# Easton R90 SL vs. Mavic Open Pro



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

I'm getting a new tubeless disc wheelset built, and am deciding between these two rims. They're both ~19mm internal, but the Mavic is about 30g lighter per rim, as well as a little less expensive. This will be used on a bike that'll see mostly relatively smooth surfaces, though I'm sure it'll occasionally make its way onto light singletrack. 

Does the extra weight (and presumably strength) of the Easton make it better suited for this? Are UST Mavics still a bit harder to mount tires to than something like a UST Easton? I've had great luck with Easton products, but haven't used a UST Mavic since my 26" MTB days. I do remember it was a bit of a PITA to mount tires to though.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

the Easton R90 sl is a tad deeper rim, that's probably why it's heavier.
I'd go with the R90 sl


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

Yeah, it is a bit deeper (27 vs. 24). I'm guessing that the Easton does make more sense for this application, but the Mavic looks cooler. It'll make the wheelset a little heavier (with Hope RS4s, 1580 vs 1530g), but either one is an improvement over my now overkill 1780g Havens. Those will go on another bike that sees more off-road action.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm completely turned off by Mavic's low max tension of 110kgf. Modern rims ally typically have a max of 120-130kgf. More tension for the rear wheel means that the spokes on the left side can be brought up in relation to the right side max. Some hubs have a large tension imbalance between the sides resulting in left tension that is low enough to cause the rear wheel to go out of true or suffer from early spoke failure. 

Using the Hope rear hub as an example, the max tension being 110kgf means that the left side will be about 53kgf. That's barely enough. Also that doesn't account for any drop in tension from mounting tires which happens to all tubeless rims to a degree.


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

Thanks for the info. I had read about the low tension limit, and like you say, it's not ideal for longevity. I decided to go with the Eastons.


----------



## changingleaf (Aug 20, 2009)

R90 SL is my choice.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Pisgah2000 said:


> Thanks for the info. I had read about the low tension limit, and like you say, it's not ideal for longevity. I decided to go with the Eastons.


Probably a good choice. Personally, I would avoid wheels with the name "Mavic" on them.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I built up some R90 SL and I am extremely happy with them.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

Easton, absolutely.


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

Thanks for the replies.

I received the wheels and have a question:

I'm used to running tubeless with the older solid inner wall Eastons. Those were great, but the R90s require tape. When I mount tubeless tires on the taped up rims, there's no audible bead "pop", and when deflated, it's obvious that the bead didn't lock into the rim like normal. The tire just falls away. I tried this with two different tubeless tires. I don't like that. Stan's tape covers the bead hump, and while the hump is still there, it's less distinct. Is this normal, or should the tape be inside of the bead lock bump?


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

We use tape that covers the bead bump, and most tires do make an audible pop when they lock into the rim. I can't say that I'd guarantee that the bead will always stay locked on with zero psi once the bead is locked on, but they usually do. Are you 100% positive that the bead engaged all the way around the rim? Depending on tire and tape (the tape we use is very slightly thinner than Stan's) it can take quite a bit of air pressure to get the tire to fully pop into the rim.

Once the tire is locked into the beads, the tire's bead pressure will mold the tape. Tape doesn't stand a chance against that kind of pressure.


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

Huh. Yep, 100% positive that the bead is in place. The raised ridge along the sidewall is consistently where it should be. While it doesn't "pop", it does sort of slide into place with high pressure. I figured that the tape would deform enough to be a non-issue, but good to hear that's the case. I also put in a tube with a road tire at 100psi and let it sit for a while. No change. 

I'd guess that part of it could be down to the tires that I'm using (2bliss Specialized Renegades) not being compatible. The builder said that they would work no problem, but maybe that isn't the case. That doesn't explain why road tubeless tires with slightly smaller bead width (right?) don't stay on though. I just tried another road tubeless tire (100psi in a compressor), and while this one had a very slight audible bead pop on some parts, it still slid off of the humps when pressure was reduced. Not all by itself like the Renegade, but nowhere near where I'd feel OK riding one with a blowout. 

I imagine that a lot of people use these things tubeless without issue, so I don't know what's up. Maybe they don't work well with Specialized or Panaracer beads? I wonder if the UST Mavics would have had this issue.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

You might try another layer or two of tape to build up the circumference of the rim.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Pisgah2000 said:


> Huh. Yep, 100% positive that the bead is in place. The raised ridge along the sidewall is consistently where it should be. While it doesn't "pop", it does sort of slide into place with high pressure. I figured that the tape would deform enough to be a non-issue, but good to hear that's the case. I also put in a tube with a road tire at 100psi and let it sit for a while. No change.
> 
> I'd guess that part of it could be down to the tires that I'm using (2bliss Specialized Renegades) not being compatible. The builder said that they would work no problem, but maybe that isn't the case. That doesn't explain why road tubeless tires with slightly smaller bead width (right?) don't stay on though. I just tried another road tubeless tire (100psi in a compressor), and while this one had a very slight audible bead pop on some parts, it still slid off of the humps when pressure was reduced. Not all by itself like the Renegade, but nowhere near where I'd feel OK riding one with a blowout.
> 
> I imagine that a lot of people use these things tubeless without issue, so I don't know what's up. Maybe they don't work well with Specialized or Panaracer beads? I wonder if the UST Mavics would have had this issue.


and you're not alone in this. This is precisely one of the issues with road tubeless: there isn't a unifying standard. Had rim and tire be on the same standard, things would just work


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> and you're not alone in this. This is precisely one of the issues with road tubeless: there isn't a unifying standard. Had rim and tire be on the same standard, things would just work



Maybe maybe not. There can be a standard....but manufacturing tolerances being what they are--you could still wind up with this problem.

Roadie tubeless is just going to be one of those pain in the butt things. MTB/CX where pressures are lower it works great-even with tires not designed for it.


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

aclinjury said:


> and you're not alone in this. This is precisely one of the issues with road tubeless: there isn't a unifying standard. Had rim and tire be on the same standard, things would just work





Marc said:


> Roadie tubeless is just going to be one of those pain in the butt things. MTB/CX where pressures are lower it works great-even with tires not designed for it.


Yeah, it is a bit irritating. Save the occasional displaced bit of tape from a tight fitting tire, I've never had a problem with MTB tubeless. It's easy, secure, and just works, and has for over a decade. It's an improvement in every area over tubes. I have been using Specialized Turbo Tubeless road tires on older, solid EA90s for a while now with good luck though. I much prefer that design to rim tape, and aside from being a bit tight sometimes, I've never had an issue with UST designs.



ergott said:


> You might try another layer or two of tape to build up the circumference of the rim.


Thanks. I may try that, but I think the issue is that the bead lock design isn't ideal/big enough. Other rim designs have a larger bead shelf instead of the inner lip, which probably allows for more variation, and definitely allows the tire to move around before losing pressure. I'm going to probably see about sending these back for a refund (they're not as advertised), but if that's a no-go, I might start messing with them. They are nice wheels otherwise, if a little heavier than advertised.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Marc said:


> Maybe maybe not. There can be a standard....but manufacturing tolerances being what they are--you could still wind up with this problem.
> 
> Roadie tubeless is just going to be one of those pain in the butt things. MTB/CX where pressures are lower it works great-even with tires not designed for it.


no doubt that in the mtb world, pressures are lower, and tires are thicker, making the whole tubeless application much more forgivable/favorable for out-of-tolerance and out-of-specs tire/rim combo. At the same time, UST standard is much more accepted in the mtb world than in roadie world. Eg, Easton makes mtb wheels that are UST compatible. Conti makes mtb tires that are UST compatible. But these 2 don't make anything UST in the roadie world. And it's the roadie world that needs a unifying standard more than mtb world. Begs the question, why hasn't there been a wide adoption of UST in the roadie world? One could say it's a UST licensing fee thing, but Easton has no issue making UST rim for mtb, so...


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

It sounds like you can use them tubeless without issue - it's never occurred to me that the beads staying on the shelf at 0 pressure is a parameter. If a tire suffers a blowout, staying on the bead shelf won't prevent it from rolling off the rim. Tubed tires stay on non-tubeless rims without any bead shelf interaction at all. 

The presence or absence of an audible pop, in our exhaustive testing of tubeless cross tires, hasn't proven to be any indication of quality of seal. Some tires engage silently and are impossible to burp, some tires make all kinds of noise and burp with any impetus at all. Road tires don't burp except under extraordinary circumstances (and even that's a guess - I've never seen a road tubeless tire burp), there's just too much pressure keeping it engaged.


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

Yeah, the requirement/expectation that the bead staying engaged with no pressure may be a bit unrealistic and unnecessary. It's just what I'm used to with other tubeless setups (UST, mostly). With those, I've had blowouts from a slashed sidewall or whatever while moving at relatively high speeds, and the bead has never come off. I'm assuming that's not the case with these rims, but I very well could be wrong. Either way, the tires seal and hold air just fine.


----------



## changingleaf (Aug 20, 2009)

From my experience with the R90 rims the bead did stay on the shelf after the air was let out, but not by much. The bead seat on these rims is a bit narrow and the bead is not as secure as I would like. I think it is important that the bead stay seated after installation and pressure removal. The best way to add sealant to a tire is through the valve core after the tire has already been seated on the rim, that way there is no way that you'll be making a mess trying to get it inflated while sealant is pooled in the open tire. 

A tighter fitting bead seat also gives me more confidence for low pressure cyclocross use.

For rim brake rims the current Pacenti Forza or Hed Belgium Plus set up tubeless the easiest and the bead stays seated on these rims when the air is let out.

I like the Boyd Altamont as well, but the bead does not stay seated on these rims when the air is let out.


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

Thanks. Yep, I agree about adding sealant through the valve stem. It's odd that Easton does or at least used to supply tubeless valves with non-removable cores with their tubeless wheelsets.

I had a set of non-plus Belgiums, and they were worse than these with bead retention. That very well could be down to the tire though.

With these, the intended use is about 30psi in a 1.95" Renegade over various surfaces. I may try adding that extra layer or two of tape (would 4 total layers be too much?) to see what that does.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Pisgah2000 said:


> I had a set of non-plus Belgiums, and they were worse than these with bead retention. That very well could be down to the tire though.


Non-plus Belgiums are not tubeless compatible.


----------



## changingleaf (Aug 20, 2009)

I don't think more tape is going to necessarily help the rim form a better bead seat. I use two layers sidewall to sidewall. After the tire has been inflated for days or weeks it should compact the tape better and stay seated when the air is let out.

Tubeless with non-tubeless ready rims like the regular Belgium is usually more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Pisgah2000 said:


> Thanks. Yep, I agree about adding sealant through the valve stem. It's odd that Easton does or at least used to supply tubeless valves with non-removable cores with their tubeless wheelsets.
> 
> I had a set of non-plus Belgiums, and they were worse than these with bead retention. That very well could be down to the tire though.
> 
> With these, the intended use is about 30psi in a 1.95" Renegade over various surfaces. I may try adding that extra layer or two of tape (would 4 total layers be too much?) to see what that does.


My Easton EC90 SL (carbon fiber and tubeless compatible) wheelset does come with tubeless valves.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

changingleaf said:


> From my experience with the R90 rims the bead did stay on the shelf after the air was let out, but not by much. The bead seat on these rims is a bit narrow and the bead is not as secure as I would like. I think it is important that the bead stay seated after installation and pressure removal. The best way to add sealant to a tire is through the valve core after the tire has already been seated on the rim, that way there is no way that you'll be making a mess trying to get it inflated while sealant is pooled in the open tire.
> 
> A tighter fitting bead seat also gives me more confidence for low pressure cyclocross use.
> 
> ...


One of the problem that I've run into a lot is that once a tubeless tire is installed, and now you unmount it from the rim (for whatever reason), then mounting it again will always require a compressor, and it may never seal as well as the first time it was mounted! Never able to pump it up again with a regular floor pump. So yeah, that's my 'nother reason to not unmount a tubeless tire once it's mounted.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I will say this about the Shimano C24 tubeless wheels and Hutchinson tubeless tires. These 2 stick together hard and will not peel in a catastrophic flat. It happened to me. I was on a descent going 35mph and braking into a corner, then got a rock cut on the sidewall of FRONT tire resulting in a fast flat, all this while I was still braking into the corner! it took me a few seconds to realize that it was the front tire that blew out an that I would need to let off the fron brake and use rear brake. Eventually I manage to stop the bike with rear braking. Afterwards, I examine the front wheel and that tire was still firmly stuck to the rim. Not even one section off bead rolled off the rim, not one section. In fact, when I went to unmount the tire, it took a lot of effort to unmount it. And guess what, Shimano and Hutchinson abide to the UST standard. I believe that if ha been another tire/rim combo that is not following a same standard, that tire might have peel off in my situation (braking on front wheel at high speed while getting catastrophic flat).

The caveat is that mounthing the Hutchinson on the C24 tubeless requires beastly effort, and levers.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> I will say this about the Shimano C24 tubeless wheels and Hutchinson tubeless tires. These 2 stick together hard and will not peel in a catastrophic flat. It happened to me. I was on a descent going 35mph and braking into a corner, then got a rock cut on the sidewall of FRONT tire resulting in a fast flat, all this while I was still braking into the corner! it took me a few seconds to realize that it was the front tire that blew out an that I would need to let off the fron brake and use rear brake. Eventually I manage to stop the bike with rear braking. Afterwards, I examine the front wheel and that tire was still firmly stuck to the rim. Not even one section off bead rolled off the rim, not one section. In fact, when I went to unmount the tire, it took a lot of effort to unmount it. And guess what, Shimano and Hutchinson abide to the UST standard. I believe that if ha been another tire/rim combo that is not following a same standard, that tire might have peel off in my situation (braking on front wheel at high speed while getting catastrophic flat).
> 
> The caveat is that mounthing the Hutchinson on the C24 tubeless requires beastly effort, and levers.



Hutchinsons fit tight. And god help you if you need to put a tube in one.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Marc said:


> Hutchinsons fit tight. And god help you if you need to put a tube in one.


and god did help me on that day! A good cyclist samaritan on a jeep saw me standing on the road side and gave me a lift to his house which was nearby so that we could fix the tire, in the comfort of his front lawn and floor pump. No doubt it was a beast putting in a tube,... and a boot too. Got home and decided to remove the rear Hutchinson too as a preemptive strike against such beastly effort again (since the rear had a hole that was sealed by Stans but rear tire was also beginning to square off and I didn't want to wait for the rear to wear to the point that the hole could become unseal, which has happened to me on too-worn tires).

PS: He and I did get some humor out of the many Stans boogers! Had to remove all of them if a tube was to be put in. We found a white rubber lizard that was literally almost a foot long stuck to the tire. Amazing those little white gremlins are.


----------



## Pisgah2000 (Nov 24, 2015)

Lombard said:


> Non-plus Belgiums are not tubeless compatible.


Yep, that is true. 



changingleaf said:


> I don't think more tape is going to necessarily help the rim form a better bead seat. I use two layers sidewall to sidewall. After the tire has been inflated for days or weeks it should compact the tape better and stay seated when the air is let out.


Thanks. 



aclinjury said:


> One of the problem that I've run into a lot is that once a tubeless tire is installed, and now you unmount it from the rim (for whatever reason), then mounting it again will always require a compressor, and it may never seal as well as the first time it was mounted! Never able to pump it up again with a regular floor pump. So yeah, that's my 'nother reason to not unmount a tubeless tire once it's mounted.


I've not found that to always be the case, but boogery sealant dried to the bead will certainly make things more difficult. It's best to peel that off. A compressor is a good tool to have though. Speaking of beads, I tried putting a (new) 1.95 Renegade S-works on the R90 again, and the bead seam split. The bead itself is fine, but the rubber split in a horizontal line out the outside in a couple of spots. I've never had that happen before. It wasn't even at high pressure.

Edit - wheelbuilders out there - any issues with the Mavic XC 821? Not a road rim, sure, but the right width and likely would work better with an MTB tire.


----------

