Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    902

    I bought a set of UST mountain kingīs... should I have got non UST? am I a jerk?

    Hello all,

    I have an XT wheelset, Iīm running it with a pair of non UST Highrollers without tubes (only using Stanīs liquid), they have worked great for me except for one sudden deflation (burp or whatever you call it ), but I needed to buy another set of wheels in order to put the XT on a HT Gary fisher I had dissasembled.

    Well, today I bought a Mavic Crossmax SLR wheelset which is supposed to weight 1520 grs. I was decided to buy another set of non UST Highrollers and run them tubeless but the store owned really recommended me to buy tubeless tires despite the weight penalty (660 grs for each Conti MK) because he told be these tires would not burp, so they would avoid any damage to the wheels.

    Also I wanted to try different tires others than the HR as they are the only ones I have ever used.

    Ok, so along with the wheels and stanīs liquid, both wheels weighted 3040 grs, which means that with 1320 grs of both tires, and if the wheels really weight 1520 grs, there should be 200 grs of stans liquid.

    I donīt know about you but I think this is a heavy setup, so my concern now is if I should have bought the non ust HRīs or if this heavier tires are a better choice.

    So I also wonder now this: If non UST tires perform equally (Iīm only supposing this) than UST tires, whatīs the point of buying them if you can just put Stanīs liquid in them and voilá!

    Regards

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wannabeRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,107
    no your not, its safe to go UST though the weight is your disadvantage. It really depends what sort of trails your riding?

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by wannabeRacer
    ... its safe to go UST
    no - not really. Without sealant you have almost the same chances to get a flat than with any other tire as well. UST is better protected against cuts because of the sturdier carcass but against penetrating objects it is not much different. So you too need sealant which adds even more weight.

  4. #4
    gone for a bike ride
    Reputation: culturesponge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,973

    Crossmax's to work great with UST & tube type tires

    your'e not a wally for buying UST tires to suit the rims - you just have a pretty much bullet proof wheelset now

    i've found my Crossmax's to work great with UST & tube type tires

    before the Raven 26x2.0 (front) Crow 26x2.0 (rear) with Hutchinson sealant, i was rolling RK WC 26x2.2 with Hutchinson sealant & before that Racing Ralph EVO 26x2.1 ect, blah.. not used UST tires with that wheelset since 2006

    currently the wife has Mountain King Protection 26x2.2 on her XTR UST wheelset, they are working great with some Hutchinson sealant, but the tire weights vary immensely between 577g - 622g
    Last edited by culturesponge; 01-04-2011 at 03:35 PM.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: biketuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    463
    Are the UST versions black chilli rubber?
    _______________
    1x10 IS SO FINE on my 21.9 lbs IBIS SL-R
    11-36 XTR in the rear, 36T wide-narrow upfront

  6. #6
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    902
    Ok guys I feel kinda relieved now, even do I donīt like the weight penalty on running tubeless AND sealant, but if itīs the best combo Iīll keep it.
    As far as it looks, the MK will not last much so if I donīt like their performance Iīll go back to highrollers.
    Kenda nevegals have a great rep too, the problem is that they are VERY heavy as well.

    BTW, Culturesponge, how can that tire be 100 grs lighter than the ones I just bought? Even do they are not UST they are supposed to be on the heavy side

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: biketuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    463
    Name:  tires.JPG
Views: 369
Size:  38.3 KB
    _______________
    1x10 IS SO FINE on my 21.9 lbs IBIS SL-R
    11-36 XTR in the rear, 36T wide-narrow upfront

  8. #8
    gone for a bike ride
    Reputation: culturesponge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Marco
    BTW, Culturesponge, how can that tire be 100 grs lighter than the ones I just bought? Even do they are not UST they are supposed to be on the heavy side
    funny that, we bought 5 Mountain King Protection 2.2 tires from Starbike back in January - 2 are within 5g of the 620g advertised weight and 3 are approx 45g under - its often a lottery with tires

    * Mountain King Protection: 3 plies/ 180tpi/ foldable/ Duraskin/ Black Chili Compound

    ...glad you feel better

  9. #9
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,816
    I ran the MK 2.2 UST, both front and rear, for almost a year with no sealant. Wheelset is the Shimano XT 775 UST.

    Here are the pros and cons.

    Pros:

    Relatively light for a true UST tire (though perhaps not by WW standards)
    Grips very well
    Rolls well
    No burps, even with low pressure - Peace of mind in this regard goes a long way for me
    Shed mud very well
    Hold air well
    Durable casing

    Cons:

    Low volume - must be careful in rocky terrain when running low pressure to avoid rim damage (this is my number one gripe)
    The low volume also led to more crank/rock strikes with 180mm cranks
    Expensive
    Wear quickly
    Not available with Black Chili at this point

    Compared to the MK 2.4 UST in the front, I did not find that the 2.2 gave up anything in terms of grip. In fact, the shorter knobs on the 2.2 have a little less squirm. The 2.4 does give you the ability to plow through rock gardens with more impunity. Obviously, the 2.4 is heavier.

    Compared to the Race King 2.2 UST in the rear, the RK rolls better and has more volume for better rim protection. The lack of side knobs on the RK means that there is little side grip on rocks, and the RK does not shed mud nearly as well. The MK 2.2 has slightly better grip when things get loose, due to the taller knobs, and the MK 2.2 is lighter.

    Over the last few months of ownership, I should have added some sealant to the rear, which had developed some micro leaks, likely from the local star thistle. The rear would get soft over night.

    Hope this helps,

    -D

  10. #10
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by biketuna
    Name:  tires.JPG
Views: 369
Size:  38.3 KB
    Thanks for the graphic, now what I donīt get is that the MK UST in 2.2 is supposed to be 750 grs and mines are 660!? what is going on here??!

    @Diesel, thanks for the info, Iīm going to try īem this weekend and Iīll post my comments.

  11. #11
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Marco
    Thanks for the graphic, now what I donīt get is that the MK UST in 2.2 is supposed to be 750 grs and mines are 660!? what is going on here??!

    @Diesel, thanks for the info, Iīm going to try īem this weekend and Iīll post my comments.
    Glad to help.

    That table is incorrect; note that the MK2.4 UST and 2.2UST are shown to have the same weight. In reality, the 2.4 is ~730-750g, and my 2.2s were in the same ballpark as yours, at 660g.

    -D

  12. #12
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    902
    Duh! of course! I didnīt realized that.
    Thanks.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: roxtar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel~
    Glad to help.

    That table is incorrect; note that the MK2.4 UST and 2.2UST are shown to have the same weight. In reality, the 2.4 is ~730-750g, and my 2.2s were in the same ballpark as yours, at 660g.

    -D
    I think you're reading the table wrong.
    The 2.4 listed as 750 grams is the protection.(above the UST 2.2 on the table)

    The UST 2.4 is listed as 800grams (below the UST 2.2 on the table)

  14. #14
    LCW
    LCW is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LCW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,787
    UST won't leak down - sidewalls and carcass designed to be leak proof... non-UST tires, you'll likely get a tiny bit of leakdown as time goes by... just the nature of the sidewall/carcass... even with Stans, there is some micro porosity... but that's the downside to get lighter weight with non-UST tires...
    2011 Yeti 575 - 2015 Fox Float 36 RC2 160 / Fox Float X - 30.6 lbs

  15. #15
    Proud bike-o-holic
    Reputation: Psycho Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    902
    Hello all,

    Well, Iīve had about 4 rides with the MK USTīs and so far like them a lot. They roll faster and easier than Maxxis Highrollers and while descending they perform very well.

    They retain air very well. They donīt have much grip or at least thatīs what I felt this weekend, because my friends and I went to a mountain called Malinche (the Malinche was the interpretor for Hernan Cortes when he came to America), and there were parts with solid terrain but it was a little bit wet and with humus... kinda like an ice skating track. I fell twice because the tire slipped on that terrain. Ok, maybe this could have happened with the Highrollers, or not. But none of my friends fell in that part (maybe Iīm not as good as they are).

    So who knows, so far Iīm happy with them, as someone iin this thread previously said, this is a bulletproof set up, but weīll see in the mid term how it behaves.

    Regards

Posting Permissions

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