Tubeless for touring

[Ming the Merciless]

I probably would not have attempted on clinchers.

Tubeless are still clinchers

 

[HLaB]

When I did the Lejog in 2018 it was with Tubeless. I did need the spare tube I was carrying on the last day; but after a month of having to do similar after the LEJOG, I realised it was the cr@p finishline sealant I was using, and I'd have no hesitation about using tubeless again for touring.

 

[RichieHH]

Apparently, there's a trick to this, but I haven't tried it myself yet:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rkbkjNvPdk

That channel is a clown show. That video in particular.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

I have a question for anyone who has done the research......

Is there a difference in the lifespan of the tyres between tubeless and not? Something I read recently suggested a dramatically shorter lifespan for tubeless tyres. Any thoughts?

 

[Ian H]

I have a question for anyone who has done the research......

Is there a difference in the lifespan of the tyres between tubeless and not? Something I read recently suggested a dramatically shorter lifespan for tubeless tyres. Any thoughts?

Not that I have noticed. I have two bikes with tubeless and two tubed.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

Not that I have noticed. I have two bikes with tubeless and two tubed.

Thanks.
I think it was on the ACA forums (USA, a PITA to search) and someone researching a bike for a cross continent ride was told to expect approx half the mileage from tubeless. It didn't seem right to me.

 

[Ian H]

Thanks.
I think it was on the ACA forums (USA, a PITA to search) and someone researching a bike for a cross continent ride was told to expect approx half the mileage from tubeless. It didn't seem right to me.

With tubeless you can run thinner, lighter tyres at lower pressures. Those tyres will obviously wear more quickly.
Two of mine run GP4000s and one of the tubeless is on GP5000s, so similar tyres. The wear rate seems similar.

 

[dimrub]

I have a question for anyone who has done the research......

Is there a difference in the lifespan of the tyres between tubeless and not? Something I read recently suggested a dramatically shorter lifespan for tubeless tyres. Any thoughts?

Wouldn't you need a tire that comes in two versions - tubeless and tubeful - for the comparison to be meaninful? I can't really compare the durability of Schwalbe G-One Bite with Schwalbe Marathon Plus, because it's not just a matter of one being tubeless and the other - not.

One theoretical point is that while a worn tubeless tire just won't do - you can't ride it, period - you may continue using a non-tubeless beyond where it's safe to do so. If that is the case, on paper you may get more mileage, but you'll be ill advised to do so.

As an anecdote, my aforementioned G-One Bites are at about 3k now, and they're still good for probably the same based on the tread profile, and that's like 35 euros or 70 euros for a set. At this price point I think the discussion about durability kind of looses its sting: as long as they last through any single trip I might attempt with them, I'm fine.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

Two of mine run GP4000s and one of the tubeless is on GP5000s, so similar tyres. The wear rate seems similar.

I don't know the tyres. Are these more for "road" style riding, i.e. generally paved surfaces and minimal load?

Wouldn't you need a tire that comes in two versions - tubeless and tubeful - for the comparison to be meaninful?

Well, yes.

If that is the case, on paper you may get more mileage, but you'll be ill advised to do so.

The thing is, on a long tour we may not have much of a choice! How adaptable is a tubeless tyre to adding a boot or the like?

as long as they last through any single trip I might attempt with them, I'm fine.

Well, yes. What's a "single trip" though? In the example I mentioned, the guy would have been looking at replacing his tyres before the end of his tour (Trans America). Or at least that's what he had been told. That seemed very odd to me.

I'm just curious if anyone touring on tubeless has any observations on that.

my aforementioned G-One Bites are at about 3k now, and they're still good for probably the same based on the tread profile

I've had to replace tyres with a very healthy tread profile because of sidewall issues.

Back of a fag packet figures I expect to get 10k km from my Schwalbes (Marathon, not Mundiial). That's carrying a pretty heavy load on some pretty rough roads. I think one of my current tyres is at about the 15k mark now.

 

[chriswoody]

Tricky one to quantify really. I don't really understand how running tubeless is meant to shorten the lifespan of your tire, I mean there is nothing stopping me from running inner tubes in my tires, rather than running them tubeless, so what's inside them is meaningless.

As Ian mentions above, there are a lot of tires out there intended for tubeless use these days that are a much lighter supple construction, than say the more traditional Marathons. For those types of tires, regardless of whether they are running tubes or sealant, they will have a shorter lifespan than Marathons.

I've been running tubeless for years now and love them. The first set I had were WTB Raddler tires, a lovely tire that I toured on as well as lots of mixed surface riding. They went in the bin because they started cracking around the side lugs and the centre lugs had all but worn down, meaning traction on muddy surfaces was getting a little sketchy. I'm currently running Terravail Rutland tires on there and after 2 years and several big tours they are still holding up well.

I'm terrible at keeping track of mileage though I'm afraid, I just ride the bike and replace bits when I need to. I would hazard a guess that the Raddlers had about 6000 kilometres on them when replaced and the Terravails must be coming up to similar mileage. So definitely not in the same longevity league as a Schwalbe Marathon, but then they are noticeably more supple and thinner than a Marathon. I really don't feel though that running them tubeless has any effect on their lifespan and if I had been running them with tubes, I would have got the same mileage, albeit with a lot more punctures! Whilst I have had had numerous punctures I've never had to stop and make any repairs, the sealant has just plugged them and I've carried on.

 

[Jameshow]

I don't know the tyres. Are these more for "road" style riding, i.e. generally paved surfaces and minimal load?


Well, yes.

The thing is, on a long tour we may not have much of a choice! How adaptable is a tubeless tyre to adding a boot or the like?

Well, yes. What's a "single trip" though? In the example I mentioned, the guy would have been looking at replacing his tyres before the end of his tour (Trans America). Or at least that's what he had been told. That seemed very odd to me.

I'm just curious if anyone touring on tubeless has any observations on that.


I've had to replace tyres with a very healthy tread profile because of sidewall issues.

Back of a fag packet figures I expect to get 10k km from my Schwalbes (Marathon, not Mundiial). That's carrying a pretty heavy load on some pretty rough roads. I think one of my current tyres is at about the 15k mark now.

It could be that your running at lower pressure than a tubed set up for greater comfort that leads to greater flexing of the sidewall and consequently greater wear of the sidewall which obviously has an finite number of flexations????

 

[Elybazza61]

The thing is, on a long tour we may not have much of a choice! How adaptable is a tubeless tyre to adding a boot or the like?

Had a puncture on a tubeless tyre last weekend on a camping trip in Naarf*ck less than a mile in (big chunk of glass).

After thinking I'd plugged it ok it proceeded to go down overnight; subsequently sealant had seeped past the tape so when I tried to pump the tyre up again air was coming out of one of the spoke holes.

Ended up putting a tube in after removing some of the plug inside (Dynaplug kits come with a tiny little knife) and putting a boot over it to make sure; tyre still up at the moment

 

[HobbesOnTour]

It could be that your running at lower pressure than a tubed set up for greater comfort that leads to greater flexing of the sidewall and consequently greater wear of the sidewall which obviously has an finite number of flexations????

Not sure of the use of "your" here. I don't use Tubeless.
If used in the general sense, then, yes, I'd expect how I use tyres to affect their lifespan. To me that's a different discussion to the expected lifespan of the tyre when it leaves the factory.

However, Chris helps me clarify the thought....

I don't really understand how running tubeless is meant to shorten the lifespan of your tire, I mean there is nothing stopping me from running inner tubes in my tires, rather than running them tubeless, so what's inside them is meaningless.

I think that's really important. It didn't cross my mind that putting in a tube could make a tyre last longer. What I was thinking was that there is something fundamentally different (design or material) between a tubeless and a tubed tyre.

I am assuming that if Brand X sells a tyre, say Model A, as a tubeless tyre that I can also buy that tyre for my non tubeless setup? In which case there should be no difference in lifespan. Brand X sells one tyre to be used for both setups.

However, is it common for Brand X to sell two models of the tyre - Tubeless and Tubed? If so, what is the difference and could that difference influence lifespan?

Or...
Just thinking aloud, is it possible that back in the day when Tubeless first came out, these tyres were substantially different from tubed in design/material and that this led to a shorter lifespan. Since then, that gap in lifespan has been minimised but an outdated notion still floats around?

 

[chriswoody]

What I was thinking was that there is something fundamentally different (design or material) between a tubeless and a tubed tyre.

From what I'm led to believe, there are two fundamental differences between a tire badged tubeless ready and one not. The first is the bead itself so it can hook into the rim and form a firm bond. The second is the material itself needs to be impermeable to the sealant, so that it can form a coating on the inside of the tire, but not leak out. Now this is all shaky knowledge on my part and not to be taken as definitive, I'm happy to be educated by more learned souls.

From experience I would suggest that there are two modes of failure for any tire that would mean that I would be looking to replace it. Firstly the sidewall developing cracks and holes, secondly the tread itself wearing out. Whilst tread itself is not needed on the road, off-road it does help a lot with traction and is the reason I've retired my tires in the past.

So with tubeless set up's I run a lot lower pressures than I would with tubes in, typically 25 - 30 PSI, even loaded up for touring. Now you would think that this would mean the sidewalls would develop cracks or damage, but no, I've seen zero sidewall wear on my tires. I speculate that this could be down to the different construction to limit sealant leakage? or knowing that they will be run at lower pressures the manufacturer's construct them to counteract that?

Interestingly, the current tires I'm running on the Kona, the Terravail Rutlands, come in two carcass strengths, durable and light. Due to supply issues, I have one of each, so I threw the Durable one on the back and the light one on the front. Now 18 months and thousands of kilometres later, the centre tread is noticeably worn on the rear (Durable) tire and the front (Light) tire has sealant marks all over the sidewall where the sealant is slowly permeating through. Neither tire is losing pressure though and continue to perform really well.

Again as far as I'm aware, manufacturers don't offer tubed or tubeless versions of tires, they just mark a tire as being tubeless ready or compatible, if that's what you want. I'm fairly certain for example that you could run Schwalbe Marathons tubeless if you desired, though I've not seen Schwalbe either confirm or deny this.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

Thanks @chriswoody .

From what I'm led to believe, there are two fundamental differences between a tire badged tubeless ready and one not. The first is the bead itself so it can hook into the rim and form a firm bond. The second is the material itself needs to be impermeable to the sealant, so that it can form a coating on the inside of the tire, but not leak out.

and

Again as far as I'm aware, manufacturers don't offer tubed or tubeless versions of tires, they just mark a tire as being tubeless ready or compatible, if that's what you want.

suggests, to me at least, that at least some manufacturers have changed the design and makeup of established tyre models to accommodate the move to tubeless.

I tend not to pay too much attention to tyre evaluations or reviews but my understanding is that the main points of performance are things like weight and rolling resistance. I know lifespan is a "how long is a piece of string" kind of thing but I'd be pretty confident that there are markers that could be used. I have a sneaky suspicion that for a lot of riders, though, lifespan takes a backseat to performance. The cynical part of me does wonder if the redesign to accommodate Tubeless has resulted in less lifespan than before.

However, the original thing that I read (and I went looking again - still can't find it) suggested a half life for tubeless which doesn't compute either.