Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Confused- what does Tubeless Ready mean?

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
#23 · (Edited)
BUSTELO said:
Schwalbe - Professional Bikes Tires on drop down menu under evolution line tire.If you click on the "tubeless" on the description it states that this tire is UST certified.Their lightest tubeless ready (TL) tire is 315g.
Click to expand...
You are having trouble reading Schwalbe's charts.

The lightest UST they offer is a 2.0 wide Furious Fred at 495g. This is a razor skinny race-only tire with zero knobs designed for the hardest of hardpack, only. All of their knobby UST tires of 2.1 width or greater start at around 700g. A UST Nobby Nic in a 2.25 width, for example, is a 745g tire.

Furious Fred tread . . . perfect for racing on a bmx-like surface . . . and little else.

Image
 
#24 · (Edited)
BUSTELO said:
so what is the weight benefit of TR if UST weight is not much of an issue these days? 450g for the Swalbe is quite impressive, either way typically lighter weight means less durability.Taken into account is the weight of the sealant however UST is not so much about weight but other benefits.
Click to expand...
As previously stated, the weight benefit of TR is roughly 200g per tire. Whether this is a big deal or not depends on the rider and his intended use. Keep in mind that XC folks readily spend a grand on a 400g lighter wheelset and consider it a worthy mod.

In my own personal experience, swapping to light tires Tubeless Ready 2,25 Rocket Rons (465g) run tubeless on light UST rims (Mavic SLR's), has literally transformed my bike. By far, hands down, the best mod I've ever done to an XC/AM bike. Night and day difference in terms of acceleration, handling, rolling resistance, braking, nimbleness, climbing, etc. One of the tires was a PITA to get sealed (took 2 days), but zero flats, burps or leaks over the course of 6+ rides.

No way in the world I would trade these benefits for a much thicker/heavier tire that I'd need to put sealant in, anyway. Seems like a relative no-brainer to me, but to each his own.

UST tire tech, with its heavy butyl liner construction, is now 10+ years old . . .

An informative article on the various tubeless options and the state of the tubeless art: Tubeless Tire: Mountain Bike Gear | Bicycling Magazine
 
#25 ·
I find using sealant (a couple oz per tire) simple enough I just don't see the benefit of running the heavy UST tires. I am running Continental Race King 29" and they are not even noted as tubeless ready (i.e. no special bead) yet work fine on my UST and Stan's wheels.
 
#26 ·
Stumpjumpy said:
You are having trouble reading Schwalbe's charts.

The lightest UST they offer is a 2.0 wide Furious Fred at 495g. This is a razor skinny race-only tire with zero knobs designed for the hardest of hardpack, only. All of their knobby UST tires of 2.1 width or greater start at around 700g. A UST Nobby Nic in a 2.25 width, for example, is a 745g tire.

Furious Fred tread . . . perfect for racing on a bmx-like surface . . . and little else.

Image
Click to expand...
I am not having trouble reading the chart, I was pointing out the lightest UST tire available, I KNOW IT IS NOT A TRAIL TIRE.After you clearly stated there are no lightweight tires available and I proved you wrong you give a a - rep? 495g is certainly a lot lighter than your proclamation that UST tires are MUCH heavier.
 
#30 ·
BUSTELO said:
I am not having trouble reading the chart, I was pointing out the lightest UST tire available, I KNOW IT IS NOT A TRAIL TIRE.After you clearly stated there are no lightweight tires available and I proved you wrong you give a a - rep? 495g is certainly a lot lighter than your proclamation that UST tires are MUCH heavier.
Click to expand...
You are having trouble reading, period.

I've never given - rep to anyone.

I never said there were no lightweight tires available. I said that UST tires weigh roughly 200g more than their TR counterparts.

The TR version of Schwalbe's Furious Fred is 180g lighter than the UST version (315g vs. 495g), and its a skinny slick of a tire.

The TR version of any knobby tire is usually aprox 200g (or more) lighter than its UST counterpart.

The only person you've proven wrong is yourself. Sorry.
 
#31 ·
Stumpjumpy said:
Not sure what you are looking at. Like all UST tire manufacturers, Schwalbe's LIGHTEST UST tires start at about 700g (26x2.1) and go up in weight from there with size. All weigh roughly 200g more than their TR couterparts.
Click to expand...
so I guess you are having trouble reading the charts;) 495g is substantially less than 700g, yes I do agree that TL is lighter than UST, that was never an issue with me on my post.The point is my friend.......UST tire weights have come a long way in regards to weight.
 
#33 · (Edited)
BUSTELO said:
so I guess you are having trouble reading the charts;) 495g is substantially less than 700g, yes I do agree that TL is lighter than UST, that was never an issue with me on my post.The point is my friend.......UST tire weights have come a long way in regards to weight.
Click to expand...
I said for a 26x2.1 tire. The Furious Fred is a 2.0. Take a look on the Schwalbe chart and tell us how many 2.1 UST tires weigh less than 615g. Hint: zero.

You do realize Maxxis makes a 285g mtb tire, right? MaxxLite 285

Schwalbe makes a 315g TR Furious Fred tire.

These are tires that nobody really uses except for a single race on concrete-like hardpack.

Your pointing to a 495g almost-useless UST tire as proof that "UST tires are light" is . . . useless, and incorrect, considering it weighs roughly 200g more than a comparable TR tire.

The 200g gap remains - no matter how you cut it. Sorry. It just is what it is.
 
#34 ·
BUSTELO said:
many pros take a gamble and run ultra lightweight tires with no sealant, and sometimes win, this type of tire does have a place.....on a XC race course.:p
Click to expand...
Why would a pro choose a 180g weight penalty per tire w/ a UST vs/ a TR tire?
Even if he ran no sealant in the UST and hoped he never flatted, he's still spinning 130g of extra weight per tire.

Why not save weight and get the flat protection of sealant with a more supple tire via TR?

This is a real no-brainer.
 
#35 ·
Stumpjumpy said:
Why would a pro choose a 180g weight penalty per tire w/ a UST vs/ a TR tire?
Even if he ran no sealant in the UST and hoped he never flatted, he's still spinning 130g of extra weight per tire.

Why not save weight and get the flat protection of sealant with a more supple tire via TR?

This is a real no-brainer.
Click to expand...
I was referring to USTwith no sealant, pros choose to run tubeless with no sealant for more durability on certain courses..2.0, 2.1? come on, I owned tires tires that are wider than stated and narrower than stated so a 2.0 by all means can be trail bike worthy, that has been established by MTB action mag repeatedly.So, a 2.0 can be perfectly trail worthy. I have a set of Maxxis 380s in storage...so don't go there.You are stuck in a time warp when 700g UST was considered acceptable, a trail worthy UST tire(yes even 2.1) can be in the 500g range now.UST has never been about saving weight, in general UST tires are more durable, that is why downhill racers prefer them for exceptionally rugged courses.Obviously you are backpedaling ever so slowly on the weight subject since obviously you have only recently referred to the Schwalbe site.I have been using ust since 2004 and all though I do not claim to be infallable:confused: I consider myself to be well informed on UST.I apoligize to you if I have offended you in anyway...you need a hug?:blush:
 
#37 ·
BUSTELO said:
I apoligize to you if I have offended you in anyway.
Click to expand...
No apology required. You have not offended me at all. I think you may have offended yourself, though.

Steadfastly refusing to admit the aprox 200g per tire UST weight penalty reflects very poorly upon you.

If you like UST tires, for whatever reason, then great - but to argue til you're blue in the face that there is not a weight penalty with UST (with or without sealant), borders on the pathological.

The numbers speak for themselves.
 
#38 ·
Stumpjumpy said:
Why would a pro choose a 180g weight penalty per tire w/ a UST vs/ a TR tire?
Even if he ran no sealant in the UST and hoped he never flatted, he's still spinning 130g of extra weight per tire.

Why not save weight and get the flat protection of sealant with a more supple tire via TR?

This is a real no-brainer.
Click to expand...
supple because of a weaker sidewall.I agree to disagree with you, lets move on...you need a :ihih:hug?
 
#39 ·
Stumpjumpy said:
No apology required. You have not offended me at all. I think you may have offended yourself, though.

Steadfastly refusing to admit the aprox 200g per tire UST weight penalty reflects very poorly upon you.

If you like UST tires, for whatever reason, then great - but to argue til you're blue in the face that there is not a weight penalty with UST (with or without sealant), borders on the pathological.

The numbers speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
you failure to realize that UST tires do weigh significantly less than numerous years ago is why I am debating with you.Typically UST tires hold up better to sidewall tears, you fail to concede that, UST tires have advantages and disadvantages as any type of tire does.You know of a perfect tire? UST is my choice for riding all day in the rugged sawtooths..Love your passive agressive approach:thumbsup:
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
About this Discussion
51 Replies
13 Participants
Last post:
Goran_injo
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion