Needs Versus Wants with Wheelsets
By Jake Brennand
{Brands mentioned: Enduro Bearings, TPI, EZO, NTN, NSK, FAG, SKF, ISB, Ceramic Speed, Kogel Bearings, Acer Racing, Hope Tech, CushCore, Vittoria, Nukeproof, Huck Norris, Wolf Tooth, BERD, DT Swiss, Sapim, Pillar, Knolly, Devinci, Pivot, Reynolds, WeAreOne, WTB, ENVE, Stan’s NoTubes, Joe’s.}
In this blog entry, I’m going to discuss needs versus wants when it comes to mountain wheels. Here are (3) items that you should consider as essential options for your next wheelset, followed by (3) items/specs that, in our considered and experienced opinion at Hogtown Spokes, you can live without or should steer clear of altogether.
NEEDS — (3) MUSTS FOR CAPABLE MODERN WHEELS
BETTER BEARINGS. The reality is that most wheels come with acceptable, but perhaps underwhelming, stock cartridge bearings (buy wheels with old-school cup-and-cone ball bearings, and the quality is even more arguable). Don’t get me wrong — stock bearings are usually smooth when installed properly into quality hubs. They will spin fluidly with minimal noise, and should spin with no lateral play when new and then for quite a while afterwards. Most hub manufacturers spec cartridge bearings, in the metric sizes appropriate to their product dimensions, using either “LLB” (non-contact) or “LLU” (contact) 2 x rubber seals. Hence the designation “2RS” after the size for these bearings: eg, “6902–2RS LLB” (15 x 28 x 7 mm). The most common supplier for big-name hub brands tends to be the company Enduro Bearings, one of cycling’s marketing success stories in terms of volume of OEM contracts and social-media reach. Enduro does a quality bearing, fairly stated. As does TPI — the Taiwanese-based supplier of DT Swiss bearings for a number of years — or EZO, sourced from Japan. Project 321 was using EZO bearings on their premium Gen2 hubsets.
But as the English bearing czar and mechanical engineer Hambini and a few others have pointed out at length, in videos, blogs, and other forums, there’s these quality, run-of-the-mill bearing suppliers and then there’s another echelon altogether. Hambini, in his highly selective (if admittedly non-exhaustive) rankings, puts TPI and EZO at “Budget Tier” (Tier 3), while Enduro doesn’t even figure in his rankings. The upper echelon is familiar to wider industry: automotive, aerospace, medical applications, factory production lines, computers and the high-tech world, etc. These higher-stakes contexts are the main focus of the elite Japanese and European steel bearing makers: NTN, NSK, INA-FAG, SKF, and others. They also happen to make products suitable for cycling applications. Perhaps joining them in the upper tier quality wise (if not in terms of historical pedigree, extensive supply chain sourcing/tracking and integration), and decidedly more cycling-specific, are the boutique ceramic makers Ceramic Speed, Kogel Bearings, and a few other boutique-type brands. (We like the RC car brand Acer Racing ourselves, as makers of quality and good-value ceramic products that work in cycling hubs.)
Upper-echelon or so-called “Top Tier” or “Tier-1” steel bearings offer the tightest tolerances and finest operating standards, extremely reliable sealing (Hambini particularly compliments FAG for their efforts), sturdy retaining cages to hold the ball bearings between the races, and employ strategically chosen and tested industrial greases. The result is bearings that, especially once burnished and the grease is fully broken in, will typically spin smoother and quieter and last longer than the high-quality but lower-tier products mentioned above. Crudely speaking, and paraphrasing Hambini, a typical NTN or NSK bearing might equate to a more expensive Grade 5+/ABEC-7 or 9 type product from the conventional bearing players in cycling (although none of them typically go past ABEC-5, to use the American bearing classification terminology). Hambini details on his website how bearing classification takes numerous forms and that ABEC as a numbering system tends to be avoided by the elite tier; at a minimum, it’s an American lexicon. Hambini’s bearing classification chart and thoughts are worth a careful browse. Elite is simply elite.
Ceramic bearings, which are harder and rounder than steel balls — if properly made — and are often lubricated with engineered oil rather than grease, spin the smoothest of all. There’s absolutely minimal detectable friction. Ceramic bearings are formally called “hybrid ceramic” bearings because they use ceramic balls (usually made of Silicon Nitride [Si3N4]) running on hardened steel races, typically composed of chromium steel but sometimes stainless. Hambini is a savant overall when it comes to bearings. Anyone can benefit from reading his expert blog articles and general website information. The guy knows his stuff and manufactures some amazing in-house cycling items. But we respectfully disagree with him that ceramic bearings fail to prove their worth over time. In the right use cases, they can be tremendously appropriate and beneficial to riders.
Quality ceramic bearings, matched to the right rider case, will last — perhaps not as long as steel bearings of the same top tier, but certainly long enough to justify the premium investment over stock bearings. The common argument against them is that ceramic balls will chew through the comparatively softer steel races and wear the bearing out prematurely. The criticism comes down to the old “don’t use a steel tool on aluminum” maxim, essentially. This argument just doesn’t hold water. That’s because the same people making the argument often (if not always) at least logically imply that only ceramic races would be suitable for sustaining ceramic balls, that the whole package should be uniform as one material. But…then they argue against using ceramic races because their dynamic strength isn’t high enough to support the same ride impacts in MTB usage as steel races can! Steel has some elasticity to it, and by this single metric is less “brittle” (to use a word from Hambini’s website) as a material for bearing races. In other words, there’s a basic rational disconnect here and a circular logic to the criticism of ceramic bearings. (Hambini’s criticisms of ceramic bearings, it should be noted, like his musings overall, are primarily road-focused and also include that ceramic retainer-cages are made from industrial plastics such as nylon. I’ve tried here to synthesize the main argument from all of ceramic’s detractors, including Hambini’s thoughts, but mostly from those focusing their criticisms on MTB.) What is more, all makers of quality ceramic bearings employ hardened steel races that have been methodically and professionally heat-treated and hardened. Yes, the product is still hybrid — but it’s a damn good hybrid one. Virtually any ceramic bearing that I’ve ever held in my shop would or has passed Hambini’s scratch test done to the steel races to quickly assess the quality of heat-treatments. Hybrid ceramic bearings, flatly stated, are most certainly NOT ticking bombs.
In our opinion, at least in a front wheel — the self-sustaining wheel that can’t directly rely on the drivetrain for momentum — ceramic bearings can make for a well-worth-it, upgraded hub providing greater efficiency. The absolute heaviest riders or riders riding in pure Gotham-like muck (aka Wales) or in Siberia might be best to stick with steel. But this is a high exclusionary bar. The case is more mixed, and we probably wouldn’t call ceramic bearings essential even on big budgets, out back. Rear wheels take a lot more stress both immediately and over time, due to the extra weight concentrated there, and so longevity and weatherproofing become more important with rear bearings than sheer smoothness and reduced watts. This is one reason why Hope Tech uses large-spec rear bearings made by Enduro that run on an oversized 17 mm axle assembly— to help minimize bearing fatigue by cutting down on torsional flex. Out back, we WOULD suggest the investment of upgrading to the elite steel tier: bearings made by either NTN, NSK, FAG, or SKF. We really like NSK at Hogtown Spokes.
TIRE INSERTS. I’ve written at length in the past about the advantages of tire inserts, but their advantages and some other information in their favour are worth repeating here. Tire inserts all but guarantee that a rider won’t blow a tire off of a tubeless rim; won’t experience tubeless “snake bites”; inserts allow for lower riding pressures; the best inserts (namely CushCore) provide actual ride-damping qualities; and they offer substantial protection to both carbon and alloy rim structures. With carbon, it’s our formal policy at Hogtown Spokes that we won’t spec carbon rims for custom MTB wheels unless the rider agrees to run a quality insert at least inside of the rear wheel. There’s just too much avoidable risk otherwise — for us, as a business, and for our riding clienteles. We don’t let people drive carbon without seat belts fastened.
Yes, inserts add up to $250+ CDN to the cost of a wheelset, in the case of CushCore. Yes, inserts require more sealant and sometimes more frequent sealant addition. Meanwhile, even independent of the extra sealant weight, inserts add some measurable girth to wheelsets. But just think about the gains acquired in the bargain. It’s hard to put a price or judgmental scale figure on not having to think about potentially dangerous loss of a tire during hard riding. The same applies to the ability to add huge traction from being able to reliably run lower PSIs: as low as the late teens (the lightest riders) and low-20s. But the best gain of all is knowing that you’re not likely to ever be out the substantial cost — and time lost from your riding season — of new rims, if running CushCore, Vittoria Airliner, Nukeproof ARD, Huck Norris, or some other decent product to help protect your rims. You can still crack or dent rims through tire inserts; anything is possible, and I’ve seen it (and easily the fixed the minor resulting alloy dent using my Wolf Tooth dent-removal tool). But it’s much harder to cause damage through rim inserts. Inserts are a no-brainer for us given that wheels mean nothing without sound, intact hoops. Good builds start with sound rims, and good wheels sustain on sound rims.
BLADED SPOKES. I get asked all the time over email by potential custom inquirers whether rope spokes or titanium spokes or even carbon spokes are worth it. My answer is a consistent and resounding “no — it’s not worth your money, in our opinion.” BERD rope spokes, for example, are a clever execution of the goal of configuring wheels using engineered rope. But why, at the end of the day? BERD requires a builder to permanently (and sometimes unartfully) chamfer a hub’s spoke holes, in order to avoid abrasion damage to the rope spokes in use, as they pivot and pull against the hubs in dynamic use. This, in turn, takes away from the appearance of the hubset (many hubs use brilliant coloured anodizing), may affect hub warranties, and can invite corrosion of the raw aluminum spots thusly created (not super likely, but certainly possible even over the aluminum oxide layer that will form). Similarly, titanium spokes cost a small fortune and only offer marginal strength-to-weight gains over steel spokes. They’re also really, really hard to track down in trustworthy form. Carbon spokes are only marginally lighter than the lightest steel (or Ti) spokes but come equipped with a host of potential fault lines: from impact resistance in a crash or maintenance mishap to the risk of fatal delamination. At Hogtown, we bluntly view these products as unnecessary attempts at reinventing {a critical part of} the wheel, really only because these companies want a unique market niche and have gullible buyers ready to shell out the sums. On a capitalistic analysis, this is supremely logical by these firms. On a technical analysis, their raison d’être is much less so.
However, we’re not opposed to spoke innovation at Hogtown Spokes. By contrast, we simply believe that reliable spoke innovation isn’t anything new and that the place to look for unique gains is not in the trend-setter fluff posts of the big cycling websites — but rather in the catalogues of tried-and-true masters at producing fine spoke wire.
Bladed/aero spokes ARE your answer for lighter and stronger as a strength-to-weight proposition. Whether with DT’s Aerolite, Sapim’s venerable CX-Ray, Pillar’s Wing or extremely good value 1423 or 1432 spokes, steel bladed/aero spokes achieve significant weight savings and aero gains with no loss of strength. Indeed, they actually make for even stronger products than ordinary spokes — because they last longer and also allow for stiffer builds in many cases. Stiffer spokes really last their life cycles (because on each revolution of the wheel, there’s less range of cyclic tension variance), and stiffer spokes minimize movement-caused wear damage of the spoke holes in hubs. Stiffer spokes essentially “spine” the endurance integrity of the wheel as a collective whole: all boats benefit from these {tighter} rising tides. The fatigue life on Sapim’s CX-Ray (2.2–0.9–2.00 mm) bladed spoke is as much as double-digit percentage points longer than straight-gauge or even simple butted spokes. CX-Rays can last millions of stress cycles in hard use. This is due to the in-built flex of these marvelous and race-tested products. In-built flex is the same reason why good running shoes prolong the function of human joints (take it from a former half-marathoner with genetically weak Scottish knees...my maternal grandad blew through his cartilage playing pro soccer in the 1950s). Flex means a more cushioned blow or cushioned stress cycle, which in turn maximizes fatigue lives. In tensile terms, the CX-Ray has a middle-of-spoke strength rating of some 1600 Newtons. Compare this with the strength rating of the straight-gauge Sapim Leader spoke at 1180 N maximum or even the superb D-Light (2.0–1.65–2.00 mm) double-butted spoke, at 1370 N.
Bladed spokes aren’t cheap by any means — they run more than double the cost of a butted set from us (with nipples and washers included, as always). But they’re cheaper than carbon, rope, or Ti spokes. And more importantly, they’re much better, proven products overall that are suitable for riding disciplines ranging from Le Tour to World Cup Downhill. They require no home-skillet modifications of your prized grand-plus hubset. They also don’t wind—like ever, at all — because to be built up properly elliptical spokes mandate use of a bladed spoke holder, which braces the spoke on every single adjustment until the finality of perfection. The blade holder eliminates any winding of the wire-nipple combo.
Bladed spokes are wholly worth it for the discerning buyer looking for superlative upgrade wheels and willing to pay for them. For superwheels, they’re essential items, in our opinion.
WANTS — (3) “HARDLY NEEDS”/AVOIDS FOR CAPABLE MODERN WHEELS
SUPERBOOST 157 MM SPACING. “SuperBoost” is basically a blowhardish marketing term for modern hubsets — and the bikes designed around them (/birthing them)— that use normal Boost 110 x 15 mm front spacing but 157 x 12 mm rear thru-axle spacing. Regular Boost spacing was hardly wanting before SB. Indeed the former came into the fore during a period of rather swift and even distained evolution in frame and hub sizing standards, in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. Regular Boost spacing (just like SB later) promised “wider spoke bracing angles” in wheelbuilds and “greater tire clearances” and has largely achieved as much — the second probably much more so than the first. Normal Boost is here to stay, as the widely agreed “current” standard for mountain bikes for the foreseeable future. This is the spacing to invest your money in for MTB wheelsets and new frames. Put us at Hogtown Spokes on the record as saying that.
SuperBoost basically debuted because a few bike companies wanted to be able to claim frame (and then, separately but relatedly from other OEMs, hub) product differentiation and effectively invented a mechanical mythos to support their goals. Knolly, Devinci, Pivot, and some other MTB bike companies started making 157 mm-rear frames, telling the world that it would automatically mean better, stiffer long-travel rigs and better inclusive wheelbuilds as part of this. As numerous industry voices have pointed out, including the sometimes hit-and-miss Bike Radar, SB is simply the enduro-focused rebranding of existing DH hub spacing, with a tweak to hub flange widths. SuperBoost hubs widen the distance between left and right flanges on the hub, to try and improve resulting spoke triangulation on the built wheel. Elaborate technical marketing babble about intended versus historic “chainlines” became the chicken-and-egg talking points from bike companies involved, after SB appeared. Separate from the drawback that wider rear frames invite a greater likelihood of chainstay interference with your ankles (something that DH bikes have always suffered from as a drawback), OEM claims about wheelbuilding gains with SuperBoost 157 fall by the wayside. They’re belied by my experience with handbuilding mountain wheels. Moreover, I’m not aware of any hard, empirical evidence — actual ranging studies — proving that 157 rear hubs produce better spoke tensions or even quantifiably sturdier wheel integrity over the long run. SB seems to fall short both empirically and anecdotally.
I’ve personally worked on a SuperBoost rear hub from a major ultra-premium brand that offered absolutely zero improvement in left-right tension disparity, versus what a 148 mm hub would have produced. The left-side spokes were less than 75% of the final average tension of the Driveside spokes. (This resulted in a strong build — absolutely. But that one single metric, so vaunted by the SB pushers, was also nothing to write home about in gushing terms…87-90%+ would have been.) Nevertheless, the marketing chorus paints SuperBoost in panacea-like terms, almost making it sound as if tension disparity becomes a thing of the past when a rider smartly “upgrades” to SB 157 — the Kool-aid coming at significant financial cost. A case-in-point is the utter flattery spouted by the CEO of Reynolds, Scott Montgomery, in early 2018. There’s very little excuse for comments like this coming from an expert wheel company positioned to dig deeper and offer more than just press banter and tidbits to the riding public: “The reality is a wider dropout will make for an even stronger wheel with better spoke bracing angles and more even tensions,” Montgomery tritely stated. “It will improve durability in a category that is notoriously hard on wheels.” He offered nothing further at the time to substantiate his claims to Bike Radar. The larger article did reveal, though, that Reynolds went SB in order to happily continue its seemingly lucrative parts contract with Pivot. Hmm.
There may be a small increase in tension evenness resulting on certain SB hub-rim combinations. But on the whole, in my opinion as an expert MTB handbuilder, companies would be much better to focus on strategic sizing of hub flange diameters (PCDs), subtle flange curvature and beveling, and spoke-hole drilling of rims than trying to make “Fetch” — sorry, SuperBoost — happen. Even with the wider flange spacing that SB 157 mm offers over normal Boost 148 or traditional DH 157, a major problem is still inherent in the design — indeed a major problem results from the design. In my firsthand experience, SB messes with spoke-nipple articulation. Rims haven’t evolved with the new standard. This is unlike with fatbike rims, which iterated as a direct response to proper fatbike (135-197 mm) front and rear hub lengths.
Specifically, most regular-size rims continue to barely offset spoke holes from the centre points of rims — including on deliberately “offset” or “asymmetric” rim models. This works well enough with normal Boost hubs, ensuring straight spoke-nipple paths (aka articulation angles) as long as the rim’s holes are purposively angle-drilled both left and right. But with SB 157, the extra flange spacing, set off in a virtual vacuum from largely stagnant rim designs, means that spokes have to “tuck down, around, and under” (it sounds like a Backstreet Boys tune) more as they leave the spoke flanges of the hub and travel toward the rim’s holes. Even with angle-drilled rims — let alone rims that aren’t angle-drilled or are barely angle-drilled, and there’s many rims still like this — this can result in bad articulation. In such cases, the spoke becomes canted or crooked in relation to the nipple body. The nipple’s bore (the flat, four-sided section where the spoke first enters it) makes up for this to an extent, by being wider than the spoke and unthreaded to help coax the spoke into straight[er]ness before it reaches the nipple’s threaded portion. But the bore is often not enough. Bad articulation then becomes a gateway toward the fail end of premature spoke or nipple cracking, as angular contact pressures run amok on the spoke’s threads while you ride and constantly load up the wheel parts.
Contrast this regrettable phenomenon with proper fatbike hubs, where in order to accommodate up to 197 mm of thru-axle width, rim spoke holes are severely offset from centrelines (by as much as 15–20 mm or more). This design compensation allows spokes to “strain and tuck” less from hub flanges to receiving rim holes, reducing the likelihood of bad articulation at the nipple and then eventual premature spoke or nipple breakage. SB 157 mm, in a nutshell, is just not fully thought out across companies and the holistic spec sheet needed to actually build reliable SB wheels and bikes.
SuperBoost 157 mm causes more problems than it solves. You get less brand choice with hubs, the possibility of bad articulation, and potential chainstay kickery from some frames. It promises more durability, but may end up delivering less with certain builds. Like carbon or rope spokes, it simply isn’t worth it to us. “SuperBoost” may outlive “Fetch” and Lindsay Lohan’s career— but it doesn’t mean that it’s not an ill-considered fad. We would love to see it fade away (however unlikely).
CARBON RIMS. This will draw some controversy, but we believe at Hogtown Spokes that carbon rims are overrated. This is why we heavily build with alloy hoops, among other reasons (including the pain and costs of warranty logistics). Certainly some companies, like WeAreOne or WTB or ENVE, make an excellent carbon product that we will spec in some conditions or tune up in others. By all means, if someone really wants carbon we won’t stop them from acquiring the superplastic. Further, we’ll only steer our clients toward carbon that they can trust, and we’ll expertly work on their wheels. But we also won’t ever automatically recommend carbon as worth spending hundreds and hundreds more on (contrast us here with some of our competitors). It’s not essential as a material for high-performance MTB wheels. (Carbon in road, however, has much to its credit.)
It’s a fact — as carbon’s apologists routinely plead — that carbon rims are generally very well made now and will last in many cases for many riders. They don’t widely and spontaneously just combust into thin air. But it’s also a fact that, unlike alloy, when carbon breaks it breaks catastrophically and that carbon breakage still happens more than its apologists sometimes like to concede. I’ve personally rebuilt a carbon warranty rim. I’ve personally repaired small chips in carbon rim models that had to be repaired so as to avoid premature UV degradation or worse. Carbon absorbs shock, which is commendable as a ride quality. But so do rim inserts and burlier MTB tires — which also protect your rims! Insert and top rubber added still usually results in an alloy rim that costs less than a comparable composite one.
Given that our policy is no carbon custom without at least a rear insert installed, and that many people have realized the sense in insert usage all on their own, carbon’s main advantage also falls by the wayside under practical analysis: its lighter weight. Carbon’s fans love to champion its supposed advantages for acceleration speed and climbing (never mind the fact that science, albeit primarily from the road side of cycling, shows that wheel weight is overstated as an efficiency factor versus aerodynamics). But once you get into carbon rims actually strong enough for proper trail, enduro, or DH usage — meaning ASTM 4 or 5 — then these weight gains shrink or disappear outright. Take WeAreOne’s new trail-enduro TRIAD rims, for example. These quality hoops are quoted at 505 grams per rim, in 29er size. DT’s equivalent rim, the XM481— which is rated for trail use and beyond, at ASTM 4 — weighs a quoted 550 grams in the wagon size. Add an insert to the TRIADS — which is advisable but hardly necessary with the XM481s, since alloy dings are usually fixable — and suddenly to be as capable the TRIAD rims end up weighing more than DT’s trim all-mountain stallions. What are you really getting, then, for $600+ CDN per rim, other than the black swag? The new WAO rims, it must be admitted, feature a brilliant and intentional angle-setting of the spoke holes — huge kudos to the WAO design team. But WTB has been similarly aggressive for years with spoke-hole angles, by means of their “4D” drilling technique on alloy rims. Even the new WAO rims, delicious and smart-looking as they are with their wavy and angled spoke sides, don’t really sell themselves. What they do is make carbon even more palatable for someone already dead-set on carbon.
Carbon rims just aren’t an essential in MTB. Alloy is capable, serviceable, proven, a lot cheaper, and non-catastrophic when it (rarely) fails. This is why so many world-class riders in the Enduro World Series — or DH World Cup — among other reasons continue to select alloy hoops. The only area of MTB where carbon rims are a must might be in XC riding for racers. That’s really it, in our view. (Again, premium road riding or road racing is an area where carbon makes supremely good sense.)
There’s a further argument made by carbon’s wheelbuilder apologists, and this is the claim that carbon rims are “truer and easier to reach high build standards” with. Versus crappy alloy rims or some pin-jointed alloy rims, this is probably true. Versus quality alloy rims with welded seams (like the XM481s), the claim is an embarrassment to professional wheelbuilding — the lowest common denominator or low-hanging fruit of professionalism. No black belt lacks a rounded and thorough mastery of their martial art, including at least a basic knowledge of weapons fighting. No truly master wheelbuilder can’t build high-end alloy to virtually the exact same final standards as carbon. Indeed, a test for true handbuilding expertise is whether someone can build excellent durable wheels using flexible alloy rims and thin, aggressively butted spokes. Use this test when fleshing out a builder’s past work, folks!
Simply ignore the next animal-house man-mountain savage on social media who dictates to the world that he used to break alloy rims “even at 40 PSI, with inserts in, and DH tires” and that his wheels never ran true when metallic. This is nonsense — the true cause of the wobblies and breakage is much more the archer (or bowsmith) than the arrow.
RACE SEALANTS. Several companies, from Stan’s NoTubes to Joe’s, make a supposedly upgraded version of their tubeless sealants, strategically marketed as “race-ready.” These products all use a purportedly faster-acting or thicker-effecting mix of particulates, the idea being that in a race context, after a puncture, you want the fastest plugging action possible. This all sounds good, sure. The issue is that race-labelled sealants create problems in their application. Stan’s, for example — advice that is wise to follow with any sealant brand — officially says that their Race liquid can’t be administered through the valve (“[m]ust be poured directly into tire”). It will cause annoying clogging this way. So it has to be administered “ghetto tubeless,” aka old-school or angry-mechanic style. This just invites wastage of the sealant and some avoidable garage mess. These drawbacks are why most tubeless parts makers now intend that riders add sealant through removable valve cores. (This is the only way that we add sealant to wheels at Hogtown Spokes.) If fitting a rim insert, moreover, it’s nearly impossible to add the sealant by dumping it into the tire first — inserts were designed solely for valve-addition of the liquid. Thus why CushCore’s iconic branded tubeless valves come with removable cores and fluted heads. (Note that you don’t have to use CushCore valves to run CushCore reliably.)
Race sealants are needless expenditures. For the cost of one 946 ml bottle of Stan’s Race — at time of writing, $44 USD before shipping on the NoTubes website — you can buy nearly 2L of Joe’s Eco sealant (depending on the retailer). Joe’s Eco works really well and is better for the environment and for alloy spoke nipples, as it’s latex- and ammonia-free. In practical terms, no sealant works speedily enough to seal a hole so that pressure loss is a non-thing. Riders will always need the hits of a pump afterward — avoid CO2 cartridges with incompatible sealants! — in order to fully rectify a tubeless puncture event, regardless of the sealant type. For larger punctures, it’s similarly doubtful that race sealants can ever be a cure-all. Tubeless tire plugs, mixing with the sealant inside the tire, plus a pump and some good old-fashioned elbow grease and gravity, will always be needed in almost all cases of larger cuts. Plugs work every bit as well with regular sealants as they do with branded “race” sealants.
Race sealants are not merely unnecessary as an upgrade — they’re likely ill-advisable. They complicate and take away from the entirety of the modern tubeless experience, which now includes the important ability to run rim inserts. Avoid these marketing cash grabs in latex form (but do be smart, kids, and practice latex in other forms ;)). Basic, latex- or non-latex using, AMMONIA-FREE tubeless sealants are the way to go.
Sealants aren’t like premium petrol for luxury autos. There’s no provable connection to the figurative “engine health” of your wheelset. Regular unleaded never hurt anyone — iconoclastically, even the self-described and actual racers out there.
-Jake Brennand
