Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Sponsored by Xanax
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
HALP! I'm on the fence with my Burner build and could use some wheelset opinions from the forum. In doing my research, I'm finding the UST rims and tires both add quite a bit of rotational weight (we're talking Mavic 717 disc versus 819s...and regular tires from 580g versus USTs at at least 750g). Mavic's own site states the UST route is actually lighter ("The weight of a Tubeless UST wheel and Tubeless UST tire is less than that of the traditional wheel + rim tape + tube + tire unit."---MAVIC)....is this truly the case?

Now, I know about the obvious benefits of going tubeless, but for a moderate-trail-condition-XC-rider like myself, does the switch make that much sense? I usually run 40-45 psi in my Panaracer Fire XCs using Torelli lightweight tubes, and have NEVER pinch flatted before unless I installed a tube poorly. I've played around with the psi, but generally prefer a firmer tire.

I hear some guys talk about an ethereal ride from USTs, but I just don't see how they'd benefit my riding style. And if I did choose the experiment later, couldn't I just convert some 717s to UST using a Stan's kit?

For the record, I'd like to get the Burner built up less than 27lbs, and I've already sacrificed some of the wiggle room since I got a Vanilla fork (4.1 lbs).

By all means, exploit my ignorance. :D
 

·
Lay off the Levers
Joined
·
10,127 Posts
regarding the ride characteristics of tubless vs. tubes,
I myself am not so refined a rider to be able to tell. But I've read that to those who are sensitive to such things, have found the feel of the ride on tubed tires w/tubes to be much more lively and spirited. (I believe DT actually mentioned a similar preference).

IMO It seems to me that If you don't pinch flat, and you prefer to run higher PSI, tubeless will not have much to offer you in terms of an advantage over tubes.
I hear sealant can be a bigh help with thorns and such.
 

·
I don't do PC
Joined
·
7,401 Posts
The complete UST setup is not lighter but if you flat at all then it's worth it. The UST tires are the same weight really as a standard tire/tube(comparable size and tread), the rims are slightly heavier than a standard rim but not much, maybe 100g for both wheels. I've been running my backup rear wheel with standard rim/tire lately cause my tubeless wheel's hub blew up and I've flatted 3 times in the last 2 months, let me tell you, not having to deal with flats is a wonderful thing. I have also noticed a diff. in traction, or lack thereof, since I've been running the standard rear tire, it doesn't stay hooked up as well over rocky terrain at speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
I love tubeless.....But I like 30 psi and the traction that it gives. Also, the lack of flats is a big time saver. The ride is a lot better from a traction perspective. Grip in corners and climbing is amazing, especially when combined with FS. But each to his own.....I am running 819s with Pythons for most conditions and a little extra weight in exchange for the above advantages is worth it......

Greyeye
 

·
Sponsored by Xanax
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Well, I didn't wait long to make a decision. I went ahead and ordered some hoops built with Hope XCs on 819s...all of it black. Now I have to find a good hardpack UST tire with reasonable weight-to-performance characteristics.

I read in MBA that a jug of Stan's is good to use even with UST rims/tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
Roostalee said:
Well, I didn't wait long to make a decision. I went ahead and ordered some hoops built with Hope XCs on 819s...all of it black. Now I have to find a good hardpack UST tire with reasonable weight-to-performance characteristics.

I read in MBA that a jug of Stan's is good to use even with UST rims/tires.
I have four bikes running UST/UST Rims with no Stans and in a year of hard riding on all 4 of them, I just got my first true flat. I live in GA and ride a lot of different trails. I think the flat came from a large thorn. It is a small puncture right at the forward base of one of the knobs. Three of the bikes have pythons and the one with the flat has Scwalbe Fat Albert UST. I am going to try adding Stans to this tire to see if it takes care of the leak. I suspect if you live near a real thorny area, such as the southwest, Stans might be a neccessity. I bought a bottle a year ago but just never got around to using it since all the tires were doing so well. Some of them will randomly go flat in a week if I don't ride them but then I usually squish the bead around, inflate them to a high PSI and that usuall cures it.....If you can't tell, I really love them.....

Greyeye
 

·
Sponsored by Xanax
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Good to know. Yep, I live in Texas where the mesquite thorns can get to about an inch long. God, that ugly overgrown shrub is good for nothing except chopping into little bits for using in the barbeque grill .

Sooo...I might git a bottle of Stan's just in case.

I see a LOT of Python tires out there, I'll have to axe my local shop what they prefer for the area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,963 Posts
Fire XC

I think you mentioned you currently ride Fire XC tires. In the tubeless version, they are one of the lowest "weight gainers" that I know of (same tire tubeless wgt vs tube version wgt).

You might just want to stick with them. IMO, they don't get due consideration because they aren't one of the hot new tires, having been around a few years, and apparently in the process of being phased out by Panaracer in favor of the new Cinder.

A friend went this route last summer on a new Spot, mounted them up with just a single scoop of Stan's, and is still going strong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
If you are thinking about tubeless go for it. But from all that I've heard, if you are building up a new build, get the UST rims. I've only seen 2 guys running the UST up here in SE Washington... both were in races. both i've seen were flatted, one was 4 times due to goatheads (tackweed). But I guess I can say the same thing. The same race as the 2nd guys (4 times), I flatted due to tackweed. I've always wanted to try the tubeless, but due to the thorns and such, tubes are so much easier to deal with..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I spent two years on UST. The five years before it I spent on non-UST, with only one flat tire (due to a large screw that went right through the tire)

Yep, I´m tall and quite heavy, I run my tires at low pressure and I tend to run hard and over obstacles rather than around them.

Now I´m back on non-UST with the same tire pressure, with no flat tires (knock on wood) so far and the only difference I can feel is the lack of rotating mass in the wheels and rims. Ie it is better now than with UST. I´ll wait a couple of UST generations before going back. I need more advantages than the marketing dept telling me that it is better :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
kosmo said:
I think you mentioned you currently ride Fire XC tires. In the tubeless version, they are one of the lowest "weight gainers" that I know of (same tire tubeless wgt vs tube version wgt).
Huh? The tubed version weighs 580 g and the tubeless weighs 780 g. How is that the same? Are you assuming 200g for tubes? I run 125g tubes in my FIreXCpros.

Hutch Spider UST weighs aobut 80g less than the FirePro UST and still only has a 200g increase over the non-UST version
 

·
I don't do PC
Joined
·
7,401 Posts
kosmo said:
I think you mentioned you currently ride Fire XC tires. In the tubeless version, they are one of the lowest "weight gainers" that I know of (same tire tubeless wgt vs tube version wgt).

You might just want to stick with them. IMO, they don't get due consideration because they aren't one of the hot new tires, having been around a few years, and apparently in the process of being phased out by Panaracer in favor of the new Cinder.

A friend went this route last summer on a new Spot, mounted them up with just a single scoop of Stan's, and is still going strong.
Agreed, they are a good UST tire and cheaper than most, they do wear fast in the rear though.
 

·
Sponsored by Xanax
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Here's a wrinkle, I went on Panaracer's site and they list the Fire XC UST as 730g, not 780g as listed by most online retailers. So who the heck knows how much they weigh. I'm no racer boy, but I do want to avoid mongo heavy tires on my Burner.

When I was ordering my UST wheelset, the guy at the shop said a lot of riders run regular tires (like Python airlites) with a scoop of Stan's and they work fine in 819 rims. Has anyone tried this?
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,308 Posts
I've been running standard tires on my 819 rims with Stan's sealant and I can't convince myself that running a UST tire is better. Standard tires are significantly lighter and I have yet to do anything to the sidewalls. I've taken my 2.25 Racing Ralph (rear) and 2.5 Weirwolf (the other) through tons of gnarly trails. I will actualy be replacing the RR from the rear with something with more tread, that can handle more than just very arid trails, but I am sticking to standard tires.

By running a standard tire on the UST rim, the weight of the tube gets calculated into the weight of the rim, it's even better since the rim is closer in to the center of rotation than the tube.

_MK
 

·
carpe mañana
Joined
·
7,308 Posts
I did, briefly. These are on the 5 Spot now. The 2.25 Racing Ralph is lighter and rolls faster than 2.1 Fire XC. 2.5 Weirwolf is a big heavier but it's up front so you hardly notice the resistance, and on the downhill it really shines.

_MK
 

·
outclassed by his bike
Joined
·
365 Posts
technical trail bias is natural

Roostalee said:
MK, you running tires that fat (2.3 and 2.5) on a Burner? I must be in the dark ages, I've never run a tire larger than 2.1 (The Fire XCs).
You're not in the dark ages. This board leans fairly heavily toward technical trail riding rather than toward XC racing on the kind of relatively fast terrain that rewards skinny (< 2.1) tires. Yes, there are folks here who race their Burners, but the discussion on average tends away from that. (I suspect it's because you get a cross section of Turner owners, and the Turner line of frames as a whole is weighted toward trail riding rather than racing.) Therefore you will see a lot of stuff like this. You just need to calibrate your reading to that reality. On my Burner I run a nominal 2.3 in front that's really more like a very fat 2.1, and a legit 2.1 in back. I suspect this is not far from typical for Burners, but you can check the Burner sticky database.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top