[Closed] Putting gunge in inner tubes. Does it work?

yes it works.

I ran stans fluid in some 29 inch tubes for a bout 18 month. it does render the tubes useless tho, as it blocks the valves solid.

I stuck some stans in my kids bikes and it does work, perhaps not as well as full blown tubeless but you can see a few white dots where it has sealed thorn punctures. Easy enough to add with schrader valves if you have the tool to remove the core - about £1 on ebay.

Slime sell them ready filled. I used them until I went tubeless.

I used the slime one for ages.  It's good for the smaller holes.   I've got a tube to put in our little uns tubes when the weather's not so crap .

Does this work,

Yes.

can you get it into presta valved tyres easily?

No. Schraeder valves are much easier. With presta, the easiest thing is to just punch a small hole in the tube, inject the sealant, then patch the hole.

Some presta tubes have removable valve cores - I've certainly seen this on (some) Schwalbe and (some) Continental tubes. Suspect it probably isn't the case for all Schwalbe or Continental tubes tho

I used slime for years until I went tubeless and it stops most small punctured.    I still use it on my cx.

I have used slime tubes in the past. It's horrid compared to tubeless - heavier, but also means that when it does eventually fail and won't reseal you have a hideous slimy tube you have to carry home with you, after you've spent about twenty minutes futilely trying to patch it.

Thanks guys. I hadn't though of puncturing the tube then patching it. I'd prefer to stay with presta for all sorrts of reasons, principally that I don't fancy drilling out pricey road rims.

I thought it might be an idea because everyone who goes tubeless seems to carry a tube as a fall back. Seems to defeat the object, notwithstanding the price of tubeless covers. As my LBS sells 6 tubes for £10 the economics seem to favour something like this.

I'll have a look if the valves have removable cores, then try and work out how to pous latex into a small hole.

you have a hideous slimy tube you have to carry home with you

Or just hang it in the nearest tree to annoy passersby.

It kind of defeats part of the point of using sealant though. Yes, will work in terms of punctures by thorns, bits of glass etc. But you don't get the advantage of saving rotating mass (for the weight of the inner tube) and you still have to run higher pressures to avoid pinch flats / snake bites.

Ok as a commuting option I guess, but for other riding, do tubeless properly, or stick to inner tubes.

I thought that slime tubes were the obvious solution for those of us who don't want to go to the effort of going tubeless ....... for about 30 minutes into the first ride when I got a pinch puncture which the slime made absolutely no attempt to seal, and then found I couldn't patch it because of the slime all over the tube...

I've done on a bike that I was swapping tyres often and wasn't doing riding that would result in pinch flats

Stopped plenty of thorn punctures but as others have said removeable valve cores are key.

Hmmmm, I've been thinking about doing this on my commuter.
Running schwalbe G-ones, tubes have removable cores and I've a injector type thingy so putting the fluid in is easy enough.

Didnt think about pitch flats or the valve sealing itself.

I thought it might be an idea because everyone who goes tubeless seems to carry a tube as a fall back. Seems to defeat the object

Not at all. If you ran tubes, you'd still carry a tube. With tubeless, you do they same, but you have no tube in your wheel, which greatly reduces rotating mass where it counts the most.

You're also far less likely to puncture, as you mostly can't pinch flat, and tubeless sealant should repair smaller cuts.

Slime in tubes also increases rotating mass, further increasing the advantages of not running a tube at all. It was a solution that attempted to fix the same problem that tubeless does, but so poorly that barely anyone adopted it.

In summary, tubeless: good, tubes: OK as spares to get you home, slime: terrible.

It depends how you look at it.

I used to do a lot of riding in the dark and would  much rather have slightly heavier wheels than sit on a track in the pitch black for 15 mins repairing a puncture especially if it’s raining.

They defenaitly work as when I do end up changing the tube usually because of a large split or the slime has all been used you can see all the punctures it has sealed.

I do prefer tubeless but I didn’t want to ghetto it on my cx as I like to run high pressure and didn’t want to splash out on new wheels/tyres

Why not just buy one and try it you can easy take it out ?

I'm running sealant in tubes and have had no issues

Decided to stop running tubeless due to the mess when changing tyres (was trying different tyres out to find my fav combo) so went back to normal tubes for this with the intention to go back to tubeless once i had found my fav combo

After 6 months i had found my perfect combo but couldn't be arsed to convert the tyres to tubeless so left the wheels with tubes in

Was going through my inner tube collection and noticed a few had removable cores so decided to try them with sealant

They work great, Ive seen a few tell tale signs of the sealant sealing small holes, no punctures

Not had any pinch flats but i run 30psi in the MTB

Ive even filled the inner tubes on my road bike's tubular tyres with sealant, which have saved me a few times from having to fit my spare tubular by the side of the road

but you have no tube in your wheel, which greatly reduces rotating mass where it counts the most.

As far as I'm aware the only study into this that has been done shows that the accelerations involved in cycling are not of a magnitude to make rotating weight more important than static weight.

I've never really considered weight saving to be the primary purpose of tubeless. There might be a minor saving, but the main things for me have always been lower rolling resistance, better grip, and puncture resistance.

I used to use art latex in tubes on my commuter bike years ago when I had a 10 mile commute. That route took me past a scrap metal dealer, so I used to get frequent punctures, but that stopped after I put the latex in. I used to have to pump up the tyres every week or so, but after about a year, one of them just stopped holding air so I pulled the tube out. It was just full of pinholes that had been sealed by sealant. The tyre had dozens of tiny shards of metal, so it had to be binned too.

As far as I’m aware the only study into this that has been done shows that the accelerations involved in cycling are not of a magnitude to make rotating weight more important than static weight.

More important in what way?  A bike with lighter tyres feels better to ride so important to me.

I tried Slime tubes many years ago and they were crap and didn't work at all (I live in a very puncture heavy area and even punctured a Marathon Plus a few years back)

Proper tubeless is the only solution where I don't get many punctures and I don't carry a tube but do carry a small pump as the only time I have been let down by tubeless is where too much air escaped leaving the tyre too soft to ride on at full speed so had to ride home with a pretty much flat tyre.

A bike with lighter tyres feels better to ride so important to me.

They may well do, it's just that it being specifically down to the lightness of the tyre is imaginary. It might be because the overall weight of the bike is lower, it might be because the lighter tyre is more supple or has lower rolling resistance but it's not the fact that the tyre is lighter. The thing is though that rotational weight is seen as a common sense thing and it's very hard for actual facts to override common sense. I'm constantly thinking I should replace my heavy wheels on my road bike as that will make the most difference despite the fact that I know it won't make any more difference than loosing the weight elsewhere. And of course with wheels and tyres you could easily go lighter while slowing your bike down if you end up increasing drag.