Forum menu
OMG it's come ...
 

[Closed] OMG it's come to this...UST tyres

Posts: 35035
Full Member
Topic starter
 
[#776291]

What's the default general purpose, leave it on for most of the year XC/Bikepark not too hefty UST tyre?

Thanks, sorry


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 1:28 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

conti rubber queens in 2.2


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 71
Free Member
 

Racing Ralph


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 1:44 pm
Posts: 20
Free Member
 

I use 2.4 mountain kings for all the above. I'm thinking of giving rubber queen ago next time (just to see).


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 1:47 pm
Posts: 15
Full Member
 

Conti vert pro in 2.2


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 2:50 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Nobby Nics


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

high roller 2.35


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 2:52 pm
Posts: 8754
Full Member
 

HR 2.35 LUST doesn't count as 'not too hefty' :p I'd probably vote Rubber Queen going by reviews but not tried it yet...


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 3:16 pm
 mboy
Posts: 12651
Free Member
 

2.35" Bontrager ACX TR are a good "cheaper, lighter, harder wearing" alternative to a High Roller. But High Rollers for ultimate grip...


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 3:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

HR 2.35 LUST doesn't count as 'not too hefty'

Are you kidding? I had a set and they were about 720g each!


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 3:31 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

Kenda Blue Groove/Nevegal


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Another vote for rubber queens 2.2


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 375
Full Member
 

LUST's are rubbish I think. The sidewalls are too thin and rip easily. A tyre that might suit you is the bonty big earl 2.35 wet, it's a tyre I rate highly.

At the moment I'm experimenting with 819's, non-UST tyres and a bucket load of latex. I'm going through a lot of latex but am going to weigh the tyres after to see how heavy they're getting.


 
Posted : 11/08/2009 3:48 pm