Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30

    Is Mavic C29ssmax Disc UST ?

    Its not clear from Mavic site if the C29ssmax Disc is UST tubeless ?
    10x

  2. #2
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,081
    Yes, it is a UST certified rim. The only currently available tire with a UST certified bead to fit is the Hutchinson Python 29"er. (There are more tires on the way)

    Also, please note that there are UST certified tubeless ready tires. They require sealant to hold air. The Python 29"er is one of these types of tires.

    There are no 29"er UST tires that will hold air without sealant.

    Hope that helps.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30

    Sorry - not clear

    Do you mean that i will need to add a tape rim ? what the diffrent then 26 UST RIM ?

  4. #4
    Just Wanna Ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,372
    The rim is solid and is fully sealed without tape. What GT is saying is that true UST tires aren't readily availble in 29er sizes to match up with the Mavic wheels just yet.

    If you search for tires you'll find a range of tires that are 'tubeless ready' with tubeless tire beads, but standard casings. The 'tubeless ready' tires will have a positive connection to the rim, but the casing can still leak air. In order to make the tubeless ready tires work - even on a UST rim, you have to use a sealant.

    Summary - wheels are tubeless but most tires that are designed to be run tubeless will still have to run Stan's or other sealant.

    Link to wheel review...http://bike-reviews.mtbpath.com/

  5. #5
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,916
    Quote Originally Posted by sthrnfat
    Summary - wheels are tubeless but most tires that are designed to be run tubeless will still have to run Stan's or other sealant.
    If you don't mind, I'll just edit that to say:

    Summary - wheels are tubeless but ALL tires that are designed to be run tubeless will still have to run Stan's or other sealant.

  6. #6
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,081

    I'll also add....

    I don't think we will ever see a 29"er tire with a UST casing- one that will hold air without sealant.

    My opinion is that the market wouldn't bear with the weight of such a tire. Most folks will want to run sealant anyway, so why bother with a UST casing? Less SKU's for a tire company and less confusion in the marketplace.

    Tubeless ready technology will be just fine, as far as I am concerned.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mike Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,935
    I'd like a true tubeless tire so I could ride aggressively at low pressures without cutting tires.
    That is not possible going full-tilt boogie through rock gardens, off drops, etc- at least not in my terrain and how I ride (like a crazy monkey). 40 psi (what I have to run in the back to not cut tires) does not equal getting the full benefits of tubeless.
    Mike

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,866
    since my bikes range from SS hardtails to 8 inch travel freeride bikes, i've explored pretty many combinations of tubes and rims (stan's strips vs UST rims vs stan's rims etc.) and for me there are several key advantages to a UST tire.

    one is the general improvement in casing durability in rocky terrain.

    the second advantage is ease of installation. this translates to easy trail-side repairs -- a big slit can be patched up, tire reinstalled and aired up with a hand pump.

    This also translates into relatively painless swapping out of tires between wheelsets.

    A third advantage is quality control. UST tires for me have very low tire-to-tire variation, and perform well over time. non-UST tires can be more hit-and-miss.

    for those that only ride one bike, and don't like to change out tires for different terrain, and aren't the kind of gearheads always seeking out the best combination of performance and light weight in all their components, then the above concerns might not be that important.

    but for some of us there definitely would be utility in having 29r UST tires out there.

  9. #9
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,081
    For you guys wanting a tough tire get the WTB Stout 1130grams. That is probably about what a tire that was a full on UST would weigh. Especially an all condition type, wide tire.

    The upcoming WTB tire will probably be even tougher and perhaps weigh even more.

    You are going to find a few guys willing to put up with that, but I think that tire companies would still say they are interested in fewer SKU's, not more, and manufacturing costs would be less on a "tubeless ready" tire since you only have to open one mold.

    I still believe we won't see a UST 29"er tire that won't need sealant. I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet I'm not.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,866
    i disagree on your weight assumption. in the 26er world, there was a time that it was assumed that a UST version would weight 200 g more than the non-UST version but there are examples in which the differnential is less than that.

    for years i was running huge 2.4 specialized front tires that were an excellent combination of casing volume, reasonable sidewall durability, air retention, ease of installation on UST and converted rims, traction, and weight. i see no reason why the 29er tire market can't have a similar set of choices.

    to be more specific, i have no doubt that a sub-950 g 29er tire could be designed that was UST compatible and did well in the characteristics listed above. and a slightly narrower version, suitable for rear tire use, in the sub-900 g range.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WillitsBrand.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    327
    My weird experience over the last few months:
    Bontrager RXL TLR rim + Hutchinson Python UST tires + Stan's fluid = loses full capacity in 2 days
    Bontrager Duster TLR rim + Bontrager Jones TLR tires + Stan's fluid = loses maybe 3 pounds a week
    Bontrager Duster TLR rim + Maxxis Ignitor non-TLR/UST tires + Stan's fluid = loses insignificant amount a week

    I tend to run them all around 28lbs and all three tires snapped in with the compressor which is very reassuring. I was just so surprised to see how well the Ignitor has done.
    Retired Willits Brand Bicycles Webmaster::
    http://www.willitsbikes.com
    South Austin, Texas ::

  12. #12
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,081
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    i disagree on your weight assumption. in the 26er world, there was a time that it was assumed that a UST version would weight 200 g more than the non-UST version but there are examples in which the differnential is less than that.
    Well, you are welcome to your opinions, but most standard 29"er tires that are considered for AM/trail use are already in the upper 700-850 gram range. Adding a UST bead and enough butyl rubber to seal the casing is going to add more weight than your 26"er example. I still think most folks are going to balk at a tire weighing upwards of 1000 grams. Keep in mind, one of the bigger complaints here is rotational weight, so whether that's a real problem or not, it is the perception, and tire companies are aware of that.

    for years i was running huge 2.4 specialized front tires that were an excellent combination of casing volume, reasonable sidewall durability, air retention, ease of installation on UST and converted rims, traction, and weight. i see no reason why the 29er tire market can't have a similar set of choices.
    There still is the point about less SKU's and the 29"er market just isn't going to recieve the same features as the 26"er market. 29"ers are still much, much smaller in the marketplace than 26"er tires are. Tire companies are not going to be willing to make a model three different ways in a 29"er size.

    to be more specific, i have no doubt that a sub-950 g 29er tire could be designed that was UST compatible and did well in the characteristics listed above. and a slightly narrower version, suitable for rear tire use, in the sub-900 g range.
    I've no doubt they could. But, they won't. That's my opinion. YMMV

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •