Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    203

    Changing tires for Mojo. Which tubeless tire is best?

    Im in the middle of rebuilding my 2 year old Mojo. I got a pair of new hoops for it, changing from the Mavic CrossRides to Shimano XT WH-M778 with 15mm front axle. The rims are UST and I wanna run tires without tubes (and put Stans sealant in the tires).

    I still have my Kenda Nevegal DTC folding bead tires (been running Nevs for 2 years) and I definitely like their performance as all-rounder tires. However, I have heard that Kenda Nevegals have issues with Stans sealant, developing tumors on the sidewalls and such.

    So I wanted to ask what tubeless-ready tires should I use to replace my beloved Nevs. I'm not searching for a lighter tire, nor a grippier tire, nor a faster rolling tire, nor a rip-proof tire. I just want something that is at par with the Nev's weight, grip, speed and durabilty, WITHOUT ISSUES with Stans sealant.

    Please recommend some that you have used with positive results. Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by titaniumgearsolid; 12-09-2009 at 08:28 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    57
    I've used Nevegals for a bit and just switched to Specialized Chunders. They're comparable to Nevs, but have more traction and are lighter than the tubeless Nevs.
    I used to have issues with the front stick-e washing out on fast corners and sand occasionally, but haven't had those problems with the Chunders. I run the 2.3 in the front and 2.2 for the rear. I use psi of 23-24 front, and 27-28 in the rear with no problems. I weigh 145ish geared up though. When my LBS suggested these, I was thinking, "Specialized Chunders?! I don't think so.". A couple of different guys who were really good riders recommended that I tried them before I try the Maxxis Minions and Highrollers. So I gave them a shot, and I'm so glad I did!! The tread pattern is very aggressive, gobs of traction! I would've never thought these tires were so good.

    Cheers,
    majorbonr

  3. #3
    bike rider
    Reputation: Lelandjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5,268
    Never had a problem running standard Nevegals tubeless with Stan's. However, that's on my FR bike. On the Mojo I use Kenda's Small Block Eight (also standard casing with Stan's). It's like a low profile Nevegal that rolls fast, is lighter, but prefers hardpack and doesn't work as well in loose rocky soil or mud.
    Keep the Country country.

  4. #4
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,951
    I'm running the same wheelset. Have you considered going full UST? No sealant required if you live in an area without a lot of thorns. If you want to run sealant with the UST, I've heard that it is best to run the traditional Slime for tubeless tires instead of Stan's, since it does not have the same potential to eat the tires due to the ammonia content.

    I've had good luck with the Conti Mountain Kings in UST. I tried the 2.2s and found them lacking in volume and fast wearing. The 2.4s are much better. If you want to decrease rolling resistance, you can go with a Race King 2.2 UST on the back (similar volume to MK 2.4). That's my current setup, and I like it for most conditions other than mud.

    I've not ridden the Nevegals, but the consensus seems to be:

    Great grip
    Potential problems with Stan's
    Slow rolling
    UST version is relatively heavy

    Hope this helps,

    -D

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    292
    I have been running 2.35 Ust maxxis highrollers for the last two seasons on my xtr ust rims. Lots of traction still. Easy to mount. Roll nicely. I weight 160 with gear and run the tires about 25 psi. Two years now with stans and no flats. Downside is that they are heavier than the nevegals that came on the bike and when I change them I will mount up some non-ust highrollers. Will still run them tubeless with Stan's.

    Straw
    Last edited by straw; 12-10-2009 at 01:52 PM.

  6. #6
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,437
    Rubber Queen (now called Trail King) 2.2 UST's. Traction monsters and abuse proof.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    85
    Second the Conti MK 2.4's. Ran both UST and regular casing Nevegals for 3-4 years and just switched to the Conti's this summer. They're expensive but worth every penny.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,349
    I've run NON-UST Nevegal DTC's for a solid year now, and off and on during the previous year, tubeless with both Stan's and homebrew sealant and never had an issue..... If you've got Nevegals and love Nevegals, I say run em tubeless.... I wear them out from the outside a lot faster than the sealant can wear them out from the inside, if that's really even a serious concern at all...I've seen no evidence of it.
    Seems like the general consensus among the guys trying different homebrew sealant recipes is that the issue of ammonia in the sealant is overblown because the ammonia content is actually quite low. Lots of companies are trying to chip away at Stan's market share and looking for things to criticize IMO.... but I could be wrong...
    Maybe I've been lucky....Anybody have any real first-hand experience with Nevegal/Stan's problems?
    FWIW, you can blend up some sealant that works great, arguably better than Stan's, for a lot less money.... do some searches if interested... there's lots of good info.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    292
    I have been running 2.35 Ust maxxis highrollers for the last two seasons on my xtr ust rims. Lots of traction still. Easy to mount. Roll nicely. I weight 160 with gear and run the tires about 25 psi. Two years now with stans and no flats. Downside is that they are heavier than the nevegals that came on the bike and when I change them I will mount up some non-ust highrollers. I will still run them tubeless with Stans.

    Straw

  10. #10
    aka dan51
    Reputation: d-bug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,010
    Quote Originally Posted by straw
    I have been running 2.35 Ust maxxis highrollers for the last two seasons on my xtr ust rims. Lots of traction still. Easy to mount. Roll nicely. I weight 160 with gear and run the tires about 25 psi. Two years now with stans and no flats. Downside is that they are heavier than the nevegals that came on the bike and when I change them I will mount up some non-ust highrollers. I will still run them tubeless with Stans.

    Straw
    I had a UST High Roller develop bubbles on me 2 weeks ago, and it's not even close to worn out. It's 4 months old. I'll use a tube on it until it's bald then throw in something else.

    I ran Specialized Eskars which are pretty light. But the weight savings comes at the price of this sidewalls. I've ripped 3 sidewalls on them. The thin sidewall also oozes Stan's out of it until the tire is dry, which doesn't take long.

    I think you'll find a problem with any tire, there are always failures. I think the percentage of reported problems is very low compared to the percentage of riders with no issues.

    I'm gonna have to try these Contis soon.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,349
    Conti does make kickass tires... the most durable/toughest in my experience... I've had some Verticals and Gravities that just would not die....especially the "protection" versions... I've been guilty of obsessive over-purchasing of tires "just to try them out"... I think I have that under control now, but as soon as I wear one out and need replacement, I'm gonna try to the Rubber Queens... they look sweet for gnarly terrain.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    203
    Thanks for all your replies so far.

    How about the Schwalbe Racing Ralph (non-UST), does it have issues with Stans sealant?

  13. #13
    Church of the Wheel
    Reputation: mtb143's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    749
    There are a lot of really good tires out there these days, and each shines in its own special way. I would recommend you post your question in the Tires forum and give as much detail about yourself and your riding as possible - where you ride, trail conditions, type of riding, bike setup, tires you've tried in the past that you liked/disliked and why. Otherwise all you're going to get is a lot of peoples opinions on what they tried that worked for them in their local conditions, which may be totally different than yours.

    Another thought, as long as you're planning on running sealant, I'd recommend looking for tubeless ready tires, versus full UST. The only advantage of UST tires (over tubeless ready) is that you are able to run them tubeless without sealant, but the price is that they weigh a fair bit more than tubeless ready or conventional tires. If you're planning on running sealant anyway, there is no advantage to full UST, and a weight penalty. Sealant can be messy, but after doing a couple of tires you'll find that it's no biggie.

    Tubeless is the way to go, IMHO, for the added traction, lower rotational weight, and pinch flat protection. Sealant adds even more flat protection on top of that (which is why I recommend using it even if you use full UST tires - there are no thorns where I live, but sealant has saved me from three flats in the last year that I know of - a nail, a staple, and a tack). Good stuff, and well worth the extra futzing. I've always had good results with Stans, but I hear some homemade mixes work well too. Beware of the slime sealant - lots of reports that it doesn't seal particularly well.

    Good luck!
    "I thought you'd never love me without my Mojo." -Austin Powers

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,349
    Quote Originally Posted by mtb143
    There are a lot of really good tires out there these days, and each shines in its own special way. I would recommend you post your question in the Tires forum and give as much detail about yourself and your riding as possible - where you ride, trail conditions, type of riding, bike setup, tires you've tried in the past that you liked/disliked and why. Otherwise all you're going to get is a lot of peoples opinions on what they tried that worked for them in their local conditions, which may be totally different than yours.

    Another thought, as long as you're planning on running sealant, I'd recommend looking for tubeless ready tires, versus full UST. The only advantage of UST tires (over tubeless ready) is that you are able to run them tubeless without sealant, but the price is that they weigh a fair bit more than tubeless ready or conventional tires. If you're planning on running sealant anyway, there is no advantage to full UST, and a weight penalty. Sealant can be messy, but after doing a couple of tires you'll find that it's no biggie.

    Tubeless is the way to go, IMHO, for the added traction, lower rotational weight, and pinch flat protection. Sealant adds even more flat protection on top of that (which is why I recommend using it even if you use full UST tires - there are no thorns where I live, but sealant has saved me from three flats in the last year that I know of - a nail, a staple, and a tack). Good stuff, and well worth the extra futzing. I've always had good results with Stans, but I hear some homemade mixes work well too. Beware of the slime sealant - lots of reports that it doesn't seal particularly well.

    Good luck!

    Second all of that... .good advice.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.