I have got myself a lovely set of Bax Carbon deep section wheels (take a look here https://www.baxcarbon.co.uk/shop). I am running the 88mm back and 60 mm front. To date (3 months or so) I have just been running some Schwalbe Lugano clinchers, whilst winter riding. It’s now coming to summer, and racing season, so am putting some faster tyres on them, namely, the Schwalbe Pro One Tubeless. The rims are tubeless compatible.
I have taped the rims using Stan’s rim tape and have bought some Stan’s tubeless valves. The issue I have, though, is with extensions. I have some decent continental 60mm valve extenders with removable valve cores. The problem I am facing, though, is that there is no thread on them such that I can install the threaded washer to tighten the valve up against the rim, sealing the valve hole. Having looked on the internet I cannot find any extenders that are fully threaded (like a valve would be on an inner tube). My LBS has said that I need a threaded extender, so that I can tighten the valve against the rim, or tubeless won’t work.
I’ve got the front tyre installed and pumped up (with the use of a CO2 cartridge and some soapy water, no chance with a track pump) but air appears to be leaking out of the valve hole. I haven’t put sealant in yet. Is it a case that, when I put sealant in, this will assist in sealing the leaky gap, or will I end up being squirted with the stuff? What I’m also worried about is that, without the washer holding the valve in place, all it will take is a heavy knock for the valve to move in towards the tyre, opening up a big gap for air and sealant to come out of. Is that a valid concern or will 80psi of air pressure be plenty of force to stop this from happening?
I can’t believe I’m the first person to come across this problem, so any thoughts would be appreciated.
Yes, I think you could run two. If that’s too long, you could also run the threaded 40mm connected to a standard 30mm, so now you’re only 10mm longer than had you used a 60mm.
x2. I am not a fan of all things Silca, like the expensive pumps. But the Silca tubeless valve kits are, in my opinion, worth every penny of the premium price.
They would work on the front but wouldn’t be long enough for the rear. They’re exactly what I had in my mind though (they’re bloody expensive though).
Do you think I could run 2 together to make a suitably long extension?
I’d then need to buy 2 packs - wow - that’s going to cost an additional £40!!!
I bought continental inner tubes (with a removable valve core) with a ~60mm stem and then one pack of the Stans threaded extenders for 80ish mm wheels. Just cut the tube off the valve, threaded on the Stans extender and they have worked just fine with Swiss Side Hadrons. Yes, the total amount of money was a little ridiculous, but the inner tubes plus one pack of Stans extender was cheaper than two packs of Stans extenders and tubeless valves.
If the Silca tubeless valves had been around in 2015, that’s absolutely what I would have done instead for less money and less headache. If you are running two different wheels depths, I would probably buy two inners tubes with corresponding stem lengths to your rim and then use one pack of Stans threaded extenders.
The sealant should take care of the leaking. I have been road tubeless for many years and have used every brand of tubeless tires except Specialized and IRC (nothing against them). Tubeless road tires are not meant to hold air without sealant. They may in some rare cases, but in general they need the sealant to finish the job. If you have bought sealant yet, I recommend Orange Seal, Bontrager TLR or the ‘race’ version of Stans. They have thicker particles which are a little nicer for sealing high pressure applications.
I’ve actually got some long valve conti tubes. Does what you have suggested work ok given that a cut-up conti-valve is certainly not tubeless specific??
Sounds intriguing…
Thanks for the replies all, really helpful. Seems like the 60mm wheel is relatively easy. The 88mm is a different question though!!
I’ve actually got some long valve conti tubes. Does what you have suggested work ok given that a cut-up conti-valve is certainly not tubeless specific??
Sounds intriguing…
Thanks for the replies all, really helpful. Seems like the 60mm wheel is relatively easy. The 88mm is a different question though!!
As long as the Conti tubes have removable valves, you’re set. You unthread the valve, pop it onto the Stans (or Effetto Mariposa) valve, and then you have a ‘tubeless’ valve long enough for your wheel. I think a 60mm tube plus one 40mm threaded valve extender would be perfect for your rear wheel and then a ~40mm tube plus a 40mm threaded valve extender would work for your front wheel. Make sure to leave enough rubber around the base of the valves you cut out so that it stays in the rim instead of pulling through. I couldn’t find any pictures of mine and they are installed right now, so I can’t take a pic for you.
I haven’t had any problems in the two years they have been installed. The nut is threaded onto the (non structural) fairing fairly tight and there have been no issues there either. I would prefer the Silca solution which, would spread the load, but I’m sticking with what I already own and works for me.
I’m not sure I would really consider a valve ‘tubeless specific’ or not. It’s kind of a great way to charge way more money for a basic item. The tubeless specific valves really are just the stem portion of an inner tube with a removable valve core for 2-3x the price of an inner tube.
Not exactly… at least not always. The problem with long tubeless valves is that most of them are brass and therefore heavy and contribute to a good bit of imbalance. They also have to have a seal end that can handle a significantly higher load than inner tube valves as the valve nut is threaded on much tighter. In general tubeless valves start with larger metal stock and require more machining than you need when making a typical valve…this is to provide a structural ‘trumpet’ of metal within the seal end…this is something that a standard tube doesn’t have. While I have no doubt that the cut up tubes work, I’d recommend replacing them with something designed for the application as standard tubes are in no way designed to handle the tensile loads caused by the tight valve nut in a tubeless application. You certainly don’t have to buy our stuff, but from a safety perspective I would highly recommend buying real tubeless valves for the added safety factor of the design, especially when you consider the the bonding of the butyl to the metal degrades over time and is worsened by exposure to ozone, salt water, humidity, etc…
I’m always a bit surprised that in a world of $30+ socks, $40+ bar tape, $80 drink mix, $200 single use chains, $300 sunglasses and $400 shorts that ~$25 for something as safety critical and potentially headache causing as valve stems seems outrageous? We’re talking fairly high precision, multi-operation components that cost less than a box of energy bars. Particularly for those putting in the time and $$ for IM distance this is the sort of thing that can cause total panic the night before an event or even a DNF in the event of a problem on race day. From my 18+ years of working in neutral support, team support and bike inspection at events all over the world I can tell you, there is a big difference between ‘can be made to work’ and ‘designed specifically to work’.
Not exactly… at least not always. The problem with long tubeless valves is that most of them are brass and therefore heavy and contribute to a good bit of imbalance. They also have to have a seal end that can handle a significantly higher load than inner tube valves as the valve nut is threaded on much tighter. In general tubeless valves start with larger metal stock and require more machining than you need when making a typical valve…this is to provide a structural ‘trumpet’ of metal within the seal end…this is something that a standard tube doesn’t have. While I have no doubt that the cut up tubes work, I’d recommend replacing them with something designed for the application as standard tubes are in no way designed to handle the tensile loads caused by the tight valve nut in a tubeless application. You certainly don’t have to buy our stuff, but from a safety perspective I would highly recommend buying real tubeless valves for the added safety factor of the design, especially when you consider the the bonding of the butyl to the metal degrades over time and is worsened by exposure to ozone, salt water, humidity, etc…
I’m always a bit surprised that in a world of $30+ socks, $40+ bar tape, $80 drink mix, $200 single use chains, $300 sunglasses and $400 shorts that ~$25 for something as safety critical and potentially headache causing as valve stems seems outrageous? We’re talking fairly high precision, multi-operation components that cost less than a box of energy bars. Particularly for those putting in the time and $$ for IM distance this is the sort of thing that can cause total panic the night before an event or even a DNF in the event of a problem on race day. From my 18+ years of working in neutral support, team support and bike inspection at events all over the world I can tell you, there is a big difference between ‘can be made to work’ and ‘designed specifically to work’.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying here. It’s also the nicest anybody has ever called me cheap.
I literally had the valves out 6 days ago to inspect them, scrape out the tires and re-do sealant. The valves (and the rubber) look just as good as the day (2 years ago) I first mashed them together. I understand the ‘trumpet’ isn’t there like the tubeless specific valves. Following that logic, does that mean inner tubes would be shooting their stems off much more often than we see?
If your product had been available in 2015, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. I’ll likely buy them if I ever see them at a local shop. Until then, I have no qualms about using my setup that’s worked great for everything up through “IM distance.”
OP also has a unique situation where he needs two different sizes. There’s not currently an option through Silca where he could buy a 100 and 80 together. A mix and match could be a nice addition to your web store. Also, kudos for a picture that makes it impossible to order the wrong size (assuming the buyer knows their rim size).
I don’t see why not, the interface is the same ~ the removable valve core. But you’d have to have an outer threaded extender for this to work, unless the silca portion is just long enough to stick out of the rim enough to get the tightening nut on it.
Correct, SILCA valve extenders use the standard removable valve core geometry/thread etc… (though at a bit higher tolerance…)
So our extenders will work with the other guy’s valves, and their stuff should work with ours… However, as Sean H says, to make the tubeless bit work, you will need the extenders to be threaded so that you can use the valve nut to hold the valve in place…
Correct, SILCA valve extenders use the standard removable valve core geometry/thread etc… (though at a bit higher tolerance…)
So our extenders will work with the other guy’s valves, and their stuff should work with ours… However, as Sean H says, to make the tubeless bit work, you will need the extenders to be threaded so that you can use the valve nut to hold the valve in place…
I don’t see why not, the interface is the same ~ the removable valve core. But you’d have to have an outer threaded extender for this to work, unless the silca portion is just long enough to stick out of the rim enough to get the tightening nut on it.
thanks! just purchased a set of the 44mm. (one for the trispoke and the other for disc)
