Looking for wide 24" tubeless tires

Wide 24 inch tires were discussed multiple times already:

• "Are 24 x 3 tires disappearing?" https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=67383
• "Best tires for ebike mtb's road use 24inch" https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37963
• "List of available 24" tires" https://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1435591

However seems there were no wide 24" tubeless-compatible tires.
I don't like the idea of having a pair of 427g tubes in my Kenda Flames which weight 1212g without tubes each.

An ideal tire would be:

• lightweight (no more than 1000g),
• yet fat enough (3.0") but not too fat (anything more than 3.0" might not fit)
• universal small knobs like Holly Roller
• tubeless-compatible or empyrically proven that can be ran tubeless

If the above is not achievable, I also wouldn't mind sleeks.

On ebikes, that kind of weight is meaningless for the great majority of riders. The penny pinching gram saving people are the technical trail non ebike riders or racers.

I did a quick check, modernbike has tubless rims but all sold out and non were fat.

markz said:

I did a quick check, modernbike has tubless rims but all sold out and non were fat.

Click to expand...

I am looking for tires, not rims
Thanks!

its not tubeless but i switched from kenda flame to a mongoose i got from amazon, its nice on gravel with little knobbies but a little howly on asphalt

https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=104027#p1556192

The goofy tread pattern on your tires is almost certainly costing you more performance than the tubes are.

Remember, tubeless tires require sealant to be reliable. The fatter the tire, the more sealant is necessary. Sealant has both weight and rolling resistance that comes from sloshing. Neither is significant, but between the two there will be no improvement over using a tube.

“Tubeless compatible” has more to do with the rim than with the tire. “Ghetto tubeless” is the popular term for a technique to use unapproved parts in a tubeless configuration.
http://mtbtechniques.co.uk/MaintananceGhetto.html

Here’s a good tire in that size, 1067g claimed, not too thin in the tread like a knobby, not slow like a knobby:
https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.com/product/electra-cruiser-fatti-o-tire-black-159242-1.htm

The problem with the Kenda Flame is not its weight, it is its hard nylon gum.

The faster you ride, the more tire you want. And, the softer the gum, the safer they are in fast cornering.

Tubeless specific tires are still very few in 24 size, and none that is ‘wide’. Yet you don’t need tubeless specific tires to ride tubeless, but you need the foam inserts, lots of sealant, and proper rim tape if you want to make them reliable.

Tubeless tech is still under development for bicycles. The main problem is that we are using spoked wheels that are very difficult to make air tight. We rely on tape and sealant, that need to be compatible and properly installed. Tubeless tires too should be air tight and in bicycle format they are very few. Then the tires should have stiffer casing to make proper tubeless, and we don’t have them yet because they would be too expansive to manufacture in bicycle weight range, yet. So we rely on foam inserts, that are pressing the tire against the rim and offer a good support for a sealant coat to cover the entire inner part of the tire/rim. The inner sole of the tire is easy to cover with sealant because the rotation does spread it naturally with centrifugal force, but the inner rim and bead are not keeping it from moving out with rotation. The foam insert does, or at least some do ehen they are proper density, shape and size.

At present day, few combos of rim/tire/insert are available that are perfect matches and reliable. Most are mtb racing sizes/types. We need to do custom jobs and they are costly, in time and money. That is why they are still uncommon.

Foam inserts would be a no go for the weight weenies trying to shave off a gram here or there for the tubes, yet gain the grams back with the tape and foam to seal. Then there is the hassle of dealing with the foam when it gets everywhere and yet they could still get away with using a tube which they would have to carry around with them anyways, gaining more grams of weight.

As an ebike rider who has gotten many flats, I will take the penalty on a few grams here and there for thicker tires, thicker tubes and less of a chance to get a flat while out cruising around on my ebike. I have become an indy race car pit technician in replacing tubes, but haven't had to deal with any with a front hub, and not dealing with rear flats using heavy scooter and moped rims, tubes and tires. Gosh I'd hate to tell the gram pinchers what my UHD inner tube weighs, it literally came in a box the size of two or three bicycle tubes.

No weight saving in proper tubeless bicycle systems. Sealant alone does weight as much as a tube. The purpose is that a tubeless tire has very good puncture proofing because of the sealant, the insert will prevent complete deflation, keep the tire from popping off the rim and eventually let you ride on a flat without any damage, then flats can be fixed in a minute with a tubeless plug directly from the outside of the tire. Extra weight normally 200 grams.

Thanks for many great insights! Yes, the sealant would weight around 200g I guess for the size but still 200g is better than the 427g tube. In tubeless-ready rims and tires no foam or extra tape would be needed.

As for the ghetto setup I now see that it doesn't make any weight savings indeed.

What do you mean mentioning goofy thread on Kenda Flame? Are they significantly slower than other sleek tires due to pattern or compound?

Thanks!

The fastest tires are slick, then you go from there up to knobby. Then there is rolling resistance, i'm sure there is a chart on rubber compounds, to make it easy, width and tire pressure are good signs of which roll better. The best are hard and a rough ride. You will need to balance what you can live with.

My trike had on the front 20x1.5 @ 60lbs. Put on a set of SM 20x1.3 @ 100lbs gained 3mph guess. I could feel the difference in how it rolled but also feel every bump in the road also.

theres nothing wrong with the "goofy" tread on the kenda flame. i run 26x3.0 on front and 24x3.0 on the rear of my cruiser. its thick rubber that i pull staples and glass out of with out getting a flat but add a wet road and hit the front brake you might wind up laying the bike down on its side, the compound doesnt grip in the wet and when braking hard when its dry, it will slide/skid when you hit road paint. the sidewall of the kenda flame is weak. where the rim/tire/tube meet, the tire "sawed" a hole in my tube because of my regen settings. id be looking at the tire balmorhea mentioned. but the inverted knobbie like the holy roller you can get from gemco in 24x3.0 its a heavy tire. theres also a company in the usa that have them. the kenda flame, its light, its cheap, i know it, i fixed my regen settings and dont run it in the rain

i run the holy rollers on my trike and its awesome at braking traction and cornering, my boys bikes both have holy rollers on the front with no issues.

goatman said:

i run the holy rollers on my trike and its awesome at braking traction and cornering, my boys bikes both have holy rollers on the front with no issues.

Click to expand...

Yep, Maxxis is making a big choice of sticky gum tires. Holly roller and High roller had served me well. As an alternative to the kenda flame, Duro makes the 3’’ Beach bum that has a much better grip.

How much more often do you have to put air in a tubeless bicycle tire than one with a tube? That's one of the big reasons I got away from bicycle tires only...pumping them up so often. I used Kenda Flames for years...long lasting but dangerous handling if you go all out, poor traction on wet streets as others have mentioned but also quite thin side walls. They give laterally so much that they always felt like they were going to roll off the rim riding aggressively on dry road turns.