Who's using sealants in their tires [stans etc]

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

What type of sealant do you use and why?

1. Eclipse
3
15%
2. Stans
7
35%
3. Home made
7
35%
4. UST Standard [non ust tires with sealant]
1
5%
5. UST standard [ust tires]
1
5%
6. UST standard [ust tires with sealant]
0
No votes
7. Nagesti [non ust tires]
1
5%
8. Nagesti [nagesti or ust tires]
0
No votes
9. Nagesti [nagesti or ust tires with sealant]
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
Xterra Racer
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:10 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

by Xterra Racer

One more example. I have run my Stan's set up at 25psi one time, just to see what it felt like.

Now theoretically, I could do the same with tubes and get a higher rolling resistance measurements. But practically, this would never happen because I wouldn't make it down 10 feet of trail before I blew the tube.

So the rolling resistance advantage is moot.

by Weenie


Boj
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:42 am

by Boj

Its not true that rolling resistance point is moot.

Think about it in terms of what makes you go faster. Low pressure + tubeless = fastest, high pressure + tubeless = second, high pressure + tubes = third.

It is true that rolling resistance drops for increase in pressure but this is tested on a smooth roller, similar to asphalt road. It would have been better to think about rolling resistance as overall resistance to rolling on a <b>fireroad</b> trail (ie including suspension properties, not separately). This way you wouldn't have this association that higher pressure = lower rolling resistance, as this association comes from tests on smooth rollers. In the end truest definition of lowest rolling resistance setting (tires, pressure, tubes etc) is the one that makes you go fastest and isn't that most important?

danielgillett

by danielgillett

Just out of curiousity, who's tried Eclipse Tubelesstire's before?

I am a little sceptical, but they might be good for commuting.



Dan

User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6591
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

those tires are 700c only! Look at the pics they are mounted on ksyriums!

Image
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

User avatar
Cyco
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 4:49 am

by Cyco

As for sealing the rim, we have had a couple of pairs of wheels we have been plaving with at the shop.

We have had great sucess using 20" tubes as the rim strip. A little tricky but it works.

1. Line the rim with a thin cloth tape (optional)
2. Mount first side of the tyre
3. Take 20" tube and slice the back open
4. Install 20" tube
5. Tricky part- Mount 2nd tyre side keeping tube flap inside and flat
6. Inflate to seat bead.
7. Remove valve and install sealant (optional)
Success is how far you you bounce back up after being knocked down

DocTP1885
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga.

by DocTP1885

I converted to Stan's notube a month ago. I've been fighting to go to notbues for the longest time. did numerous research (MTBR.com) and ask LBS and riders. I didn't believe the hype about tubeless being better. Well, it's been a month of riding notubes and I'll state that's it's every bit of the hype. It's awesome, but if you're going with Stan's notubes, the movie on their website does not do justice. I was fortunate that a builder showed me from the ground up, plus the in's and out's of doing Stan's notubes. The way he showed me was more detailed and reliable. Once the setup was complete, I was ready. Went on a camping trip and hit some of the hardest climbs Dupnt had to offer. I was the only one who made all the climbs. All my riding friends are great riders, but the steepness of the climb was too much. I gripped everything. Plus, skidding has been obsolete for me. The new generation strips have a removeable vavle so you can pour sealant in that way, versus removing part of the tire to add more sealant. He said add sealant about every 3-4months. This recommend from where I live, Georgia. Mess will be to a minimum. Since it's still new to me, I'll let you know the con's so far.

JK
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2002 7:49 pm
Location: The Netherlands - Europe

by JK

Let me fire up this discussion a bit!

Here's an article I read on the velonews website: http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/art ... 970.0.html

Apparently at Geax and at Intense Tires research has shown that tubeless systems with latex and regular tires are less efficient than true UST tires. Sidewalls of regular (racing) tires are designed to be supported by an inner tube. Without the inner tube, these tires transfer less force from the rider to the ground they say. Makes kind of sense to me!

True: Eclipse, Stan's have less rolling resistance, but apparently there's more to it... I am a latex solution fan myself, but this one is worth the read!

Just a thought: If this is true, a UST rear tire and Stan's/Eclipse front tire would be the way to go! (The force generated by the rider is only transferred through the rear wheel)

DocTP1885
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga.

by DocTP1885

JK,

Awesome insight on the link. Does make sense. Question now is will there be a list on what tires can be suitable for Stan's no-tubes?

Then this means, if you get a tire weighing less than 450gr, does this mean in order to prevent the "Dragster" tire effect, we should put a little more PSI in the no-tubes? Seems like other factors come into play as well, not to mention the riders weight. I think if a rider is around 150lbs, he might be able to get away with this, versus a rider who is 180lbs? or is it about the centrifical force that will cause some problems?

I guess it all depends on the rider. If they are willing to sacrifice a little to hopefully gain a lot.

I was going to put some Conti Explorer Supersonics with stan's no-tubes and the wheel builder mention it wasn't a good idea. Now I can see why. Supersonics have thin sidewalls and I can see the possibilty of a "Dragster" effect or possible sidewall blowout.

I'm a big time weight weenie, but I also know when it's time to give up the grams and work with something a little more safe and durable.

Thanks for the link. I'm sure it'll spark some interest in debate.

JK
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2002 7:49 pm
Location: The Netherlands - Europe

by JK

It kind of makes sense... you can compare the effect to a wheel with low spoke tension.
In fact: If it is true, one would suspect that smaller tires have less energy loss due to this effect. Less sidewall means less "twist"? Just like a smaller wheel being stiffer than a big wheel at the same spoke tension...

Hmm... questions, questions...

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post