Silca Ultimate Tubeless Sealant

[ricerocket]

Just add chopped fiberglass to your favorite sealant. Or whatever aggregate you want. Some people use glitter.

https://www.amazon.com/Inch-Chopped-Fib ... 0849L1M9N/

That quart of glass will last you a lifetime.

[CyclingGiraffe]

Not sure about the carbon fibers parts, I alway learned you had to wear face masks when you cut your carbon fibre fork.
So not sure how safe this sealant is ?

"carbon" part is not dangerous. It's the "Fiber" (resin, glue mix, clear coat, etc.) that stick with the carbon that is dangerous.
This type of carbon Silca use lost most of those stuff during the recycle process. Josh claims it's just one heating step away from becoming activated carbon. The stuff people eat to cure diarrhoea.

I'm pretty sure that the "carbon" in this instance is generally inseparable from the "fiber," as "carbon fiber" refers to fibers comprised primarily of carbon. These fibers are combined with an epoxy/resin matrix (which may have other materials in it) to create the composites that are used. That matrix (as well as the various glues, paints, clear coats, etc.) that comprise bike components and the other carbon fiber parts that seem to be used in the Silca sealant is probably not very nice to breathe. However, I believe the concern with carbon fiber is that there is research claiming that micro-particles of carbon fiber can cause mesothelioma, a kind of cancer long-believed to be cause almost exclusively by asbestos. Obviously that is not a good thing. However, as a general matter, its just not good to be exposed to and breathing very fine particulates of many things -- coal dust creates "black lung" in coal miners, cotton dust creates "brown lung" in cotton workers, etc. -- carbon fiber included.

[MikeD]

Just add chopped fiberglass to your favorite sealant. Or whatever aggregate you want. Some people use glitter.

https://www.amazon.com/Inch-Chopped-Fib ... 0849L1M9N/

That quart of glass will last you a lifetime.

I doubt that would work well. Watch the video.

[ricerocket]

I doubt that would work well. Watch the video.

The video is marketing.

You must be new to tubeless.

MTBers have been adding aggregates since forever, whether it's glitter, ground black pepper, walnut shells, etc.

[TobinHatesYou]

I doubt that would work well. Watch the video.

The video is marketing.

You must be new to tubeless.

MTBers have been adding aggregates since forever, whether it's glitter, ground black pepper, walnut shells, etc.

Cornmeal is a favorite too. And if the aggregate isn't getting where it needs to go, the most basic fix is to use more sealant so that there's more sealant per area when centrifugal forces are acting on it.

[MikeD]

I doubt that would work well. Watch the video.

The video is marketing.

You must be new to tubeless.

MTBers have been adding aggregates since forever, whether it's glitter, ground black pepper, walnut shells, etc.

Oh yeah, I find bull sh*t or horse sh*t (grass fed, of course) works even better on my ghetto tubeless setup with my homebrew, ammonia based sealant formula.

[joshatsilca]

Couple of things here:

Re, the carbon: pyrolized carbon is one heat treat step from becoming activated charcoal (which is used in water and air filtration), it doesn't contain any of the nasty epoxy or solvents from the sizing. This is very different from carbon powder from cutting a steerer tube, that's micro sized powder that easily gets airborne and should not be breathed. Our sealant uses 3-12mm strands of carbon that most importantly, is coated in liquid latex, you could wash your hands in the sealant and likely not have any contact with the carbon due to the latex coating.

The best way to think of this is that carbon black, is an easily aerosolized, potentially dangerous substance that is also one step from carbon fiber, and it is mixed with rubber to make nearly 100% of the tire treads as well as hiking boot shoe soles. So even if you were to spew our sealant onto the trailside, it is almost no different from that skid mark you would leave on a rock, or on the pavement.

Having said all that, the ingredient that is most mobile in most sealant brands is actually micro glass bead or micro polymer bead, these are similarly dangerous to carbon powder if inhaled, but of course, nobody even thinks twice as everybody else is using a proxy ingredient like glitter or corn-meal.

Secondly, we learned that the real way to think about sealant is in percentages. Everybody has their n=1 or n=2 stories regarding some magic seal or some total lack of seal, but we found that if you puncture the tire hundreds of times in various ways you will get a range of performance with all the sealants. So for me, the design here became all about moving the statistics much more in the favor of the rider, but ultimately, it's like counting cards in blackjack, you can move the odds considerably, but can also still lose some percentage of the time.

So we look at somethign like average number of rotations to seal a 6mm hole at 50psi, we average 1.3 over 36 punctures, so more than 2/3 of the time it sealed in one rotation and 1/3 of the time it took 2.. Orange Seal original averages 1.9 revolutions in the same test so 80% of the time they required 2 and ~20% it took 1.. and actually at 50psi, they had 2 tests that required 3 revs.. while SILCA had none of the 36 punctures require 3 revs. Stan's averaged 2.4 in this same test, while Stan's RaceDay also averaged 1.3. Orang Seal endurance was 2.6 largely because 1 of the 36 punctures took 5 revolutions to seal... and I could go on and on with these data..

This same test with 5mm hole at 80psi had the sealants abolutely all over the place with both og Stan's and Orange Seal endurance failing to seal at all in multiple attempts, yet both of those products did also successfully seal some of the time.. So as a rider in that scenario, your experience is pretty binary, it either worked or it didn't, but we see in testing that your odds were 50/50.. So the goal with our stuff, or something like Stan's race day is to make your odds more like 90/10 in your favor.. and in this case, our stuff sealed 100% of the time, though some of those cases did lose 30-40psi in the process, while others only lost 5-10psi

Lastly, to hit on something Tobin said, with every sealant tested, results improved when more sealant is used. This has strong statistical correlation with both reduced pressure loss to seal, fewer rotations to seal, AND tighter distribution of performance to seal, or more specifically, it reduces the mean by reducing the number of poor performing outliers in the data set. It seems to both put more sealant in any given area when a puncture does occur and also increases the likelihood that there are particulates in the vicinity that may be mobile enough to get to the puncture.. I personally have moved to running ~50% more than the standard suggested amount of sealant for the past year+ with very good results accross the board.

[robeambro]

Couple of things here:

Re, the carbon: pyrolized carbon is one heat treat step from becoming activated charcoal (which is used in water and air filtration), it doesn't contain any of the nasty epoxy or solvents from the sizing. This is very different from carbon powder from cutting a steerer tube, that's micro sized powder that easily gets airborne and should not be breathed. Our sealant uses 3-12mm strands of carbon that most importantly, is coated in liquid latex, you could wash your hands in the sealant and likely not have any contact with the carbon due to the latex coating.

The best way to think of this is that carbon black, is an easily aerosolized, potentially dangerous substance that is also one step from carbon fiber, and it is mixed with rubber to make nearly 100% of the tire treads as well as hiking boot shoe soles. So even if you were to spew our sealant onto the trailside, it is almost no different from that skid mark you would leave on a rock, or on the pavement.

Having said all that, the ingredient that is most mobile in most sealant brands is actually micro glass bead or micro polymer bead, these are similarly dangerous to carbon powder if inhaled, but of course, nobody even thinks twice as everybody else is using a proxy ingredient like glitter or corn-meal.

Secondly, we learned that the real way to think about sealant is in percentages. Everybody has their n=1 or n=2 stories regarding some magic seal or some total lack of seal, but we found that if you puncture the tire hundreds of times in various ways you will get a range of performance with all the sealants. So for me, the design here became all about moving the statistics much more in the favor of the rider, but ultimately, it's like counting cards in blackjack, you can move the odds considerably, but can also still lose some percentage of the time.

So we look at somethign like average number of rotations to seal a 6mm hole at 50psi, we average 1.3 over 36 punctures, so more than 2/3 of the time it sealed in one rotation and 1/3 of the time it took 2.. Orange Seal original averages 1.9 revolutions in the same test so 80% of the time they required 2 and ~20% it took 1.. and actually at 50psi, they had 2 tests that required 3 revs.. while SILCA had none of the 36 punctures require 3 revs. Stan's averaged 2.4 in this same test, while Stan's RaceDay also averaged 1.3. Orang Seal endurance was 2.6 largely because 1 of the 36 punctures took 5 revolutions to seal... and I could go on and on with these data..

This same test with 5mm hole at 80psi had the sealants abolutely all over the place with both og Stan's and Orange Seal endurance failing to seal at all in multiple attempts, yet both of those products did also successfully seal some of the time.. So as a rider in that scenario, your experience is pretty binary, it either worked or it didn't, but we see in testing that your odds were 50/50.. So the goal with our stuff, or something like Stan's race day is to make your odds more like 90/10 in your favor.. and in this case, our stuff sealed 100% of the time, though some of those cases did lose 30-40psi in the process, while others only lost 5-10psi

Lastly, to hit on something Tobin said, with every sealant tested, results improved when more sealant is used. This has strong statistical correlation with both reduced pressure loss to seal, fewer rotations to seal, AND tighter distribution of performance to seal, or more specifically, it reduces the mean by reducing the number of poor performing outliers in the data set. It seems to both put more sealant in any given area when a puncture does occur and also increases the likelihood that there are particulates in the vicinity that may be mobile enough to get to the puncture.. I personally have moved to running ~50% more than the standard suggested amount of sealant for the past year+ with very good results accross the board.

Thanks Josh, all very helpful - I might consider the purchase once I run out of Orange.
Would you mind sharing some more detail on your findings re: quantity of sealant? Like, is there a sweetspot of sealant quantity that dramatically improves results? e.g. going from 30ml to 60ml per tyre leads to drastic improvements, whilst going from 60 to 90 isn't as effective, etc.

[joshatsilca]

Thanks Josh, all very helpful - I might consider the purchase once I run out of Orange.
Would you mind sharing some more detail on your findings re: quantity of sealant? Like, is there a sweetspot of sealant quantity that dramatically improves results? e.g. going from 30ml to 60ml per tyre leads to drastic improvements, whilst going from 60 to 90 isn't as effective, etc.

From a sealing percentage, we've gone as high as 2x the recommended amount with very good results. I haven't tested with more than that as you start to quickly run into problems with clogging up your valve stem. Due to the huge time and cost associated with this testing, our testing on this particular topic has been pretty coarse.. like 50% more, 100% more and both were improvements in sealing performance.

As a manufacturer, the corner we feel like we are in is that to say to use more sealant might either be portrayed as you need more because the sealant doesn't work, or that we want you to use more so that we can sell you more, sort of like those toothpaste commercials! Some people also get worked up about the weight of the sealant, so that's a perception risk as well from a marketing perspective on this topic.

Having said all that, our data show that more is better regardless of brand or type of sealant used, including ours.

[bobones]

When's this likely to hit the UK? Saddleback only showing coming soon.

[ryanw]

When's this likely to hit the UK? Saddleback only showing coming soon.

Should be this Friday according to my backroder report.

[kode54]

Is the Silca sealant corrosive? And will it attack exposed spoke nipples from the inside of the wheel?

[FlatlandClimber]

Thanks Josh, all very helpful - I might consider the purchase once I run out of Orange.
Would you mind sharing some more detail on your findings re: quantity of sealant? Like, is there a sweetspot of sealant quantity that dramatically improves results? e.g. going from 30ml to 60ml per tyre leads to drastic improvements, whilst going from 60 to 90 isn't as effective, etc.

From a sealing percentage, we've gone as high as 2x the recommended amount with very good results. I haven't tested with more than that as you start to quickly run into problems with clogging up your valve stem. Due to the huge time and cost associated with this testing, our testing on this particular topic has been pretty coarse.. like 50% more, 100% more and both were improvements in sealing performance.

As a manufacturer, the corner we feel like we are in is that to say to use more sealant might either be portrayed as you need more because the sealant doesn't work, or that we want you to use more so that we can sell you more, sort of like those toothpaste commercials! Some people also get worked up about the weight of the sealant, so that's a perception risk as well from a marketing perspective on this topic.

Having said all that, our data show that more is better regardless of brand or type of sealant used, including ours.

Thank you for your replies. Soon gonna use the product. Once my new tires arrive.
I am a little suprised that 60ml is recommended for narrow tires, as at least according to Aerocoach, this means quite a lot of added rolling resistance over 30ml https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/tubeless-s ... resistance
So finding a feasible minimum would be interesting.

Also, how about using the sealant with inner tubes (spare tubes in case a tire doesn't seal). Will the carbon pieces cut up the tube or is it save to use that way?

[FlatlandClimber]

Double post

[spartan]

@joshatsilca what is the shelf life of the open bottle of sealant ? does it come with a expiration date

Couple of things here:

Re, the carbon: pyrolized carbon is one heat treat step from becoming activated charcoal (which is used in water and air filtration), it doesn't contain any of the nasty epoxy or solvents from the sizing. This is very different from carbon powder from cutting a steerer tube, that's micro sized powder that easily gets airborne and should not be breathed. Our sealant uses 3-12mm strands of carbon that most importantly, is coated in liquid latex, you could wash your hands in the sealant and likely not have any contact with the carbon due to the latex coating.

The best way to think of this is that carbon black, is an easily aerosolized, potentially dangerous substance that is also one step from carbon fiber, and it is mixed with rubber to make nearly 100% of the tire treads as well as hiking boot shoe soles. So even if you were to spew our sealant onto the trailside, it is almost no different from that skid mark you would leave on a rock, or on the pavement.

Having said all that, the ingredient that is most mobile in most sealant brands is actually micro glass bead or micro polymer bead, these are similarly dangerous to carbon powder if inhaled, but of course, nobody even thinks twice as everybody else is using a proxy ingredient like glitter or corn-meal.

Secondly, we learned that the real way to think about sealant is in percentages. Everybody has their n=1 or n=2 stories regarding some magic seal or some total lack of seal, but we found that if you puncture the tire hundreds of times in various ways you will get a range of performance with all the sealants. So for me, the design here became all about moving the statistics much more in the favor of the rider, but ultimately, it's like counting cards in blackjack, you can move the odds considerably, but can also still lose some percentage of the time.

So we look at somethign like average number of rotations to seal a 6mm hole at 50psi, we average 1.3 over 36 punctures, so more than 2/3 of the time it sealed in one rotation and 1/3 of the time it took 2.. Orange Seal original averages 1.9 revolutions in the same test so 80% of the time they required 2 and ~20% it took 1.. and actually at 50psi, they had 2 tests that required 3 revs.. while SILCA had none of the 36 punctures require 3 revs. Stan's averaged 2.4 in this same test, while Stan's RaceDay also averaged 1.3. Orang Seal endurance was 2.6 largely because 1 of the 36 punctures took 5 revolutions to seal... and I could go on and on with these data..

This same test with 5mm hole at 80psi had the sealants abolutely all over the place with both og Stan's and Orange Seal endurance failing to seal at all in multiple attempts, yet both of those products did also successfully seal some of the time.. So as a rider in that scenario, your experience is pretty binary, it either worked or it didn't, but we see in testing that your odds were 50/50.. So the goal with our stuff, or something like Stan's race day is to make your odds more like 90/10 in your favor.. and in this case, our stuff sealed 100% of the time, though some of those cases did lose 30-40psi in the process, while others only lost 5-10psi

Lastly, to hit on something Tobin said, with every sealant tested, results improved when more sealant is used. This has strong statistical correlation with both reduced pressure loss to seal, fewer rotations to seal, AND tighter distribution of performance to seal, or more specifically, it reduces the mean by reducing the number of poor performing outliers in the data set. It seems to both put more sealant in any given area when a puncture does occur and also increases the likelihood that there are particulates in the vicinity that may be mobile enough to get to the puncture.. I personally have moved to running ~50% more than the standard suggested amount of sealant for the past year+ with very good results accross the board.