I understand that the bugs are getting ironed out in this type of setup. The guys at the LBS love them. I’m considering running them this year. Anybody have an opinion on them?
Are you talking on your road, TT, or CX bike? The DAs only have a 24mm profile, so I’ll likely run something deeper on the front in tri’s. I don’t road race, but am considering running them in CX next fall - Hutchinson just came out with two new CX tubeless tires.
Do you know of anyone that makes a deep tubeless? I would be interested in that…
The guys at the LBS love them.
what about them do they love?
In a road application, it kinda seems like the answer to the question no one asked.
This is the tire I’m thinking about using for triathlons this year.
On what wheel - a DA 7850-SL? 24mm deep. I have a DA 7810-SL with that tire, but don’t plan on racing it (except for maybe 1 which is 100% hill).
OK, I made it through the eloquent (as always) prose from the Competitive Cyclist copy writers. However, there’s one question that simply hasn’t been answered: why?
When I saw the first tubless tire (a pre-production Michelin about 10 years ago), the talking point was ‘weight!!’. You don’t need a tube! Well, the 180 gram prototype tire never made it into production.
Next was ‘rolling resistance’–except that smart, bored guys with rollers and some free time figured out how to approximate the relative rolling resistance of various tires (thanks Al!). Nope, they don’t roll any faster.
Finally, the new talking point is ‘man, these things corner like you* wouldn’t believe*, the* road feel* is incredible!’. Umm…OK, talk up things that are arbitrary, subjective and seem to be highly influenced by the placebo effect (sales rep says ‘take these for a ride, the feel is incredible!!’–guys ride in parking lot, ‘Yeah dude, these are amazing! So where’s that pizza you brought?? Leave my free demo wheels over there…’).
Let’s see: limited wheel choice, limited tire choice, heavier tires, worse rolling resistance. I just don’t get it.
they’ll look totally boss on a p4. that has to count for something.
Yep, problem is if you are say mavic and hutchinson, how much does it cost to come up with prototypes and test? So after developing the system to the point where its ready to market you find out it doesn’t have much of a market. Do you abandon or figure some of it will sell to early adopters and the curious. Might as well make back some of that money. I guess I could see some application for cross, maybe, but thats a pretty limited market.
Styrrell
Yep, problem is if you are say mavic and hutchinson, how much does it cost to come up with prototypes and test? So after developing the system to the point where its ready to market you find out it doesn’t have much of a market. Do you abandon or figure some of it will sell to early adopters and the curious. Might as well make back some of that money. I guess I could see some application for cross, maybe, but thats a pretty limited market.
Styrrell
that’s a good point–but at a certain point the phrase ‘good money after bad’ comes to mind. I can think of a few bike products (road racing disc brakes, AWD mountain bikes (google ‘Christini’)) that were in various states of development–and at a certain point, the pin got pulled before it really got into production. To me, it seems that should have happened w/road tubeless.
I don’t know much about cross, but it does seem that in that limited market it could have some benefit.
The LBS guys do not use a tubeless specific wheel. They use any number of regular road rims and it works fine for them. They pump the tire with sealant and almost never flat using the Hutchinson tubeless road tire. That’s enough for me to at least consider it.
But I almost never flat with clinchers or tubies. Just don’t see it. All that said I like to try a set if I didn’t have to put in any effort or $$.
Styrrell
I thought one of the big benefits was the ability to run lower tire pressure?
I thought one of the big benefits was the ability to run lower tire pressure?
well, that’s a feature, not a benefit. What’s the benefit of pressure lower than a conventional tube/tire combo is capable?
It’s also a questionable feature. If you’re running pressure low enough to pinch flat a tube/tire, you’re at just as much risk in denting the rim. I’d imagine that tubeless would hold much air with a dented rim.
Low pressure for cycle cross ?
I’m using them as training wheels/tires for road racing. I love them. I actually bought the shimano wheels simply because they were a great wheel; super stiff, relatively light, rebuildable, and a beautiful cassette body and pawl system - super-fast engaging. I ran them with tubed clinchers last year, again, for training. This year I needed new tires and so I went with the tubeless hutch’s. They ride amazingly nice - they feel much more like tubulars than clinchers.
Theoretically, you can fill them with self-sealent, which is one of the biggest purported benefits. You can litereally stick a nail through the sidewall and the pressure is nearly entirely maintained after taking it back out. I skipped the sealent and just bring along a tube for backup.
But, to the original post, there are no “bugs” - they’re just like mountain tubeless setups.
Joe