“Tubeless is faster.” But is it really?

Tech
1

It’s kind of funny how often you hear that “tubeless is faster.” But is it, really?

I’ve been nerding out over this while deciding how to set up a new pair of DT Swiss Arc 1100 wheels: GP5000 S TR tubeless, or regular GP5000 clinchers with latex tubes. Both in 700 × 28, because “wider is faster” isn’t quite the whole story either, as Ronan Mc Laughlin has demonstrated. I would say for me, 28 is probably the best width in most riding situations, and anyway, the point here is not width but tubeless vs. a optimized clincher setup.

When it comes to rolling resistance, tubeless and latex are so close that I’d argue nobody could feel the difference. For sure I can’t: According to Bicycle Rolling Resistance, which has probably the largest publicly available database of tyre tests, the difference in my setup would be about 0.2 watts per tyre.

I’m aware of the limitations of the BRR numbers (the roughness of the road is not factored in, not least), but I usually ride on relatively ok tarmac, so the BRR numbers are probably not totally off for my riding.

The weight difference is also only around 10–15 grams per wheel. That’s less than I can feel and probably less than the normal variation between individual tyres . A tubeless GP5000 S TR with 30–35 ml of Orange Seal sealant weighs almost exactly the same as the lighter clincher version with a roughly 60-gram latex tube. And, of course, the tubeless setup gets a little heavier every time you top up the sealant.

Punctures are the obvious big advantage of tubeless. On the other hand, the GP5000 S TR has less puncture protection than the regular clincher version, presumably because it would otherwise become too heavy. I puncture pretty rarely on my summer road bike with GP5000 clinchers with latex tubes, so for me it isn’t a huge issue either way. And i don’t need my clothes and bike sprayed with sealant when I do, by the way.

I already run tubeless on three bikes, including my winter road bike, where it works brilliantly. Not having to fix a flat in wet and cold conditions is definitely a plus. Setup of tubeless isn’t a problem either, since I bought a compressor.

But for the summer bike? No, I don’t think so. At least not for the kind of riding I do. If I mostly rode on really bad roads, I’d probably go tubeless without much hesitation. On decent asphalt, though, I’m struggling to find a convincing reason to choose it over latex tubes.

Thoughts?

3 Likes
2

I think it’s practically down to how many punctures do you have per season and what pressures do you ride (i.e. could you easily get a snake bite?). I am on road tubeless, and it is great until it isn’t. That means I don’t deal with any punctures (I’ve seen some sealed only by spotting a bit of sealant on my frame), but I had few occasions with large cuts where I needed to put a tube inside to get home.

As for as the rolling resistance and comfort, I also think you won’t see any difference if you ride the same pressure.

3

Good point on tire pressure, which I forgot to mention!

Depending on where I’m riding, and if I plan to go fast or a relaxed ride, I have 75-80 psi in the rear and 68-70 psi in the front tire. This on 25c, though, as my current (soon to be replaced) summer road bike can’t take more than 25 c.

I also ride 25c on my winter road bike (Conti 5000 TR AS set up tubeless), where I would like to go a little wider, but I’m limited by my SKS Raceblade Long fenders. Here I go slighly lower in pressure than on my summer road bike, depending on weather.

On my commuter bike, I ride Conti 5000 TR AS 28 c set up as tubeless, where I tend to go 70 psi in the rear and 60 psi in front.

I plan to have 70-75 psi in the rear and 65-70 in front on the new wheels for the coming summer road bike, regardless if I go with tubeless or latex, both 28 c, as described.

1 Like
4

I don’t know about objective performance figures, but I’d say the advantage to most people is the ability to run a faster, flimsier tyre with less built-in puncture resistance, as you can rely on the sealant to deal with most of the ensuing punctures. The advantage is not that a tubeless tyre is faster, but rather you can get away with a faster tyre than might otherwise be suitable for the situation with tubes.

2 Likes
5

‘There’s nothing slower than a flat tyre’.

For this reason alone, I’ll happily use tubeless so that I can use a fast rolling GP5000 S TR and have the puncture sealing properties of a good tyre sealant (in my case, I’ve found Effetto Mariposa Vegelatex to be very good across all my bikes, and less environmnetally harmful as a bonus). At risk of cursing myself, I can’t remember the last time I had a puncture that required a plug or similar out on the road bike.

5 Likes
6

But IS “a faster tyre” faster than an optimized clincher setup? Yes, but only 0,1 watts per tire, so in reality: No.

7

True! Important not to flat. But (knock on wood), on my summer road bike = usually dry roads, I puncture quite rarely - usually 0-1 flat per season, April to October on Conti 5000 with latex tubes.

In winter, it’s a wholly different thing, and I would never run anything than tubeless.

8

It sounds like you already know what you want to do. Enjoy the new wheelset.

3 Likes
9

I do! And every single day, I change my opinion! Seriously, I am soooo confused :laughing: Because when literally EVERYBODY says tubeless is faster, and ALL professional teams are running tubeless, why can’t I make the arguments and numbers go up?

So yes. I have bought both versions. 4 tyres lying ready, tubeless sealant plus good latex tubes. I just need to decide what to mount.

10

I’ve used latex tubes on my road bike for the past few years with no issues. If you’re in the habit of checking/pumping tires before every ride they’re no additional hassle.

I’m not anti-tubeless – my gravel and mountain bikes are tubeless – but for the pressures I need for 25 & 28mm tires(rim-brake bike) I’m happy with the latex tubes.

3 Likes
11

I do! And every single day, I change my opinion! Seriously, I am soooo confused :laughing: Because when literally EVERYBODY says tubeless is faster, and ALL professional teams are running tubeless, why can’t I make the arguments and numbers go up?

So yes. I have bought both versions. 4 tyres lying ready, tubeless sealant plus good latex tubes. I just need to decide what to mount.

Now you just need a matching second set of wheels and you can

  1. do some chung method testing (I suspect many here would be very interested in the data)
  2. and/or continue to change your mind long into the future and switch between the setups in minutes based on how you feel that morning.
12

True! Important not to flat. But (knock on wood), on my summer road bike = usually dry roads, I puncture quite rarely - usually 0-1 flat per season, April to October on Conti 5000 with latex tubes.

Perhaps that’s an indication of one of the key factors people tend to ignore … where a person lives and what they are likely to encounter.

Here in the UK, punctures during the summer are at times more likely than in winter thanks to farmers trimming hedgerows alongside the roads and doing nothing to clear up the hawthorn shards they scatter all over the road.

Despite that, I’ve still had no punctures I’ve had to attend to mid ride in the last couple of years at least. I’ve found the tyre has deflated the next day, or had to pull thorns out post ride, but nothing has interupted a road ride for a long time.

3 Likes
13

I love tubeless on my gravel bike where I run 45c tires at pretty low pressure. I have two road bikes and I just don’t want the hassle of keeping sealant topped off and fresh on 3 bikes.

I’m running GP5000s with TPU tubes on both road bikes and have no complaints about the speed or ride quality. I average a flat maybe once a year so I don’t mind the rate tube swap in order to avoid the higher maintenance of tubeless on 3 bikes.

That said, if I lived somewhere plagued with goat head thorns or other sharp crap on the roads, I might make a different choice. Pick your poison, the odd flat or more maintenance… it’s preference. I don’t think the rolling resistance of tubeless vs TPU tubes should be a big consideration for most of us.

2 Likes
14

I run tubeless on my MTB but for road and gravel it’s a hard pass. It’s just not worth the risk of a tire/rim interface issue. Instead I’ll stick with running latex tubes, as I have for decades. Sure, occasional flats are a hassle but that’s a minimal issue in the grand scheme of it all.

1 Like
15

You are overthinking this. It will take you five to ten minutes less time to mount the clinchers, which means five to ten minutes more summer riding. Get on with it.

5 Likes
16

Unmentioned as of yet: safety (yes, I know tangential to topic at hand, but given we know speed is a wash, let’s talk about other factors). For me, 28mm is too narrow to feel safe on the road in case of a quick flat or worse (aka blowout). I think I’d need 32mm at a minimum to be comfortable on tubeless. So I’m team latex.

1 Like
17

Sorry, I don’t quite understand this. Why do you think the risk of blowout is greater with tubeless, or are you on about the whole hookless pressure limit thing?

If using hooked rims, I don’t think the chance of blowout is any greater with tubeless than tubed, and chance of quickly deflating tyre certainly isn’t any greater (indeed, it might be less thanks to sealant).

The one and only rapid deflation I’ve experienced was during the brief time I was running latex tubes.

1 Like
18

I’ve been riding tubeless for almost 20 yrs. I used to get around 5-6 punctures a year and with tubeless I haven’t had a puncture in the last three and usually no more than 1 per year. I don’t ride on bad pavement but it is heavily forested and the mosquitos are epic. Bottom line: I’d never go back to tubes.

1 Like
19

I’ve gone back and forth so many times on this.

Tubeless, back to Butyl Tubes, back to Tubeless, then to TPU Tubes, now I’m back to Tubeless, carrying two TPU tubes (with metal valves) as backup and an electronic mini pump.

Tubeless is excellent until it isn’t. The roadside sealant bukkake is far from a fun, consensual, dignified experience, and the cleanup post ride is just as awful.

That said, I’ve learned that tubeless gets substantially more reliable as the volume of the wheel/tire system increases. I absolutely wouldn’t use tubeless below 30 mm, and dare I say it, 25 mm internal rim width as well. A 25 mm tire has ~45% less volume than a 30 mm, and a staggering ~65% less than a 32 mm.

More volume = less escape velocity/ejection force for sealant to overcome, and more time for it to work before substantial pressure loss. It’s no coincidence that no one is really left having this conversation on the MTB side.

Is tubeless faster? Marginally as everyone has pointed out. However I think we can all be realistic and admit that the move to tubeless isn’t primarily motivated by outright speed for most enthusiasts, and is rather driven by the promise of comfort and less flats.

5 Likes
20

(post deleted by author)