As I have been talking a lot of tire talk here of late, it got me to thinking again about 29″er tubeless tires and specifically UST type 29″er tires. Admittedly, few exist and as of now, they are all from GEAX. However, I think we can draw some pertinent information from the tires that are out in terms of the big wheeled mountain bike rider.
First of all, UST is a standard for tires that when mated to a tubeless rim, will give you an airtight seal without a tube or sealant. Preferably the rim is also a UST piece, but given that Mavic’s Cr29max wheel is the only 29″er wheel with a UST certified rim, it makes things a bit difficult. That said, I’m not sure UST is all that necessary for 29″ers. Even if you can mount up a GEAX UST tire to some other rim.
Some would argue for UST for rigs like this Salsa Big Mama
Let’s take GEAX’s Saguaro tire as our example since it is the only tire currently available in UST, TNT, (a tubeless ready variant), and a folding bead version. I think this illustrates one of the main deficiencies of a 29 inch UST tire- namely weight. A GEAX Saguaro folding bead tire weighs about 660 grams on average. A TNT tubeless ready version tips the scale at 770 grams on average. Make that same tread design in the same width a UST tire and you are talking 930 grams on average. That’s a lot of extra rubber!
Now some would argue that a tire that beefy would have a tougher sidewall, and therefore be a worthy tire for sharp rocks or abusive riding. I say, why not invest in a tubeless ready design with technologically advanced sidewall treatments to gain a similar advantage without that big of a weight penalty. Most tubeless tire users run with sealant anyway to ward off punctures, so this shouldn’t be a concern.
Of course, a tire with this sort of technology will cost more, but I think more riders would settle for it rather than a heavy, and actually a much heavier, UST variant of any given tread design. I would go so far as to say that all 29″er tires should be a tubeless ready design, with the XC/Trail designs maybe offered in a folding bead for the weight conscious. Tubeless ready designs with reinforced sidewalls and upper end, technologically advanced rubber compounds would be the next logical step in 29″er tire designs. Not UST.
The Big Wheeled Ballyhoo 
April 28, 2009 at 9:57 pm |
continental tires offered pro-tection on sidewalls their vapor series. anybody rode on these ?
April 28, 2009 at 10:18 pm |
It seems like the 29er market is not excited about UST. Mavic UST rims absolutely rock- they’re crazy strong, but spendy, and add even more weight into the equation. The Cro29max wheelset is not that light, and it’s way out of a “blue collar” price range. Stan’s system has changed the game, DIY tubeless and the specific rimstrips for rims like Bontrager and DT offers are the new direction. And with sealants taking over too, it’s not that farfetched to think that new tires with slightly heavier TNT sidewalls will make the UST tires, their special rim, and that extra layer of rubber in the tire redundant. For once that may help keep costs and weight down together.
April 28, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
Nobody needs UST tires… nobody. Put a tube in it and shut the hell up.
April 28, 2009 at 11:38 pm |
Stan’s rims work so well with so many tires that I can’t imagine buying into UST under any circumstance. Personally, I don’t even see the need for TNT unless someone rides in very sharp rock all the time. I have never sliced a sidewall yet, but if I ever do, how much heavier would the side wall have to be to prevent it? Would it still happen with a 900+gram UST tire? It would usually take a really sharp rock to poke a hole in the side of a tire. If you stick to “trails” like I do, there is seldom anything that sharp sticking out. The guys that ride random rocks all the time would probably be better served by a specific design for penetration than TNT.
April 28, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
GT-How much does the latex sealant weight? Seems tubes(150-250 grams), latex or some other liquid product(???grams), or UST(250-300 grams) are the options. Can you run the same/ or lower tire pressures with UST verses latex. I am very space limited and I fine latex just too much to do. Maybe the GEAX latex cartridges are the answer?
Good work…..
April 28, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
2 ounces of sealant around 70 grams valve stem ~10 grams. average 29er tube 180 grams. Savings 100 grams per tire.
April 28, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
I think UST has an appeal, though it is very limited. For my usual xc riding, I certainly don’t need it, being well served by sealed up Fire XCs and Bonty ACX TLRs. For the twice a year road trip to Utah and Colorado rock country, though, I would buy a set of real USTs for the sidewall protection, provided they were fairly high volume. Over four trips, I’ve put a puncture in the sidewall of one WTB Stout and one Bonty ACX TLR, and neither would seal up. Probably just as easy to reinforce the sidewalls for those trips by throwing in a tube. I hate having to tube up a tire on the trail that has been sealed. A freakin mess, and a total buzz killer for the ride stoke!
April 29, 2009 at 12:09 am |
I am with Dirt, tubes work just fine.
April 29, 2009 at 12:41 am |
With the ease that I just mounted a captain 2.2 2bliss on a flow, I can’t see the need for the added weight. Even the rampage on the front mounted up fairly easily. The captain held air w/out sealant, while the rampage needed the caffe latex(the captain got some too). Keep the tnt or 2bliss or whatever you want to call them coming-and bring on the sealants.
April 29, 2009 at 12:57 am |
what do you mean with ‘technologically advanced sidewall treatments’? For some of my customers Sidewall vulnerability is an issue and that is exacty why they look at the UST tires.
April 29, 2009 at 2:32 am |
There is nothing 29er specific about the UST / Non UST discussion.
Sure, 29″ UST tires tend to get awfully heavy, but that goes for 26″ too, at roughly the same rate.
The features that set UST apart from regular tires are the ability to run them tubeless without sealant and a bead / rim interface that prevents burping to a certain extent. The added sidewall sturdyness is just a side effect of the extra rubber used to make it all airtight, but it adds a nice bonus.
That said: A fews years ago, me and my friends went to the French Alps on our light 26″ Michelin Comp S UST tires and got sidewall cuts in all of them… So: UST as a standard does not have the benefit of better sidewall protection; tires with extra or specific material on the sidewalls, UST or non-UST do.
In my mind, UST tires are for riders who do not mind the weight, want extra-extra-extra puncture protection and are unwilling to mess with sealant systems. Not to mention, you have to like Crossmax wheels. I guess if you plan to use a UST tire on f.e. a Stan’s rim, with sealant, better choose one of many regular tires. Chances are it will fit your needs better than the limited UST choice.
April 29, 2009 at 6:55 am |
I personnally think there could be a huge future for the UST. Think about it. Being able to make tire swaps without a tube or sealant! Packing tires for a trip where you aren’t sure which tread will work best (that’s if there are more than one tire available). Someone mentioned having a mess due to putting a tube in after a ripped sidewall, sealant everywhere……
I guess if enough people bought into this the weights would come down due to better designs and the costs might come down too since mfg’s could make some money on the volume they sell. I can see it happening but not if everyone says, “No way. I don’t need em!” We didn’t know we needed 29ers until they started making them.
For me, I change tires a lot and, I don’t think I am alone here, and having a couple pairs of tires in the garage spilling out sealant on the floor while they wait to be mounted again seems silly. I am not a fan of packing tubes either when I head out for a ride. I am also not a big fan of paying nearly $8 for a stinking tube these days. That’s a rip off!
I could see in the near future that the tire companies could start dropping weights on these UST tires after they play around a bit.
With all this said I have not had a chance to tride the UST Saguaro’s but I have handled them. I am not sure if G-Ted has them mounted at this time but I should get on them somtime soon to compare them with a regular tire. Do they feel that much heavier on the trail? I wonder.
April 29, 2009 at 7:59 am |
Jelle: Look at what companies are doing with 26 inch tires as an example. “Armoured” sidewall treatments are common with the bigger, more aggressive tread patterns.
JeroenK: I appreciate your knowledge and considered opinions, but I think you also realize that this is a 29 inch wheeled specific forum. So while it may seem that I am being narrow minded in my viewpoints, this sites focus would be the reason why. 😉
You also seem to concur that “extra or specific material on the sidewalls” will be the key for sidewall durability. My point would be why not explore a lighter weight, more flexible material than butyl rubber and the fact that it need be air tight would be rendered mute by sealant use. Again, is UST really necessary?
Captain Bob: I see the validity in your view point. Here’s the deal though, a UST tire is no where near as easy to mount/dismount as a tubed tire. For one thing, I don’t think most of us will be running around to races, trail heads, or events with air compressors to help seat beads. (Although you could, but that sort of defeats the purpose of “the ease of switching tires” point you make. ) And that’s why folks run sealant in UST tires in the first place- to prevent punctures from forcing them to do a trailside repair which is more difficult to accomplish than inserting a tube in a folding bead tire. It is also why you see folks sticking the tube in the UST tire when the need to repair does arise, since seating a bead trailside is not an option.
In that sense, the tubed tire is superior. However, if you can build a tire design with puncture resistance built into the casing, (see current high end road tire technology) and armoured sidewalls, (see 26 inch trail tire technology), keep the weight reasonable, (see the GEAX Saguaro example above), and make it tubeless ready with sealant, then why wouldn’t that be superior to UST? Either way, you are back to tubes in the case of a non-sealable puncture or tear, and a more supple sidewall tire is going to be easier to deal with trailside than a stiff, heavy UST one.
And beyond this, (and a step backwards maybe) I believe a tubed tire with sealant like the Caffelatex I am testing may be superior to any of the above. 😉 With a wide rim, I can still run low pressures, have puncture protection, ease of changing tires, and no trail side mess. 🙂
April 29, 2009 at 8:43 am |
Hi Ted,
I did not mean to insinuate anyone’s narrowmindedness! The discussion clearly does have a place here, because UST products are being offered to the 29er market.
I just wanted to point out the same arguments are valid for 29″ as those that have been discussed for 26″ for some time now. I see no extra benefits or downsides compared to small wheels, but that does not make this topic any less relevant.
Maybe my comments seem somewhat harsh, because of me being a non-native English speaker. I do like to refer to 26″ bikes, but I own (and race) a 29er, so no ’29er bashing’ troll like behaviour from my side.
Good point on tire changing with UST… most are a b**** when it comes to that.
April 29, 2009 at 10:46 am |
I have never been able to get UST tires to seal to a UST rim without sealant and hold air for longer than 10 minutes. Great in theory, virtually impossible in practice.
I think it would be loony to run any kind of tubeless with out a sealant anyway.
“Tubeless Ready” all the way!
And that CaffeLatex stuff looks like a great idea.
April 29, 2009 at 11:20 am |
JeroenK: No worries! 😉 I just wanted us to be completely clear. And by the way, your comments are very welcome here, as I stated before, they are well considered and your viewpoint is refreshing.
Thanks!
April 29, 2009 at 11:47 am |
The Hutchinson Python tyres carry a UST symbol, but even using those on a Crossmax wheel I haven’t found them any easier to fit than a close fitting standard tyre. They do hold air well once they are up, though I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t stay up without any sealant. I don’t really see any need for a ‘true’ UST tyre – one of the primary benefits of going tubeless being the resistance to punctures is lost without sealant. Of course there is also the weight penalty.
To throw another possibility into the mix, I do have some Dugast tubular tyres on the way, interested to see how they go. However with that option you forgoing any reasonable ablity to switch tyres (primarily because there are no others….) or do trailside repairs. Should be damn fast though!
April 29, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
I have been going tubeless for the last 6 years, tying everything from UST over converted folding beads, finally ending up with tubeless ready tires.
It has been very interesting to to read all your opinions and perspectives. Personally I´ve never seen much future in UST (apart maybe from Enduro to DH) but I understand your reasoning Captain Bob. But are “tubeless ready” tires not exactly what you are seeing as the next step in development for the UST tires – only that it already is available?!
True UST tires will always suffer from more weight compared to any other version and still be prone to punctures. Plus the thick and tough UST casing makes for a slower tire. If you are using sealant for that reason, you end up with more compromises than synergies. That´s why many went the converted folding version and came out with a very good flat resistance, smoth rolling and low weight.
But when low pressures and inflation characterisics come into the equation (adding considerable comfort and traction) many have learnt the hard way that you will not get around tighter and stronger beads
… and it was called “tubeless ready”.
Were it not for the harder mounting I would think that tubeless ready tires will unite the best of two worlds. Only slightly heavier than folding but still fully safe tubeless and flat resistant even at low pressures.
By the way who says the hard mounting is a problem only caused by the tire – when you take a closer look at the rim dimensions you will see much larger variations there.
Even in the “tubeless ready” category there is enough variations with more XC/race oriented casings like 2-bliss and Bontragers TLR (low weight but more squirmy at low pressures) and tougher casings like GEAX´s TNT (stable down to incredibly low pressures). In my opinion for > 80 % of all riders tubeless ready could become the optimum and standard – I hope it will come, the sooner the better.
Are there alternatives?
In terms of riding characteristics tubulars offer the optimum possible, I fully agree with Sam@Singualr – but they are not easily exchangable. Wait to hear more about that even for 29ers.
April 30, 2009 at 9:11 am |
GT: I have to respectfully disagree with your assumption. “A TNT tubeless ready version tips the scale at 770 grams on average. Make that same tread design in the same width a UST tire and you are talking 930 grams on average.”
Maxxis tires for example Maxxis Cross Mark non UST published weight for 26inch tires: 570 grams, UST CrossMark: 690 grams. Maxxis Advantage non UST 595 grams, Advantage UST:640 grams. Just using these two tires for examples the average weight gain for UST vs non UST is 90 grams instead of the 200 gram gain you suggest from a tubeless ready to UST. By the way the Cross Mark 29 tube tire is 575 grams, if Maxxis made a UST 29 Crossmark that weighed 675-750 grams that would indeed be a reasonable weight.
From a performance perspective I live in AZ where we have a ton sharp pointy rocks just waiting to tear sidewalls, so UST makes more sense in AZ from a reliability perspective. On my 26inch bikes with UST I can run lower tire pressure for better traction; running with a tube or tube tires tubeless you have to run higher pressure to compensate for less side wall strength.
Yes I would like to see UST developed for 29ers because it means more reliability, better traction, and more 29er fun!
April 30, 2009 at 11:34 am |
Thunderlump: My GEAX measurements are from actual tires weighed on my digital scale. Not an estimate, but I do understand that tires can vary in weight, so I gave an average. 🙂
What Maxxis would or could do in a 29″er UST or Tubeless Ready is purely conjecture. My dealings with Maxxis suggest that they are not yet ready to do anything beyond folding bead versions of 29″er tires. Perhaps this will change,but for now it is what it is.
April 30, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
Thunderlump; if Maxis could make a 750 gram UST 29er tire they would be rich. The thing you are missing is scale. You can’t just make a tire and call it UST. There are standards and as you scale up the size of the tire the weight goes up in a non-linear fashion. The standards have to do with air retention, bead strength, bead holding, etc. As an example lets say there is a standard for the bead stretching of 2mm with 1000 lbs of pull. Instead of using the same amount of material in the bead that they do on a 26 incher they might have to use twice as much per inch and that is all the way around the 29ers longer bead times 2 beads. This might be necessary since the same amount of stretch is allowed no matter how long the bead is. This standard can’t change for a 29er because the bead lip is the same height so the bead can’t stretch any more overalll than a 26er bead and therefore has to be much heavier. As another example lets say there is an air retention standard of 1 psi per 72 hours. In order to meat that standard on the bigger tire, it might take 2 times more material there also and this is over a much larger area, so the weight isn’t twice as much but 3 times as much by the time you get thicker material and the larger area.
I think that even people in Arizona would rather have a 750 gram tire that was a tubeless ready tire with extra sidewall reinforcement. If you engineer the tire specifically for sidewall reinforcement it can actually be stronger against rocks than a UST tire and weigh way less.
May 1, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
GT: Thats unfortunate Maxxis doesnt plan on doing a UST with their LUST technology because I love their tires. The strongest sidewall 29 tires Ive used in AZ are the Hutchinson python tubeless ready, which I like, but the tread wears fast. Tried the Bonty TLRs and Jones both blew out from sidewall failure. Specialized fast tracks are ok because if you blow the sidewall they replace them for free, but who wants a blow out? I couldnt dream of running 22-35 psi out here unless I wanna replace rims every few rides. Might just be a mountain west issue. I havn’t tried the geax or continentals yet I wonder how the sidewalls would stand up out here?
yourdaguy: Hey if I could find a tubeless ready that would hold up out here that would be great. The hutchinson tubeless ready are pretty durable on the sidewalls but wear out a little to fast. So for myself reliablity is the bottom line. Ill take some extra weight in trade for reliability between the rocks and the cactus tires just get inihilated out here. Hey if tubeless ready can do that without UST great. My experience has been that UST tires are more durable therefore not killing my ride time and that is my only argument for UST.
May 1, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
TNT or Tubeless gets my vote. The weight gain of UST is not proportionate to the performance gain. Tubeless ready sidewalls are plenty thick to ward off rocks and cacti. Most of the folks that I have dealt with that use UST tires use a sealant anyway. It just doesn’t make sense to add that much weight and spend that much more. Tubless read/TNT saves weight (rolling and dead), provides ample protection and cost a lot less than UST. You can get a TNT Sagauro for $40 or a UST Schwalbe for $80 (extreme case). Hmmmmm.
May 1, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
I run Mountain King tires with Stans on all my 29ers and love them. Anyone else use these tires. I have tried others but these seem to hold up better and really hook up.
May 1, 2009 at 9:10 pm |
Thunderlump; wouldn’t you be better served by a kevlar barrier on the side wall rather than UST? UST adds butyl rubber in the sidewalls to keep the air in, but it doesn’t do much for keeping the rocks out. The kevlar sidewall would weigh less than UST too.
May 2, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
Thunderlump: Have acloser look at the GEAX TNT – they are tubeless ready but different from all the other tubeless ready by adding one extra protective layer to the sidewalls – allowing more rip and puncture resistance as well as addinf stability for low pressure riding. Keep an eye on the new test reports of the GEAX GATO – it will give a bit more info in this matter.
May 3, 2009 at 3:25 am |
I’ve been shredding tubeless for almost 2 years now and I love it, I do still use tubes on a few of my bikes (road) although I did tubeless my track bike – it wouldn’t hold for more than 10 hrs. I run tubeless on my el mariachi with Stan’s strips and sealant , on Blunts with S-works Captan 2.2s… I get much better traction with the tubeless system, no flats, lower tire pressure, smoother ride, better handling, and pure shredage. UST cost more, and provides noting over Stan’s and other similar tubeless systems, I have friends how go down to the LBS and ask for old 26 tubes to make ghetto tubeless strips for 29rs. Mavic also blows goats when it comes to customer service and help – also some of their parts are proprietary so it take forever to get parts back.
May 3, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
UST Tires? Not necessary. Use TRT and sealant.
UST Rims? Way ahead. Handling with Stans rim strip and valve is alway a mess, for years now I have problems getting the valve air tight over 30 psi. Broken nipple? Remove the whole yellow tape stuff and do it new. Annoying.
With UST rims: Mount the tire, fill in some sealant and your’re fine.
Shimano makes a very fine UST-Wheelset, I use it for training: WH-MT 75
May 3, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
I must agree why on the earth Stan’s does his rims with holes? Can’t they just be like Mavic UST? That yellow tape is so tear-wear prone. Utilizing a tyre lever – a plastic one peels off the tape.
May 4, 2009 at 8:30 am |
Why? You should ask Notubes, but here is my take:
I have not seen a ‘closed rim cavity’ rim that weighs even close to Stan’s rims. With rims without holes, there is a need for a non-conventional spoke attatchment construction. No manufacturer has been able to come up with a lighter spoke / rim interface design than the conventional one.
I suppose that is the reason for Stan to do it that way. Stan’s is the way to go if you want low weight and do not care about the stuff Redbyte and DavidC are annoyed about. That is the segment Stan positions himself in. Instead of whining why some products are not designed for your needs, find the ones that are.
Personally, I am annoyed by the weight penalty of UST rims and the special stuff you need for spokes and nipples. I do not know about you guys, but I’d rather replace yellow tape and a cheap nipple and/or spoke that I can get anywhere, than an expensive, difficult to get special design spoke and nipple combination.
Who has tried to get some Crossmax, Shimano UST, Crankbrothers or whatever type of spoke in order to be able to ride the rest of your holiday in some remote, mountainous area? You know what I mean. You’d be lucky to drive your car through the Alps to get some special Mavic spoke in their country of origin and make it in under 3 hours.
May 4, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
I think you guys might just need to be a bit more careful when mounting tires with Stan’s stuff. I have been running their wheels for 3 years. I have 2 sets of 355 26ers, 2 sets of 355 29ers, and one set of ZTR Race wheels.
I have never once torn the tape while mounting a tire with or without a tire lever. I change tires at least a dozen times per year or more between the 5 sets.
A little sealant and and air compressor and the tires mount right up. It doesn’t seem any more difficult (other than adding the sealant, which is far from tough) to mount tires on Stan’s rims than UST tires on Mavic rims to me.
May 4, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
That “special design” argument was everywhere around here in Germany in the last years, when one would ask:
“Conventional or UST System-Wheelset?”
2002 I changed to UST and it was in any ways better than folding tires with tubes, apart from weight. Before crossing the alps several times I bought spare parts for all that different UST-Wheeltypes I used over the years.
Never needed anything. My friends did neither. Seems like a academic problem.
Broken nipples or spokes only occured on conventional wheels.
WH-MT 75 weight 1850 gr. at a price of 350,- EUR
Yes, with Stan’s you can go lighter but at a much higher price.
P.S.:
Like to buy some Crossmax SLR 26″ spare spokes? 😉
May 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
@brendon:
Never had any problems mounting the tire, but getting the valve air tight. Tried different valve types from Stan’s. After fresh mount the milk splatters out at the outside of the valve.
May 4, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
The WH-MT75 wheels are $700 in the US and the cheapest you can get them anywhwere except Ebay is $699 because Shimano can fix their prices in this country. On Ebay you can get them for $600 with free shipping, but I just bought Stans Flow’s, DT spokes and Hope ProII hubs hand built and landed for $475 and that includes the yellow tape and valve. The weight is close, but the Stan”s/Hope wheels with the FLOW rims will be a few grams heavier. If I went with Arch riims they would be a few grams lighter. I can run almost any tire tubeless with these wheels, why would I pay way more money to be locked into the UST system and tires?
The guy that is building them is sending me spare spokes with the wheels per my request, but I doubt I will ned them for years. How much is a spare Shimano spoke and how long will it take you to get one? Practically any bike shop in the world would have a spoke I could use on my wheels.
I have never had a problem with Stans and mounting, etc. So far, all my wheels have the original yellow tape. When my new wheels get here, I am planning to dismount one tire from one rim and mount it on the new rim and mount 2 other tires on the other 2 rims. From start to finish including cleaning the goo out of the currently mounted tire and letting the rims sit on their sides ,etc. I expect it to take me 3 hours to dismount one and mount 3. Assuming all my wheels were UST that would probably take a little over an hour. So for me the only advantage to UST is it might save a little time as opposed to all the other and many disadvantages.
May 4, 2009 at 11:01 pm |
I run twenty pounds of pressure in my tubed tires, and I weigh in at 180 lbs. I don’t hit the rim, and I don’t burp the tire, and I have the sof tire contact patch. I find it hard to run tubeless. Where is the big advantage for me?
May 5, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
yourdaguy: Yes a kevlar bolstered sidewall would be excellent! Either way UST, Tubeless ready, I think both are great ways improve 29er performance. The Hutchinson roadtubeless aren’t UST and I have been running them on my road bike with Open pros / Stans conversion for the past 10 months. The Roadtubeless fusion2’s have been very durable, so I guess im convincing myself we don’t need UST for 29er’s?:-)
c.g.: Funny you mentioned the Geax TNT’s. My next tires will either me the Barro Race, or the Conti Race Kings. Any input on which of these is more durable?
General comment: I see that Hutchinson also offers two Tubeless Ready 34c CX tires, the Piranha and Bulldog. Seems like a decent choice for Tubeless CX racing on your 29er.
May 5, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
Thunderlump:
The Race Kings offer a tad more volume but the Barro Race (TNT) sure is more stable and durable. Regarding the tread I would rate them en par.
May 7, 2009 at 11:31 pm |
Don’t need it… I run everything I want to run tubeless currently, on whatever rims I want to run them on, anyway. It doesn’t matter. With the setup I run, I’m like Switzerland, I can do it. I’ve never had to run tubes in 29-inch tires and I’ve been riding 29ers since late 2005. I had one flat in 2008 and that was on a 700x38c ‘cross tire running tubeless that had completely worn out and the casing simply gave out and went off like a shotgun… My bad for running the tire too long. Lesson learned.
I like the concept of the TNT casing being a bit more stable, so you can run it at lower pressure with stability. Otherwise, I have no need for UST and its extra rubber. My sealant takes care of that just fine…