# 2022 Race Tire Thread



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

Ok, looking to try some different tires this year. Particularly looking for a little faster rear tire and looking at both the Vittoria Mezcal and Specialized Renegade. Leaning renegade because of price, availability (local shop has them) and weight. I usually run Maxxis Ikon rear and am just looking to try something new. Thoughts? 

What tires are you running this year?


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Still Wolfpack MTB Speed 2.4" rear, pair with Wolfpack MTB Cross 2.4" front.
It performs, and last. So I'm not replacing it soon.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

where are you at?, what sort of trails? dry or wet? I like the Mezcal a lot, I started this season on my old Mezcals, but I'm currently on Rocket Rons which are a fair bit lighter: fast, good grip, and about 610g for a 29x2.25.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Renegade has better braking and climbing traction than the Mezcal.
Mezcal is a slightly better roller and is heavier and less supple.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

SLCpowderhound said:


> Ok, looking to try some different tires this year. Particularly looking for a little faster rear tire and looking at both the Vittoria Mezcal and Specialized Renegade. Leaning renegade because of price, availability (local shop has them) and weight. I usually run Maxxis Ikon rear and am just looking to try something new. Thoughts?
> 
> What tires are you running this year?


Renegade T5 2.35 rear...it's a good rear tire and weighs less than the Mezcal.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Mezcal 2.35 front and rear on my singlespeed hardtail. I may try the Syerra up front for super burly courses like I’ll see at the Trans-Sylvania Epic.


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

I'm a bit heavier thanmost so going to try Maxxis WT. 
Aspen 2.4 WT -rear
Rekon Race 2.4 WT - front

I've used the rekon race before on the rear on a trailbike with great results. Wonder how it'll fare in the front.


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

29x2.4 Ardent Race Front
29x2.35 Rekon Race Rear

One of my race locations I need to go more aggressive though, just too many rocks and loose trails. My current tire setup is sketchy AF there at race speeds.


----------



## Mongoguy (Oct 16, 2019)

29X2.6 Barzo or Icon~Front
29x2.6 Mezcal~Rear
Hardtail single speed


----------



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

NordieBoy said:


> Renegade has better braking and climbing traction than the Mezcal.
> Mezcal is a slightly better roller and is heavier and less supple.


I used the Barzo last year and have the Mazza on my trail bike. I like Vittoria tires in general and seem to fair well with the trails I ride (no flats). I have no experience with Specialized tires at all. I'd take a 100g weight penalty to a sidewall tear midway through a race (I mainly race 50+ mile races). Is the non-Sworks Renegade durable enough to trust?


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

SLCpowderhound said:


> I used the Barzo last year and have the Mazza on my trail bike. I like Vittoria tires in general and seem to fair well with the trails I ride (no flats). I have no experience with Specialized tires at all. I'd take a 100g weight penalty to a sidewall tear midway through a race (I mainly race 50+ mile races). Is the non-Sworks Renegade durable enough to trust?


I ran them front and rear (2.35" Control) in a 4.5 hour race outside of Roanoke, VA last fall with a ton of climbing and descending, and lots of sharp rocks at speed. No issues and surprisingly good traction.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

SLCpowderhound said:


> I used the Barzo last year and have the Mazza on my trail bike. I like Vittoria tires in general and seem to fair well with the trails I ride (no flats). I have no experience with Specialized tires at all. I'd take a 100g weight penalty to a sidewall tear midway through a race (I mainly race 50+ mile races). Is the non-Sworks Renegade durable enough to trust?


The Control tyres are really supple and for longer races I'd run some lightweight inserts as insurance rather than go to the Grid carcass which feels slightly thicker than EXO.


----------



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

NordieBoy said:


> The Control tyres are really supple and for longer races I'd run some lightweight inserts as insurance rather than go to the Grid carcass which feels slightly thicker than EXO.


Do they make the renegade with a Grid casing? I don't see it listed on their website....


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

SLCpowderhound said:


> Do they make the renegade with a Grid casing? I don't see it listed on their website....


Oops, had the Fasttrak in my mind when I said Grid. Fasttrak Grid I had to drop 3psi to get any compliance. Felt like it was pinging off every rock even at my normal 18psi. At 15psi it was better, but didn't like g-outs or berms much 
I'm running the Fasttrak/Renegade Control's on the Unit single speed and Purgatory/Ground Control Control's on the Anthem single speed at the moment.
I do like supple sidewalls.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

NordieBoy said:


> Oops, had the Fasttrak in my mind when I said Grid. Fasttrak Grid I had to drop 3psi to get any compliance. Felt like it was pinging off every rock even at my normal 18psi. At 15psi it was better, but didn't like g-outs or berms much
> I'm running the Fasttrak/Renegade Control's on the Unit single speed and Purgatory/Ground Control Control's on the Anthem single speed at the moment.
> I do like supple sidewalls.


I did notice with the Renegade Control that I needed a little more pressure (23 psi vs. 20-21 psi) to avoid rolling them in corners. The sidewalls are rather supple. Nice tires.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Has anyone tried a new Renegade T5 in the front? For me, it's between this tire and the Scorpion XC RC as my next tire to try.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

tick_magnet said:


> Has anyone tried a new Renegade T5 in the front? For me, it's between this tire and the Scorpion XC RC as my next tire to try.


As I said above, front and rear. Not bad in front; similar to a Race King.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

oops, missed that. Thanks.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

tick_magnet said:


> oops, missed that. Thanks.


No worries. Didn't mean to sound snarky if I did.


----------



## WithOrWithout87 (Jul 2, 2020)

Jlar said:


> I'm a bit heavier thanmost so going to try Maxxis WT.
> Aspen 2.4 WT -rear
> Rekon Race 2.4 WT - front
> 
> I've used the rekon race before on the rear on a trailbike with great results. Wonder how it'll fare in the front.


Just switched to Aspen 2.4 front and rear from a Rekon Race 2.35 rear and Ikon 2.35 front. Faster rolling, lighter, and don’t feel like I gave up any cornering grip. 

Im curious, why are you choosing Rekon Race front over Aspen. It’s heavier and it doesn’t seem to roll faster. I’ve never tried it on the front but from what I’ve heard, it doesn’t corner all that well.


----------



## B_H (Oct 29, 2006)

Hexsense said:


> Still Wolfpack MTB Speed 2.4" rear, pair with Wolfpack MTB Cross 2.4" front.
> It performs, and last. So I'm not replacing it soon.


Similar setup with Wolfpack Cross 2.4" front but Renegade S-Works 2.3" in the rear. Should be a nice combo for relatively tame local trails, rode Continental Race King and Cross King RaceSport in 2.2" for past two years which was fast and light setup but a bit undersized. Still have to wait for the snow to melt before I can hit the trails...


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

WithOrWithout87 said:


> Just switched to Aspen 2.4 front and rear from a Rekon Race 2.35 rear and Ikon 2.35 front. Faster rolling, lighter, and don’t feel like I gave up any cornering grip.
> 
> Im curious, why are you choosing Rekon Race front over Aspen. It’s heavier and it doesn’t seem to roll faster. I’ve never tried it on the front but from what I’ve heard, it doesn’t corner all that well.


Simply for the fact that Nino Schurter is running this pair. The Rekon Race does have larger side knobs, so it should corner better.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Nino doesn't run any of what you and I can buy. He use the Pro only 170 tpi version. Other than it's more supple, who know what else are different from the regular retail version. Can the rubber be different too? Maybe. But we know Maxxis need special version to satisfy pro. Unlike most other brands that pros just use the same tire as sold to general public.


----------



## C619V (Mar 8, 2021)

Like team Maxxis “test pilot” tires, many team sponsored riders have specific tires designed via ride feedback and may ask for their own version to not be released.

Just spit ballin 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Hexsense said:


> Nino doesn't run any of what you and I can buy. He use the Pro only 170 tpi version. Other than it's more supple, who know what else are different from the regular retail version. Can the rubber be different too? Maybe. But we know Maxxis need special version to satisfy pro. Unlike most other brands that pros just use the same tire as sold to general public.


Exactly! I suspect Nino would throw the 120 tpi versions of the Aspen and Rekon Race in the trash bin.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

Still in love with raceking/raceking or crossking/raceking combination!


----------



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

cycloholic said:


> Still in love with raceking/raceking or crossking/raceking combination!


Really? I ran a raceking/raceking combo for about 4 months and barely lived to tell the tale. I like it as a rear tire but felt like I was risking my life with each descent. Fast rolling for sure, but for me at least, was a very sketchy front tire.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

SLCpowderhound said:


> Really? I ran a raceking/raceking combo for about 4 months and barely lived to tell the tale. I like it as a rear tire but felt like I was risking my life with each descent. Fast rolling for sure, but for me at least, was a very sketchy front tire.


Hahaha,
Are we still talking for XC tires??
Raceking is a super fast tire, in some occasions is enough, for something more aggressive you can use Crossking in front.


----------



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

cycloholic said:


> Hahaha,
> Are we still talking for XC tires??
> Raceking is a super fast tire, in some occasions is enough, for something more aggressive you can use Crossking in front.


Yeah, this was for my marathon XC bike. I actually really liked how fast/light the raceking was, though it looks like they may have changed the design a little since I ran them. I mainly stick to Maxxis/Vittoria tires but the Crossking/raceking could be a nice combo! How does the 2.3 crossking measure out? True to size? Would be nice if they made it in a 2.4...


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

Hexsense said:


> Nino doesn't run any of what you and I can buy. He use the Pro only 170 tpi version. Other than it's more supple, who know what else are different from the regular retail version. Can the rubber be different too? Maybe. But we know Maxxis need special version to satisfy pro. Unlike most other brands that pros just use the same tire as sold to general public.


So what. Should I throw the Aspen in the bin too cause it's the lowly 120tpi? The Rekon Race has more volume and larger side knobs, exactly what I want out of a front.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

SLCpowderhound said:


> Yeah, this was for my marathon XC bike. I actually really liked how fast/light the raceking was, though it looks like they may have changed the design a little since I ran them. I mainly stick to Maxxis/Vittoria tires but the Crossking/raceking could be a nice combo! How does the 2.3 crossking measure out? True to size? Would be nice if they made it in a 2.4...


Haven't measured them actually. Racekings are well known that they are oversized (giving more of comfort also) although last model was not as big. Crosskings are little bit slimmer if not similar.

Edit: i have no idea for 2.3, I was talking for 2.2


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Jlar said:


> So what. Should I throw the Aspen in the bin too cause it's the lowly 120tpi? The Rekon Race has more volume and larger side knobs, exactly what I want out of a front.


Nah. You use what you like.
I'm just saying quoting the reason that you like some tire because some pro to use it while the pro isn't actually using it doesn't sound right to me.
But that doesn't mean retail version of the tire is trash.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

cycloholic said:


> Hahaha,
> Are we still talking for XC tires??
> Raceking is a super fast tire, in some occasions is enough, for something more aggressive you can use Crossking in front.


I have been really happy with Crossking front (2.3 measures slightly larger at the knobs on i25) (has a little better bite than a Barzo) and Mezcal rear. They are a little heavy though, but I usually do longer races and would rather not flat and they have been really durable for me.

I have tried other rear tires (Ralph, Aspen, etc) and keep coming back to the Mezcal


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Curious if anyone has looked into or even tried the Panaracer Driver Pro. They seem to make really fast rolling gravel tires and have nice compounds.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Jlar said:


> So what. Should I throw the Aspen in the bin too cause it's the lowly 120tpi? The Rekon Race has more volume and larger side knobs, exactly what I want out of a front.


Yes you should.  I was just saying people like to think they are using what Nino uses but they are not. The suppleness, rubber compound and lighter weight of the Pro only 170 tpi Aspen makes it an entirely different/better tire than what you are using. But use it if it makes you happy.


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

Stonerider said:


> Yes you should.  I was just saying people like to think they are using what Nino uses but they are not. The suppleness, rubber compound and lighter weight of the Pro only 170 tpi Aspen makes it an entirely different/better tire than what you are using. But use it if it makes you happy.


The Pro's get alot of gear tailered specifically for them. Doesnt mean the step down goods made for us mere mortal isn't any good. It's asinine to think it's an entirely different tire. But hey, if you want to disparage a product just cause the pro's are running a better version, you do you.


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

Jlar said:


> I'm a bit heavier thanmost so going to try Maxxis WT.
> Aspen 2.4 WT -rear
> Rekon Race 2.4 WT - front
> 
> I've used the rekon race before on the rear on a trailbike with great results. Wonder how it'll fare in the front.


I'm running the Rekon Race front and rear on my Ranger. I find that the Race doesn't have any less cornering traction than the Rekon it replaced and it rolls a lot faster. I'm 210 and ride rather aggressively on the DH.


----------



## jyalpert (Jan 20, 2021)

I'm currently running Ikon rear, Rekon front. I'm a mediocre bike handler, running Sport category and finishing a few minutes off the lead group, losing time on corners and downs, holding/gaining position on the ups. Races are mostly in CA Bay Area, Central Valley, Tahoe.

Main problem (where I lose confidence) are on fast, non-bermed corners, especially those covered with loose material. I know I need to work on technique, confidence, and just getting used to having the bike slide a little. But in the meantime, wondering if anyone has any recommendations for a slightly higher-grip front tire that isn't too slow? Looking at maybe Maxxis Forekaster, Schwalbe Nobby Nic, Kenda Regolith or Booster Pro, Specialized Purgatory?


----------



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

UPSed said:


> I'm running the Rekon Race front and rear on my Ranger. I find that the Race doesn't have any less cornering traction than the Rekon it replaced and it rolls a lot faster. I'm 210 and ride rather aggressively on the DH.


Love the bike! Rad color and love the tan walls with tan grips. She's a beauty


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

jyalpert said:


> Maxxis Forekaster, Schwalbe Nobby Nic, Kenda Regolith or Booster Pro, Specialized Purgatory?


These are all just sort of variations on a Rekon. What size are you running? If you are running the DC rubber maxxis and not 3C you can get more confidence from that.

Of those, the Nobby Nic will probably corner the best. But also be the heaviest. However, trade off could be worth it for you. Heavy at around 900gs though. But, if it allows you to actually go faster and be more confident, probably worth it.

I have been running a Cross King 2.3. And so far I like it. it's like a little bit more aggressive Barzo.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

cassieno said:


> These are all just sort of variations on a Rekon. What size are you running? If you are running the DC rubber maxxis and not 3C you can get more confidence from that.
> 
> Of those, the Nobby Nic will probably corner the best. But also be the heaviest. However, trade off could be worth it for you. Heavy at around 900gs though. But, if it allows you to actually go faster and be more confident, probably worth it.
> 
> I have been running a Cross King 2.3. And so far I like it. it's like a little bit more aggressive Barzo.


The old Nobby Nic was awesome. Light enough, rolled as fast as a Racing Ralph of the day and good grip. So weird that Schwalbe tires are all so porky now.

Also, it's funny you'd describe the Cross King that way - it's been around a lot longer than the Barzo. I think Conti tires probably seem new to a lot of people because they were "uncool" for several years. I forgot about them for several years myself.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

The old X-King was my first single speed rear tyre that really worked well on the climbs.
Then I went tubeless


----------



## findbuddha (Jul 17, 2016)

jyalpert said:


> I'm currently running Ikon rear, Rekon front. I'm a mediocre bike handler, running Sport category and finishing a few minutes off the lead group, losing time on corners and downs, holding/gaining position on the ups. Races are mostly in CA Bay Area, Central Valley, Tahoe.
> 
> Main problem (where I lose confidence) are on fast, non-bermed corners, especially those covered with loose material. I know I need to work on technique, confidence, and just getting used to having the bike slide a little. But in the meantime, wondering if anyone has any recommendations for a slightly higher-grip front tire that isn't too slow? Looking at maybe Maxxis Forekaster, Schwalbe Nobby Nic, Kenda Regolith or Booster Pro, Specialized Purgatory?


This is pretty much my exact situation in terms of fitness/strengths/weaknesses. 

What size/compound Rekon do you run? 

I'm currently on Rekon 2.4 front and Rekon Race 2.4 rear, with Tubolight EVO SL inserts. I'm ~78kg in kit, and run 20psi front and 25psi rear on 29mm internal rims. I'm pretty happy with this setup but considering trying the 2.35 Barzo/Mezcal combo at some point. 

Though if I can get better at weighting the front wheel through flat turns I think I could try a lower rolling resistance combo, maybe Rekon Race in front.

I have previously spent a fair bit of time with Forekasters on the front, which I'd put as roughly equivalent to the Rekon for the riding I've done. I've also previously spent a lot of time with a DHF 2.3 on the front, and despite having heaps more grip I often felt cornering to be more difficult as I found it harder to lean the bike over.


----------



## jyalpert (Jan 20, 2021)

I'm on the Rekon 2.4 in the front, ~71kg in kit, running 22psi front on 30mm internal rims. I think the first thing I'm going to do is just drop it to 18-19psi, and work on rowing forward and leaning the bike over earlier. I have some 2.35 Forekasters on order, too.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

findbuddha said:


> This is pretty much my exact situation in terms of fitness/strengths/weaknesses.
> 
> What size/compound Rekon do you run?
> 
> ...


I am in no way disparaging you or your skills, please don't take this as such. I have seen many posts similar to yours in recent months. But...

I don't recall, say, 4-5 years ago (before "modern" XC geometry and wide rims/tires for XC) so many people so concerned with a front tire's cornering ability being a main selling point for XC racing.

Have people's race courses really changed all that much? 

Could it be that (to some degree) modern long-reach/short stem bikes, with the front wheel so far out in front that it's basically in a different zip code, aren't great in flat corners and now we need a tractor of a front tire to compensate?

Or is it more that (thanks to the trail-bike-ification of XC bikes and the advent of the word "downcountry") that we all of a sudden think that XC races are won on the DH and in the corners?

Several years ago we cornered hard on 2.1-2.2" tires and short-reach frames with long(er) stems and no worries. 

Am I overthinking this?


----------



## findbuddha (Jul 17, 2016)

tommyrod74 said:


> I am in no way disparaging you or your skills, please don't take this as such. I have seen many posts similar to yours in recent months. But...
> 
> ...........
> 
> Am I overthinking this?


Oh absolutely, lack of skill is my main limiting factor! And I have been guilty of trying to compensate for this with optimising equipment. Definitely working on it more now - skills training and upper body/core stability work are making a difference. 

I wouldn't normally respond to threads like this (leave it to people with more relevant skills/experience) but jyalpert seems to be in a similar situation to me and had already acknowledged lack of skills/confidence as the main issue.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

findbuddha said:


> Oh absolutely, lack of skill is my main limiting factor! And I have been guilty of trying to compensate for this with optimising equipment. Definitely working on it more now - skills training and upper body/core stability work are making a difference.
> 
> I wouldn't normally respond to threads like this (leave it to people with more relevant skills/experience) but jyalpert seems to be in a similar situation to me and had already acknowledged lack of skills/confidence as the main issue.


I think your point of view is perfectly relevant. I wasn’t trying to say you shouldn’t contribute, I hope you didn’t take it that way.


----------



## findbuddha (Jul 17, 2016)

tommyrod74 said:


> I think your point of view is perfectly relevant. I wasn’t trying to say you shouldn’t contribute, I hope you didn’t take it that way.


No not at all!


----------



## jyalpert (Jan 20, 2021)

I also think the diagnosis that modern bikes make that particular skill - flat cornering - more difficult is 100% true. I'm on a 2020 Top Fuel, which I bought before I considered racing. It's super duper awesome for pulling off little drops and hopping over logs and stuff in recreational riding, and I have a lot of confidence pumping berms and bombing down rough stuff. But some of that probably comes at the cost of needing to get the weight way more forward in corners.

My experience from road racing is that a position more forward + down has WAY better handling. Just 1-2cm longer stem can totally change a road bike from sketchy to solid.

So yeah on my MTB I did some experimentation lowering and extending the front end, which made cornering easier, but made rough stuff and drops slightly horrifying. So my current setup has the saddle farther forward on the rails to make seated cornering easier, but requires me to consciously row forward to weight the front wheel in corners. It's not yet second nature. When I'm gassed or lazy and don't weight it properly, the front wheel starts to get away from me, which causes the MTB lizard brain doom loop of "scary thing in front, push back and away from it."

Honestly, taking flat corners fast never really mattered much until I started racing, though. I've done side-by-side comparisons to the faster guys in my category on Strava, and flat/loose/downhill corners are where I'm losing all the time.

My bike probably is not helping this situation, but I'm fairly certain I can learn to get better at it! Was thinking maybe if I got a slightly grippier front tire, or just lowered the pressure on what I have now, I could build my confidence in weighting the front wheel, then go back to the faster-rolling setup.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

jyalpert said:


> I also think the diagnosis that modern bikes make that particular skill - flat cornering - more difficult is 100% true. I'm on a 2020 Top Fuel, which I bought before I considered racing. It's super duper awesome for pulling off little drops and hopping over logs and stuff in recreational riding, and I have a lot of confidence pumping berms and bombing down rough stuff. But some of that probably comes at the cost of needing to get the weight way more forward in corners.
> 
> My experience from road racing is that a position more forward + down has WAY better handling. Just 1-2cm longer stem can totally change a road bike from sketchy to solid.
> 
> ...


This is going to sound like a bad solution, or at least an expensive one, but I asked the question knowing the answer (for me and my experience). I has the EXACT same issues you are describing with setup. 

I tried 6 different bikes in 14 months. I've always been "between sizes" at 5'9.5" or so, and I have defaulted to a large frame for years, as reach values used to be much shorter.

My current bike (Blur XC) solved my issues. It's the first medium I've owned in 10 years. I need a 70mm stem on it, compared to my large Blur with a 50mm. 

It's still as long as my 2018 (large) Hei Hei (at its time, a progressive XC bike) and it handles just as I want.


----------



## WithOrWithout87 (Jul 2, 2020)

findbuddha said:


> This is pretty much my exact situation in terms of fitness/strengths/weaknesses.
> 
> What size/compound Rekon do you run?
> 
> ...


I’m about the same weight and run much lower pressures. 18 f / 19 r. Aspen 2.4s on 28m rims without inserts. 

The combination of lower pressures, leaning the bike over, and switching to a flat bar to put more weight on the front has made a huge difference in my cornering. I used to feel like I lost a lot of time in the corners but now I actually make up ground on stronger riders. Improving fitness is my lowest hanging fruit at the moment I believe.


----------



## findbuddha (Jul 17, 2016)

WithOrWithout87 said:


> I’m about the same weight and run much lower pressures. 18 f / 19 r. Aspen 2.4s on 28m rims without inserts.
> 
> The combination of lower pressures, leaning the bike over, and switching to a flat bar to put more weight on the front has made a huge difference in my cornering. I used to feel like I lost a lot of time in the corners but now I actually make up ground on stronger riders. Improving fitness is my lowest hanging fruit at the moment I believe.


Thanks for the tips! I should try starting to creep my pressures a little lower and see how it goes. Yep already have a flat bar and low front end. Leaning the bike and loading the front wheel (with technique, not with panic braking ) is what I'm working on now.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

tommyrod74 said:


> I am in no way disparaging you or your skills, please don't take this as such. I have seen many posts similar to yours in recent months. But...
> 
> I don't recall, say, 4-5 years ago (before "modern" XC geometry and wide rims/tires for XC) so many people so concerned with a front tire's cornering ability being a main selling point for XC racing.
> 
> ...


For me this is very much what is happening. I used to ride traditional xc hardtails with Race king, Aspen, Ikon front tires and never really thought about front tire traction.
Now I have changed front tire to a Forekaster (currently on a Epic Evo w. 66.5 head angle), I am just not good enough at weighting the front tire to keep traction otherwise on flat twisty courses. The changed geometry has also lead to that I ride steeper, looser stuff than I would previously (there are some steeps that I know I walked down 10 years ago that I now ride) and with a semislick front tire I struggle with braking traction without the front tire washing out to either side. 

The solution for me has been more bikes! I have a Epic hardtail as well that I use for the flat, twisty stuff and that bike I can still ride with a low profile front tire, and it corners much faster (for me). I just have to remember to slow down before the rock gardens so I don't kill myself thinking I am on the full suspension. The Evo is still faster for the riding I enjoy the most (4+ hours technical rides) so I am very happy with that bike still.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

There is no doubt that slack long bikes, particularly when they have short chainstays, require considerably more grippy front tires.

You can make up some of it for sure with proper weighting and body positioning but that adds a lot of work, particularly when you have to slalom back and forth quickly.

I really like my Spur, but the moment someone offers the same bike but with the Large having a 5mm longer chainstay length this current frameset will be sold instantly.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Vittoria 22% off site-wide right now.


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

Where does the Ikon fit into the mix with newer Maxxis tires? ie. Aspen, Rekon Race, Ardent Race

I have one Ikon 2.35 in the tire pile. One Specialized FastTrak, too, for that matter.

I've been happy with the durability of the Ikon. Specialized (Control) have definitely punctured more frequently for me.


----------



## t-stoff (Jan 20, 2012)

I just bought a OIZ Carbon 29 TR and it came with 2.2 IKON and Ardent Race (both EXO TR Max Speed). 
They seemed heavy, but maybe it's my first experience on 29er as I was used to a 27.5 carbon hardtail with Xkings / Race kings.

So from what I've been reading here, everyone is one the 2.4, right? 
I was thinking on going Kenda Booster Pro or the Wolfpack Speed! 

Thanks!


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

t-stoff said:


> I was thinking on going Kenda Booster Pro or the Wolfpack Speed!


I've heard good things from some friends about the 2.4 Booster Pro, although it is a little undersized...good grip in the turns and lighter than 2.4 Maxxis tires.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

t-stoff said:


> I just bought a OIZ Carbon 29 TR and it came with 2.2 IKON and Ardent Race (both EXO TR Max Speed).
> They seemed heavy, but maybe it's my first experience on 29er as I was used to a 27.5 carbon hardtail with Xkings / Race kings.
> 
> Thanks!


I've always had decent luck with the 2.2 IKON, I did not like the 2.2 Ardent Race. I'm currently running 2.25 Rekon and 2.2 Ikon on 25 internal wheels and they work well. I'll go higher volume when I wear them out but trying to use up some of my old tires.


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

SLCpowderhound said:


> Ok, looking to try some different tires this year. Particularly looking for a little faster rear tire and looking at both the Vittoria Mezcal and Specialized Renegade. Leaning renegade because of price, availability (local shop has them) and weight. I usually run Maxxis Ikon rear and am just looking to try something new. Thoughts?
> 
> What tires are you running this year?


whats Vittoria's equivalent of maxxis asseagi?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Mazza. The 2.6 is actually 2.48" wide or so. 

It's a bit better than the Assagai imo. Sam traction, just rolls a bit better.

E22 soft is better than both either way.


----------



## Raikzz (Jul 19, 2014)

Anyone has real life comparison between specialized T5 and T7 tyres?


----------



## bikeranzin (Oct 2, 2018)

The more I get used to Aspen 2.25 front and rear, the more I like them. I _may_ try the 2.4 WTs on the front one of these days, but it’ll require conditions I’ve not seen yet racing in the west. An east coast race might change my tune.


----------



## t-stoff (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm yet to dive in on some of the websites that offer different rolling resistance tests (or weight), but what is the common idea behind the 2.4 instead of 2.2? A couple a years ago skinny and lighter was the norm.


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

Hexsense said:


> Still Wolfpack MTB Speed 2.4" rear, pair with Wolfpack MTB Cross 2.4" front.
> It performs, and last. So I'm not replacing it soon.


Have you tried the Race? Am wondering how the Cross compares to it. Am looking for something that can cope as an all weather front tyre - bit like Nobby Nic - but not sure if the Cross is up to the job in wet conditions.

Currently have Wolfpack Race front, Speed rear. Also have a pair of Rekon Races and Thunder Burts, so I think I'm all covered for dry/intermediate conditions, but just need something that will grip up front in the wet.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

t-stoff said:


> I'm yet to dive in on some of the websites that offer different rolling resistance tests (or weight), but what is the common idea behind the 2.4 instead of 2.2? A couple a years ago skinny and lighter was the norm.


Nino uses them. A ton of the pro racers are a huge fan of the 2.4 aspens. They run them at pretty low pressures (20psi or below). It gives them a ton of traction. 

Recently there has been more focus on a tire that conforms over the surface offers lower rolling resistance than a tire that has to bounce over every pebble. None of the website / rolling resistance methodologies really test that though and are all based on pretty smooth surfaces.


----------



## t-stoff (Jan 20, 2012)

cassieno said:


> Nino uses them. A ton of the pro racers are a huge fan of the 2.4 aspens. They run them at pretty low pressures (20psi or below). It gives them a ton of traction.
> 
> Recently there has been more focus on a tire that conforms over the surface offers lower rolling resistance than a tire that has to bounce over every pebble. None of the website / rolling resistance methodologies really test that though and are all based on pretty smooth surfaces.


Thanks! 
That's what I was trying to look for and make sense on this tire puzzle. 
I know on the road everyone is moving from 23 and 25s to 28 (I've certainly did!) and it has been great. 
...in XC I was out of the mindset on the 29ers / pure xc bikes, my xkings 2.2 served well on the 27.5 hardtail, now it's a different setup!
2.4. here we go


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Vamp said:


> Have you tried the Race? Am wondering how the Cross compares to it. Am looking for something that can cope as an all weather front tyre - bit like Nobby Nic - but not sure if the Cross is up to the job in wet conditions.
> 
> Currently have Wolfpack Race front, Speed rear. Also have a pair of Rekon Races and Thunder Burts, so I think I'm all covered for dry/intermediate conditions, but just need something that will grip up front in the wet.


I tried it. But never compare it to Cross on the same wheel.
Cross is always on my front wheel.
But rear was either Race or Speed, 2.25 and 2.4.
Race 2.4 is too much for rear wheel, Speed 2.25 is a little sketchy for my lack of bike handling skill.
Between Speed 2.4 and Race 2.25, I like Speed 2.4 more. It's faster, and I think they don't really grip worse in most condition, except deep mud.




t-stoff said:


> I'm yet to dive in on some of the websites that offer different rolling resistance tests (or weight), but what is the common idea behind the 2.4 instead of 2.2? A couple a years ago skinny and lighter was the norm.


The idea is wider tire with lower tread height roll faster and provide similar grip to narrower but meatier knobs.
Like, Rekon Race 2.4 instead of Rekon 2.25, for example.
It's not always true. But that's the idea.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I think the jury is still out on the WT tires. Last year, the folks who dominated (Fuckinger, Lecomte, and Richards) were mostly riding 2.2 to 2.25 tires. That said, I am glad they are experimenting with different equipment. 

On a personal level, I'm no faster on 2.35 tires vs 2.20s at least in a perceptible way.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> I think the jury is still out on the WT tires. Last year, the folks who dominated (Fuckinger, Lecomte, and Richards) were mostly riding 2.2 to 2.25 tires. That said, I am glad they are experimenting with different equipment.
> 
> On a personal level, I'm no faster on 2.35 tires vs 2.20s at least in a perceptible way.


Fuckinger! Thats a new one haha.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Haha, typo. I swear.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

Raikzz said:


> Anyone has real life comparison between specialized T5 and T7 tyres?


Also curious about this. Last year I tried T5 Fast Trak/Renegade and felt like the Fast Trak wasn't as grippy as the 3C Maxxis I was used to. If the T7 is closer I'd be happy to give it a go.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

csteven71 said:


> Also curious about this. Last year I tried T5 Fast Trak/Renegade and felt like the Fast Trak wasn't as grippy as the 3C Maxxis I was used to. If the T7 is closer I'd be happy to give it a go.


I think you only get the T7 on the cornering knobs of the S-Works Fast Trak. It probably will be lighter, but not as durable as the all T5 Fast Trak Control version.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

Stonerider said:


> I think you only get the T7 on the cornering knobs of the S-Works Fast Trak. It probably will be lighter, but not as durable as the all T5 Fast Trak Control version.


They make a full t7 control now. Fast Trak Control 2Bliss Ready T7 | Specialized.com 715 grams though.


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

I’ve checked the Specialized site—I don’t see mention of recommended rim size for the FastTrak/Renegade?


----------



## Raikzz (Jul 19, 2014)

csteven71 said:


> They make a full t7 control now. Fast Trak Control 2Bliss Ready T7 | Specialized.com 715 grams though.


Weird that there's so much weight diffrence, for renegade the weight for t5 and t7 is listed same at 645g, maybe a typo?


----------



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

Is anyone running the 2.6 Barzo? Ran the 2.35 last year and wondering if anyone can compare the two. Is the 2.6 really a 2.6 or does it run narrow?


----------



## meschenbruch (Jan 15, 2017)

Maybe a bit of useless information. I've recently tried a couple different combos and was surprised at the relative impacts of it.

I race on a trail that's probably 50% hardpack and 50% loose over hardpack. Not sure how I can rank myself within cat1/2/3 but I would suspect i'm in cat 2. Not close to winning the races overall, about 7-8mins off the winning time over a 50min course for the winners (our trails only claim to fame can be that Sam Gaze use to race here when we was a highschooler...). 

This year I was lazy and kepy my Bontrager XR4 2.3 team issue on the front (the older version that's probably more similar to the Maxxis Forecaster) and the new XR3 2.4 on the back (which I though was pretty similar looking to a Rekon Race). For the last couple of races I've swapped the XR4 for a Racing Ralph 2.35 (the old version) and that made me 1-1.5min faster overall, I wasn't expecting it to be that significant. So I decided to also change the rear as I managed to get an Ikon 2.35 max speed off a new bike that someone didn't want. This change made me 20-30 seconds faster. The Ikon had maybe a tiny bit less traction than the XR3 but in no way a concern during the race.


----------



## Raikzz (Jul 19, 2014)

People put way too much thought on the grip for xc, when the races are 90% times won or lost on climbs or straight, where suppleness and rolling resistance is important, especially if it's mass start race, where you can't go faster than the riders in front of you on the descends with your grippy tyre


----------



## t-stoff (Jan 20, 2012)

Raikzz said:


> People put way too much thought on the grip for xc, when the races are 90% times won or lost on climbs or straight, where suppleness and rolling resistance is important, especially if it's mass start race, where you can't go faster than the riders in front of you on the descends with your grippy tyre


Well I can relate. 
I have an enduro bike with beefy tires where I know I will be slow on the ups and fast on the downs, so grip is relevant and a trade-off I can live with. (and it's not a race)
On the xc type marathons I do around 60 to 70km 1200D+, even if the terrain is dificult, muddy or dusty, the difficult part is to manage pace and fatigue. 
What I'm seeing here is a supple tire can help on the fatigue parte of it, rolling over obstacles, but it could also hinder your speed in flat or uphill. 
I know my xkings were in the limits of grip most of the time, but they were fast. 
This discussion is really interesting! and I can see both points.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Raikzz said:


> People put way too much thought on the grip for xc, when the races are 90% times won or lost on climbs or straight, where suppleness and rolling resistance is important, especially if it's mass start race, where you can't go faster than the riders in front of you on the descends with your grippy tyre


I agree. Some of my local trails are super twisty because a lot of miles have to be packed into relatively small pieces of land. They are punchy both in terms of having to stop-go-accelerate and having lots of small climbs and descends. These are basically worse case scenario XC tracks for XC tires (By XC tracks, I'm talking about trails where fitness will be a limiting factor rather than long descends where fitness is not as important). Even on these trails, I'm always faster on supple, fasting rolling tires than burlier tires. The ability to roll freely when fitness and watts are at a premium just outweighs the micro seconds you gain in the corners.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Raikzz said:


> People put way too much thought on the grip for xc, when the races are 90% times won or lost on climbs or straight, where suppleness and rolling resistance is important, especially if it's mass start race, where you can't go faster than the riders in front of you on the descends with your grippy tyre


Amen.


----------



## Tugberg (10 mo ago)

I've been testing inserts this year as I was having to run 25 PSI in the rear to keep from flatting on the jagged, rocky trails we use here. Dropping from 25 PSI with no insert to 19-20 with an insert feels _significantly_ faster. The tire bounces around a lot less and seems to conform to the trail. Plus all the benefits of less fatigue, more corner traction, rim protection, etc.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Raikzz said:


> People put way too much thought on the grip for xc, when the races are 90% times won or lost on climbs or straight, where suppleness and rolling resistance is important, especially if it's mass start race, where you can't go faster than the riders in front of you on the descends with your grippy tyre


Or lost in sketchy corners where more grip would have been useful.
I like rear tyres that are light, supple, fast rollers and good standing climbers. Not many of them out there.


----------



## djr21589 (Oct 23, 2020)

Has anyone looked at the IRC Geo Claws? They look pretty dope, but the site leaves _a lot_ to be desired. I've reached out to IRC for specs. Reviews are non-existent.









Geo Claw


The new Geo-Claw is here. “This has every small detail I want in a MTB tire, I used this tire to break the all time records on both the White Rim Trail and Kokopelli Trail. A modern tire for technical trail without sacrificing speed.” —Peter Stetina 29 x 2.2 aramid 29 x 2.4 aramid




ircbike.com


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

djr21589 said:


> Has anyone looked at the IRC Geo Claws? They look pretty dope, but the site leaves _a lot_ to be desired. I've reached out to IRC for specs. Reviews are non-existent.


IRC's version of the Renegade?


----------



## djr21589 (Oct 23, 2020)

NordieBoy said:


> IRC's version of the Renegade?


Could very well be. At first glance I was thinking Wicked Will, but maybe the tread isn't as tall as the photos make it appear. The thing keeping me away from Renegades is the lack of Grid casing. I've had awful luck with control casing.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

djr21589 said:


> Could very well be. At first glance I was thinking Wicked Will, but maybe the tread isn't as tall as the photos make it appear. The thing keeping me away from Renegades is the lack of Grid casing. I've had awful luck with control casing.


They're using the Renegade with Grid casing at the Cape Epic Stage race this year.


----------



## djr21589 (Oct 23, 2020)

Stonerider said:


> They're using the Renegade with Grid casing at the Cape Epic Stage race this year.


That’s interesting to know. How’s you figure that out? Any rumors on when/if it’ll be available to public?


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

Went by my bike shop this afternoon and they had the Fast Trak/Renegade 2.35 Control T5 in stock. I grabbed a set to try this summer. Figure it’s time I quit racing on tires older than my bike.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

djr21589 said:


> That’s interesting to know. How’s you figure that out? Any rumors on when/if it’ll be available to public?


I saw a picture on Instagram and it's been mentioned on one of these forum threads.


----------



## djr21589 (Oct 23, 2020)

Stonerider said:


> I saw a picture on Instagram and it's been mentioned on one of these forum threads.


Found it!


__
http://instagr.am/p/CVQEuJ-MSyo/


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I put my 29x2.25 Mezcals back on for a more desert conditions race yesterday, where a tougher tire would be good. A little wider would probably have been faster through the sand, but otherwise super happy, those are so fast. I 'nailed' a nasty rocky climb that most of







the leaders walked, - good grip on the rocks!, even though they are a couple of years old.


----------



## Bird_7703 (12 mo ago)

Raikzz said:


> Weird that there's so much weight diffrence, for renegade the weight for t5 and t7 is listed same at 645g, maybe a typo?



my sworks renegades weighed 640 and my sworks fast track weighed 638 lol.... he renegage claimed weight was 585.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Town Challenge Short Track series starts this week, pulled out some 2.25 gumwalls from the spares bin and gonna send it. Would never run them in Bentonville outside of short track on a (theoretically) all grass track, but might help me stay on the lead lap a little longer. These Terrenos in a 60TPI reinforced casing would be an Aspen killer, a little too delicate for my ham-fisted riding as is in most XC applications here as there's too many sharp rocks in Arkansas.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

pinkpowa said:


> Town Challenge Short Track series starts this week, pulled out some 2.25 gumwalls from the spares bin and gonna send it. Would never run them in Bentonville outside of short track on a (theoretically) all grass track, but might help me stay on the lead lap a little longer. These Terrenos in a 60TPI reinforced casing would be an Aspen killer, a little too delicate for my ham-fisted riding as is in most XC applications here as there's too many sharp rocks in Arkansas.
> 
> View attachment 1977177


Do you have experience on both, Aspen and Terreno? Wondering how’s the cornering grip and rolling resistance between these two?


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Nakkipata said:


> Do you have experience on both, Aspen and Terreno? Wondering how’s the cornering grip and rolling resistance between these two?


Nope, I don't get on with Maxxis XC tires, quality and consistent performance just not there for me.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

I’m on the same boat. Maxxis tires are actually the only ones that I’ve punctured so badly that the sealant could not fix it. Just looking for my options for tires with low rolling resistance and still having some cornering grip.


----------



## djr21589 (Oct 23, 2020)

Nakkipata said:


> I’m on the same boat. Maxxis tires are actually the only ones that I’ve punctured so badly that the sealant could not fix it. Just looking for my options for tires with low rolling resistance and still having some cornering grip.


I’d check out the Mezcals with TNT. They score highly for low rolling resistance. Decent traction, and supposedly good sidewall protection with TNT. Weight around 740g 2.35”

Specialized with Grid casing is good as well, just a bit heavy. I have the ground controls right now and they are awesome; definitely faster tires though.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

I have GG 2.35 tires now for spring season. I have had Mezcals before and liked them, but that was like five years ago when they introduced the first graphene tires. Only thing that bothers me with Vittoria tires is the weight. My knowledge may not be up to date, but at least they used to be almost 100g heavier than competitors. I’m also not sure that I neccessarily need more sidewall protection because of my punctures have been right where knobs are located.

Where I need these tires is at Swiss Epic. It is a five days stage race in the Alps. A lot of climbing and long descents as well. My thought was that lighter is better (rotational mass), but on the other hand I cannot afford to puncture my tires there. I am using 29mm ID carbon rims. It seems that xc is going into high volume tires but I have been out of xc scene for years, so I really don’t know what’s good and whats not anymore. 2.25 vs 2.35/2.4 etc. I would appreciate any recommendations from you guys.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

I think most of the durable XC tires are 700g+ nowadays with all the brands. For something that was going to last me a week of racing some more challenging terrain I'd probably go Syerra 2.4's (~830g) or combine with Mezcal 2.35 TNT rear (~740g) for a little faster rolling. I'd also run at least a rear insert (40-80g) to save from pinch flats when I inevitably hit some square edge way too hard on a descent.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Mezcals are decent. I run the TNT ones because I like the sidewall protection. They have an XC-race casing that's lighter / more supple however, unsure what real weights would end up at. My Mezcals 29x2.35 weigh 720-740gs. I like the Mezcals because I don't really puncture them and I have really good luck. They would be my choice for a five day stage race where I don't want to puncture. I punctured my Aspen 2.4 two rides in. However, it has no "protection" because there are so many gaps between the tread and the casing and it weighs the same as the Mezcal.

I have also been really happy with the Continental crossking as a front tire.

I ran the Terrono's (35c) on a gravel bike in a super muddy race (20 miles of pavement and 20 miles of mud). They did exceptional. They had good sideknobs that helped save me and because they had no tread they never packed up, but the file tread did help find grip. I have no feedback on them as actual MTB tires though.

I like 2.35 tires because I run hardtails and the extra cush is nice. I would think over a 5 days comfort because the primary consideration (unless you are the very pointy end)


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

Thanks! I’ll give the Mezcals a try then. Inserts are not an option due to my rims not being compatible with inserts. Apparently, the middle section is designed to be so thin that the added pressure from the inserts may brake it.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

"I like 2.35 tires because I run hardtails and the extra cush is nice. I would think over a 5 days comfort because the primary consideration (unless you are the very pointy end) "

I would probably get 2.35s next time, my 2.25 Mezcals measure about 2.24 on a (28mm external rim), but I go back and forth, given how little the actual difference there is from 2.25 to 2.35, not worth switching from my 2.25s, but on initial purchase I would get the 2.35. 
My 2.25 Mezcals are wider than my 2.4 Ardent on the other bike (on slightly narrower old stans rims, - 2.25 Barzo is the same as 2.4 Ardent on old stans on the other/other bike per my calipers, and here I was thinking I had a big fat tire up front with that 2.4 Ardent on that bike...). I'm guessing 1 pound lower pressure is going to add a lot more cushion than 1/10" wider tires at the same pressure, maybe 'properly' low pressure?, or an insert and 4 psi lower is really where this is leading to? The silca tire pressure calculator is only for road?


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

I run inserts and can get away with 19-20f / 22.5-23.5r psi. Without inserts I run 27 psi rear (don't remember front) on i25 rims. I haven't noticed a difference in i28 and i25 with psi (or in any other way)

But I also run carbon rims because I think they are stronger (until they aren't) due to the hookless bead. So a couple impacts are okay.

I weigh 190 lbs and am a little better on the downhills than most XC riders.

The Pros all love Aspens right now. But, Mezcal's seem to be the crowd favorite on forums / at XC races. 

My 2.4 Aspen measured 2.55inches on an I28 rim. It felt real good on sand (probably the width), but I flatted it on a tree seed pod and didn't want to deal. So went back to what I know works for smashing into rocks (Mezcal) 

You really cannot go wrong with the Bazo / Mezcal combo. 

Recently, Suns_PSD recommended the Continental Crossking 2.3. So far I love this tire. It's like a better Barzo.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

It seems to be that Mezcals 2.35 are only available in TNT version and 2.25 versions are in TLR (XC-trail and XC-race casings). I would like test them both and see the difference myself. The question is that is the 29x2.25 Mezcal too narrow for my 29mm rims? Would the tire be too squared? Are the Mezcals still oversized as they used to be?


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

My 2.35 Mezcals are right in line / slightly undersized. On i25 rims they measure 2.3 at the casing. On I28 they measure 2.35 at the casing.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

Threw on some mezcals 2.35 f/2.25 rear last weekend. Went crazy weighing out the tires at the lbs.
Luckily i found and picked out of the bunch a 708g 2.35 and a 700g 2.25, grey walled trail/xc versions.
The others were easily 20+ grams over. Weigh em folks! 
I had Barzo 2.35 front (XC Trail) and rear 2.25 (tan XC Race) prior ..a great combo. But just wanna roll a little faster in summer. I think theyre still great all year round tires if i didnt have to or want to be swapping ever.


----------



## djr21589 (Oct 23, 2020)

Boulder Waffles said:


> Threw on some mezcals 2.35 f/2.25 rear last weekend. Went crazy weighing out the tires at the lbs.
> Luckily i found and picked out of the bunch a 708g 2.35 and a 700g 2.25, grey walled trail/xc versions.
> The others were easily 20+ grams over. Weigh em folks!
> I had Barzo 2.35 front (XC Trail) and rear 2.25 (tan XC Race) prior ..a great combo. But just wanna roll a little faster in summer. I think theyre still great all year round tires if i didnt have to or want to be swapping ever.


You think the extra weight is in the tread, casing, or just all over? I got my 2.4 Aspens today and one is almost 20g lighter I think. Both are over claimed weight.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

djr21589 said:


> You think the extra weight is in the tread, casing, or just all over? I got my 2.4 Aspens today and one is almost 20g lighter I think. Both are over claimed weight.


hard to say because the tread is pretty consistant but I can see some discrepancies in size on the sidewall going around. From what I gathered from a couple other reads that it was most likely the casing so.
but what I can say is that after riding the Barzos up from and rear the last 6 months is that the Mezcal’s do in fact roll better but they don’t feel as light as you want them to be (if that makes sense).
They ride very smooth and roll well. That’s for sure. One thing I read in a review was that they felt twitchy and not as stable at a fast pace as a front tire. I felt that for the first 40-50 miles or so but the more I broke it in that feelings gone away. Real fast and grippy tires. They like being pushed. Feels like a race tire. I like em.
This shouldn’t discredit the Barzo in any way. The Barzo set up was way perfect. An everyday rip it up tire. Picture a Nobby Nic XC if they made it. Perfect setup for the Top Fuel or others in that cat.


----------



## SLCpowderhound (Jul 12, 2010)

pinkpowa said:


> I think most of the durable XC tires are 700g+ nowadays with all the brands. For something that was going to last me a week of racing some more challenging terrain I'd probably go Syerra 2.4's (~830g) or combine with Mezcal 2.35 TNT rear (~740g) for a little faster rolling. I'd also run at least a rear insert (40-80g) to save from pinch flats when I inevitably hit some square edge way too hard on a descent.


Have you run the Syerra? Really considering this for a front tire and tend to like a little more aggressive front tire than typical XC tires.


----------



## rupps5 (Apr 9, 2010)

I bought a syerra but holly cow, the weight!


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

SLCpowderhound said:


> Have you run the Syerra? Really considering this for a front tire and tend to like a little more aggressive front tire than typical XC tires.


Yup, I like them for aggressive XC stuff, they roll surprisingly fast and have a little more bite than a Barzo for me. 60TPI works great up here in Arkansas with lots of sharp rocks, hope they use that casing on the Mezcal too...


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

I just got a Fast Trak T7 front to go with the Renegade T5 rear I've been running (and had one on the front as well, previously).

The Fast Trak T7 seems like a step up in cornering traction without a tradeoff in rolling resistance thus far. I'm a fan after 2 rides.


----------



## Raikzz (Jul 19, 2014)

Got my Specialized tyres today, for rear 2.35 renegade control T7 , claimed weight 645g, real weight 708g.... , for Front S-works renegade 2.35 , claimed 590g, real 628g. Total 101g more than claimed, pretty dissapointing. Only hope is that more weight means better durability


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

Raikzz said:


> Got my Specialized tyres today, for rear 2.35 renegade control T7 , claimed weight 645g, real weight 708g.... , for Front S-works renegade 2.35 , claimed 590g, real 628g. Total 101g more than claimed, pretty dissapointing. Only hope is that more weight means better durability


Those manufacturers really use the whole "specs within 10% is normal" grey area.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Several year old Ikon 2.35 - 60mm across the tread @30psi on i25 rims.
New(ish) OEM Forekaster 2.6 - 64mm across the tread @30psi on i25 rims.
Pretty close to spec.


----------



## Trond (Mar 7, 2004)

Nakkipata said:


> I have GG 2.35 tires now for spring season. I have had Mezcals before and liked them, but that was like five years ago when they introduced the first graphene tires. Only thing that bothers me with Vittoria tires is the weight. My knowledge may not be up to date, but at least they used to be almost 100g heavier than competitors. I’m also not sure that I neccessarily need more sidewall protection because of my punctures have been right where knobs are located.
> 
> Where I need these tires is at Swiss Epic. It is a five days stage race in the Alps. A lot of climbing and long descents as well. My thought was that lighter is better (rotational mass), but on the other hand I cannot afford to puncture my tires there. I am using 29mm ID carbon rims. It seems that xc is going into high volume tires but I have been out of xc scene for years, so I really don’t know what’s good and whats not anymore. 2.25 vs 2.35/2.4 etc. I would appreciate any recommendations from you guys.


I am also riding the Swiss Epic this year. Also did 2015 and 2017. First time on the old Fast Trak 2.25 Control front and rear. In 2017 same in the rear but Ground Conteol up front. FT grid in the back I think. 

Over the 2 years we encountered one puncture. 

185lbs middle of the pack guy with good descending skills (relative to the people around me). 

You want good braking traction on the front.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

Trond said:


> I am also riding the Swiss Epic this year. Also did 2015 and 2017. First time on the old Fast Trak 2.25 Control front and rear. In 2017 same in the rear but Ground Conteol up front. FT grid in the back I think.
> 
> Over the 2 years we encountered one puncture.
> 
> ...


How are the trails there? This is my first time in Swiss Epic and in the Alps doing mtb. I’m just just aiming to get to the finnish line, enjoying the views. This will be a father-son time for me, so just trying to get the most out of it. Besides, he is missing fingers from the other hand and therefore controlling both brakes from a single lever (Hope X2 Uno). I doubt that our speed will be super fast during the descents. Do you think that the mezcals would not be enough? If not, I may put the Barzo up then.

I can get my hands on all of the latest generation Specialized tires, but for some reason I feel more confident with Vittoria’s because I know better what those can handle and what not.


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

Go with what you know, I'd say. I would shy away from the Control casing unless the course is very gentle.


----------



## Trond (Mar 7, 2004)

Nakkipata said:


> How are the trails there? This is my first time in Swiss Epic and in the Alps doing mtb. I’m just just aiming to get to the finnish line, enjoying the views. This will be a father-son time for me, so just trying to get the most out of it. Besides, he is missing fingers from the other hand and therefore controlling both brakes from a single lever (Hope X2 Uno). I doubt that our speed will be super fast during the descents. Do you think that the mezcals would not be enough? If not, I may put the Barzo up then.
> 
> I can get my hands on all of the latest generation Specialized tires, but for some reason I feel more confident with Vittoria’s because I know better what those can handle and what not.


If you can google-Translate these these links you will find a ton of info and pictures. 

2015: SwissEpic 2015 - Sykkelritt og sykkelarrangementer

2017: SwissEpic 2017 - en reiseblogg - Sykkelritt og sykkelarrangementer

Mescals will do fine, but I would encourage you to have good traction on the front.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

Trond said:


> If you can google-Translate these these links you will find a ton of info and pictures.
> 
> 2015: SwissEpic 2015 - Sykkelritt og sykkelarrangementer
> 
> ...


Thanks, great info!


----------



## Trond (Mar 7, 2004)

Nakkipata said:


> Thanks, great info!


PM me if you have any questions. Back to tires


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

The steeper/looser it gets the more I'd lean toward a Barzo on the front.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Been lowering tire pressures in practice and then races this season. With 2.35 Barzos and 30.5mm internal rims at >195lbs race weight, I hit some hard, short descents and drops just fine at 14psi front/ 16 psi rear. 

I've been practicing at 13/15psi over the past couple of weeks. The tires transition into loose corners better and of course the float is great with the notoriously harsh Brain SID. I'm concerned more about tearing off the bead and burping than dinging a rim at this rate, getting the heeby-jeebies but overall volume is definitely much better with wide rims.


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> Been lowering tire pressures in practice and then races this season. With 2.35 Barzos and 30.5mm internal rims at >195lbs race weight, I hit some hard, short descents and drops just fine at 14psi front/ 16 psi rear.
> 
> I've been practicing at 13/15psi over the past couple of weeks. The tires transition into loose corners better and of course the float is great with the notoriously harsh Brain SID. I'm concerned more about tearing off the bead and burping than dinging a rim at this rate, getting the heeby-jeebies but overall volume is definitely much better with wide rims.


You sound like a good candidate for tire inserts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

What’s the consensus current best choice for a light weight insert for XC racing? Been looking at this option for myself as well.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

tommyrod74 said:


> What’s the consensus current best choice for a light weight insert for XC racing? Been looking at this option for myself as well.


I think most people like the tubolights since they have a really low weight.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

chomxxo said:


> Been lowering tire pressures in practice and then races this season. With 2.35 Barzos and 30.5mm internal rims at >195lbs race weight, I hit some hard, short descents and drops just fine at 14psi front/ 16 psi rear.
> 
> I've been practicing at 13/15psi over the past couple of weeks. The tires transition into loose corners better and of course the float is great with the notoriously harsh Brain SID. I'm concerned more about tearing off the bead and burping than dinging a rim at this rate, getting the heeby-jeebies but overall volume is definitely much better with wide rims.


And I reversely start creeping up in tire pressure.
Being 145lbs using 2.4" Wolfpack MTB Cross and Wolfpack MTB Speed on 29.9mm internal width as measured. I started with 14psi front and 17psi rear.
I slowly move up to 17psi front and 20psi rear and find that I still perform the same on the trail. But being faster on gravel road and tarmac road on the way commute to my local trail and back.
Harder rear tire is more than compensated by lowering compression setting on my rear shock (IPA position 2 to IPA position 1 on Manitou Mara Inline). The fork though, I'm already a bit too light for stock tune Fit4 Fox 34SC in open mode with minimal LSC setting. Will have a chance to experiment with softer fork really soon.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Aside from the pressure points (sorry dad joke, couldn't resist), your 3psi vs my 2psi split in front/rear is something I've thought about. Maybe that's a more appropriate ratio. I've thought about putting a scale under the front tire, then the rear tire to measure, but that would be a kind of difficult kludge I'll bet.

My wheelset and tire setup is specifically for XC racing, race day. I do have a set of trainers too that I kick about and ride to the trails during the off-season. 

I've used and raced some basic foam inserts. The more advanced (and difficult to install) Cushcores would be heavy but would ensure the bead stays seated below 15psi. IMHO foam inserts are great for 25mm and smaller rims as a retrofit to gain the stability and low pressures of wider rims. 

I've also tested ultra-wide 39mm internal rims with 2.2" tires (to stay on topic, Nobby Nic front, Race King rear), and they turn into "virtual 2.4s." It just so happens I got a deal on a used Bontrager Line Plus wheelset that I can bang about in the rocks. 








Bontrager Line Plus Boost TLR 29" MTB Wheel | Trek Bikes


Enhance your cycling experience with Bontrager Line Plus Boost TLR 29 MTB Wheel. Find the best gear at trekbikes.com and your local Trek retailer. Shop now!




www.trekbikes.com





Frankly I think the rim/tire pairing was strongly skewed in the 1990s and we're still recovering--carbon 35s with 2.2s would not be a bad race setup, maybe even weight-competitive with 25/2.35/inserts. It would allow the pressure to be above 15psi and probably hold onto the bead better in race situations, with some real confidence in corners.






Hexsense said:


> And I reversely start creeping up in tire pressure.
> Being 145lbs using 2.4" Wolfpack MTB Cross and Wolfpack MTB Speed on 29.9mm internal width as measured. I started with 14psi front and 17psi rear.
> I slowly move up to 17psi front and 20psi rear and find that I still perform the same on the trail. But being faster on gravel road and tarmac road on the way commute to my local trail and back.
> Harder rear tire is more than compensated by lowering compression setting on my rear shock (IPA position 2 to IPA position 1 on Manitou Mara Inline). The fork though, I'm already a bit too light for stock tune Fit4 Fox 34SC in open mode with minimal LSC setting. Will have a chance to experiment with softer fork really soon.


----------



## Tugberg (10 mo ago)

tommyrod74 said:


> What’s the consensus current best choice for a light weight insert for XC racing? Been looking at this option for myself as well.


I've been testing tubolight in my race bike and rimpact on my practice bike (same tire for both). I still get a little rim strike once in a while with tubolight if I get too aggressive in the chunk. Rimpact is good to plow through just about anything though.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Had a chance to race on the "heavy" Vittoria Syerras this weekend. Pedalers Bash 40 mile xc race had a new route this year as there was a ton of rain the week before, and it rained for the first 45 mins of the race with temps in the high 40's. Knew it was going to be a wild one so changed from my usual XC setup of Barzo/Mezcal to these, adding 200g in the process, added a fender and a couple teeth to the rear cog on SS cause I knew it was gonna be like that. Aside from an unplanned dismount on off camber wet roots the tires kept me upright and kept air in them all day long, 19/19 with an insert in the rear (rider weight around 80kg). Saddle got jacked on last descent so had to finish last few minutes standing but got last spot on SS podium and top 15 overall which is a pretty good day for me. Tons of DNF's and mechanicals, I was very pleased with the Syerras in slippery (but not muddy) and sharp conditions, made some money and had fun.

I'll probably phase out my use of 2.35 Barzos in favor of the 2.4 Syerra because I think for most of the rocky stuff around here the tougher casing is worth the weight penalty of ~90g. I'm curious to see how the Mezcal tread pattern would be in this "downcountry" casing, in dry conditions that might work really well for me. 

Still on gumwall Mezcal/Terreno 2.25's for short track racing but wouldn't dream of taking them on singletrack, rolling fast and helping me stay on lead lap of weekly ST races as long as Team USA juniors don't show up to murder us all.


----------



## JimiMimni (Jun 2, 2008)

I feel like I've gotten enough time on them to chime in that the new T5 Renegades are pretty impressive. I've been riding them in the 2.35 size for about a month and I have yet to find a major fault with them. I've taken them out through "Why are you trying to ride an XC bike here?" trails and on some 80km+ marathon days without issue. They're very fast rolling, thus far have proven puncture resistant and have been more than adequate traction for the intended terrain. That said, running it as a front is slightly lacking in braking power on steeper stuff, and the tires do not respond well if you have poor cornering technique. These guys need to be rolled over to stick well, and provided you do that, they're really confidence inspiring. 

27 inner width rims, rider weight between 84 and 78kg, so up to 88kg kitted out for a long day. 18/19PSI front and 19.5-21PSI rear.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

JimiMimni said:


> I feel like I've gotten enough time on them to chime in that the new T5 Renegades are pretty impressive. I've been riding them in the 2.35 size for about a month and I have yet to find a major fault with them. I've taken them out through "Why are you trying to ride an XC bike here?" trails and on some 80km+ marathon days without issue. They're very fast rolling, thus far have proven puncture resistant and have been more than adequate traction for the intended terrain. That said, running it as a front is slightly lacking in braking power on steeper stuff, and the tires do not respond well if you have poor cornering technique. These guys need to be rolled over to stick well, and provided you do that, they're really confidence inspiring.
> 
> 27 inner width rims, rider weight between 84 and 78kg, so up to 88kg kitted out for a long day. 18/19PSI front and 19.5-21PSI rear.


By chance you ride the pre-T5 Renegades to compare? I've found some pre-T5 Renegades in 29x2.35 for 50% off (local dealer needs to clear his last few). Usage rear only dry conditions. I've used them before, but never tried a T5 version in 2.35.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tommyrod74 said:


> I did notice with the Renegade Control that I needed a little more pressure (23 psi vs. 20-21 psi) to avoid rolling them in corners. The sidewalls are rather supple. Nice tires.


Can you compare the newer T5 compound to the last gen? Currently on the crowd favorite Barzo/Mezcal 2.35, but looking for a lighter dry loose over hardpack set (T7 Fast Trak option).


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

The new 2.35 T5 Renegade has more grip than the old 2.3 Renegade Control. At least that's my experience.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

Stonerider said:


> The new 2.35 T5 Renegade has more grip than the old 2.3 Renegade Control. At least that's my experience.


As a rear in dry conditions is the extra grip beneficial as a race tire? Or does the extra grip pay dividends when it's loose over hard?


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

westin said:


> As a rear in dry conditions is the extra grip beneficial as a race tire? Or does the extra grip pay dividends when it's loose over hard?


It just provides a little more grip than the old Renegade but it's basically the same tire, but better.


----------



## JimiMimni (Jun 2, 2008)

westin said:


> Can you compare the newer T5 compound to the last gen? Currently on the crowd favorite Barzo/Mezcal 2.35, but looking for a lighter dry loose over hardpack set (T7 Fast Trak option).





Stonerider said:


> It just provides a little more grip than the old Renegade but it's basically the same tire, but better.


I don't have direct comparisons between the old Renegade and the new, but Stonerider's commentary jives with the review from one of my coworkers who has time on both tires.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I've been using the last generation 2.3 Renegade controls and swapping between it and an Aspen 2.25 on the rear. The Renegade is better in every way as a rear - more supple, controlled drift, better climbing traction, longer wearing, faster off road (due to the suppleness). I can't compare it to the new T5, but the old one was probably the best rear tire I've used. If you can get them for a deal, I'd jump on it. 

But make sure it's the Gripton version not an even older version from two generations ago. The last generation didn't come in 2.35s, only 2.3.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

chomxxo said:


> Frankly I think the rim/tire pairing was strongly skewed in the 1990s and we're still recovering--carbon 35s with 2.2s would not be a bad race setup, maybe even weight-competitive with 25/2.35/inserts. It would allow the pressure to be above 15psi and probably hold onto the bead better in race situations, with some real confidence in corners.


Don't you end up cornering on the sidewalls with this setup? Seems like the tread wouldn't be wide enough for the new profile the wider rim gives the tire.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

westin said:


> Can you compare the newer T5 compound to the last gen? Currently on the crowd favorite Barzo/Mezcal 2.35, but looking for a lighter dry loose over hardpack set (T7 Fast Trak option).


Like the above posters said - similar but better. Not really night-and-day. I'd still happily run the previous 2.3 Control as a rear.

The previous S-Works put me off S-Works tires for good, it lasted one race before a catastrophic tear. Wow, was it supple, though. What a great ride.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

I'd just add that though we aren't discussing wheels, my current setup of 2.35 Fast Trak T7 front/ 2.35 Renegade T5 rear is mounted to We Are One 27mm internal carbon rims with Berd spokes and DT Swiss 350 (the new ones) hubs. 

This is the best wheel setup I've yet run - the combo of the relative supple tires, the wide-ish (I know, only 27mm) rims, and the Berd spokes make everything, well, quiet. It feels like the trail has a thin layer of carpet over it. Much less vibration coming through the bike. I feel it's a real advantage. Great grip as well.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Any input on the new Pirelli Scorpion XC RC 29 x 2.4 Prowall (660 gram carcass) compared to my current Mezcal as a rear tire?

I like the Mezcal just fine really but wouldn't mind a hair more width, particularly if I don't lose any RR.

Thx.


----------



## Raikzz (Jul 19, 2014)

I find the s-works 2.35 renegade on my 26mm rims for Front tyre almost too supple, i have to run about 18-19psi, lower than that and tyre starts to roll on fast berms, with 2.25 aspen i could use 1 or even 2 psi less.


----------



## EW4001 (May 27, 2016)

I'm running a 2.2 Spesh Ground Control 2.35 on the front and a Fast Track 2.2 on the rear of my XC bike. 17 lbs in the front, 19 lbs in the rear. I weight 150 lbs. The new Spesh tires are super grippy and stable in high speed turns in a variety of race conditions


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Raikzz said:


> I find the s-works 2.35 renegade on my 26mm rims for Front tyre almost too supple, i have to run about 18-19psi, lower than that and tyre starts to roll on fast berms, with 2.25 aspen i could use 1 or even 2 psi less.


i had to run ~23 psi with the S-Works, and I’m only 160 lbs., or I’d roll it. I made the rear S-Works rub the chainstay more than once cornering hard before I learned to run more pressure than usual.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

tommyrod74 said:


> i had to run ~23 psi with the S-Works, and I’m only 160 lbs., or I’d roll it. I made the rear S-Works rub the chainstay more than once cornering hard before I learned to run more pressure than usual.


I haven't used a specialized tire for a long time and after watching people for years try and fail to keep air in them I swore I never would use them. But, in the ultimate durability test (racing in Akansa) they appeared to be quite a sucesful tire. I really only know of one flat among the riders racing them, where as every other brand suffered from a lot flats. 

I swear 10% of the worlds XC tires were destroyed last week in Arkansa.


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

I’ve had no luck with most Specialized tires I’ve purchased with the Control casing—breathe on them and they puncture. But I decided to try a new Fast Trak with the Grid casing, and I’m hoping for durability, as I’ve been impressed so far. I’ll admit that I liked the previous pricing structure from Specialized better, but now anything from Maxxis seems to be well over the $100 mark in stores. 

Strangely enough, though, I have a pair of Renegade 1.95s that I got from a local racer’s discard pile and have run those on my rigid 29er. They seem to thrive on abuse, and weigh about the same as the tires on my gravel bike. I’d run them on my gravel bike if it wasn’t a limited-clearance CX frame.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I've never punctured a Spesh Control casing and feel that Grid is too much.


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

Suns_PSD said:


> Any input on the new Pirelli Scorpion XC RC 29 x 2.4 Prowall (660 gram carcass) compared to my current Mezcal as a rear tire?
> 
> I like the Mezcal just fine really but wouldn't mind a hair more width, particularly if I don't lose any RR.
> 
> Thx.


I'm running the 2.2's currently (since beginning of Feb) and really enjoying the grip, durability and puncture sealing (they don't tear easily).
I've got a set o the yellow side wall font 2.4's that will be going onto my wheels for the next two XCO's (lat cup race and Provincial champs race so some feedback incoming shortly.
I've used the Scorpion MTB H front and rear, the Scorpion S upfront and Scorpion R at the rear as well. The S-R combo is really great in 2.2 for XCO and the 2.4 awesome for trail. They wear faster than the new XC Race though.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

LMN said:


> I haven't used a specialized tire for a long time and after watching people for years try and fail to keep air in them I swore I never would use them. But, in the ultimate durability test (racing in Akansa) they appeared to be quite a sucesful tire. I really only know of one flat among the riders racing them, where as every other brand suffered from a lot flats.
> 
> I swear 10% of the worlds XC tires were destroyed last week in Arkansa.
> [/QUOTE





NordieBoy said:


> I've never punctured a Spesh Control casing and feel that Grid is too much.


Same here. Demolished the S-Works m short order (though it was prior generation 2.3 Renegade) but Control (new generation) has been superb.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

I ride one of my bikes with Ardent 2.25 front and Ikon 2.20 rear. I really like this combo. Especially on technical races with a lot of short turns. The side lugs of the Ardent are providing a lot of confidence and you can just throw your whole body weight sideways into the corners. While fast rolling too.

For my other bike I just have ordered an Ardent 2.40 and will pair this with an already mounted Rekon Race 2.35 on the rear. Will be really interesting to learn how this combo will work out.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

LMN said:


> I haven't used a specialized tire for a long time and after watching people for years try and fail to keep air in them I swore I never would use them. But, in the ultimate durability test (racing in Akansa) they appeared to be quite a sucesful tire. I really only know of one flat among the riders racing them, where as every other brand suffered from a lot flats.
> 
> I swear 10% of the worlds XC tires were destroyed last week in Arkansa.


...and this is why I run the 830g Vittoria Syerra here in NWA. The 60tpi casing with bead to bead reinforcement it's basically a faster rolling 2.4 Rekon EXO+ to translate for Maxxis folks. I'd love to see this casing on the Mezcal and Terreno tread pattern....


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

GSPChilliwack said:


> I’ve had no luck with most Specialized tires I’ve purchased with the Control casing—breathe on them and they puncture. But I decided to try a new Fast Trak with the Grid casing, and I’m hoping for durability, as I’ve been impressed so far. I’ll admit that I liked the previous pricing structure from Specialized better, but now anything from Maxxis seems to be well over the $100 mark in stores.
> 
> Strangely enough, though, I have a pair of Renegade 1.95s that I got from a local racer’s discard pile and have run those on my rigid 29er. They seem to thrive on abuse, and weigh about the same as the tires on my gravel bike. I’d run them on my gravel bike if it wasn’t a limited-clearance CX frame.


I've found my Renegade controls to be more durable than my Fast Traks despite weighing about 50 grams less. I got over 1500 miles last season on a Renegade on the rear. Suffered one puncture from a six inch honey locust thorn that sealed up right away with Orange Seal endurance, but that's about it. On the other hand, I haven't worn out a Fast Trak (previous generation) yet. They seem to fail prematurely due to cuts, slices, etc.


----------



## FactoryMatt (Apr 25, 2018)

Suns_PSD said:


> Any input on the new Pirelli Scorpion XC RC 29 x 2.4 Prowall (660 gram carcass) compared to my current Mezcal as a rear tire?
> 
> I like the Mezcal just fine really but wouldn't mind a hair more width, particularly if I don't lose any RR.
> 
> Thx.


Yea theyre great. I run the 2.2 rc prowall rear. 2.2 M front. Pretty sure theyre made by Vittoria. I cut a Lite slightly but they held pretty well all things considered.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

At this point of my ocd shopping for replacement race tires, I'm probably going to order last year's set which gave me no issues. Buying from bikeinn the prices are less than $50 USD delivered for Barzo/Mezcal which is wildly popular in my neck of the woods.
I'm a Specialized fanboy, and would like to try the T5 Renegade/T7 Fast Trak, and 15% off $65 msrp from the Speci site is good in this market.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it....but I like to make things difficult and ruminate on things that don't matter in the big picture, ha.


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

Has anyone sampled the new Kenda range yet? New karma and booster pro looked promising . The older booster pro had great durability and ok grip but came up narrow. Hoping the new versions resolve some of these issues


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Does no one at all ride the Schwalbe Thunder Burt on hardpack (with some rocks) just cause it's too darn sketchy? I use the Rock Razor often on my big bike and it works quite well for me unless it gets really steep for a long time.

Can't find any reviews written this decade.

I have so few rear tire traction problems on my DC bike even on the Mezcal I'm quite curious how far I can push this whole 'fast rolling' thing.

Thoughts?


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

Suns_PSD said:


> Does no one at all ride the Schwalbe Thunder Burt on hardpack (with some rocks) just cause it's too darn sketchy? I use the Rock Razor often on my big bike and it works quite well for me unless it gets really steep for a long time.
> 
> Can't find any reviews written this decade.
> 
> ...


I've run Thunder Burts and found them great as long as you don't end up in mud. I was happy with them front and rear and used them often for races in southern Utah where there wasn't much time to be gained with cornering grip (hardpack with some rocks).

I'm currently racing on Race Kings, but may go back to Burts in the 2.35 version once I wear them out. I've been happy with both.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

The TB looks like it has decent side knobs so I'm sure it will be fine, sketchwise. I am just worried about how fragile it is. Plus it is now over 700g and costs close to $90. When running tire experiments, it just isn't at the top of my priority list. I would probably try the new Race King first


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Thanks.

Have an R2 order going in so now is a good time to try some some Schwalbes.

Thanks again.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Cool, keep us updated on how they work for you.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

The Race King is known to be really fast, however it's also really narrow and light weight. I consider both of those negatives.

I really don't want too light because or our rocks combined with my 'Hippo on roller skates' riding style. The Thunder Burt is 700 grams on a 2.35" width and in the Super Trail compound which has held up well in the past. With such shallow knobs in the center, punctures in that area can be a real problem so best to go with the heavier version if you ride rocks as I do.

I've also found that weight has nearly no effect on rolling resistance, it's all about tread pattern and compounds.

Extra width can make up for a lot of tread limitations. A Thunder Burt at 2.35" width (26mm ID rear wheel) very well might have more drive traction than a decently knobbed 2.2" for instance. So if it rolls better than the 2.2, while having better traction and flotation because of it's extra width, well what other metrics matter? Weight doesn't if it performs better.

I'll report back in a month or so.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Wider tire with lower knobs roll faster and provide similar grip in dry hard surface.
It's when things become muddy that extra width cannot replace deeper lugs.

So it seems, in XC race, wide semi slick in dry and narrower tire with deeper tread in wet is the go-to solution.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Brad said:


> Has anyone sampled the new Kenda range yet? New karma and booster pro looked promising . The older booster pro had great durability and ok grip but came up narrow. Hoping the new versions resolve some of these issues


Was the Booster Pro change at all?
I knew they are releasing Karma 2 (grippy allrounder) and Rush (faster and less grip than Booster Pro). But I don't see anything change to the Booster Pro. They only add new Booster Pro sizes for 20″, 24″ and 26″ wheels. Or Are you not using 29" wheel?


https://www.pinkbike.com/news/kenda-announces-two-new-tires-for-60th-anniversary.html


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

Hexsense said:


> Was the Booster Pro change at all?
> I knew they are releasing Karma 2 (grippy allrounder) and Rush (faster and less grip than Booster Pro). But I don't see anything change to the Booster Pro. They only add new Booster Pro sizes for 20″, 24″ and 26″ wheels. Or Are you not using 29" wheel?
> 
> 
> https://www.pinkbike.com/news/kenda-announces-two-new-tires-for-60th-anniversary.html


i was told by the distributor new rubber compounds all round so that would be for the Booster Pro as well but also a casing that is true to size. The 2.4's I used were narrower than my 2.2 Pirelli Scorpion


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

Suns_PSD said:


> Does no one at all ride the Schwalbe Thunder Burt on hardpack (with some rocks) just cause it's too darn sketchy? I use the Rock Razor often on my big bike and it works quite well for me unless it gets really steep for a long time.
> 
> Can't find any reviews written this decade.
> 
> ...


I have a pair of Burt's, and I do like them. Ran them front and rear for a sandy (part beach) race in South Wales, and they were brilliant at 13/14psi. I have one on the back still, paired up with a Wolfpack Race on the front. That's a great combo on dry terrain, would want more knobblies if it got damp. The grip on dry roots and rocks is very good, loose over hard is a bit slip-slidey but predictably so.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

Suns_PSD said:


> Does no one at all ride the Schwalbe Thunder Burt on hardpack (with some rocks) just cause it's too darn sketchy? I use the Rock Razor often on my big bike and it works quite well for me unless it gets really steep for a long time.
> 
> Can't find any reviews written this decade.
> 
> ...


I know a few riders who used to ride Thunder Burts all the time but gave up after too many punctures through the tread during races. I think it is really fast rolling if you know that you can stay away from sharp rocks, and of course the limited braking traction if you use it in the front.


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

Skier78 said:


> I know a few riders who used to ride Thunder Burts all the time but gave up after too many punctures through the tread during races. I think it is really fast rolling if you know that you can stay away from sharp rocks, and of course the limited braking traction if you use it in the front.


Was that the older lighter carcass though? I think the new heavier ones are pretty robust, at least in my experience.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

Vamp said:


> Was that the older lighter carcass though? I think the new heavier ones are pretty robust, at least in my experience.


It is 2-3 years ago, so could be the older carcass if that has been changed recently. I don't ride Schwalbe myself so I don't know their range very well. I have had similar problems with Maxxis Aspen though, so I think the semislick tires with very little pattern in the middle in general are more sensitive to punctures from sharp rocks, basically less rubber to stop the rocks.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

My new xc bike came with the previous gen Specialized Fast Trak (Grid Gripton 2.1) and Renegade (Control Gripton 2.3). For one reason or another, the bike feels sluggish compared to my old Scott Spark with 2.25 Aspens even though it is a good 1-2lbs lighter. The only thing I can think of is the tires, any input or thoughts?


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

utmtbrider said:


> My new xc bike came with the previous gen Specialized Fast Trak (Grid Gripton 2.1) and Renegade (Control Gripton 2.3). For one reason or another, the bike feels sluggish compared to my old Scott Spark with 2.25 Aspens even though it is a good 1-2lbs lighter. The only thing I can think of is the tires, any input or thoughts?


Well, a new bike brings a ton of new variables to the equation, weight only being one of them. Hard to say.

In my experience, the Specialized tires are faster rolling than the Aspen, all other things being equal. They aren’t equal here.

Finally, are you certain that the bike is actually slower? My current set up with fast rolling tires, vibration damping wheels, and well-tuned suspension actually feels slower but it’s considerably faster on the trail, as measured by the stopwatch.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Skier78 said:


> It is 2-3 years ago, so could be the older carcass if that has been changed recently. I don't ride Schwalbe myself so I don't know their range very well. I have had similar problems with Maxxis Aspen though, so I think the semislick tires with very little pattern in the middle in general are more sensitive to punctures from sharp rocks, basically less rubber to stop the rocks.


Schwalbe carcasses have all been significantly reinforced about a year ago. All models weigh more, they also hold up better ime.

Also, what's this 'mud' stuff some of you mentioned? Don't ride in it at all. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## ligniteminer (May 10, 2012)

Anyone run a Mezcal backwards on the rear? I just realized I mounted it backwards and don't feel like changing it... And for once I went with a low tread XC tire and the first race of the season is looking to be a muddy day... Should I throw the Barzos on?


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

ligniteminer said:


> Anyone run a Mezcal backwards on the rear? I just realized I mounted it backwards and don't feel like changing it... And for once I went with a low tread XC tire and the first race of the season is looking to be a muddy day... Should I throw the Barzos on?


 Mezcal will probably grip better mounted backwards.
Barzo for the mud for sure


----------



## OttaCee (Jul 24, 2013)

Because I like living on the edge, just ran Aspen 2.4 front and rear this weekend. While I love the volume and speed, continue to have issues with braking and high speed corners. After the 2nd front tire washout, held back the rest of the race. So now looking for a new front tire thats 2.4'ish in size with bit more grip that was pair with 2.4 Aspen rear.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

OttaCee said:


> Because I like living on the edge, just ran Aspen 2.4 front and rear this weekend. While I love the volume and speed, continue to have issues with braking and high speed corners. After the 2nd front tire washout, held back the rest of the race. So now looking for a new front tire thats 2.4'ish in size with bit more grip that was pair with 2.4 Aspen rear.


I had the same experience with the 2.25 Aspen last season. It was awesome until it just randomly broke loose in the front and caused some problems.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

The Rekon Race is a great front tire to pair with an Aspen rear. Fast and if the tire will start to loose grip, it will let you know with some warnings first.

With some more knobs, yet still fast rolling and with great side grip, the Ardent 2.40 can be a nice tire too to pair with an Aspen rear.


----------



## Mongoguy (Oct 16, 2019)

OttaCee said:


> Because I like living on the edge, just ran Aspen 2.4 front and rear this weekend. While I love the volume and speed, continue to have issues with braking and high speed corners. After the 2nd front tire washout, held back the rest of the race. So now looking for a new front tire thats 2.4'ish in size with bit more grip that was pair with 2.4 Aspen rear.


2.35 Barzo or 2.6 Icon have been working great for me in eastern PA.
2.35 Barzo is nice and beefy and sticks corners. 
2.6 Icon is actually closer to same size as 2.35 Barzo and really surprised me with how well it rolls.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

OttaCee said:


> Because I like living on the edge, just ran Aspen 2.4 front and rear this weekend. While I love the volume and speed, continue to have issues with braking and high speed corners. After the 2nd front tire washout, held back the rest of the race. So now looking for a new front tire thats 2.4'ish in size with bit more grip that was pair with 2.4 Aspen rear.


I greatly prefer the Fask Trak/Renegade Control combo (T7 front/T5 rear) to any Aspen I've run, WT or otherwise.


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

tommyrod74 said:


> I greatly prefer the Fask Trak/Renegade Control combo (T7 front/T5 rear) to any Aspen I've run, WT or otherwise.


I’d be interested in a Renegade Grid if they sold one.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

GSPChilliwack said:


> I’d be interested in a Renegade Grid if they sold one.


I've yet to kill a Control version, and it's not been for lack of trying. That said, I'm not heavy and I'm fairly easy on equipment, and there aren't a ton of jagged rocks here, so YMMV.

On the one really rocky course I raced (Carvin's Cove, near Roanoke, VA) they were awesome.


----------



## Dave Mac (Jan 9, 2017)

Does anyone know where I can get a kenda booster pro 2.4 tr 29inch. non to be found in the states that I know of.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Dave Mac said:


> Does anyone know where I can get a kenda booster pro 2.4 tr 29inch. non to be found in the states that I know of.


Gotta order from Europe, one of my riding buddies just picked up some. Weight was 80g+ different from lightest to heaviest IIRC


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

Dave Mac said:


> Does anyone know where I can get a kenda booster pro 2.4 tr 29inch. non to be found in the states that I know of.


When you do find them let me know


----------



## Trond (Mar 7, 2004)

A few T7 tires came in the mail today. Weights on the box.


----------



## Mongoguy (Oct 16, 2019)

Dave Mac said:


> Does anyone know where I can get a kenda booster pro 2.4 tr 29inch. non to be found in the states that I know of.


The Boosters look like and sound like a great tire. I see the now have 2.6 listed on Kenda website. Can’t firm them anywhere….. can’t wait to give them a go.


----------



## Dave Mac (Jan 9, 2017)

Mongoguy said:


> The Boosters look like and sound like a great tire. I see the now have 2.6 listed on Kenda website. Can’t firm them anywhere….. can’t wait to give them a go.


I run the 2.6 on the front it only weighs 715 grams, I had a spare and just mounted it up on the back, curios to see how a 2.6 does on the back, it actually only measures 2.4 plus


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

Hey folks, 

Where does the Barzo fit in vs. the Fasttrak or Ground Control Grid (Control casings are just too delicate around here for me--and I'm not too hard on tires as a rule). This is for "Tech/BC XC" racing. I can get Barzos for a lot less than the Specialized offering, which is a factor if performance is relatively close. I've had good luck in the past with the Ikon 2.35. I find the Rekons a bit slow, though might consider running one up front (with the advantage of already having one). Durability is pretty important, as I'd rather be turning the pedals than repairing at the side of the trail. Much as I enjoy the loam shower I get from Minions, I'm OK with less traction and a "looser" feel--I actually enjoy the bike moving around a bit.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

GSPChilliwack said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> Where does the Barzo fit in vs. the Fasttrak or Ground Control Grid (Control casings are just too delicate around here for me--and I'm not too hard on tires as a rule). This is for "Tech/BC XC" racing. I can get Barzos for a lot less than the Specialized offering, which is a factor if performance is relatively close. I've had good luck in the past with the Ikon 2.35. I find the Rekons a bit slow, though might consider running one up front (with the advantage of already having one). Durability is pretty important, as I'd rather be turning the pedals than repairing at the side of the trail. Much as I enjoy the loam shower I get from Minions, I'm OK with less traction and a "looser" feel--I actually enjoy the bike moving around a bit.


While I can’t compare to those specialized tires, I’ve ridden a trail casing barzo on the front quite a bit. I do think they are nicely durable and they excel on loose gravel relative to many other xc tires. I also think vittoria’s compound does very well on rock surfaces. But, I’ve had some terrifying moments on only slightly damp roots where other riders with comparable xc tires didn’t seem to have issues. So, if it’s a dry and loose condition, I say barzo should be great. If it’s wet, look somewhere else.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

Any feedback for those Pirellis???


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

If someone knows a place in Europe that has scorpion xc rc lite 2.4 in stock, shoot!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Suns_PSD said:


> The Race King is known to be really fast, however it's also really narrow and light weight. I consider both of those negatives.
> 
> I really don't want too light because or our rocks combined with my 'Hippo on roller skates' riding style. The Thunder Burt is 700 grams on a 2.35" width and in the Super Trail compound which has held up well in the past. With such shallow knobs in the center, punctures in that area can be a real problem so best to go with the heavier version if you ride rocks as I do.
> 
> ...


I don't fall in to the 'race' category like many of you peeps do, so please keep that in mind.

The bike is a Large 26# Spur, so not even a proper XC race bike. Terrain is really dry, rocky & loose.

Previous tires were an XR4 Team Issue up front & a Mezcal in the rear which frankly worked really well for me. I'm not that strong but get through the turns pretty fast.

Installed the Super Trails F&R with Tubolight inserts. Tires are 2.35s Thunder Burt in the rear & Racing Ray in the front at 22psi F & 24 psi R at 188#s.

Jumped in with the B group on our local ride but by the end me and a breakout group had caught the A group. Didn't have Strava on this time but we usually average about 10.3 mph and I'd say this ride was a fair bit faster than I've ever gone. The new tires are definitely faster and are certainly sketchier in the turns. The TB didn't give me nearly as many issues as the RR did, which is the nature of a 480mm Reach 66' hta bike with a too short 435 CS length. That geo pushes in the turns due to poor front/ rear weight balance. 435mm CS is fine on the M Spur, but that long & slack simply needs more CS length for a size L to handle really balanced.

Based on what I've felt on my trainer I'd spitball these tires were a solid 15 watts faster compared to my previous set up. Not insignificant.

That said, I was having to apply a lot of pressure to the handlebars to keep the front end hooked up in sweeping turns and was tapping my brakes at times where I normally wouldn't. The rear didn't have as much traction either but a drifty rear end doesn't lead to shoulder injuries ime.

Did notice on the totally baked hard sections those tires railed, could go really fast with no traction issues even through fast turns. But much of my terrain is piles of rocks.

Since I have inserts and keep this bike to more mellow trails, I'm going to test 19F/ 22R on my next ride to see if that significantly improves traction and I can live with it. If not, those tires are coming off and I'll sell them.

I enjoy playing with faster tires on both bikes, trying to reach the best balance of traction vs. rolling resistance, but for my needs I might have gone too far to the low rolling resistance side in this case.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I'm running Forekasters (2.6 & 2.35) on the Anthem for the winter but racing with Rekon Race 2.25's was an eye opener.
Those side knobs really work.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

Rekon Race side knobs are great, you just can hang in the corner with it.

Side knobs are btw the same size as the Rekon. Obviously only the thread is different. Though less grippy, I found the Rekon Race a more predictable tire.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

tommyrod74 said:


> Don't you end up cornering on the sidewalls with this setup? Seems like the tread wouldn't be wide enough for the new profile the wider rim gives the tire.


sorry for taking forever to get back on this, all work and not enough play.

Here’s some photos, again 39mm IW Bontrager 29+ wheelset and some classic Nobby Nic and Race King 2.2s that stretch well beyond spec, and yet work well.










































Wide rims roll very firm, the rim itself provides so much rigidity that it makes for a wheelset that needs very little truing. That’s the main reason I like these for trainers.

you can see that they aren’t too squared off as marketing materials might suggest. A Race King is a very round tire so that helps but the Nobby Nic just feels like a larger version of itself. Great way to clean out the tire closet.


----------



## sselhtrim (Nov 6, 2021)

Recently received 5x t7 29x2.35 ground control soil searching and 1x t5 29x2.35 renegade.

Ground control weights are 
895
862
887
886
886

renegade weighed 652 grams.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

Pretty good Renegade there. Just weighed a t5 Renegade but skinwall at 680 today while I was contemplating between the regular and sworks versions


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

Has anyone noticed the T5 being slippery on climbs even on a dry hard surfaces? Just wondering if the problem is with the GC tire or with the compound.


----------



## sselhtrim (Nov 6, 2021)

my renegade was also skinwall fwiw.

might not be using it though, same knob height and similar-ish knob design as 2.35 rekon race which becomes useless when it gets wet. 

The rekon race weighs 811 grams so renegades would have provided some nice weight savings..


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

cycloholic said:


> Any feedback for those Pirellis???


I am assuming you're asking about the XC RC's. I've gotten a few rides in on them. Mine are the 29x2.4 Prowall.

For context, my experience is still somewhat limited. Most recently to the 2.35 Vittoria Barzo (f) and 2.25 Mezcal (r) combo. I've also ridden 2.6 Aguarro f/r a lot last fall and the 2.4 XR3's f/r last spring before moving the barzo/mezcal. My rims are 29mm internal. Riding weight is 175-180 lbs. I am riding a 2021 Trek Top Fuel in the high mino link setting.

What I know so far:
They have plenty of traction in the dry anywhere except where it's loose. I have a gradual downhill gravel road that I regularly run some slalom turns on practicing leaning the bike hard and turning as sharply as I can. They were . . . passable. Compared to the barzo/mezcal, I felt them reach their limit sooner but it was not an uncomfortable warning. I just felt them starting to drift and fail to hold a tighter turn. I can also say the front did not seem to slide any worse than the rear.

Something happens when I have pressure down around 17. The larger side knobs grab noticeably with the slightest of lean and they start hooking a sharper turn. This might be due to the relatively short center knobs and increasingly taller knobs to the outside. I've found that I like the shape of the tire better if the front is at least 19 and rear at least 20. Also of note, I didn't have to brake during this slalom run like I usually do with the barzo/mezcal, as if these bleed speed out while on the edge of their traction, or it's this 'hooking' effect that is corresponded with an increased rolling resistance with these tires leaned over. 

Overall, they do appear to be noticeably faster than the barzo/mezcal combo. I've had not problem eclipsing quite a few of my casual pace strava PR's that I've ridden so far. I can't say just how significant the difference is, but it is there.



One thing that seemed odd to me was the pattern of the intermediate treads. Usually, it seems to me, these are oriented in an inverted "V" but the rotation arrow guide on the side wall has these rolling in uninverted "V" direction. Not sure if this is what causes the hooking that I was describing above or if it was the squared shape, but it did look odd to me. In any case, I am overall pretty happy with these tires so far. I still need to see how they do in the wet conditions and I would like to try some other pressures too.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

sselhtrim said:


> my renegade was also skinwall fwiw.
> 
> might not be using it though, same knob height and similar-ish knob design as 2.35 rekon race which becomes useless when it gets wet.
> 
> The rekon race weighs 811 grams so renegades would have provided some nice weight savings..


My 2.35 Rekon Race was 750g.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

akmtnrunner said:


> I am assuming you're asking about the XC RC's. I've gotten a few rides in on them. Mine are the 29x2.4 Prowall.
> 
> For context, my experience is still somewhat limited. Most recently to the 2.35 Vittoria Barzo (f) and 2.25 Mezcal (r) combo. I've also ridden 2.6 Aguarro f/r a lot last fall and the 2.4 XR3's f/r last spring before moving the barzo/mezcal. My rims are 29mm internal. Riding weight is 175-180 lbs. I am riding a 2021 Trek Top Fuel in the high mino link setting.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed review! How do you find the suppleness/compliance over roots and rocks compared to the Barzo/Mezcals?


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> Thanks for the detailed review! How do you find the suppleness/compliance over roots and rocks compared to the Barzo/Mezcals?


I was running the vittorias around 17/19 and they are the trail casing so they were relatively nice for their volume. The pirellis have a bit more volume but since running them with higher pressure and rolling a bit faster, might actually feel a little rougher. This would be helped a lot by decreasing the pressure but then the feeling of the side knobs grabbing too early is worsened.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

akmtnrunner said:


> I am assuming you're asking about the XC RC's. I've gotten a few rides in on them. Mine are the 29x2.4 Prowall.
> 
> For context, my experience is still somewhat limited. Most recently to the 2.35 Vittoria Barzo (f) and 2.25 Mezcal (r) combo. I've also ridden 2.6 Aguarro f/r a lot last fall and the 2.4 XR3's f/r last spring before moving the barzo/mezcal. My rims are 29mm internal. Riding weight is 175-180 lbs. I am riding a 2021 Trek Top Fuel in the high mino link setting.
> 
> ...


thanks for info and for your time!


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

New rear race tire time. Fast, tough, reasonable weight in that order.

Leaning towards: 

1. New Racing Ralph (with the red stripe)
2. Mezcal TNT
3. Ikon

Would love everybody's thoughts, as I'm dipping a toe back into 50s after 7 years of just fun. Previously, Racing Ralphs never let me down.

Thanks!


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

Why are we always comparing the TNT Barzo/mezcal to the Superlight race casings of other tyre brands? XC front and rear and a tyre insert in the rear to avoid pinch tears is lighter and must be quicker - the side casing is so much more supple, and supple = fast is the Silca mentality.

The other one is most pro riders on Vittoria are riding mezcal/mezcal (unless wet), which could be 2.25/2.35f or frankly 2.35 f+r a bit like a grippier aspen.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

I agree with Mezcal 2.35f/ Mezcal 2.25 rear
Very quick and durable. 

fist bump.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

My comparison with the barzo and mezcal tires weren’t a knock on them, those are simply all that I can compare to. I am a huge fan of the mezcal.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Was looking at 2.4 Maxxis Aspen WT rear, 2.4 Rekon Race WT front for the Fall, but was very disappointed to get the Rekon Race weigh in at 800g. 

That's too bad because the Aspen is right on spec at 720g. Note that there's a 2.35 versions of the Rekon Race as well, but this is the 2.4 WT which is listed at 760g. I'm thinking of riding it on the trainer wheels in front for the summer and hopefully smoothing it out a bit.


----------



## WithOrWithout87 (Jul 2, 2020)

chomxxo said:


> Was looking at 2.4 Maxxis Aspen WT rear, 2.4 Rekon Race WT front for the Fall, but was very disappointed to get the Rekon Race weigh in at 800g.
> 
> That's too bad because the Aspen is right on spec at 720g. Note that there's a 2.35 versions of the Rekon Race as well, but this is the 2.4 WT which is listed at 760g. I'm thinking of riding it on the trainer wheels in front for the summer and hopefully smoothing it out a bit.


I have Aspen 2.4 front and rear and they were like 716 and 718. Wayyyy more grip then I expected and definitely the fastest rolling combo I’ve tried.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Was looking at 2.4 Maxxis Aspen WT rear, 2.4 Rekon Race WT front for the Fall, but was very disappointed to get the Rekon Race weigh in at 800g.
> 
> That's too bad because the Aspen is right on spec at 720g. Note that there's a 2.35 versions of the Rekon Race as well, but this is the 2.4 WT which is listed at 760g. I'm thinking of riding it on the trainer wheels in front for the summer and hopefully smoothing it out a bit.


Yep, my 2.35 Rekon Race is 750g.
My OEM 2.25 Rekon Race is 740g.

The Rekon looks to be a LOT lighter than the Forekaster too.
Looking at a summer combo of Rekon/Rekon Race - I do like the side knobs.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

I bought a set of 29x2.35 ground controls and another set of 2.35 renegades.
With the same power output, the renegades were 3km/h faster, had better grip on rocky climbs and were at least as good if not better on a muddy conditions because they didn’t get clogged all the time . I was even able to corner harder with renegades because they kind of warned me before I was loosing the grip. The ground controls gave me no warnings and lost trust in them when cornering.

I can’t be the only one with these findings? I mean, what is the point of ground controls?


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Nakkipata said:


> I can’t be the only one with these findings? I mean, what is the point of ground controls?


I found the GC's were much better at out of the saddle loose surface climbing.


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

Getting a lot of rear wheel spin when climbing out of the saddle on my mezcal. 2.35, 19psi, 77kg rider, 30mm ID rims, tubolito SL rear. XC casing. 

This was on hardpack/dusty chalk/rock terrain when it popped above 20 deg.

Any thoughts? Is this a body position issue?


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

The tread pattern is intentionally design to hook up more as you lean over .
I’m running my front at 23psi, rear at 26psi. The more ballooned shape give a nicer transition across the tread as the bike leans more and more. The break away is predictable and communicated well. The 2.4 isn’t much wider than the 2.2 but it is taller and rounder on my 27mm internal width carbon rims.
Tyre weight is 687gr in 2.4 so the additional pressure really helps protect the rims but also there’s more traction. The tyre just digs on better at the higher pressure that I’d run with a Barzo or Mezcal


----------



## Mongoguy (Oct 16, 2019)

joebusby said:


> Getting a lot of rear wheel spin when climbing out of the saddle on my mezcal. 2.35, 19psi, 77kg rider, 30mm ID rims, tubolito SL rear. XC casing.
> 
> This was on hardpack/dusty chalk/rock terrain when it popped above 20 deg.
> 
> Any thoughts? Is this a body position issue?


I learned I had to change how I climbed with the Mezcal. Really need to keep weight back and pull on bars. Might even be a pressure issue too. I’m a Clyde and run Rear Mezcal around 23psi with CushCore XC.


----------



## Raikzz (Jul 19, 2014)

Really starting to not like my renegade T7/Sworks 2.35 combo, don't know if my 26mm Silverton SLs are too narrow or stiff, but even with tyre insert i have to run about 22psi on fast downhill camber turns, otherwise the tyre starts to roll, didn't have that problem with 2.25 aspens


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Brad said:


> The tread pattern is intentionally design to hook up more as you lean over .
> I’m running my front at 23psi, rear at 26psi. The more ballooned shape give a nicer transition across the tread as the bike leans more and more. The break away is predictable and communicated well. The 2.4 isn’t much wider than the 2.2 but it is taller and rounder on my 27mm internal width carbon rims.
> Tyre weight is 687gr in 2.4 so the additional pressure really helps protect the rims but also there’s more traction. The tyre just digs on better at the higher pressure that I’d run with a Barzo or Mezcal


Which tire is this, Brad?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I had fun with a front GC at first cause it was fast. But it always pushed and I finally had a painful crash and off it went. It's just too sketchy in hard pack rocky terrain as a front.

The rubber is too hard. I suspect the GC would work well in loam with that pattern.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Got out in the rain today on a pair of 2.35 Rekon Races. Almost died 5 billion times. Absolutely terrifying.


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

tick_magnet said:


> Which tire is this, Brad?


Pirelli Scorpion XC RC 29x2.4 Lite


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Raikzz said:


> Really starting to not like my renegade T7/Sworks 2.35 combo, don't know if my 26mm Silverton SLs are too narrow or stiff, but even with tyre insert i have to run about 22psi on fast downhill camber turns, otherwise the tyre starts to roll, didn't have that problem with 2.25 aspens


I have to run slightly higher pressures in my Renegade/Fast Trak Control combo than most tires to avoid roll when cornering hard as well - I remember the S-Works as being even more supple, so your experience makes sense. The extra pressure doesn't seem to negatively affect the ride as they are so supple they ride as smoothly at 22 psi as others with stiffer casings do at 19 or so, IME.


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

Rode a very-techy (climbs AND descents) "BC/XC" course this weekend in the rain. Rekon WT front; Fast Track Grid T7 rear. It was a decent combination. I wouldn't say that tires were limiting. OTOH, lost feeling and strength in my right hand and could not do anything with the rear brake...lots of walking down.


----------



## Cerpss (Sep 13, 2015)

joebusby said:


> Getting a lot of rear wheel spin when climbing out of the saddle on my mezcal. 2.35, 19psi, 77kg rider, 30mm ID rims, tubolito SL rear. XC casing.
> 
> This was on hardpack/dusty chalk/rock terrain when it popped above 20 deg.
> 
> Any thoughts? Is this a body position issue?


I had problems with spin when out of the saddle on hills. I noticed it most though because I'd worn down more than 50% of the tread. I'm 148lbs(67kg) and on a 30mm ID rim I'd run my rear Mezcal at 18 or 19 psi. I thought that was getting towards the edge of squirmy. Maybe I had more room to go


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Suns_PSD said:


> I don't fall in to the 'race' category like many of you peeps do, so please keep that in mind.
> 
> The bike is a Large 26# Spur, so not even a proper XC race bike. Terrain is really dry, rocky & loose.
> 
> ...


Thought I'd give an update on the front Racing Ray & rear Thunder Burt combo.

This combo is just too sketchy for me. Usually fast tires, even if I go slower at times like certain turns, make me overall a bit faster, but I don't think so in this case. Having to tap brakes constantly to keep from running wide. It's mostly the front tire but also the rear steps out often and if I had a grippier front the rear would become even more of a problem. They are a well balanced set up imo as they generally drift at about the same time. Of course I acknowledge that a better rider might certainly be able to make them work just fine.

Only ridden them 3-4x, and 1 ride in particular after some rain, they seemed quite fine really. But now that it's bone dry and really loose they are limiting my overall enjoyment.

Apparently I need more bike fitness instead of faster tires to compensate!

Going to go back to something slightly more aggressive. If any one in the states wants to test a set for cheap, as they are hella fast, shoot me an offer and I'll ship them out. I'd rather someone else get to test them for cheap than for them to just rot in my garage.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

Sounds like you will need to work on your technique to adapt your skills to the new speed experience...

I ride the Rocket Ron front and Thunder Burt rear and is also a mighty fast combination and I am even surprised how much grip the Thunder Burt offers for a semi slick. I would easily consider to try the front with Thunder Burt as well in the future.

So honestly, and no offence, I think it does not concern your tires...


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

I’m very interested in using the thunderburts on my Supercal. I use it more as a gravel and single track weapon vs technical XC.
Im contemplating the front tire. Any suggestions? Ralph Ray or TB’s all around. Lightest would be ideal since I’ve worked so hard getting it to right under 22.5lbs
But not a deal breaker.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Boulder Waffles said:


> I’m very interested in using the thunderburts on my Supercal. I use it more as a gravel and single track weapon vs technical XC.
> Im contemplating the front tire. Any suggestions? Ralph Ray or TB’s all around. Lightest would be ideal since I’ve worked so hard getting it to right under 22.5lbs
> But not a deal breaker.


Well I'd ship this pair to you in the states for $60. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## 800lbgorilla (Sep 20, 2009)

Tried out Spesh Fast Trak rear, Ground Control front. Both 2.35s, T5 compound, control casing. 16/17 PSI with Anaconda inserts. Casing nice and supple (compared to Maxxis EXO), but under-tread puncture protection is underwhelming (1 puncture from a minimally sharp rock on first ride. No problems since.).
T5 compound is probably too hard. Slippery on damp roots/rocks that would give no problems to Ikons. Even roots/rock that are slick because they're really smooth and dusty gave problems. I wonder if the T5/T7 combo compound would be better.

Bontrager XR3s had a pretty good combination of speed and grip in all conditions, but wear fast in the rear.

Will try some Racing Ray/Ralphs this weekend at an 8hr race, but may go back to 2.35 Ikons.


----------



## barefootdan (Oct 6, 2008)

Hi all, I recently got my first XC/Marathon bike (Trek Procaliber) and I am currently running the Spesh Fast Track T5 2.35 front and rear on a set of Santa Cruz Reserve 27 wheels. I bought the bike used and the rear tire has a few plugs so I am looking to replace the set before my next event in August. I dont have much experience in this realm of tires, so just hoping to get some input on where to go. I ride in Phoenix, AZ on loose over hard pack to some tarmac as well. So far I am able to get my current Fast Traks at 20 psi front and 23 psi rear without hitting the rim at 190lbs, feels comfortable! So far I feel that I have good grip climbing and in corners. Braking grip is lacking but I think that is more of my issue getting used to XC riding coming from Enduro.

Recommendations?
Another set of Fast Traks or FT/Renegade combo
Vittoria Mezcal F/R
Maxxis Rekon Race F/ Aspen R
Pirelli Scorpion XC


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

800lbgorilla said:


> Tried out Spesh Fast Trak rear, Ground Control front. Both 2.35s, T5 compound, control casing. 16/17 PSI with Anaconda inserts. Casing nice and supple (compared to Maxxis EXO), but under-tread puncture protection is underwhelming (1 puncture from a minimally sharp rock on first ride. No problems since.).


Have the sidewalls got thicker in the new versions?
The old Gripton Control casings were much more supple than EXO and Grid was a little thicker.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I'd be leaning toward Mezcals (fast roller and long lasting) and a Barzo front as a grippier option.
Especially with tarmac involved.
If there's sharper rocks around, then the trail version instead of race.

If you're needing more familiarity with enduroish grip, then Ground Controls front and rear?

I love the Fasttrak/Renegade (Control) combo, but only if there's no sharp rocks around.

Short track and XCO racing, I like the Fasttrak/Renegade.
The longer the race the more the Vittorias come into the picture.



barefootdan said:


> Hi all, I recently got my first XC/Marathon bike (Trek Procaliber) and I am currently running the Spesh Fast Track T5 2.35 front and rear on a set of Santa Cruz Reserve 27 wheels. I bought the bike used and the rear tire has a few plugs so I am looking to replace the set before my next event in August. I dont have much experience in this realm of tires, so just hoping to get some input on where to go. I ride in Phoenix, AZ on loose over hard pack to some tarmac as well. So far I am able to get my current Fast Traks at 20 psi front and 23 psi rear without hitting the rim at 190lbs, feels comfortable! So far I feel that I have good grip climbing and in corners. Braking grip is lacking but I think that is more of my issue getting used to XC riding coming from Enduro.
> 
> Recommendations?
> Another set of Fast Traks or FT/Renegade combo
> ...


----------



## barefootdan (Oct 6, 2008)

NordieBoy said:


> I'd be leaning toward Mezcals (fast roller and long lasting) and a Barzo front as a grippier option.
> Especially with tarmac involved.
> If there's sharper rocks around, then the trail version instead of race.
> 
> ...


Thank you! I'll check out the Barzo/Mezcal option and if its looking too slow then a Mezcal F/R. 

Surprisingly, I havent have issues (yet) with the Fasttrak on my local trails. I hit up my most aggressive trails to set my PSI and so far so good. Are the Vittorias tougher than Spesh? The upcoming ride is a 100K, but mostly fire roads and groomed singletrack.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I've got Vittoria Trails and they're equivalent to Specialized Grid, Vittoria Race = Spesh Control/T5.
For that type of ride I'd run the Fasttrak T5's, especially if you're used to how they handle.
The Mezcal doesn't have as much rear traction but they roll as fast and are more robust.

Our last 6hr XC was hard pack granite sand/good dirt/no rocks and a couple of roots scattered around the course.
I ran the old Fasttrak/Renegade Control combo @ 18f/20r psi.
I could have used something more aggressive on the front for a bit more confidence on the downhill switchbacks but that may have saved me 3min on the descents and lost me 1min on the rest over the 6hrs.
If there were any rocks, I would have run the Mezcals.

I really like the Rekon Race as a race day tyre too - surprisingly good cornering traction.



barefootdan said:


> Thank you! I'll check out the Barzo/Mezcal option and if its looking too slow then a Mezcal F/R.
> 
> Surprisingly, I havent have issues (yet) with the Fasttrak on my local trails. I hit up my most aggressive trails to set my PSI and so far so good. Are the Vittorias tougher than Spesh? The upcoming ride is a 100K, but mostly fire roads and groomed singletrack.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

a lot of pros ran the Mezcals Trail f/r at the latest Cape Epic. As just an fyi, Shurter had multiple flats using Aspens.
Currently using Mezcals f/r on a supercal and using Fastrak/ Renegade both S-works on my hardtail. Both equivalently good but I trust the Mezcals a bit more when rocks or rougher trails are involved. All 2.35


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

Boulder Waffles said:


> *a lot of pros ran the Mezcals Trail f/r at the latest Cape Epic*. As just an fyi, Shurter had multiple flats using Aspens.
> Currently using Mezcals f/r on a supercal and using Fastrak/ Renegade both S-works on my hardtail. Both equivalently good but I trust the Mezcals a bit more when rocks or rougher trails are involved. All 2.35


Are you sure about that?
Team Scott SRAM - Maxxis Aspen ST, Aspen and Rekon Race
Specialized Factory Racing - Fast Trak Grid T7 mostly but Ground Control also on some days but exclsuively Spez tyres
Speed Company Racing - Schwalbe 
Canyon Northwave - Schwalbe
Trek Pirelli - Pirelli Scorpion MTB
Tam Bulls - Schwalbe
Willier Pirelli - Pirelli
Cannondale Factory Racing - Schwalbe

Schwalbe appears to be the most popular amongst the UCI teams. There are smaller teams of course but I don't recall seeing Vittoria amongst many pro teams at the Cape Epic


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

Yeah factory teams usually won’t deviate from their sponsors, but based on the surveys I believe Maxxis, Vittoria and Schwalbe have been the top three brands used in the CE since 2016. I’ll certainly post that up if I can find the articles. Though Vittoria was the lowest percentage, consider that they are also less popular and not connected with the big teams. I had to dig for the tire setups since there actually aren’t too many ‘bike checks’ easily found on the net.
my bad for using ‘pros’ loosely since there are over 1000 entries but you probably don’t suck if you can complete the cape epic. For those smaller teams, picking equipment wisely is even more essential. One reason why I went with the Vittorias as an alternative to the usual marketed maxxis and schwalbe.


----------



## Brad (May 2, 2004)

Boulder Waffles said:


> Yeah factory teams usually won’t deviate from their sponsors, but based on the surveys I believe Maxxis, Vittoria and Schwalbe have been the top three brands used in the CE since 2016. I’ll certainly post that up if I can find the articles. Though Vittoria was the lowest percentage, consider that they are also less popular and not connected with the big teams. I had to dig for the tire setups since there actually aren’t too many ‘bike checks’ easily found on the net.
> my bad for using ‘pros’ loosely since there are over 1000 entries but you probably don’t suck if you can complete the cape epic. For those smaller teams, picking equipment wisely is even more essential. One reason why I went with the Vittorias as an alternative to the usual marketed maxxis and schwalbe.


ah like you're referring to data posted by the Cape Epic race office. Maxxis and Vittoria are very common in the field of competitors because they're usually promoted by the big bike shops in South Africa through the summer just ahead of the Cape Epic. Don't read too much into the data. Schwalbe isn't as popular because the local distributor was pricing the product out of the market. They have a new distributor now and their market share is growing again (in RSA).

The Cape Epic field isn't as technically competent as they would seem. Outside of the UCI race groups and perhaps the A batch, the rest contains many hikers who walk or run the technical terrain. I've passed some ladies in the UCI race group and got told I can't despite them holding my team mate and I up quite badly. Many are just weekend warriors and believe me when I tell you many many do in fact suck at another level when it comes to riding the technical terrain. Cape Epic finishers are not as revered among the local riders as they think they should be LOL.


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

Have to give a thumbs up to the Fast Trak T7 Grid. Yesterdays race had a lot of sharp rocks. I've never been particularly hard on tires, but just breathing on a Control casing has always led to punctures for me. And I appreciate that Specialized does their "buy one, get one free" sale every year.


----------



## 800lbgorilla (Sep 20, 2009)

NordieBoy said:


> Have the sidewalls got thicker in the new versions?
> The old Gripton Control casings were much more supple than EXO and Grid was a little thicker.


I don't think they're any thicker (but my memory is fuzzy). Certainly more supple than EXO. My one puncture was on the tread, though, and the construction diagram suggests that most of the protection in the Control casing is on the sidewalls.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Suns_PSD said:


> Thought I'd give an update on the front Racing Ray & rear Thunder Burt combo.
> 
> This combo is just too sketchy for me. Usually fast tires, even if I go slower at times like certain turns, make me overall a bit faster, but I don't think so in this case. Having to tap brakes constantly to keep from running wide. It's mostly the front tire but also the rear steps out often and if I had a grippier front the rear would become even more of a problem. They are a well balanced set up imo as they generally drift at about the same time. Of course I acknowledge that a better rider might certainly be able to make them work just fine.
> 
> ...


I didn't get along with the Racing Ray at all. It just didn't feel fast to me and was super sketchy. I had so many slides / pushes in areas where I normally don't. I rode the Ray / Ralph twice before I pulled them off for Cont. Cross King / Mezcal. I think for a normal rider that's a really hard combo to beat.


----------



## Augustus-G (Jun 21, 2019)

I've been running Control Casing in the AZ desert since 2018 and until recently never had a sidewall cut. The new 2.35" Fast Trak's have remained solid but I had a pair of the 2.2" that had butter for sidewalls. I eventually went to a 2.35" Renegade on the rear. Nice combo for the Loose on Hard and Rocks.

BTW, Over the course of this years UCI XC races I've seen several pictures of Specialized Factory Team members running a "Captain" on both the front/rear and as a rear paired with a Fast Trak or Renegade. Now I know Specialized used to make a tire called "The Captain" that was designed by Ned Overend. Has anyone heard anything about this new version of the tire?


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Augustus-G said:


> BTW, Over the course of this years UCI XC races I've seen several pictures of Specialized Factory Team members running a "Captain" on both the front/rear and as a rear paired with a Fast Trak or Renegade. Now I know Specialized used to make a tire called "The Captain" that was designed by Ned Overend. Has anyone heard anything about this new version of the tire?


Looks like a Specialized Forekaster Race.








SPECIALIZED CAPTAIN CONTROL T5: NUOVO COPERTONE "SGAMATO” AD ALBENGA


Dobbiamo ringraziare lo Specialized Racing Team perchè alla gara internazionale di Albenga ci ha davvero dato tanto da fare. Non solo Jordan Sarrou h




www.pianetamountainbike.it


----------



## Augustus-G (Jun 21, 2019)

Thanks Nordie and I'd have to agree it looks much more like a Forekaster than the original "The Captain".
Cornering Grip wise I wonder how it will fall in comparison to the Renegade and Fast Trak?
It looks fast up the middle.


----------



## donR (11 mo ago)

I just picked up a pair of 29 x 2.35 Sworks Fast Track for a light weight build. I would normally go something a little heavier so not sure how durable they will be but they are a good weight at ~ 600g each. A little under the manufacturer's weight of 615g.


----------



## slashy (Dec 7, 2005)

hi, anyone knows how wide an Ikon 2.25 and 2.35 would size up to on a 28mm inside rim ?


----------



## justriddinalog (Sep 8, 2020)

slashy said:


> hi, anyone knows how wide an Ikon 2.25 and 2.35 would size up to on a 28mm inside rim ?


2.35 on 28mm internal is 2.37 widest point side wall to side wall.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

Boulder Waffles said:


> I’m very interested in using the thunderburts on my Supercal. I use it more as a gravel and single track weapon vs technical XC.
> Im contemplating the front tire. Any suggestions? Ralph Ray or TB’s all around. Lightest would be ideal since I’ve worked so hard getting it to right under 22.5lbs
> But not a deal breaker.


So I did a test ride today on mostly hardpack / gravel / sandy trails with a 2.25 TB front and a 2.10 TB rear....

I am really impressed by this tire. I was already impressed about the TB on the rear but also on the front the TB gives a lot confidence. Actually more than the Rocket Ron.

The TB on the front is a very stable tire, fast and the grip is great (also side grip) and obviously fast rolling. As in FAST !

I can compare them with the Rekon Race 2.25 front/rear which I have ridden as well and though the characteristics of both tires are pretty similar (and I am definitely a Maxxis guy), I tend to say I have slightly more preference for the TB. I think mostly because of the lower weight of the TB, the TB rolls noticeable faster and is slightly more grippy / predictable I think. Again, just a first impression. But as with the Rekon Race as well, I would ride the TB definitely on wet (yet not too muddy) trails too.

I think where the TB has the Edge of the Rekon Race, is that I would tend to take the TB on slightly more technical trails due to the slightly more predictable grip of the TB. For long (dry) rides / marathons, TB front/rear will be the the tire combo that definitely will make you happy !

Weights
TB 2.25 Super Ground 638gram
TB 2.10 Super Ground 568gram
Both are measure true to claimed size and both have a nice visible volume.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

that’s great info!
What width/type wheels?


----------



## Raikzz (Jul 19, 2014)

I had Burts 2.25 few years back and they were visibly much much smaller especially in height and also in width than 2.25 aspens, felt fast but on my second race i flatted and gave up on them.

The 2.35 variant seems interesting other hand, anybody have experience with them? At 705g they are pretty heavy for semi-slick tyre


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Hrodulf said:


> So I did a test ride today on mostly hardpack / gravel / sandy trails with a 2.25 TB front and a 2.10 TB rear....


Thanks for the detailed review! So just to be clear, did you test these on gravel or singletrack? 
If it's on singletrack, can you also talk about front end grip on flat corners? Any issues with punctures? And what about suppleness of the tire over roots and rocks compared to, say, the Rekon Race or other popular tires?


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

donR said:


> I just picked up a pair of 29 x 2.35 Sworks Fast Track for a light weight build. I would normally go something a little heavier so not sure how durable they will be but they are a good weight at ~ 600g each. A little under the manufacturer's weight of 615g.
> 
> View attachment 1988662


you got a great tire there. 
my sworks renegade 2.35 came in at 630g
that was between another at 635. i would expect the FT to be heavier. 
niiice👍🏽


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Suns_PSD said:


> Thought I'd give an update on the front Racing Ray & rear Thunder Burt combo.
> 
> This combo is just too sketchy for me. Usually fast tires, even if I go slower at times like certain turns, make me overall a bit faster, but I don't think so in this case. Having to tap brakes constantly to keep from running wide. It's mostly the front tire but also the rear steps out often and if I had a grippier front the rear would become even more of a problem. They are a well balanced set up imo as they generally drift at about the same time. Of course I acknowledge that a better rider might certainly be able to make them work just fine.
> 
> ...


$60 shipped for both if anyone wants to test $200 of tires for cheap.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

^
what size are they?


----------



## Hroot (Apr 5, 2019)

I'm currently using the Maxxis Aspen 2.4, I think it's a little over kill of a tire for Charlotte North Carolina area trails thinking about trying out the Continental Race King Protection 2.2 for cross country racing and marathon racing. Anyone have experience running these tires? I am planning on racing Off-road assault on Mount Mitchell and cross country races in my area. Any reviews or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Boulder Waffles said:


> ^
> what size are they?


2.35 Super Trails.

They are indeed fast as fudge. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

Boulder Waffles said:


> that’s great info!
> What width/type wheels?


The stock Alexrims i20.



tick_magnet said:


> Thanks for the detailed review! So just to be clear, did you test these on gravel or singletrack?
> If it's on singletrack, can you also talk about front end grip on flat corners? Any issues with punctures? And what about suppleness of the tire over roots and rocks compared to, say, the Rekon Race or other popular tires?


The test was on a mix of some gravel and singletrack.
Tomorrow I am planning for a longer test ride on mostly singletrack with flow trails and a lot of (sharp) turns + roots. It will be slightly wet I think given the current weather conditions here.

No experience with punctures yet (knock off on hard wood), but from a German forum I understand that they not very prone to punctures. Lot of riders reported over a 1.000 miles with no punctures.

I can compare with the Ikon and Rekon Race. Especially the Rekon Race I experience as a pretty supple tire. For now I consider the TB as more supple. But I'll share my detailed feedback after my long ride tomorrow.

Btw the grip in flat corners is great so far. I have tried to break out the front tire a couple of times on flat gravel corners, though the side knobs will take over the grip and hold it well.

It is a true XC (race) tire and I can image that the 2.35 Super Ground version of the TB (on the rear) could do some light trail riding as well.

To be continued


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

So I did a 42 miles ride today and the Thunder Bird is awesome !

The trails were slightly wet (no mud), so it was extra interesting how the TB would behave.

First of all, if you ever consider to ride these tires front and rear, make sure you get yourself accommodated to the speed ! People say that rolling resistance on the front does not matter too much. Wrong. With this combo your ride will be fast and a fast front tire matters.

Grippy, fast, durable and lightweight. Pick 4.

Yes, next to fast this tire is really grippy on the front too. At the end of my ride I did not even had to pay extra attention on my front tire anymore and choosing my lines carefully went automatically again. Once you are used to its speed, it will be a mount and forget tire (on the other end of the spectrum, that is the same with the Maxxis Forekaster as well). For me it is clear now why so many XCO riders pick this tire from their sponsor to race it front and rear.

My trails today were gravel, some hardpack, sand / loose over hard, pebbles and a bit of (wet) loam. Obviously no rocks or big stones. I would hestitate to ride these tires in really rocky conditions. I'll have the Super Ground version for puncture protection, but since this are lightweight XC tires (= less rubber), I would be careful. Also for the grip on large stones / rocks.

Anyway... The Thunder Burt wins in every aspect over the Rekon Race. Not by much, but still. Where the TB clearly wins is more grip on the thread, compared with the RR. Cornering grip is the same, great grip in corners and sharp turns.

Are there any caveats ? Well, I had a lot of wet roots today, that went without any issue. Only on one short steep climb, where I accelerated, my rear wheel slipped a split second over a wet root. Nothing spectacular.

Would I recommend the TB ?
Hell yeah, it is a mighty fast XC tire that grips great and I also think it is pretty durable too. But... your trail conditions will have to be right. Sharp stones... big rocks... I would tend to choose something more beefier. And choose reliability over speed. Again, not that the TB is not reliable, it is not a suited tire for these kind of conditions.

Did I say it is fast ?


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

I tried TB before some months. I almost died 395 times. I removed them the same day!


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

Just got back from a four day stage race (Beskidy MTB Trophy) using 2.35 Forekaster Exo in the front and 2.35 Rekon Race in the rear. Very happy with the Forekaster, great breaking traction in the very steep downhills, the Rekon race worked well until the third day when I got a 6-7mm hole in the tread between two knobs. It was ok to plug it and continue the rest of the stage, then changed to a Specialized Renegade for the last stage.

Now my question, I need a new rear tire and I want it to have less open area between the knobs so it can handle sharp stones better. I was thinking of a Maxxis Ikon 2.35 or keeping the Specialized Renegade. What is the durability like on the Renegade (it is a Control T5 that I have) compared to an Ikon Exo (those I have had many years) or a Kenda Booster that I also know since before. Looking for low rolling resistance combined with good puncture protection in the tread. The Renegade feels like it rolls well, for me it had slightly less grip on offcambers than the Rekon Race, but better braking traction.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

If it's not loose, i would have gone with a raceking!


----------



## GSPChilliwack (Jul 30, 2013)

Skier78 said:


> Just got back from a four day stage race (Beskidy MTB Trophy) using 2.35 Forekaster Exo in the front and 2.35 Rekon Race in the rear. Very happy with the Forekaster, great breaking traction in the very steep downhills, the Rekon race worked well until the third day when I got a 6-7mm hole in the tread between two knobs. It was ok to plug it and continue the rest of the stage, then changed to a Specialized Renegade for the last stage.
> 
> Now my question, I need a new rear tire and I want it to have less open area between the knobs so it can handle sharp stones better. I was thinking of a Maxxis Ikon 2.35 or keeping the Specialized Renegade. What is the durability like on the Renegade (it is a Control T5 that I have) compared to an Ikon Exo (those I have had many years) or a Kenda Booster that I also know since before. Looking for low rolling resistance combined with good puncture protection in the tread. The Renegade feels like it rolls well, for me it had slightly less grip on offcambers than the Rekon Race, but better braking traction.


My personal experience is that an Exo Ikon is going to be far less susceptible to cuts than any Control casing.


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

cycloholic said:


> I tried TB before some months. I almost died 395 times. I removed them the same day!


Hmmm...Saturday, I had my first ride on 2.25 T-Burts front and rear, and did not expect them to grip as well as they did (hardpack with loose sand/gravel). I'm intending to replace the front with a Racing Ray, but will leave a T-Burt on the rear for now.


----------



## 6thElement (Jul 17, 2006)

GSPChilliwack said:


> My personal experience is that an Exo Ikon is going to be far less susceptible to cuts than any Control casing.


This concerns me, I've got Ground Control Control's on a new Evo Epic and had wondered how they would react long term to Ikon EXO's as I have used those since they were first released.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

I have used ground control t5 on my hardtail (front and rear) during the winter and they have held up well, but that has been more mud and less 15-20cm sharp rocks everywhere as it was here. So far the renegade seems to wear out faster than the maxxis rubber, not sure about the casing though.

Picture below is from the race (not me in the picture). This is a pretty typical descent for this race, no real line/path to follow and everything moves when you hit it, so there is no real point in big knobs but a good carcass is needed.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

First faster ride session with renegades caused me a pinch flat. I tried to fix the tire afterwards but the carcass is too damaged.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

Nakkipata said:


> First faster ride session with renegades caused me a pinch flat. I tried to fix the tire afterwards but the carcass is too damaged.


The carcass feels thin and flexible, but I like the low weight and that it rolls fast... the Ikon is about 100g heavier/tire, guess that makes it stronger too. Always this decision between weight and durability...


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

Don’t get me wrong, I bought a new renegade to replace the broken one because I love how light and fast rolling it is.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Is this the control casing? T5 or T7? 

For anyone using T7 fast traks or renegades, have you run into durability problems? It seems that, according to Spesh, the T5 is supposed to be tougher than the T7.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

tick_magnet said:


> Is this the control casing? T5 or T7?
> 
> For anyone using T7 fast traks or renegades, have you run into durability problems? It seems that, according to Spesh, the T5 is supposed to be tougher than the T7.


I am on control t5 on the renegade and the ground control. I thought it was just the rubber compound that was different between t5 and t7, is the casing different too?


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

First race ever on a Mezcal 2.35 rear last Saturday. Bueno! Rolled fast, and held up to lots of small-ish but sharp rocks.

The trusty XR3 front was also great, as always.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Skier78 said:


> I am on control t5 on the renegade and the ground control. I thought it was just the rubber compound that was different between t5 and t7, is the casing different too?


Same casing but for whatever reason, the website describes the t5 as being durable and long wearing and the t7 as better traction and damping. This was also confirmed when I contacted Specialized and one of the agents told me that the t5 is going to provide better protection.


----------



## Nakkipata (Feb 20, 2019)

tick_magnet said:


> Is this the control casing? T5 or T7?
> 
> For anyone using T7 fast traks or renegades, have you run into durability problems? It seems that, according to Spesh, the T5 is supposed to be tougher than the T7.


Renegade control T5 29x2.35


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

tick_magnet said:


> Same casing but for whatever reason, the website describes the t5 as being durable and long wearing and the t7 as better traction and damping. This was also confirmed when I contacted Specialized and one of the agents told me that the t5 is going to provide better protection.


I guess that they mean that the t5 has harder rubber that rolls faster and wears slower. In my experience the puncture protection is more about the casing construction and less about rubber compound, as long as the rubber is the same thickness.


----------



## Mongoguy (Oct 16, 2019)

Hroot said:


> I'm currently using the Maxxis Aspen 2.4, I think it's a little over kill of a tire for Charlotte North Carolina area trails thinking about trying out the Continental Race King Protection 2.2 for cross country racing and marathon racing. Anyone have experience running these tires? I am planning on racing Off-road assault on Mount Mitchell and cross country races in my area. Any reviews or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


Barzo/Mezcal has been a killer combo for me at both Oramm and Pisgah racing


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

Thanks for all the input, I ended up ordering a Kenda Booster Pro SCT in 2.4", will pair it with a Kenda Karma2 TR 2.4 in the front. I had Booster Pro in 2.2 last year and they held up well for my type of riding, a little more air chamber will be good I hope.


----------



## RexRacerX (10 mo ago)

LMN said:


> Got out in the rain today on a pair of 2.35 Rekon Races. Almost died 5 billion times. Absolutely terrifying.


Rekon Race 2.4 WT in the wet: prayers up. 

Not sure if the good rubber only lasts 100 km or something, but roots, stones and some types of concrete might as well be riding on ice when it’s wet.

I much prefer the 2.4 Aspens in pretty much all conditions. Which is something.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

RexRacerX said:


> Rekon Race 2.4 WT in the wet: prayers up.
> 
> Not sure if the good rubber only lasts 100 km or something, but roots, stones and some types of concrete might as well be riding on ice when it’s wet.
> 
> I much prefer the 2.4 Aspens in pretty much all conditions. Which is something.


I think the Knobs are just too big and stiff and you just don't have enough biting edges. 

I really like the RR in loose over hard when compared to an Aspen and I feel they last longer than an Aspen. But yeah, in most conditions I would take a fresh Aspen over fresh RR.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Skier78 said:


> I guess that they mean that the t5 has harder rubber that rolls faster and wears slower. In my experience the puncture protection is more about the casing construction and less about rubber compound, as long as the rubber is the same thickness.


So. T7 front and T5 rear sound like a good way to go. Softer, wear faster compound in the front. Then a longer lasting one in the back where it require less grip as well.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Hexsense said:


> So. T7 front and T5 rear sound like a good way to go. Softer, wear faster compound in the front. Then a longer lasting one in the back where it require less grip as well.


I'd also prefer the harder compound in the rear but to keep the climbing edges of the knobs for longer.


----------



## RexRacerX (10 mo ago)

LMN said:


> I think the Knobs are just too big and stiff and you just don't have enough biting edges.
> 
> I really like the RR in loose over hard when compared to an Aspen and I feel they last longer than an Aspen. But yeah, in most conditions I would take a fresh Aspen over fresh RR.


That does seem a reasonable explanation. I also felt the extra spacing on the aspen helped with e.g., climbing grip over roots.

Loose over hard: yeah, probably concur.

Not sure if it’s because I’ve spent more time on Aspens (again, 2.4 on 27-29 mm id), but I just trust them more. Maybe because the Rekon Race in the rear has caught me out a couple times pretty good.

Aspens definitely don’t have much there to stay fresh for long, though.

I haven’t tested (I think you may have mention you did, or that was just rim width), but I also have the feeling the Aspens roll noticeably faster than RR (in WT).


----------



## sselhtrim (Nov 6, 2021)

How do barzos stack up against ground control t7 in grip? Seems like barzos are up to 150 grams less for the same width.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

Hexsense said:


> So. T7 front and T5 rear sound like a good way to go. Softer, wear faster compound in the front. Then a longer lasting one in the back where it require less grip as well.


check out the Sworks Renegade then since it runs both t5/t7 compound.
I wouldn’t have recommended the old sworks renegade since it was very soft on the sidewalls and susceptible to flats when in sharp rocks. The new ones weighs slightly more and is more durable but just as fast rolling. Should have a look. Really is the best of both worlds.
the fast track and rear renegade both sworks has been an awesome combo on my hardtail. (single track gravel pavement light trail)
And using Mezcals f/r on the SuperCal.
Let’s just say I don’t contemplate tire choice any longer.


----------



## Tinkerer741 (9 mo ago)

I'm going to be running Mezcal. 2.1 for Tahoe Trail Relay in a couple of weeks. Will report back how they performed. I run them mostly because I ride roads to and from my weekly MTB training spot.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Replaced my worn out older 2.3 Fastrak/Renegade combo with newer Renegade 2.35 T5 (tanwall, not Sworks) front and back cuz I couldn’t find a tanwall Fastrak at the time. I think I like the double Renegade better for the super dry and dusty hard pack of Southern Cal.


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

So after a few weeks of mixed rainy weather, looks like the summer is finally here, so just popped on some faster rubber. Had Wolfpack Cross/Race on to deal with the mud, and switched to Wolfpack Speed front, T Burt rear. Rode same loop with both sets in almost same conditions and was impressed that the dry conditions combo were over 3 minutes faster in a 50 minute section. I mean they felt a lot faster, but it was good to have the clock confirm it.


----------



## mikeg123 (Apr 11, 2007)

Just ordered a Kenda Karma 2 Pro 2.4 and Bontrager XR3 2.4. I wanted something a bit better for damp conditions than the Rekon/Rekon Race combo I was using during the dry summers. The Rekon Race is downright scary when things get a bit wet.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

Can anyone compare the protection compound from Continental to the control casing on the older Specialized tires? The Control compound seems very fragile and am hoping the protection will hold up a bit better.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

By older Specialized, you mean the 2bliss ready Gripton versions prior to the introduction of the T5/T7 designations? If so, I had mixed results. Strangely, my Fast Traks (especially the tan sidewall version) was fragile but not Renegades. The Protection casing on a Race King I had also punctured from a small stick right in the center of the tread area (not sidewall). Not exactly confidence inspiring.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

Picked up front Fast Trak S Works T5/T7 and rear Renegade Control T5 in 2.2 from PB seller at a very good price, and unlike my usual Euro shop sources these won't take 4 weeks to deliver. Going on the short travel FS narrower 23mm inner carbon wheels. No mud training/racing, not a lot of rocks in my area, and I'll be sure to add few extra psi to the S works casing. At 160 pounds I'm thinking 23 front and rear as the starting point. Actual weight is 614 and 587.
Always had great luck with Speci tires, but never tried the new compounds. Coming from Mezcal and Barzo in 2.25 and 2.35 which I'll go back to if the Speci aren't durable.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

Death Mud!?
I'm looking at Mezcal III G2 for the Arizona Trail Race (great balance of puncture protection, rolling resistance, and most important - weight on my back portaging them Rim to Rim through the Grand Canyon) but they are getting bad reviews for packing up in mud.
By the time I get to North Arizona and the death mud, most any tire should be worn down to near semi-slick, and does any tire really make a difference for not packing up in death mud? (other than being bald and narrow)
Also, I don't care about propulsion or braking grip, since I can make anything work for my purpose.

Rekon Race and ThunderBurt would be good except, the rubber depth at the tread is too thin, and Renegade's don't have sidewall protection.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Mezcal Trail (anthracite colour) not race (tanwall) for the better protection.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

IMHO The Schwalbe Rocket Ron 2.25 is still the gold standard for mud racing tire.




ccm said:


> Death Mud!?
> I'm looking at Mezcal III G2 for the Arizona Trail Race (great balance of puncture protection, rolling resistance, and most important - weight on my back portaging them Rim to Rim through the Grand Canyon) but they are getting bad reviews for packing up in mud.
> By the time I get to North Arizona and the death mud, most any tire should be worn down to near semi-slick, and does any tire really make a difference for not packing up in death mud? (other than being bald and narrow)
> Also, I don't care about propulsion or braking grip, since I can make anything work for my purpose.
> ...


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> IMHO The Schwalbe Rocket Ron 2.25 is still the gold standard for mud racing tire.


A Rocket Ron would be a Big Apple by the time it gets to the North Arizona mud.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

I use Rocket Rons often for BC, but for the low cactus fukked* desert and abrasive jeep track for the first 600 miles, I wouldn't trust them, and place them in the same category as ThunderBurt and ReconRace for ease of punctures.
Teravail seems to be popular with the bikepack and gravel crowd, but I know nothing about them. The Rutland looks like a ReconRace with a little taller knobs (explains why they are a little heavier)

*oops, meant to type "filled", but missplaced my fingers since the knobs on my home keys of my keyboard are as worn as the tires would be


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

The Mezcal is not a mud tire. But it doesn't really feel like it packs up unnecessarily. It will pack up though (I think anything will in death mud). I used them in a mud race this year and they were fine. Not death mud though and they would slip on the super steep ups. If I do that race again in the mud I'll probably going with a little grippier tire - like a Barzo. 

I had really good luck with Vittoria Terreno (dry if looking at gravel tires) as a mud tire. All tires were packing up. The file tread kept me moving and the sideknobs helped when I would almost lose it. I was running the 33s though.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Slow down kiwi. I have raced and ridden Rocket Ron through a Brazilian variety of mud. There's nothing special about what's in Arizona, it's clay.

Now, durability, that's a valid concern. Schwalbe used to be known for being paper thin, but they've erred on the side of caution now. The Super Ground Rocket Ron weighs in at 645g now.

Although I prefer 2.35 and 2.4, 2.25 is the best choice for mud due to frame clearance. In thick mud, this is the greater concern.



NordieBoy said:


> A Rocket Ron would be a Big Apple by the time it gets to the North Arizona mud.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

Cross king and rocket ron doing well on mud. If you need a mud specific tire go for mud king!


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Slow down kiwi. I have raced and ridden Rocket Ron through a Brazilian variety of mud. There's nothing special about what's in Arizona, it's clay.
> 
> Now, durability, that's a valid concern. Schwalbe used to be known for being paper thin, but they've erred on the side of caution now. The Super Ground Rocket Ron weighs in at 645g now.
> 
> Although I prefer 2.35 and 2.4, 2.25 is the best choice for mud due to frame clearance. In thick mud, this is the greater concern.


Yes, but how would the Rocket Ron do in mud after the first 300-500 miles of the trail?


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

I want the opposite of grip for death mud


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

ccm said:


> I want the opposite of grip for death mud


There really isn't anything that works for death mud. Generally you want smaller so it takes longer before the mud cause you to grind to halt.

Anybody ever tested a non-stick tire cleaner?


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

If anyone wants to try the S Works t5/t7 front and the Renegade t5 rear, this PB seller has some good prices. Shipping in US included, no tax, no paypal fee. Inventory dwindling since placing my order. Quick shipper. I am not affiliated with seller in any way.


https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/3378446/


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

Managed to grab some 2.2 Race Kings, stoked to give these things a shot. Hopefully will have some comparisons to the Aspens and Renegades within the next few weeks.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

Wow these things are light!


----------



## Eric F (May 25, 2021)

Those look FuKing sweet!


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

My friend who tried Race King destroyed it riding down stair steps which cause pinch flat cut. He doesn't have such problem with other 2.2 tires.
Consider adding some more air as a precaution if your ride have any pinch flat risk.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

Hexsense said:


> My friend who tried Race King destroyed it riding down stair steps which cause pinch flat cut. He doesn't have such problem with other 2.2 tires.
> Consider adding some more air as a precaution if your ride have any pinch flat risk.


Thanks for the heads up, I have been very cautious about my pressure this season after destroying my rear rim in May!


----------



## MillerC (Oct 25, 2018)

I rides scale 700 with pike. Santa Cruz 420 gram reserve rims. Aspen 2.25 rear. 2.6 rekon front. Tight twisty single track. Wicked out of shape and still setting pr.


----------



## Mojosauce (Mar 18, 2021)

Had a sidewall tear on a WT Rekon Race 2.4 back wheel that can't be repaired. Purchased the XC Mezcal 2.35, instead of the TNT version, but have a Huck Norris insert I am going to throw in there.

Primarily looking at doing the Shenandoah Mountain100 so conditions will be somewhat rocky, but not terrible. Think the XC version with insert will hold up? 

What have peoples experiences been with that tire for back wheel? Currently running WT Rekon 2.4 out front.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

The insert won't help with sidewall tears. The TNT version sidewalls are very very durable and I would have no concern. I just pulled an XC race Barzo off a friends bike (front tire). Left the Mezcal rear on. The sidewalls are so ridiculously thin. I personally wouldn't run it. But if you are experienced with the conditions and are confident in your handling. They have "held up" for him in some pretty adverse conditions.

Pro's throw a tube in like 3-4 min. It usually takes me longer which is a huge part of my desire not to run the lightest XC tires (depending on the course)


----------



## Carioca_XC (Dec 30, 2014)

If there is something about Vittoria tires that really bothers me is the weight. Not exactly how heavier than the competition, but specifically how inaccurate their weight is. I have seen 2.25” Mezcals and Barzos heavier than their 2.35” counterparts. With TLR and TNT is pretty much the same. And weights vary wildly between claimed and actual. The feeling is that I should find a retail store with all models and variations in stock and personally weigh tires before buying them in the future. 😅


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

What to do when the industry slowly takes away all of your lightweight tire options?

Forekaster:

Sadly they are redesigning the forekaster. This is has been my secret go to tire for years for wet rock/roots, and extremely blown out scorched earth (in Texas it goes full blown drought and the ground watts to separate in scales layers in some regions)

The replacement tire is 950 grams. It has less siping. What the actual hell? 

Rocket Ron:

Not that it’s better than the new Ray/Ron combo anyway, but it’s now 700+ grams and is as small as ever for a 2.25 which is really 2.2.

Not much reason to ever buy this tire again IMO. I’ll sell you a couple of new ones if you want them. 

Up next:

I guess I’m going to try a Ray/Ralph 2.35 combo myself. 

Is the Barzo a good replacement to the forekaster I should try for racing?

I’m going to try the new Wicked Will front and rear. It’s 815 grams, which is heavy, but I think for non racing it will be a rad tire. 

I still love the Rekon Race. I may try the Rekon as a front for party time, but I don’t see how it could be as good as a forekaster was. 

Any other sleeper brands for aggressive XC tires under 800 grams these days? Preferably under 750.

No to XR2s, no to Aspens (side knobs don’t last more than 2 weeks under me) no to terravail. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

FJSnoozer said:


> What to do when the industry slowly takes away all of your lightweight tire options?
> 
> Forekaster:
> 
> ...


What about Continental Cross King Protection 2.3? They're under 800 grams.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

FJSnoozer said:


> What to do when the industry slowly takes away all of your lightweight tire options?
> 
> Forekaster:
> 
> ...


I've got a nearly new Ray I'll give you.

Something for you to test anyways. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

FJSnoozer said:


> No to XR2s, no to Aspens (side knobs don’t last more than 2 weeks under me) no to terravail.


why no Terravail?

Anyway, I'm now sold on the Ron/Ray since the new Super Ground Addix line seems to be more puncture resistant on the tread and the knobs have not worn as much as the old PaceStar and TrailStar series


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Racing Ray / Ralph sucked. I had the 2.35 super ground. Front never hooked up properly and the rear started chunking knobs off the casing on the first ride. 

They weren't that light (710/746) and they didn't feel fast. 

I quickly took them off for a Cross king protection (745g) and a Mezcal tnt (720g) and was much much happier. 

I however really like my Nobby Nics super ground. So far none of the chunking issues the the Ralph had.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

ccm said:


> why no Terravail?
> 
> Anyway, I'm now sold on the Ron/Ray since the new Super Ground Addix line seems to be more puncture resistant on the tread and the knobs have not worn as much as the old PaceStar and TrailStar series


I was given a set to test. Waaaay undersized. Significant dead spot in tread design. Bad sidewall that weeped and eventually just broke on the threads. 

The Ralph /Ray seems to be great. My wife loves it and it has made a difference in her cornering speed. The Ralph actually gives her better climbing traction on our dusty limestone than a Nobby nic. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Suns_PSD said:


> I've got a nearly new Ray I'll give you.
> 
> Something for you to test anyways.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


I’ll take it! Is it gumwall?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Stonerider said:


> What about Continental Cross King Protection 2.3? They're under 800 grams.


I’m willing to try. Does the black chili compound last in those tiny knobs or is it gone pretty quickly. The last set I had in 16 wasn’t great, but my skills then were on a much different level. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

FJSnoozer said:


> Any other sleeper brands for aggressive XC tires under 800 grams these days? Preferably under 750.
> 
> No to XR2s, no to Aspens (side knobs don’t last more than 2 weeks under me) no to terravail.


So far, so good on a Mezcal 2.35 Trail at 753 grams.

Agree on the XR2. They went too far with the redesign, and the casing is Kleenex. The discontinued SE2 was a sleeper xc tire for tough conditions, but no more.



FJSnoozer said:


> The Ralph actually gives her better climbing traction on our dusty limestone than a Nobby nic.


And it's been a long time for me, but in the "olden days" of my more serious racing, I also felt the Rocket Ron outcornered the Nobby Nic up front.


----------



## Joe Handlebar (Apr 12, 2016)

Stonerider said:


> What about Continental Cross King Protection 2.3? They're under 800 grams.


Great tires, seriously. I'm on a set of Maxxis ATM, but I'll most likely be going right back to the CrossKing's as soon as I've toasted them.


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

My mezcals and barzos (run m/m for dry, b/m if damp) are all xc casing 2.35 and on 30mm rims a lovely shape. I run a tubolito in the rear and contrary to what's been said an insert does prevent sidewall issues - not rips due to scraping tight rocks but pinch tears from large impacts. 17/19 f/r @ 77kg on a 120mm synonym.

The only time I've punctured a mezcal was in the tread itself and it sealed with an anchovy and kept going for a year. 

The xc casing 2.35s were all under 700g.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

FJSnoozer said:


> I’ll take it! Is it gumwall?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, but the price is right. 

It's a black Super Trail.

S. Austin anytime. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## bloodninja (Jul 11, 2012)

Mojosauce said:


> Had a sidewall tear on a WT Rekon Race 2.4 back wheel that can't be repaired. Purchased the XC Mezcal 2.35, instead of the TNT version, but have a Huck Norris insert I am going to throw in there.
> 
> Primarily looking at doing the Shenandoah Mountain100 so conditions will be somewhat rocky, but not terrible. Think the XC version with insert will hold up?
> 
> What have peoples experiences been with that tire for back wheel? Currently running WT Rekon 2.4 out front.


Why not another Rekon Race? Rekon / Rekon Race is a great combo for SM I think.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

bloodninja said:


> Why not another Rekon Race? Rekon / Rekon Race is a great combo for SM I think.


Ooo. I love talking SM100 tires. I've raced it on 2.2 Ikon EXOs (non tubeless set up tubeless), Bontrager XR2/XR1 2.2, Maxxis Rekon/Aspen 2.25. I plan on running the Fast Trak/Renegade 2.35 T5 Controls this year. The trails out there aren't super rough and I've always found I can get away with proper XC tires. I really value something fast rolling for the pavement/gravel climbs.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

FJSnoozer said:


> What to do when the industry slowly takes away all of your lightweight tire options?
> 
> Forekaster:
> 
> ...


I recently mounted a kenda karma2 2.4, it feels very similar to the forekaster 2.35 I had before that. I have only had a couple of rides on it yet so I am not sure how it will last, but very supple and lightweight.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

FJSnoozer said:


> What to do when the industry slowly takes away all of your lightweight tire options?
> 
> Forekaster:
> 
> ...


The Rekon is a great rear tire, up front it is not even in the Forekaster's shadow. When wet it is even worse. Is my experience.


----------



## jymontoya (Mar 16, 2014)

Skier78 said:


> I recently mounted a kenda karma2 2.4, it feels very similar to the forekaster 2.35 I had before that. I have only had a couple of rides on it yet so I am not sure how it will last, but very supple and lightweight.


Which casing?

I just got a 2.4 sct karma 2 on the back of my Ripmo. It replaced a Forekaster and I think it's a great tire. The Kenda SCT casing is significantly more durable and stout than EXO in my experience. Allows lower pressure for sure. I like the non staggered side knobs better than the old Forekaster. Felt similar rolling speed.

I run the lightweight TR casing from Kenda on the front, a Regolith 2.6 TR. Fast, light, good grip. Have yet to damage it despite charging plenty of rock gardens. Maybe I'm just lucky? This is on 34mm iw rims. These new Kenda tires love wide rims. The 2.4 is 61mm at both casing and tread. I have seen the 2.2 on 30mm rim and the tread measures the same as the casing. 

TR front and SCT rear is a great option here in central Oregon. Pick the tread for your conditions. Regolith, Karma 2, Booster pro, Rush. Kenda has been killing it lately. I'm glad I gave them a chance.


----------



## Skier78 (Jun 10, 2016)

jymontoya said:


> Which casing?
> 
> I just got a 2.4 sct karma 2 on the back of my Ripmo. It replaced a Forekaster and I think it's a great tire. The Kenda SCT casing is significantly more durable and stout than EXO in my experience. Allows lower pressure for sure. I like the non staggered side knobs better than the old Forekaster. Felt similar rolling speed.
> 
> ...


It is the regular TR, I have it as front tire together with a booster pro TR 2.4 as rear tire (was supposed to be a sct booster but bike24 delivered a regular TR instead so I am hoping it will hold up ok) 

I had booster front and rear last year in 2.2" and was happy with those.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Would a Booster Pro 2.4 front and 2.2 rear be an okay combo in slight damp but not fully muddy condition?
Or would I risk dying on the trail.


----------



## jymontoya (Mar 16, 2014)

I wouldn't run a Booster on the front unless it was completely dry and mostly hardpack. Even just on the back, I've drifted way more than expected with the Booster. The Karma 2 is a better choice for a front in mixed conditions IMHO.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

Finally some love for contis!! CK/RK combo is hard to beat, they have (IMO) the perfect balance in grip/rolling/weight/protection.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

Thinking of going back to my old standby Barzo 29x2.35 for the front. Ran it two years, and it was perfect for our conditions of mostly loose over hard, no mud. I know it's not as light as the S Works Fast Trak T5/T7 that I'm training with, but the Barzo was so predictable from 19 to 21 psi for my 160 pounds.

The Barzo was the XC casing and never let me down in our random rocks. The S Works reviews all mention how thin it is and how it's raceday only. Why throw away a race because it weighs 595 grams compared to the Barzo's 720-ish grams?

Threw away that worn out Barzo front and this new S Works 29x2.2 requires at least 23 psi on my 23mm inner rim, and while it may be loose summer conditions, my confidence is lacking after a crash. Full disclosure: the worn out Barzo was replaced with the S Works after a big crash just days ago, but that was rider error braking too late off camber blown out corner. Today's crash on S Works came on slightly off camber with some dead grass. I know that's a tough ask of any XC tire, but you know how the mind works. Even walked the crash section later in the day due to ocd ruminations. May have been from sidewal collapsing when testing 21psi.

So it's either find another Barzo 29x2.35 or take a risk and go with the Mezcal that I've run for years on back.


----------



## MillerC (Oct 25, 2018)

westin said:


> Thinking of going back to my old standby Barzo 29x2.35 for the front. Ran it two years, and it was perfect for our conditions of mostly loose over hard, no mud. I know it's not as light as the S Works Fast Trak T5/T7 that I'm training with, but the Barzo was so predictable from 19 to 21 psi for my 160 pounds.
> 
> The Barzo was the XC casing and never let me down in our random rocks. The S Works reviews all mention how thin it is and how it's raceday only. Why throw away a race because it weighs 595 grams compared to the Barzo's 720-ish grams?
> 
> ...


I run rekon front. Aspen rear. Blazing fast great for picking lines. Have way more grip than expected in good summer soil.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

Better safe than sorry! Those tiny differences on weight and rolling resistance cannot do miracles in the end time(sometimes a fast tire can also be slower than a beefier because you cant go as fast on technicals) but they can make a huge impact in term of keeping you on the bike(or off). A safer tire can keep you off troubles, broken bones, broken bike ...you name it.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

westin said:


> Thinking of going back to my old standby Barzo 29x2.35 for the front. Ran it two years, and it was perfect for our conditions of mostly loose over hard, no mud. I know it's not as light as the S Works Fast Trak T5/T7 that I'm training with, but the Barzo was so predictable from 19 to 21 psi for my 160 pounds.
> 
> The Barzo was the XC casing and never let me down in our random rocks. The S Works reviews all mention how thin it is and how it's raceday only. Why throw away a race because it weighs 595 grams compared to the Barzo's 720-ish grams?
> 
> ...


Dude, even if it's in your head -- which is _not_ likely IMO -- go back to what gives you confidence.

Worth a few grams, every day of the week.

However, as much as I'm the last guy to jump onto a trend -- still no dropper here -- you might consider that those 23 iw rims are giving you more tire roll than you realize.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Hrodulf said:


> The Rekon is a great rear tire, up front it is not even in the Forekaster's shadow. When wet it is even worse. Is my experience.


Thanks! I’ve stared at it and never thought it looked as progressive as the forekaster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bloodninja (Jul 11, 2012)

csteven71 said:


> Ooo. I love talking SM100 tires. I've raced it on 2.2 Ikon EXOs (non tubeless set up tubeless), Bontrager XR2/XR1 2.2, Maxxis Rekon/Aspen 2.25. I plan on running the Fast Trak/Renegade 2.35 T5 Controls this year. The trails out there aren't super rough and I've always found I can get away with proper XC tires. I really value something fast rolling for the pavement/gravel climbs.


We were just camping at Stokesville this weekend. My son had a brand new Racing Ralph in back and shredded it on the upper part of Tillman W. We replaced it with a 2.2 Ikon Exo that held up great for the rest of the weekend including Lookout which is rougher than anything on the 100 route. I'm trying to talk him into something like Ardent Race / Ikon, or Ikon 2.35 / Ikon 2.2 but he can't stop geeking out over weight and rolling resistance. He wants to try Barzo/Barzo now, which on paper does look pretty good. I was fine running Rekon / Rekon Race.


----------



## Mojosauce (Mar 18, 2021)

bloodninja said:


> Why not another Rekon Race? Rekon / Rekon Race is a great combo for SM I think.


I was thinking about it, but I wasn't too thrilled with the handling on my rekon race. Not sure if it was a PSI issue or me just not being great at cornering in loose over hard and damp with it but kept having the rear break loose and was looking for something else.

I bought a 2.35 Mezcal XC with Huck Norris insert and really liking the way it handles back there with the Rekon up front. Mezcal seems to have similar rolling resistance to the Rekon Race, but with better hook up or bite when you lean it over onto the side knobs.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

I’ve ridden lookout on the 2.25 Rekon/Aspen. More volume would have been welcomed.


----------



## azkme (6 mo ago)

Quick question from a rather newbie on this matter.

I've recently upgraded my bike to a tubeless setup to do XC races in Belgium. Belgium doesn't serve the most difficult/steep/muddy/.. trails so I was looking for fast tubes and I've got my bikeshop to install 2 renegades (29x2.1, previous model I think). After a few tests I have the feeling my front is not really solid when it comes to cornering.

Would upgrading the front to a Fast Trak (new model) 2.2 (or even 2.35) make a difference in handling?


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

azkme said:


> Quick question from a rather newbie on this matter.
> 
> I've recently upgraded my bike to a tubeless setup to do XC races in Belgium. Belgium doesn't serve the most difficult/steep/muddy/.. trails so I was looking for fast tubes and I've got my bikeshop to install 2 renegades (29x2.1, previous model I think). After a few tests I have the feeling my front is not really solid when it comes to cornering.
> 
> Would upgrading the front to a Fast Trak (new model) 2.2 (or even 2.35) make a difference in handling?



I would experiment with a range of pressures before trying new tyres TBH.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

azkme said:


> Quick question from a rather newbie on this matter.
> 
> I've recently upgraded my bike to a tubeless setup to do XC races in Belgium. Belgium doesn't serve the most difficult/steep/muddy/.. trails so I was looking for fast tubes and I've got my bikeshop to install 2 renegades (29x2.1, previous model I think). After a few tests I have the feeling my front is not really solid when it comes to cornering.
> 
> Would upgrading the front to a Fast Trak (new model) 2.2 (or even 2.35) make a difference in handling?


The previous generation Renegade was interesting as a front tire in my experience. It slips really easily but rarely completely lets go so you get plenty of warning. But that constant slippage also isn't confidence inspiring. I haven't ridden the new Fast Trak, but the previous one definitely eliminated the slip although it didn't give you as much warning as the Renegade when it did let go. I'd still say overall, I was more confident on the Fast Trak. I imagine the newer one will be even better with the enhanced cornering blocks.


----------



## azkme (6 mo ago)

@tick_magnet this describes 100% the feeling I'm having right now. Riding with the constant fear of having your front break out doesn't help.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Renegade and Fast Trak's side knobs aren't as prominent as Kenda Booster Pro. Is it intentional to make it slip easier but more predictable?
I guess tire with tall side knobs (thus more squared) slip less, but once it's gone, it's harder to recover than a rounder shape?

Specialized Fast Trak:








Specialized Renegade:








Kenda Booster Pro:


----------



## linner (Mar 14, 2019)

FJSnoozer said:


> I was given a set to test. Waaaay undersized. Significant dead spot in tread design. Bad sidewall that weeped and eventually just broke on the threads.
> 
> The Ralph /Ray seems to be great. My wife loves it and it has made a difference in her cornering speed. The Ralph actually gives her better climbing traction on our dusty limestone than a Nobby nic.
> 
> ...


I'm looking for new XC tires for XTerra early fall (in the Dolomites). Its not a technical course but has a ton of climbing and it could be dry or wet! I'm considering the Ralph/Ray combination - is your wife a lightweight? (I am!). Maybe its a good fit for smaller riders?


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

I pulled this out of a Mezcal 2.35 Trail the other day, so clearly they aren't very sturdy! 🙃


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

kosmo said:


> I pulled this out of a Mezcal 2.35 Trail the other day, so clearly they aren't very sturdy! 🙃
> 
> View attachment 1992989


How did you not see that tape measure in the trail??


----------



## Cerpss (Sep 13, 2015)

kosmo said:


> I pulled this out of a Mezcal 2.35 Trail the other day, so clearly they aren't very sturdy! 🙃


 I pulled this out of my xr2 when I was at home patching it the next day. Between the darkness and mosquitos feasting on me I threw in a tube as quick as I could and rode home. Somehow this didn't puncture my tube or my tire again


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

linner said:


> I'm looking for new XC tires for XTerra early fall (in the Dolomites). Its not a technical course but has a ton of climbing and it could be dry or wet! I'm considering the Ralph/Ray combination - is your wife a lightweight? (I am!). Maybe its a good fit for smaller riders?


My wife usually races at 137. 

We run F 18 and R 20 psi on 2.35s on 29mm new Control SL rims. No insert. Any less and she DNFs or has flats in races because she rides pretty aggressively in the rocks and especially G outs.  

I ride behind her a lot because she is fast and these tires handle better than any combo I’ve had her on. You can tell by her cornering speed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pk1 (Mar 25, 2010)

linner said:


> I'm looking for new XC tires for XTerra early fall (in the Dolomites). Its not a technical course but has a ton of climbing and it could be dry or wet! I'm considering the Ralph/Ray combination - is your wife a lightweight? (I am!). Maybe its a good fit for smaller riders?


i've had good experiences with ralph/ray, i'm ~74kg so not especially light - within reason you just adjust the pressure for weight/riding style. 
only complaint i've had is the ray can be a bit vague on gravelly stuff, good on dryish dirt though. they are pretty fast and have plenty of grip for non-technical courses

i'm considering trying a mezcal/barzo combo just for a comparison after sticking with ralph/ray for several years now


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

Cerpss said:


> I pulled this out of my xr2 when I was at home patching it the next day. Between the darkness and mosquitos feasting on me I threw in a tube as quick as I could and rode home. Somehow this didn't puncture my tube or my tire again
> View attachment 1993026


Similar experience recently with three XR2s. Love the tire, but Trek went too far with weight reduction on the latest version IMO, at least for where I ride, which I would generally call only generally rough and rocky. Still stoked on XR3 up front though.


----------



## linner (Mar 14, 2019)

pk1 said:


> i've had good experiences with ralph/ray, i'm ~74kg so not especially light - within reason you just adjust the pressure for weight/riding style.
> only complaint i've had is the ray can be a bit vague on gravelly stuff, good on dryish dirt though. they are pretty fast and have plenty of grip for non-technical courses
> 
> i'm considering trying a mezcal/barzo combo just for a comparison after sticking with ralph/ray for several years now


I ended up finding some 2.35 Ralph/Ray (Super Ground) online - none were available locally. Not a lot available out there... but hopefully this is a good choice for my last couple of races this year and some fun rides too!


----------



## Cerpss (Sep 13, 2015)

kosmo said:


> Similar experience recently with three XR2s. Love the tire, but Trek went too far with weight reduction on the latest version IMO, at least for where I ride, which I would generally call only generally rough and rocky. Still stoked on XR3 up front though.


 In the tire's defense, I was hauling tail and drifted wide into the taller weeds/grass off to the side of the singletrack where this stick was hiding. I heard the bang, then heard and felt the air rapidly escaping over about 3 tire rotations.


----------



## Bluebeat007 (Mar 17, 2004)

Barzo/Mezcal all day long for east coast racing.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

Last year there were some prototype mud tyres used in Les Gets. I just checked and Dirty Dan that Mathias was using is now made in 29x2.0 size with Speedgrip compound weighing 730gr. Has anybody used them?


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

For anyone frustrated by Maxxis Forekaster weight increase,
I think Kenda Karma 2 Pro TR 2.4 is a good alternative. Maybe think of it as Forekaster Race as it has slightly smaller center knobs.
Mine weight 680g. It'll be my all round front tire (especially in wet condition).


----------



## Sportsgravel (6 mo ago)

Is anyone using Conti's in 2022? I have a race coming up later in the year which is styled off the Leadville 100 (cattlemen 100 in Australia) more climbing but thankfully not at altitude.

Looking to save some watts where possible and the course is predominantly double track and fire road. considering going for Racekings front and rear as they look like they'll give a big watt saving over my current 2.4/2.25 Aspen setup.

Does anyone have any recent experince with them? and are they really as fast as the BRR tests would suggest?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

Sportsgravel said:


> Is anyone using Conti's in 2022? I have a race coming up later in the year which is styled off the Leadville 100 (cattlemen 100 in Australia) more climbing but thankfully not at altitude.
> 
> Looking to save some watts where possible and the course is predominantly double track and fire road. considering going for Racekings front and rear as they look like they'll give a big watt saving over my current 2.4/2.25 Aspen setup.
> 
> ...


Im currently running Race Kings front and rear on my bike. They are definitely a fast rolling tire, but I haven't ridden a set of Aspen's for about a year now so I don't really have a gauge for how they stack up to anything else.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Race Kings roll faster than Aspens. I use Race Kings on my rigid hardtail that I use to ride chunky gravel courses.


----------



## redwarrior (Apr 12, 2007)

Hexsense said:


> For anyone frustrated by Maxxis Forekaster weight increase,
> I think Kenda Karma 2 Pro TR 2.4 is a good alternative. Maybe think of it as Forekaster Race as it has slightly smaller center knobs.
> Mine weight 680g. It'll be my all round front tire (especially in wet condition).


I haven't ridden Kenda's since my 26" days but these look interesting. What type of terrain are you usually riding in? I've often got very slick wet roots & rocks in my little corner of New England.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

redwarrior said:


> I haven't ridden Kenda's since my 26" days but these look interesting. What type of terrain are you usually riding in? I've often got very slick wet roots & rocks in my little corner of New England.


dirt, mud, wet roots, some sandpits but no rocks. Also commuting to and from the trail on hard concrete which will accelerate wears.


----------



## B R H (Jan 13, 2004)

Hexsense said:


> For anyone frustrated by Maxxis Forekaster weight increase,
> I think Kenda Karma 2 Pro TR 2.4 is a good alternative. Maybe think of it as Forekaster Race as it has slightly smaller center knobs.
> Mine weight 680g. It'll be my all round front tire (especially in wet condition).


I’ve been running these for a while but mine were heavier at just over 700 each. The TR casing is fantastic but not as tough as most from Maxxis - similar to Ikon toughness IME. The Karma 2 is a very good all-around race tire - better than even Kenda describes it IMO. The Booster in SCT casing on the other hand is just terrible where I ride (Tahoe area).


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

Hexsense said:


> dirt, mud, wet roots, some sandpits but no rocks. Also commuting to and from the trail on hard concrete which will accelerate wears.


I know you've ridden the Wolpack Cross - how does the Karma 2 compare to that?


----------



## B R H (Jan 13, 2004)

Hexsense said:


> dirt, mud, wet roots, some sandpits but no rocks. Also commuting to and from the trail on hard concrete which will accelerate wears.


Yeah, while they do well on most rocks and even dry loose stuff (better than I expected to a point), don’t expect them to last long in those conditions. Outer knobs on mine are undercut a fair amount more than say a Rekon would be at this point after similar use.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

https://m.pinkbike.com/news/the-pinkbike-podcast-episode-137-maxxis-aaron-chamberlain-on-pro-only-rubber-all-the-minions-and-tires-prices.html



Interesting discussion about Maxxis tyres.

Sounds like the Severe and updated Aspen are still some ways off.


----------



## ligniteminer (May 10, 2012)

Anyone have experience with Vittoria Terrenos? Looking for a tire to race some non technical XCM stuff on or if I know it is going to be hard packed nothing too sketchy. Would they be much faster than Mezcals?

Wondering what they would be like compared to Nino's Aspen STs.


----------



## Kirsa (Jul 5, 2011)

Vamp said:


> I know you've ridden the Wolpack Cross - how does the Karma 2 compare to that?


I just wanted to say same thing. Wolfpack Cross or conti Mountain King are very good tires for wet roots but everything could always be better.
I am also interested how Karma2 compares.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Vamp said:


> I know you've ridden the Wolpack Cross - how does the Karma 2 compare to that?


I was waiting until I have enough experience on Kenda to say a thing.
Unfortunately, it keep raining every single day locally here so the trail is never dry.

Anyway, yesterday I got a chance to ride.
And the Kenda combo (Karma 2 TR 2.4 front and Booster Pro SCT 2.4 rear) leave some positive impression over Wolfpack combo (Cross 2.4 front Speed 2.4 rear).
First, commuting to the trail on tarmac is faster on Kenda combo.
Second, the grip in the slightly damp trail ground seems better than Wolfpack as well.
However, my trail lap time is slower. And maybe it doesn't grip the root as well too.

It's still too early to have any conclusive opinion. But I wonder, is it reasonable to think Kenda is faster on tarmac road but slower and grippier on the actual soft dirt?
Also, could it grip better on soft ground and worse on wet roots?
Those, are some first impression that I still have to verify with more riding.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

When the dirt gets some moisture in it traction is high, as is rolling resistance.

I don't think your comparison is fair for this reason.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

So then the only thing I'm certain is, it's faster on tarmac road.
That's all for now. Still waiting for condition to change to know more about how it perform on trail.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

In my experience, if there is less rolling resistance on the road, there is also less rolling resistance on most dirt.

Whether or not that reduced RR comes with a significant loss in traction is yet to be determined.

Back on the moisture in the dirt thing, I personally hate 'hero dirt' as they call it as it makes my entire ride much slower.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

But hero dirt makes the downs so amazingly fast. All the grip.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

I have to say, I’m very happy with my current Conti Cross King/Race King combo. Super fast rolling and the front traction is rather impressive. Really enjoying these.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the Cross King 2.3 on the front. Does well here in CO sand/hard pack and did surprisingly well in Pisgah when I was there two weekends ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Cross king 2.3 is great! Wish the race king also came in a 2.3. Any idea how the race king compares to a Mezcal?


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

Hexsense said:


> I was waiting until I have enough experience on Kenda to say a thing.
> Unfortunately, it keep raining every single day locally here so the trail is never dry.
> 
> Anyway, yesterday I got a chance to ride.
> ...


Thanks for the update. Sounds like it's a broadly comparable tyre to the Cross. My Cross still has plenty of life left, so no need to investigate the Karma just yet  

Living in the UK, it's been the opposite weather wise. We haven't had any rain all summer and everything is bone dry. I have Wolfpack Speed at front, and Thunder Burt at back, and not even thinking about changing tyres at the moment. Everything feels 100% dialled in. Winter seems a lifetime away.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

ligniteminer said:


> Anyone have experience with Vittoria Terrenos? Looking for a tire to race some non technical XCM stuff on or if I know it is going to be hard packed nothing too sketchy. Would they be much faster than Mezcals?
> 
> Wondering what they would be like compared to Nino's Aspen STs.


I ran one in the rear for our local short track series in the spring and it was noticably faster than the Mezcal. I'd run them more often here as a rear but not currently available in sidewall protection or 60tpi, skinwalls are a death sentence in NWA.


----------



## ligniteminer (May 10, 2012)

pinkpowa said:


> I ran one in the rear for our local short track series in the spring and it was noticably faster than the Mezcal. I'd run them more often here as a rear but not currently available in sidewall protection or 60tpi, skinwalls are a death sentence in NWA.


Thanks, I am looking at running them for the Lutsen 99er which is mostly gravel roads. 

When our trails are in good shape here they are mostly packed clay and don't need a ton of tread. I've been running mezcal/mezcal this year and think I will be back to Barzo/Mezcal after this season for drier blown out courses.


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

pinkpowa said:


> I ran one in the rear for our local short track series in the spring and it was noticably faster than the Mezcal. I'd run them more often here as a rear but not currently available in sidewall protection or 60tpi, skinwalls are a death sentence in NWA.


Vs mezcal skinwalls or mezcal grey / TNT?

If TNT not really a fair comparison - the tan Vittoria's are a lot more supple and supple = fast.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

joebusby said:


> Vs mezcal skinwalls or mezcal grey / TNT?
> 
> If TNT not really a fair comparison - the tan Vittoria's are a lot more supple and supple = fast.


vs skinwall mezcals, had a pair of those and swapped out the rear for the terreno.


----------



## The Boz (Sep 28, 2011)

I posted this in the tire forum but didn't get any responses so I thought I would try here...

I'm prepping for a 75 mile race throughout Park City, the PCP2P. With 12,000 feet of climbing and an equal amount of descending, this race is all single track with just about every type of condition, except wet/muddy conditions (I will not race if it is muddy). Lots of hardpack, roots, rocks, loose, gardens of shale. Heavy tires hurt on the climbs and wimpy tires make you wince on the long descents. 

I did this race four years ago on Maxxis Ikon 2.35 front and rear. I have 26mm ID Nox Carbon wheels and my bike is a 115mm rear/120mm front suspension XC rig that weighs 24 lbs. I'm 6'3" and 175 lbs. 

Any recommendations considering some of the new tire choices out there? Or should I stick with the Ikons? 

Here are some of my ideas:

Rekon 2.4WT front, Rekon Race 2.35 rear. But is the Rekon 2.4WT too wide for my 26 ID rims? Is the Rekon Race a good climbing rear tire? This isn't a lightweight setup but would be solid on the descents. Such a big front tire might be too heavy.. 

Rekon Race 2.35 front and rear. Perhaps the more climb-friendly setup. I read somewhere that the Rekon Race wasn't stellar on steep climbs but there isn't any super steep stuff on this race. Just a lot of endless climbing but nothing with a crazy grade. 

Rekon 2.4WT front, and Ikon 2.35 rear. This is the biggest volume combo. 

Other ideas: Ardent Race 2.35? Aspens seems like they would have too much open space for punctures on this rocky course... 

Any advice appreciated.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

I have ridden Rekon, Rekon Race and Ikon.

The Rekon is a pure rear tire imho, the only Maxxis tire I have crashed with. I found the Rekon Race wayyy more predictable and gripper on the front. Yes, also on steep climbs. I did a 26% wet climb with the rekon race on the rear rear and that went great.

I would vote for a 2.35 Ikon front and 2.35 Rekon Race rear. Or a 2.35 Ardent Race front and a 2.35 Rekon Race rear. I think that are the best combo's for speed, grip where you need it with low rolling resistence.


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

The Boz said:


> I posted this in the tire forum but didn't get any responses so I thought I would try here...
> 
> I'm prepping for a 75 mile race throughout Park City, the PCP2P. With 12,000 feet of climbing and an equal amount of descending, this race is all single track with just about every type of condition, except wet/muddy conditions (I will not race if it is muddy). Lots of hardpack, roots, rocks, loose, gardens of shale. Heavy tires hurt on the climbs and wimpy tires make you wince on the long descents.
> 
> ...


I live in Park City so have a decent idea of what tires are a solid choice for the area. If I was racing I would pick the fastest rolling combo I could get away with since the climbs are where you are going to make up time. I would reccomend something along the lines of a Vittoria Mezcal or a Ardent Race, both roll pretty fast have good enough traction and should keep you rolling without a catastrophic puncture. If you wanted to risk some puncture protection for added speed Aspens or Conti Cross king (front) Race King (rear) are good options.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

The Boz said:


> I posted this in the tire forum but didn't get any responses so I thought I would try here...
> 
> I'm prepping for a 75 mile race throughout Park City, the PCP2P. With 12,000 feet of climbing and an equal amount of descending, this race is all single track with just about every type of condition, except wet/muddy conditions (I will not race if it is muddy). Lots of hardpack, roots, rocks, loose, gardens of shale. Heavy tires hurt on the climbs and wimpy tires make you wince on the long descents.
> 
> ...


I'm currently using the 2.4WT Rekon/Rekon Race combo and have been pleasantly surprised with both the speed and grip. They are _heavy_ though so if you're a bit retentive when it comes to weight there are better options. Given you are already using Ikons etc I assume you're fine with the weights and think the Rekon Race seems a better rear.

Very pleased with the 2.4 sizing. I don't think 26mm is too narrow at all.


----------



## down0050 (Aug 4, 2014)

The Boz said:


> I posted this in the tire forum but didn't get any responses so I thought I would try here...
> 
> I'm prepping for a 75 mile race throughout Park City, the PCP2P. With 12,000 feet of climbing and an equal amount of descending, this race is all single track with just about every type of condition, except wet/muddy conditions (I will not race if it is muddy). Lots of hardpack, roots, rocks, loose, gardens of shale. Heavy tires hurt on the climbs and wimpy tires make you wince on the long descents.
> 
> ...


Ardent Race 2.35 rolls really well, much quicker than the Ikon 2.35 and it's pretty grippy. I am actually using a combo that many seem to agree doesn't make sense, Ikon 2.35 front and AR 2.35 rear and it's my favourite setup so far! Typically doing 80km+ singletrack rides in variable conditions...


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

down0050 said:


> Ardent Race 2.35 rolls really well, much quicker than the Ikon 2.35 and it's pretty grippy. I am actually using a combo that many seem to agree doesn't make sense, Ikon 2.35 front and AR 2.35 rear and it's my favourite setup so far! Typically doing 80km+ singletrack rides in variable conditions...


Makes perfect sense to me. Years ago I mounted a 2.35 AR up front and a 2.35 Ikon in the rear. I quickly noticed the Ikon was a higher volume tire than the AR and my setup looked goofy. I swapped them around and figured I'd be okay until I decided what to do. Turned out to be an awesome combo. 

I've ran Rekon Race front and rear with great results and my current XC setup is 2.4 Goodyear Peaks. We don't have a lot of shale around here but we do have some chunk and some sidewall slashing rocks and I've yet to have any issues.


----------



## The Boz (Sep 28, 2011)

I’m leaning towards a Rekon Race 2.4 and 2.35 combo. I saw a review of the Rekon Race 2.4 WT and it said it was measured at 2.47” in width at the knobs. Is that right?


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

The Boz said:


> I’m leaning towards a Rekon Race 2.4 and 2.35 combo. I saw a review of the Rekon Race 2.4 WT and it said it was measured at 2.47” in width at the knobs. Is that right?


No way. The Rekon Race WT on my 30mm rims is 61mm at the casing and 60mm on the side knobs.

I still think the best combo for what you described is the Rekon and Rekon Race. I don't know your skill level etc so I wouldn't be confident to say RR front. The Rekon Race is fast and would be plenty grippy for climbs. Wet roots are a little bit of a limit. The Ardent Race seems like an Enduro tyre it's so heavy. I think there's better options personally. Barzo, Barzo if you're searching for fast rolling but more grip and even in TNT they're in the ~750g range at 2.35"


----------



## le_pedal (Jul 10, 2018)

Just put my Fast Traks back on after a year of maxis tires. They are the 29 x 2.3 without any of the grid/protection. About 670g. 

They roll fast but damn, they are not confidence inspiring at all - and I mean that in the context of XC tires. Definitely require you to be paying extra attention. 

Might go back to the ardent race (f) Aspen (r) for peace of mind. 

How's the Aspen supposed to be up front? I have a second one that I could experiment running.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

le_pedal said:


> Just put my Fast Traks back on after a year of maxis tires. They are the 29 x 2.3 without any of the grid/protection. About 670g.
> 
> They roll fast but damn, they are not confidence inspiring at all - and I mean that in the context of XC tires. Definitely require you to be paying extra attention.
> 
> ...


My mate who's a Pro calls them "drifty" lol. I think that translates to sketchy for most of us.


----------



## le_pedal (Jul 10, 2018)

mail_liam said:


> My mate who's a Pro calls them "drifty" lol. I think that translates to sketchy for most of us.


Was he talking about the Aspen or the fast track?


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

le_pedal said:


> Was he talking about the Aspen or the fast track?


Aspen 2.4

He's really freaking good on the MTB.


----------



## RexRacerX (10 mo ago)

I’ve had good experience racing (and riding) the Aspen 2.4WT (I think it’s only exo? In any case, I use exo) on alpine singletrack (hiking trails with plenty of sharp and not sharp rocks) over here. 27 or 29 mm internal. I often bump up the psi by 1 (let’s say around 5%) when riding will involve such trails - mostly for pinch flat reasons with all the rocks/drops. They aren’t the lightest, but the trade off seems to be fewer flats. They role perceptively faster than the RR. RR definitely has more cornering grip if it’s dry, though I still prefer the Aspens on roots. 

Have found RR (again, WT - even on 27 mm internal) to be quite confident on typical mountain west summer conditions of dust over hard. 

Hope the weather is good and you enjoy the race!

Edit: disclaimer - I can say I descend fast, but I certainly try to be light in the rough patches with the Aspens. Not sure they would hold up as well bulldozing sharp rocks. Should be obvious, but context is still important.


----------



## RexRacerX (10 mo ago)

mail_liam said:


> Aspen 2.4
> 
> He's really freaking good on the MTB.


Lol. I thought for a moment I was some kind of idiot? 

Because when I tried the fast trak 2.3 coming from aspen WT I thought: all the grip! Still so fast! 

But I had to run way higher pressures to stop the sidewalls squirming in corners and descents… also cut the sidewalls in the end. Never actually done that with maxxis exo (surely a matter of time). 

Drifty definitely fits the aspen. Fits the 2.25 even better than the 2.4WT tho.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

RexRacerX said:


> Lol. I thought for a moment I was some kind of idiot?
> 
> Because when I tried the fast trak 2.3 coming from aspen WT I thought: all the grip! Still so fast!
> 
> ...


Yeah, for the trails I ride and my skill level, I'm some way off from being confident to run an Aspen up front. I've been toying with the idea of running it in the rear but I'm waiting for the updated tread pattern.


----------



## RexRacerX (10 mo ago)

mail_liam said:


> Yeah, for the trails I ride and my skill level, I'm some way off from being confident to run an Aspen up front. I've been toying with the idea of running it in the rear but I'm waiting for the updated tread pattern.


I’m not so in the loop, but my impression was the new tread pattern is rather an extra one: ST = short track?

In any case, from the pictures I’d say the current one will have better grip. Especially braking. But then again, there are a lot of descents around here. So perhaps not so relevant. Surely rolls fast. Nino has done a lot of testing (in general, don’t know about this new tire).


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

For the front, I find the Fast Trak more confident than the Aspen although the Aspen isn't bad. But it also matters how you setup your cockpit. If you run more of a front biased setup which puts more weight over the front, you are going to have fewer front end washouts than a rear biased setup where you have to have perfect technique all the time.


----------



## Augustus-G (Jun 21, 2019)

le_pedal said:


> Just put my Fast Traks back on after a year of maxis tires. They are the 29 x 2.3 without any of the grid/protection. About 670g.
> 
> They roll fast but damn, they are not confidence inspiring at all - and I mean that in the context of XC tires. Definitely require you to be paying extra attention.
> 
> ...


Leave the old 2.3" Fast Trak on the Rear. Put one of the new 2.35" Fast Trak's on the Front.
The new Fast Trak has a lot more grip. Then when you wear out the old Fast Trak put a Renegade on the rear.
That'll cover most everything unless you're on a course that needs extra rear wheel bite. Then run the new Fast Trak on the rear too.


----------



## arnea (Feb 21, 2010)

ligniteminer said:


> Anyone have experience with Vittoria Terrenos? Looking for a tire to race some non technical XCM stuff on or if I know it is going to be hard packed nothing too sketchy. Would they be much faster than Mezcals?
> 
> Wondering what they would be like compared to Nino's Aspen STs.


Colleague tested the 650x47c model for offroadish gravel race (mostly gravel, tarmac, but also some singletrack). He did the testing only in dry conditions and said that the grip was ok both on gravel and on singletrack. Very fast, at least on the tarmac.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

arnea said:


> Colleague tested the 650x47c model for offroadish gravel race (mostly gravel, tarmac, but also some singletrack). He did the testing only in dry conditions and said that the grip was ok both on gravel and on singletrack. Very fast, at least on the tarmac.


Keep an eye out for new 29er/700c sizes in the Terrenos...


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

pinkpowa said:


> Keep an eye out for new 29er/700c sizes in the Terrenos...
> View attachment 1996602


PFP has one in back as well: https://www.pinkbike.com/photo/22689288/
From feature https://www.pinkbike.com/news/profi...el-depression-disordered-eating-and-more.html


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

westin said:


> PFP has one in back as well: https://www.pinkbike.com/photo/22689288/
> From feature https://www.pinkbike.com/news/profi...el-depression-disordered-eating-and-more.html


That's the existing XC-Race casing 29x2.25 of the Terreno (dry)


----------



## The Boz (Sep 28, 2011)

I was thinking of doing Rekon Race 2.4WT up front and Rekon Race 2.35 in the rear. But now I'm thinking of doing the 2.4WT for both front and rear. Any thoughts? I'm thinking the weight savings for the smaller rear tire might be outweighed by the performance and volume of the 2.4WT. Any thoughts?


----------



## utmtbrider (Dec 8, 2020)

The Boz said:


> I was thinking of doing Rekon Race 2.4WT up front and Rekon Race 2.35 in the rear. But now I'm thinking of doing the 2.4WT for both front and rear. Any thoughts? I'm thinking the weight savings for the smaller rear tire might be outweighed by the performance and volume of the 2.4WT. Any thoughts?


Most people I have talked with hate the Rekon Race but thats not your question, I would do 2.4 f/r.


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

The Boz said:


> I was thinking of doing Rekon Race 2.4WT up front and Rekon Race 2.35 in the rear. But now I'm thinking of doing the 2.4WT for both front and rear. Any thoughts? I'm thinking the weight savings for the smaller rear tire might be outweighed by the performance and volume of the 2.4WT. Any thoughts?


I've ran the 2.35 Rekon Race front and rear and it's a great/fast combo. However, it takes a little more rider input having one on the front.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I liked the Rekon Race front and rear. The only downsides for me were braking and they wore too quickly.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

NordieBoy said:


> I liked the Rekon Race front and rear. The only downsides for me were braking and they wore too quickly.


I hear you.

Hence I have replaced them for Thunder Burts front/rear.

They have more grip, also in the wet, roll faster and wear way less.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Hrodulf said:


> I hear you.
> 
> Hence I have replaced them for Thunder Burts front/rear.
> 
> They have more grip, also in the wet, roll faster and wear way less.


I prefer the Rekon Races to the Thunder Burts I tried.


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

Hrodulf said:


> I hear you.
> 
> Hence I have replaced them for Thunder Burts front/rear.
> 
> They have more grip, also in the wet, roll faster and wear way less.


I guess tyre preference is subjective, but I am also in the Burt camp. My latest sweetspot combo is Wolfpack Speed up front, Burt in the back, and this combo is awesome. Really fast rolling, predictable handling, excellent braking grip. My Rekon Races are now pretty much permanently on the training wheels (which don't get ridden  ), they're definitely not getting any race time!

Rode this combo to AG 4th place last weekend in the Welsh XCM Champs, which included some very muddy sections, and thought it was brilliant!


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

I agree that pretty much every Schwalbe tire is better in almost everything then any other tire. They roll fast, they have plenty of grip, they last quite long, but at least in my experience, they are super super fragile. With Maxxis and Vittoria you don't need to take care much when going over rocks and/or roots, with Schwalbe you have punctures real fast. And another thing is their QC... I have yet to see straight Schwalbe tire that doesn't wobble when mounted, and I have been using them for 15+ years now. If it's really really good, it just wobbles, if it's a bit less good, it feels like roller coaster, and if it's a bit worse, it's impossible to ride


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

primoz said:


> I agree that pretty much every Schwalbe tire is better in almost everything then any other tire. They roll fast, they have plenty of grip, they last quite long, but at least in my experience, they are super super fragile. With Maxxis and Vittoria you don't need to take care much when going over rocks and/or roots, with Schwalbe you have punctures real fast. And another thing is their QC... I have yet to see straight Schwalbe tire that doesn't wobble when mounted, and I have been using them for 15+ years now. If it's really really good, it just wobbles, if it's a bit less good, it feels like roller coaster, and if it's a bit worse, it's impossible to ride



I have not had reliability issues, but I have found them a ball-ache to mount tubeless. Other brands - mount - inflate - done. Schwalbe I had to try every trick in the book, including installing with a tube first, adding extra tape, and they're never straightforward.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

What sealant are you using? I haven't had any issues with Orange Seal and with newer Schwalbe tires


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

cassieno said:


> What sealant are you using? I haven't had any issues with Orange Seal and with newer Schwalbe tires


 Stan's Race. But it's not a sealant issue, it's getting them to pop up in the first place. It's like they're too loose fitting basically. Once they're on, they're problem free.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

primoz said:


> I agree that pretty much every Schwalbe tire is better in almost everything then any other tire. They roll fast, they have plenty of grip, they last quite long, but at least in my experience, they are super super fragile. With Maxxis and Vittoria you don't need to take care much when going over rocks and/or roots, with Schwalbe you have punctures real fast. And another thing is their QC... I have yet to see straight Schwalbe tire that doesn't wobble when mounted, and I have been using them for 15+ years now. If it's really really good, it just wobbles, if it's a bit less good, it feels like roller coaster, and if it's a bit worse, it's impossible to ride


So lemme see if I have the straight: they're better in almost every way than everything else, except they're "super super fragile" and for 15 years you've never seen one that doesn't wobble. OK, can't wait to try some!


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

A tire wobble can be easily solved, right ?

I have had wobbles with Maxxis as well. I always massage the wobbles away, that is what I do - and it works !

Mehhh, maybe I am just to kind for my tires 

I don't find the new Schwalbe tires so fragile anymore. Which I can't confirm about their QC unfortunately, definitely not up to the level of other brands tbh. Especially Maxxis, their QC is the best. IMHE.


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

BmanInTheD said:


> So lemme see if I have the straight: they're better in almost every way than everything else, except they're "super super fragile" and for 15 years you've never seen one that doesn't wobble. OK, can't wait to try some!


Trying to be funny eh? It depends what's important for you. Is it grip, is it speed, is it weight, or is it that you can bomb down rock garden without being afraid puncturing. If it's first 3, then Schwalbe wins any other tire without much problems. If it's last, then well, it doesn't. So it's up to what your priorities are, funny guy.



Hrodulf said:


> A tire wobble can be easily solved, right ?


If wobble comes from bad mounting, yes. If tire is just not straight, then you can try to mount it any possible way, but no luck. And that's normally case with Schwalbe.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

Schwalbes are not fragile anymore.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Depends on the tire. My racing Ralph's super ground started shedding knobs immediately. My nobby nics (not an XC tire) have been great.)


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

No problems with both super race and older speed versions of ray Ralph combos!


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

cassieno said:


> Depends on the tire. My racing Ralph's super ground started shedding knobs immediately. My nobby nics (not an XC tire) have been great.)


I may be way off here, but in my mind fragility is tearing/puncturing easily/frequently.

Tyre wear I guess is, but knob tearing and rapid tyre wear is definitely not a Schwalbe problem but just a high end tyre problem in my experience. That is, the grippy tyres have soft rubber and depending on how and where you're riding they can wear excessively quickly. 

For example I have a Maxxis Rekon Race that is already showing signs of wear and I've barely ridden it and it's winter so the ground isn't exactly dry and hard. I think Vittoria would be my bet if looking for hard wearing tyres, but you're sacrificing some tackiness for that. Same with other brands and different models of course.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Trying to decide between a Renegade T5 vs T7 for a rear tire got me thinking. Specialized says that the T5 which is a harder compound with less damping results in better rolling resistance. In watching World Cup XC races, I can see how this is important when you have long sections of paved, gravelly doubletrack and singletrack so it's a balance. But my local races are like 99% rooty singletrack. I am wondering if the more supple T7 might work better for my specific conditions even from a rolling perspective?


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

What tires do you normally ride? If you ride wet roots at all the softer compound would be worth it.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I've ridden a mixture of tires - Mezcal, Aspen, old Fast Trak, Old Renegade, XR1, old Race King. I rarely ride when it's wet so gripping on roots is not an issue. I ride about 75% hardpack, occasional loose over hard, and occasional hero dirt. The old Specialized Control tires didn't specify the compound type like the new ones (T5 vs T7) though I did love that old Renegade. It was very supple and I noticed that that allowed me to carry more speed over roots and uneven terrain than the other tires that weren't as supple. At the end of the day, I just want a faster rolling tire on uneven terrain. Don't care about faster on pavement or smooth surfaces.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tick_magnet said:


> I've ridden a mixture of tires - Mezcal, Aspen, old Fast Trak, Old Renegade, XR1, old Race King. I rarely ride when it's wet so gripping on roots is not an issue. I ride about 75% hardpack, occasional loose over hard, and occasional hero dirt. The old Specialized Control tires didn't specify the compound type like the new ones (T5 vs T7) though I did love that old Renegade. It was very supple and I noticed that that allowed me to carry more speed over roots and uneven terrain than the other tires that weren't as supple. At the end of the day, I just want a faster rolling tire on uneven terrain. Don't care about faster on pavement or smooth surfaces.


My conditions are like yours. Been a Mezcal rear fan for two years. Currently on Renegade T5 and really really like it. Went back to Barzo front after good run with old Fast Trak (had horrible S Works FT T7 experience); the added weight but 100% confidence was worth it for my summer sand loose over hard.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Are you saying the new Fast Trak T7 was worse for you than the old Fast Trak? Also, how does the T5 Renegade compare to the Mezcal for the rear?


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tick_magnet said:


> Are you saying the new Fast Trak T7 was worse for you than the old Fast Trak? Also, how does the T5 Renegade compare to the Mezcal for the rear?


I had the S Works FT T5/T7. I was not clear, sorry. The sidewall was too thin/supple, and I had a nasty crash because I went down in psi instead of adding like many do. It mentally got me so it was sold. Not the tire, all me. Maybe the regular T7 FT would be better for me, but I snagged some Barzos at great price so it was a no brainer.

As for the Mezcal vs T5 in back...I had the old Renegade and thought it was poor under braking in loose over hard. I don't have that issue or opinion with the new T5 Renegade. Only been on it few times past month whereas I did everything everywhere on the Mezcal. Truth be known I'm on the new Renegade because of big sale price and weight weenie-ism. I will add that the Mezcal TNT Trail never let me down in any rocky sharp trail objects training or racing in a few years. When the T5 Renegade wears out before next summer races I will probably add the weight and stick TNT Mezcal in back just for piece of mind not to mention it rolls great. DNF'ing because of a slashed light sidewall, not that Control is uber-light, weighs on my mind. As for the Mezcal I did not think it braked great after initial rubber wore off, but that's the least of my worries in a dry condition race tire.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

I am returning to the Aspen 2.4 WT this season. In the past it worked for sandy conditions but I was too conservative with the tire pressure and didn't take full advantage of what the tire can do. This season I've gone down to 14 psi front/ 17 psi rear with 30.5 internal width rims. I'm 195 pounds, so heavier than the average Cat 1 racer.

Nino makes it pretty simple here, call it marketing or truth: the best thing you can do is get wide tires at low pressure. He's achieved full GOAT status, so perhaps less skepticism now on his big bike.





Training on these, it reminds me of the promise of the old Stan's "The Crow" and "Raven" tires: get grip and float from low pressure rather than tread. Those tires (and rim pairings) just weren't high volume enough to make that idea a reality.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

On the trails that Nino is racing, yes, 2.4 makes sense. And yes, for Sandy conditions 2.4 makes certainly makes sense as well.

Though if you ride less technical trails, the good old 2.25 is still the way to go. Will save you up to 10% of Watt vs a 2.4 on climbs. That's a lot.


----------



## hesitationpoint (Aug 11, 2017)

Like everything, the truth is not that simple and often still unknown. The World Cup podiums in 2022 are still filled with a variety of tire sizes ranging from 2.2 to 2.4. And that is on the same courses. So providing a controlled study is the only way to know; and even then, that study probably has to be replicated a few times. All we know right now is that you can win using a tire somewhere between 2.2 to 2.4. So it is probably safe to stick with something in that range.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Hrodulf said:


> On the trails that Nino is racing, yes, 2.4 makes sense. And yes, for Sandy conditions 2.4 makes certainly makes sense as well.
> 
> Though if you ride less technical trails, the good old 2.25 is still the way to go. Will save you up to 10% of Watt vs a 2.4 on climbs. That's a lot.


Tire size selection isn't that clear cut.


1) If you ever need tire insert. 2.4 without tire insert roll better than 2.2 with one.
In term of rim protection, 2.4 w/insert > 2.2 w/insert > 2.4 > 2.2 though. So, maybe if you barely hit the rim lightly with 2.2. A move to 2.4 is a smaller step toward rim protection than add insert to 2.2.

2) Semislick 2.4 roll faster than slightly knobby 2.2. Knobby 2.2 grip better than semi slick 2.4 on mud though.
But Semislick 2.4 can grip better on solid terrain than knobby 2.2. This is one of the reason many switch up to 2.4. The more surface area allow them to use less knobby tires. And the net gain is faster rolling.
Schurter use 2.4 Aspens. If he use 2.2, he may probably opted for something with more knobs than Aspens.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Hrodulf said:


> On the trails that Nino is racing, yes, 2.4 makes sense. And yes, for Sandy conditions 2.4 makes certainly makes sense as well.
> 
> Though if you ride less technical trails, the good old 2.25 is still the way to go. Will save you up to 10% of Watt vs a 2.4 on climbs. That's a lot.


Where does this 10% come from?


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

cassieno said:


> Where does this 10% come from?


Exactly!

This video a few years back defied everything I knew about tire rolling resistance and weight. A super-light 2.0 uphill vs a thick 2.35 Ikon, on a smooth hill. Guess which was the clear winner (with a small rider, by the way)

Nino has been trying to tell us: low tread, wide, low pressure is fastest. Up to you whether you test his assertion on your bike with your local loop. It's not that hard to test it.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

cassieno said:


> Where does this 10% come from?


Measured with a power meter. Numbers don't lie.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

Hrodulf said:


> On the trails that Nino is racing, yes, 2.4 makes sense. And yes, for Sandy conditions 2.4 makes certainly makes sense as well.
> 
> Though if you ride less technical trails, the good old 2.25 is still the way to go. Will save you up to 10% of Watt vs a 2.4 on climbs. That's a lot.


That seems a huge claim, is that due to weight reduction, or rolling resistance? Speeds are so low on the climbs so I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.

I think you're right with regards non-technical trails being the place for skinny tyres though.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Hrodulf said:


> Measured with a power meter. Numbers don't lie.


What was your sample size? And testing protocol? What products did you use?


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

How big of a rolling resistance contribution to total drag anyway?

On road bike at speed, it's like 15% where over 80% is aerodynamic drag and the rest are drivetrain friction and other flexes. So, in many cases 10% of rolling resistance is like 1.5% of total drag. Which fall under the precision of many power meter.

On MTB, the rolling resistance is proposionally bigger contributor than road bike. Since the aero drag is much reduced at low speed. But then rolling impedance and suspension loss is becoming a bigger factor where big tire actually help reduce. So, how many percentage difference of power meter read suggest that it's 10% higher rolling resistance? And how do you differentiate rolling resistance gain vs rolling impedance loss from bigger tire?


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

First of all, I am just a simple guy that races and likes to ride fast.

And yes, I do believe that wider is better. Heck, I am even owning a road bicycle where it is clear that 28mm tires are faster than 25mm tires. And with the speeds I am riding, there should be an aero penalty. But I guess the rolling resistance is overcoming the aero penalty. I am riding on smooth tarmac anyway, so it is not due to bad roads that the 28mm is faster than 25mm. 28 is the sweet spot for a road bicycle I think. So has the MTB also a sweet spot I think and that is 2.25. 

The winner has it always right, if Nino claims 2.4 is faster. I do believe him. Though for the tracks he is riding. I am sure that works with those technical descents, rock gardens etc.

My trails are not that extreme, and on climbs the power meter don't lie on 2.4 Reckon Race vs 2.25 Reckon Race on even relatively sandy loose climbs with pebbles and small stones. These climbs are steep, though not super technical with big rocks. Just roots etc. Given the speed on those climbs I reckon there should be no aero penalty. So it must be the weight that plays a factor. Plus there is the subjective part, the handling of the 2.25 is also better than the 2.4. Especially with stiring.

I have even also tested a 2.25 front and 2.10 rear (both are Schwalbe Thunder Burts) and weighing 1.202 gram together and that even shows more that weight plays a role. With this combo I have taken a lot of PR's. You clearly can notice the 2.10 at the rear being a lightweight tire that accelarates like crazy. With the Thunder Burts it is also obvious that rolling resistance plays a role as well. Although my riding skills are good, with the Thunder Burt in descents it more tricky. So the gain of the Thunder Burts is relatively smaller there I think.

Long story short, if not super technical. Then I think the 2.25 is the sweet spot in terms of speed. For me that was clear from the power meter and the chrono. Numbers don't lie.


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

Actually 28s aren't faster on road. I don't know why this keeps getting pushed - I suspect it is another of those industry bandwagons that persuades you to buy more ****.

It comes from stupid people testing two different sizes at the same pressure. 80psi in a 23c is soft. 80psi in a 30c is rock hard. Of course 80psi in a 30c will have lower rr as the high pressure prevents loss to the sidewalls. Loss to the rider going up and down is pretty minimal for most road bikes.

But if you set psi for same comfort and grip level (same tyre drop) (eg 100psi in 23c and 88psi in 28) 28s are actually higher RR than 25s, which again are very (but less this time) slightly higher RR than 23s.

You also give up, especially on the front, a significant aero penalty unless your entire wheel / tyre / frontend is designed around the 28c (like the 3T Strada bikes that never worked).There's loads of evidence of this around - brr, aerocoach, etc etc, but just look how many UCI pro riders are on a 28c front for the TT.

However, the wider tyre has a different shaped contact patch all things being equal (shorter and fatter) which can improve braking and cornering grip. If the roads are uneven and ****, a wider tyre can be run at a lower pressure with much lower chance of pinch flat

On a bike, two other things happen. 1) You lose a lot less to hysteretic loss (this is loss from tyre compressing and extending) and a lot more to the angular proportion of force applied when you hit bumps (this is why for xcc where there are less bumps people run narrower tyres), so lower pressures mean less 'bike moving up and down'. 2) You now care about grip as much as rr, lower pressures = more grip, and wider tyres enable lower pressures.

Inserts only add RR if they constantly contact the sidewall at normal pressures (so add to hysteretic loss). So for XC, what you want is a slim rear insert that prevents pinch flats on compression but doesn't touch the sidewalls normally.

So there you go, thats why nino runs 2.4s (but Tom pidcock won the euro champs on 2.2s)


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I have done a lot of testing between the 2.4 and the 2.2s recently (Rekon Races). I am not really getting any measurable difference between the two on just about any terrain. Some times the 2.4 is a bit faster somes times the 2.2 is faster, but I cannot say with any kind of confidence that any speed difference is due to the tire width. If there is a difference it is small enough that it doesn't stand out on a 10 minute test loop.

I really like the way the 2.4s ride but I have a life time supply of 2.2s and my wallet would like them to be equally fast.


----------



## xcskier66 (Mar 4, 2018)

LMN said:


> I have done a lot of testing between the 2.4 and the 2.2s recently (Rekon Races). I am not really getting any measurable difference between the two on just about any terrain. Some times the 2.4 is a bit faster somes times the 2.2 is faster, but I cannot say with any kind of confidence that any speed difference is due to the tire width. If there is a difference it is small enough that it doesn't stand out on a 10 minute test loop.
> 
> I really like the way the 2.4s ride but I have a life time supply of 2.2s and my wallet would like them to be equally fast.


When you test how much do you rely on feel vs timed testing? 

I would imagine that some of the differences are so small that timed testing might not be able to pick out the difference. Feel can be amazingly accurate but it can also lead you astray. (Why did we feel 1.9'' tires pumped to 40 psi were fast?)

Controlled tire testing is not something I've ever been able to because I don't have multiple wheelsets and the time to set everything up in a controlled way.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Well, let me ask, would you like to feel faster, or know that you're faster? If Strava is any measure, most people prefer to know they're faster (I won't derail the thread talking about Strava's questionable accuracy, but anyway...)

1.9s are a great example, glad you brought that up. "Good old 2.25s" haven't been the standard for that long. All kinds of peculiar, terrible ideas about what was fast surfaced in the 1990s and have finally, after many decades of "pro" posturing, been beaten back into submission in the 2020s. Funny how the klunker guys were so right about a lot of things. 

Why? Because they were measuring their times on Repack


----------



## slashy (Dec 7, 2005)

LMN said:


> I have done a lot of testing between the 2.4 and the 2.2s recently (Rekon Races). I am not really getting any measurable difference between the two on just about any terrain. Some times the 2.4 is a bit faster somes times the 2.2 is faster, but I cannot say with any kind of confidence that any speed difference is due to the tire width. If there is a difference it is small enough that it doesn't stand out on a 10 minute test loop.
> 
> I really like the way the 2.4s ride but I have a life time supply of 2.2s and my wallet would like them to be equally fast.


what is your favorite maxxis mixed conditions front tire ? mixed as in , not bone dry, a bit wet with roots, some mud , but not survival conditions. forekaster (old), rekon , ardent race , ikon (2.35), other ?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

My only contribution to this topic is related to air pressure, not tire width.

One sweltering hot day in TX when I first began riding about 7 years ago, too hot to ride, I took my bike and air pump down to a local grade. The terrain was what I'd call very rough, which is typical of the trails I ride. Just a sea of rocks and I began doing roll down tests at different air pressures. I did them seated for consistency and the entire test run was maybe 150' from top to bottom. I had a start spot, and then I marked the spots where the bike quit rolling.

They were perfectly repeatable once I had a consistent line. At the same air pressure my bike would come to a stop within 1'-2' of the same spot every time, often within inches.

Then I began playing with air pressure and what became clear is that the more I lowered the air pressure, the farther the bike rolled. And it was significant too, maybe an extra 25'-30' at the lowest air pressure I tested. Not shocking was that the rear tire had the most effect, but the front tire pressure was also detectable, as I tested both ends independently.

I never found the bottom where rolling resistance increased due to side knobs engaging (these were Enduro style tires at the time, pretty sure a DHF front & a Hans Dampf DH rear), but eventually I got so low, around 14 psi, that I was just scared to go any lower for fear of damaging my wheels. But still the bike rolled the furthest on the lowest air pressures. Didn't matter because I know I could not safely run that low of tire pressure.

I've since settled on running inserts both front and rear in all bikes and then running the lowest pressures I'm comfortable with, which is 19F/ 22R on both my DC bike as well as my AM bike. It's worth noting that my terrain is very chunky, I weigh 189#s, & I have the grace of a hippo on roller skates. I could never in a million years press my thumb down enough to touch my rim at survivable psi, like Nino shows. Technically the AM bike should need more psi as it goes to DH parks and what not, however it also has thicker/ heavier inserts, stronger heavier tires, and wider tires & wheels. All of these things contribute to allowing these air pressures.

Without inserts I need about 23F/ 27R or I'll be walking home every other weekend.

There is also a shocking difference in trail feedback going from 23/ 27 to 19/ 22. In fact even a 2 psi difference is really noticeable once you get to a certain low air pressure. Like the difference between 25 & 27 is barely detectable by me, where-as 24 to 22 is very noticeable.

Where this plays in to the tire width discussion is that wide tires allow lower air pressures.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I think tire pressure is very important. The conforming to the terrain effect is real and I have noticed measurably faster times with tires that are more supple and tires where there is a wide enough psi window to prevent both rim strikes and tire bouncing. I was consistently 20-30 seconds faster per lap on a 18 minute loop on Fast Traks over old Race Kings because of these factors despite the fact that RKs blew the fast traks away on steel drum rolling resistance. With the RKs, I can never prevent both rim strikes and tire bounce. So I pretty much won't ride non-supple casings regardless of what bicycle rolling resistance says. 

With regard to tire width, I think it's more nuanced than "wider is better." Sure 2.4 is better than 1.9. But is 2.6 better than 2.4? This is not about if something is good, more is better. I mean Loic Bruni rides 2.4 tires on some extremely gnarly trails with tons of roots and rocks. Should he go to 2.6? 

This is about finding a sweet spot. When I hear people talk about optimal widths rather than "more is better" I'll be more inclined to pay attention.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I think the short lived 27.5+ fad that burned out so quickly made it clear that there is such a thing as to wide. 

Those things feel great at first, but every single time I rode with someone on them they destroyed a tire or rim or in one case blew the tire completely off the rim in a turn. Correct that issue with heavier more durable parts and then you lose any initial advantages very quickly.

So it's a balance with air resistance, tire carcass stability, compliance, etc.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Suns_PSD said:


> I think the short lived 27.5+ fad that burned out so quickly made it clear that there is such a thing as to wide.
> 
> Those things feel great at first, but every single time I rode with someone on them they destroyed a tire or rim or in one case blew the tire completely off the rim in a turn. Correct that issue with heavier more durable parts and then you lose any initial advantages very quickly.
> 
> So it's a balance with air resistance, tire carcass stability, compliance, etc.


Exactly. At some point, when the volume gets too big, you also start to get undamped suspension effects that makes it harder to get the system to sync together. I've never owned a plus or fat bike but I have demoed them and while they were comfortable at low speeds, they were like pinballs once you picked up the pace. I struggled to hold my line even on routine root gardens.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

With the whole sweet spot thing, tire pressure is king. But is only king when you have the right inner rim width. Because then you also will get the right rim support.

Often I see people moving to the upper side of the ETRTO scale, where I am inclined to look at the golden middle or even just below that.

As I mentioned 2.25 is the sweet spot on non-technical terrain, supported by 28-30 inner width rims. But most guys are doing a race to the bottom. Because hey, my i30 rim also supports 2.6, I mean is bigger better ? Well I think we all agree that 2.6 is slightly too much for XC racing, right ?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Hrodulf said:


> Well I think we all agree that 2.6 is slightly too much for XC racing, right ?


Haha who knows what the future holds? One thing I've learned is that finding what is optimal is hard because it's a balancing act. Perhaps one day they will come up with new rubber tech that will make it possible to run 2.6 without the downsides. I don't think today is that day, but I wouldn't rule it out for the future.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

LMN said:


> I have done a lot of testing between the 2.4 and the 2.2s recently (Rekon Races). I am not really getting any measurable difference between the two on just about any terrain. Some times the 2.4 is a bit faster somes times the 2.2 is faster, but I cannot say with any kind of confidence that any speed difference is due to the tire width. If there is a difference it is small enough that it doesn't stand out on a 10 minute test loop.
> 
> I really like the way the 2.4s ride but I have a life time supply of 2.2s and my wallet would like them to be equally fast.


LMN, do you know if any other top riders use 2.4s besides some of the Maxxis sponsored riders? I'm curious as to how prevalent this is. I know Nino draws an unusual amount of attention but I see mostly 2.25s or 2.2s on bike checks of folks like Pidcock, PFP, Lecomte, Neff, etc.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Hrodulf said:


> My trails are not that extreme, and on climbs the power meter don't lie on 2.4 Reckon Race vs 2.25 Reckon Race on even relatively sandy loose climbs with pebbles and small stones.


1) When you compare tire sizes of the same tire model, sometime manufacturer don't just increase casing width on the bigger size. They increase knob height as well. That make the "all thing being equal" comparison more complicated.

2) But then what do you expect from testing the bigger heavier tire with more grip vs smaller lighter tire with less grip up hill? Some increase in rolling resistance and weight is a trade for that grip. If you use more aggressive tire than needed, you carry extra drag penalty on the bike.
So, when comparing which tire to use for a course, it's more common to compare options with equivalent grip, just enough for the course. Smaller tire with more knobs versus bigger tire with less knobs. Both offer similar grip. But one has more surface area and another one has more biting knobs. Rekon Race 2.25 vs Aspens 2.4 seems to be more like it.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

...So there's an answer for that, and as is typical, it's not what we might feel is the sweet spot. Sometimes it's what we thinks looks funny and impractical, like 27.5+.






Offroad, I think the rule is that the lowest tire pressure you can get away with, without dinged rims or blown off tires, is best. Smaller rims mean the pressure has to be higher. At some point the tread gets too heavy. What is that point? I have no idea but I do know that my Nobby Nic 2.6s feel pretty heavy. Test it and get back to us


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

chomxxo said:


> ...So there's an answer for that, and as is typical, it's not what we might feel is the sweet spot. Sometimes it's what we thinks looks funny and impractical, like 27.5+.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not watching that video at the moment but as I recall the 27.5" was consistently faster. But there are a few points worth including:

1) Wasn't that enduro style terrain that possibly rewards some things a bit differently than the XC riding/ racing we are discussing here?
2) The 29" tires were older 2.2-2.3 tires as I recall. If anything good came out of the 27.5+ movement it was that 'normal' trail tires became wider as a result of the + fad ending up around 2.35 - 2.5".
3) Ultimately, they could have put XC 29er tires and probably have went faster still, such is the nature of fast rolling tires, even in technical terrain. Just the survivability of the tires (and the rider) goes down when they are ridden in those conditions.
4) However, the point remains, 27.5+ tires/ wheels (and XC tires for that matter) usually don't survive well in the real world. In the case of 27.5+ literally every time I rode with someone on them, they destroyed a tire or a rim, and one riding buddy blew his tire completely off the rim on his first day and actually returned the bike under a 30 day exchange policy.

Going fast a for a few minutes is all well and good, but even Seb doesn't ride 27.5+ these days. There must be some good reasons for that.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

Hexsense said:


> 1) When you compare tire sizes of the same tire model, sometime manufacturer don't just increase casing width on the bigger size. They increase knob height as well. That make the "all thing being equal" comparison more complicated.
> 
> 2) But then what do you expect from testing the bigger heavier tire with more grip vs smaller lighter tire with less grip up hill? Some increase in rolling resistance and weight is a trade for that grip. If you use more aggressive tire than needed, you carry extra drag penalty on the bike.
> So, when comparing which tire to use for a course, it's more common to compare options with equivalent grip, just enough for the course. Smaller tire with more knobs versus bigger tire with less knobs. Both offer similar grip. But one has more surface area and another one has more biting knobs. Rekon Race 2.25 vs Aspens 2.4 seems to be more like it.


I am even in the camp that a bigger tire with less knobs on the right (low) pressure offers more grip than a smaller tire with more knob at a higher pressure. We're not talking muddy rides here of course.

Though again, that extra grip of the bigger tire, is as discussed, an offset vs weight. And on faster courses maybe even comes with some aero penalty. Another interesting aspect of bigger/wider tires...


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

tick_magnet said:


> LMN, do you know if any other top riders use 2.4s besides some of the Maxxis sponsored riders? I'm curious as to how prevalent this is. I know Nino draws an unusual amount of attention but I see mostly 2.25s or 2.2s on bike checks of folks like Pidcock, PFP, Lecomte, Neff, etc.


Because their tire sponsors don't make 2.4 XC tires (yet?).


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

My theory, which kind of goes along with LMN's comment on the difference being small, is that it comes down to three factors. Rider skill, trail technicality, and rider weight. If you are sufficiently skilled you can ride the 2.25's just as fast despite the other two. If the trails are sufficiently non-technical - same deal.

It's a bit like the 120mm bike thing to me. The 120 and 2.4's are faster for most of us normal folk.

Just my 2c.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

pinkpowa said:


> Because their tire sponsors don't make 2.4 XC tires (yet?).


That's true but why aren't they riding the biggest tires that their sponsors do make? Examples: why Mezcal 2.25 rather than 2.35? Why Schwalbe 2.25s rather than 2.35s? The Trek riders are mainly on 2.2s. Why is McConnell, a Maxxis rider, running the 2.25 Aspen?

I'm not arguing that the narrower tires are the way to go. In fact, I have no idea. But I'm also not keen on jumping on bandwagons just because the bandwagon is piloted by a high profile guy. I just don't think that is a good way to make decisions.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

tick_magnet said:


> That's true but why aren't they riding the biggest tires that their sponsors do make? Examples: why Mezcal 2.25 rather than 2.35? Why Schwalbe 2.25s rather than 2.35s? The Trek riders are mainly on 2.2s.
> 
> I'm not arguing that the narrower tires are the way to go. In fact, I have no idea. But I'm also not keen on jumping on bandwagons just because the bandwagon is piloted by a high profile guy. I just don't think that is a good way to make decisions.


Keegan races the 2.4"


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Can't speak to the specialized athletes, but vittoria XCO pros have been running new all black casing of the mezcals, barzos and terrenos all year and I haven't seen a size printed on any of them...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tick_magnet said:


> That's true but why aren't they riding the biggest tires that their sponsors do make? Examples: why Mezcal 2.25 rather than 2.35? Why Schwalbe 2.25s rather than 2.35s? The Trek riders are mainly on 2.2s. Why is McConnell, a Maxxis rider, running the 2.25 Aspen?
> 
> I'm not arguing that the narrower tires are the way to go. In fact, I have no idea. But I'm also not keen on jumping on bandwagons just because the bandwagon is piloted by a high profile guy. I just don't think that is a good way to make decisions.


For starters, the Mezcal 2.25 is the same width as the 2.35, and 10-15g lighter, so that might explain why they use the 2.25 as opposed to the 2.35.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

huh? 
same width but lighter? 

How do they do it... do they have narrower tread but same casing width? 
Or smaller tread knobs? 
Or simply has thinner casing.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

pinkpowa said:


> Can't speak to the specialized athletes, but vittoria XCO pros have been running new all black casing of the mezcals, barzos and terrenos all year and I haven't seen a size printed on any of them...


Here is a link to some 2022 bike setups:








The 10 fastest bikes of the Nove Mesto World Cup 2022


In a matter of a few years, new brands have reached the top of the XCO World Cup, and with this review of the bikes....




en.brujulabike.com













Bike Check | De BMC Fourstroke van Pauline Ferrand-Prévot - Vojo Magazine


We houden wel van de custom paints bij BMC! Nadat de Italiaanse artiest No Curves vorig jaar ter ere van de regenboogtrui van Pauline Ferrand-Prévot een Fourstroke onder handen nam, deed het Zwitserse merk het dit jaar dunnetjes over om de Europese titel van PFP te vieren. De fiets werd...




www.vojomag.nl





Some sizes that are noticeable:
1. Caroline Bohe - Aspen 2.25
2. McConnell - Aspen 2.25
3. Pauline - Vittoria 2.25


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Hexsense said:


> huh?
> same width but lighter?
> 
> How do they do it... do they have narrower tread but same casing width?
> ...


Dunno but my 2.25 Mezcal is 10g lighter and 3mm wider than the 2.35 Mezcal.
I think one is labeled incorrectly.
Knob width and size is identical.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> For starters, the Mezcal 2.25 is the same width as the 2.35, and 10-15g lighter, so that might explain why they use the 2.25 as opposed to the 2.35.


That's a fair point and that's why I chose a 2.25 Mezcal as well.

My only point is that I am responding to Pinkpowas implication that it's only because riders don't have a choice that they are riding narrower tires. There are some many counter-examples on the world cup circuit whether it's mezcal, maxxis, schwalbe or whatever that it's obviously not true.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Maybe. Let's test it and find out  

I vehemently would disagree that there's no discernible difference. Already a proven fact that there is. That stated position usually has a personal stake behind it of protecting the pro mystique, which seems to be wrong as much as any of us are right in their odd choices. Mountain bikers are only half the equation, the mountain bike is the other half. Your equipment choice absolutely does make a measurable difference, regardless of whom you are.

Choose wisely 



Suns_PSD said:


> Not watching that video at the moment but as I recall the 27.5" was consistently faster. But there are a few points worth including:
> 
> 1) Wasn't that enduro style terrain that possibly rewards some things a bit differently than the XC riding/ racing we are discussing here?
> 2) The 29" tires were older 2.2-2.3 tires as I recall. If anything good came out of the 27.5+ movement it was that 'normal' trail tires became wider as a result of the + fad ending up around 2.35 - 2.5".
> ...





Hrodulf said:


> I am even in the camp that a bigger tire with less knobs on the right (low) pressure offers more grip than a smaller tire with more knob at a higher pressure. We're not talking muddy rides here of course.
> 
> Though again, that extra grip of the bigger tire, is as discussed, an offset vs weight. And on faster courses maybe even comes with some aero penalty. Another interesting aspect of bigger/wider tires...


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Citing a pro (Nino) for why something is correct and then criticizing pros for their wrong choices seems oddly ironic to me. And then linking to a couple youtube videos as proof.....well, I guess you can call me a skeptic.

For the record, I tend to lean on the side of wider tires. In my recent tire purchases, I chose the 2.3 Cross King over the 2.2. I chose a 2.35 Renegade over the 2.2. So if you pushed me for an answer, I'd probably lean on the side of the wide tires. But that doesn't mean it doesn't bother me that so many people assume they already know the answer despite the ghetto evidence.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

mail_liam said:


> Keegan races the 2.4"


Keegan also races 2.25 depending on the course. He was probably on 2.25 aspens for leadville (I don't feel like checking). But he changes away from the 2.4s if the course is sufficiently non-technical.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

cassieno said:


> Keegan also races 2.25 depending on the course. He was probably on 2.25 aspens for leadville (I don't feel like checking). But he changes away from the 2.4s if the course is sufficiently non-technical.







He ran 2.4" at Leadville.
4:02 into the Pod.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Testing is difficult to do well. Lot of variables to control. I have been meaning to another test session with tires and wheels. Took up the challenge and did a first test run today.

I recorded my lap time and average power for a 2.4km loop that I did three laps of. I tried to ride at mid-stage race pace. What I calculate is average force required to complete the loop. Force = Power / (Speed in m/s)

Tonight I did 3 laps with 2.4 Rekons Races on 30mm internal rims. Air pressure was 15psi front, 16psi rear. When I left the house I was 150lbs with gear.


For the entire test my average was 38.5N.

Lap 1: 38.6N. Time 9:02 
Lap 2: 39.2N. Time 9:04
Lap 3: 38.1N. Time 9:17

Just to illustrate how difficult testing is, I had a 3% difference in force for laps with exact same set-up. 

I will try and get in the next couple of days on a set of 2.25 Rekons Races on 23mm rims.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

LMN said:


> Testing is difficult to do well. Lot of variables to control. I have been meaning to another test session with tires and wheels. Took up the challenge and did a first test run today.
> 
> I recorded my lap time and average power for a 2.4km loop that I did three laps of. I tried to ride at mid-stage race pace. What I calculate is average force required to complete the loop. Force = Power / (Speed in m/s)
> 
> ...


Interesting !

Yes, please keep us posted. 

I tend to give more value to individual riders on a forum that are performing a test, rather then some kind of 'professional' tester from an (online) magazine.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

cassieno said:


> Keegan also races 2.25 depending on the course. He was probably on 2.25 aspens for leadville (I don't feel like checking). But he changes away from the 2.4s if the course is sufficiently non-technical.


Keegan always uses the 2.4 Aspen when on his MTB for a dry course. He's the reigning US XCO champ and 2 time Leadville champ on those big, fat tires.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

BTW, Mitas-USA is having a 50% off sale. The Scylla and Zefyros look interesting for XC. Anybody have any experience with these?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I did a run with 2.25 tires on 23mm internal rims tonight. I was faster on every single lap, but that was because I was feeling a bit fresher and was turning the pedals a bit easier. The trails were also a bit slower tonight, we had our first real rain in 2-months and there was soft spots that were quite a bit slower on the trail.

But two laps were similar times for the two tests. To do a 9:01 lap took 176 watts on 2.25 and a 9:04 lap took 174 watts on 2.4s.

When I do the numbers for average frictional forces I get the following.
Test Average 40.0
Lap 1: 40.7
Lap 2: 39.6
Lap 3: 40.6

At the higher speeds I averaged tonight there should be about 7% more air resitance which would account for about the 1N difference. Another example of where testing isn't really able to show that one set-up is quicker or not.

I did have dinner tonight with a couple of current WC pros and we chatted about all the tire testing they had done. And contary to what some people imply, they have done a lot! Still, nobody was really sure what is best. But a common complaint about the 2.4s was that required more airpressure than what was optimal to prevent burping.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Can you expand on how they defined optimal?


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

LMN said:


> But a common complaint about the 2.4s was that required more airpressure than what was optimal to prevent burping.


What internal width rim were they running with their 2.4s? I think the 2.4 works best with 30mm internal rims.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

LMN, do you think the bigger tires might matter more for hardtails?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Every tire rim combiantion has an optimal pressure depending on weight, terrain and riding style. These guys acutually have a pretty good calculator for it: SILCA Professional Tire Pressure Calculator. Most experienced riders find this pressure through experience. All of us know when are outside of that pressure.

For example I did a race this weekend and ran 2psi more than I normally do. I know that late in a race my line selection and touch can be rather poor and I want some extra flat protection. But my tires were not optimal, they were pinging off things a bit and bike was harsh.

30mm rims are pretty well the standard nowadays. That being said I have run 2.4s on 23mm and 30mm and in a blind test I couldn't tell a difference.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

WOW that Silca calculator is omniscient . 
It predicted exactly the tire pressure that I already use.


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

cant resist a vague random post so..
loving the 2.35 f/2.25r Mezcal trail combo in texas terrain. very fast rolling. Weigh and pick em and you can find them at 680g-700g each.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

LMN said:


> Every tire rim combiantion has an optimal pressure depending on weight, terrain and riding style. These guys acutually have a pretty good calculator for it: SILCA Professional Tire Pressure Calculator. Most experienced riders find this pressure through experience. All of us know when are outside of that pressure.


Thanks. The pressure they suggest is interesting.

MTB: I run 17 front 19 rear while Silca suggest me 15.5 front 16 rear. Hmm, lets test this out.
Road: I run 58-62psi. Silca suggest me 66-67.5psi. Maybe worth a try but I'm not sure I'd like to give up comfort running that high pressure anymore. Wait, am I actually giving up comfort if I run more tire pressure?
Is there a point where, like fork when set it up with too much sag, we consistently make the tire sag too much and leave too little travel that ramp up too fast when hitting a bump? Can higher tire pressure make the tire sag on the more linear part of the pressure curve and actually be more comfortable?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I think 30mm ID wheels are the very limit of too wide for this application, but about right for AM/ Enduro rigs.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Suns_PSD said:


> I think 30mm ID wheels are the very limit of too wide for this application, but about right for AM/ Enduro rigs.


I'm not so sure. I really like wide rim narrow tire casing revolution happened on road bike side. It provide real benefits, after all the parties catch up updating their stuff.

A bit of history:
1) We had old version ETRTO guide line that say 25mm tires should NOT be mounted on rim wider than 17mm Internal Width (IW).

2) Tire manufacturers then make their tire tread width and casing width accordingly. Follow the ETRTO guide.

3) Then some rim manufacturers found that wider rim and narrow tire perform better in many ways. Better stability support for cornering, tire profile become more aero, even rolling resistance is reduced. So HED, Zip etc. make wide rims and specifically say to use narrow tires. HED suggest 23mm tire on 21mm IW rim since early 2010s.

4) Some tire manufacturers start to notice and make tire tread wider to support such use case. But still keep casing wide (but the tire will then inflate oversized on wide rim).

5) Then there are conflict of traditionalist (back then it's Mavic, Shimano, Campagnolo) who strictly make narrow rims to comply to old ETRTO guide. They want tires to remain designed for such. And risk takers (HED, Zipp, Enve, etc.) who just don't respect ETRTO because violating it make the stuff perform better and they want tires to adjust to the better combo.

6) Near the end, Mavic join wide rim side. Campagnolo too. Consumer no longer like narrow rims.

7) Finally, ETRTO update their guideline as well. Now, 25mm tire can be used on rim as wide as 23mm IW. 28mm tire can be used on rim as wide as 25mm according to the latest ETRTO guideline for tubeless bicycle wheels.

8) Most recent modern tires are launched with wider tread and narrower casing. So that it inflate to the correct width on wide rim.

===
*These days*, I use 25mm tires on 23mm IW rim and 28mm tires on 25mm IW rim. That ratio of tire width and rim IW would be considered absurd in MTB world. And we won't reach that ratio anytime soon on MTB side. Because

A) Unlike road tire with smooth tread which you can just make the tread wider than necessary without consequence. MTB tread have patterns and knobs which have to assume inflated width. The current MTB tire casing and tread width are currently designed for rim to be about 40-50% the width of the tire. Like, 61mm tire (2.4") design for around 30mm IW rim. "Too squared profile" is the most common symptom when an mtb tire is used on rim wider than it designed for. A drastic change for wider rim will break old rim compatibility.

B) Removing tire casing width and give it to rim width to maintain the same inflated tire width, while increase tire stability, also reduce tire height slightly (see drawing below). 40%-50% IW rim to tire width ratio (second one in the figure) still maintain most of the tire height. At 75% (third one) we may start to notice reduced tire height. On MTB, we don't want any shorter tire which increase chance of pinch flat.









But I think we still have room to grow. Maybe 30mm IW for 2.25" and 35mm IW for 2.4" would still be fine.

*PS. Note the use of IW rather than ID. It's Width, not Diameter.*


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Not sure why ID became the standard used, Inner Dimension maybe?

Anyways, I bought in to the wide rim hype in the early days. They were the opposite of nimble, harsh feeling, rolled slowly, damage prone & a bit heavy too.

On my DC bike I went 29mm IW/ ID for the front & 25 for the rear.
On my big bike I went 33mm up front & 28mm rear.
If I owned a XC race bike I'd do something like 22-25 in the rear and 24-27 up front.

That's where I'm at.

* notice you are always limited by what the Chinese manufacturers actually offer in your desired configuration & layup, so I've never been able to just pick whatever it is I want.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

What was missing is the tires to change.
Mtb tire for narrow rim mounted on wide rim will become squared. Side knobs touch the road all the time create draggy feel, knobs sit wrong so it doesn't perform, etc.
Wider tread and narrower casing would help. But foul compatibility with narrow rims.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Believe it or not, 2.5 WT Maxxis tires are better on 29mm rims than they are on the 35mm rims they are designed for.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

hmm, that's interesting. I'll take your word for that specific tire.
I haven't looked at or try that specific tire so I have nothing to discuss about it.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

LMN said:


> Testing is difficult to do well. Lot of variables to control. I have been meaning to another test session with tires and wheels. Took up the challenge and did a first test run today.
> 
> I recorded my lap time and average power for a 2.4km loop that I did three laps of. I tried to ride at mid-stage race pace. What I calculate is average force required to complete the loop. Force = Power / (Speed in m/s)
> 
> ...


Why newtons and not watts?!


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

cycloholic said:


> Why newtons and not watts?!


Which is a more efficient set-up?
14.0km/hr at 240 watts or 16.0km/hr at 260 watts

Newton's allows us to compare different speeds with different watts.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

LMN said:


> Which is a more efficient set-up?
> 14.0km/hr at 240 watts or 16.0km/hr at 260 watts
> 
> Newton's allows us to compare different speeds with different watts.


Like tyre tension vs tyre pressure.


----------



## le_pedal (Jul 10, 2018)

What higher volume XC tires should I be looking into? Trying to read through the thread but it's pretty long.

I have some 25id and 30id rims that I can use. I'm expecting to do some racing on my SS hardtail on rough east coast tech (Rothrock PA, Fredrick MD, etc.) - could be either wet or dry. Last year I raced those types of trails on a 2.35 ardent race F, 2.25 aspen R (both exo). But on the hardtail I have a feeling more volume will be safer, faster, more comfortable than the 2.25-35 range. Would going up in volume be worth it in an XC tire or is it just dead weight with no real comfort/traction savings?

I've spent time on 2.6 Purgatory / 2.6 Ground Controls but those are solidly in the trail tire category with high durability grip and weight. Not a real fair comparison.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

I was really happy with continental cross king 2.3 front and Mezcal 2.35 rear. Both with 700ish grams.

Aspen 2.4 is huge (mine measured 2.55 on i28 rims) . And I think the Rekon race 2.4 is the same.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I have heard good things about the new Kendas. Haven't ridden them myself, so I am going on other peoples opinions. The Bontrager XR3 in 2.4 is also a tire I have heard great things about.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Hexsense said:


> Thanks. The pressure they suggest is interesting.
> 
> MTB: I run 17 front 19 rear while Silca suggest me 15.5 front 16 rear. Hmm, lets test this out.
> Road: I run 58-62psi. Silca suggest me 66-67.5psi. Maybe worth a try but I'm not sure I'd like to give up comfort running that high pressure anymore. Wait, am I actually giving up comfort if I run more tire pressure?
> Is there a point where, like fork when set it up with too much sag, we consistently make the tire sag too much and leave too little travel that ramp up too fast when hitting a bump? Can higher tire pressure make the tire sag on the more linear part of the pressure curve and actually be more comfortable?


I find the Silca pressures to be a bit low for wide MTB tires. At the pressures they recommend I have issues with pinch flats, particularly on the front.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

LMN said:


> I have heard good things about the new Kendas. Haven't ridden them myself, so I am going on other peoples opinions. The Bontrager XR3 in 2.4 is also a tire I have heard great things about.


I liked my XR3 in 2.4 a lot. But they were heavy at 800gs. Felt more trail than XC.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

cassieno said:


> I liked my XR3 in 2.4 a lot. But they were heavy at 800gs. Felt more trail than XC.


Rekon Races are 765. Good durable 2.4s are heavy!!! 

I would really like to try a 27.5 wheeled bike with a good 2.4 on it. I suspect that a high volume tire makes the riding characteristics of two rim sizes pretty similar but the 27.5 would have about 1/2 lb lighter wheels and tires.

I don't see it happening but if it did I would certainly would like to test it.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

LMN said:


> I have heard good things about the new Kendas. Haven't ridden them myself, so I am going on other peoples opinions. The Bontrager XR3 in 2.4 is also a tire I have heard great things about.


I've also heard great things about the 2.4 Booster Pro with the exception that it's undersized for a 2.4.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

LMN said:


> The Bontrager XR3 in 2.4 is also a tire I have heard great things about.


+1 love them.

When Bonty redesigned the OG XR3 I thought "oh no!" but.....they work. Fast when upright and really up when you get them leaned over on the bigger knobs.

XR3 front and RaRa is my current fast and light and tough enough setup.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

kosmo said:


> +1 love them.
> 
> When Bonty redesigned the OG XR3 I thought "oh no!" but.....they work. Fast when upright and really up when you get them leaned over on the bigger knobs.
> 
> XR3 front and RaRa is my current fast and light and tough enough setup.


My neighbor raced the XR3 at Breck Epic this year, won the 40-50 category by almost hour. If a low lander can do that, the tires work well for XC racing.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

le_pedal said:


> What higher volume XC tires should I be looking into? Trying to read through the thread but it's pretty long.
> 
> I have some 25id and 30id rims that I can use. I'm expecting to do some racing on my SS hardtail on rough east coast tech (Rothrock PA, Fredrick MD, etc.) - could be either wet or dry. Last year I raced those types of trails on a 2.35 ardent race F, 2.25 aspen R (both exo). But on the hardtail I have a feeling more volume will be safer, faster, more comfortable than the 2.25-35 range. Would going up in volume be worth it in an XC tire or is it just dead weight with no real comfort/traction savings?
> 
> I've spent time on 2.6 Purgatory / 2.6 Ground Controls but those are solidly in the trail tire category with high durability grip and weight. Not a real fair comparison.


I've been keeping up with the thread and I would like to have a clear-cut answer too lol. My current guess (subject to change as new info rolls in) is that something between 2.25 to 2.4 is going to be fine and we are probably just splitting hairs. Like you, I ride a hardtail, so I am currently going with 2.35-2.4 rather than a 2.25 to take a bit of the edge off.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

LMN said:


> Which is a more efficient set-up?
> 14.0km/hr at 240 watts or 16.0km/hr at 260 watts
> 
> Newton's allows us to compare different speeds with different watts.


Dont really get what you mean. 
260 watts it is always 260 watts no matter your cadence. 
40 Newton with 90 cadence is not equal to 40 Newton with 80 cadence.


----------



## Skarhead (Mar 15, 2018)

Pirelli scorpion XC RC are awesome, they grip 10x better than rekon race or aspen.

Next tire for test is Scorpion xc M


----------



## le_pedal (Jul 10, 2018)

Skarhead said:


> Pirelli scorpion XC RC are awesome, they grip 10x better than rekon race or aspen.
> 
> Next tire for test is Scorpion xc M


How are they in the wet. What part of the country are you in. Weight? Size?


----------



## Kirsa (Jul 5, 2011)

Skarhead said:


> Pirelli scorpion XC RC are awesome, they grip 10x better than rekon race or aspen.


Where did you get them? They are out of stock everywhere.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Vamp said:


> I know you've ridden the Wolpack Cross - how does the Karma 2 compare to that?


1.5 month update:
Kenda Karma 2 is noticeably slower than Wolfpack Cross on my front wheel.
I'm not surprised though. The grip level is more like "Forekaster Race". Rather than an all round tire like Wolfpack Cross.

On the back wheel, Kenda Booster Pro feel fast, and hook well.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Skarhead said:


> Pirelli scorpion XC RC are awesome, they grip 10x better than rekon race or aspen.
> 
> Next tire for test is Scorpion xc M


Lots of tires grip better, the key is can they do it at the same low rolling resistance?

Please advise.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

cycloholic said:


> Dont really get what you mean.
> 260 watts it is always 260 watts no matter your cadence.
> 40 Newton with 90 cadence is not equal to 40 Newton with 80 cadence.


Power =. Force * Velocity

If you take your power and divided by your velocity you get the average resistive force. This resistive force is made up of wind resistance, drive train friction, work against gravity, and rolling friction. This magnitude of this force does depend on velocity, but as long as your velocities are close you can see if an equipment change actually makes your bike quicker.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

LMN said:


> My neighbor raced the XR3 at Breck Epic this year, won the 40-50 category by almost hour. If a low lander can do that, the tires work well for XC racing.


1st guy 60+ at the Butte 50 by 50 minutes this year on XR3s front and rear. 2nd guy 50+ -- darn it.

Yes, at 63 I'll go ahead and brag a bit, but it's hard to fault the XR3.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

LMN said:


> Power =. Force * Velocity
> 
> If you take your power and divided by your velocity you get the average resistive force. This resistive force is made up of wind resistance, drive train friction, work against gravity, and rolling friction. This magnitude of this force does depend on velocity, but as long as your velocities are close you can see if an equipment change actually makes your bike quicker.
> 
> ...


But why you want to remove the cadence from the equation? The power is what it counts for measuring the time in those situations. Tempier will not have the same newtons as someone that spins faster even if they have the same watts.
If you had 38.6N with 90 cadence and you had 9:02 you are not gonna have 9:02 if you ride same newtons but 60 cadence or actually any cadence that its not exactly 90(even 89 or 91 will give different time). Though if you go for example 260w it will give you same time(if we take all other variables as stable).


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

cycloholic said:


> But why you want to remove the cadence from the equation? The power is what it counts for measuring the time in those situations. Tempier will not have the same newtons as someone that spins faster even if they have the same watts.
> If you had 38.6N with 90 cadence and you had 9:02 you are not gonna have 9:02 if you ride same newtons but 60 cadence or actually any cadence that its not exactly 90(even 89 or 91 will give different time). Though if you go for example 260w it will give you same time(if we take all other variables as stable).


Are you making me work on the weekend? I teach physics for a living.


You are mixing up input power with output power. The input power on a bike is toque*angular velocity. So yes as cadence goes
down force must go up to maintain the same power.

Output power is where your input power goes. If are riding at 300watts (joules per second) that energy is going places. Some goes to the drivetrain, some goes to gravitational potential, some goes to wind resistance, and some goes to rolling friction. Dividing by your riding velocity gives a measure of the total resistance forces.

Edit:
I am sure someone can do this better than myself but here is an approximate equation putting all these things together.

Rider power = Resistive forces * velocity
=> Torque * angular velocity = Drivetrain power loss + v*Fource of air resistance + v*Force of Rolling Resistance +v*Force of other.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

The tire choice for stage 2 of BCBR were interesting. The Kelowna trails are notoriously brutal on tires. Quite a bit of the front of the field went with 2.25/ with cushcore. Others went 2.4s with high air pressure. Peter Disera went with trail casing and used to pull a full minute on main the descent to take the win.


----------



## DHiggins (Jul 5, 2014)

Has anyone that has moved to or tried the Pirelli XC RC moved back to any of their previous Mezcal/Barzo/Ray/Ralph/RaceKing combos?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Here are some first impressions of the Mitas Scylla which is on sale right now for $32 and change. It has a tread pattern remarkably similar to the Pirelli XC RC with those double side knobs and a bunch of smaller directional knobs in the center. All of my impressions are relative to the Mezcal which is on my other front wheel:

1. The front end grip feels very different from the Mezcal. Whereas the Mezcal has sort of a controlled drift the Scylla just feels locked in. My only reservation with tires that grip tenaciously rather than have that controlled slip is that there is a lot less warning when you find the limit. So I will need to ride this tire more but I did not find the limit today. I would say overall, it's a better cornering tire than the Mezcal at least on hardpack and loose over hard.

2. I did not notice any difference in rolling resistance either on the trail, gravel or road relative to the Mezcal. I did not do any timed tests, but I did do a roll down test and the bike went about 10 feet further than it ever has. It wasn't scientific at all but what I really wanted to know is whether the tire was draggy enough to be noticeable and it wasn't.

3. The tire weighed 670 grams which is also the advertised weight. But it is not as wide as advertised. I mounted it last night and blew it up to 40psi. Overnight, it only reached 2.21 and when deflated to 21psi which is my starting riding psi, it came in at a disappointing 2.17. I'm hoping over time, it will stretch out like my Aspen which started life at 2.24 and ended at 2.33. 

4. Despite the lower volume, it did not seem to compromise handling or cornering. I was able to turn under the lines I typically take on the Mezcal and couldn't believe some of the lean angles I could get to on flat hardpack corners. I would never try those lean angles on the Mezcal. It also didn't feel extra vibration through my hands over chunk despite the lower volume.

I'm impressed enough with this tire that I'll probably buy a second one at that price, but I'll get the wider 2.45.


----------



## 2_whl_boost (Jun 28, 2006)

DHiggins said:


> Has anyone that has moved to or tried the Pirelli XC RC moved back to any of their previous Mezcal/Barzo/Ray/Ralph/RaceKing combos?


I swap tires around all the time. I was on the Pirelli XC RC’s to start the year, swapped back to Aspen 2.4’s, then over to 2.35 Ray/Ralph’s.

I just raced Cheq 40 and it was a mud pit. I raced the XC RC’s and they did great. Id say they are my current tire of choice.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

In the last two weeks I have chatted with 2-bigger guys, (as XC racers go) both of them have been switching between 2.4s and 2.25 with inserts and have settled on the 2.25 with inserts. Both are extremely competent riders whose opinion should be respected.

Personally, I prefer the 2.4s but I am not 80kg. Have any bigger riders compared these two combinations?


----------



## DHiggins (Jul 5, 2014)

2_whl_boost said:


> I swap tires around all the time. I was on the Pirelli XC RC’s to start the year, swapped back to Aspen 2.4’s, then over to 2.35 Ray/Ralph’s.
> 
> I just raced Cheq 40 and it was a mud pit. I raced the XC RC’s and they did great. Id say they are my current tire of choice.


Thank you. Helpful.


----------



## slashy (Dec 7, 2005)

LMN said:


> In the last two weeks I have chatted with 2-bigger guys, (as XC racers go) both of them have been switching between 2.4s and 2.25 with inserts and have settled on the 2.25 with inserts. Both are extremely competent riders whose opinion should be respected.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the 2.4s but I am not 80kg. Have any bigger riders compared these two combinations?


can you elaborate on your weight and the pressures you are using? I guess you aren't running inserts, right ?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

LMN said:


> In the last two weeks I have chatted with 2-bigger guys, (as XC racers go) both of them have been switching between 2.4s and 2.25 with inserts and have settled on the 2.25 with inserts. Both are extremely competent riders whose opinion should be respected.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the 2.4s but I am not 80kg. Have any bigger riders compared these two combinations?


Is it possible that the speed differences are small enough that all of this just boils down to subjective preferences? 

I'm around 72kg and I definitely prefer a 2.3-2.4 on the rear but I ride a hardtail. But I recently discovered something about the front. My new tires measure only 2.17 or so and the steering feels quick and I can carve tighter. A 2.3-2.4 feels more muted steering wise. I think I might like a narrow tire better up front.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

LMN said:


> In the last two weeks I have chatted with 2-bigger guys, (as XC racers go) both of them have been switching between 2.4s and 2.25 with inserts and have settled on the 2.25 with inserts. Both are extremely competent riders whose opinion should be respected.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the 2.4s but I am not 80kg. Have any bigger riders compared these two combinations?


I'm not much under 90 kg and vastly prefer 2.4s, which allow me to run reasonable pressures without worrying about rim strikes, and give a faster, more comfortable ride.

No experience with inserts, and doubt I ever will. Right or wrong, they seem like a major hassle to me in many ways, and heavy. I'd be more inclined to run a bit more robust casing as an alternative.


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

I'd just say that really, you only need a single insert in the rear tyre, and the light (tubo) insets can be no more than about 50g, so much less than the casing difference to a trail tyre but with much lower RR. 

I've never needed a front insert running exo tyres in proper big mountain european enduro races - you don't need one inside the xc tape.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I started off that way but now run inserts front & rear on all bikes.

It adds weight but the lower air pressure it allows while maintaining tire stability without damaging wheels is so nice. Also I don't carry tubes & pumps any longer. Just a plug kit & 2 Co2 cartridges.


----------



## andrewbn42 (Sep 20, 2017)

LMN said:


> In the last two weeks I have chatted with 2-bigger guys, (as XC racers go) both of them have been switching between 2.4s and 2.25 with inserts and have settled on the 2.25 with inserts. Both are extremely competent riders whose opinion should be respected.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the 2.4s but I am not 80kg. Have any bigger riders compared these two combinations?


To be clear, are you saying they compared 2.4s without inserts to 2.25s with?


----------



## darth tracer (Jan 13, 2004)

LMN said:


> In the last two weeks I have chatted with 2-bigger guys, (as XC racers go) both of them have been switching between 2.4s and 2.25 with inserts and have settled on the 2.25 with inserts. Both are extremely competent riders whose opinion should be respected.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the 2.4s but I am not 80kg. Have any bigger riders compared these two combinations?


Im just over 90kg and prefer and have preferred a larger tire for a long time. Anything in the 2.35 or bigger range with fast rolling has been my goto for several years. Lower reasonable pressure without fear of rim strikes.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

I still quite satisfy with Kenda combo with Karma 2 TR 2.4 front and Booster Pro SCT 2.4 rear. 

But I do notice that in wet, the Booster Pro get a lot of mud packed. Guy in video below found mud shredding ability to be the weakness of Booster as well.





So... I think I'll try Kenda Rush on rear wheel next. Rush, despite having less grip overall, shred mud/dirt better than Booster Pro. I'll see if low tire pressure can make the rush grip well enough for rear wheel use.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

How soon do you guys notice a loss in front end bite for your new tires? My Mezcal started to slip after only a few weeks and now after about 700 miles, I have no confidence in them. There is still plenty of tread left which makes feel like it's a waste to replace them. I may move it to the rear wheel. 

I am definitely interested in hearing about models that retain their front end bite for a long time. Pirelli claims that the single compound design allows for this but I'm curious about real world experiences.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Indeed, if you are looking for tire that retain the same characteristic for a long time, be careful about multi compound tires.

The marketing talk of Kenda Rush:


> Kenda lays a softer compound over a harder one along the entire tread in this technology. The firm lower layer increases stability under braking and while cornering, while the soft layer provides maximum grip The result is a compound that offers better control and has greater durability than previous versions.


You can imagine what happen when the softer compound wear out.

But not all multi-compound tire are made this way though. Some aren't separated by layer (top, bottom layer) but instead, separated by the section. Center use one compound, side knobs use another.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

tick_magnet said:


> I am definitely interested in hearing about models that retain their front end bite for a long time. Pirelli claims that the single compound design allows for this but I'm curious about real world experiences.


I address this by running tires that have more front end bite because of knob design, like a Barzo or a Continental Cross King.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

tick_magnet said:


> How soon do you guys notice a loss in front end bite for your new tires? My Mezcal started to slip after only a few weeks and now after about 700 miles, I have no confidence in them. There is still plenty of tread left which makes feel like it's a waste to replace them. I may move it to the rear wheel.
> 
> I am definitely interested in hearing about models that retain their front end bite for a long time. Pirelli claims that the single compound design allows for this but I'm curious about real world experiences.


Vittoria's drop in traction rather fast, as mentioned because of the surface layer of graphene and it being multi-compound.

I can deal with poor rear traction, but for front traction I always shoot high, getting a bit more traction than I absolutely need just because pretty quickly it becomes 'just enough'.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

cassieno said:


> I address this by running tires that have more front-end bite because of knob design, like a Barzo or a Continental Cross King.


Have you tried that other tire yet, the Onza Ibex yet?

Very curious on that one.

I'm getting along just fine with my XR4 front for DC type use, but it doesn't roll great.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Hexsense said:


> Indeed, if you are looking for tire that retain the same characteristic for a long time, be careful about multi compound tires.
> 
> The marketing talk of Kenda Rush:
> 
> You can imagine what happen when the softer compound wear out.


I always think of Multi-compound tires have two phases of life. They start off as a race day tire or a cold and wet tire. Then as they wear they become your goto training tire for the hot and abrassive summer conditions, they also sometimes become really fast in their old age.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

LMN said:


> I always think of Multi-compound tires have two phases of life. They start off as a race day tire or a cold and wet tire. Then as they wear they become your goto training tire for the hot and abrassive summer conditions, they also sometimes become really fast in their old age.


That's pretty much how I cycle mine. Certain tires have a sharper traction fall off with mileage due to compound, reliance on siping/stepping, smaller knob size etc. Once they're a little dicey for the front I put them in a pile to use as race rear tires (if they're in decent shape) or training tires if they're kinda clapped.


----------



## cycloholic (Dec 27, 2015)

Weights of four cross kings 2.3 protection. Claimed 770gr


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Wow that's quite a variation in weights. But regardless, they are all pretty light.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

My Crossking protection 2.3 was 743gs. Do the 650g tires feel any different?

Nino Schurter's mechanic mentioned he weighed all the tires he received and basically threw out the lightest ones because he assumed there wasnot enough rubber on them.


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

Interested to see those mounted and see if the light one is narrower?


----------



## Kirsa (Jul 5, 2011)

cassieno said:


> My Crossking protection 2.3 was 743gs. Do the 650g tires feel any different?
> 
> Nino Schurter's mechanic mentioned he weighed all the tires he received and basically threw out the lightest ones because he assumed there wasnot enough rubber on them.


Interesting. 
I have 2 Crossking racesport 2,3" tires - listed weight 675gr - actual weight 675gr
Then 2 Protection Crosskings 2,3"-s - listed weight 745 (it was 745gr 2 years ago when I bought them) - actual 743gr and 745gr
And 2 MountainKing Protection 2,3 - listed 745/actual 745gr
All tires are true to size.
Racesport and Protection versions feel very different. One is supple and thin and sometimes leaks sealant and other one has thick sidewalls.

Would be interesting to know how 650gr protection feels like. It can't be this light without undersize - I think.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

Speaking about Continental, bad news for the Race King lovers like myself. I spoke to their reps at the Roc d'Azur asking for any news about an updated version (2.4 wide, more aggressive side lugs?) 
They said that the current model is selling so well, they can barely meet the demand and they don't see any updates in the near future.
However, the current 2.2 RK ProTection is still my favorite rear tire for non-extreme riding (i.e. most of the marathon events here in Europe) for the impressive combination of low weight, low RR, enough protection and high mileage due to the single compound.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

Kirsa said:


> Interesting.
> I have 2 Crossking racesport 2,3" tires - listed weight 675gr - actual weight 675gr
> Then 2 Protection Crosskings 2,3"-s - listed weight 745 (it was 745gr 2 years ago when I bought them) - actual 743gr and 745gr
> And 2 MountainKing Protection 2,3 - listed 745/actual 745gr
> ...


My Cross King 2.3 ProTection came in at 662 grams and is spot on 2.3" wide on a 30mm internal width rim. I am beyond pleased with this tire paired with a 2.2 rear, which ironically weighed 6 grams more. They are good at everything. (At least in the XC realm)


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

brentos said:


> My Cross King 2.3 ProTection came in at 662 grams and is spot on 2.3" wide on a 30mm internal width rim. I am beyond pleased with this tire paired with a 2.2 rear, which ironically weighed 6 grams more. They are good at everything.


You scored the outlier weight weenie CK 2.3 Protections?! Unless I'm looking at wrong tire even Conti claims 755g. Initial glance looks like a Specialized Fast Trak class.


https://www.continental-tires.com/bicycle/tires/mountainbike-tires/cross-king-protection


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

The Cross King protection does seem to come under weight more often than not. The one I got off Amazon was under 700g for the 2.3.

I wonder if these are all the ones tossed out by pro mechanics lol.


----------



## pedalinbob (Jan 12, 2004)

I don't race anymore, but lurk here a bit.
You guys definitely hit the Cross King lottery. My 29x2.3 Cross King Protection was 784g.
I think I purchased it in 2020. It is the newest model.

Bob


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

pedalinbob said:


> I don't race anymore, but lurk here a bit.
> You guys definitely hit the Cross King lottery. My 29x2.3 Cross King Protection was 784g.
> I think I purchased it in 2020. It is the newest model.
> 
> Bob


Friend doing weekend shopping for this tire, and he is asking sellers for weights due to this giant variance. Target is sub 700g each.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I think both of mine were over 730g.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

Bit of a different question: I don't want to waste (especially for 4c tyres like my XC vittorias that have a short lifespan) my tyres for training in the winter. What tyres does everyone recommend to swap out for winter training / riding on the XC bike? 

Syerras
Rekons
Wicked Wills
The same xc race tyres but in a thick casing?
Old Forekasters? New Forekasters?
Something interesting from Hutchinson / Michelin?

Must be able to handle some mud / soft ground.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Why not your older tires that are no longer in race shape?

My Mezcals are no longer confident when pushing the limits but I just put them back on the front because my trails are now leaf covered and slow, and I'm focusing more on easy riding through the winter anyways. Plus they'll make me a better bike handler


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

joebusby said:


> Bit of a different question: I don't want to waste (especially for 4c tyres like my XC vittorias that have a short lifespan) my tyres for training in the winter. What tyres does everyone recommend to swap out for winter training / riding on the XC bike?
> 
> Syerras
> Rekons
> ...


We’re burning through old forekasters and Barzos. Good time to top off the sealant because plugging and fixing flats with frozen hands is not fun.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

I tested out Kenda Rush 2.4 *TR* for 2 rides.
I like it more than Kenda Booster 2.4 *SCT*. It feel plusher, smoother, and faster.
I don't regret going for tire with smaller knobs, yet.

But one thing I notice about Kenda (Sample space of 4 different tires). The light weight TR casing seems to be made more sloppy than SCT ones. It's noticeable in the tire tread wobbly-ness. Tread on SCT is pretty much straight. Tread on TR wobble left to right more. Anyone know how much I'm slowed down by the tire tread that wobble left to right? Or it's just annoyance to look at?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

So how is the cornering grip of the Rush compared to the Booster?


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

Hexsense said:


> I tested out Kenda Rush 2.4 *TR* for 2 rides.
> I like it more than Kenda Booster 2.4 *SCT*. It feel plusher, smoother, and faster.
> I don't regret going for tire with smaller knobs, yet.
> 
> But one thing I notice about Kenda (Sample space of 4 different tires). The light weight TR casing seems to be made more sloppy than SCT ones. It's noticeable in the tire tread wobbly-ness. Tread on SCT is pretty much straight. Tread on TR wobble left to right more. Anyone know how much I'm slowed down by the tire tread that wobble left to right? Or it's just annoyance to look at?


If you have a tyre with a wobbly casing from new you can sometimes straighten the tyre up a bit by putting it on a rim with an inner tube, pumping it up to max pressure and then leaving it to sit like that for several days. A new tyre will stretch a little over time and the high pressure gets it back to a rounder shape.

If it’s really wobbly (defective tyre) I don’t think it makes much difference to straight line speed but it does affect the handling of the bike when cornering.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

tick_magnet said:


> So how is the cornering grip of the Rush compared to the Booster?


I don't feel like cornering grip get any worse. Straight line braking grip and drive traction is what reduce a bit. 

After all, the side knobs are retained, only center knobs get significantly smaller.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Had a really interesting experience about tire weight. So with our trails littered with fall leaves and me doing mostly zone 2 riding now, I put on some worn out XR1s with a Specialized Desert tube (tire won't do tubeless anymore) to prevent flats. The tube is filled with sealant and weighs 700 grams (that is not a typo). So the tire and tube together weigh in the neighborhood of 1400 grams. This is for the rear wheel. I didn't really care because it's not race season and I am doing slow rides anyways.

Well, I was shocked that I barely even noticed the difference based on perception. In fact, when I first started pedaling, it was so easy that I stopped and lifted the rear wheel just to make sure I wasn't imagining things. Definitely felt the weight picking up the bike but did not feel it much while pedaling. Went and rode my usual singletrack loops. No difference in Strava time at Z2 effort. Even on climbs, I only felt the extra weight a little bit but not nearly as much as I expected. Checked all the Strava segments and sure enough, not much difference (maybe a few seconds here and there).

I'm not saying weight doesn't matter because I can see how a few seconds here and there can add up in a 1.5 hour race. But, it sure does seem like this belongs in the realm of marginal gains. And this is added weight in the worse possible place which is rotating weight. I guess I'm not going to sweat 50gram differences anymore between different tires, lol.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Looks like Specialized is blowing out Fast Trak T5 and T7, and Renegade T5s for $32.50.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

Don't know how I'll go about finding these, but the 650 gram-ish Conti ProTection 29x2.3 several have posted pics of is what I want. A few PB sellers had them but weight was factory claimed at 740 grams.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

On the specialized website right now. Also at Competitive cyclist and I imagine these prices will start showing up at other specialized retailers as well.


----------



## euro-trash (Feb 9, 2008)

joebusby said:


> Bit of a different question: I don't want to waste (especially for 4c tyres like my XC vittorias that have a short lifespan) my tyres for training in the winter. What tyres does everyone recommend to swap out for winter training / riding on the XC bike?
> 
> 
> Must be able to handle some mud / soft ground.


Syerra wore very quickly! Maybe some Pirelli softs? They are cheap from Europe and their gravel tires last forever. I have the trail M for the same reasoning as you. I ride near Seattle in winter on we roots, so I can't just ride old crappy tires without adding risk.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tick_magnet said:


> On the specialized website right now. Also at Competitive cyclist and I imagine these prices will start showing up at other specialized retailers as well.


One benefit of ordering direct from Specialized is the free returns. Example: you purchase a set, get free shipping, weigh and find out they're considerably heavier than claimed. BOOM, return no cost to you. 

I've been lucky with a $32 sale Purgatory T7 29x2.3 earlier this year coming in at 885 grams, but many had 950+ grams. And their T9 Eliminator GRID 29x2.3 was 955 grams when claimed is 880. Fantastic tires, but if you're picky or have cabin fever or OCD then it all adds up.


----------



## Augustus-G (Jun 21, 2019)

tick_magnet said:


> Looks like Specialized is blowing out Fast Trak T5 and T7, and Renegade T5s for $32.50.


Also the Ground Control Control 2Bliss Ready T5 & Ground Control Grid 2Bliss Ready T7 Soil Searching (Tan Wall) if you want something with more bite. Same price.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Augustus-G said:


> Also the Ground Control Control 2Bliss Ready T5 & Ground Control Grid 2Bliss Ready T7 Soil Searching (Tan Wall) if you want something with more bite. Same price.


Heavy though...


----------



## Augustus-G (Jun 21, 2019)

NordieBoy said:


> Heavy though...


A lot of people here in the Desert Southwest run them as an XC Race Tire because we have so much Loose over Hard and decomposed granite. Not a lot of "Hero Dirt" to be found here.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Augustus-G said:


> A lot of people here in the Desert Southwest run them as an XC Race Tire because we have so much Loose over Hard and decomposed granite. Not a lot of "Hero Dirt" to be found here.


Haven't tried the new (T5/7) ones, but the older Gripton ones were a brilliant single speed rear.
Racing here, I can get away with Fasttrak/Renegade Controls. About 670g vs >800g for the GC.


----------



## WithOrWithout87 (Jul 2, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> Looks like Specialized is blowing out Fast Trak T5 and T7, and Renegade T5s for $32.50.


good looking out!

Just ordered a Fast Trak T7 for the front and Fast Trak T5 for rear both in 2.35

Coming from Aspen 2.4s. Maybe I’ll have more grip and be just as fast? We’ll see


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

Time for a 2023 thread?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

WithOrWithout87 said:


> good looking out!
> 
> Just ordered a Fast Trak T7 for the front and Fast Trak T5 for rear both in 2.35
> 
> Coming from Aspen 2.4s. Maybe I’ll have more grip and be just as fast? We’ll see


I get the sense that the Renegade is more comparable to the Aspen. The Fast Trak is probably like the Ikon.


----------



## WithOrWithout87 (Jul 2, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> I get the sense that the Renegade is more comparable to the Aspen. The Fast Trak is probably like the Ikon.


I was planning on doing Renegade rear but it wasn’t on sale. Fast Traks are probably better for my area anyway (wet and rooty)


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

tick_magnet said:


> Had a really interesting experience about tire weight. So with our trails littered with fall leaves and me doing mostly zone 2 riding now, I put on some worn out XR1s with a Specialized Desert tube (tire won't do tubeless anymore) to prevent flats. The tube is filled with sealant and weighs 700 grams (that is not a typo). So the tire and tube together weigh in the neighborhood of 1400 grams. This is for the rear wheel. I didn't really care because it's not race season and I am doing slow rides anyways.
> 
> Well, I was shocked that I barely even noticed the difference based on perception. In fact, when I first started pedaling, it was so easy that I stopped and lifted the rear wheel just to make sure I wasn't imagining things. Definitely felt the weight picking up the bike but did not feel it much while pedaling. Went and rode my usual singletrack loops. No difference in Strava time at Z2 effort. Even on climbs, I only felt the extra weight a little bit but not nearly as much as I expected. Checked all the Strava segments and sure enough, not much difference (maybe a few seconds here and there).
> 
> I'm not saying weight doesn't matter because I can see how a few seconds here and there can add up in a 1.5 hour race. But, it sure does seem like this belongs in the realm of marginal gains. And this is added weight in the worse possible place which is rotating weight. I guess I'm not going to sweat 50gram differences anymore between different tires, lol.


Even though I'm WW 4 life I've noticed the same. Tread pattern & compound matter way more for RR than tire weight. 

Still, if I don't have light tires, how will I impress strangers on the internet with my light build?


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

WithOrWithout87 said:


> I was planning on doing Renegade rear but it wasn’t on sale. Fast Traks are probably better for my area anyway (wet and rooty)


Specialized don't have any Renegade in stock in the country here...


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

After racing a Butcher/Ground Control combo because I expected mud but there was just a bit of water, then a Butcher/Ground Control with CushCore XC and mudguards because I expected a lot of mud and rocky climbing and g-outs and the conditions were perfect...
For tomorrow's race I'm running the old FastTrak/Renegade Control combo and no guards. The Renegade is well past it's use by date, but it rolls well and is light.
500g lighter just in the tyres.
So that guarantees rain tomorrow...


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

NordieBoy said:


> After racing a Butcher/Ground Control combo because I expected mud but there was just a bit of water, then a Butcher/Ground Control with CushCore XC and mudguards because I expected a lot of mud and rocky climbing and g-outs and the conditions were perfect...
> For tomorrow's race I'm running the old FastTrak/Renegade Control combo and no guards. The Renegade is well past it's use by date, but it rolls well and is light.
> 500g lighter just in the tyres.
> So that guarantees rain tomorrow...


Is this the burly Butcher with T9 compound? Heavy but excellence in mud and slop?


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

westin said:


> Is this the burly Butcher with T9 compound? Heavy but excellence in mud and slop?


Old Butcher Gripton Grid (920g) that's done 4 winters so far.
Rained all night and still raining at 7:30am for a 10:00 start...
Edit: Just checked the forecast. Due to stop raining at 11:00. Guess how long the race is 🙄


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

Suns_PSD said:


> Still, if I don't have light tires,  how will I impress strangers on the internet with my light build?


You will fib about it, because nobody can see into your parents basement, where many a keyboard warrior dwells?!  🙃


----------



## sselhtrim (Nov 6, 2021)

renegade t5 is useless in the wet, i find a barzo is more grippy in the same conditions. Then renegade is probably faster rolling though.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

Casting a wide net: would it be fair to say as a front tire that the Conti Protection Cross King 2.3 and Barzo 2.35 are very similar, but the Conti maintains traction longer after Barzo's 4C top layer disappears?


----------



## joebusby (Aug 13, 2007)

westin said:


> Casting a wide net: would it be fair to say as a front tire that the Conti Protection Cross King 2.3 and Barzo 2.35 are very similar, but the Conti maintains traction longer after Barzo's 4C top layer disappears?


Having an xc case barzo and a 2.3 king in my hand the barzo is a lot more supple. The new cross king and race kings I just bought are very different tyres - the cross is almost a trail / fast enduro back tyre. I guess this is why it tests so badly on BRR.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

DHiggins said:


> Has anyone that has moved to or tried the Pirelli XC RC moved back to any of their previous Mezcal/Barzo/Ray/Ralph/RaceKing combos?


I had to inflate my Pirelli Scorpion XC RC 2.4 up to 22-23 psi for the cornering knobs to not constantly dig in. They felt like when a car veers a little into a soft shoulder, the side knobs grab and steer the bike progressively sharper. Not a bad thing if extra turning traction is needed but I felt it costing some speed. On level gravel and paved surfaces, they were nice and quick at my preferred pressure of 17-18 psi but on side slopes or in the turns, they felt like dogs. I did a lot of run out testing with them to find the best pressure, which ended up being in that 22-23 range. Still, I used them on my one race last summer, an ultra mostly on unimproved single track but some on pavement too. Traction was always good in this event and their light weight was fantastic to have through the technical sections with lots of braking and reaccelerating. However, they have been the sketchiest tire I've been on in loose gravel unless leaned very assertively. I had a few moments that could have ruined at least a few days of getting on the bike, or more.

Still, I believed these tires were a great racing tire so I took them off to save them for the future and put on the Ray/Ralph combo for the first time. I immediately felt how these felt better at lower pressure and went back to my 17-18 psi preferred range. I found myself near my test hill with the same conditions as I had with the Pirellis and so I gave them a few trips down. Every single trip had me coasting noticeably farther than the best trip that I had with the Pirellis. Around this time I was also seeing Strava segment PR's coming much easier than they should have. Similar or even less effort than before but cutting a few seconds off for each minute. Now, this isn't to say that one tire is better than the other, rather this experience tells me that lower pressure is faster than higher; and, the Scorpion's do not perform well for me because they didn't suit me at lower pressures. I have a hunch that the Pirelli's would do better on a narrower rim though (mine are 29 ID). IIRC, the rave reviews of them that I read were of folks with the 2.2 versions on what I can only assume with much narrower rims. But in any case, I am real happy to have the Ray and Ralph combo and have yet to feel a downside to them in the real world. If anyone can't find any and is dying to get their hands on a set of these Scorpions, I am willing sell. They're still in good shape.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Are these prowalls or the lite version? Also, it sounds like you are doing lots of gravel (correct me if I'm wrong). Do you think the Pirellis would be better for tight singletrack with lots of corners? 

I just got my XC RC prowalls in the mail and they have some pretty aggressive side knobs so I can see what you are saying. The side knobs remind me of the ones on the Cross King rather than the ones on Aspens or Mezcals. Oh and the weight of the tire is 730g.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

They are the prowalls. Not a whole lot of gravel but I would usually ride sections of it to get to the trails. 

Yeah I do think they’d be ideal where cornering traction is very important. A highly skilled rider who can always attack the corners should find good traction. I just think the other factors like rim size, rider weight and psi need to be matched accordingly. They aren’t a simple plug and play item.

I look forward to hearing your experience when you get them, I could be way off base.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

akmtnrunner said:


> They are the prowalls. Not a whole lot of gravel but I would usually ride sections of it to get to the trails.
> 
> Yeah I do think they’d be ideal where cornering traction is very important. A highly skilled rider who can always attack the corners should find good traction. I just think the other factors like rim size, rider weight and psi need to be matched accordingly. They aren’t a simple plug and play item.
> 
> I look forward to hearing your experience when you get them, I could be way off base.


I'll let you know. I've got three tires (Mitas Scylla, Fast Trak T7, and the XC RC) that I will be comparing back-to-back-to-back on multiple rims so I can just switch them out from one ride to the next. I've already been riding the Scylla, which has been really impressive and so much better than the Mezcal that it's almost no contest, so it will be interesting to see how the XC RC and Fast Trak stack up.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tick_magnet said:


> I'll let you know. I've got three tires (Mitas Scylla, Fast Trak T7, and the XC RC) that I will be comparing back-to-back-to-back on multiple rims so I can just switch them out from one ride to the next. I've already been riding the Scylla, which has been really impressive and so much better than the Mezcal that it's almost no contest, so it will be interesting to see how the XC RC and Fast Trak stack up.


Scylla is 29x2.45? Interesting.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I'm actually running the 2.25 which only comes in at 2.17 which is disappointing. But the front end grip is shockingly great, especially on hardpack and loose over hard, for such as fast rolling tire.


----------



## Cwest84 (Mar 4, 2021)

Ok so I'm stocking up on some tire options for 2023. My Epic Evo currently has a Ground Control front and Fast Track Rear (previous gen with grid casing)....

In spare I have a Vittoria Mezcal and Barzo.

So my XCM races are almost like hardpacked, small rocky gravel. Nothing major. Basically no singletrack. 60 and 100 miler. Gravel bikes compete too..

I'm in the process of upgrading my rims to carbon with 29/30mm ID rims.

So I was thinking something in the lines of....
Extra Vittoria Mezcal for a fast rolling combo as I already have one
Maxxis Rekon Race or Aspen?
The above will be the best priced here
Another versatile option is a Ikon
I can do Fast trak F/R but they more expensive over here.. Renegade?
Intrigued by Schwalbe Racing ray and Ralph although way more expensive here and heavy? Thunderburt?
Was also thinking of adding a Maxxis Forekaster (older one) to the inventory for when some of the races are wet.
Mostly thinking 2.35/2.4wt. But as these races are pretty long and not too technical should I rather consider 2.25? Or should I even go as far as buying something like Vittoria Terreno tires as gravel bikes do great in these races? Or am I over thinking the whole process? Looking for something fast that will compliment my new rims! Sorry for the long post, most of the Maxxis tires are on sale at the moment but I dont mind paying for any of the other if theres more advantages to them


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

^
Kenda Rush TR gets my vote for fast rear tire in the class of "almost a gravel tire". The TR version is really light comparing to the compilation.

I personally would still use something gripper for the front though. Just for safety and confidence. Something like Kenda Karma 2, Wolfpack Cross, Specialized Ground Control...


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

If really tame courses I'd probably choose Continental Race King Protection...they roll really fast.


----------



## uhhyut (Oct 9, 2013)

Ethirteen has just come out with an xc/down country tire called the Optimus. Good weight, wildly grippy and rolls fast. 811g for the 72tpi trail casing and 738 for the 120tpi xc casing. The sidewall is much more durable than similar offerings and great pricing. They really nailed this market. I’ll check back in after more miles.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

Cwest84 said:


> I'm in the process of upgrading my rims to carbon with 29/30mm ID rims.
> 
> Mostly thinking 2.35/2.4wt. But as these races are pretty long and not too technical should I rather consider 2.25?


In my opinion 2.25 is too narrow on your new rims.


----------



## Vamp (10 mo ago)

My favourite combo for dry terain last season was Wolfpack Speed front, Thunder Burt rear. I even rode it with success in mixed conditions on less technical courses, e.g. Welsh XCM Championships. Fast, predictable and light (below 1,200g for the pair). No punctures all season, or at least, none that I've noticed.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Stonerider said:


> If really tame courses I'd probably choose Continental Race King Protection...they roll really fast.


This. i like them everywhere there isn't mud or sharp rocks.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Cwest84 said:


> Ok so I'm stocking up on some tire options for 2023. My Epic Evo currently has a Ground Control front and Fast Track Rear (previous gen with grid casing)....
> 
> In spare I have a Vittoria Mezcal and Barzo.
> 
> ...


If gravel bikes are doing well I'd definitely go super short tread for the XC bike. I just picked up a pair of 29x2.25 Vittoria Terreno in gumwall, here the rocks are too sharp to run them in singletrack but I ran them last year for a short track series and they were noticeably faster rolling than the Mezcal 2.25 gumwall (which is no slow roller in my opinion). I've run the Thunder Burts before and they're very quick, sworn off Schwalbe because they just don't last for me but if you like the rubber/casing for your area I'd give those a shot. Another fast rolling XC tire I liked was the Kenda Saber, though it appears to be replaced by the Rush which honestly looks a little grippier and supposedly rolls faster. Rocks here are too bad for Kenda SCT casing but they'd be on my list. New Specialized Captain might be good too, the Renegade got a little more burly than past versions (I loved the 1.95 renegade Sworks for this application #RIP).

I'm putting together my options for 2023 and they look like this (full disclosure I'm supported by Vittoria but I paid my own money for them long before we had a relationship):
*2.4 Vittoria Syerra*: front and rear for anything muddy and nasty, did a wet XCM race last year and had a great overall result with them on my SS. Heavy on the scale but roll faster than any other 840g tire I know.
*2.35 Barzo XC Trail Casing*: a little skinny at 2.30ish, probably only use as a front when the Syerra is too much but I need a little more front grip. Shed mud really well, old favorite.
*2.25 and 2.35 Mezcal XC Trail casing*: 2.35 blows up nice and big so good for anything sandy/floaty, been playing with the 2.25 this fall and it actually blows up to 2.31" on 30mm rims while having tighter knob spacing to prevent some punctures, pairs great with more aggressive front tire like Syerra.
*2.25 Terreno XC Race (gumwall)*: Short track only here, or if I race somewhere outside the Ozarks. I'd consider these for something like ORAMM, Palo Duro, 24 hours in El Pueblo, etc. If they made these in 60tpi and/or reinforced sidewalls I'd run them all the time as a rear. 

Race bike is Epic-ish hardtail with [email protected] 100, Inserts front and rear 24-7 on 30mm ID rims, might pull inserts out for Short Track in the spring I'm not sure. Currently got a 2.35 Aggaro up front (measures 2.25) with 2.4 Syerra out back and it's not the fastest setup, but fun for offseason mucking about. I'd say the Aggaro and Syerra intermediate and corner knobs are definitely similar, with the latter being about 30% smaller (and thus lighter). Not an XC race tire though I did run Aggaros for a local enduro race on my XC bike a couple years ago and did well with them.

I'm a big fan of trying different tread patterns/casings/size options on either extreme of what other people run. It's helped me find the limits of the bike vs tires and push harder regardless of whatever setup I'm on than when I just ran the same setup always, and if I really don't like the tires for my application I throw them in the bin for one-off events like the odd enduro or short track. Try different brands and models to see what works for you, you might be surprised at what you find.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Race King Protection on sale at Bike Tires Direct for around $61 and change.


----------



## Cwest84 (Mar 4, 2021)

Thanks so far.. I've yet to see Wolfpack tires in South Africa. Most shops here stock Maxxis and Vittoria and then the Specialized dealers stock their tires. Some shops stock Continental and Schwalbe and here and there some Michelin/Pirelli. 

So the Maxxis and Vittoria and mostly on sale. Will a Aspen/Rekon Race hold me back vs some of these other "speed" tires? Aspen doesnt come in 2.35, but Rekon Race is available in 2.35 and 2.4wt


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

uhhyut said:


> Ethirteen has just come out with an xc/down country tire called the Optimus. Good weight, wildly grippy and rolls fast. 811g for the 72tpi trail casing and 738 for the 120tpi xc casing. The sidewall is much more durable than similar offerings and great pricing. They really nailed this market. I’ll check back in after more miles.


Looks like a mini DHF/DHR. Very intrigued.

Have you received yours already? Very keen on their measured width when you have installed them, please.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

Cwest84 said:


> Thanks so far.. I've yet to see Wolfpack tires in South Africa. Most shops here stock Maxxis and Vittoria and then the Specialized dealers stock their tires. Some shops stock Continental and Schwalbe and here and there some Michelin/Pirelli.
> 
> So the Maxxis and Vittoria and mostly on sale. Will a Aspen/Rekon Race hold me back vs some of these other "speed" tires? Aspen doesnt come in 2.35, but Rekon Race is available in 2.35 and 2.4wt


I ordered mine direct from Germany (to New Zealand) and it still worked out cheaper than the equivalent Maxxis, or Vittoria etc option. Now that there are sales again it's becoming a bit more palatable buying the big brands.

The grip, weight, and rolling speed of the Wolfpack Tyres was amazing. I had an issue with a softening rear during my A-Race. I suspect rim tape, but haven't put the Wolfpack Tyres back on yet to prove that it wasn't an issue with the tyre.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tommyrod74 said:


> This. i like them everywhere there isn't mud or sharp rocks.


And what would you run if a sharp rock or two were to be found on course? Not abundance, but say one section per lap.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

westin said:


> And what would you run if a sharp rock or two were to be found on course? Not abundance, but say one section per lap.


I'd run the RK if I could trust myself to ride smart through those sections, and either slow down or fly over the rocks. They aren't made of tissue paper or anything, but low pressures + sharp rocks at speed = flat likely. Higher rear pressure than normal would help as well. 

I'll say that when I've run the RK rear and flatted, it wasn't something sealant could fix - too big a tear. Usually on the tread area, between the trad blocks. Sidewall is fairly robust (in comparison).


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tommyrod74 said:


> I'd run the RK if I could trust myself to ride smart through those sections, and either slow down or fly over the rocks. They aren't made of tissue paper or anything, but low pressures + sharp rocks at speed = flat likely. Higher rear pressure than normal would help as well.
> 
> I'll say that when I've run the RK rear and flatted, it wasn't something sealant could fix - too big a tear. Usually on the tread area, between the trad blocks. Sidewall is fairly robust (in comparison).


I am currently running the renegade T5 control which works great except when late summer loose and sandy are the norm. At that point I would go back to Mezcal. Definitely not going back to the renegade after it wears out in spring training. The RK is on the shortlist.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tick_magnet said:


> Race King Protection on sale at Bike Tires Direct for around $61 and change.


Another good option: Continental Race King ProTection TR 29" Tire - Width: 2.2" but BTD has free shipping for just one tire and will price match Universal Cycles.

And as of this posting Amazon seller has 29x2.2 RKP for $55.75: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078GQPQZN/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A19TX88GCVI89B&psc=1


----------



## uhhyut (Oct 9, 2013)

mail_liam said:


> Looks like a mini DHF/DHR. Very intrigued.
> 
> Have you received yours already?
> 
> ...


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

westin said:


> I am currently running the renegade T5 control which works great except when late summer loose and sandy are the norm. At that point I would go back to Mezcal. Definitely not going back to the renegade after it wears out in spring training. The RK is on the shortlist.


Renegade T5 Control = slightly slower rolling than RK, more durable in rocks, and surprisingly less capable in loose or sandy conditions.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tommyrod74 said:


> Renegade T5 Control = slightly slower rolling than RK, more durable in rocks, and surprisingly less capable in loose or sandy conditions.


That durability in rocks is a concern. I know more weight and resistance often comes with more tread and durability.
Are you planning to run the RK in back for 2023? In fact, what are your 2023 front and rear tire plans?


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

westin said:


> That durability in rocks is a concern. I know more weight and resistance often comes with more tread and durability.
> Are you planning to run the RK in back for 2023? In fact, what are your 2023 front and rear tire plans?


RK rear on fast, smooth courses with tons of climbing. Cross King front and rear otherwise. I have 2.2 and 2.3 on hand.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

By any chance you try CK 2.2 on 29-31mm internal width rim?
I wonder how the knobs angle looks and feels on wide rim.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tommyrod74 said:


> RK rear on fast, smooth courses with tons of climbing. Cross King front and rear otherwise. I have 2.2 and 2.3 on hand.


The 2.3 always on front?


----------



## uhhyut (Oct 9, 2013)

Here is a mounted image of the Ethirteen Optimus 29x2.4


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

westin said:


> The 2.3 always on front?


No, sometimes the 2.2 CK. Depends on the course. The 2.2 is surprisingly grippy. Running 2.3 CK front and rear for winter.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Hexsense said:


> By any chance you try CK 2.2 on 29-31mm internal width rim?
> I wonder how the knobs angle looks and feels on wide rim.


No, only 25mm and 27mm internal.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

tommyrod74 said:


> No, sometimes the 2.2 CK. Depends on the course. The 2.2 is surprisingly grippy. Running 2.3 CK front and rear for winter.


For you and your courses is the 2.2 mainly smooth and hardpack up front?


----------



## Cwest84 (Mar 4, 2021)

Cwest84 said:


> Thanks so far.. I've yet to see Wolfpack tires in South Africa. Most shops here stock Maxxis and Vittoria and then the Specialized dealers stock their tires. Some shops stock Continental and Schwalbe and here and there some Michelin/Pirelli.
> 
> So the Maxxis and Vittoria and mostly on sale. Will a Aspen/Rekon Race hold me back vs some of these other "speed" tires? Aspen doesnt come in 2.35, but Rekon Race is available in 2.35 and 2.4wt


Update... input needed again please

Spoke to the shop that have a few of the tires in stock and have some on special and will discount some of the others

Discipline is still mostly XCM stuff. Mostly just gravel with some loose over hard in patches. So still contemplating which tyres should go on my new rims..

I am leaning towards the Racing Ray and Racing Ralph combo 2.35 in Superground casing. I know they have been reported heavy. Do they roll great and are their attributes good enough? Reviews seem fantastic

Maxxis are on a huge sale. So I'm think as an alternative a Aspen and Rekon Race. But not sure which one I should put on rear or front. Or just get Aspens F/R. 2.4 wt obviously for both

For my wife I'm leaning towards Ikon rear and Ardent race front just for a bit more grip.

On another note. Lots of my training is on the road so I asked for some Vittoria Terreno to put on my old rims for training purposes. Shop only has Maxxis Ramblers and Schwalbe G-one Bite. Any preference here?

Thanks


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

I am major thumbs down on the Ray / Ralph combo 2.35. Didn't feel grippy or fast and was not particularly light in super ground (715 /745g).

I put on Mezcal tnt and a cross king and was much much happier.

Which Terreno's? I have the dry and they are a solid option.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

I was pleasantly surprised by the Ray/Ralph super ground 2.35 combo. While not the lightest race tires, they pull their own weight by being faster than a Mezcal/Barzo tnt combo and Pirelli Scorpion XC RC. At least I think they were faster based on strava times vs effort. I think at least part of the reason why they were faster for me were the relatively heavier casing that let me use less pressure. They still felt very composed at 15-16 psi where as I needed to be higher with the others (especially the Pirelli's).


----------



## Cwest84 (Mar 4, 2021)

cassieno said:


> Which Terreno's? I have the dry and they are a solid option.


Yes, but I cant find them here locally, so one of the other two gravel options must do the training for now


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

I think that Schwalbe went from one ecess to the other with the new casings. In the Super Ground version they are among the heaviest XC tires in their class, and they are overkill for normal race conditions (unless the course is extremely rough) 
The Super Race casing (previously known as Snake Skin) offers enough protecton for normal race conditions and it would be a better choice to me.

And regardless, the Race King Protection rolls faster than the Racing Ralph and is strongh enough for most of my XCM races.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

And......it's time for a new race tire thread!


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

cassieno said:


> I am major thumbs down on the Ray / Ralph combo 2.35. Didn't feel grippy or fast and was not particularly light in super ground (715 /745g).
> 
> I put on Mezcal tnt and a cross king and was much much happier.
> 
> Which Terreno's? I have the dry and they are a solid option.


For your race courses and training what do you like more about the Vittoria in the back than the equivalent continental?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I have a Racing Ray and a Thunder Burt Super Trail set I tested and they were fun as they were so fast, easily faster than anything I've ever tested. 
However on my very loose trails I was losing too much time just slipping and sliding. 
If someone just wanted to test them I'd make a good deal for someone. Maybe $80 shipped for the pair.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Rc


westin said:


> For your race courses and training what do you like more about the Vittoria in the back than the equivalent continental?


I haven't run the equivalent continental. The Mezcal tnt is tough and fast. I threw it on to deal with a extremely rocky and rough race on my hardtail and then kept it on. 

It was very much a go with what I know. 

The continental cross king 2.3 is like a better Barzo.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

We ought to have a thorough and detailed chart to describe the various ground types and conditions. Not just ‘mixed’, ‘loose over hard’, ‘roots’, ‘hard pack’, etc. No doubt there’s a lot lost in translation. I bet there would be much more agreement in tires experiences using a more thorough and consistent standard way of describing what the tires are rolling over.


----------



## mail_liam (Jul 22, 2011)

Agree. It's also really tough when people have different scales of "technical". Or one person's XC racing is hard pack gravel/European path, another's is steep roots and rocks, and anything in between.

For What It's Worth, the Ray and Ralph are the best XC tyres I've used and I'd keep running then but for availability/cost and I'm hoping they bump up to a true 2.4+" size.

I'm currently enjoying Maxxis with Rekon/Rekon Race, I've tried Mezcal, and Mezcal/Barzo, and Wolfpack. I think Wolfpack would be my ultimate for forest racing. I just need to get more confidence in their protection before taking them to the slicey, dicey rocks.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

akmtnrunner said:


> We ought to have a thorough and detailed chart to describe the various ground types and conditions. Not just ‘mixed’, ‘loose over hard’, ‘roots’, ‘hard pack’, etc. No doubt there’s a lot lost in translation. I bet there would be much more agreement in tires experiences using a more thorough and consistent standard way of describing what the tires are rolling over.


Similar to the Silca tire pressure calculator: SILCA Professional Tire Pressure Calculator leads to https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0309/9521/files/Silca_Surface_Condition_Guide.pdf?8341


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

westin said:


> For you and your courses is the 2.2 mainly smooth and hardpack up front?


I ran it on a course that was alternatingly loose and rocky and in spots muddy, and it took me a lap or two to figure out it would hold a line far better than expected. I didn't have a 2.3 yet at that time, but the course was so climb-heavy that I'd probably use the 2.2 again there.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

Hexsense said:


> By any chance you try CK 2.2 on 29-31mm internal width rim?
> I wonder how the knobs angle looks and feels on wide rim.


I ran a 2.2 on a 30mm internal rim on the rear. It's not currently mounted and I don't have any pictures, but it didn't look significantly different in profile than the 2.3 front. It also worked very well.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

brentos said:


> I ran a 2.2 on a 30mm internal rim on the rear. It's not currently mounted and I don't have any pictures, but it didn't look significantly different in profile than the 2.3 front. It also worked very well.


You always run a front 2.3 Cross King Pro?


----------



## FredCoMTB (Jul 25, 2020)

jymontoya said:


> Which casing?
> 
> I just got a 2.4 sct karma 2 on the back of my Ripmo. It replaced a Forekaster and I think it's a great tire. The Kenda SCT casing is significantly more durable and stout than EXO in my experience. Allows lower pressure for sure. I like the non staggered side knobs better than the old Forekaster. Felt similar rolling speed.
> 
> ...


Are you still liking the Kendas? I'm on the DL at the moment, but hoping to do some longer-distance riding after recovery later this year on my 135r/150f trail bike (maybe even the SM100). Right now I'm running a DHF 2.5 up front and a 2.4 Dissector rear. Great tires, but around 2,100g using Maxxis' estimates, which means probably even more.

I really don't think I need the DHF/Dissector for 90% of my rides, and I definitely wouldn't want them for anything that's endurance or isn't super aggressive. It's rocky and rooty where I usually ride, and so far I've pretty much skated by with only EXO (not even EXO+), but only weigh 145 or so and pick lines reasonably well.

Thinking of running Karma 2 SCT 29x2.4 front and rear. The Booster's weight looks tempting as a rear, but looking at that tread just makes me think I'll be cursing every time I see a wet root or rock on a steep or techy climb. With the Karma 2 SCT F/R I'd shave off about a pound of rolling weight, so not nothing. I think the TR might just be asking for issues

Really leaning towards just giving it a go once I'm cleared to get back on the bike, but wanted to get some feedback too.

Appreciate it


----------



## Boulder Waffles (Nov 26, 2014)

2023 thread?


anyone using the Hutchinson Skeleton in 2.3 ?
i pulled a new set for $30 each and am thinking about throwing them on the supercaliber this weekend.
Tread looks super rad. There was an Aspen St that I saw somewhere that had similar tread. I’d been looking for something like that and I think I may have found it in the Skeleton. Weight is 750 exactly on both tires. Box says 680 though. Still they look great.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

westin said:


> You always run a front 2.3 Cross King Pro?


Not always, but it’s my current favorite, and is the most versatile tire I have. It’s on my bike 80% of the time. 

Other 20% is made up of the Race King for fire road XC races, and Terravail Warwick for the super technical rides or downhill/enduro rus.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

brentos said:


> Not always, but it’s my current favorite, and is the most versatile tire I have. It’s on my bike 80% of the time.
> 
> Other 20% is made up of the Race King for fire road XC races, and Terravail Warwick for the super technical rides or downhill/enduro rus.


I feel this way about the Cross King as well.

It rolls almost as quickly as the RK (at least on the trail) and has way more traction than it has any right to have. If I left it on 100% of the time I wouldn't complain.


----------



## Willstylez (Jan 3, 2011)

FredCoMTB said:


> Are you still liking the Kendas? I'm on the DL at the moment, but hoping to do some longer-distance riding after recovery later this year on my 135r/150f trail bike (maybe even the SM100). Right now I'm running a DHF 2.5 up front and a 2.4 Dissector rear. Great tires, but around 2,100g using Maxxis' estimates, which means probably even more.
> 
> I really don't think I need the DHF/Dissector for 90% of my rides, and I definitely wouldn't want them for anything that's endurance or isn't super aggressive. It's rocky and rooty where I usually ride, and so far I've pretty much skated by with only EXO (not even EXO+), but only weigh 145 or so and pick lines reasonably well.
> 
> ...


Just chiming in regarding the Kenda Karma 2 SCT 29 x 2.4 ........ Last week I installed one on the rear of my all-mtn hardtail (run with a Vittoria insert), to replace the Wolfpack Trail tire (which has been phenomenal, FYI). Just wanted to try a lighter & faster rolling tire in the rear. Two rides in, and I reckon it's a great tire for the terrain here in the Northeast, Hudson Valley to be exact. 

First ride was last Thursday, and it was frozen ground / leaves, with some crunchy ice. No issues at all, and cleared some technical climbs on the first attempt, which was surprising. Tires have nice support too, since I'm roughly 200#.

Second ride was yesterday, and it was quite mucky out, from tons of rain on Saturday and temps in the high 40's. No problems at all with grip on wet roots and rock slabs. Loving the Kendas, which is mindboggling for me, since I swore them off in the early 2000's after trying the Nevegals in DH racing .... yikes!

Anyway, I weighed the Karma 2 prior to installation, so I'll let you know the real world weight when I get home tonight & check my records. 

I'll most likely get a Karma 2 for the front once my Wolfpack wears out. Here's a pic of it in action.....


----------



## FredCoMTB (Jul 25, 2020)

Willstylez said:


> Just chiming in regarding the Kenda Karma 2 SCT 29 x 2.4 ........ Last week I installed one on the rear of my all-mtn hardtail (run with a Vittoria insert), to replace the Wolfpack Trail tire (which has been phenomenal, FYI). Just wanted to try a lighter & faster rolling tire in the rear. Two rides in, and I reckon it's a great tire for the terrain here in the Northeast, Hudson Valley to be exact.
> 
> First ride was last Thursday, and it was frozen ground / leaves, with some crunchy ice. No issues at all, and cleared some technical climbs on the first attempt, which was surprising. Tires have nice support too, since I'm roughly 200#.
> 
> ...


That's awesome thanks man. It sounds like it's a pretty good option. 

And I was thinking I'd avoid Kenda too. I'm one of those that took a few years off and dusted off my old 26 when the pandemic hit. The Nevegal was really what fit the tread, budget, and was available. They were decent, but I think they were like 900g and that's only for a 26x2.1, not a 27.5 or 29. 

Comically, I tried a 26x2.3 DHF on what I think was a 21mm ID rim (can't remember for sure, but I can say it was inappropriately narrow). It seated fine and cleared the fork but looked too sketchy to risk it. 

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk


----------

