[Kntr]

Help me solve an arguement...

How much does 2 cups of Stans sealant weigh?

If a person can get away with a light 130g tube is tubeless really less weight?

Ya, I know the advantages to tubeless but Im having a little disagreement with a buddy on weight differences. Help me set him straight.

 

[zdubyadubya]

Help me solve an arguement...

How much does 2 cups of Stans sealant weigh?

If a person can get away with a light 130g tube is tubeless really less weight?

Ya, I know the advantages to tubeless but Im having a little disagreement with a buddy on weight differences. Help me set him straight.

i dont know the answer to your question, but i do know this...

i ghetto tubeless'd a set of specialized dh tires to some azonic outlaws and GAINED weight. i think the weight difference between tubes and stans is less than people think.

 

[Kntr]

The lighter way to do it is Stans tape and valve.

 

[norbar]

Or a 823 Still its easier to pinch a super light weight tube.

 

[frorider]

a UST or Stan's rim, plus a decent tubeless ready or UST tire, already seals at the bead just fine. so you're just throwing in enough stan's to seal small punctures (and the tire sidewall, although i've found some tubeless ready tires have a sidewall that is essentially impermeable already).

in actual numbers, based on my direct experience, you're looking at anywhere from 0 to 100 grams of stan's/slime mix per wheel.

given that tubes under 200 g tend to pinch flat pretty easily, you've probably lost your argument. :grin:

 

[Tdiddy]

I've also thought about this before with the actual rotational weight of stan's. As static weight, i.e. when you pick up the bike and weigh it, it may weigh more than a superlight tube. However, once rolling, as it is a liquid, it remains largely in place (put some water in an unmounted tire and roll it along the floor and see where the water goes), therefore, it wouldn't contribute to the rotational mass of the wheel as a tube would, so you save rotational inertia once the bike is moving compared to a tube.

 

[dhpete93]

Why in hell would you need 2 scoops?

Cheap Specialized 1.9-2.2 tube = 175 +/- 5g

Mavic UST tubeless valve 12g
3/4 scoop of Stans 45g

So 57g give or take 5

Or if you're on non tubeless rims

Stans yellow tape 8g
Stans olympic valve stem 7g
3/4 scoop of Stans 45g

So 60g give or take 5

In either case it's over 100g lighter. And that's if you use 3/4 of a scoop! I generally only use half a scoop, many run nothing.

 

[norbar]

Why in hell would you need 2 scoops?

Cheap Specialized 1.9-2.2 tube = 175 +/- 5g

Mavic UST tubeless valve 12g
3/4 scoop of Stans 45g

So 57g give or take 5

Or if you're on non tubeless rims

Stans yellow tape 8g
Stans olympic valve stem 7g
3/4 scoop of Stans 45g

So 60g give or take 5

In either case it's over 100g lighter. And that's if you use 3/4 of a scoop! I generally only use half a scoop, many run nothing.

Nothing? Stones were not yet discovered in your area? No stans = insta tear for me.

 

[Kntr]

Why in hell would you need 2 scoops?

2 tires... one scoop each


The debate is Flow rims with non-tubless Muddy Marys, yellow stip, and Stans valve VS Maxxis Ultra Lite 130g tubes.

Im saying tubless is still lighter.

 

[frorider]

Im saying tubless is still lighter.

yup. that's what everyone in this thread is saying.

 

[Runner]

I've also thought about this before with the actual rotational weight of stan's. As static weight, i.e. when you pick up the bike and weigh it, it may weigh more than a superlight tube. However, once rolling, as it is a liquid, it remains largely in place (put some water in an unmounted tire and roll it along the floor and see where the water goes), therefore, it wouldn't contribute to the rotational mass of the wheel as a tube would, so you save rotational inertia once the bike is moving compared to a tube.

I'm running the green Slime goo between an 823 and a tubeless Minion, and the goo distributes itself onto the entire inner surface of the tire/rim to almost form another layer so that it seals little holes anywhere on the tire. It's not like the stuff sits at the bottom of the tire when you're actually riding.

Anyway, it's that or a DH tube so no matter how much sealant I use I'm saving a bunch.

 

[buildyourown]

I've also thought about this before with the actual rotational weight of stan's. As static weight, i.e. when you pick up the bike and weigh it, it may weigh more than a superlight tube. However, once rolling, as it is a liquid, it remains largely in place (put some water in an unmounted tire and roll it along the floor and see where the water goes), therefore, it wouldn't contribute to the rotational mass of the wheel as a tube would, so you save rotational inertia once the bike is moving compared to a tube.

Spin the tire for a longer period of time and see where the fluid goes. It gets spun out and rides along with the tire.

My bikes are lighter with ghetto tubeless. But I can't get away with a 180g tube.

 

[NY_Star]

Does the sealant lose weight in the form of moisture evaporating once it is in the tire?

 

[HAB]

Does the sealant lose weight in the form of moisture evaporating once it is in the tire?

Think that one through. Any liquid that evaporates is going to stay in the tire, at least until you let the air out, so the weight isn't going anywhere.

 

[sbabuser]

Think that one through. Any liquid that evaporates is going to stay in the tire, at least until you let the air out, so the weight isn't going anywhere.

But most tires do lose air over time...

 

[Ithnu]

I weighed a whole pile of team tires one day. Plus or minus 30 grams. You could save 60 grams a set by digging through them and picking the right ones.

I run High Roller USTs on 823s. I tried them without Stans; the front was ok, the rear when flat over night. I put 1/2 scoop of Stans in each. All set.

 

[frorider]

Think that one through. Any liquid that evaporates is going to stay in the tire, at least until you let the air out, so the weight isn't going anywhere.

you got to be kidding me. i assume you've never taken physics or chemistry? think this one through.

depending on pressure and temperature, liquids can volatilize into vapor (water on a hot road converts to steam). vapor molecules are super tiny. unless your tires are constructed of glass or steel or some other impermeable material, the vapor will, over time, get through.

this is why old tubeless tires have dried up slime or stan's in them when you take them off.

 

[marshalolson]

1. you don't go tubeless to save weight
2. you will save weight

1oz is about 30g. you would run 1-2oz per tire.... so 30-60g per tire + 10g for a valve stem vs. at least 130g for a tube.

 

[HAB]

you got to be kidding me. i assume you've never taken physics or chemistry? think this one through.

depending on pressure and temperature, liquids can volatilize into vapor (water on a hot road converts to steam). vapor molecules are super tiny. unless your tires are constructed of glass or steel or some other impermeable material, the vapor will, over time, get through.

this is why old tubeless tires have dried up slime or stan's in them when you take them off.

Durrr.. I didn't think that one through well. At all.

 

[TWilks]

Why not go tubeless to save weight?

 

[StabprimoMonkee]

Why not go tubeless to save weight?

Saving weight MAY be a side effect, however it is not the main point. The main point is that I haven't had a flat in 3 years, where before I would have at least one per weekend.

And the tires roll better.

 

[slyfink]

Saving weight MAY be a side effect, however it is not the main point. The main point is that I haven't had a flat in 3 years, where before I would have at least one per weekend.

And the tires roll better.

and... if you subscribe to the "if I run wider rims I can run narrower tires" you can save quite a bit of weight from running those narrower tires while gaining in stability and burp-proofing.

Two years ago I was running Flows and liked them. I had no problems. Then I ran Arches last year, and didn't like the tire profile and have been worried about burping. This year I'm lacing up some WTB Laser TCS Trails. I hope to run narrower tires and lose some rotational mass, while having a better profile.

Not that this relates much to the OP, other than to say tubeless has many variations, and gives you lots of options to play with weight.

 

[norbar]

Saving weight MAY be a side effect, however it is not the main point. The main point is that I haven't had a flat in 3 years, where before I would have at least one per weekend.

And the tires roll better.

Word. Though I use maxxis UST so I tear 1-2 tires a year. Still I can get away with some serious pinch flatting lines on mine

 

[jonKranked]

random semi related question - anyone try welter weight bmx tubes for a ghetto setup?

 

[Huck Banzai]

If you're putting in as much stans as the weight of an XC tube, then you're doing it wrong. Unless you're using UST tires, if you gain weight - wow you're doing it wrong.

Lost 1.7lbs off my DH bike. going from DH tubes to tubeless, and .4lbs off my XC/Trail bike.

 

[norbar]

If you're putting in as much stans as the weight of an XC tube, then you're doing it wrong. Unless you're using UST tires, if you gain weight - wow you're doing it wrong.

Lost 1.7lbs off my DH bike. going from DH tubes to tubeless, and .4lbs off my XC/Trail bike.

UST tires are actually lighter than non UST. At least for maxxis so you still loose weight

 

[William42]

I just ordered some 90g bontrager xc tubes. I'm curious to see if they hold up. If they do, and I don't get pinch flats, its going to be the cheapest weight savings on my bike ever, and its going to be in the most desired spot!

and I ordered spares just in case

 

[Kntr]

Ive been running Maxxis Ultra Lites and they weight 120g. 2 cups of Stans weigh 120g. There is no weight savings between light tubes and stans.

 

[yuroshek]

This thread hurts my head...

 

[TWilks]

Do I dare try the maxxis EXO casing for tubeless?

 

[Huck Banzai]

Ive been running Maxxis Ultra Lites and they weight 120g. 2 cups of Stans weigh 120g. There is no weight savings between light tubes and stans.

Unless you ride road or bumpless singletrack, light tubes are foolish, and 2 'cups' really? 2 scoops, which is WAY more than enough, is no where near 120g. Really? Not even in the XC forums.

So pinch flats and rolling resistance versus no weight gain at ridiculously fantastic worst case scenario where you use a QUARTER POUND of sealant?

That is some serious trying too hard.

 

[Sghost]

Reminds me of an old XC adage: Only Pros and beginners use semi slicks.

 

[Greg]

Moment of inertia plays main role in rotational dynamics. And it applies here as well. There is a difference between tubed and tubeless. Most of the fluid will stay at the bottom of tire, so you will not gain rotational mass as you would with a tube.
Ok, I know 120-150g might not sound much but imagine to have 120g heavier rims.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[StabprimoMonkee]

If you are using 823's then you're not doing it for weight savings, that rim and mounting hardware is a pig. 120g for eyelets alone.

 

[norbar]

If you are using 823's then you're not doing it for weight savings, that rim and mounting hardware is a pig. 120g for eyelets alone.

Actually if you think that with 823 stiffness you can use revolution spokes and a bit lighter ust tires it's not that uber heavy. Especially if you go for the older, lighter 823s.

 

[StabprimoMonkee]

Actually if you think that with 823 stiffness you can use revolution spokes and a bit lighter ust tires it's not that uber heavy. Especially if you go for the older, lighter 823s.

I am using 823's with Sapim CX-Ray built onto Hope II's and Schawlbe Muddy Mary's in Tubeless configuration.

Flawless setup. Needs spoke tensioning twice a season. I busted one rear rim when casing a massive gap with a wooden coping on the landing. The wheel was still true, except for the part where rim was broken off.

So no complaining here, its just not the lightest setup.

 

[norbar]

I hate wooden landings because of that. They will **** you up if you land short. On dirt you can land flat from 4-5m and a 823 will only be dented (done that).

Though using an older 823 rear with revo + hope and a ztr + comps + deetrax hub front I went < 2kg.


btw. I will be testing the lightest spoke in Pillars offer. If they hold up they can be a serious contender. It's the lightest steel spoke on the market and the advertised use is also for dh. Some team riders from a friendly company that supplied me with them have been testing them for a while and no issues so far.

 

[bizutch]

I dent rims more often than kntr switches cars. Can't imigine any amount of Stans keeping that hole plugged. I would run them if Stans gave me a free dialed in wheelset on my trail bike. Would just about be willing to bet money I wouldn't make it a week of my normal riding.

 

[S.K.C.]

I am using 823's with Sapim CX-Ray built onto Hope II's and Schawlbe Muddy Mary's in Tubeless configuration.

Flawless setup. Needs spoke tensioning twice a season. I busted one rear rim when casing a massive gap with a wooden coping on the landing. The wheel was still true, except for the part where rim was broken off.

So no complaining here, its just not the lightest setup.

Stab - had a few questions about your setup as this is one of the many I have explored in my spreadsheet:

1) How much do you weigh?
2) Rider Level: Pro, Expert, Sport, Am
3) What type of terrain do you ride the most?
4) What pressures do you run?

Second Gen. 823's have thick walls and are made of the same burly Maxtal alu that was used in the regular DeeMax wheels and I recall teams having issues with that rim bottoming out on tires causing pinch flats in tubes (this was around 2007 when tubeless was less prevalent) on tracks like MSA. I also have a friend that is probably Cat.1 (Expert) around 170lbs. and had issues with his 823's pinch-flatting his Maxxis Minion DHF UST tires when run tubeless on rocky terrain.

EVIL had a successful season running Schwalbe MM VertStars tubeless last year but that was on DeeMax Ultimates which seem to be a bit more forgiving when it comes to impacts. Stab - have you had any pinch-flats with your 823/Schwalbe setup after hard hits, casing a jump, etc?

 

[StabprimoMonkee]

@SKC:

1. Weight 100kg
2. Rider Level Expert/Sport*
3. Maribor/Alpine trails
4. front 30-35psi, rear 35-40psi, since I ride mostly rough trails I am usually on the higher end.

*ex racer, mostly riding with mates, but I am aggressive.

Here are some of my observations:

823's (front is from 2008, rear is from 2010) just don't work with tubes for me. I had some issues with tubeless valve once and switched to tubes. 2 runs, both times I got a flat immediately upon entering the rough.

UST tires are ****. They burp, sidewalls get torn and they suck all round. Regular 2ply tires work better, when you get them to seal (I'm so versed now that I do it in 1 minute with a floor pump).

You REALLY want to use some sort of milk, 2 scoops at least.

Muddy Mary's work excellently in Tubeless, haven't had a burp or other problems at all.

I successfully ran 2ply HighRollers, Minions, Swampthings and Muddy Marys in tubeless.

With the pressures above I never dented a rim or punctured a tire. Should I try to run lower pressure (sub 30 rear) it will burp as soon as I rip on a corner.

I have noticed that everybody who has tubeless issues is trying their tire pressure too low. In general and especially in tubeless. Tubeless offers better grip with higher pressure. When you properly inflate your tires for the first time, the bike will feel uncontrolled and drifty. But when you learn to let the tires do their work you feel much better. It is just the general theme of people riding undersprung, underdampened bikes with under inflated tires.