hrdtduck

What you say is true the weigh difference is minor at best.but two large
differences..cost of the tire itself, and ease of use, make for a pretty
strong argument for tubeless..to fix a flat out on the road all I have to
carry is a tube, & a dollar (for those big holes)..what can you do when a
sew-up flats on the road?...do you carry a spare tire when you ride?.....
not to mention the issue of trying to put a replacement tire on over a
previously glued rim.when it all boils down to it..sew-ups probably ride
better overall, but I think the new technology will replace the old in
time..I have been told/& read that some teams are already using tubeless on
this year's Tour...It is only a matter of time.Have you tried them?? I was
so amazed I bought 2 wheel sets (perhaps excessive, but I am kinda like that
about bicycling)...

Howard

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Harry Phinney
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:01 AM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Tubeless clinchers - fad or

On ride comfort, are the tubeless really more comfortable than e.g. 25 mm
Vittoria Evo Open CX tires or 25 mm Michelin Carbons at 90 PSI? On weight,
the tubeless tires save little. Excel lists the Hutchinson tubeless tires at
290 g. To that you need to add the weight of the valve. An old bolt-on
presta from a tube I have weighs 7 g, so call the tubeless a total of 297 g.
The 25 mm Vittoria weighs 242 g, and a latex tube I had lying around weighs
60 g for a total of 302 g. The tubeless saves 5 grams in this example, with
no sealant. Perhaps I should add the weight of a rim strip for the tube
case. A Rox strip such as I use in my racing wheels weighs around 3 g,
making the tubeless weight advantage 8 g. I honestly can't remember the last
time that I pinch flatted a 25 mm tire, but I do ride them at 100-110 PSI,
not 90 PSI. While I am obviously skeptical of the performance claims for
them, I'm really not opposed to the idea of tubeless tires. I much prefer
them on my motorcycles; they're harder to repair for flats, but easier to
change and I replace worn tires more than I repair flats on the motos.

Harry Phinney

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of hrdtduck
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:56 PM
To: 'Erik'; 'Doug Sears'; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Tubeless clinchers - fad or

I have to agree over the thought that when you spend a lot of money on
something you tend to ignore what may not meet your expectations..However if
there were nothing else to evaluate...the ride comfort alone sells me on the
tubeless clincher tire..From what I understand about the specific
Shimano/Hutchinson technology, lower air pressure is designed in and not
necessarily the root/only cause for smoother ride experience.even at the
lower air pressure rolling resistance is claimed to be lower (I do not have
any way to test that so I have to depend on what Shimano & Hutchinson have
to say, after all, why would they lie?? Hey Look I know what you are going
to say.).All I really know is what my butt, hands and average ride speeds
tell me.they all have improved...Bonus?? No more pinch flats!!.....if I do
get a flat I can put a tube in as easily as a regular clincher, and be on my
way. I save a small about of weight (no tube), while the tires aren't cheap
they cost no more than any high end clincher and less that tubular...and I
get a great ride, they also seem to conform to the road better when in a
high speed corner...Like disc brakes on Mountain bikes.I don't think I will
be going back to the older technology..