Tubeless compatability question....?

[Anthony]

If you take a Racing Ralph 2.1, it weighs 460 or 590, so the numbers for me would be:

1. normal style - 460 + 130 tube = 590
2. Stan's system - 460 + Stan's liner 60 + Stan's sealant 60 = 580
3. UST no protection - 590 plus zero = 590
4. UST protected - 590 + Stan's sealant 60 = 650

Option 1 is obviously the least trouble, option 2 is the most faff, options 3 and 4 also a bit of faff, but options 2 and 4 seem to offer flat-free cycling for a season. And the people who do it reckon the faff is worth it.

And I must say that my understanding is that all of the top world XC racers use option 4 and they say UST is faster in a straight line, as well as more cornering grip. That's the bit I can't understand in terms of the engineering - everybody says UST = faster rolling, but why?

 

[Wold Ranger]

UST

Stiff side walls are the reason, U get far better grip with the lower pressure, the bike bounce n skitters around less too. BUT there are still a lot of problems and don't discount the fact that many racers DO NOT have a choice, they are paid by the factory and ride what they're told to! Despite this a lot still don't run tubeless! @ Fort Bill it was still sub 40 percent running tubeless.

 

[stevek]

I've found that the sealant doesn't slosh after the initial revolution of the wheel. It thinly spreads itself all the way round the tyre while the wheel's spinning and only begins to pool at the bottom when you stop.

 

[JustKev]

Hey Gus, the 'UST tubeless only' refers to the type of tyre that you have to use. The rim has been designed for UST tyres only as they attach differently to conventional tyres. There should be no problem using a tube in there.

Cheers
Steve

Hey steve, so no normal tyres then? There seem to be some folk saying they have run normal tyres...? Are they likely to come off or something do you think. ?

:shock:

I have used Tioga Psycho's and Onza Porcs with tubes on my Crossmax (same as yours) and haven't had any problems. But get yourself some tubes with long valves!

 

[Augustus]

Well chaps,

after ages on sunday afternoon trying to get some Cinder 1.95's (and Explorer 2.1's and Fire 1.8's) to seat properly with tubes, and breaking a number of tyre levers trying to unseat them when they wouldn't, I have decided to go with some tubless tyres and put goo in them and see what that's all about.

I think the problem was compounded by the fact that all my tyers were folders, but they just would'nt seat properly and wobbled when inflated. Enough that it would be annoying when riding.

Maybe steel bead tyres work better.

 

[leonatico]

What's the point on spending a fortune on UST wheels and then not using their advantages???
Anyway the only "problem" in using these rims as conventional rims is that you have to take the valve out in order to put the inner tube. If you damage the hole where the valve of the inner tube goes it might stop being as "sealed" as it´s supposed to be when you use it tubeless. I hope I've explained myself properly.

Saludos,

Leon

 

[andrewl]

Maybe steel bead tyres work better.

Not a good idea on a tubeless rim unless you want to stuff it trying to get them on.

Just buy some proper tubeless tyres and be done with it, and leave the tyre levers in the tool box and learn to mount the tyres properly without as a lot of people damage their rims or tyres using levers.

 

[Augustus]

What's the point on spending a fortune on UST wheels and then not using their advantages???

I didn't spend a fortune on them.

And to me, their advantage is that they look pretty, because I don't think they are much lighter or better than my existing King/ Hugi set up. Just fancied a change of scenery without spending a fortune on extra tyres.

 

[Augustus]

Maybe steel bead tyres work better.

Not a good idea on a tubeless rim unless you want to stuff it trying to get them on.

Just buy some proper tubeless tyres and be done with it, and leave the tyre levers in the tool box and learn to mount the tyres properly without as a lot of people damage their rims or tyres using levers.

Glad i didn't try steels then.

Of course, some tyres go on easily without levers, but I defy anyone to try and get my Explorers on anything without one let anone off anything. It's not a pleasant experience.

Going to get some UST's and just be done with it now anyway.

 

[Anthony]

Well chaps, after ages on sunday afternoon trying to get some Cinder 1.95's (and Explorer 2.1's and Fire 1.8's) to seat properly with tubes, and breaking a number of tyre levers trying to unseat them when they wouldn't, I have decided to go with some tubless tyres and put goo in them and see what that's all about.

I think the problem was compounded by the fact that all my tyers were folders, but they just would'nt seat properly and wobbled when inflated. Enough that it would be annoying when riding. Maybe steel bead tyres work better.

I think the issue is that the shape of the lip of a UST rim is different, and the bead of the UST tyre is designed to fit that, but a conventional tyre isn't - so it's a bit of pot luck whether any given conventional tyre will work well with a UST rim or badly. But the UST rim is inherently more difficult to mount a tyre onto, so I reckon a wire bead could be a bit of a nightmare and you're not really supposed to use them, even though it's a good point that once on it probably wouldn't wobble off again. And not that you're a weight weenie i'm sure, but a wire-bead tyre plus a tube weighs quite a bit more than a UST tyre, plus there are the dynamic advantages of UST that Wold Ranger explains above.

I think you can get an injector, can't you, to put the Stan's in via the valve if you're using a UST tyre? A lot less of a faff that way than a Stan's no tubes system.