss tyre...with normal knobs, you can use them in wet conditions. Sauser used them on very muddy courses...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> Why wouldn't it be faster, there's no rimstrip, less weight to roll, fess up Weeno!


oh boy-and you still don't get it


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> oh boy-and you still don't get it


What's to get, Test claims tubeless kits are fastest. The kits have a rimstrip in the 20g-30g range, with a ZTR rim, there's no strip, tape and valve only, so they would have to be faster. Fess up.

Wait, I do get it, you and your buddy sell tubeless kits, so let's post some test that doesn't cover all the current tubeless options on the market, hype up the tubeless kits, which is a dieing technology.:yawn:


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

The results don't seem too surprising to me.

UST tires have a tougher carcass which would equal more rolling resistance and non ust tires have a liquid inner tube so less rolling resistance. 

However,

Quite often ust tires are less fussy to set up than using non-ust and latex.

My non-ust tires for my terrain tend to get slash cuts in them that the sealant cannot stop while the tougher UST tires would never have gotten cut. 

I'm going to to try 2.4 nobby nic up front non-ust and 2.25 NN ust at the rear.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*still..*



snowdrifter said:


> What's to get, Test claims tubeless kits are fastest. The kits have a rimstrip in the 20g-30g range, with a ZTR rim, there's no strip, tape and valve only, so they would have to be faster. Fess up.
> 
> Wait, I do get it, you and your buddy sell tubeless kits, so let's post some test that doesn't cover all the current tubeless options on the market, hype up the tubeless kits, which is a dieing technology.:yawn:


no hope-you still don't get the point

it must be hard to live with such a small brain


----------



## Ronnie (Jan 17, 2004)

The report as you have presented it has some open questions. I would like to see the original article as I can read German. There is no mention of tire pressures and I'm assuming that tests were done at the same pressure for all types. Also, were they tested at different pressures.

The big advantage of a UST tire is not it's rolling resistance but it's handling advantages at lower pressure without the risk of a pinch flat or the risk of rolling the tire off the rim. Rolling resistance may have a significant advantage if you are riding on a manicured race courses but if you are a real world trail rider, on more aggressive trails, you may need those lower pressures for better handling performance.

Also I do not believe that the lowest resistance is due to the tubeless kit but rather the type of tire carcass. This article should at least taken into account the emerging Tubeless ready technology which is essentially a regular tire with UST bead on a UST rim and may be the best of both worlds.

Ronnie.


----------



## Ronnie (Jan 17, 2004)

Slobberdoggy said:


> The results don't seem too surprising to me.
> 
> UST tires have a tougher carcass which would equal more rolling resistance and non ust tires have a liquid inner tube so less rolling resistance.


I don't necessarily agree with you. According to Schwalbe a narrower tire will have more rolling resistance than a wider tire at a given pressure, all else being equal. This is due to the fact that the narrower tire will distort more and energy is being used to cause that distortion. You can read the article here. By the same token a tougher carcass is going to distort less at the same pressure.

Ronnie.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> > This article should at least taken into account the emerging Tubeless ready technology which is essentially a regular tire with UST bead on a UST rim and may be the best of both worlds.
> > Ronnie.


To get the Sacred Graal of tire technology we still need to add some lightweight protection to the Tubeless ready concept (i.e Race Guard, the lightweight Vectran protection layer from Schwalbe).

UST bead + Vectran/kevlar cut protection + Lightweight casing = Perfection


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

Ronnie said:


> Rolling resistance may have a significant advantage if you are riding on a manicured race courses but if you are a real world trail rider, on more aggressive trails, you may need those lower pressures for better handling performance.
> 
> Ronnie.


I guess when I first rode tube less with regular tires, it felt faster, grippier and smoother than tubed tires. On a manicured coarse rock hard tires would have the least rolling resistance.

So my thoughts were that when your tire hits a rock with a low rolling resistance setup, it deforms around the rock and maintains higher grip and less resistance. A ust tire might do something similar but with the stiffer carcass (greater mass to deflect) it would have greater rolling resistance across that rock and perhaps less grip and as smooth of a ride. Maybe that completely wrong but fits my scheme of experience. I use both non ust and ust tires but with mavic 717's and eclipse strips. (weight of the strips would have very little effect on rolling resistance cf. tire setup)

A tire with ust bead and a light puncture resistant carcass sounds good.

On hindsight. I would love to be able to use lower pressures and not have the tire fold over on me in corners so maybe a stiff side wall would be beneficial. So the bottom of the tire can absorb bumps and grip but the side won't twist over.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I use UST and TR tires only. I do this for several reasons including avoiding thorn flats and running low pressure without pinchflats. The weight is more but I'd rather do this than have a regular/converted tire roll off my rim.

It's really a matter of risk tolerance. I have seen several converted tires roll off and heard of them too, with some crashes resulting in bad injuries. As they start making more tubeless-ready (TR) tires, I'll use them more instead of just UST. UST/TR beads are thicker/softer and create a much more secure seal and interlock. Using a strip to shore up the rim and throwing on regular bead tires is something I quit doing in 2005 and will not revisit.

I wish the UST tires were lighter but unless someone is paying me good money to race, I'll save my bones and teeth and put up with the weight.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*Tubes are pretty good ...*

What is quite interesting to me is the performance of regular tubes. In this limited test they are the same of UST and in one instance (Maxis high rollers) better then tubelesskit ... :skep:
Very interesting how the ratings about rolling resistence flip around depending on the tire. 
It should be very disconcerting for the people who assumed that tubeless was always better.

Not what I was expecting but good news for use tubed-people.


----------



## seabass_II (Apr 5, 2007)

> To get the Sacred Graal of tire technology we still need to add some lightweight protection to the Tubeless ready concept (i.e Race Guard, the lightweight Vectran protection layer from Schwalbe).
> 
> UST bead + Vectran/kevlar cut protection + Lightweight casing = Perfection


Whilst they don't possess true UST beads; the continental protection series have served me excellently as converted tubeless tires.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wrong...*



Davide said:


> In this limited test they are the same of UST and in one instance (Maxis high rollers) better then tubelesskit ... :skep:


better than UST not tubelesskit !


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*Tubes!*



nino said:


> better than UST not tubelesskit !


Ops, I misread the Maxis label. Still much closer then I thought especially with the "all mountain tires. Thetubes come in on top (beat everybody else actually, by far the UST and in one instance they are better then TK by a little) in respect to puncture and snakebite ...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wrong...*



Davide said:


> Thetubes come in on top (beat everybody else actually, by far the UST and in one instance they are better then TK by a little) in respect to puncture and snakebite ...


you misread again. take a closer look!


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Guys, stop bashing each other, or Nino, for a second. Nino showed an interesting article that tests something we've always pondered. I run the Stans yellow tape with regular tires and love em. I can't feel the rolling resistance advantage, but it is nice to that there is likely foundation for an advantage over just using the UST tires.
So this article states pretty clearly what slobberdoggy summarized for us; UST's thicker carcass is likely leading to higher rolling resistance.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Good article and I guess I'm not seeing the point of contention. I always knew UST tires were heavier. I have converted regular tires and the weight difference can be pretty decent (100-200 grams per tire). However, tubeless-ready tires are reducing or eliminating the weigh difference. For example the TR Specialized Eskars are 715 grams for a 2.3. Teh Geax Barro TNT (basically tubeless-ready) start at 600 grams and I think go to 700 for a 2.3- at least 100 grams lighter than a Barro UST tire.

However, converting a regular tire for me is just a bit too risky. The UST bead is what prevents the tire from rolling off or blowing off the rim during some hard loading- fast cornering, fast downhills, etc. So Tubeless-Ready tires are eliminating the weight gap between UST and Tubed tires. Will I use them- probably but I still prefer the UST sidewalls for the rocky trails. I also find them to be more compliant and take hits better, with less deflection. A TR or UST tire also doesn't burp near as much due to a better lock with the rim bead.

If you care so much about the weight and rolling resistance, stick with TR tires (safer) or convert regular tires but just be aware of the risks in case of the latter. 

Maybe I don't see the details because saving a few grams on a tire isn't on my priority list. Having a reliable system that doesn't roll off, blow off, or burp air is.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I'd like to know which tubelesskit they tested, Stan's or Eclipse. I somehow doubt nino would be telling us about this test if it was the stan's one.

As to the rolling resistance of regular tires with tubes... is that dry tubes or after they've been coated with talc (which has long been known to reduce the rolling resistence of the combination) ?


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

Ronnie said:


> I don't necessarily agree with you. According to Schwalbe a narrower tire will have more rolling resistance than a wider tire at a given pressure, all else being equal. This is due to the fact that the narrower tire will distort more and energy is being used to cause that distortion. You can read the article here. By the same token a tougher carcass is going to distort less at the same pressure.
> 
> Ronnie.


The problem with that assumption is that whilst the tougher carcass might distort a little less (I'd suggest the difference is fairly marginal) it will use a lot more energy in doing so. So I don't agree with you!


----------



## sneakyracer (Apr 11, 2007)

nino said:


> but the difference is minimal. i found it to be about 0,2 bar / 3 psi
> 
> all those UST tires (also the new generation of tubeless-ready tire) make only sense if you ride in real rocky terrain where tires can get cuts easily. other than that there is no need for all those heavy tires.


Not really, in fact, cuts will flat any tire, tube, ust, TLR, or regular with tubeless kit. The advantage of using tubeless with sealant is with small punctures (thorns etc). With tubeless even if the thorn remains in the tire it will seal and you can keep going. With a tube, you are walking.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

nino said:


> you misread again. take a closer look!


Might be my non existent German but you said 100% is worse I and see

Tube 100 92 96 92 93 92
Tubelesskit 100 100 96 92 93 92

that for me seems to indicate identical performance.

The difference in rolling resistence is a bit more consistent but it still goes from 17% to 12% with allmountain tires it is at 25% only with Racing Ralphs. That to me indicates that for AM a normal tires+tube is a very (very) good choice.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*i should have given more details...*



Davide said:


> Might be my non existent German but you said 100% is worse I and see
> 
> Tube 100 92 96 92 93 92
> Tubelesskit 100 100 96 92 93 92
> ...


ok - i thought it was pretty obvious to see what they found out but it seems too many have problems reading ot understanding the resuts:

1st:
i NEVER wrote about a specific product used (Eclipse,DT,Notubes,Scott,FRM....). ME and the testers were talking about Tubelesskits in general and i even wrote "tires used with sealant" to explain. this is NOT about a specific "tubeless"-product but rather about the advantages this systemS have (you see that S??). i hope some guys now understand what it is about...

they tested:
-weight

-puncture protection against penetrating objects with a specific needele attached to a computere where they see at which pressure the needle would penetrate the tire. obvisously tubelesskits are no different that regular tubed tires...it's the same tire thus the same reistances. BUT the sealant inside will re-seal such a puncture so this reading is in my eyes NOT correct. it is correct for a static measurement with no rotating tires but as soon as a tire with sealant inside is rotated such a puncture would get selaed.

-resistance to snakebites. they also measured the force needed to make a given bar cut a tire when this bar is falling onto the tire/rim combination. this is what happens when you have a g-out or go hard over logs/rocks. eventually a tires carcass will get cut through. sure a UST tire has better readings here as it has thicker,meatier carcass. but i have only once got a cut in my sidewalls from a g-out in 17 years of biking. so to me this reading is not relevant. might be the case for heavier riders or those riding at higher speeds( all-mountian,DH). usually you get cuts in sidewalls form sharp rocks so i see this test related more to such things happening. that's why i always say UST-tires are ok if used in real rocky terrain where you might get cuts in the sidewalls.

-rollingresistance. i hope i don't need to explain here. they choose tires that were available in the same size as regular tire and as UST tire so the size and tread were identical. the different systems were tested against each other at the same tire pressure. tires were mounted on the same rims to avoid any differences as well. so these numbers can actually be compared 1:1

i also translated the final verdict of this longer article stating clearly that TUBELESS in general has all the advantages a majority of bikers are looking for. but only a minority is actually using tubeless to fight the flat-problems.

and they clearly say that regular tires used with sealant are the way to go for those looking for low weight and speed but that the tricky 1st installation makes it something for racers and enthusiasts only.

so - i hope this time all those anti-nino-guys understand the intention of this test. once again, it is not about a specific product but rather about different systems.

@D8:
no - talcum won't give you 2 digit improvements in rollingresistance and it still wouldn't change the outcome of the test if the tubes would be a small percentage better. the results speak for themselves.

now sit back and read my initial post again and enjoy the test-results.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

A 2 digit percentage improvement isn't needed given how simple and cheap it is for people to implement. But why do I bother bringing it up, cheap fuss free solutions to rolling resistence with tubes can't be sold by you so... its useless info.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*on man...*



DeeEight said:


> A 2 digit percentage improvement isn't needed given how simple and cheap it is for people to implement. But why do I bother bringing it up, cheap fuss free solutions to rolling resistence with tubes can't be sold by you so... its useless info.


i am using talkum with inner tubes as well. but there is no actual numbers that show a decrease in rollingresistance when using talkum. and this test was just showing the difference in systems, not going into details in how to make a system even better. talkum might help a little in the rollingresistance but by how much is not known. but no better in all the rest...

if you want to show people valuable info you better show actual numbers. an example is the inner tube comparison test below.

got my point? thanks

by the way - inner tubes were tested again by germans. all in the same tire, same pressure etc....

and while we are at it:
more rollingresistance data and comaprison between regular tires with sealant (tubelesskit) , Tufo Clincher/Tubular and Tubular tire (Dugast)

again the regular tire used with selant beats the competition. i have to mention that they used a Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2,1 as regular tire with the DT kit so there's still some potential as well...but that's not of importance. important is to see that Tubulars don't do any better. and don't forget that the tested tubulars have still no selant inside so they will get a puncture more easily as the regular tire used with sealant. i use tubulars as well and love them (on my roadbike) but i always carry sealant with me just in case...


----------



## womble (Sep 8, 2006)

Nino- thanks for posting up the original article. It made sense to me (even though I don't read German). It's a bit baffling that people have gone nuts over it 

I just wish the English language mags would be half as rigorous...


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

sneakyracer said:


> Not really, in fact, cuts will flat any tire, tube, ust, TLR, or regular with tubeless kit. The advantage of using tubeless with sealant is with small punctures (thorns etc). With tubeless even if the thorn remains in the tire it will seal and you can keep going. With a tube, you are walking.


 Not really. Standard tires really do suffer from sidewall cuts allot more than UST tires. And thats a fact. Now it will depend on the situation, but a regular tire will cut WAY faster.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wrong!*



Batas said:


> Not really. Standard tires really do suffer from sidewall cuts allot more than UST tires. And thats a fact. Now it will depend on the situation, but a regular tire will cut WAY faster.


as mentioned a million times before:
if you ride in real rocky terrain a UST tire might make sense. but there's also regular tires with added protection to sidewalls so please don't think all regular tires have to be 300g Maxxlites with paperlike sidewalls.

and to be safe with UST-tires you have to use sealant as well which dramatically adds weight to the already hefty weight of the UST tire.


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

nino said:


> and to be safe with UST-tires you have to use sealant as well which dramatically adds weight to the already hefty weight of the UST tire.


I'd rather have an extra few hundred grams than be flatting all the time. UST tyres can be a valid choice.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*good point...*



Some Guy said:


> I'd rather have an extra few hundred grams than be flatting all the time. UST tyres can be a valid choice.


although i do it the other way round:
i prefer a couple hundred grams less with added protection. works for me since 7 years.

after all - this is the save some weight forum


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

nino said:


> although i do it the other way round:
> i prefer a couple hundred grams less with added protection. works for me since 7 years


No, you prefer a couple of hundred grams less with _less_ protection. Unless you are saying that UST tyres have less protection than sidewall reinforced (eg Schwalbe Snakeskin) tyres.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Some Guy said:


> No, you prefer a couple of hundred grams less with _less_ protection. Unless you are saying that UST tyres have less protection than sidewall reinforced (eg Schwalbe Snakeskin) tyres.


ust is not better protected against penetrating objects. if you get a spine you get a flat as well.

sidewallcuts is a different story but i don't get cuts where i ride.

anyone has different needs....UST with sealant is best to avoid flats but then you have to live with added weight and added rollingresistance as well.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

nino said:


> ...but there's also regular tires with added protection to sidewalls so please don't think all regular tires have to be 300g Maxxlites with paperlike sidewalls.
> 
> and to be safe with UST-tires you have to use sealant as well which dramatically adds weight to the already hefty weight of the UST tire.


 For me a regular tire does not have EXTRA PROTECTION. That is a regular tire WITH extra protection.

For me a regular tire is something like a Schwalbe Nobby Nic, standard +- 480gr in 2.1 tire without skin wall protection. That tire does not like my rear wheel. I get sidewall cuts all the time, most of them on uphills. I'm still running one at the front with no problem so far though... The rear one gets more abuse...

By the way, does a snake skin (or whatever they name it) protection tire weight less than a "normal" tire? I don't think so...

To resume my point of view, I welcome the tubeless ready tires... But still have to ride them alot more.

I will also use sealant on any kind of tire, tubeless or not.

By the way, I do like when people prove me wrong, that way I keep upgrading for better, but I cannot use a "regular" tire on my rear.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

nino said:


> ok - i thought it was pretty obvious to see what they found out but it seems too many have problems reading ot understanding the resuts
> 
> so - i hope this time all those anti-nino-guys understand the intention of this test. once again, it is not about a specific product but rather about different systems.


Neither stupid nor anti-Nino (?) I just read the results and I see identical puncture protection (minus the self-sealing), identical side-wall, and what seems to indicate a relatively small improvement (12%) in rolling resistance when using an AM oriented tire (I use 2.4 Schwalbe Snake-bite sidewall Nobby-Nic).

So I was just glad because for my needs there is no reason to go tubeless again 

Question: what about adding sealant to a standard tube set up? Would that add some self-sealing?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Davide said:


> Neither stupid nor anti-Nino (?) I just read the results and I see identical puncture protection (minus the self-sealing), identical side-wall, and what seems to indicate a relatively small improvement (12%) in rolling resistance when using an AM oriented tire (I use 2.4 Schwalbe Snake-bite sidewall Nobby-Nic).
> 
> So I was just glad because for my needs there is no reason to go tubeless again
> 
> Question: what about adding sealant to a standard tube set up? Would that add some self-sealing?


think again:
as mentioned above it's pretty obvious that those 2 systems get the same readings in puncture tests since it is the same tire...BUT the sealant will seal penetrating objects and also minor cuts so there is a HUGE difference in punture protection which isn't reflected by these numbers.

and 12% improvement is a valuable improvement especially when you are talking about wider, more all-mountin-type tires. such tires usually have around 30-35 watts rollingresistance. so a saving of 3.5-4 watt per tire results in ca.* 8 watts* total for 2 wheels. these 8 watts are there for free! all the time!!! so also going downhills you go faster...i don't know how fast you are but to have an additional 8 watts ALL THE TIME is not negligible for me. that's a nice help and best of all it is fro free and comes with the bonus of added punture protection and less weight on top...


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Weeno,

Why are they testing the tubeless kit with a standard tire? 

This not recommened by the kit maker.

From: tubelesskit.com

"What kind of tires can be used ?Foldable tires, UST , UST-Light ? 

8) - Racers often use standard folding tires and our tubelesskit in order to save every gram of weight. This application demonstrates how well our sealing liquid functions ! Since standard folding tires from the producers are not airtight and since tolerances are too large, however we have to decline any liability for this combination ! "


----------



## Flying Wombat (May 14, 2004)

Thanks for an interesting article Nino. It seems to confirm what has been noted with road tires that a tire with lighter, more flexible and supple sidewalls will roll faster than a one with thicker sidewalls, which is why in Tour magazine tests the Tufo tubulars do so horribly.
As I read it there is no "free lunch" in this one, standard converted, tubes and UST with sealant each have their advantages and drawbacks.
I think it can be summarized like this, for the main advantages and disadvantages of each, please correct me if I missed anything.

UST-Pros: easier inflation and tire changes, resistant to snakebites
UST-Cons: more rolling resistance at same pressure, heavier

Tubes-Pros: most straightforward set up, less rolling resistance at same pressure as UST
Tubes-Cons: more likely to pinch flat at lower pressures, puncture resistance

Standard Conversion-Pros: lightest setup, least rolling resistance, thorn puncture resistance
Standard Conversion-Cons: most involved setup, harder to change tires on site, more likely to snakebite or puncture than UST

What it means is you should pick your tires based on your terrain and riding. I ride endurance races in Arizona with fast riding through rocky terrain and our rocks here are sharp. We also have lots and lots of thorns, changing thorn flats and putting in thorn resistant tubes is one of the most common things we do at the bike shop. I usually run a standard Maxxis converted on the front, but a UST rear. I really like the low rolling resistance of the standard, but find I get far too many sidewall cuts and snakebites that dont get fixed by sealant. Your best choice might be completely different depending on where and how you ride.

Kevin


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> Weeno,
> 
> Why are they testing the tubeless kit with a standard tire?
> 
> ...


you are still the only one here dumb enough not to understand what it's all about...go home.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*correct...*



Flying Wombat said:


> UST-Pros: easier inflation and tire changes, resistant to snakebites
> UST-Cons: more rolling resistance at same pressure, heavier
> 
> Tubes-Pros: most straightforward set up, less rolling resistance at same pressure as UST
> ...


correct - but let me ad a word or two:

UST-Pros: easier inflation and tire changes, resistant to snakebites
UST-Cons: more rolling resistance at same pressure, heavier, still punctures from penetrating objects (thorns etc)

Tubes-Pros: most straightforward set up, less rolling resistance at same pressure as UST
Tubes-Cons: more likely to pinch flat at lower pressures, puncture resistance in general

Standard Conversion-Pros: lightest setup, least rolling resistance, thorn puncture resistance, no snakebites
Standard Conversion-Cons: most involved setup, harder to change tires on site, when compared to UST more likely to get cuts when used with lightweight tires


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> you are still the only one here dumb enough not to understand what it's all about...go home.


Weeno,

I am at home, thanks..

I think we all understand, rolling resitance is going to be less on a lighter setup with a racing slick. What happens when the racing slick blows off the rim, because the sidewalls are inferior?

If this test was worth any weight.

They would have tested the following. All setups would include sealant, except tubes.

1. DT Rim with DT Kit, and Std Tire
2. Stans Rim with yellow tape, valve and Std Tire
3. UST rim with UST Tire
4. UST rim with TR or 2bliss Tire
5. UST rim with Std Tire
6. Tubbed wheel and Std Tire

The readings most likley would find #2 the fastest, it's the lightest.


----------



## dirtdrop (Dec 29, 2003)

nino said:


> you are still the only one here dumb enough not to understand what it's all about...go home.


come on nino, lets keep this discussion in an adult manner without name calling :thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wrong!*



snowdrifter said:


> Weeno,
> 
> I am at home, thanks..
> 
> ...


boaahh -it's hard to see someone still not getting the point after endless explanations. you still have no clue. i won't repeat.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



uno-speedo said:


> come on nino, lets keep this discussion in an adult manner without name calling :thumbsup:


i am trying to keep the level up but some individuals behave like little children. since i'm a daddy i can handle that


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

What happens is, if you have the same setup (tires and wheels) at the same weight, the tubeless system is going to have less rolling resistance because, for example, the inner tube doesn't need energy to "bend" or "deform" as you move... Thats one factor...

Another one is maybe because the tire gets more responsive to irregular terrain, absorving more...

There are alot more factors than weight...


----------



## Dragoneyes (Aug 12, 2007)

I just pulled this up from Specialized. IT explains about their new 2-bliss systems:


2BLISS MTB TIRES

There's a reason why our MTB pro team rides 2Bliss tires-they want a tire that can handle the low pressure they run (sometimes 25 psi) for durability and better traction, but they also want light weight. Specialized 2Bliss blends the best of both worlds. It's not your standard tubetype (TT), which is lightweight, but can fall short on puncture resistance and "burps" when used with sealant. And it's not your standard tubeless (UST) that reduces pinch flats and the need for sealant, but often adds 200+ grams. 2Bliss is a whole new design that uses TT casing with a special UST bead, replacing the standard UST heavy backing with strategically placed rubber only around the bead. The result is a perfect tire for the discerning MTB rider: low pressure allowance, no burping and fewer grams than its forefathers.

Most of our MTB tires come in the revolutionary 2Bliss configuration, except for Sport models (DH and 29-inch tires excluded); TT and UST are no more. If you want to run our 2Bliss with a tube, be our guest. Without a tube, just grab a batch of our AirLock® Pro sealant, and you're well on your way to a longer, better mountain ride, again and again.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> boaahh -it's hard to see someone still not getting the point after endless explanations. you still have no clue. i won't repeat.


Weeno, this is a forum, for discussion.

You posted a thread, claiming tubeless kits are the fastest. Well, I don't think so, they were for the test, but the test was very limited. It did not include the popular options for running a mtb wheel.

In your opinion what wheel would be fastest ?

Stans 347, XTR Hubs, Supercomp Spokes, 32h 3x, Alloy Nipples, yellow tape, valve, Karma Tire, 50oz sealant

DT 4.2d, XTR Hubs, Supercomp Spokes, 32h 3x, Alloy Nipples, DT Tubeless kit, Karma Tire, 50oz sealant

I think the Stans wheel would be slightly faster, it's about 100+ grams lighter of a setup. Am I wrong?

I do understand the use for a tubeless kit, go tubeless without needing special rims or tires, but they're not the fastest, and not even recommened for use with a standard tire. Both Eclipse and Stans recommend using a UST type tire with their kits on standard rim

Can't you answer questions?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no...*



snowdrifter said:


> Can't you answer questions?


no. you can't read anyway.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

He can't answer questions without calling you dumb or saying they're stupid questions or useless info, etc. I liked how the article's test of the resistence of different tubes had the latex one as the lowest and latex tubes are always shipped with a generous coating of talc on them. Not to mention it presented a resistance only about 5% worse than the "tubelesskit" one.


----------



## Mike B. (Feb 21, 2004)

That Spec. quote is laughable. Their team riders use standard tires, not 2bliss. I don't care what the hot patch says on the side of the tire.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*hmmm....*



DeeEight said:


> Not to mention it presented a resistance only about 5% worse than the "tubelesskit" one.


hmmm - where please did you get these numbers from?

the inner tube and other tests i showed haven't been taken on the same tire / test so don't try to compare these inner tube numbers with the numbers of the tubelesskit found elsewhere.


----------



## Dragoneyes (Aug 12, 2007)

Mike B. said:


> That Spec. quote is laughable. Their team riders use standard tires, not 2bliss. I don't care what the hot patch says on the side of the tire.


Why would you say that do you have proof that they are lying?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



Dragoneyes said:


> Why would you say that do you have proof that they are lying?


are you one of those reading advertizements and believing every word?
then you missed the point. it's as easy as that.

oh - i rememeber a whole article on specialized team members cutting their own thread out of standard tires. this article was shown in MBA about 1-2 years ago if i'm not totally mistaken. why would riders want to "improve" their superfastwondertires if they are so good??

think again


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

nino said:


> hmmm - where please did you get these numbers from?
> 
> the inner tube and other tests i showed haven't been taken on the same tire so don't try to compare these inner tube numbers with the numbers of the tubelesskit found elsewhere.


Again as usual, you're forgetting what you've already written on threads about a subject...



nino said:


> if you want to show people valuable info you better show actual numbers. an example is the inner tube comparison test below.
> 
> got my point? thanks
> 
> by the way - inner tubes were tested again by germans. all in the same tire, same pressure etc....





















From right there... image of the article you posted as proof they compared different inner tubes also in the same test series. So what is it then? The magazine really ran a test that cannot be compared in any way to the other things they tested?! So why bother posting these results at all (any of them) if there's no way to compare tubeless setups (whichever way they're achieved) to tubed setups then?

Its also not a 5% difference my bad, its less than a 2.5% difference according to the magazine test if they're to believed and you're not (gee go figure us not believe your interpretations and translations of stuff). Also those double digit percentage changes in rolling resistence you reported.... what model tube exactly did they run in the tires to achieve that data ? Because the weight difference between the different tire models tubed and tubelesskit was only about 50g. So that seems to me to be a sign of a fairly light tube being used. But even something like the conti supersonic tubes have more rolling resistence than another from the above test that weighs more like the michelin c4 latex tubes.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

nino said:


> are you one of those reading advertizements and believing every word?
> then you missed the point. it's as easy as that.
> 
> oh - i rememeber a whole article on specialized team members cutting their own thread out of standard tires. this article was shown in MBA about 1-2 years ago if i'm not totally mistaken. why would riders want to "improve" their superfastwondertires if they are so good??
> ...


Same reason Michelin tire engineers have been doing it for years. Tuning the tread patterns to suit certain course conditions. They'll often chop out tread blocks if the tires they brought to a race weekend pack up with dirt/mud because its been raining heavily. Its amazing how you can remember the article to gloat about it, but not what was said in the article to explain WHY they were doing it.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wrong!*



DeeEight said:


> Again as usual, you're forgetting what you've already written on threads about a subject...
> 
> From right there... image of the article you posted as proof they compared different inner tubes *also in the same test series*. So what is it then? The magazine really ran a test that cannot be compared in any way to the other things they tested?! So why bother posting these results at all (any of them) if there's no way to compare tubeless setups (whichever way they're achieved) to tubed setups then?
> 
> Its also not a 5% difference my bad, its less than a 2.5% difference according to the magazine test if they're to believed and you're not (gee go figure us not believe your interpretations and translations of stuff). Also those double digit percentage changes in rolling resistence you reported.... what model tube exactly did they run in the tires to achieve that data ? Because the weight difference between the different tire models tubed and tubelesskit was only about 50g. So that seems to me to be a sign of a fairly light tube being used. But even something like the conti supersonic tubes have more rolling resistence than another from the above test that weighs more like the michelin c4 latex tubes.


wrong!!

i never said it was in the same test! on the contrary if you could read i said just above that these tests haven't been taken together but have been printed in different magazines over the last year. that's why i said DON'T compare numbers with each other. please get things right before posting numbers out of the blue!

again - i don't want to get into details as my initial post shows a test with clear results. if you run a latex inner tube or some babypowder...it won't make for a dramatical change. the results are of INTEREST and anyone can take some info. if you are happy with inner tubes so be it! if Some Guy likes Notubes best so be it....it doesn't matter to me at all. i just wanted to show everyone the numbers and facts on different tire-systems we use in our bikes and now we finally have some numbers black on white.

anyway - if the tubed tire gets better with latex inner tubes the UST tires will look even worse rollingresistancewise

hey D8 - i just found what will put an end to this topic! just have a look below...same tire-same rim.-same pressure....Tubelesskit against Michelin Latex....+10% Rollingresistance

...and before you start using these numbers with others again: this was an even older test from a couple years back so please,please don't use those numbers to mix up with others!


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Anyone else getting tired of him using the "read what I said" excuse after its pointed out that what he said was something else. Perhaps he should PROOFREAD first what he's posting. Maybe get someone else to proofread it better still.


----------



## womble (Sep 8, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> Anyone else getting tired of him using the "read what I said" excuse after its pointed out that what he said was something else. Perhaps he should PROOFREAD first what he's posting. Maybe get someone else to proofread it better still.


I'm getting tired of this ugly little personal vendetta, which only serves to bring down the whole tone of this forum. Nino appears to have posted up most if not all of the relevant article. How about *you settle it by translating the article from German*, and the rest of us can make up our minds based on the evidence without the pedantry and snide insinuations?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*it seems...*



DeeEight said:


> Anyone else getting tired of him using the "read what I said" excuse after its pointed out that what he said was something else. Perhaps he should PROOFREAD first what he's posting. Maybe get someone else to proofread it better still.


D8 - it seems you are the only one having difficulty to understand what it is all about. so as WOMBLE above says it must have do with your little vendetta against me...no problem. as you know i can handle that pretty well...

it is not my fault if you misunderstand or misinterprete the posted info. i thought i had explained good enough what the different scans show but you still seem to get that wrong.

but i have found an older test with the latex-tube vs. tubelesskit data which clearly shows numbers black on white. i think there is no more explanation needed: tubes are definitely slower rolling than the same tire used with sealant.


----------



## deaner (Apr 1, 2004)

How long is talcum powder on a tube really effective for though? I often talc my tubes but I mean really, when you're splashing through mud and water on a mountain bike the talc probably lasts all of a few minutes... I've never seen a trace of it when changing out a flat tube...


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

You're not applying enough or have some strange azz wheels letting in so much dirt and water.

When running tubes, apply a couple teaspoons, rotate the tire a few times, spread it all over, and there's definitely talc in the tire when changing out months later.. Not as much, but it's there in the casing, and on the tube.


----------



## dennis rides Scott (Mar 3, 2005)

STOP wining about Nino! I come here to read about technical stuff and sadly there are people who contaminate every interesting tread. If you don't like the guy, please stay away from his treads.

About the tubular tyres. I must say that I am realy impressed with the Tufo wheelset with real tubular tyre. I see that in the test with tubulars, they used the tubular clincher. I always ride Racing Ralph with Eclipse. But I was lucky to test the Tufo's for some time, and I must say they where FAST. I probably will built a tubular set with some Dugast tubulars with the Flyweight tread on them for races. If this seems slower then the Tufo's I will buy the Tufo tubulars. But offcourse only for races.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

dennis rides Scott said:


> STOP wining about Nino! .


When Nino stops constantly spamming this forum, I'm sure the few of us that put him in check, will gladly leave the putz alone.

Do you really think this comparison test is worth a damn?

Would you not consider Stans ZTR rims a system? Wouldn't that system be faster than a tubeless kit, being 60 grams lighter?

Would you not consider a UST rim with a standard tire or tubeless ready tire a system? Wouldn't the combination be equally fast, no heavy UST tire, no tubeless kit, just some sealant and patience to setup the tire.

This test is donkey crappp !!!

Go check DTs website, tubeless kit for UST Tires ONLY!! Yeah we all know you can run standard tires and tubeless kits with success, but they're obviously the least reliable when it comes to burping or blowing off a rim. Why are they testing a system, that is warned against?

Who sells Ecplise Tubeless kits? Hmmmm, Nino and his best buddy.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*ooooohhh maaaaan!*



snowdrifter said:


> When Nino stops constantly spamming this forum, I'm sure the few of us that put him in check, will gladly leave the putz alone.
> 
> Do you really think this comparison test is worth a damn?
> 
> ...


listen - i said above it makes no sense explaining it any further and it seems you too are still not understanding what the test was all about. but i will explain once again:

this test shows different systems. NO specific product is mentioned. or can you read anywhere about Eclipse or DT or whoever? NO !!!!! i cleary stated "regular tires sealed with sealant" which i'll explain for you is also what Stans Notubes is all about.

NO - Stans isn't any faster!!! this is about rollingresistance and puncture resistance of different systems and Notubes is just the same as a "regular tire sealed with sealant". that's what they tested. a regular tire with sealant. lighter weight of the rims or rimstrips isn't going to show any advantage in rollingresistance. rollingresistance is decided in the tire/tube/airpressure alone.

they didn't test Stans rims as the test was about comparing the different systems ON THE SAME RIM !! they used UST rims to do this test ! UST rims accept regular tires with inner tubes, UST tires and regular tires with sealant.

in the past 7 years i might have sold about 10 kits only to mtbr members over the pond...i don't want to make any sales here! it's about the positive aspects of regular tires sealed with sealant that still several people try to negate ! finally we have some numbers and Stan will take profit of these numbers as well as he did with earlier tests where it was clearly shown that regular tires sealed with sealant have lower rollingresistance. i can't remember to have seen any data of an american magazine of similar kind....maybe i missed it but so far it was always the germans doing such tests and it was me scanning them and showing them to a wider public in the net.

nowhere in this thread was i pushing Eclipse or DT or any similar product....it's about pushing "tubelesskits" in general. that's what the magazine and a majority of bikers calls those conversion kits if you still didn't know.

i hope by now you guys understand what it's all about. it seems the little vendetta you guys have hinders you from accepting just some simple facts.

have a nice day


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

dennis rides Scott said:


> STOP wining about Nino! I come here to read about technical stuff and sadly there are people who contaminate every interesting tread. If you don't like the guy, please stay away from his treads.
> 
> About the tubular tyres. I must say that I am realy impressed with the Tufo wheelset with real tubular tyre. I see that in the test with tubulars, they used the tubular clincher. I always ride Racing Ralph with Eclipse. But I was lucky to test the Tufo's for some time, and I must say they where FAST. I probably will built a tubular set with some Dugast tubulars with the Flyweight tread on them for races. If this seems slower then the Tufo's I will buy the Tufo tubulars. But offcourse only for races.


here's some more rollingresistance numbers of yet another comparison test of a different magazine:

they also tested the Tufo tubular...the results for the real tubulars are once again BAD! both Dugast and Tufo have much higher rollingresistance than the tubelesskits they got tested against. even the Tufo clincher/tubular was faster.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Hey guys, cut the personal attacks, or the thread will go bye bye.

I don't feel, in this case, Nino is pushing the product he is selling, at least not overtly. He's just sharing info.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> lighter weight of the rims or rimstrips isn't going to show any advantage in rollingresistance. rollingresistance is decided in the tire/tube/airpressure alone.


So lighter rims, spokes, nipples, rimstrips or lack of them, have nothing to do with how fast a wheel rolls? It's strictly tire and pressure?
Tubeless kits are not faster, you can use a standard tire on a UST rim, who needs a tubeless kit unless converting some 4.2 or 717 rims, otherwise no need, so who really cares..

I do thank you for your detailed response.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*thanks*



rensho said:


> Hey guys, cut the personal attacks, or the thread will go bye bye.
> 
> I don't feel, in this case, Nino is pushing the product he is selling, at least not overtly. He's just sharing info.


thanks


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> When Nino stops constantly spamming this forum, I'm sure the few of us that put him in check, will gladly leave the putz alone.


You'd think after the mods warned him a week or two ago about spamming for stuff he has a vested interested that he might have learned, but instead he keeps doing it, while trying to pass it off as a more general review. Funny how none of the other tire/tubeless kit companies need to come in here to report reviews and tests involving their products.



> Who sells Ecplise Tubeless kits? Hmmmm, Nino and his best buddy.


Yep, and the forum rules state that reviews/tests by people with a vested interest in the product have to be clearly identified as such, whether they sponsor the forums/website with advertising dollars or not. Apparently though nino still feels he should be exempted from this, and apparently he's got some brown nosers who feel the same.


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> So lighter rims, spokes, nipples, rimstrips or lack of them, have nothing to do with how fast a wheel rolls?


It's true there may be some language usage issues going on in Nino's posts, but I think he has gone above and beyond in his efforts to explain the data (which is largely self-explanatory even to someone like me who doesn't read or speak German). The original data is concerned with rolling resistance (think of it as how easily the tire deforms as it interacts with the ground) and not with "how fast a wheel rolls". Of course wheel weight and aerodynamics contribute to how fast a wheel rolls -- the reported tests isolate one variable (a significant, often neglected one at that!) related to determining how fast a wheel is overall. And I believe Nino is right -- North American cycling periodicals don't do tests like this and I want to thank him for getting the German tests up in a place where I can see them.

And I personally have no gripe against the "shilling" by Nino or other informed posters -- I'm adult enough to watch out for myself and make my own judgements regarding the validity of an opinion or data presented.

It must be unpleasant going through life bearing so much ill will and anger...


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

PeT said:


> It must be unpleasant going through life bearing so much ill will and anger...


No ill will or anger here, Nino is Nino, I enjoy the banter with him. I wish no harm or bad will on Nino. It would be nice if he was more of a class act, but nor am I 

I have witnessed numerous spam threads by Nino, and while you may be cool with it, it's tiring to some of us. If he used his spam tactics in the 29er forum he would be on constant time out. If he is going to spam this forum, we have the right to nail his balls to the wall.

I'm done with this thread, peace to Weeno and his followers.


----------



## deaner (Apr 1, 2004)

Thank YOU!

I appreciate these types of posts Nino. If you're pushing product I like to think I can read through it (though I don't get that feeling from your post). 

D8: you're embarassing yourself.


----------



## Mattias_Hellöre (Oct 2, 2005)

I think it´s good for the forum when Nino or another one shows info in other languages or other magazines that I never or can understand the language.

Please let your others personal vendettas against Nino or others aside this time and for good, take it private, we are mature adults here.

It´s all about saving weight + possible performance upgrades here.


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> You're not applying enough or have some strange azz wheels letting in so much dirt and water.
> 
> When running tubes, apply a couple teaspoons, rotate the tire a few times, spread it all over, and there's definitely talc in the tire when changing out months later.. Not as much, but it's there in the casing, and on the tube.


Not sure what post that was replying to, as you seem to have lost the thread (pun intended) somewhere along the line in your ad-homs against nino. But in any case, are you still seriously trying to suggest that talc in a tyre makes a difference to rolling resistance? Do you actually understand what causes rolling resistance in a tyre / tube combo, and why it's obvious from the theory that a tubeless kit (or Stans rims since you insist on making the distinction) will have less?


----------



## dennis rides Scott (Mar 3, 2005)

nino said:


> here's some more rollingresistance numbers of yet another comparison test of a different magazine:


That is pretty obvious. The Tufo 'felt' fast anyway. This will not stop me from trying the tubulars anyway . This will be a real light and fast wheelset I think with about 1300gram disc wheelset and about 460gram for tubulars. Time will tell:thumbsup:


----------



## dropadrop (Sep 20, 2005)

snowdrifter said:


> So lighter rims, spokes, nipples, rimstrips or lack of them, have nothing to do with how fast a wheel rolls? It's strictly tire and pressure?
> Tubeless kits are not faster, you can use a standard tire on a UST rim, who needs a tubeless kit unless converting some 4.2 or 717 rims, otherwise no need, so who really cares..
> 
> I do thank you for your detailed response.


You are quoting the guy talking about rolling resistance, and then start talking about "how fast a wheel rolls". While rolling resistance will have a huge impact on this, it's only one small part of "how fast a wheel rolls".

That's like somebody saying a jacket holds wind well, and you talking about the shirt underneath having a big impact on the overall feeling of warmness for the rider. Sure both the shirt and the jacket will affect the overall feeling of warmness, but you will still be talking about different things.


----------



## Ronnie (Jan 17, 2004)

Personal animosities aside, I have been mulling over the original post for a few days and have come to the conclusion that the assertions of the article make sense. I would however liked to have seen relative rolling resistance figures at different pressure levels for all systems.

Any speculation about the effects of different wheels or rims has no significance to what is basically a scientific study which eliminates all variables.

The following text is extracted from the extensive Tech. section of Schwalbe's website and makes the issue clear to me:

"*What exactly is rolling resistance?*

Rolling resistance is the energy that is lost when the tire is rolling and the main reason for loss of energy is the constant deformation of the tire.

*Which factors affect rolling resistance?*

Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other factors all have an effect on rolling resistance.

The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus the rolling resistance.

Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more important, in other words the tire is less round. (This would be of interest to 29er enthusiasts - Ronnie.)

Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more.

Obviously, tire construction also has an effect on rolling resistance. The less material used, the less material there is to deform. The more flexible the material is, such as the rubber compound, the less energy is lost through deformation.

Generally, smooth treads roll better than coarse treads. Tall lugs and wide gaps usually have a detrimental effect on rolling resistance.

The rolling resistance of a tire should not be overestimated, as it is only a part of the total resistance. In addition, the correct inflation pressure has a much greater influence on rolling resistance than the tire structure."

Assuming Schwalbe know what they are talking about, it is obvious that a tubed tire with or without talcum powder will have a greater rolling resistance. There is more material to deflect.

If you are prepared to risk the questionable safety of a regular tire tubeless with a tubeless kit, that's okay with me. However, I believe you would get the same low rolling resistance with a Tubeless Ready tire on a UST rim and sealant. After all, it is the same light carcass. The only difference is the UST bead. Tubeless Ready is the way to go but untill they become more common I'm sticking with UST.

Ronnie.


----------



## ShortTravelMag (Dec 15, 2005)

Why does anyone care so much about crap like this? Are you guys all pro-level racers who need to eek the last few seconds out of a race or something? I think everyone needs to step back and take a breather. Even if some magazine said XYZ is better, I'm still going to stick with my old non-ust rims and tires and light tubes - because I know how they work, I have found my favorite products and am happy with what I have. Convenience weighs just as heavily to me. It's cool to see some testing done on this stuff, but it needs to be put in perspective. Just changing from one size/tread/brand of tire to another can make a noticeable difference - regardless of what "system" you have. That seems more important to get dialed in.


----------



## dennis rides Scott (Mar 3, 2005)

And I still use my Commodore computer, because I know how it works:thumbsup:


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*you miss the point...*



curtlo-dork said:


> Why does anyone care so much about crap like this? Are you guys all pro-level racers who need to eek the last few seconds out of a race or something? I think everyone needs to step back and take a breather. Even if some magazine said XYZ is better, I'm still going to stick with my old non-ust rims and tires and light tubes - because I know how they work, I have found my favorite products and am happy with what I have. Convenience weighs just as heavily to me. It's cool to see some testing done on this stuff, but it needs to be put in perspective. Just changing from one size/tread/brand of tire to another can make a noticeable difference - regardless of what "system" you have. That seems more important to get dialed in.


you miss the point!

you can stick to tubes because they are sufficient and bring you from a-z just like other systems do. that's ok.

but you seem neglect all the other benefits "tubelesskits" in general offer:
-more grip because of lower pressures
-more control because of added grip
-more comfort because of lower pressure
-more speed because of lower rollingresistance AND because of the added grip
-much superior puncture resistance than any tube
-lighter weight

so to me hearing you say "i don't care" is like someone saying "my old and trusty Huffy brings me from a-z as well. it's sufficient for me". you get the point? the sport has evolved and many innovations have made our sport "better" in many ways. sure, you can go biking on a full rigid bike with cantilever brakes as well and have a great time....but the bikes have evolved and allow you to go much faster without suffering as much as you would with your Huffy...so next time out with your friends, when you are doing a nasty uphill and have to suffer think how it would be doing the same climb with a little extra juice. instead of wasting your energy in deforming heat of your inner tubes you would climb easier at the same speed or go faster at the same power. it's your choice. same going downhills after the nice climb. how would it feel to rail those corners at higher speeds because yo actually would have more traction? you can charge harder, brake later...you have more control. oh - i forgot, you also can go down slower at a more moderate pace. to some this is also ok. others have the need for speed.....i admit - i'm one of those

but i'm no better than you:
i like Hardtails over FS
i still prefer v-brakes


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

commodore monitors rock !

The fact he's got a vested interest in the success of one of the other tubelesskit brands of course has nothing to do with why he's always posting stuff like this.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> you miss the point!
> 
> but you seem neglect all the other benefits "tubelesskits" in general offer:
> -more grip because of lower pressures
> ...


WRONG, you missed the point, the Tubeless Kit is not required in this test. It has nothing to do with with the rolling resitance. It's the Tire, lightweight standard casing versus heavyweight UST casing, and lack of tube, DUHHH!! Yes, tubeless kits are great if you want to go tubeless on a standard rim, but it has nothing to do with rolling resistance.

Didn't you get some SLR UST Wheels? Do you run Tubeless Kits in them? NO, you run them with standard tires and sealant, no kit, at least that's what you posted..

"the SLR replaces my old and trusty Tune/ceramic wheelset which weighs 1410g. it has the rather standard Mig 75 and Mag 200 hubs, nothing too exotic. the rims are some really old Matrix rims with 28-spokeholes that i was able to find a couple of years ago. nowadays you can only get ceramic rims with 32 spokeholes. but i needed the Eclipse Tubelesskits including rubber rimstrip to be able to run "tubeless". now i can only add some sealant and i'm ready"

So Tubeless Kits are what leads to improve rolling resistance??


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Probably the biggest point of all this is does ANYONE HONESTLY see any difference in RR between sealed, UST and tube tires when as ridden at similar pressure for the given combo.

I am wiling to bet the farm on ti, blind folded NO ONE can tell the difference.

Did you to the podium because the RR was better tubeless compared to tubed? Being the RR was the only factor?

Tooo many difference in terrain to worry about RR between all these.

Here you go plain and simple:

Tubeless Ready tires: This is the future of tubeless for most people and racers. Safer and better than regular sealed tires.

UST Tires: Those that need better sidewall stiffness/protection or do not want to deal with sealant. Also those who like to make last minute changes to tires can do so with ease. Yes, there is a small weight penalty. But in the long run with more UST rims and more/better TK this might change for the no-racer/ww crowd.

Tubeless kits vs UST:

Tubeless Kits have made tubeless easier for the masses and has passed UST right now. I feel if UST or another tubeless rims can hit the market with a lower weight and price this would be the first option for most people.
But you would need many more companies making rims. I wish DT would.

Maybe they will make a UST carbon rims. Now you have to start thinking of Tubular MTB wheels as well.

Also wait to tubless ROAD tires/wheels make an impact!


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> Also wait to tubless ROAD tires/wheels make an impact!


I totally agree. I think the road is where tubeless lower RR really makes the most sense. I'm taking a long hard look at this option for my next road wheelset.


----------



## OffRoadRoadie (Feb 17, 2004)

I like to match my tires for the different riding conditions we experience in the Pacific NW (mud, hardpack, soft needle covered, sandy, St Helens pumice, wet slippery rocks & roots and lava rock), most of our longer trails are easily accessible within 1-3 hours from home. The tubeless kits (Stans) make allot of since for mtb racers or if you like to run the same tire year round but the hassle of dealing with a latex sealant like Stans the night before a big ride isn't my cup of tea.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*and still....*



snowdrifter said:


> WRONG, you missed the point, the Tubeless Kit is not required in this test. It has nothing to do with with the rolling resitance. It's the Tire, lightweight standard casing versus heavyweight UST casing, and lack of tube, DUHHH!! Yes, tubeless kits are great if you want to go tubeless on a standard rim, but it has nothing to do with rolling resistance.
> 
> Didn't you get some SLR UST Wheels? Do you run Tubeless Kits in them? NO, you run them with standard tires and sealant, no kit, at least that's what you posted..
> 
> ...


i don't believe it - you still didn't get it:

tubelesskit = tubed tires used with sealant. no specific make !!!

YES- it's these tubelesskits making for lower rollingresistance because there is no innertube. it's as easy as that and if you still can't/won't understand is not my fault.

i use a Mavic SLR wheelset because this is the lightest way to have ceramic rims on a tubelesskitted wheel ! i have shown why elsewhere in detail but you still won't believe any way.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

nino said:


> YES- it's these tubelesskits making for lower rollingresistance because there is no innertube. it's as easy as that and if you still can't/won't understand is not my fault.
> .


NO - it's not the tubeless kit, if anything it's making for a slower wheel. The rims in the test are UST, you don't need tubelesskits. UST rims are used in the test, no kit needed.

I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm saying the kit is not needed in this test. It's a non factor, it's just adding extra weight to the UST rim, that does not need a tubelesskit to function tubeless.

The test is showing a tubeless wheel with a standard tire has lower resistance than a tubbed wheel, and wheel with a heavy UST Tire.
There's several ways to go tubeless, the kit is only needed on a standard rim, and is the least reliable form of tubeless. Yes, you can reap the benefits of a tubeless wheel with a kit, but a UST rim or a Stans rim, does not require this kit, and would roll just as fast with a Standard tire. If the kit made for lower rollowing resitance, why wouldn't you add them to your SLR wheels?


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Any more name calling from either D8, Nino, or Snowdrifter, and the person will be banned for a week.

If you can't keep personal attacks off these forums, then you don't belong on these forums. That goes for baiting such attacks as well.


----------



## Jaybo (Mar 5, 2008)

*Not true*



nino said:


> but the difference is minimal. i found it to be about 0,2 bar / 3 psi
> 
> all those UST tires (also the new generation of tubeless-ready tire) make only sense if you ride in real rocky terrain where tires can get cuts easily. other than that there is no need for all those heavy tires.


I have not had a flat in two years running tubeless with Stan's. The DIY tubeless are not my bag. Who cares about a few ounces anyway! Durability is what is important and tubeless are very durable and easy to deal with....UST tubeless.

Jaybo


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

Jaybo said:


> I have not had a flat in two years running tubeless with Stan's. The DIY tubeless are not my bag. Who cares about a few ounces anyway! Durability is what is important and tubeless are very durable and easy to deal with....UST tubeless.
> 
> Jaybo


Have you read any of this thread at all? UST tires are not only heavier than normal tyres with tubeless kit, they are also much slower. For those of us who race, and used to race with normal tyres with tubes, and don't have any problems with ripping sidewalls (it's over 2 years since I've had a flat running normal tyres with Eclipse / Stans), UST tyres would be a backwards step in terms of speed.


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

ust tires are a ****, it´s a fact

nino it´s clearly biased and not objetive, it´s a fact.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wrong*



MaLoL said:


> ust tires are a ****, it´s a fact
> 
> nino it´s clearly biased and not objetive, it´s a fact.


wrong my dear:

i am VERY objective here!

every system has it's advantages and if you would read the thread closer you will find a nice summary here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=3718795&postcount=53

UST-Pros: easier inflation and tire changes, resistant to snakebites
UST-Cons: more rolling resistance at same pressure, heavier, still punctures from penetrating objects (thorns etc)

Tubes-Pros: most straightforward set up, less rolling resistance at same pressure as UST
Tubes-Cons: more likely to pinch flat at lower pressures, puncture resistance in general

Standard Conversion-Pros: lightest setup, least rolling resistance, thorn puncture resistance, no snakebites
Standard Conversion-Cons: most involved setup, harder to change tires on site, when compared to UST more likely to get cuts when used with lightweight tires

anyone has the freedom to choose whatever systems is good for him.
__________________

next time you visit this forum you are also welcomed to contribute something useful not just your usualy blabla - thanks!


----------



## Chester (Jan 15, 2004)

*Over the past 5 years, only German tests have added*

Well, I've not been on this forum much over the past months since my riding has switched mainly to the road.

I consider rolling resistance to be the most effective area where a rider can cut off time in a predictable manner via equipment changes. After focusing on this feature for several years, I can say the following. The posts by Nino, of the various German tests have supplied over 90% of any scientific evidence about rolling resistance that has appeared in this forum over the past 5 years.
Besides the German testing, all we get otherwise is a bunch of mountain bike guys sitting around drinking beers......telling each other that their favorite tire *"feels really really fast"*
The don't have a clue how it truly compares to other tires and tubes on a relative basis under identical conditions. Their random anecdotal observations are nearly worthless for any reader trying to gain some true RR readings.
The German tests are not perfect, but they are just about the only thing worth looking at for actual data. 
Without the German magazines data, any discussion of RR is just a bull____ session.
All the common misinformation swirls around every thread while guys tell us about how their tires "feel" fast.
They are about as scientific as the typical advertisement from Specialized.

I can take into consideration any "interests" Nino has. I have a brain and can factor that in. In my mind, Nino has added more to the discussion of rolling resistance, than all the other posts combined. 
And I've never purchased a single item from him.

I look forward to the next post he makes of some German tire testing.
Thank God for the Germans. If it wasn't for them we'd all just be picking our noses and looking at the end of our finger for results, regarding RR data.


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

Okay fine dude, but why don't you then recommend a beer that will make my anecdotal observations more analytical


----------



## petercarm (Nov 5, 2007)

If one good thing has come out of this thread, it is that it gave me the confidence to try out a "tubeless kit" type setup.

You just need to spend a little time on the Wheels and Tires forum to realise how subjective and personal tire preferences are. For me, the best tire is the one I "remember forgetting". If I'm riding a Super Tacky High Roller and attempting to go up a road, its abysmal rolling resistance draws my attention. If I run a small volume racy tire over rocks and roots, suffering sidewall cuts and washing out on every loose corner, I remember that.

I've just got hold of a new bike. It is a fast pedalling 5in lightweight trail bike - a Whyte E5. It came with tubed Conti Vapor Pro 2.1s on Mavic 717 rims. The bike was brilliant on the first few rides (fast and responsive in the dry), but I was aware that the front end grip wasn't giving me the confidence I was used to enjoying on mixed surfaces and when the going gets slippery. I therefore want to keep the "fast, lightweight" feel to the new bike, but pick up a bit of front end stability. The wheelset didn't fill me with confidence either.

I have now built up some 819 UST rims, just like I use on my other bike. As a first attempt, I swapped a UST Nobby Nic off the other bike onto the front of the new bike. On the rear, I carried over the Conti Vapor, but with Stans sealant instead of a tube. This survived a first ride with no issues and it certainly felt a bit more planted at the front. Weight wise, the rear is carrying 70g more weight in rotating mass (819 heavier than 717; brass nipples instead of alloy; 60g of Stans instead of 140g tube). The weight is increased at the front end because of my choice of tire.

This feels like a good place to have got to. I may yet have a go at converting wheels with rim strips, but the UST wheelset is a fuss free way of getting an airtight rim, whatever tire I choose to mount on it. Thanks to this thread, I'm now looking at available tires, both tubeless and non-tubeless thinking that I have many more options for selecting the tire volume and tread pattern I want without necessarily picking up the heavier construction of the UST tires.


----------



## barratana (Oct 3, 2007)

Hi Nino

Thanks Nino, for sharing all that info !!!

I´m convinced I´ll try tubless kit with a new pair of conti speed king supersonic!
I see a lot of people talking but who is using these kit´s are generaly happy.

I´ll give it a try.

Just have to choose the kit...


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

barratana said:


> Hi Nino
> 
> Thanks Nino, for sharing all that info !!!
> 
> ...


Hello. I had Cont speed king Supersonics on DT Swiss rims using stans sealant+tubless kit.
It took forever for the the pin holes to seal. Then they would not hold air all the time.
Then finally the sidewall got cut in the trails. I don't recommend using conti's the sidewalls are very thin.
Talking about roll resitance, I switched the tires to Nokian Nbx which were 250g/tire heavier than the conti's with tubes. I ran exactly the same 24k loop & I was 1.5k/h faster.
Go figure?
I still think the best system is std tires with a tubless kit, but can really be a pain to setup.
It would be nice to hear from people with exp! what rims work with what Std tires


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

I second that when you said, took almost an eternity for the 'micro' pin holes to seal & a pair of those Conti Speed King SS wouldn't hold air much longer than a pair of standard converted Kenda Karmas. The only thing I like with Speed Kings SS over Maxxlites aside from having a much thicker SWs & better grip* (as expected*, of course) is it's a lot easier to mount on Shimano UST rims. Just to add as well, amongst the UST rims I've experienced mounting converted tires & UST tires, Shimano's are much easier than Mavic UST rims. Well, I don't really know of the new generation Mavics, since I've only tried their pre-07s. But I doubt they've changed a lot since... I haven't tried DT's... And I'm eyeing for my next project for a pair of those DT XRC 1250. But if I get skittish thinking it's carbon on a treacherous & rugged terrain... Hmmm. I might settle with No Tubes ZTR Race 7000 series. But what makes me shy away from 'em pair: no rim hook (is that what you call it?) 

Just need time off from work & stuff, for me to continue perusing the web, researching, & asking bits of advice from you, guys! By then I could certainly proceed with my project... 

For me, it's just all about the application that would tell which tire is best at a certain situation. At first, more like mix & match till you get the right combo... Definitely, it's quite daunting especially if you are just starting out. Just try experimenting & the least, indulge on it  And the next thing you'll know: you're on the right track of things. :thumbsup:

Oh, off for a few spins!

Be safe, guys!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

scarsellone said:


> .... I switched the tires to Nokian Nbx which were 250g/tire heavier than the conti's with tubes. I ran exactly the same 24k loop & I was 1.5k/h faster.
> Go figure?


well - people here won't believe you altough i tell them for years about the fast rolling capabilities of the Nokian NBX. guess what, i have now also Nokians on my winterbike....it's such a sweet feeling when you actually don't feel slowed down by your tires. feels like having wind from the back all the time...i don't care how the traction is or whatever...the NBX is so much faster


----------

