Moderator: Moderator Team
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.
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?
I am a little sceptical, but they might be good for commuting.
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)
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)
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.
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...
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 12 Replies
- 627 Views
Last post by Marin
Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:06 pm
- 14 Replies
- 2131 Views
Last post by Stolichnaya
Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:46 am
- 9 Replies
- 1267 Views
Last post by wheelsONfire
Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:42 am
- 11 Replies
- 1088 Views
Last post by bm0p700f
Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:53 pm
- 15 Replies
- 884 Views
Last post by Alumen
Sun May 13, 2018 8:46 pm