Non UST Rubber Quee...
 

[Closed] Non UST Rubber Queen being used tubeless?

18 Posts
11 Users
0 Reactions
75 Views
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Anyone tried it? Would it work?


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 2:55 pm
Posts: 41395
Free Member
 

Had great results from a non ust diesel.


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 2:59 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I've heard 2.4's work fine, but 2.2's might not be so easy. The smaller ones apparently have very thin sidewalls (some say it worked fine, others have a lot of leaks).


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 5:25 pm
Posts: 40384
Free Member
 

2.4 wouldn't go up for me.


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 6:15 pm
Posts: 65968
Full Member
 

I got one of mine from someone who couldn't get ghetto to work with them. But I like a challenge 😉


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 6:17 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I did a 2.2. PITA - but it worked. The usual micro bubbles and a couple of proper puncture sized leaks from the size walls. But stan did his stuff in the end!


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 6:37 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

i've ran mountain king supersonics tubeless without problems. it's worth a go.


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 6:38 pm
Posts: 1442
Free Member
 

yes porous sidewalls but they inflate with just one wrap of yellow tape (i inflated them with a trackpump and no sealant in to test them)
worth the effort though as they roll very well and bags of grip.


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 7:18 pm
Posts: 768
Free Member
 

Put 2.2s with tubes on the GFs bike. I have 2.2 USTs on mine. The walls on the non ust are much thinner. Worth a go though.


 
Posted : 13/04/2010 7:36 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

its just the 2.4 non ust are the black chilli compound aren't they? would prefer to have that if poss. I've just got some ust MK's, whats peoples opinion on NON black chilli tyres?


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 8:22 am
Posts: 1442
Free Member
 

the 2.2 non ust are available in black chilli compound.


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 8:24 am
Posts: 40384
Free Member
 

Neil 853 - The 2.4 UST is BC as well apparently. At least I thought it was. Conti really should print it on the sidewall to save us a lot of confusion.

The MK UST is a bit of a hard compound and I found it skittery. I'm told the non-BC RQs are a softer compound than this, but am still holding out for a 2.2 UST with BC.


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 8:42 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Thats what i want, does anyone know when they are due out? 🙄


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 8:47 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I have 2.4 RQ's non-UST on DT 5.1s with the DT rim strip and home made sealant. They sealed up and inflated just fine. There is some oozing through the sidewall... but they hold pressure fine and work well.

http://mountainbikingzane.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/a-right-pair-of-queens/


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 9:09 am
Posts: 65968
Full Member
 

I thought it was supposed to be the case that the Handmade In Germany ones are all black chili and the others aren't?


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 5:35 pm
Posts: 1442
Free Member
 

i think that's the case. mine are made in germany but don't say black chilli.
but they definately are.


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 5:59 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Yes


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 6:00 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

just done my 29 2.4 mountain kings as ghetto tubless today

initial inflation was a little probmatic even using a compressor eventualy found the trick was to bounce the wheel on the ground with the valve at the bottom and the 2nd one was much better,

first inflation had lots of leaks both at the rim and on the sidewalls but by laying the wheel flat most sealed i then deflated and added slime as i had a bottle in the garage and reinflated

inflated instantly and only a little bubbling around the rim which stopped quickly

we shall see what they are like in the morning


 
Posted : 14/04/2010 6:43 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

good news gentlemen,,, they were both fully inflated this morning,,

now just need the frame to arrive and i can go out and try them


 
Posted : 15/04/2010 8:06 am