Dwars door het hageland proves world tour hasn't figured out tubeless

Fortunately in this matter we don’t have to rely on our beliefs. To BicycleRollingResistance credit they did take the data…rolling resistance as sealant is increased from their standard ‘about a tbsp’ sealant per tire up to a more standard manufacturer’s recommended amount of sealant.

Not surprisingly, the data showed that the BicycleRollingResistance standard ‘about a tbsp’ is the point where tubeless rolling resistance starts to be just a liiiiitle bit better than latex tubes. Manufacturer recommended amounts of sealant in a tubeless setup have worse rolling resistance than tubed solutions.

So if you want adequate puncture protection, you have to deal with worse rolling resistance. If you want dodgy puncture protection, you can attain rolling resistances that are a skosh better than the fastest tubed solutions.

Here is my analysis the the bicyclerollingresistance data:

1 Like

You misunderstood my post (probably because I shouldn’t have been so sloppy). What I meant was that the teams myopically focused on rolling resistance, ignoring puncture risks. I trust that BicycleRollingResistance did everything correctly.

The fact that friction is minimized with little-to-no-sealant is not surprising. Car tires don’t use any sealant. But the fact that you then puncture easily isn’t either.

Think a difference is that the pros ride their bikes HARD. Especially in a group, where you can’t see the potholes or choose your line very well, the tyres take way more of a beating them when riding on your own.

But I also wonder what sealant they use. There seem to be some sealant brands that do next to nothing to fix a puncture, and sponsorship contracts might tie some teams to those.