Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: in the trees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,818

    2010 Weirwolf UST Experiences?

    Anyone ridden the new '10 UST Weirwolfs in either the 2.1" or 2.3" size? Experience? Mounting/sealing troubles or anything? Thanks!

  2. #2
    sinner
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    226
    I am riding the TCS version on Flows. Mounted easy for me but I used a compressor cause I have one. Tires roll really fast and corner awesome. I was bothered by the weight. You can feel the rotational weight making you pedal a bit harder on flats and smooth climbs. In the woods they are worth it. The thicker casing has been letting me run low pressure and still pin it thru rock gardens and corner hard without rolling off the rim. I have 26 in the front and 29 in the rear. I have the 2.3's

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,905
    Been running the TCS 2.3 on the front for awhile.

    I like it so far, especially on off camber and/or loose. Progressively breaks away giving you good feedback allowing you to push the tire more and more. Its heavy though and moderate rolling.

  4. #4
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,985
    Is it a small 2.3 like the older version?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,905
    Yes, it is on the smaller side. Its an awesome stiff carcass too, real beefy. I really like the tire, however after awhile I think ill want to throw a more square edge tire back on, while the lil flexy knobs make for a great drifty tire, there's something to be said about a less flexy feel. It is real fun tho, I've gotten more comfortable pushing the front without worrying about that.instant loss of traction some tires have. I still highly recommend it ifunless ur real xc and weight conscious.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17
    Just got the 2.3 F/2.1 R combo. They are sized small but ride great. Its such a fun tire for carving on curvy swoopy single track.

    The 2.1 WW is about normal size for a 2.0 from specialized or kenda and the 2.3 WW is about the same width as the 2.1 WW but the 2.3 WW is much taller. The WW casing is supple and gives it a plush ride of a much fatter tire. The knobs are well supported so they carve great and feel vacum sealed to hard pack. This tire brakes superbly as well. The tire also behaves very well on loose rocky stuff, much better than I would have thought. The WW rolls great for an AM tire I think due to the supple casing and closely spaced treads.

    The tire has a very refined feel and it seems that they took a lot of time planning this one out.

  7. #7
    Dropshot Champ!
    Reputation: redmr2_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,531
    more grip than a nevegal. rolls faster too.

    the only downside is it's a tad small, and it's kinda heavy. If you liked the old weirwolf, this one will blow your mind.

    It rolls very fast and corners on rails. I can almost lay pedal in turns with this thing. Moto-style.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HaloRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9
    I got my Weirwolf 2.3 USTs today. Very cool looking tire, I'll report back on how they ride. Very sturdy and "meaty" knobs. It looks like an aggressive tire.

    This 2.3 definitley is on the "small" side for a 2.3. I wish they had this in a 2.5 version.

  9. #9
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,364
    It looked tempting, but seems that despite running very undersized they also weigh about 10% more then advertized.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HaloRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9
    Yea, I noticed some people getting a bit picky about that. I used to be when I raced on the road, but I ride hard now on the mtb just for my own fun. Overall my new setup is WAY lighter than my junky old Trek 3700, so it's a huge step. I don't mind these tires being heavier though because, a. simple thinking lets me believe they are a bit more heavy duty and b. it gets me in better shape turning them!

    I got this tire because I didn't care about weight (and I got 10% off ordering them through a shop, haha). I want something that will hold up well, be useful in nearly any condition and corner like no other. Going for a good ride tomorrow up in the mountains. I'll be sure to leave a first impression review!

  11. #11
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,364
    Yeah, I'm not a weight weenie. I'm currently running 960g tires front and rear. I do however have a problem with dishonesty. Things like measuring weight and width should be done by engineers, not marketing departments.

    If the company does not know how to use a scale, how can I trust them to design a good tire?

  12. #12
    Dropshot Champ!
    Reputation: redmr2_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,531
    the wtb rep at sea otter said the first few batches were chubby and the rest should be fine. IDK how true this is, as mine were overweight but I've been running them for months.

    I was pissed about the weight when I tossed em on a scale too.

    And then I rode em. Blows yer' friggin' mind!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    294
    Have too used TCS-version of new 2.3 Weirwolf few weeks and Ive liked it. Ive not weighted it, `cause I don`t care is it 900grams or 950g`s ... But I agree that scaled weights should meet weights informed in tech sheets or in marketing material.

    Size is more complicated issue - width and height of tire are different with different rims - few mm`s difference for same one tire between measurements is normal. To get comparable width / height figures, measuring should be standardized and effect of rim should be eliminated away => all tyremakers should only inform free external width of tyre(rubber) from bead to bead and in addition the width of "crown" from sideknobs to sideknobs

    On_topic - WW 2.3 is a nice rubber, performs better than most others in roots and loose-over-hardpack conditions, not bad in mud. Bit slippy in wet rocks / cliffs. Tried it mounted in reverse rotating direction in rear too - not bad, but didn`t found any advantages either.

  14. #14
    wuss
    Reputation: dropadrop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,364
    I understand size is complicated, and weight can be too. Looking at 2.4" MK and RQ next to each other is comical, but from their widest spots they are about as wide. Erto measurements are more descriptive, so using them in conjunction with the official rating generally gives a good idea on the size.

    Weight is another issue. I've seen pretty big difference in weight between same model tires, for example I've had four 2.4" Rubber Queens with weights ranging from 840g to 960g. I guess some at least match the advertised weight (though one would hope there would be less variance and advertisements based on average weight). However there is no excuse for having all of them weighing a lot over the advertised weight.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HaloRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    9
    Just got back from my first ride on these things. I have to say I am very impressed!

    Pros:

    -Excellent cornering! I went through sand, sand on hardpack, wood chips, and light mud. I was little apprehensive at first, but found that no matter how hard I pushed the lean, they never lost grip.

    -Rolling resistance on hard-pack is very low. The center of these tires ride a little high for very quick speeds, with the bigger cornering knobs ready for any turns.

    -They are setup perfectly on my EX 7's stock rims (Bontrager Duster), tubeless with Stan's.

    Cons:

    -Going through any sort of mud, these things will cover you! I guess if you like to gey WAY dirty this is a Pro, but man... I only went through a few streches of very light mud and the back of my bike is plastered. I have a water bottle mounted on the bottom of the down tube and the opening was sealed with crap. Mmm... minerals!

    -After muddy/wet sections they tend to pick up a lot of junk between the knobs. They clear themselves after a little riding on some dry stuff, but only by means of flicking a lot of stuff in your face.

    Overall, these are the best tires I've ever ridden. Highly recommended!
    2010 Trek Fuel EX 7
    WTB Weirwolf 2.3 UST

Posting Permissions

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