I guess we can agree to disagree. You have to remove the dynaplug either way. Sure, you’d have to break the bead to remove a pointy dynaplug, but you still save the time of pulling the tube out of it’s storage location, removing the tubeless valve (often painfully slow), and then unrolling the tube and installing it into the tire.
I’m just back to the fact that I have to store the tube somewhere, why not store it in place where I’m skipping a bunch of steps moving/installing it when every second counts during a race.
Yeah, even the dynaplug rounded version would be OK with a tube (but can be tricky to install if the hole isn’t that big). Obviously, regular bacon strips aren’t a problem.
My first thought was that if a puncture is bad enough that you can’t just plug it and go, then isn’t there a pretty high likelihood of damaging the tube at the same time?
If you end up with a complete loss of air you’re pretty likely to bottom out and pinch the tube. If it’s letting air out slowly then you can probably plug it pretty easily. So what’s the situation where this tube is useful?
Instead of spending all year testing tyres to find the best rolling resistance and then running a super thin tyre casing for a couple of watts saving, only to run a liner, additional tube and carry the kitchen sink with you to fix it when it explodes, how about running a tyre with decent puncture protection?
Probably belongs in the unpopular opinions thread.
I’ll admit to catching myself seeking out airless tyres for my roadie on multiple occasions for similar reasons.
Isn’t that explicitly why DJ runs Race Kings instead of Thunder Burts at the cunkier races? Still at the fragile end of MTB but at least as robust as any fast gravel tire in the 50mm+ range.
Oh, and also -
What percentage of un-pluggable cuts are OK to run with a tube without also needing a boot to reinforce the structural damage to the tire?
(This is sort of a secondary concern IMO since, in a 1-day race scenario, I can imagine some cuts that bulge a bit but seem worth the risk to ride to the next aid station and get a fresh wheel, where my reference point is probably a bit more around semi-permanent repairs. And I guess the hypothetical above about saving steps from the tube install even if you need to break the bead and reach into part of the tire still apply - assuming the tube remains un-damaged, of course.)
GCN Tech did a segment on this on their recent GCN Tech Show. It was an interesting discussion, echoing several items brought up here. Link starts at the relevant point in the show.
Having a tube in a tubeless system already, one question I have is how can they keep the goo from centering on one, or several areas inside the wheel, since the rest of the goo would tend to migrate to the areas of concentrated goo because it would be out of balance at that point, how can they avoid that, or is it somehow not a problem?
And, isn’t that kind of admitting defeat for the idea of tubeless being ‘The Thing’? Like when I was told ‘Oh, you still have to carry at least one tube’, I thought “Well, where’s the weight savings?”. And a sidewall slice/gouge would render them both unusable. Maybe they should use an insert instead?
Oh, a memory from the past: I remember seeing some dirt bike wheels that had double valves, but never found out why. Is it the same idea, but did they have tubeless dreams back in the 70’s and 80’s?
