Hutchinson tubeless Fusion 3 crap or am I unlucky?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
ultyguy
Posts: 2271
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Location: Geneva

by ultyguy

Despite all their testing, I still only have about a 75% success rate w the fusion 3s, but one up and running, they last a long time and ride nice IMHO

User avatar
maddog 2
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Lancaster, UK

by maddog 2

just done about 150 miles on the new Bontrager R3 tubeless. Very impressed. Lighter than the Hutchinsons and good grip. Went up no problem. And available in a proper 25mm (measured) unlike the pseudo 25mm Intensive.

kulivontot
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

How much lighter? We need details

User avatar
maddog 2
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Lancaster, UK

by maddog 2

two 23mm R3 are 266g and 259g

one 25mm R3 is 283g (the other is fitted, and I forgot to weigh that one)

Privateer
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:28 pm

by Privateer

petromyzon wrote:Have to say my opinion is one of frustration - people obsessed with airtightness are causing the tubeless manufacturers to laminate thick butyl layers to the inside of the tyre. This is what is making them much heavier and much slower than leading non-tubeless tyres!


Amen to that. I wish Vittoria/Challenge/Veloflex would make a version of their open clinchers (or Conti's Supersonics) with tubeless beads but no butyl lining (aka "tubeless ready").

The MTB world has realised that UST tyres are ridiculously heavy and that standard tyres with sealant are much better. How long will it take for the road market to come to the same conclusion?

NWSAlpine
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 7:11 pm
Location: FL

by NWSAlpine

The bead design is critical for road tubeless due to the high PSI needs of a road tire. Not really the same thing. A lot of the new tires are already designed around sealant being required. As of right now I feel like the Bontrager R3 is the best tire easily available. The R2 is a great tire as well for a little less.

Also I have emailed Vittoria urging them to make a tubeless gumwall corsa or pave style tire in 25-27mm. Retro/Pro look with modern technology. I can keep dreaming.

NWSAlpine
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 7:11 pm
Location: FL

by NWSAlpine

kulivontot wrote:How much lighter? We need details


More info and some weights here http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/03/08/jus ... ad-system/

User avatar
spookyload
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

by spookyload

Besides your inner weight weenie, why would you not run sealant? The tires aren't flat resistant just because they are tubeless. Pick up some debris and you are busting a tubeless bead to install a tube. Put a half scoop of sealant that will add 20g, but get flat protection. I haven't had a flat in seven years on my MTB since going tubeless with sealant.

Privateer
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:28 pm

by Privateer

NWSAlpine wrote:The bead design is critical for road tubeless due to the high PSI needs of a road tire. Not really the same thing. A lot of the new tires are already designed around sealant being required. As of right now I feel like the Bontrager R3 is the best tire easily available. The R2 is a great tire as well for a little less.

Also I have emailed Vittoria urging them to make a tubeless gumwall corsa or pave style tire in 25-27mm. Retro/Pro look with modern technology. I can keep dreaming.


Exactly. If it weren't for the need for a specific tubeless bead for road pressures we could just use normal road tyres, like we do with MTB. As it is we're stuck with the road equivalent of UST. What I'd like to see is an otherwise normal open tubular (or very good clincher) with a tubeless bead, which relied on sealant for airtightness rather than a butyl liner.

I've emailed Continental begging them to put a tubeless bead on a Supersonic. They replied... but didn't give anything away!

cazone
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:32 pm

by cazone

Privateer wrote:
petromyzon wrote:Have to say my opinion is one of frustration - people obsessed with airtightness are causing the tubeless manufacturers to laminate thick butyl layers to the inside of the tyre. This is what is making them much heavier and much slower than leading non-tubeless tyres!


Amen to that. I wish Vittoria/Challenge/Veloflex would make a version of their open clinchers (or Conti's Supersonics) with tubeless beads but no butyl lining (aka "tubeless ready").

The MTB world has realised that UST tyres are ridiculously heavy and that standard tyres with sealant are much better. How long will it take for the road market to come to the same conclusion?


oh,yeah! A tubeless ready Veloflex! THAT would be great

User avatar
maddog 2
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: Lancaster, UK

by maddog 2

it makes you wonder what tyre companies do, in terms of R&D?

We've had clinchers and tubs for, what, forever....? And now tubeless comes along, the first big development for yonks, which you could see happening from MTB, (where any sane person has junked tubes), and STILL some tyre companies don't have a product. Schwalbe have something due (they say) but Conti, Vredestein, Vittoria, Michelin, and the rest haven't bothered to come up with something.

As it stands, the best lightweight tubeless option is from Bontrager. Fancy that. Not the most renowned maker of road tyres it's true but at least they've got something out there (and it's pretty good IMO too).

If you read about rolling resistance, all the articles go on about internal friction between the tube and tyre as the main factor. So let's hear it for tubeless! It's the holy grail! No recreational cyclist is going to bother with tubs, and so tubeless has the potential to be a tough, supple, grippy, low CRR tyre. I've already made the change (and won't be going back) but I could do with a wider range of tyres please, and cheaper.

Privateer
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:28 pm

by Privateer

Agree completely.

Any tyre manufacturers on WW?

I'd like to hear their take on this.

ultyguy
Posts: 2271
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Location: Geneva

by ultyguy

I love my tubeless for their abiliy to run lower pressures w/ out flats, and I've only gotten 1 flat in the last 2 years with mine.....but I took out my tubs last night and damn ain't nothing like a tub :D

petromyzon
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:14 pm

by petromyzon

Maddog: I'm sure that all the major players have functional road tubeless tyres in the labs, it's just economics as to when they bring them out. The tyres are expensive to start with, if people are returning them in large numbers because they won't hold air perfectly then that will just make shops less likely to get stock, prices will stay high, etc. etc.

kulivontot
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

Nobody makes them because customers don't know what the hell road tubeless is. Ask about "road tubeless" on your next group ride and I guarantee somebody will say "Uh, are you talking about tubulars? I don't want to mess around with glue." Everybody knows what a tubular is because it's "what the pro's ride."
Add in the dis-incentive for top tubular producers to cannibalize their own high-end product, and you've got the 1-player market of road tubeless that you have today.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post