Weight Weenies

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... res-34317/

Seems like good news

indeed. i wonder how the puncture protection is with these, compared to a gp4000s.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

If you're already running sealant, would it matter?

i would not deal with the mess. so i would not be running sealant, and sealant is not needed to work - so i would not already be running sealant. it is the reason i ask about puncture protection with these tires. i cant remember in the last 3 years when i got a flat on gp4000s, if these are as good then it would be a plus.

Can't wait to get a set...Atom Galactik - interesting name. The article also claims that it is outperforming their protour tubular, I hope that means lower crr.

Also looking forward to trying the 28c Intensive - seems like a good choice for our tandem. I don't want to think about punctures on the tandem...

spytech wrote:
i would not deal with the mess. so i would not be running sealant, and sealant is not needed to work - so i would not already be running sealant. it is the reason i ask about puncture protection with these tires. i cant remember in the last 3 years when i got a flat on gp4000s, if these are as good then it would be a plus.

I thought you had to run the sealant otherwise you can't inflate the tire? Otherwise, there are too many gaps when there's 0 air in the tire.

Hutchinson’s Galactik is full tubeless, so it doesn’t require sealant, which is the tire i am commenting about. tubeless ready requires you to use a sealant.

russianbear wrote:I thought you had to run the sealant otherwise you can't inflate the tire? Otherwise, there are too many gaps when there's 0 air in the tire.

Really depends on the rim and tire. A clean tubeless Shimano rim with a new tire in my experience works fine without sealant. A converted rim, less so. If your tires are older, and/or have been pulled off the rim to patch, it's a bit of a pain to get them to seat properly without sealant.

spytech wrote:i would not deal with the mess. so i would not be running sealant, and sealant is not needed to work - so i would not already be running sealant. it is the reason i ask about puncture protection with these tires. i cant remember in the last 3 years when i got a flat on gp4000s, if these are as good then it would be a plus.

I'd be very pleasantly surprised if they could manage to do better than the GP4000s while being much lighter, and better rolling. I was thinking with sealant they'd be in the range of a lightweight/race set of tires/tubes, and less prone to deflation.

i just hope they didnt get it down to 245g by making it 18mm wide. it sometimes seems they think if they label a tire 23c, then it is, even when its not.

What's the point of running tubeless without sealant? Just for ride quality? I'd be super sketched about rolling the tire in a corner and burping the air instantly. I realize there's already a thread debating this.

good point, you got me thinking on that. i guess ill stick to clinchers. but i am considering tubulars.

i know it's the same weight in the end but I could try not running with sealant on my next setup and instead carry a vittoria pit stop or similar if Im going for a longer ride.. just because if Im going to a road I know is in super good condition, or a short workout close to home, i might prefer the hollow feel and "rim" weight savings

Very doubtful that a pitstop can would be able to seat a tubeless tire (would love to be proved wrong if someone has done it). I've never managed to seat a tire with CO2 that I couldn't seat with a floor pump......

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

If it's the same width as the current Atom, it will be well under 23mm, which is too narrow. Otherwise, I have had pretty good luck with the Atoms as fas as durability and the ride is nice. I just prefer a wider tire (at least a true 23 mm).