State Of Tubelessness: 2019

Although most tires I test now are tubeless rated, a rare few are not, such as this Tioga Binary.

Note: For the last "State Of Tublessness" address, see the two part report HERE and HERE. 

It is 2019, and almost every new tire design is tubeless rated now, with rare exceptions to the rule. Road tires being the main category where tubes still rule. However; that seems poised to be changing soon as well.

Perhaps no where else in cycling, besides triathlon, does "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" rule what consumers do. Road racers in the Pro ranks have every item down to the last bit of bar tape and GPS data crunching software scrutinized by the cycling media. The writers of this material, produced from races such as the Tour de France and others, drive sales of gear and ideas to a large degree yet in 2019. While this may not be as strong a dynamic as it once was, it still is a major influencer on consumer's buying habits.

With that said, I noted that several media observers at the Tour were commenting on the uptick in tubeless racing tires and wheel usage at this year's Tour. It may take a few years, but if the product produces wins and is seen as a performance enhancing product, my bet is that road cyclists will be flocking to tubeless set ups within a short period of time. These same roadies probably already own gravel and/or MTB bikes that are tubeless, so the technology is not alien to most seasoned cyclists.

So, anymore, if a company produces a new model of tire that is not tubeless rated, it is an oddity, but that happened recently with Tioga's Binary model which I recently reviewed. While this seems weird, there was/is a really good reason that this didn't show up as a tubeless rated casing. I cannot tell you why that is due to an agreement, just that someday soon, a tubeless Binary will emerge, and no one will remember this first salvo into the gravel tire market by Tioga, as the tubeless rated version will, no doubt, be the one everyone will buy. But suffice it to say that tubed tires will, most likely, always be around. They just won't be the high end, performance models once tubelessness gets figured out.

My new-to-me Ti Muk 2 is tubeless. Fat bike tubelessness is a piece of "cake" now.

So, speaking of "figuring it out".....

One of my biggest pet peeves about fat bikes for the first several years that these beasts were available on a wide scale was that the tire and wheel technology was from the dark ages of cycling. Rims were horrible, tires were department store quality, and getting anything to set up tubeless was.....yeah, RIGHT! That was a whole garage-science fair time in fat bike history right there. The Rube Goldberg machine-like manners in which one had to engage in to set a fat bike tire up tubeless was, in a word, ludicrous. Happily now we can leave all that behind since "real tubeless tires" and wheels exist which make all that nonsense unnecessary.

This was never made more clear to me than when I set up my Terrene Tires Cake Eaters on the Whiskey carbon fat bike rims recently. The set up was super easy to do. They have performed above my expectations so far, retaining air better than my tubed fat bike wheels and tires, while rolling far easier than those old dinosaurs. There probably is no better candidate for tubeless tires in the bicycle world than fat bikes. The amount of tube scrubbing tire is just one reason why. I have some past experience with this as well.

I had set up some fat bike tires as tubeless back in the day using some, ahem!, rather sketchy techniques that including double sided mounting tape, Gorilla tape, and several hours of labor to achieve tubeless Nirvana. And it was "worth it" as far as results. The conversion saved a tiny bit of weight, but in terms of rolling resistance, the effect was greatly noticeable and made riding a fat bike far easier than with tubes. However; once the sealant dried up and the tape started to fail, well...... It was too much hassle to keep it maintained, so I went back to tubes until, one day, I could use proper tires and rims. And let me tell ya, it is still really worth it. But now, the maintenance part is super easy. Tubeless tires and rims for fat bikes are the way to go, hands down.

While the effects of rolling resistance lessen as the tube/tire size decreases, it is still there. I have a friend who just went tubeless on his gravel bike and was amazed by the way it rode better. So, while there are several benefits to this way of doing things, we can not ignore a few of the downsides. There are some major bummers, and therefore tubeless tires for bicycles still is not going to be for everyone. Futzing with sealant, maintaining the sealant levels, dealing with a different way of tire to rim interface, and having a few "no go" fits and difficulties with that sort of thing can really put people off. For some, especially those who are familiar with the "Ways Of The Toob", straying from the familiar path is just not tenable. Better to have your peace and sanity than a few less watts of rolling resistance and ride comfort.

Look for further musings on tubelessness in the future.

State Of Tubelessness: 2019

Although most tires I test now are tubeless rated, a rare few are not, such as this Tioga Binary.

Note: For the last "State Of Tublessness" address, see the two part report HERE and HERE. 

It is 2019, and almost every new tire design is tubeless rated now, with rare exceptions to the rule. Road tires being the main category where tubes still rule. However; that seems poised to be changing soon as well.

Perhaps no where else in cycling, besides triathlon, does "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" rule what consumers do. Road racers in the Pro ranks have every item down to the last bit of bar tape and GPS data crunching software scrutinized by the cycling media. The writers of this material, produced from races such as the Tour de France and others, drive sales of gear and ideas to a large degree yet in 2019. While this may not be as strong a dynamic as it once was, it still is a major influencer on consumer's buying habits.

With that said, I noted that several media observers at the Tour were commenting on the uptick in tubeless racing tires and wheel usage at this year's Tour. It may take a few years, but if the product produces wins and is seen as a performance enhancing product, my bet is that road cyclists will be flocking to tubeless set ups within a short period of time. These same roadies probably already own gravel and/or MTB bikes that are tubeless, so the technology is not alien to most seasoned cyclists.

So, anymore, if a company produces a new model of tire that is not tubeless rated, it is an oddity, but that happened recently with Tioga's Binary model which I recently reviewed. While this seems weird, there was/is a really good reason that this didn't show up as a tubeless rated casing. I cannot tell you why that is due to an agreement, just that someday soon, a tubeless Binary will emerge, and no one will remember this first salvo into the gravel tire market by Tioga, as the tubeless rated version will, no doubt, be the one everyone will buy. But suffice it to say that tubed tires will, most likely, always be around. They just won't be the high end, performance models once tubelessness gets figured out.

My new-to-me Ti Muk 2 is tubeless. Fat bike tubelessness is a piece of "cake" now.

So, speaking of "figuring it out".....

One of my biggest pet peeves about fat bikes for the first several years that these beasts were available on a wide scale was that the tire and wheel technology was from the dark ages of cycling. Rims were horrible, tires were department store quality, and getting anything to set up tubeless was.....yeah, RIGHT! That was a whole garage-science fair time in fat bike history right there. The Rube Goldberg machine-like manners in which one had to engage in to set a fat bike tire up tubeless was, in a word, ludicrous. Happily now we can leave all that behind since "real tubeless tires" and wheels exist which make all that nonsense unnecessary.

This was never made more clear to me than when I set up my Terrene Tires Cake Eaters on the Whiskey carbon fat bike rims recently. The set up was super easy to do. They have performed above my expectations so far, retaining air better than my tubed fat bike wheels and tires, while rolling far easier than those old dinosaurs. There probably is no better candidate for tubeless tires in the bicycle world than fat bikes. The amount of tube scrubbing tire is just one reason why. I have some past experience with this as well.

I had set up some fat bike tires as tubeless back in the day using some, ahem!, rather sketchy techniques that including double sided mounting tape, Gorilla tape, and several hours of labor to achieve tubeless Nirvana. And it was "worth it" as far as results. The conversion saved a tiny bit of weight, but in terms of rolling resistance, the effect was greatly noticeable and made riding a fat bike far easier than with tubes. However; once the sealant dried up and the tape started to fail, well...... It was too much hassle to keep it maintained, so I went back to tubes until, one day, I could use proper tires and rims. And let me tell ya, it is still really worth it. But now, the maintenance part is super easy. Tubeless tires and rims for fat bikes are the way to go, hands down.

While the effects of rolling resistance lessen as the tube/tire size decreases, it is still there. I have a friend who just went tubeless on his gravel bike and was amazed by the way it rode better. So, while there are several benefits to this way of doing things, we can not ignore a few of the downsides. There are some major bummers, and therefore tubeless tires for bicycles still is not going to be for everyone. Futzing with sealant, maintaining the sealant levels, dealing with a different way of tire to rim interface, and having a few "no go" fits and difficulties with that sort of thing can really put people off. For some, especially those who are familiar with the "Ways Of The Toob", straying from the familiar path is just not tenable. Better to have your peace and sanity than a few less watts of rolling resistance and ride comfort.

Look for further musings on tubelessness in the future.

A Promise Of A Better Fit

Rim and tire standards are being looked at again. Do we really think everyone will comply?

This isn't probably going to be something you will read on forums, see in your next magazine, (if you still get those), or hear spoken about at your next group ride, but tire and rim fit is being scrutinized.  This is serious business, yet without a recent story in "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News", I wouldn't have known about this at all.

Even though the number one most debated, most interesting thing to cyclists, (based upon the statistics I see from our RidingGravel.com site), is tires, this story seems to be buried. The beginnings of this go back to 2008, and the debate isn't over yet, but things concerning rim and tire fit are probably going to change soon, and for the better, if what I am reading comes true.

There is a lot to sift through and think about here, but for the purposes of this post, I'll keep it simple. There are two major governing bodies that set standards which much of the world's industries follow. One is called "ETRTO" which stands for European Tire and Rim Technical Organization. This organization sets the standards for tire and rim interfaces for cars, trucks, airplanes, lawnmowers- basically anything that has a tire on a rim, the ETRTO sets standards for industries to live by and these industries and manufacturers are held liable based upon these standards. You may have seen ETRTO designations in terms of rims.

The other organization is "ISO" which stands for International Standards Organization. This organization sets standards worldwide for everything from cyber security, occupational health and safety, to yes.....bicycles. You may have seen "ISO" numbers imprinted on tires, for example. 

Okay....so captains of the cycling industry- both on the bicycle, tire, and rim sides, all sat down together with officials from ETRTO and ISO to talk about setting clear, repeatable, and safe standards for all bicycle tire and rim fitting. Apparently, tubeless tire technology, carbon rim technologies, and the move to wider rims had led to a sort of "wild west" situation where standards had been ignored, invented, or privatized to a degree that rim and tire combinations, in some instances, were proving to be dangerous. This had become a liability for many in the industry, so much so that this meeting was called.

Rim manufacturers will be held to a new standard which the tire manufacturers will then follow.

In a swift and somewhat surprising move, both ETRTO and ISO agreed that the standards needed to be updated and there was a quick move to set the rim manufacturers straight to the point that any tire manufacturer could then build a tire which not only would safely fit any rim, but be mountable and removable by hand. However; in the tubeless realm, there was a fly in the ointment, and that came from Stan's NoTubes.

I've stated for years that Stan's had a different, and incompatible standard for their rims which many other tubeless tire manufacturers did not adhere to. Basically, Stan's rim design was originally developed to accommodate conversion of non-tubeless tires to being set up tubeless. Now days, with the ubiquity of tubeless tires, especially on the mountain bike side, this feature of Stan's has been rendered unnecessary but for a few manufacturers who still build to a Stan's "fit". Now, I never knew exactly what that measurement was, only that it was slightly larger than typical ETRTO standards. Now I know.

The "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News" article linked a letter penned by Challenge Tire's Morgan Nichol, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting a time or two. In his letter, from which I have learned a lot, I found the following nugget.

 "It is clear tire companies cannot test and assure that tires based on a 622+-0.5mm bead seat and other agreed wall height and channel width and depth parameters, especially for high-pressure applications like Road and Track, can be mounted comfortably and still safely maintain proper tire fit with Stan’s 623 +-0.3mm BSD design parameters without high risk of failure." - from Morgan Nichols' letter to "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News"

Without getting into the nitty-gritty, the big deal here is that we now have a solid figure to see that describes why it is that some tires are darn near impossible, or are impossible, to fit to Stan's rims. Interestingly, the objections brought to the summit between the cycling industry and ETRTO/ISO by Stan's claimed that "5 to 10 other companies are using Stan's so-called "B Standard Fit"". So, in a very diplomatic way, in the quoted letter, it can be seen how Stan's representative kind of tried a bit of a trick by first vaguely putting forth the "B Standard". However; when pressed upon to show more details, the actual measurement came out at which point the feeling I get from Mr. Nichols' letter is that Stan's isn't going to see their standard be adopted as a "standard". What the "five to ten" other companies will do is anyone's guess.

So, barring the Stan's gambit to have two standards, it seems that very soon we might actually see tubeless tires and rims get standardized as far as fit goes. But the question remains, since not all manufacturers were there, and not all follow ETRTO/ISO, will this really happen? Time will tell.

A Promise Of A Better Fit

Rim and tire standards are being looked at again. Do we really think everyone will comply?

This isn't probably going to be something you will read on forums, see in your next magazine, (if you still get those), or hear spoken about at your next group ride, but tire and rim fit is being scrutinized.  This is serious business, yet without a recent story in "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News", I wouldn't have known about this at all.

Even though the number one most debated, most interesting thing to cyclists, (based upon the statistics I see from our RidingGravel.com site), is tires, this story seems to be buried. The beginnings of this go back to 2008, and the debate isn't over yet, but things concerning rim and tire fit are probably going to change soon, and for the better, if what I am reading comes true.

There is a lot to sift through and think about here, but for the purposes of this post, I'll keep it simple. There are two major governing bodies that set standards which much of the world's industries follow. One is called "ETRTO" which stands for European Tire and Rim Technical Organization. This organization sets the standards for tire and rim interfaces for cars, trucks, airplanes, lawnmowers- basically anything that has a tire on a rim, the ETRTO sets standards for industries to live by and these industries and manufacturers are held liable based upon these standards. You may have seen ETRTO designations in terms of rims.

The other organization is "ISO" which stands for International Standards Organization. This organization sets standards worldwide for everything from cyber security, occupational health and safety, to yes.....bicycles. You may have seen "ISO" numbers imprinted on tires, for example. 

Okay....so captains of the cycling industry- both on the bicycle, tire, and rim sides, all sat down together with officials from ETRTO and ISO to talk about setting clear, repeatable, and safe standards for all bicycle tire and rim fitting. Apparently, tubeless tire technology, carbon rim technologies, and the move to wider rims had led to a sort of "wild west" situation where standards had been ignored, invented, or privatized to a degree that rim and tire combinations, in some instances, were proving to be dangerous. This had become a liability for many in the industry, so much so that this meeting was called.

Rim manufacturers will be held to a new standard which the tire manufacturers will then follow.

In a swift and somewhat surprising move, both ETRTO and ISO agreed that the standards needed to be updated and there was a quick move to set the rim manufacturers straight to the point that any tire manufacturer could then build a tire which not only would safely fit any rim, but be mountable and removable by hand. However; in the tubeless realm, there was a fly in the ointment, and that came from Stan's NoTubes.

I've stated for years that Stan's had a different, and incompatible standard for their rims which many other tubeless tire manufacturers did not adhere to. Basically, Stan's rim design was originally developed to accommodate conversion of non-tubeless tires to being set up tubeless. Now days, with the ubiquity of tubeless tires, especially on the mountain bike side, this feature of Stan's has been rendered unnecessary but for a few manufacturers who still build to a Stan's "fit". Now, I never knew exactly what that measurement was, only that it was slightly larger than typical ETRTO standards. Now I know.

The "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News" article linked a letter penned by Challenge Tire's Morgan Nichol, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting a time or two. In his letter, from which I have learned a lot, I found the following nugget.

 "It is clear tire companies cannot test and assure that tires based on a 622+-0.5mm bead seat and other agreed wall height and channel width and depth parameters, especially for high-pressure applications like Road and Track, can be mounted comfortably and still safely maintain proper tire fit with Stan’s 623 +-0.3mm BSD design parameters without high risk of failure." - from Morgan Nichols' letter to "Bicycle Retailer and Industry News"

Without getting into the nitty-gritty, the big deal here is that we now have a solid figure to see that describes why it is that some tires are darn near impossible, or are impossible, to fit to Stan's rims. Interestingly, the objections brought to the summit between the cycling industry and ETRTO/ISO by Stan's claimed that "5 to 10 other companies are using Stan's so-called "B Standard Fit"". So, in a very diplomatic way, in the quoted letter, it can be seen how Stan's representative kind of tried a bit of a trick by first vaguely putting forth the "B Standard". However; when pressed upon to show more details, the actual measurement came out at which point the feeling I get from Mr. Nichols' letter is that Stan's isn't going to see their standard be adopted as a "standard". What the "five to ten" other companies will do is anyone's guess.

So, barring the Stan's gambit to have two standards, it seems that very soon we might actually see tubeless tires and rims get standardized as far as fit goes. But the question remains, since not all manufacturers were there, and not all follow ETRTO/ISO, will this really happen? Time will tell.

State Of Tubelessness: Ten Years Down The Road- Part 2

So, yesterday I hit on the overall historical background for tubeless tires, focusing on why there is no single standard and why certain tires do not fit certain rims. before I go much further, I also wanted to point out that this issue- tires marked the same size as rims but do not fit well with each other, is not the sole domain of tubeless/tubeless ready tires. There have been certain combinations of clincher rims and tires throughout the decades that were tough, or nigh unto impossible, to mount to each other. One famous example of that is Continental Gatorskin tires and Trek matrix rims. Mechanics shudder with disdain when presented with this combination to work on.

So, moving on from there, I wanted to get more in to what I have experienced personally within the last several years in terms of tubeless tire usage. I am pretty much "tube free" when it comes to gravel bikes. I cannot remember the last time I rolled tubed tires on gravel. It's been a couple of years at least. Mountain bikes are generally tubeless for me, but a couple of my single speeds have been reverted back to tubed set ups just because they get ridden so rarely anymore. Fat bikes are all tubed here, and my utilitarian bikes are tubed for the most part, with the exception of my Surly 1X1.

Despite the casing failure, we were able to limp the bike back to Emporia!

So, I spend a fair amount of time using both types of tires. But for this post, I'll stick to my tubeless stories. One of the standout situations I have been involved with was my DK200 experience in 2016. Back when I was doing mtb tire reviews, I got a set of Maxxis Ikon tires. The really expensive ones. (Note- I actually paid out of pocket for those tires.) Anyway, they were full on XC geek tires, were really light, and were not tubeless rated. Keep in mind that the lightest set ups, still in 2018, are folding bead tires set up tubeless on Stan's rims. This is exactly what I did with the Ikons. They were mounted to Sun Ringle' Black Flag wheels, which used Stan's dimension bead seats. (In fact, many say Stan's rims are made by Sun Ringle') Anyway, I wasn't too keen on removing those tires because I wanted to wear them out. I paid a lot for them and nothing else that big rolled that well on my Fargo at the time.

So it was that at the DK200 I was on a pre-ride and the casing gave up the ghost. (See image to the left) Well, you can read all about it here, but the point was that tires were needed ASAP and I found some Teravail Sparwoods that would fit the bill, but maybe not my rims! The mechanic couldn't get the tires to fit on the Stan's dimension rims because the Sparwoods must have been made closer to a UST dimension. I ended up having to lever both tires on myself, and I knew that if I cut one on the flint the next day during my own ride, I was going to be dead in the water because there was no field servicing that set up!

Fortunately I was able to complete that ride and I actually left those Sparwoods on until last year when I replaced the tires for some Terrene test tires I had to review. At that point the Sparwoods came off, but they required a pair of tire levers and some muscle to dismount.

The Teravail Sparwood and Black Flag wheel combo was almost a no-go as far as fit went.

 Then there is the opposite end of the spectrum- tires that won't mount for various reasons. I have had trouble with tires that seem to be a good fit but will refuse to mount up, or that require "special techniques" to mount tubeless. I'm specifically NOT referring to tires that are fat bike tires, mtb tires, or non-tubeless rated rims or tires. These have been tires in the 40mm range, meant to be tubeless, and just are really stubborn about being set up.

Of these tires, there is one common thread- they all had some sort of puncture protection layer or an anti-stretch bead technology. This made the airing up/bead seating process very difficult, if not impossible. The sidewalls of the tires didn't want  to be moved by air blasts from compressors, and therefore a temporary seal was hard to get initiated, which is critical for a successful tubeless tire installation.

Another critical feature is the valve stem. Tubeless valve stems are one of the biggest reasons tubeless installations are difficult or why tubeless set ups sometimes fail. There are good stems and really bad ones. Then the valve hole is another possibility for failure. If the stem cannot effectively seal at the hole it passes through, you will have a headache on your hands. Also worth noting is that after a time tubeless valve stems get corroded by sealant, and this mainly where the core seats into the outer portion of the stem. Replacing cores often will help with this.

Sealants are another ongoing development in the tubeless marketplace. There are basically two kinds of sealant. You either use a glycol based sealant, like the trucking, ag, and industrial industries use, or a latex based sealant like most bicycle sealants have used since Stan's developed his basic latex formula back in the 90's. Glycol based sealants have also been used in bicycle tires. You may know Slime, and that is a glycol based sealant that typically doesn't dry up in tires. Latex works faster and is lighter, (usually) than glycol based sealants for the same volume, but these sealants dry out faster.

These carbon rims made by Irwin Cycling are so precisely made they make going tubeless a breeze.

I've tried just about all of them, and some that you haven't heard of. Glycol has been the worst of the two types for me, with the notable exception of Slime. Latex sealants perform best from my standpoint. Stan's, Orange Seal, GEAX, (Maybe no longer made?), Caffe Latex, and MG's home brew sealant have been my best.

So, you can see how so many standards, choices, and ways of doing things can add up to situations that could be awesome or somewhat less than satisfying. In my opinion, if you stick to a system- using true tubeless components, and/or a one brand solution, (tire/rim) the issues can be put to rest. For instance, a WTB TCS set up is pretty bomber. So is the Bontrager one. There are others.

I have also noted that many rim and tire manufacturers are really stepping up their game in regard to precision molding techniques which have really made things fit and seal so much better than before. I think the trend is toward more uniformity, but it has been a slow road.

You'd think by now we'd have it figured out!

That's it for this "State Of Tubelessness" series. Hit me with any questions in the comments. 

State Of Tubelessness: Ten Years Down The Road- Part 2

So, yesterday I hit on the overall historical background for tubeless tires, focusing on why there is no single standard and why certain tires do not fit certain rims. before I go much further, I also wanted to point out that this issue- tires marked the same size as rims but do not fit well with each other, is not the sole domain of tubeless/tubeless ready tires. There have been certain combinations of clincher rims and tires throughout the decades that were tough, or nigh unto impossible, to mount to each other. One famous example of that is Continental Gatorskin tires and Trek matrix rims. Mechanics shudder with disdain when presented with this combination to work on.

So, moving on from there, I wanted to get more in to what I have experienced personally within the last several years in terms of tubeless tire usage. I am pretty much "tube free" when it comes to gravel bikes. I cannot remember the last time I rolled tubed tires on gravel. It's been a couple of years at least. Mountain bikes are generally tubeless for me, but a couple of my single speeds have been reverted back to tubed set ups just because they get ridden so rarely anymore. Fat bikes are all tubed here, and my utilitarian bikes are tubed for the most part, with the exception of my Surly 1X1.

Despite the casing failure, we were able to limp the bike back to Emporia!

So, I spend a fair amount of time using both types of tires. But for this post, I'll stick to my tubeless stories. One of the standout situations I have been involved with was my DK200 experience in 2016. Back when I was doing mtb tire reviews, I got a set of Maxxis Ikon tires. The really expensive ones. (Note- I actually paid out of pocket for those tires.) Anyway, they were full on XC geek tires, were really light, and were not tubeless rated. Keep in mind that the lightest set ups, still in 2018, are folding bead tires set up tubeless on Stan's rims. This is exactly what I did with the Ikons. They were mounted to Sun Ringle' Black Flag wheels, which used Stan's dimension bead seats. (In fact, many say Stan's rims are made by Sun Ringle') Anyway, I wasn't too keen on removing those tires because I wanted to wear them out. I paid a lot for them and nothing else that big rolled that well on my Fargo at the time.

So it was that at the DK200 I was on a pre-ride and the casing gave up the ghost. (See image to the left) Well, you can read all about it here, but the point was that tires were needed ASAP and I found some Teravail Sparwoods that would fit the bill, but maybe not my rims! The mechanic couldn't get the tires to fit on the Stan's dimension rims because the Sparwoods must have been made closer to a UST dimension. I ended up having to lever both tires on myself, and I knew that if I cut one on the flint the next day during my own ride, I was going to be dead in the water because there was no field servicing that set up!

Fortunately I was able to complete that ride and I actually left those Sparwoods on until last year when I replaced the tires for some Terrene test tires I had to review. At that point the Sparwoods came off, but they required a pair of tire levers and some muscle to dismount.

The Teravail Sparwood and Black Flag wheel combo was almost a no-go as far as fit went.

 Then there is the opposite end of the spectrum- tires that won't mount for various reasons. I have had trouble with tires that seem to be a good fit but will refuse to mount up, or that require "special techniques" to mount tubeless. I'm specifically NOT referring to tires that are fat bike tires, mtb tires, or non-tubeless rated rims or tires. These have been tires in the 40mm range, meant to be tubeless, and just are really stubborn about being set up.

Of these tires, there is one common thread- they all had some sort of puncture protection layer or an anti-stretch bead technology. This made the airing up/bead seating process very difficult, if not impossible. The sidewalls of the tires didn't want  to be moved by air blasts from compressors, and therefore a temporary seal was hard to get initiated, which is critical for a successful tubeless tire installation.

Another critical feature is the valve stem. Tubeless valve stems are one of the biggest reasons tubeless installations are difficult or why tubeless set ups sometimes fail. There are good stems and really bad ones. Then the valve hole is another possibility for failure. If the stem cannot effectively seal at the hole it passes through, you will have a headache on your hands. Also worth noting is that after a time tubeless valve stems get corroded by sealant, and this mainly where the core seats into the outer portion of the stem. Replacing cores often will help with this.

Sealants are another ongoing development in the tubeless marketplace. There are basically two kinds of sealant. You either use a glycol based sealant, like the trucking, ag, and industrial industries use, or a latex based sealant like most bicycle sealants have used since Stan's developed his basic latex formula back in the 90's. Glycol based sealants have also been used in bicycle tires. You may know Slime, and that is a glycol based sealant that typically doesn't dry up in tires. Latex works faster and is lighter, (usually) than glycol based sealants for the same volume, but these sealants dry out faster.

These carbon rims made by Irwin Cycling are so precisely made they make going tubeless a breeze.

I've tried just about all of them, and some that you haven't heard of. Glycol has been the worst of the two types for me, with the notable exception of Slime. Latex sealants perform best from my standpoint. Stan's, Orange Seal, GEAX, (Maybe no longer made?), Caffe Latex, and MG's home brew sealant have been my best.

So, you can see how so many standards, choices, and ways of doing things can add up to situations that could be awesome or somewhat less than satisfying. In my opinion, if you stick to a system- using true tubeless components, and/or a one brand solution, (tire/rim) the issues can be put to rest. For instance, a WTB TCS set up is pretty bomber. So is the Bontrager one. There are others.

I have also noted that many rim and tire manufacturers are really stepping up their game in regard to precision molding techniques which have really made things fit and seal so much better than before. I think the trend is toward more uniformity, but it has been a slow road.

You'd think by now we'd have it figured out!

That's it for this "State Of Tubelessness" series. Hit me with any questions in the comments. 

State Of Tubelessness: Ten Years Down The Road- Part 1

Some wheels, like these Irwin Cycling wheels here, make going tubeless super easy.

The other day I noted a thread in the RidingGravel.com forum that was started by someone a bit befuddled by the terminologies and what they meant when it comes to gravel tires. What rims fit which tires? What is UST? and more.

This prompted me to read through the thread and I did stop and add some context to it. But that said, it appears that there are a lot of confused individuals out there yet in 2018 when it comes to tubeless tires for bicycles.

I have, on occasion here on this blog, written a "State Of Tubelessness" post. The first one I could dig up was from 2010, but I had been writing about my trials and tribulations with tubeless tires almost from the onset of the blog in 2005. But for all intents and purposes, my real pursuit of going tubeless started in 2007, so I figured why not detail briefly what has happened over the past ten years in terms of tubeless tires for bicycles.

Obviously somewhere this all started and the beginnings of tubeless tires in our era started in the late 90's with a guy by the name of Stan Koziak. You know his company by the name of "Stan's", but the full name of the company is "Stan's NoTubes", which should give you a clue as to what sort of tires his system are meant for. Stan's was, and still is, a system for converting non-tubeless tires to tubeless usage. That specifically means folding bead and wire bead performance tires that were never meant to be tubeless. Of course, you can run tubeless tires on Stan's rims, but not all will fit.

A set of ZTR Flow rims I still have were tried with many tires in the past.

Once tubeless ready tires came to market, Stan's didn't push the conversion thing too hard. In fact, they dabbled in their own tires for a bit, but even that went by the wayside. Stan's just kept being Stan's and they kept growing as a company, mainly because tire and rim manufacturers couldn't get together on a single standard for tubeless tires. Not that it wasn't tried, or successful, because there is a standard, but it requires a licensing fee. Not something many companies are willing to pay for.

Of course, that standard is UST, or Uniform System Tubeless, which Mavic, Hutchinson, and Michelin first developed in 1999. Later a few other companies would adopt the standard, most notably GEAX/Vittoria, but for the most part, the stringent dimensions and testing protocol of UST wasn't adopted by the industry universally. This caused UST to be pretty much pigeonholed to the XC racer set, and most average mountain bikers were not getting into UST in the early 00's. The fact that true, air-tight tubeless tires were a lot heavier than their folding bead counterparts was also a part of this.

 Meanwhile, 29"ers were becoming a thing, and the rim and tire manufacturers were standing off from adopting any single standard until things shook themselves out. This sort of played into the hands of Stan's who were the "average person's" tubeless "system" of choice. Obviously, Stan's made for a lighter weight set up, because you used a folding bead tire, which in some cases could be well over 200 grams lighter than a UST tire. The trouble with Stan's was that non-tubeless, folding bead tires were difficult to get sealed, didn't last long, and some were failing spectacularly due to the added stresses present without a tube to reinforce the bead and sidewall.

That all began to change in the late 00's as Trek/Bontrager/Fisher began to push for tubeless systems that they could use on their bikes. Since Bontrager sold tires, a system where tire, plastic "TLR" rim strip, and rim was developed which was very user friendly and worked tremendously well. But like UST before it, this was not an "open standard", so other companies were developing their own systems to compete. Specialized had "2Bliss", WTB developed "TCS", and rim manufacturers that did not make tires and tire manufacturers that did not make rims were left wondering what to do.

Rim companies, like Velocity, kind of shot for a :middle ground" in terms of design.

Many companies did not want to err so far toward the UST dimensions that other components would not fit and vice versa. Some of the systems, like WTB's TCS,were close to UST, but some were not. The companies whose tires were not right on the UST mark did so to fit Stan's rims, which were very slightly oversized. But these tires would still fit some other companies rims, which were somewhere in between the UST and the older. standard climcher/tube variances. Rims, like Velocity USA's, were made to fit a broader range of tires as well. Other companies adopted Stan's dimensions, while others erred closer to UST.

So, in 2018, you can probably see why it is that people get confused. Fit issues exist, and remember, tolerances don't need to vary much so that very small variances can mean that some components will not be compatible with others, despite the labels saying 700c, or 622ISO. This gives people fits, because if labels match up, components should as well, or so the thinking goes. However, saying 622ISO is the "fine measurement all should be at", is like thinking every square mile in the country is the same size. They are not, and neither is everyone's rims and tires. That may sound weird, but if you've ever tried mounting a Michelin tubeless tire on a Stan's rim, you know what I mean. You might get the two mounted to one another, but woe be to you if you have a catastrophic failure on a ride and you think you are getting a tube in there.

Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow....

State Of Tubelessness: Ten Years Down The Road- Part 1

Some wheels, like these Irwin Cycling wheels here, make going tubeless super easy.

The other day I noted a thread in the RidingGravel.com forum that was started by someone a bit befuddled by the terminologies and what they meant when it comes to gravel tires. What rims fit which tires? What is UST? and more.

This prompted me to read through the thread and I did stop and add some context to it. But that said, it appears that there are a lot of confused individuals out there yet in 2018 when it comes to tubeless tires for bicycles.

I have, on occasion here on this blog, written a "State Of Tubelessness" post. The first one I could dig up was from 2010, but I had been writing about my trials and tribulations with tubeless tires almost from the onset of the blog in 2005. But for all intents and purposes, my real pursuit of going tubeless started in 2007, so I figured why not detail briefly what has happened over the past ten years in terms of tubeless tires for bicycles.

Obviously somewhere this all started and the beginnings of tubeless tires in our era started in the late 90's with a guy by the name of Stan Koziak. You know his company by the name of "Stan's", but the full name of the company is "Stan's NoTubes", which should give you a clue as to what sort of tires his system are meant for. Stan's was, and still is, a system for converting non-tubeless tires to tubeless usage. That specifically means folding bead and wire bead performance tires that were never meant to be tubeless. Of course, you can run tubeless tires on Stan's rims, but not all will fit.

A set of ZTR Flow rims I still have were tried with many tires in the past.

Once tubeless ready tires came to market, Stan's didn't push the conversion thing too hard. In fact, they dabbled in their own tires for a bit, but even that went by the wayside. Stan's just kept being Stan's and they kept growing as a company, mainly because tire and rim manufacturers couldn't get together on a single standard for tubeless tires. Not that it wasn't tried, or successful, because there is a standard, but it requires a licensing fee. Not something many companies are willing to pay for.

Of course, that standard is UST, or Uniform System Tubeless, which Mavic, Hutchinson, and Michelin first developed in 1999. Later a few other companies would adopt the standard, most notably GEAX/Vittoria, but for the most part, the stringent dimensions and testing protocol of UST wasn't adopted by the industry universally. This caused UST to be pretty much pigeonholed to the XC racer set, and most average mountain bikers were not getting into UST in the early 00's. The fact that true, air-tight tubeless tires were a lot heavier than their folding bead counterparts was also a part of this.

 Meanwhile, 29"ers were becoming a thing, and the rim and tire manufacturers were standing off from adopting any single standard until things shook themselves out. This sort of played into the hands of Stan's who were the "average person's" tubeless "system" of choice. Obviously, Stan's made for a lighter weight set up, because you used a folding bead tire, which in some cases could be well over 200 grams lighter than a UST tire. The trouble with Stan's was that non-tubeless, folding bead tires were difficult to get sealed, didn't last long, and some were failing spectacularly due to the added stresses present without a tube to reinforce the bead and sidewall.

That all began to change in the late 00's as Trek/Bontrager/Fisher began to push for tubeless systems that they could use on their bikes. Since Bontrager sold tires, a system where tire, plastic "TLR" rim strip, and rim was developed which was very user friendly and worked tremendously well. But like UST before it, this was not an "open standard", so other companies were developing their own systems to compete. Specialized had "2Bliss", WTB developed "TCS", and rim manufacturers that did not make tires and tire manufacturers that did not make rims were left wondering what to do.

Rim companies, like Velocity, kind of shot for a :middle ground" in terms of design.

Many companies did not want to err so far toward the UST dimensions that other components would not fit and vice versa. Some of the systems, like WTB's TCS,were close to UST, but some were not. The companies whose tires were not right on the UST mark did so to fit Stan's rims, which were very slightly oversized. But these tires would still fit some other companies rims, which were somewhere in between the UST and the older. standard climcher/tube variances. Rims, like Velocity USA's, were made to fit a broader range of tires as well. Other companies adopted Stan's dimensions, while others erred closer to UST.

So, in 2018, you can probably see why it is that people get confused. Fit issues exist, and remember, tolerances don't need to vary much so that very small variances can mean that some components will not be compatible with others, despite the labels saying 700c, or 622ISO. This gives people fits, because if labels match up, components should as well, or so the thinking goes. However, saying 622ISO is the "fine measurement all should be at", is like thinking every square mile in the country is the same size. They are not, and neither is everyone's rims and tires. That may sound weird, but if you've ever tried mounting a Michelin tubeless tire on a Stan's rim, you know what I mean. You might get the two mounted to one another, but woe be to you if you have a catastrophic failure on a ride and you think you are getting a tube in there.

Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow....