Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I read over on utah mountain biking's page on tubeless setups that Stan's sealant (presumably other brands also) will eventually kill your tires. They seem to think it destroys the rubber, so it rubs off the casing on the inside, and can lead to blowouts of the sidewalls :confused: :eek: . (They mention spesh tires being especially prone to this; unfortunately I have a fast trak with stans on my back wheel!)

Can anybody confirm this? How long does it usually take?
 

·
pronounced may-duh
Joined
·
4,306 Posts
Yes it's true but only with certain tires. Check out the Stans website for a listing of what tire brands are approved for use with Stans. I think there are other brands of sealant that don't have this problem. Such as slime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
No, that list is of tires with strong enough beads for tubeless use—they think some WTBs, IRCs, Hutchinson beads will break with the added pressure.

Nothing to do with killing the rubber!

So far utahmountainbiking.com is the only place to mention this supposed problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Depends on the tire and the sealant used. Some have issues, others do not.

Personally I do not think the sealant alone is the issue but the damage that happens to a tire during normal use and how the sealant then is able to get into the tire structure. This type of damage can happen when using inner tubes but without sealant it may not lead to tire failure.
 

·
pronounced may-duh
Joined
·
4,306 Posts
Jim Tigernuts said:
No, that list is of tires with strong enough beads for tubeless use-they think some WTBs, IRCs, Hutchinson beads will break with the added pressure.

Nothing to do with killing the rubber!

So far utahmountainbiking.com is the only place to mention this supposed problem.
OK I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the Stans list. But your not the first guy who has mentioned it. Lets call it urban legend. Many people have reported the same problem so there's probably some truth to it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Maida7 said:
OK I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the Stans list. But your not the first guy who has mentioned it. Lets call it urban legend. Many people have reported the same problem so there's probably some truth to it.
More than an urban legend. There are many, many examples of tires that have failed while of being used with sealants that probably would not have failed it used dry (UST) or with inner tubes. This in do to say the the rubber itself was damaged by the sealant.
 

·
TranceX Rider
Joined
·
948 Posts
I remember why they are not recommended


When standard tires are setup tubeless, more strain is put on the bead. Which can cause the bead to severely stretch or snap. Aside from the wear & tear from usual use... or abuse:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Hmmm, so should I be concerned about my tires failing spectacularly? Are there warning signs? Any brands that aren't susceptible? I understand european brands often still employ "real" rubber, while asian manufacturers tend to use synthetic rubber (nylon, silicon). Any compound you think is superior for sealant?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,083 Posts
Another thread refered to the manufacturing process that may or may not cause the tire to be more suceptable to this failure.

I feel pretty sure that a Panaracer I had failed this way. Blew a knob off for no real reason, took a internal casing patch and a tube to get home (no big deal).

Yet I have not had a failure with Kenda's Nevega that are suppossidly suspecatble to this type of failure.

So it seems to be hit and miss??
 

·
bump and grind
Joined
·
707 Posts
I've used stan's with kenda nev's UST front and rear for some time now. The rear tire developed "tumors" in and out. the front tire is perfectly fine. I've also used stan's with geax and specialized (both standard tires) on another bike. No failures or damage so far. I've also used slime, but not for very long (lack of local supplier) so I can't really judge its effect on tires.

Do a search of kenda and stan's and you'll have a lot of reading material on the topic.
 

·
aka Taprider
Joined
·
1,034 Posts
I've been using Stans since 2001
over time a find that the tire bead gets looser (stretches?) to the point where what was once an easy tire to mount becomes impossible
if I am not using a tire constantly I will empty it of Stans and wash it out to preserve its life
tumors happened to my girl friends Nevegal and it has never been Stanned
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
I have been using Stans since it came out with only one incident(Panaracer). If used long enough, the sealant will eventually seap through the side walls which has happened with all the tires I have used.

I also heard that the sealant is what eats the tire from the inside out, from non use. Never had this happen, but as a precaution, I rotate the tires weekly if I dont use a certain bike.
 
G

·
Ammonia seems to be the problem

I have used 819's and Stans kits for the past year and had a tumour in my Maxxis cross mark and in Nevagal's both were UST, the Kenda failure was more spectacular with delamination on 40 cm of the tread.

The rep says the ammonia in these products cause lamination to separate. (he says UST should not do it but only normal tyres)

I do believe the previous post that normal wear and tear enables the ammonia to attack the lamination as this happened in both cases when I moved or used the tyre on the rear when tread were at 60% wear.

I have used Joe's and Stans sealants both caused this problem. I cannot comment on slime.
 

·
Photog Cyclist.
Joined
·
401 Posts
Now I have thought!!!!

How much of the tire failure is the "Ammonia" and how much is a mechanical failure? I don't know what % Ammonia is in Stans but it is probably pretty low (I can hardly smell it in the stuff I have). Now to my mechanical part---when you ride the tire deforms causing the sidewall casing to buckle some, causing an internal friction--the cords don't stretch much but the rubber surrounding the cords can stretch lots. Now with the tube it adds some support to the sidewall because of the additional rubber. You take the tube out and the sidewall loses some support then you compound that with the lower pressures people claim to run, it all adds up more sidewall deformation, more friction, greater chance of a blister or de-lamination. Think Ford Explorer and Firestone, Firestone said the Ford spec'd too low a tire pressure causing their tire to fail.

I have use Stan's for years, I have taken many tires off form many different manufactures and I have not seen any signs that the inside of the tire has been visually degraded, but I have seen a nice layer or cream colored latex coating the tire and when rubbed off there is a nice tire casing under there!!!!!

I have never had a tire failure or blister (knock on wood) I typically run about 33lbs in the front and 35lbs in the rear--I like Stan's for the flat protection and with those pressures it gives a nice supple ride, I weigh 165 of so. I know that when using Stans I am using the tire in a way it is not intended to be used (I use standard tires, non-UST), I accept the risk and if I tire has a problem--pooh happens--not Stan's fault, not the tires fault, but my fault for not using it the way it is intended!!!!!

Stan's rocks----Maxxis, WTB, Kenda tire all have worked well with Stan's so far---ride on,
 
1 - 19 of 19 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