# Tubes vs tubeless tires: What's the difference?



## wazupdog42 (Dec 28, 2007)

Hey,

I've had my Fisher Tessajara for a month or two and i happen have some pretty crappy tires. I've made the decision to get new tires, but I don't really know much about them. I know that there are tires w/ tubes, and that is what I've always used in the past, and then there are tubeless tires. 

I tend to ride fireroads, singletracks, paved roads, mud, dirt, pretty much everything. So I am looking for a do-everything tire w/ enough tread to get me lots of traction, but not so much that the flats and paved are painful. 
I am interested in the idea of the tubeless tire, but I don't really understand it.

Would anyone care to enlighten me and perhaps give some advice too?


----------



## Squash (Jul 20, 2003)

*Tubless tires...*

are just that, they don't need tubes. But there's a catch, you can't run tubeless on just any rim unless you go with a "conversion kit" like Stans No Tubes or similar. So lets break it down.

There are three tubeless sytems out there. The first is UST (Universal System Tubeless). This is exactly like a car tire set up. The rim is specifically designed to be a sealed unit. No spoke holes on the inside, and a specially designed bead hook. These rims take a specifically designed tire that is non porus (standard bike tires are porus and won't hold air without a tube). So you mount the tire on the rim, inflate and ride. But it can be tough to get UST tires to seat initially. And they are just as prone to punctures as any other tire, so a sealant of some kind isn't a bad idea if you live in an area with thorns and the like. But they are a true tubeless system and will work without sealant just like your car tires. This system can also be used with regular tires with a tube or without. But without a tube a regular tire must be dosed with sealant or it won't hold air.

The second system is a tubeless system that uses a more or less standard rim with a special rim strip that seals the spoke access holes in the spoke bed. The Bontrager TLR (tubless ready) system is a good example. The system uses a fairly hard stiff plastic rim strip and a seperate valve that are installed on the rim. From there you can use UST tires or regular tires. Use of a sealant is required with the system reguardless of tire type. I'm personally running this system currently and it works well. The biggest plus with this system is the strength of the bead hook. It's very similar to a UST bead hook and holds a tire well. But it won't seal like a UST rim bead hook will even with tubeless tires so sealant is necessary to seal the bead if nothing else. Another advantage is it is a semi permanent system. I say semi permanent as the rim strip can be removed and it's just like a regular rim underneath. The rim strip is quite durable and if it is not removed it can be used as a tubeless set up indifinately. The draw back is it can be a real pain some times to remove the tire. Tire levers are a must. And as with UST rims it can some times be a bit difficult to get the tire to seat.

The third system is the "Conversion System". This type of system uses any regular tire and a standard rim. For an example of this type of system go to www.notubes. com . That's the Stans No Tubes website. It'll give you all the information you could ever need or want about this type of system. What the system comes with is a light rim tape similar to packing tape to cover the holes in the spoke bed of the rim, a rubber rim strip with a valve attached to provide an air tight seal over the spoke bed, and a bottle of sealant. What you do is install the rim tape and strip on the rim. Install the tire part way, add sealant, install the tire the rest of the way, then inflate, shake etc. and hopefuly everything seals. Not as easy as it sounds, but once you do it a few times it isn't hard. The advantage to this system is it is usable on about any rim made, it works well with most tires, and it's much less expensive than a new set of UST wheels. The draw back is you have to replenish the sealant about every 3 to 4 months or so. This applies to the TLR system above as well, or just about any other conversion system that uses a liquid latex based sealant. But it's not as much of a hassle as replacing tubes every three or four rides.

As for advice, well....Each system has it's advantages and disadvantages. The UST sytem is probably the simplest to use. But the tire selection is still slightly limited, not all tire modles are available in UST versions. And UST tires are heavier for a given size than a regular tire. It's no hassle at all to convert to tubes if you want, though it's a waste of a generally more expensive wheel to run them as a tubed wheel.

The Tubless ready system is probably the best compromise between UST and a conversion. You can use just about any tire you like with it. The system holds a bead very well. But you do have to mess with sealant. Not that big of a deal, but it's added fuss. Plus there's less hassle about rim strips, they snap in place and that's it, no fiddling with tape underneath etc. But it is a bit more of a pain should you want to convert back to tubes. If you do it carefully you can get the rim strip out without damaging it. But often they'll be damaged in the process so not reuseable.

The "conversion system" is the cheapest comercially available method of going tubeless. Works with most tires like the tubeless ready system above. You do have to mess with tape and rim strip. The rubber rim strip that is the heart of the system isn't all that durable, but it is easily removeable so it's a snap to convert back to tubes anytime you want. The conversion is probably the best way to go if you want to "try" tubeless without making a big investment in new UST wheels.

Do keep in mind that not all tires are created equal and not all tires will work well with the Tubeless Ready or the Conversion systems. There are fewer problems with compatability with the UST system as long as you are using UST tires.

I hope that clears it up a little bit anyway.

Good Dirt


----------



## The Diesel (Apr 4, 2008)

Thats some good info on tires, thank you for that. Im getting bad about posting questions in other peoples threads, i just odnt want to make a whole new thread for a simple question. So, to the OP, im sorry.

Iv also been thinking about a new rear tire for better traction. I have a trek 4300 that came with bontrager connection b tires in a 2.10 size. Can i with a fatter tire like 2.4 or 2.5? Will it fit? is it wrong to put a fat tire only in the rear and leave the front the same size, will people point and laugh?


----------



## Squash (Jul 20, 2003)

*Generally no....*

a 2.4 or 2.5 tire will not fit in a hardtail frame unless the frame is specifically designed to accomodate the extra width of such tires. The Trek 4300 frame is not one of them. It's primarily an entry level (or a bit above) cross country bike. You won't have clearance between the chain stays for tha large of a tire. Usually for a hardtail frame 2.1 or 2.2 and possibly some manufacturers 2.3 widths are as wide as you should go in the rear. There MAY be some 2.4's that will fit, but you'll likely have mud clearance problems and are likely to get into tire rub on the frame should the frame flex at all, which all frames do to some extent. If they didn't they'd break.

If you are looking for better traction I would highly recommend replacing both tires. While this may not seem necessary it can be problematic to have a tire with more traction in the rear. The problem arises when cornering. The tire with the most traction will obviously out perform the tire with less. This leads to front end wash out as the front tire breaks loose much earlier than the rear. Not a good thing. The Bontrager conection tire is not the best off road tire ever developed to begin with. It is a dual purpose tire designed for use both on and off road, so it's neither fish nor foul. It has fairly good rolling characteristics on pavement, and fairly good traction in dirt, but is designed to excell in neither environment.

I would recommend replacing both tires to maintain traction performance on both ends fo the bike. Continental Mountian King 2.2's would do nicely and fit your rear, as would Kenda Nevegal 2.1 DTC's, Panaracer Fire XC Pro's, Maxxis Advantage 2.1's and many others.

As for the bigger tire in the rear, see the above paragraph outlining traction differences. Again, usually a wider tire will provide a bit more traction than a narrower tire. So you run into the same problem with front end wash out. etc.

For general trail riding I usually recommend using the same tire front and rear, and the same size front and rear. This keeps the logistics of spares down to a minimum. You don't have to have a spare "front" and a spare "rear" tire should you damage one and have to replace it. There are benefits that go along with running a wider front tire, but they are specific to the rider and conditions. And they are also highly dependant of just how big a tire your fork will handle safely. You have to keep in mind that wider tires are also taller. The taller the tire the more likely it is to make contact with the bottom of the fork crown should you happen to compress the fork fully. This is not a good thing and usually results in a sudden and violent over the bars experience with injuries as a result. The stock fork on your bike (RST Gila if I remember correctly) is not rated for much more than a 2.1 or 2.2" tire. So I wouldn't go much bigger than that for safety's sake.

Good Dirt


----------



## The Diesel (Apr 4, 2008)

Squash said:


> a 2.4 or 2.5 tire will not fit in a hardtail frame unless the frame is specifically designed to accomodate the extra width of such tires. The Trek 4300 frame is not one of them. It's primarily an entry level (or a bit above) cross country bike. You won't have clearance between the chain stays for tha large of a tire. Usually for a hardtail frame 2.1 or 2.2 and possibly some manufacturers 2.3 widths are as wide as you should go in the rear. There MAY be some 2.4's that will fit, but you'll likely have mud clearance problems and are likely to get into tire rub on the frame should the frame flex at all, which all frames do to some extent. If they didn't they'd break.
> 
> If you are looking for better traction I would highly recommend replacing both tires. While this may not seem necessary it can be problematic to have a tire with more traction in the rear. The problem arises when cornering. The tire with the most traction will obviously out perform the tire with less. This leads to front end wash out as the front tire breaks loose much earlier than the rear. Not a good thing. The Bontrager conection tire is not the best off road tire ever developed to begin with. It is a dual purpose tire designed for use both on and off road, so it's neither fish nor foul. It has fairly good rolling characteristics on pavement, and fairly good traction in dirt, but is designed to excell in neither environment.
> 
> ...


Awesome, exactly the info i was looking for. Thank you.


----------



## ibain (Apr 18, 2008)

+1!

Thanks Squash. I've been wondering what all these systems were since I got back into mountain biking. The info is much appreciated.


----------



## spazzy (Aug 15, 2004)

if you are looking to upgrade tires i would go with panaracer fire xc pro, ive ran 2 pairs and they are money for what you are looking to do (well alittle slow on the road) but grips in pretty much everything


----------



## baraant (Feb 25, 2005)

Both of you asking for tire suggestions if you like to go fast and have good traction my suggestion would be this tire: Maxxis Crossmark eXception series, start with the air pressure in the tire in the 30 - 35 psis range. The tire says 35psi min on the side, but running them lower gives great traction and speed, but you'll need to try them out to learn. I have run them in the 28-32psi range with no problems. Go to Jenson and buy them.


----------

