As above really,

anyone used the maxxis Larson tyres in either normal or Lust versions. The lust versions are nearly double the weight so I wanna know if its worth it or not…. looking at 1.9 or 2.0 for doing the WHWlater this year.

they'll be getting ghetto'd either way:)
Cheers

Christo

I used UST rather than LUST. Fab tyres. Lasted ages, one puncture and they'll be going back on when the dry weather is more permanent.

I have used them on my SS all year round, pretty good grip in all but the wettest\muddiest conditions, perfect trail centre tyre. I also like the rounded profile, seems to suit my riding, non UST\LUST though.

I've currently got a non-LUST 2.35 running tubeless on the rear of my HT, nice and fast rolling, reasonably light but quite tough.

Cheers guys, I usually have high roller single ply non usts's but given the weight of the larson non-ust version I was a little concerned they may not be overly tough.

they are a lot thinner walled than the HRs

mine didn't last long ghettoed.

i'd reccomend you get a LUST.

I had Crossmark Exceptions tubeless, brilliantly fast and light but lasted me all of two rides before some flint opened an one and a half inch hole on my side wall.

Running LUST now but you can definitely feel the difference. I am not sure the single ply is going to be much thicker than the exception on either Larsons or Crossmarks but I'd give it a go. I am very tempted actually to use a light weight tube with the Exceptions.

Yeah the sidewalls are pants on the normal ones. I had a sidewall spontaneously split whilst the bike was sitting upside down after one ride! Certainly wouldn't want to run them Ghetto'd

Bought some folding 2.0's non lust from merlin last year £14 pound each. Good tyre but I would of liked to try a pair of 2.3's but couldn't find any at a reasonable price.

Another one with shredded side walls here on 2.35" non-(L)UST Larsens. Seem a bit flimsy…

do they roll well ? CRC sent me one in error and I'm still deciding wether to keep it and try it or return it.