I'm tubeless-curious, in the sense that reducing the number of flats I need to fix at -10C in winter is attractive, but it's not an obvious decision. Mainly, as you point in the video, there's the issue of seasonal tire changes ‒ I do run studs in winter and since I have a single bike with an IGH it's not like swapping out the whole wheelset is very practical either. A compromise I'm considering is using inner tubes filled with subzero sealant, with the extra steps of (1) applying tubeless rim tape so that the sealant doesn't leak through the nipples in case of a puncture, and (2) applying a bit of sealant between the rim and the base of the valve to create an airtight seal to prevent sealant to leak around the valve stem again in case of a puncture. There's no consensus online on whether sealant in tubes is useful, and I suspect it may boil down to how airtight the rim is a particular setup. Any thoughts on that? Too much of a hack?
Keep it simple! I would spend your money and efforts just getting quality tires with some built-in puncture resistant belts. Take a look at the Schwalbe tire lineup and choose something with a high puncture resistance (marathons are great and Winter plus are also a super solid option for studs). They even formulate their rubber to be resistant to UV breakdown and have introduced a significant amount of recycled rubber into their current tires. I think money spent here is worth it's weight in GOLD to increase reliability. If you buy good tires, install them correctly...you should hardly ever get flats if you just keep them pumped regularly. Tubes with sealant seems like a strange middle ground that cancel out most of the benefits? Extra rotational weight...possibly extra messy if it fails and you get a *little* extra puncture resistance? Better tires will be more reliable and much easier to ride/change at any point IMO.
No section on TPU tubes? They’re supposed to be the holy grail tube; light, puncture resistant, low rolling resistance, cheaper than tubeless by a reasonable margin, etc. …Thoughts?
Although this WAS supposed to be FAQ about Tubeless...it somewhat ended up being "tubes vs. tubeless". From looking at Schwalbe's (my benchmark for quality tubes) TPU pricing...it would be over 40 bucks CAD per TPU tube. So more than double (up to quadruple price depending on tire/tube sizing) a regular butyl tube for pricing. For my personal bikes, I like accessibility/ affordability (regular tubes are everywhere!) or the performance benefits of of tubeless. And although the initial setup cost of tubeless is a little higher- much of it is reusable - your tubeless tape last a long time, your valves should last many years so I personally feel its kind of splitting hairs IMO. That being said...perhaps we should do another video testing TPU tube vs regular butyl tubes?
@@urbane-cyclist The fact that it became a comparison seems kind of inevitable in retrospect, since butyls largely act as a reference point for this video since so many cyclists have some level of familiarity with them. I'm asking about TPUs since I've personally had a great experience with them, having literally 1 flat over the course of about 3.5 years, spread across four pairs of TPU tubes from 3 different brands, used on four different bikes, six different wheelsets, in (I think) 7 different brands and models of tires of ranging from a 700x28mm Conti GP5000 clincher, to a 650Bx50mm WTB Venture with a reasonable representation from between those two examples. I have to believe at some level that my suspiciously good experience isn't entirely sheer dumb luck, and that these products actually do offer some 'holy grail' benefit of being lighter, faster, and more puncture-resistant, at the cost of price and availability. Which is a trade-off I'm happy to make, given the returns I get, but I get that not everyone has had that experience... Next up, for something less controversial, how about a video on whether waxing chains is worth the investment? LOL, jk
