Another tubed tire mounted contrary to mfr's recommendations go BOOM!
^^ Suggested thread title revision
Sorry to be the flame magnet here, but I'll take the pressure off others and take my turn at this rant. But really, should anyone be surprised anymore when a 29" tire designed for tubes is mounted up tubeless, and then blows up? What can I say, being in my late 30s my self-preservation instinct is fully developed, so I can't imagine even trying it. I shudder to think what would have happened if that failure had occurred on a steep high-speed descent, especially if there were trees or cliffs nearby. Glad you weren't hurt, but I'm starting to wonder if it's just a matter of time before this kind of thing causes someone to be seriously injured. Or worse.
So far the strongest mfr. response we've heard to this phenomenon has been for WTB to start labeling tires (at least the Kevlar Nano) as not to be used tubeless. Even if those who experiment with tubeless promise not to sue, if someone gets hurt really badly there's bound to be a chilling effect. It could deter some promising manufacturers (Ritchey? Hutchinson?) from entering the market, and some of our tire choices could even disappear from the market.
Let's say Hutchinson is seriously thinking about bringing us the Python, then this happens. I could see them deciding, "well, I guess if we came out with UST version of the Python at the same time as the tubed version, then we won't have to worry about too many of these 'experiments' ... but we can't cost-justify two versions of the same tire for the limited 29" market, so forget about it." I don't think that's so far-fetched. {/rant}
Here's a question for those of you who've been playing around with tubeless: has anyone thought about just doing the rear tubeless, and keeping a tube up front? You'd still get the rolling resistance and pinch flat resistance benefits where they matter most, and you'd reduce the risk of catastrophic crashes a whole lot. Anyone?
- Dan