MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I want to run Mavic 819 UST rims TUBELESS with NON UST Continental Rubber Queen 2.2 black chilli tyres, with stans solution.
I am sure some of you may have tried this combination, does it work well?
I am running Mavic EX823 UST rims at the moment, tubeless, with Tubeless Rubber queens (non black chilli).
My aim is to try and save weight from the rims and tyres, and to gain the extra performance from the black chilli compound in the tyres.
But, they must be reliable!
Thoughts please.
Many thanks.
it'll be fine with some goo in there.
Practically any tyre will run on an 819 rim, with solution - not found any yet that didn't.
thats a big tyre to put on a small rim, with no innertube support you will need to pump it pretty hard to reduce it squirming and rolling over every time you corner hard.
If you need a tyre that big (its bigger than a maxxis 2.35) then you more than likely need stronger rims anyway.
If 19mm rims are strong enough for you then you wont be needing DH size tyres.
BS. I run 2.5" diesels on my 819s without problems
Sailor74 and cynic-al.
Interesting debate there. I can how running the thinner sidewall of a NON UST tyre would provide less support than a specific tubeless tyre.
I am downgrading my 823 rims to 819's as I don't appear to need the strength of the bigger rim. Mavic 819's have been strong enough on my other bikes. I speced the 823's on my 'biggest' bike (an Intense Tracer) but with hindsight I think I overbuilt the wheelset somewhat.
Cynic-al, are you Diesels Tubeless specific tyres, and at what kind of pressures?
TBF mine are the £10 cheapies (non ust) with thick sidewalls.
Light-sidewall tyres can be fragile but it all depends on how/what you ride.
BS. I run 2.5" diesels on my 819s without problems
Depends on how big 2.5 diesels are, 2.4 rubberqueens are equal to 2.7 maxxis, so by the same token 2.5's could only be 2.2's and thick sidewalls will help reduce roll, obviously they wont save you any weight so would be pointless.
Rubber queens size up bang on, a 2.2 is actually 2.2. Roll and squirm will also be dependant on the volume of the tyre too. RQ's are very high volume so are more likely to squirm around on a 'too narrow' rim than something with a lower profile.ie any other tyre out there!
It also depends how hard you corner etc.
You could take a risk, it may be ok for you. But if your going to run an xc rim to save weight it seems a bit pointless fitting a huge relatively heavy tyre to it.
You could take a risk, it may be ok for you. But if your going to run an xc rim to save weight it seems a bit pointless fitting a huge relatively heavy tyre to it.
At the moment I am running 823 rims (at 657g each), changing to 819's (at 450g each) saves ~200g from each wheel.
I already run Tubeless Rubber Queens (at ~850g each) and I am happy with the size of them, they suit mid Wales riding nicely. But if I can get the non UST ones to work well (at ~650g each) I save another 200g of each wheel. Plus I get the reported benefit of the black chilli compond.
These changes save ~800g from the wheelset or about 2 lbs!
Seems like a pretty nice option, IF they stay inflated, and if they don't squirm about too much.
could always put a stans strip in there that would stop any possiblity of air loss
Holding air will be fine.
Rubber queens size up bang on, a 2.2 is actually 2.2.
they are massive! bigger than any WTB/kenda/michelin/panaracer/schwalbe i have in a 2.2 (bigger than some 2.35's too)
yea they are massive but are actually sized(width)as advertised.
a 2.35 High Roller is actually around 2.18
Check out www.mtbtires.com for more info
if you want to sell those 823's i might be interested!.
mmb - YGM
(I am leaving the office now so I will respond in the morning)
Thanks everyone for their input.