# Tire test results from german "bike" magazine



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

puncture height is flattening height: 
the higher the number, the better.
they test it with a hetchet which falls down from test to test which higher and higher height., for example test 1 40cm, test 2 45cm, test 50 et cetera. the shown value is the first height the tire flattens.
they test also for thorn proofness with a metal thorn. i will edit that soon too. thorn test isnt available for all tires.
class a is highest resistance, class f lowest.
the fields of use:
cc is cross country race
am is all mountain
en is enduro

RR measurement:
(bad english incoming!)
Rolling resistance: All tires are set up with 2,5 bar. Then they are set up on the testing role without load. Then they are accelerated on 20 kilometers per hour. Now the resistance is set to zero to eliminate air resistance and bearing friction. Then the wheel gets loaded with 50kg. After a short time the tire runs again with 20km/h. The difference from unloaded and loaded run results gets the rolling resistance in watt.
movements in the carcass play a larger role than the tread.


mibro 2.25
rolling resistance: 22,3 watt
flattening height: 50cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

2.35 nevegal
RR: more than 50watt
flattening height: 43,3cm
cornering stability/ability: 6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

nobby nic 2.4 triple
RR: 28,0 watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: a
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
(update bike 4/08)
100% am

furious fred 2.0
RR: 19,9watt
flattening height: 42,5cm
thorn: e
cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
traction: 2/6 (more= the better)

racing ralph 2.25 triple 2007
RR: 26,2 watt
flattening height: 65cm
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
85% cc 15% am

racing ralph 2.25 evo TUBELESS 2008
RR: 19,8 watt
flattening height: 80cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

smart sam 2.1
RR: 28,9 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
100% cc

fat albert
RR: 34,4 watt
flattening height: 78cm
thorn: no information
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

little albert light (old test from 2004!)
RR: 32,1 watt
flattening height:-
thorn: -
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

big betty 2.4 triple
RR: 32,2 watt
flattening height: 110cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
(comment in the bike-test: big betty should have been rated 7/6 in traction and cornering stability)
15% am 85% ed

hutchinson python ng mrc medium 2.25
RR: 36,4watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
15% cc 85% am

hutchinson barracuda tubeless light
RR: 35,4watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
100% am

hutchinson toro 2.15
RR: 37,6watt
flattening height: 60cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
30% cc 70% am

hutchinson piranha mrc medium 2,3
RR: 40,8 watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
traction: 2/6 (more= the better)
50% cc 50% am

larsen tt 2,3 exception
RR: 36,6 watt
flattening height: 85cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
50% cc 50% am

mountain king 2.4 protection
RR: 32,5 watt
puncture height: 65cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
50% am 50% en

speed king 2.1 supersonic
RR: 29,6 watt
puncture height: 40cm
thorn: e
cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
90% cc 10% am

speed king 2.3 supersonic
RR: 27,9 watt
puncture height:50cm
thorn: e
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
10% cc 90% am

race king 2.2
RR: 23,9 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: f
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
85% cc 15% am

diesel protection
RR: 43,5 watt
flattening height: 75cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
100% ed

explorer 2.1 supersonic
RR: 28,5 watt
flattening height: 40cm
thorn:c
cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
100% cc

specialized the captain 2
RR: 39,2 watt
flattening height: 85cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
50% cc 50% am

specialized resolution 2.1
RR: 38,5 watt
flattening height: 65cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
25% cc 75% am

nokian nbx 2.3
RR: 26,8 watt
flattening height: 35cm
thorn: -
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

maxxis crossmark 2.1 exception
RR: 27,4 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
100% cc

maxxis high roller 2.35 tubeless
RR: over 45 watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: a
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
100% ed

maxxis ignitor exception 2.1
RR: 34,3 watt
flattening height: 36,7cm
thorn: -
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)

maxxis ignitor exception 2.35
RR: 32,3 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: -
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

wtb mutano raptor (tested as all-mountain. maybe because of that only 2/6 cornering points)
RR: 30,7 watt
flattening height: 65cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

kenda karma 2.2
RR: 41,3 watt
flattening height: 65cm
thorn: e
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
80% am 20% ed

kenda small block eight 2,1
RR: 34,2 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

IRC trailbear 2.25 (2004 tested, got the "bang for the buck" award! (costs about 10€ here in germany)
RR: 32,5 watt
flattening height: 41,67cm
thorn: -
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

vredestein tiger claw 2,1
RR: 26,2 watt
flattening height: 67,5cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
45% cc 55% am

more will be edited later! tell me what you want to know!


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

cornering/ traction points are given compared to tires of the same class.
here are the new tests:

CC-Race:

maxxis monorail exception 2.1
RR: 26,3 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
100% cc

ritchey zmax intuition 2.0 wcs
RR: 38,2 watt
flattening height: 45cm
thorn:d
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
100% cc

schwalbe rocket ron 2,25 (stats: 436g weight, available in 2.1" and 2.4" and 2.1"/2.25" tubeless)
RR: 24,7 watt
flattening height: 52,5cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction:5/6 (more= the better)
85% cc, 15% am

wtb wolverine 2.2
RR: 25,9 watt
flattening height: 65cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
95% cc, 5% am

all mountain tires

continental rubber queen 2.2"
RR: 29,8 watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
85% am, 15% ed

ritchey zmax premonition 2.25 wcs
RR: 35,2 watt
flattening height: 67,5cm
thorn: f
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
100% am

specialized purgatory 2.2 s-works 2bliss
RR: 37,2 watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
85% am, 15% ed

enduro tires

continental rubber queen 2.4"
RR: 42,7 watt
flattening height: 75cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
100% ed

maxxis ardent 2.4" 60a folding
RR: 36,3 watt
flattening height: 80cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
15% am, 85% ed

schwalbe fat albert 2.4" front and rear
RR: 29,9 watt
flattening height: 83,75cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
45% am, 55% ed


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

Thats tha most USEFUL stats I have seen on tyres...thank you!
It explains why I like the NN so much.

Do you have any stats on Racing Ralphs 2.1, Smart Sam, Larsen TT2.0 and Python 2.0??


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

Salty 1 said:


> Thats tha most USEFUL stats I have seen on tyres...thank you!
> It explains why I like the NN so much.
> 
> Do you have any stats on Racing Ralphs 2.1, Smart Sam, Larsen TT2.0 and Python 2.0??


there arent all sizes and all tires tested. i edited some requested in the first thread!


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Mountain King?

Big sizes, if you have.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

perttime said:


> Mountain King?
> 
> Big sizes, if you have.


added!

found newer test results for nobby nic 2.4 triple 2008. edited.
racing ralph 2008 evo tubeless added


----------



## boybi (Jul 31, 2007)

What is puncture height? What's better, higher or lower number?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

boybi said:


> What is puncture height? What's better, higher or lower number?


it's how high the puncturing object had to be raised to cause the tire to flat....so the higher, the better


----------



## CharacterZero (May 19, 2004)

Very nice.
I am interested in the methodology of obtaining the RR measurement. Any why does the Nevegal just say "over 50"? Given that those are a very popular tire, the exact data point would be very beneficial!

I cannot wait to see the Big Betty UST/ Fat Albert/ some of the Specialized lineup included.
Thanks again!


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

It would be interesting to the results of the new Furious fred's?


----------



## mtok77 (Nov 5, 2005)

And the Race Kings..


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

CharacterZero said:


> Any why does the Nevegal just say "over 50"?


the measure-equipment can only measure until 50watt rolling resistance. the negeval is the tire tested with the highest rolling resistance.

fat albert, little albert, big betty, some specialized, race king added.
there is no test result for furios fred sry

methodology for RR measurement added!


----------



## CharacterZero (May 19, 2004)

henryhb said:


> the measure-equipment can only measure until 50watt rolling resistance. the negeval is the tire tested with the highest rolling resistance.
> 
> fat albert, little albert, big betty, some specialized, race king added.
> there is no test result for furios fred sry
> ...


Awesome! Those BB and Fat Albert results just show that I should wait for them to come out....
Do you have results for the Specialized Eskar 2.3, or Chunder 2.2/2.4? 
What about the Maxxis Ignitor?

Man - these stats are great!


----------



## MacGiv'er (Feb 14, 2007)

Excellent thread *henryhb* ... have you got anything for Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1) and the Nokian NBX 2.3?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

MacGiv'er said:


> Excellent thread *henryhb* ... have you got anything for Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1) and the Nokian NBX 2.3?


nbx 2,3 added
no panaracer tested.
unlikely the fire xc pro is hard to get here in germany. i read a lot of good stuff about it!


----------



## baraant (Feb 25, 2005)

Are the Maxxis Crossmark or Ignitor listed? What is the name or publisher of the bike magazine?


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

I'm a little surprised by the "traction" rating for the "Albert" line... I've found them to be a marked downgrade from my Nevegals... They corner like mad, and handle wet roots and rocks like nothing I've used before but in straight braking or straight climbing, I'm finding they slip out much quicker than my old Nevs... And I've got the pressure as low as I dare go on tubeless... I'm running the Albert UST, weigh 210lbs, and run my front tire at 28psi and the rear a 31 psi...


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

baraant said:


> Are the Maxxis Crossmark or Ignitor listed? What is the name or publisher of the bike magazine?


both added!

the magazine is called "bike"! very creative... 
www.bike-magazin.de


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Ha, the Germans and their tests. Germans are obsessed with the testing performance published sort of like Consumer Reports, but they swear it's not as biased or crooked and the people doing the testing are experts.


----------



## MacGiv'er (Feb 14, 2007)

henryhb said:


> nbx 2,3 added
> no panaracer tested.
> unlikely the fire xc pro is hard to get here in germany. i read a lot of good stuff about it!


Thank you. The flattening height of 35cm for the Nokian NBX 2.3 seems surprisingly low ... this is not a typo, is it?


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Luckily I put on new Rampages before I moved to Germany. Great tires.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Hmmm, Any testing of the WTB line of tires yet? I'd be interested in seeing how the whole line tests out, Weirwolves2.5, mutanoraptors 2.4, velocitraptors, motoraptors, etc, plus their new stuff. I run a Mutanoraptor 2.4, on the rear sometimes and rolling resistance wise, it feels close to, maybe not quite as fast as a Fat Albert 2.35 or a Nobby Nic 2.4 in dirt single track. The Mutano feels faster on pavement and fire road while climbing though and kind of loosy goosy at the edges on singletrack in the turns, nowhere near as sticky as a Fat Albert when leaned over.

I'd love to see the results on a spread sheet format, anyone know how to put it in on Excel? I have "read only" software in Windows Home edition. :madman:


----------



## dmcgoy (Apr 16, 2006)

Has the Kenda Karma been tested? Thanks so much for the info.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

What about posted weights & actual weights?
I'd figure that would play into ride characteristics & durability.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

there has only been one test for wtb tires.
wtb mutano raptor and kenda karma added!


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> Ha, the Germans and their tests. Germans are obsessed with the testing performance published sort of like Consumer Reports, but they swear it's not as biased or crooked and the people doing the testing are experts.


yes we like tests. we got a powerful neutral organisation called "stiftung warentest" for all kind of products and another one called "ökotest" for ecological tests. they did a lot of good testings which made thousands of products better.
stuff there is tested by engineers and scientists.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Believe me, add me to the collective of "we" 

We're going through the tests right now to decide on a (heck) fahrradträger. We saw the Mont Blanc Voyager seems to be well regarded and the Uebler P21 15600 scored well on the tests.

Now to see which french fries did well on the tests


----------



## multiaxial (Jan 31, 2007)

*Data!*

I love it, some actual test data. Thanks for posting. Were the Racing Ralphs the 2007 version or the new 2008 version?


----------



## tedsti (Oct 22, 2004)

Any data on the Kenda Small Block 8?


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

MacGiv'er said:


> Thank you. The flattening height of 35cm for the Nokian NBX 2.3 seems surprisingly low ... this is not a typo, is it?


Yeah, I have had no flats with mine. But what might be a factor, the NBX casing is very supple, so maybe for the same pressure they are a bit softer, and happen to flat easier? (at that pressure)


----------



## supersleeper (Feb 9, 2008)

Wonderful tread. Lots to be learned from these stats. Looks like the Ralph evo's for XC and Nobby Nics for trail?
Thanks


----------



## Bikinfoolferlife (Feb 3, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> I'd love to see the results on a spread sheet format, anyone know how to put it in on Excel? I have "read only" software in Windows Home edition. :madman:


Go to docs.google.com and do your own.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

This is great, thanks so much for posting it.


----------



## Orca (Jan 18, 2007)

very informative thread. looks like I would have to spend more than $50 to get a decent pair of tires these days. 

anyway, the test results look interesting. While they provide a good starting point for deciding about a tire, they are not as conclusive as a comparison tool (at least not in its current format). Just for example, there are two reports on Maxxis ignitors, size 2.1 and 2.35. Interestingly, the bigger tire (2.35) has less rolling resistance, less cornering ability and less traction than its narrower (2.1) counterpart. 

am I missing something. My assumption is a wider tire of the same design/component would have more rolling resistance and traction than its narrower incarnation. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

thanks.


----------



## dmcgoy (Apr 16, 2006)

Orca said:


> am I missing something. My assumption is a wider tire of the same design/component would have more rolling resistance and traction than its narrower incarnation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> thanks.


Depends on what they do with the nubs. Do they make them bigger? Same size but add more? Just space them out farther? Different properties of the carcass?

The point is that bigger tires aren't always proportionally bigger in all regards.


----------



## Stevebiker (Feb 17, 2004)

*Sweet*

How about the Cont. Explorer Super Sonics?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

no small block 8 tested.  
conti explorer supersonic 2.1 added


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

there is allways a conclusion/ bottom line to the tire test with more infos, e.g. "good for wet and soft", "dangerous in corners" etc.
i will add that for the tires if i have some more time...


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

Orca said:


> very informative thread. looks like I would have to spend more than $50 to get a decent pair of tires these days.


i´ve added the IRC trailbear. good and cheap tire!
got the "best bang for the buck" award in the 2004 test. it is maybe not as good as brand new dual or triple compound tires fresh from 2008 but always a good choice when cheap available. here in germany i would prefer the albert or fat albert from schwalbe over the trailbear because they can be bought for 10€ each in the non-folding version.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

supersleeper said:


> Wonderful tread. Lots to be learned from these stats. Looks like the Ralph evo's for XC and Nobby Nics for trail?
> Thanks


RR is pretty good for firm surfaces. NN bites deeper on loose and soft. Lots of people run NN front and RR rear.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

found more tests in bike 11/07.
schwalbe furious fred and kenda small block eight added!


----------



## bingobong (Mar 4, 2008)

Henryhb you da man - legend!!!


----------



## Lumbee1 (Dec 16, 2004)

The Spec Resolution and Captain didn't do to well but I love this combination. I think the Captain rolls excellent for it's size. The Resolution is a touch slower but the grip has been great. 

Then again, I did ride a buddies GT loaded with Nevegals. Those tires stuck to the ground like they were covered in sticky syrup.


----------



## womble (Sep 8, 2006)

This result looks kind of weird. The wider Ignitor Exception has lower rolling resistance and less stability and traction?

What sort of rim did they use for the test?



> maxxis ignitor exception 2.1
> RR: 34,3 watt
> flattening height: 36,7cm
> thorn: -
> ...


----------



## 3sigma (Jul 8, 2005)

*Other test parameters?*

Was a "moment of inertia" and a "flywheel effect" testing also conducted/measured. These two parameters are very important to the testing. 
It appears, from the way that the testing was performed, a heavier tire would show better test results while masking real world weaknesses.
Please list all of the testing parameters. Otherwise, this "test" appears to be psuedo-science and does not provide valid data that can be scrutinized by the scientific community.


----------



## scarsellone (Oct 17, 2005)

Any Bontrager tires tested?


----------



## strader (Jun 14, 2006)

It looks like all their tests are online for free with the exception of the latest one which requires a 2 euro fee:
http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premium-pdf/tests//reifen_race_touren_0606.pdf
http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premium-pdf/tests//reifen_enduro_freeride_0706.pdf
http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premium-pdf/tests/reifen_0705.pdf
http://www.dk-content.de/bike/premium-pdf/tests/reifentest_0804.pdf

I sure wish my German was better.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

mibro edited with 06/06 scorings


----------



## fsrxc (Jan 31, 2004)

the tests are done on a smooth drum right?
So, how a tire rolls on dirt (at various pressures for optimum grip) may not be quite the same.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Conti Vertical 2.3 UST?


----------



## Orca (Jan 18, 2007)

again great information. and good report. I browsed through the reports. Although I can not read German, the charts and diagrams gave me a good idea about the final results. 

It would be interested to know who is funding this research. It may be my skeptical mind, but Schewalbe got five stars in all the tires and in all the categories (check the reports on the web). no other tire got all five stars in all the categories. I dont disagree that they make good tires, but so do some other tire manufacturer.


----------



## El_Scottamontes (May 19, 2004)

Too bad they can't test wear as well. Weigh the tire before the test, weight as in the rolling resistance test, drag the tire in a locked position for a 1/4 mile, then weigh the tire again to determine how much rubber stayed on the road. I go through rear tires at about a 4-1 ration to front tires from spinning on rocks while climbing.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

Current data in spreadsheet....


----------



## Orca (Jan 18, 2007)

nice work Warp. thanks.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

henryhb said:


> mibro 2.25
> rolling resistance: 22,3 watt
> flattening height: 50cm
> thorn: c
> ...


Does this mean the Nevegal requires twice the amount of energy to roll an equivalent distance?


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

Couple things to note about these german tests:

1. As someone else mentioned, they tend to test rolling resistance on a bike trainer/smooth metal drum. The problem with this is that rolling resistance on a smooth surface does not translate to rolling resistance on the trail. A tire with low comparative rolling resistance on the trainer may have a high one compared to other tires on the trail. And one that is horrible on the trainer may be great on the trail. It's not a linear relationship that the best rolling resistance on a test like this is the best rolling resistance on the trail.

2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

bhsavery said:


> 2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?


Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.

If you notice, most of the tyres are german. Which could be because they're in Germany and they're evaluating the local market offers. In the end, a mag written in Germany has little market ouside Germany, Austria, Swintzerland and other close countries so evaluating for the market at hand is sensible.

I don't have any scientific backing... But I find the Schwalbe Nobby Nic to be a much faster tyre than the Nevegal.


----------



## Boyonabyke (Sep 5, 2007)

Warp said:


> Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.
> 
> If you notice, most of the tyres are german. Which could be because they're in Germany and they're evaluating the local market offers. In the end, a mag written in Germany has little market ouside Germany, Austria, Swintzerland and other close countries so evaluating for the market at hand is sensible.
> 
> I don't have any scientific backing... But I find the Schwalbe Nobby Nic to be a much faster tyre than the Nevegal.


As do I. And I'd say that the Fat Albert feels reasonably fast, and loaded with traction, will confirm the Big Betty probably would rate a 7 out of 6 for traction, and that the Mutano Raptor feels pretty fast, faster that a Nobby Nic on pavement, and not as fast on dirt fire road climbs,and indeed it is one squirrely tire at speed on dirt that's loose over hard pack when running in the rear. On buff single track, it rolls awesome, with the best of them.

Never tried a Racing Ralph 2008, but the numbers sure look good.


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

RandyBoy said:


> Never tried a Racing Ralph 2008, but the numbers sure look good.


the 08 RR rolls just as fast as before IMHO, but corners a tiny bit better than the previous one...it's still easy to amke it drift. but it hangs on a bit longer than before...I prefer it on the rear with a NN on the front on my XC bike..


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

Warp said:


> Yeah, in the same way american mags try tyres and Kenda Nevegals always win the three spots in three different versions.... and no scientific backing at all.
> 
> If you notice, most of the tyres are german. Which could be because they're in Germany and they're evaluating the local market offers. In the end, a mag written in Germany has little market ouside Germany, Austria, Swintzerland and other close countries so evaluating for the market at hand is sensible.
> 
> I don't have any scientific backing... But I find the Schwalbe Nobby Nic to be a much faster tyre than the Nevegal.


Oh I absolutely agree about US Mags. And that is understandable that they test what's available in their market.

And I absolutely agree that the Nobby Nic feels faster. However, I still maintain that their "scientific backing" of testing on a steel drum is flawed. The faster tire on the drum will not nescessarily be the faster on the trail.


----------



## Warp (May 24, 2004)

bhsavery said:


> However, I still maintain that their "scientific backing" of testing on a steel drum is flawed. The faster tire on the drum will not nescessarily be the faster on the trail.


I wouldn't say it's flawed. While not perfect, it's a good indicator.

The moment you try to include roughness of the surface in the equation, you're calling for trouble... also, we always complain that this or that evaluation was made for this or that terrain... Well, they eliminate that variable and provide an even testing ground.

Not perfect? Hell yeah.

Flawed? Not.

Of course, you could fit a bike with watt power meters, fit an engine to propel it and avoid rider's power input variation, log data, test on several surfaces, etc.... and that would be kind of perfect.... I doubt even tyre manufacturers do that.


----------



## strader (Jun 14, 2006)

On the Google wattage list a guy (Robert Chung) developed a method to calculate CdA and Crr for time trialers by doing multiple laps on a closed course with a power meter. It should be possible to calculate Crr using the same method on a mountain bike, especially since wind resistance is not as big of a factor.


----------



## groovastic (Mar 27, 2006)

Vespasianus said:


> Does this mean the Nevegal requires twice the amount of energy to roll an equivalent distance?


No!
It's just the energy you loose beacuse of a tire traction. You should count in the energy of pushing 10 or more kilos of your bike, and it's perhaps ten times higher than loss of energy caused by tire traction. 
So, I'm gonna make up some numbers, let's say you need 500 W to get your bike moving at certain speed and 22,3 W more to cover the energy loss caused by Mibro (*522,3 W all together*) and 50 W more for Nevegals (*550 W alltogether*)
Hope this helps...


----------



## Orca (Jan 18, 2007)

If anybody lived in Germany or familiar with German culture, it’s safe to generalize that Germans think highly of their engineering. according to them, their technology is the best. sometimes they are right, sometime they are not. while the tire study (I am reluctant to call it a full on research) is a good source of information, it should be read critically. 

I cannot say if the study is flawed or not. I don’t see a good description of the instruments, methods used and description of findings. for example, when one tire gets 4 out of 6 in traction, what type of surface are we talking about (rocks, roots, hardpack, wet, dry, snow?)? Same goes with the cornering. 

I see the use of this study to inform German riders about their tire market. So, it’s a good marketing tool. Face it; magazines are in large part a marketing tool. My personal reservation is when we take these findings and try to apply it as a general standard. Such as Nobby Nicks is a faster tire than XYZ. and if Nobby Nick feels faster to you, thats great. but, don’t try to push it as a scientifically proven fact. again, trail conditions, climate and other factors are different in America than in most part of Europe (including Germany). So, the tire that will work in German conditions may not be optimal in America.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

groovastic said:


> No!
> It's just the energy you loose beacuse of a tire traction. You should count in the energy of pushing 10 or more kilos of your bike, and it's perhaps ten times higher than loss of energy caused by tire traction.
> So, I'm gonna make up some numbers, let's say you need 500 W to get your bike moving at certain speed and 22,3 W more to cover the energy loss caused by Mibro (*522,3 W all together*) and 50 W more for Nevegals (*550 W alltogether*)
> Hope this helps...


Thanks! That makes sense.


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

Orca said:


> I cannot say if the study is flawed or not. I don't see a good description of the instruments, methods used and description of findings. for example, when one tire gets 4 out of 6 in traction, what type of surface are we talking about (rocks, roots, hardpack, wet, dry, snow?)? Same goes with the cornering.


I agree...however if you look at the mags where this tests are..there is usually a good part (at least half a page) describing exactly what you are mentioning.... I can try and find one such example in the pile of german mags I have around..... the description is not super detailed (as one would do for describing a scientific experiment for an article), but it you get a clear idea aout the test conditions involved..


----------



## lonelord (Feb 7, 2008)

@Orca
I just read one of the posted pdf files and their cornering and traction tests were done was follows:
All tires were on identical (trail? AM?) bikes.
Cornering: They hit gravel and hardpack (or whatever they call "forest ground") turns at set speeds, increasing speed until they lost traction.
Traction: Tested on steep, rooty climbs, and tested braking traction.
All ratings are relative to the tire category. Race tires are rated according to their standard, and Freeride tires according to theirs, etc. That means that a 5/6 rated AM tire is far superior to a 5/6 rated race tire in actual cornering ability, etc.

I hope that clears it up a bit, I merely skimmed the article and they really don't give much more info than that.

Good Dirt!


----------



## Three Phase (May 15, 2006)

This is a great thread.

Henry, is there any information on the 2.5 Continental Diesels?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

Three Phase said:


> This is a great thread.
> 
> Henry, is there any information on the 2.5 Continental Diesels?


yes. i will edit it!


----------



## groovastic (Mar 27, 2006)

Sorry if somebody allready asked this, but what about Conti Speed King?
And WTB Wolverine?

Cheers!


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

sorry no wolverine.
speed king supersonic 2.1 and 2.3 edited


----------



## MightySchmoePong (Jan 12, 2004)

*That's true*



Vespasianus said:


> Thanks! That makes sense.


But NOBODY puts out 500 watts for an appreciable amount of time (I.e. > 30 minutes). 300+ is really good for an average sized Mountain Biker, and in that context 25-30 watts is almost 10% of a persons power. That's HUGE.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

MightySchmoePong said:


> But NOBODY puts out 500 watts for an appreciable amount of time (I.e. > 30 minutes). 300+ is really good for an average sized Mountain Biker, and in that context 25-30 watts is almost 10% of a persons power. That's HUGE.


And just a meager 5 watts difference over an entire ride of 2-3 hours is huge as well. Yep, RR junky here. 

P


----------



## vmajor (Oct 1, 2007)

In my experience, the Fat Albert Dual cannot rate 6/6 for grip. It just does not have that much grip. Not on hard surfaces, especially when wet. 

I used the FA on the rear and still use the Big Betty Triple on the front. FA was inspiring in dry hardpack (excellent braking and cornering) and scary as hell on wet rock and roots. Big Betty fares much better, but it still does not like wet and hard surfaces. My front washed out twice yesterday riding on wet rocks. My new Holy Roller 2.4 on the rear did not so I stayed on my bike.

It is a little odd. Perhaps they should test the tires in the wet as well.

V.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

I've had both the 2.1 UST Ignitor and the 2.35 UST ignitor, and the test results reflect my experience with these tires. Believe it or not, at the same pressure, the wider tire has less rolling resistance. Additionally, the 2.35 did not corner as well as the 2.1, maybe because in the UST version, it is a 70a durometer, where the 2.1 is 62a.

Another interesting observation is that I had to run 40 PSI+ to ensure I would not ding my rim on rocks with the 2.1, as is evidenced by their low # for the drop test. I run 28PSI in my 2.25 Racing Ralph & 2.25 Nobby Nic, and don't even come close to hitting the rim.



womble said:


> This result looks kind of weird. The wider Ignitor Exception has lower rolling resistance and less stability and traction?
> 
> What sort of rim did they use for the test?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

i will edit some more informations for the tires. due to the fact that i sawed in my left thumb it needs some time...
the fields of use:

cc is cross country race
am is all mountain
en is enduro


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

Hutchinson Python (airlight version)? - curious to see if rubber compound makes a big difference

Hutchinson Spider Airlight?


----------



## dcb (Sep 19, 2005)

This study back up a gut feeling I've had about an older 2.25 UST Racing Ralph I've had for a while. I keep on switching it out for a lighter tire (not Schwalbes) but I always feel like I've had an increase in rr with the tires I've tried. I feel better riding with a real UST up front.


----------



## bbgobie (Apr 20, 2006)

Sorry, didn't read through whole thread, at work...

Is there the actual data for Rolling resistance? I don't like that it's a ratio between the tire with bike loaded and unloaded.

For me it should just be a comparison of the loaded values. As a poor rolling resistance value with the bike unloaded would actually make a great rolling resistance ratio the way it is calculated.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

rkj__ said:


> Hutchinson Python (airlight version)? - curious to see if rubber compound makes a big difference
> 
> Hutchinson Spider Airlight?


i dont have time right now. i will edit the tested hutchinson tires tomorrow.


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

henryhb said:


> i dont have time right now. i will edit the tested hutchinson tires tomorrow.


Hey, no rush at all. Take your time.


----------



## supersleeper (Feb 9, 2008)

How would something with very low knobs like the Vredestein Killerbee do?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

hutchinson toro
hutchinson barracuda tubeless light
vredestein tiger claw

added


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

No maxxis highroller... 

would like 2,35 ST and normal 60a

and yes... french/spanish/us/uk people say good things about french/spanish/us/uk products. it`s normal!
fat alberts in 2,35 are great in dry condition. they grip and roll very well!in the wet... better forget them!
Nobby nics 2,4 are my next tires! In VTT Magazine (french) they gave good marks equal to my Highrollers!


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

Tkul said:


> No maxxis highroller...


high roller 2.35 tubeless added!


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.


----------



## Tkul (Mar 1, 2007)

Thank you!
But I disagree! Highrollers corner MUCH.... MUCH better than Fat Alberts (have both, know what i`m talking about!).

RR I agree. FAT Alb. roll much better without a doubt! :thumbsup:


----------



## V.P. (Aug 26, 2007)

Anyone knows how WTB weirwolf 2.5 does in the tests?

great read btw, thanks to those who contributed!


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> Henry, tell me if you're interested in testing Panaracer Rampages. I have a nearly new set on my rig and I'm in NRW, but will be finalizing my move to Sachsen on Wednesday.


Are you running 2.35 Rampages both front & rear? Are they equally good on front & rear? How do they compare to Nevegals if you can?


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

V.P. said:


> Anyone knows how WTB weirwolf 2.5 does in the tests?
> 
> great read btw, thanks to those who contributed!


I'd be interested in knowing this also...

As well as:
- WTB VelociRaptor (2.1) (just bought a pair today - great in soggy/wet/muddy terrain)
- WTB Weirwolf (2.1)
- WTB Moto Raptor (2.14 or 2.24)
- Panaracer Fire XC Pro (2.1)

To the OP - Great info tough! Thnx for putting together! :thumbsup:


----------



## sekt88 (May 14, 2006)

I live in Germany. ( I´m a Pneu Yorker though) With the exception of continentals, most of those tires are made in asia. Here is my real life tests. But remember, Schwalbe tires are like Starbucks - everywhere. . I started trying other tires because I was sick of seeing schwalbe EVERYWHERE in every advert, on every bike. 

Racing Ralphs, Maxxis Larsen TT, Ignitors, Monorails and Crossmarks are useless when it is wet,flat out dangerous on wet roots and stumps, but fantastic on dry.

Nobby Nics are just flat out a good tire, with an old design that rolls MUCH faster on the trails than any test can indicate. It is really a friggin mystery to me, but it is a fast tire.

Up until this year, I rode only UST with no milk and no tube-not one flat in 2 years after 6000km, 12 marathons including the transalp.
This year I am on regular tires switching between tubes and stan´s. UST is basically perfect except for the weight.


----------



## OutThere (Dec 25, 2007)

*Viva Germany*

Thanks for very interesting stats, just one more request please, if possible the stats for Maxxis Monorail 2.1 UST if available. Cheers


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

Kenda Nevegal 2.1 DTC? (gotta be less RR than the 2.35 (>50watt)


----------



## thedonaldla (May 23, 2006)

So do all of the Racing Ralph 2.25's (Evo, Snakeskin, Tubeless) have the same rolling resistance?


----------



## cdalemaniac (Jun 18, 2007)

I agree with mostly everyone in here that this study is more of a basic indicator.....How well a tire performs depends on the type of terrain, tire pressure, temperature, riding style etc.
Years ago a bunch of mountainbikes were tested in Germany and the majority that "Survived" the torture test were US made.....so don't think that they just give German made products good reviews. :nono:


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

i will edit the requested informations later.


----------



## ghawk (Sep 14, 2007)

Great thread. 
Thanks for all the work.
Btw, Mutanos 2.4 (really about 2.29s) are lighter than the Mutano 2.24s. 
Love the Mutanos 2.4 worn down to simi slicks they still handle pretty well.

http://www.pricepoint.com/detail.htm?stylePkey=11905


----------



## MISTER FUNKTASTIC (Aug 2, 2008)

*Correct Understanding*

Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

The RR's are just as fast as FF's, or have the same rolling resistance?

furious fred 2.0
RR: 19,9watt
flattening height: 42,5cm
thorn: e
cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
traction: 2/6 (more= the better)

racing ralph 2.25 evo TUBELESS 2008
RR: 19,8 watt
flattening height: 80cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

I did read another article that said the new RR's are faster than the old Fast Freds.


----------



## MISTER FUNKTASTIC (Aug 2, 2008)

*Did I read that right?*

Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.

The RR's are just as fast as FF's, or have the same rolling resistance?

furious fred 2.0
RR: 19,9watt
flattening height: 42,5cm
thorn: e
cornering stability/ability:2/6 (more= the better)
traction: 2/6 (more= the better)

racing ralph 2.25 evo TUBELESS 2008
RR: 19,8 watt
flattening height: 80cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

I did read another article that said the new RR's are faster than the old Fast Freds.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

MISTER FUNKTASTIC said:


> Did I read and understand the magazine article correctly.
> 
> The RR's are just as fast as FF's, or have the same rolling resistance?
> 
> ...


Yes, in the test envirtonment that is correct. However, How well some tire rolls does matter is you dont have the traction to get up that hill with a little loose gravel.

If you just went by these tests, the RR woudl be the tire, rolls just as well, and has way better cornering and stability


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

hi again!

there will be a new test in the next "bike", available at 12th august.
i will edit more then.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

good news everyone:

many new tests will be edited!

schwalbe rocket ron, the NEW fat albert front and rear, continental rubber queen 2.2 and 2.4, ritchey zmax premonition, speci purgatory, maxxis monorail, ritchey zmax intuition, wtb wolverine and maxxis ardent.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

i cant edit the first thread.

cornering/ traction points are given compared to tires of the same class.
here are the new tests:

CC-Race:

maxxis monorail exception 2.1
RR: 26,3 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
100% cc

ritchey zmax intuition 2.0 wcs
RR: 38,2 watt
flattening height: 45cm
thorn:d
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
100% cc

schwalbe rocket ron 2,25 (stats: 436g weight, available in 2.1" and 2.4" and 2.1"/2.25" tubeless)
RR: 24,7 watt
flattening height: 52,5cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction:5/6 (more= the better)
85% cc, 15% am

wtb wolverine 2.2
RR: 25,9 watt
flattening height: 65cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
95% cc, 5% am

all mountain tires

continental rubber queen 2.2"
RR: 29,8 watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
85% am, 15% ed

ritchey zmax premonition 2.25 wcs
RR: 35,2 watt
flattening height: 67,5cm
thorn: f
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
100% am

specialized purgatory 2.2 s-works 2bliss
RR: 37,2 watt
flattening height: 70cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
85% am, 15% ed

enduro tires

continental rubber queen 2.4"
RR: 42,7 watt
flattening height: 75cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
100% ed

maxxis ardent 2.4" 60a folding
RR: 36,3 watt
flattening height: 80cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
15% am, 85% ed

schwalbe fat albert 2.4" front and rear
RR: 29,9 watt
flattening height: 83,75cm
thorn: b
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
45% am, 55% ed


----------



## flafonta (Feb 6, 2008)

So which Racing Ralf is fastest?

The Tubeless version has lower resistance, but is heavier by 130gr.

I want to buy a set, but I am not sure which one to get, tubeless or not. 

Of course, I will run both of them tubeless with Stans juice.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Henry, which Maxxis Ardent was tested? The 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 3C version, the 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 60a version, or the 2.4 folding bead single ply version? Each one will perform differently.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

bholwell said:


> Henry, which Maxxis Ardent was tested? The 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 3C version, the 2.4 dual ply, wire bead 60a version, or the 2.4 folding bead single ply version? Each one will perform differently.


i´ve edited the missing information.
the 60a folding version has been tested.


----------



## Gee Up (May 26, 2007)

henryhb, can you please state the casing and tread widths for both the Continental Rubber Queen 2.2 and 2.4, and the tester's impression judgement of each. Thanks.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

Gee Up said:


> henryhb, can you please state the casing and tread widths for both the Continental Rubber Queen 2.2 and 2.4, and the tester's impression judgement of each. Thanks.


2.2 rubber queen 
56,3mm/56,4mm wide, no rim mentioned.
(translated by me, so sorry for the bad english)
"the 2.2" RW is only slighty smaller than the 2.4" one. depending on the different rubber (other kind of black chili compound) it is remarkable faster. it is a good allround tire with reliable controll at not too muddy surfaces.a little bit heavier than the direct opposition."

2.4" rubber queen (black chili too)
57,8mm/58,6mm
(translated by me, too)
"the black chili compound enables great adhesion, especially on wet stones and roots, causes higher rolling resistance, too. super downhill performance but limited touring suitability."


----------



## ghawk (Sep 14, 2007)

Has this been added yet ?
Great thread btw.
http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Downloadable docs/Rolling Resistance Eng illustrated.pdf


----------



## TripleThreat (Jul 22, 2004)

ghawk said:


> Has this been added yet ?
> Great thread btw.
> http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Downloadable docs/Rolling Resistance Eng illustrated.pdf


great read, thanks.


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

Here is an additional link from a similiar German Test in 2004, with many of these tires still on the market: http://www.mckramppi.com/en/bike04rengas/Bike2004rengasanalyysi.htm


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

Thanks for all your time on this thread - it's some of the best data on tires I have seen! Do you have anything on a Maxxis Advantage 2.25 or Specialized Eskar 2.3; these two tires were recently rated highly in the Mountan Bike Action September 2008 tire shoot out (why does MBA continue to rate the Nevegals so high, when they are the slowest tire on the trail for width and weight? After I chewed up 3 nev's on the rear of my Yeti 575, I put a Continental Gravity on and have never looked back... BETTER traction and far faster!). 
Cheers!


----------



## WeakMite (May 11, 2004)

This thread should be a sticky.... or maybe make a sticky thread with all test data members find (for hubs and tires and all wheel components).
;-)


----------



## rekibtm (Mar 9, 2006)

How does the NN UST compare to the regular NN?


----------



## supersleeper (Feb 9, 2008)

Intense system 2 bless c3 2.0? It looks like a nice fast tire


----------



## Gee Up (May 26, 2007)

rekibtm said:


> How does the NN UST compare to the regular NN?


Heavier, slightly wider and less rolling resistance (2.25 UST Vs. 2.25).


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

I just replaced my rear Scwalbe Albert UST with a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller UST. Though I didn't notice the increased RR, I certainly appreciated the DRASTIC improvement in traction on the wet roots and rocks. I'm convinced I wouldn't have been able to ride at least 15%-20% of the trail had I been on my Alberts. 

Looking at the test, I'm also glad I went with the High Roller over the Nevegals too, I find they do better on wet and slick rocks and roots.

I still have the Albert on the front, and I like it a lot there... I think Albert front and High Roller rear is a great combo for xc/am riding when the conditions are wet...


----------



## TripleThreat (Jul 22, 2004)

A bump to a very informative thread


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

slyfink said:


> I just replaced my rear Scwalbe Albert UST with a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller UST. Though I didn't notice the increased RR, I certainly appreciated the DRASTIC improvement in traction on the wet roots and rocks. I'm convinced I wouldn't have been able to ride at least 15%-20% of the trail had I been on my Alberts.
> 
> Looking at the test, I'm also glad I went with the High Roller over the Nevegals too, I find they do better on wet and slick rocks and roots.
> 
> I still have the Albert on the front, and I like it a lot there... I think Albert front and High Roller rear is a great combo for xc/am riding when the conditions are wet...


I switched from a Nevegal 2.35 (with Stans) front and a 2.35 Maxxis High Roller LUST rear tire to Continental Mountain King 2.4s (with Stans) and the difference is RR is amazing. The MK rolls so much faster it blows me away. The NEV/HR combo has much better grip, unbelievably good really, but the MK are good enough and for me, the RR makes up for it.

But I do agree, when I tried to ride the same lines with the MK as I had with the HR, I ended up on my ass.


----------



## Porchsong (Apr 28, 2004)

*Thanks man!*

Thanks man, great thread.

2.4 Nobby Nics are my favorite tire ever, and I've got a tire "problem". 

Porch


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

edit: answering to the first post didnt work...


----------



## rekibtm (Mar 9, 2006)

make this sticky!


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

it would be nice if a mod/admin could add post number 3 of page 5 to my first or second post on the first page so everybody can see all tests.
how can i reach the mods/admins? reporting posts is only allowed for harresment.


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

henryhb said:


> it would be nice if a mod/admin could add post number 3 of page 5 to my first or second post on the first page so everybody can see all tests.
> how can i reach the mods/admins? reporting posts is only allowed for harresment.


I could help out but I need the post number (top right corner of the post) since the number of posts displayed per page can be set different in the preferences

you mean post #103???


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

yes i mean post 103! can you edit it to the first page?


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

henryhb said:


> yes i mean post 103! can you edit it to the first page?


I edited post #2 and added the text of post #103 :thumbsup:


----------



## cesalec (Aug 28, 2008)

scarsellone said:


> Any Bontrager tires tested?


They sok....


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

big thx!


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

henryhb said:


> big thx!


no problem!


----------



## Flboy (Mar 18, 2008)

sticky please!


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

thx alot for all the good feedback and for making this thread sticky. i will keep it up-to-date if there are any new tests around in the magazines.


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

I will second what "Vespa" said-

With respect to the Nevegal and Mountain King, both UST tires.

I spent the summer on the MK 2.4. The last three days I've spent on the Nevegal 2.35. 

They aren't even close in terms of cornering. The Nevegal is like being on a rail. I simply cannot believe these tires. I'm lousy at making comparisons. I never do it. But this is astonishing. So I disagree with the test results that show these as the same. 

The Nevegal is much more difficult to get rolling. Unless I just had three bad days in a row, the Nevegal is an energy sap. I don't think it's due to it's 50+ watts as much as the added half pound per tire. That's a lot of weight to be accelerating. 

By the way, is there a link to the tests? 

And thanks for this thread. Although it is limited. But it would take a long time to do the tests in vivo.


----------



## Gman086 (Jul 4, 2004)

Lets see some figs for the Maxxis Minion 2.35 single plys please!

Have FUN!

G MAN


----------



## Crash23 (Oct 22, 2008)

*Stan's Crows/Ravens*

What about Stan's tires any data on those? The RR must be really good, wonder how the traction rates?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

i have a lot to do at work right now. i will search for tests in the next week.


----------



## GBR1 (Oct 5, 2007)

Henry,

I know you are busy, sorry can you check the figures you have written for Small Block 8? Is the RR correct?

Many thanks..

kenda small block eight 2,1
RR: 34,2 watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

When the rolling resistance for Mountain King and Big Betty are less??

mountain king 2.4 protection
RR: 32,5 watt
puncture height: 65cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
50% am 50% en

big betty 2.4 triple
RR: 32,2 watt
flattening height: 110cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 6/6 (more= the better)
(comment in the bike-test: big betty should have been rated 7/6 in traction and cornering stability)
15% am 85% ed


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

GBR1 said:


> Henry,
> 
> I know you are busy, sorry can you check the figures you have written for Small Block 8? Is the RR correct?
> 
> When the rolling resistance for Mountain King and Big Betty are less??


I run both SB8 & BB tires, and can say that real world RR is pretty similar to those numbers. RR is about much more than just knob size and array. Rubber compound and casing have huge effects.

P


----------



## GBR1 (Oct 5, 2007)

Mr.P said:


> I run both SB8 & BB tires, and can say that real world RR is pretty similar to those numbers. RR is about much more than just knob size and array. Rubber compound and casing have huge effects.
> 
> P


Thanks for the quick reply. This is my personal experience as well. I am amazed at the amount of people that say SB8 have low rolling resistance, when I used them I was not that impressed with that aspect of the tire!!


----------



## groovastic (Mar 27, 2006)

Hi!
And what about Mountain king 2,2" Protection?
Do you possibly have the results?
Cheers!


----------



## rtcage (Aug 20, 2007)

OK, so I'm picking up a set of Mavic 819s with DT 240s. What's the best tubeless xc tire in terms of traction, rolling resistance and thorn resistance? I guess in that order since I will load them with sealant.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

sadly, there were only one or two tests of wtb products. wtb tires arent available easy here in germany.
i used the weirwolf 2.5" a lot and loved it.


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

henryhb said:


> sadly, there were only one or two tests of wtb products. wtb tires arent available easy here in germany.
> i used the weirwolf 2.5" a lot and loved it.


Are they a true 2.5? Do you use them front and rear?

The trails around here are a mix of sharp rocks, roots, loose dirt/gravel, and sometimes light mud. Are you using the normal 2.5 or the LT?

Thanks!


----------



## nmcaseman (Jun 9, 2006)

*tubes?*

Apologies if this was asked and answered earlier, but were tubes used in non-UST tires for the tests? I understand that the same tire can have substantially different rolling resistances with and without a tube (e.g. with a tubeless conversion).


----------



## Richy (Jun 8, 2006)

I believe they are tubed unless otherwise stated.


----------



## likeybikey (Nov 24, 2007)

Datalogger said:


> Are they a true 2.5? Do you use them front and rear?
> 
> The trails around here are a mix of sharp rocks, roots, loose dirt/gravel, and sometimes light mud. Are you using the normal 2.5 or the LT?
> 
> Thanks!


I was extremely disappointed to purchase this tire and discover that the edges of the _knobs_ measure close to 2.5", but the casing is nowhere near 2.5". On a 19mm wide rim the WeirWolf 26x2.5 ballooned to 52mm (about 2.1"). The casing on my Specialized The Captain 26x2.2" tire is wider than the WeirWolf's casing. It seems silly to me to measure knob width and call that the tire's width. A company could just make one tire on a 2.0" casing and trim the knobs to give a whole range of tire sizes. The wide tire in the product line would be the monstrous 4.0" wide Millipede sporting super-long feelers as cornering knobs.


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

Thanks, I would be mounting them on a 19mm rim (819) also. Any ride impressions? Front or rear usage?


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

*How Rolling Resistance is measured in these tests*

ok, first off, I AM NOT a science guy AT ALL. so excuse me if this is stupid.

i just want to clarify how the Rolling Resistance tests are done for the German Bike magazine tests.

the OP says the following;
RR measurement:
(bad english incoming!)
Rolling resistance: All tires are set up with 2,5 bar. Then they are set up on the testing role without load. Then they are accelerated on 20 kilometers per hour. Now the resistance is set to zero to eliminate air resistance and bearing friction. Then the wheel gets loaded with 50kg. After a short time the tire runs again with 20km/h. The difference from unloaded and loaded run results gets the rolling resistance in watt.
movements in the carcass play a larger role than the tread.

Just to clarify - the watt rating is the difference between NO weight at 20 km/hr at 2.5 bar and the same, but adding 50kg load?

If yes, here is my concern / question.

What we see is the *DIFFERENCE* under load, but does that REALLY tell us which tire uses more or less watts? At least I don' t think so, because we don't know what the TOTAL watts are, we only know the DIFFERENCE between loaded and NOT loaded.

For example, tire 1 may run at 50 watts with NO load, and 70 watts with load. So 20 watts difference. Which would seem very good.

Tire 2 may run at 40 watts with NO load, and 65 watts with load. So 25 watts difference. Which would be rated at a higher Rolling Resistance rating using the method of BIKE. But it ACTUALLY has a lower total.

Am I correct? Please clarify if I have misunderstood how the tests are performed.


----------



## strader (Jun 14, 2006)

The way I understand the test they spin the tire up to speed and then zero the wattage measurement to remove the air resistance caused by the wheel spokes and tire knobs. Then they apply 50 kg force with the tire roller and take the wattage measurement. Essentially what they are doing is isolating the rolling resistance caused by the tire casing.
It would be interesting to see how the air resistance caused by the tire tread affects the measurement. For instance the Kenda SB8 scores worse than the Schwalbe Nobby Nic in the rolling resistance measurement. If air resistance of both tires was factored in maybe the SB8 would come out on top with it's low profile knobs.


----------



## dynamite (Mar 9, 2008)

Hi! what's about Specy Eskar 2,3" Control? Has it been tested? Thanks for the report


----------



## granpa (Sep 11, 2007)

Lots of thorns here....I assume that a higher letter rating is more thorn proof [because handling gets worse]. So is e more thornproof than b? thnx.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

@ granpa:

a is more thornproof than b, b more than c and so on.

no tests for the 2.2" mountain king protection.
no test for 2.35" minions.

i am looking forward to the next year. there should be new tests in march.


----------



## impatient (Jan 30, 2004)

*Mibro's really that fast???*

I just accidently ended up with a pair of Mibro 2.25's. I checked your German testing and they are about the lowest rolling resistance in the group. Is that for real? I mean, that is a fairly "knobby" spaced-out tread. I assume that is in the Front tire orientation, as the Rear orientation ought to have more resistance. Haven't ridden them yet, and may not; they came with an ebay wheelset that is more chewed up than I expected, and I may try to return. But was curious about the tires Does the rolling resistance test really have any validity? .


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

impatient said:


> I just accidently ended up with a pair of Mibro 2.25's. I checked your German testing and they are about the lowest rolling resistance in the group. Is that for real? ...


The Mibro's have lots of opportunity to roll fast. They are a very clever design. The open middle allows the carcass to flex easily there, which will lower RR. Also, the soft rubber is in the middle, and the soft rubber conforms to the terrain easier than a hard rubber, again for better RR. Then, the higher rebound, hard rubber is on the sides, and more importantly on the sides of the carcass, where you want the rubber to spring back and give energy back for lower RR.

So, in theory, they have a lot going for them.

P


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

good news everyone:

there will be new tests in the BIKE available from 13.1.2009. i will edit the results immediatly.


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

Great, thanks henryhb!


----------



## Holdsy (Dec 27, 2008)

Great stats very useful to me trying so hard to find the right tyre for my terrian

Thanks


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

short news:

tested tires are

geax gato 2,1
hutchinson cobra air light 2.25
onza canis 2,25
onza ibex dh 2,4
specialized fast trak 2,0
specialized sauserwind 2bliss 2,0
vredestein black panther xtrac 2,0
vredestein spotted cat 2,0

seven spike tires have been tested, too:

continental spike claw 240 2,1
continental spike claw 120 2,1
kenda klondike xt 2,1
nokian freddies revenz 2,3
nokian hakka wxc 2,1
schwalbe ice spiker pro 2,1
schwalbe marathon winter 1,75

i will edit the full test results in the next days. too much work and a sick wife right now...


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

Thanks henryb! Best wishes to your wife!


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Hi Henry,

Hope you wife is getting better and you'll find some time to post the latest results for us ! There are some new interesting tires in this test !

Also, when you do, do you think you could include width at casing and thread as Bike usually provides ? It's also an important information to have since we know they always test all the tires at the same pressure on the drum (on which higher pressure / bigger volume gives a "harder tire" and consequently less RR in this specific situation)...

Thanks in advance !

Ps : when we get this latest results, I'm thinking I could make an excell table that include all the results and post it here... so I'm really looking forward to your results ;-)))


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

all tires except the ibex dh are CC tires. the ibex dh is a enduro tire.

wide xx/yy : xx is carcass, yy is lug in mm

geax gato 2.1
RR: 28,4 watt
flattening height: 50cm
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
wide 47,8/50,8mm

hutchinson cobra air light 2,25
RR: 26,8 watt
puncture height: 60cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
wide 52,7/52,3

onza canis 2,25
RR: 36,9 watt
flattening height: 65cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
wide 51,6/54,3mm

specialized fast trak lk 2,0
RR: 26,6 watt
flattening height: 65cm
thorn: a
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)
wide 50,6/49,5mm

specialized sauserwind 2bliss 2.0
RR: 38,7 watt
flattening height: 60cm
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
wide 49,4/50,9mm

vredestein black panther xtrac 2,0
RR: 25,6watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)
wide 49,3/48,8mm

vredestein spotted cat 2,0
RR: 23,5watt
flattening height: 55cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:3/6 (more= the better)
traction: 2/6 (more= the better)
wide 50,7/51,0mm

onza ibex dh 2,4
RR: 41,8watt
flattening height: 80cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
wide 54,7/61,6mm


----------



## nmcaseman (Jun 9, 2006)

*tubes?*

henry b - do you know if tubes are installed when non-tubeless tires are tested? How about the tubeless tires? I understand from other threads that tubes add a lot of RR. Be interesting to see how non-tubeless tires test when converted to tubeless. Thanks,

nmcaseman


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

Interesting that in all those tests not one Michelin tire is tested.

Doing the 'ol knob plucker-oo test, I've found the rubber to be significantly different on the Dry2 tire, than any other tire I've owned. It's long wearing and (not) grippy on wet like a high durometer rubber, but very flexible like a lower durometer (almost elastic-like). regardless, it grips quite well, and rolls stupid fast. I would love to see how the numbers stack up.

P


----------



## glenzx (Dec 19, 2003)

Well...?

Let's see the updated excel spreadsheet!

Here's Warp's data formatted to read in order (best RR to worst):

LINK



xc-rider said:


> Hi Henry,
> 
> Hope you wife is getting better and you'll find some time to post the latest results for us ! There are some new interesting tires in this test !
> 
> ...


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

Mr.P said:


> Interesting that in all those tests not one Michelin tire is tested.
> 
> Doing the 'ol knob plucker-oo test, I've found the rubber to be significantly different on the Dry2 tire, than any other tire I've owned. It's long wearing and (not) grippy on wet like a high durometer rubber, but very flexible like a lower durometer (almost elastic-like). regardless, it grips quite well, and rolls stupid fast. I would love to see how the numbers stack up.
> 
> P


i have some results for the

michelin mountain dry² 2,3:
RR: 28,7 watt
flattening height: 75cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)
All Mountain tire

Michelin Mountain X´Treme 2.2 tubeless 
RR: 29,3 watt
flattening height: 80cm
thorn: c
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

henryhb said:


> i have some results for the
> 
> michelin mountain dry² 2,3:...
> 
> Michelin Mountain X´Treme 2.2 tubeless ...


Nice one! Thanks Henryhb! :thumbsup:

P


----------



## utheissen (Oct 3, 2006)

*Links to the original test PDFs*

I downloaded PDFs of the tire tests online, looks like they don't have the latest Jan 09 version online yet though.

Even though these are in German language, they are quite easy to understand if you followed this thread as they use many English terms...or is it because I speak German?  
Just keep in mind that they are testing the rolling resistance on a smooth surface and there might be differences to performance on real dirt surface. They mention this issue themselves actually.

I thought they could come handy and put them online:
Sept 08: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_tests_reifen_09_08_.pdf
April 08: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_tests_haft_pruefung_04_08.pdf
June 07: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_tests_megastest_reifen_06_07.pdf
July 06: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_tests_test_enduro__und_freeride_reifen_07_06.pdf
August 03: http://globusnewmedia.com/mtb/bike_tests_test_reifen_08_03.pdf

I currently run 2.1 UST Weirwolfs on both wheels of my Haro VL 120 and the rear one is worn down. I think I am going to switch the front to the rear and the try a Nobby Nic in 2.25 as front tire...

As soon as I can get the latest test, I will post it as well.

uli


----------



## ozhoo (Sep 28, 2008)

*Tire Data*

In an attempt to improve on the original spread sheet, I've put this one together. I added weights, and some fancy color coding. And before anyone asks about the pink color, that's just how google interpreted it. I'm sure that some tires are missing and more than likely I buggered a few up, but it's editable by everyone, so feel free to fix it.

O


----------



## Datalogger (Jul 5, 2008)

Awesome spreadsheet man, I've bookmarked it.


----------



## TOM1111 (Aug 8, 2008)

Gregg K said:


> The Nevegal is much more difficult to get rolling. Unless I just had three bad days in a row, the Nevegal is an energy sap. I don't think it's due to it's 50+ watts as much as the added half pound per tire. That's a lot of weight to be accelerating.


i agree 
i have nevgals (2.35's) on my khyber and they dont roll very good at all but as you said they have fantastic grip and thats why i have them

i think im going to put some Schwalbe Racing Ralph's on my hard tail which currently has nevagals (2.1) which should make riding 100km easier


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Sorry I've been long to be back here.
I'm finally making the excell file with all the test from Bike Magazin since August 2003.

I've included all I could which means also tires width at casing and thread. It's interesting to see the evolution over the years --> in 2003, 2.3" tires were almost DH tires, now 2.2 - 2.3 almost are our friendly XC tires ;-)))

The file on this link includes tests up to July 2005, I'm still working on it to add the tests from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. Should be finished by tomorrow, I'll upload the link when updated.

Here is for now :
http://rapidshare.com/files/196260269/bike_magazin_tires_tests.xls.html


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

Thank you! Can't wait to see the newer results. That's where the interesting stuff is. Great work!


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Updated file :

http://rapidshare.com/files/196300730/bike_magazin_tires_tests.xls.html

The latest are in there... now only missing some from 2006-2007.


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

*Didn't work for me........*



xc-rider said:


> Updated file :
> 
> http://rapidshare.com/files/196300730/bike_magazin_tires_tests.xls.html
> 
> The latest are in there... now only missing some from 2006-2007.


This is the message I got when tried to upload:

"This file is neither allocated to a Premium Account, or a Collector's Account, and can therefore only be downloaded 10 times.

This limit is reached.

To download this file, the uploader either needs to transfer this file into his/her Collector's Account, or upload the file again. The file can later be moved to a Collector's Account. The uploader just needs to click the delete link of the file to get further information."


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Please try this link and let me know :
http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=RZRIKEY4

I still have to find a place where it can stay without any limitations of days or how many time it is downloaded...

By the way, Henryhb if you are around, could you add the missing information for February 2009 test ??? --> Thorn resistance for Gato, Tpi count for each tire and bike magazin verdict. Thanks a lot in advance.

I will work on the last ones missing tomorrow morning... but we are getting close to having a complete sum up of all of them (it took me hourssssss... so I hope you guys enjoy ;-))) ).


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

xc-rider said:


> I still have to find a place where it can stay without any limitations of days or how many time it is downloaded....


The "Upload Images" in the posts here allow you to upload .zip documents. So zip it and add to your post. :thumbsup:

P


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

There you go, thanks for the good tip !!!


----------



## ozhoo (Sep 28, 2008)

I've updated the google version using _xc-riders_ data for the excel impaired folks out there.

O


----------



## Rasterman (Jan 23, 2008)

So using the stats has anyone come up with the "best of" tires for each category?


----------



## dropadrop (Sep 20, 2005)

Interesting thread. I understand they can't test traction in a lot of different scenarios, but I have to say that the readings for traction don't match up with our local conditions (where wet stone / wood traction is what counts).

I remember when nobby nics came out and everyone was raving about them. Suddenly they where on most bikes you would see. It happened to be a rare sunny month, when things came back to normal they disapered very quickly. Those tires are almost dangerous on the wet, they lose traction far quicker then a Nokian NBX or Maxxis (with one of their softer compaunds). 

It's a pity when your local conditions are completely different from the places reviews are done at. You have to take everything with a grain of salt, and rather go with what other local people have found to work.


----------



## sindy9001 (Mar 3, 2009)

Yeah! I learn more here. Thank you to share the imformation.


----------



## Turtle01 (Sep 20, 2005)

Is there any information in the test on a Continental Gravity 2.3 and the Continental Vapor Pro 2.1?

Thanks


----------



## mtbvfr (Dec 24, 2006)

*WTB Wolverine 1.95*

Has the WTB Wolverine 1.95 been tested yet?

Thanks, MTB


----------



## CaveGiant (Aug 21, 2007)

I have 29er Nevegal front and rear, I wonder if it is worth swapping to the RR, or if this thread will make me spend a lot of money for nowt.


----------



## Nath01978 (Aug 29, 2008)

Hi, iv got some ztr 7000 race rims, 33psi max, i was running NN 1.8 at 30 psi, then the weather changed so i put some RR 2.1 on at 30psi, iv put the NN back on now because at 30psi the 1.8 NN is much much faster and more grip even in the dry, can u confirm this on your tests, any one else found this out yet, if not try it. and let me now. :thumbsup:


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

Nath01978 said:


> Hi, iv got some ztr 7000 race rims, 33psi max, i was running NN 1.8 at 30 psi, then the weather changed so i put some RR 2.1 on at 30psi, iv put the NN back on now because at 30psi the 1.8 NN is much much faster and more grip even in the dry, can u confirm this on your tests, any one else found this out yet, if not try it. and let me now. :thumbsup:


well, that is the difference between these "tests" and the real world, real trails, real riders. it might get lower results on a drum at a certain PSI, but reality is different in my books.

i made the mistake of using these "tests" and putting some 2.25 EVO racing ralphs on my wifes bike - slow rolling. tried all sorts of different PSI, different trails, with tubes and tubeless, we both felt they were slow rolling/sluggish. she went back to nokian NBX lites and the difference is HUGE. faster and still good traction.

so use what you like and know works. a lab is not the right place to review tires.


----------



## NormanPCN (Oct 13, 2005)

kevbikemad said:


> What we see is the *DIFFERENCE* under load, but does that REALLY tell us which tire uses more or less watts? At least I don' t think so, because we don't know what the TOTAL watts are, we only know the DIFFERENCE between loaded and NOT loaded.
> 
> For example, tire 1 may run at 50 watts with NO load, and 70 watts with load. So 20 watts difference. Which would seem very good.
> 
> ...


I'll agree with this. The difference measurement can be misleading. This is good info and probably correlates to an absolute resistance at some level but all my legs care about is full absolute resistance cranking up a hill.


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

*Continental Gravity VS. Mountain King*

Two tires which appear to score the highest are the Continental Gravity and the Continental Mountain King.

does anyone have any real world experience comparing these two tires in a 2.3 Gravity Protection and the 2.4 Mountain King protection on dry, if not rocky terrain. The Mountain kings weigh a little more but are higher volume, and the Gravity has more of a side lug for the corners.

I have used the Gravity for 1 1/2 years and LOVE them for dry, dusty, rocky conditions. I did my own tire test including Nevegals (terribly slow), WTB Weirwolfs, Rampage (great front tire), Conti Verticals (flats easy), Maxxis Ignitor (small but good), Z max ect. and my favorite for rolling speed, puncture resistance and traction are by far the Continental Gravity but... how does the Gravity Pro compare to a 2.4 Mountain King protection ???

I only buy protection versions for the Lava rock here in Central Oregon - excellent puncture resistance. I also run Stan's tubeless, and have run them down to 24 psi recently with NO issues on a Bontrager Duster 32 hole rim / industry 9 setup. Gravity seat awesome on this rim with no issues!

For those that are interested, the Gravity is as tough as they come for puncture resistance unless you move up to a much heavy tire. When I did run tubes, I also never got pinch flats at 28 psi. This is really a great all mountain tire and you can get them at Cambria for around $25. - a steal for this quality of tire. But... is The MK pro better?


----------



## thesenator (Jul 26, 2007)

*Any idea...*

...If the data would be relevant to 29er tires?


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

interesting.


----------



## d.n.s (Jan 18, 2008)

thanks Henry! Donetsk and Kiev give you our respect!


----------



## d.n.s (Jan 18, 2008)

*henryhb*

can you please make a test for kenda kinetiks 2,1?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

i dont make the tests. they are made by the german "bike" magazin.
the kinetiks 2,1 havent been tested.

good news:
there are new downhill tires tested! i will edit the stats in the next days.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

i just bought the new bike.

new tested tires are:

kenda excavator 2.35
nokian nbx 2.3
wtb dissent 2.3
wtb prowler ss 2.3

more in the next days


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

henryhb said:


> i just bought the new bike.
> 
> new tested tires are:
> 
> ...


That should interesting, the Prowler SS's tread pattern looks a fast roller, but I'll bet it's not.

Thank HenryHB, I look forward to the info.

P


----------



## mtbr_moron (Oct 23, 2006)

bhsavery said:


> Couple things to note about these german tests:
> 
> 2. From what it seems, the best tires in these German Tests always seem to be the german/euro tires, like schwalbe, continental, etc. Does anyone else find this suspect?


You read my mind. I was thinking the exact same thing - German Bias?


----------



## vikingboy (Nov 5, 2008)

maybe...just maybe Germans build a better tyre!? 

As with all tests, I applaud anyone trying to find a test method which can produce some objective data but actual real world testing is of course the only way to confirm without any doubt which tyre is "best". 

Im very happy to read this data - it provides a good starting point for my own subjective tests.


----------



## uncomplientspud (Apr 20, 2008)

any news on the excavator?


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

vikingboy said:


> maybe...just maybe Germans build a better tyre!?
> 
> As with all tests, I applaud anyone trying to find a test method which can produce some objective data but actual real world testing is of course the only way to confirm without any doubt which tyre is "best".
> 
> Im very happy to read this data - it provides a good starting point for my own subjective tests.


I must agree here as this is a good start point. I run the Spec Captain 2.0 which shows like 37 watt rolling resistance. I have tried a few others that have less, but I seeem to end up skidding a lot more.

No tire is going to make you a good rider. It's bike skills on the down hill and the power output of the engine (you) on the uphills.


----------



## FireLikeIYA (Mar 15, 2009)

Anything on the Panaracer XC Fire Pro?


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

the four tires were tested under enduro aspects!

kenda excavator 2.35
RR: 41,6
flattening height: 70
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:6/6 (more= the better)
traction: 4/6 (more= the better)

nokian nbx 2.3
RR: 29,1
flattening height: 55
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:4/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)

wtb dissent 2.3
RR: 43,4
flattening height: 62,5
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 5/6 (more= the better)

wtb prowler ss 2.3
RR: 41,5 
flattening height: 75
thorn: d
cornering stability/ability:5/6 (more= the better)
traction: 3/6 (more= the better)


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

O.k. I'm German, but I ride an 
- American frame (Scott Scale), 
- American wheelset (ZTR), 
- American sealant (Stans), 
- American/Japanese drive train
- Swedish car
and I have a French girl friend ... so don't tell me I'm nationally biased

... if the Chinese or Martians made the best tires I wouldn't hesitate a sec to buy one

For years now Schwalbe always ranks top in all tests, may this be a German or international magazine. They started making MTB tires in the early 80s and have an awful lot of R&D spending. Furthermore, they are family owned specializing on this niche market only. It's simply a good company making good products. And the tests reflect this. This small company wouldn't be European market leader if people were't content with their products.
By the way, there are hardly any tire ads in those German bike magazines, in no way comparable to the amounts found in US mags.

I'm in no way affiliated with Schwalbe, just "honor to whom honor is due". I would say the same about Notubes or any other American company who's products I'm convinced of.


----------



## vikingboy (Nov 5, 2008)

In order to keep this full of clean objective data and more easily useful to those who use it, can we keep the discussion re the validity of the tests to the separate thread I created here please......http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=530125

I think both threads have merit but should be separate discussions.

thanks to OP, again! keep the great info flowing....


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

Fantastic thread. Thanks, Henry!

Are there any test results available for the Geax Suguaro?


----------



## gregoryb02 (Nov 4, 2006)

*Eskar 2.3*

Henry - Great thread... thanks for a major contribution to the forum. Any information on the Specialized Eskar 2.3 CONTROL 2Bliss?

Note: in July of 2009, the Eskar side knobs will be made slightly taller than the previous versions (info. from Lees bikes online).


----------



## Titus Maximus (Jan 3, 2004)

Hmm, verrry interesting! Would someone please tell the Germans about 29ers.


----------



## wilsonblur (Dec 23, 2003)

quax said:


> O.k. I'm German, but I ride an
> - American frame (Scott Scale),
> - American wheelset (ZTR),
> - American sealant (Stans),
> ...


Ditto:thumbsup: I used to be a fan of Continentals but the casings tear easily then I switched to Schwalbe's and love them. The last longer and work as well with better casing integrity. The only time I have had issues with them was on the Teflon coated roots of Les Gets France. No one's tires were working then.


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

i will look for the requested tires in the next days!


----------



## TORQ24 (Aug 26, 2009)

Hello all... I'm currently running Nobby Nic 2.25 UST front and rear on my element 90. This is my only bike and use it for play and race. I have been very happy with the grip these tires have BUT I do notice the rolling resistance at about 20km/h. I'm thinking about trying a racing ralph on the rear but I really like the climbing traction of the Nic. Question - How do the 2.1 Nic UST compare (grip, rolling resistance)? Nokian NBX Lite 2.2 ? Also, I can't help but think that the 2.25 tire might be a bit wide for mavic SL rims (21mm 17c). They feel a little "floppy" at about 27psi but any higher and they don't work as well on the roots. Another reason to go with the 2.1?


----------



## getbusyliving (Mar 9, 2007)

gregoryb02 said:


> Henry - Great thread... thanks for a major contribution to the forum. Any information on the Specialized Eskar 2.3 CONTROL 2Bliss?
> 
> Note: in July of 2009, the Eskar side knobs will be made slightly taller than the previous versions (info. from Lees bikes online).


I am also interested in the Eskar 2.3 numbers. These came out on top on Mountain Bike Action's tire test for tubeless tires earlier this year (though MBA tests were not this detailed or exhaustive or scientific).

Thanks Henry for all the work on this. Excellent info.


----------



## Black RONIN (Jan 21, 2007)

Any data for the 2.1 Nevegal DTC (tube type) and the 2.25 Nobby Nick EVO (tube type)?

Very nice data, though. :thumbsup:


----------



## jadis3 (Nov 18, 2007)

Hello henryhb, Stans Ravens became very popular, please test them!


----------



## machinehead (Jul 14, 2006)

That is interesting. Since I own Mountain King tires, I will use that for an example.

The mtbr.com reviews of the Mountain King don't match the Lab numbers. The Lab says 'Top Notch'. The Field Testers say 'Average.'

Reviewing anything, the number of reviews always provides more accurate results about their intrinsic nature. Business pays for information like this. 

You have to wonder about manufacturers that don't read the reviews. 

So testing in the Lab only goes so far. As in verifying that it won't explode under normal conditions for example. A UL rating in America is a Certification that your odds of getting electrocuted are well below 1%.

Throwing the product to the Wolves is the best way to get an idea of the products qualities.

The exceptions of course are a really good product with great reviews across the board. Or a really bad one in the opposite direction.

Don't feel bad it the Lab disagrees with your experience. Or if the Field Tests make you mad.

To get the best data it is imperative to leave Emotions out of the equation.


----------



## purtschi31 (Aug 3, 2009)

I am Swiss and therefore very much exposed to the german magazins - I regularly read their test, incl the ones on tires. Specifically on those there always seems that Schwalbe are the best ones? maybe they really are, however its very suspicious.

regarding the RR resistance of Nevegal vs. FatAlberts however I can strongly confirm their findings. Formers has an immense RR, led me to replace them by later, although I was very pleased with their traction


----------



## Surfas (Sep 13, 2005)

Some old tires test from 2003 German "BIKE" magazine

"RACE" Tires:
Continental Twister Supersonic: 1.9" - 330g - 21.9 watts
Continental Escape Pro : 2.1" - 511g - 28.6 watts
Hutchinson Scorpion Air Light : 2.0" - 552g - 35.9 watts
Kenda Klimax Lite 345g : 1.95" - 315g - 28.4 watts
Michelin Wildgripper Comp S Light : 2.0" - 456g - 25.7 watts
Nokian Boazbeana X : 1.9" - 426g - 25.7 watts
Maxxis High Roller R : 2.0" - 452g - 28.3 watts
Schwalbe Fast Fred QC : 2.0" - 349g - 18.1 watts
Schwalbe Little Albert Light QC : 2.1" - 490g - 26.3 watts

"ENDURO" Tires:
Continental Explorer Pro Tection: 2.1" - 517g - 29.5 watts
Continental Vertical Pro Tection: 2.3" - 624g - 29.4 watts
Continental Survival Pro Tection: 2.3" - 686g - 32.6 watts
Geax Blade 200. 2.0" - 573g - 34.1 watts
Geax Sturdy: 2.25" - 860g - 30.4 watts
Hutchinson Mosquito Air: 2.3" - 597g - 35.5 watts
IRC Serac XC: 2.1" - 574g - 26.8 watts
Maxxis Harddrive 2.1: 2.1" - 537g - 34.3 watts
WTB Mutano Raptor: 2.24" - 778g - 43.5 watts
Maxxis Ignitor / Dynomite: 2.3"/2.35" - 693g/675g - 37.6/36.9 watts
Michelin Wildgripper FrontS / XL S: 2.1" - 554g - 25.5/24.5 watts
Michelin Wildgripper Hot S: 2.1" - 681g - 36.7 watts
Specialized Roll X: 2.0" - 554g - 43.5 watts
Specialized Enduro Pro: 2.2" - 546g - 31.8 watts
Nokian NBX 2.1: 2.1" - 595g - 28.3 watts
Ritchey Z-Max Millenium: 2.35" - 691g - 26.2 watts
Schwalbe Little Albert Light FO / ORC: 2.1" - 504g - 38.2/30.6 watts
Schwalbe Fat Albert Light: 2.35" - 680g - 31.9 watts

And I wear Schwalbe Nobby Nic for more that 2 years, some friends told me that they'll never trade there IRC Serac XC UST. 

Since I try the IRC I tell the same, the German Bike mag tell's that NN had 6/6 in cornering grip/traction, but for my experience the Serac are much better in all, the same in RR and incredibly better in muddy conditions.


----------



## lactatofilo (Jul 6, 2008)

These kind of laboratory test only shows very little about theses tyres.
There are a lot of important variables that are not been take into account, for example:
*Rider weight
Interaction between ground an tyre. That depends on the type of soil and the rubber compound.
Different kind of bikes: full sus, hardtail, rigid
The way the rider rides.
*
I really dont know why so many people are are talking about tyres they hardly know, after reading those silly numbers!!

If you want to know about tyres: just get out and try them!!!


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

From current issue 02/2010:

(see first post of this thread for definitions)


----------



## bullcrew (Jan 2, 2005)

*Schwalbe 2010 DH FR lineup!*

nice write ups


----------



## Dragon Of The East (Dec 10, 2009)

I need a little help. I'm looking for tires that rival the Continental Race King in both Speed and Traction but more durable. I heard the Race King died out w/in 6 months of normal usage

Can someone recommend some tires.... 

Thanks


----------



## d-town-3- (Mar 11, 2007)

just picked up scwalbes racing rons, taking them out on saturday for first ride. I am running them up front with the race king continentals supersonics in rear. Get back to you with ride report. I am located in New Jersey where you get alot of loose rock so we'll see how they do. Just at first glance the sidewalls seem pretty thin but they are very light so thats the trade off i guess. Good luck, be in touch.

dt3


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

Super Sonix BOOM! said:


> I need a little help. I'm looking for tires that rival the Continental Race King in both Speed and Traction but more durable. I heard the Race King died out w/in 6 months of normal usage
> 
> Can someone recommend some tires....
> 
> Thanks


Racing Palphs 2.25 would probably be the most similar, Rocket Rons offer a little more traction, and are very light but are also paper thin.


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

d-town-3- said:


> just picked up scwalbes racing rons, taking them out on saturday for first ride. I am running them up front with the race king continentals supersonics in rear. Get back to you with ride report. I am located in New Jersey where you get alot of loose rock so we'll see how they do. Just at first glance the sidewalls seem pretty thin but they are very light so thats the trade off i guess. Good luck, be in touch.
> 
> dt3


keep us posted. I'm riding the Conti RK SS front and rear. Thinking of putting a Rocket Ron up front for a little more bite


----------



## Hardtail Rider (Dec 21, 2008)

Does Maxxis and Kenda has anything that can be compare w/ Race King and Racing Ralphs?


----------



## Dragon Of The East (Dec 10, 2009)

Hardtail Rider said:


> Does Maxxis and Kenda has anything that can be compare w/ Race King and Racing Ralphs?


I would like to know also, but I think the CrossMark and Small Block 8s is comparable. anyone one else have any opinion on this?


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

Super Sonix BOOM! said:


> I would like to know also, but I think the CrossMark and Small Block 8s is comparable. anyone one else have any opinion on this?


I really didn't care for the SB 8. I think the Race King Supersonic 2.2 blows it away. SB 8 does roll well, but I was spinning out on dry roots let alone wet ones. The RK SS rolls just as well- if not better, eats roots, and has amazing grip. Gotta get the black chili compound though, its magical.

Yo, d-town-3 you still around? Curious to know how that Rocket Ron front and RK SS rear went for you!!!


----------



## tmc71 (Oct 6, 2009)

quax said:


> From current issue 02/2010:
> 
> (see first post of this thread for definitions)


So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Rocket Rons have less rolling resistance than the Racing Ralphs?

How could that be? The Ro Ro's have larger treads. I have a Ro Ro up front and when I walk my bike that front tire chatters.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

tmc71 said:


> So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Rocket Rons have less rolling resistance than the Racing Ralphs?
> 
> How could that be? The Ro Ro's have larger treads. I have a Ro Ro up front and when I walk my bike that front tire chatters.


It's less about the tread, and more about the casing design & rubber compounds.
RaRa =67tpi
RoRo=120tpi

P


----------



## twenty6black (Jan 12, 2009)

Schwalbe’s Racing Ralph sets the benchmark. The brand-new Tubeless variant achieves the lowest ever value of 19,8 Watts, measured by BIKE

this is on the Schwalbe web site....and we're all good with this right? for the 2.25 EVO? right? or is it as they say the 'tubeless variant'? cheers

thx


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

Well, be careful with all of this 'fast rubber'. I've found that with Speed King you can lean on turns a reasonable amount - and Speed King is as much into the fast rubber as I'll go. With Race King if you lean the tires will fall out from under you. I had to totally change the way I rode turns on a similar tire (albeit not RK itself), and eventually ditched any tires without somewhat-significant side lugs. Lost a big chunk of skin on my thigh over this issue!

What I understand of the issue is that if the profile is round you can't lean, if it has large side lugs that present more of a square profile then you can lean.

This principle is what lead to tires like the Twister Supersonic

http://www.conti-online.com/generat...le/themes/mtb/classic/twister/twister_en.html

That has a fast top part, but will also take turns, it has the square type profile. I think I'd rather use that than RaceKing, but hey, I'm not winning any races.

So, just throwing out a warning...


----------



## Dex11 (May 4, 2005)

What kind off terrain did you use those RaceKing's ?
And what size ? The 2.0 sucks, but the 2.2 rocks.
Its my favorite tire !
There is a lot off difference between the Supersonic version and the "normal" one.
The Black Chili compound makes all the difference, and because off the big volume 
they have you need to run them low on pressure.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

Do you lean on turns a lot? Try a mountain king for 4 rides, lean a lot, and then go back Race Kings. It might just be a matter of getting used to it and biking within those limits that the tire presents. If a person hasn't used Mountain King or another very grippy tire for a while, you may not know what you are missing! 

The time I fell and cut up my leg pretty severely I was on a dirt road that did have lots of small rocks, I leaned a bit, really not a deep lean compared to a banked turn or something, and the bike just fell over!! Wasn't even going that fast. I lean more than that on that exact spot on other tires plenty. My familiarity with that ride and spot was one of the things that made me feel sure the only difference was the tires.

That said, I've got some super long less-technical rides coming up and I may try them again as these are quite long rides. I'll make sure to do the 2.2 black chili one for those tests! No question they have less rolling resistance!! And I've seen them on marathon race winners, so clearly they are the go-to marathon race tires, perhaps along with some Schwalbe equivalents. But Trail riding? Not so sure.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Until you try them you will not believe it, but cornering on a race king with black chilli is more predictable than a speed king with large side blocks. Small tread using very soft compound, large casing at low pressure,the race king will change how tires are designed in the future.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

Cool, yeah, I'll try a pair for those long rides coming up.

For now, rain rain rain.........


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

dex11 or gvs_nz - what do you suggest, 28 lbs in front and 35 lbs in back?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Sounds like a good pressure to start then lower until you get it right for your weight. I can get away with 25psi in the front with all my tires. With race kings I can go down to 23 psi on some terrain. On the back I run between 27 and 32 psi. The race king is very hard to find the right pressure. Too high a pressure and this big tire starts bouncing. Too low a pressure and it squirms. It can be only 5psi difference between the two. My geax tires can be run up to 40 psi on the back before they start to feel bouncy and as low as 25 psi on the front before they squirm. I have always found continental tire casings not as good as Geax or Schwalbe to tune.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

Okay guys, come on. Lets be serious! Braking was horrible - I haven't felt so out of control for a long time! And it did almost exactly what I predicted, very little lateral control, when either the ground is tilted and you are going across it, or you are leaning for a turn. Now - what they are made for, and what they did quite well, is go fast. I got a podium finish on them at a local bike race with many who do amateur racing, and I would use them again. I have a 100 coming up at the end of the summer, and may well use them there.

But lets not confuse these things with actual mountain biking . Fireroad racing/riding is one thing, but mountain biking itself to me means obstacles that are hard to get around. The rule my friends and I used to use in the early 90s was, if you can do it with no hands then you are road biking (regardless of what your bike looks like). Race Kings are not suitable for actual Trail or cerainly not AM riding from what I can tell. That said, a pro would perhaps be just fine on them in any conditions, but I personally need what the MKs provide - traction!

Here is what I want you guys to do - go buy a 2.4 Mountain King for front, and a 2.2 Mountain King for rear. Watch out for the really cheap version, I'm pretty sure they are black chili, but you may have to go protection vs supersonic. Go find some harder trails - and this is important, go faster on them! And lean over more here and there. If you stay in the same comfort zone you may have developed with Race Kings you won't notice the difference. Go significantly faster. Lean more. Really! 

I bought your tires, used them for a month. Even raced on them. Now its your turn!

To be clear, because those were somewhat strong words: the Race Kings are darn fast. Really fast. Really really light, too. Holding it up next to the Mountain King 2.4 protection makes one laugh quite a bit. I would absolutely use them again. However, you can't lean over unless you are on the road or they slip out, unlike mountain kings, and braking is much worse. Overall control in tough, technical steep downhills is low.

Just for fun, try the MK and let me know what you think!


Oh - and I do see what you were referring to in terms of a different design. They are super-high volume. One of you said it, but you don't really get in until they are mounted. They are gigantic volume!! 2 things I could have done to make them ride a bit better, mount the rear backwards to try and get a little more braking bite out of the center knobs (but looking at the knob, its only going to help so much) and running tubeless. The non-UST 2.2 supersonic somehow seem like they would best be utilized tubeless, they would really be able to deform and take the shape of the path. Oh - and that is something, perhaps they grip 10X better than other fast-rolling designs at 3 or 2 or 1 mph because of my last point about tubeless + high volume and all that, but at 10 mph they still don't seem to lean well. They gave way many times during the month. And I was riding latex tubes, which are around 50% of the way to tubeless over butyl in terms of increased ability to deform (not in terms of rolling resistance), but still could have gone tubeless.

So those were my thoughts...


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

LightMiner said:


> Here is what I want you guys to do - go buy a 2.4 Mountain King for front, and a 2.2 Mountain King for rear. Watch out for the really cheap version, I'm pretty sure they are black chili, but you may have to go protection vs supersonic. Go find some harder trails - and this is important, go faster on them!


I ride both the Race King 2.2 SS and the Mountain King 2.2 SS, and am quite familiar with how both ride. I ride fast, and am happiest on fast, twisty singletrack. My trails have a combination of hardpack, rocks, roots, and loamy bits thrown in.

The two tires like to be ridden differently. The best I can put it, is the MK likes to be steered more, while the RK likes to be leaned more.

- With the MK I stay more on top of the bike and use more bar input, and the tire likes to be driven more with more input. I also notice more feedback from the MK. It provides excellent climbing traction, but likes to squirm when leaned hard, and will wash unexpectedly from time to time. The MK seems to roll a little faster than the RK.

- The RK took me a couple miles to figure out. The first thing I noticed is it felt more vague than the MK. My normal technique of driving the tire hard and staying on top of it didn't seem to work very well. The tire seems to perform best when you simply set it on the line you want and just let the tire run. I could just throw the bike into a lean and it would hold on and roll. Where I noticed the RK to be significantly weaker than the MK were the soupy, slick mud puddles, where the RK would slide out, but even those were quite predictable. Let me also mention it makes my hardtail quite a bit more comfy to ride. All in all, I like the RK better.

In your case, I think it might just be a matter of your technique not meshing well with the RK, which just goes back to "ride what works".


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

LightMiner said:


> Okay guys, come on. Lets be serious! Braking was horrible - I haven't felt so out of control for a long time! And it did almost exactly what I predicted, very little lateral control, when either the ground is tilted and you are going across it, or you are leaning for a turn. Now - what they are made for, and what they did quite well, is go fast. I got a podium finish on them at a local bike race with many who do amateur racing, and I would use them again. I have a 100 coming up at the end of the summer, and may well use them there.
> 
> But lets not confuse these things with actual mountain biking . Fireroad racing/riding is one thing, but mountain biking itself to me means obstacles that are hard to get around. The rule my friends and I used to use in the early 90s was, if you can do it with no hands then you are road biking (regardless of what your bike looks like). Race Kings are not suitable for actual Trail or certainly not AM riding from what I can tell. That said, a pro would perhaps be just fine on them in any conditions, but I personally need what the MKs provide - traction!
> 
> ...


You were originally talking about speedkings not mountankings. I've tried them all. I have Mk, SK in all sizes and Rk 2.2.

I'll race using RK supersoinic front and rear in nearly all conditions, until it it just gets too loose. Keep out of the deep loose or muddy stuff on off camber corners or ruts and your fine. With low enough pressure[ 20 to 25 psi] they have a very tactile grippy feel.If they do slide it is controllable. if you get into deep loose off cambered stuff you will go down fast though.
My SK' s and MK2.2 don't get used any more.
SK's and Rk's are both not trail A/M tires. But Sk's are not a good tire at all.The side knobs are too tall and squirm in hard pack conditions. Even more than the MK 2.4 which also suffers from the same problem. It either bounces all over the place or squirms. I can't get the right pressure to run it. I only ever use it as a rear tire in sticky mud because it sheds mud well. It's plain scary in the front! Can't tell what it's going to do.Slide, grip or squirm.
Even though it has low tread height the RK supersonic,at low pressure, is far superior in hardpack and light loose over hard , and wet[ not deep mud] conditions.Brilliant over wet tree roots and wet slick hardpack and rocks. SK sucks in all these conditions.
The MK 2.2 is too small and harsh which slows you down in rough conditions.
Good to see Conti is bringing out the Mountain X which looks like a good compromise.A Rocket Ron with black chilli.

For trail A/M tires I use Nobby NIC 2.4 with snakeskin at low pressure[20 psi]. Superior to a Mountain King 2.4 until it gets very muddy then MK 2.4 is better. Wouldn't even consider using a SK as a trail A/M tire. Would use Race king in some conditions though.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

One more comment. It, of course, depends what you are riding on! There is a decent amount of fireroad here with little tiny tiny rocks, or super-large sand, and that is one example of the kind of the any tire without very large side blocks will slide out on. If we were talking just about dirt itself, that grips better, more like asphalt, where a rounded profile will do just great.

That may be part of the different opinions... For places with very tiny gravel over a fireroad, it is the big lugs that dig under the surface of what are basically marbles, and grips on the real road. Rounded sides just slip on the little marbles, and over you go.

Lastly, I hate super-fast fireroad descents. All I can think about is falling... I don't mind super-steep technical dowhnills but on those fireroads people get going sooo fast. One person died on a trail I do a lot here a few years ago, went off the side and into a metal power-pole.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Here's more from BIKE Free Ride mag 3/10


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

good news, everyone!
i just bought the latest BIKE with some new tire tests! 
they have tested the first 29er tires, too.
i have a lot to do at work right now- i hope, that i can edit the results next week.

the tested tires are:

conti mountain king 2.2 race sport
conti x-king 2.2 race sport
maxxis icon 2.2
schwalbe rocek ron 2.25 evo
specialized renegade 2.1 s-works
bontrager xr4 2.35 team issue
conti mountain king 2.2 protection
schwalbe nobby nic 2.4 evo
conti rubber queen (trail king outside germany) 2.4
maxxis ardent 2.6
onza ibex 2.4
schwalbe fat albert front&rear 2.4

and as 29er 

conti race king 2.2
maxxis ikon 2.2
schwalbe racing ralph 2.25 evo
specialized renegade 1.95 s-works


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Great. keep up the good work.


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Henry, so looking forward to seeing the latest results with 29er tires... please update !!! ))


----------



## hitechredneck (May 9, 2009)

hopefully there is a weirwolf coming soon to


----------



## mattotoole (Jan 26, 2009)

Interesting how the Michelin Comp S Light is still rated very highly but I never see them anymore, in shops or on the trail. Ben's Cycle has 'em for $22.


----------



## mattotoole (Jan 26, 2009)

I'd like to see how the Racing Ralph 2.4" compares to the 2.2".


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

henryhb,

Where are you ? You made some teasing by saying the was this test with very interesting tires, now we are all very eager to see the results !!! Please come back ;-)


----------



## henryhb (May 16, 2007)

not much time- to much work. so some short informations

29er tires (all tires are cc/race tires, the cornering and traction points are all rated for cc/race tires)

conti race king 2.2

32,2w
cornering 8/12
traktion 5/12
"no black chili, so a high weight, high rolling resistance"


maxxis ikon 2.2

32,9w
cornering 11/12
traction 7/12
"good cornering, good on gravel. good for dry conditions"


schwalbe racing ralph 2.25 evo

26,6w
cornering 10/12
traction 8/12
"best choice for marathon or cc races" test winner of these four tires.


specialized renegade 1.95 s-works

26,9w
cornering 8/12
traction 6/12
" pure dry condition tire, not good for wet or loose underground"


----------



## xc-rider (Jan 16, 2004)

Thanks Henry,

If you don't have time for a complete write-up, scan-me the pages and I'll make it for you and update the excell table which contains all the results for everybody.
I'll PM you.


----------



## far-read (Oct 19, 2010)

are not taken into account the parameters of the soil: dirt, sand and more.
And not before Michelin ...
Moreover, there are doubts about the objectivity, for example the leaders of reliability tests Adak in 2007 (the periods of 1-3 years, 3-5 years and more), there were a lot of Japanese cars, and in 2008 there was a lot of Germans .. . It's a strange ...


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)

Do any have tests of UST tyres?


----------



## melbatoast (Aug 16, 2010)

did they test the Maxxis Ardent?


----------



## CTB (Feb 2, 2008)

henryhb said:


> good news, everyone!
> i just bought the latest BIKE with some new tire tests!
> they have tested the first 29er tires, too.
> i have a lot to do at work right now- i hope, that i can edit the results next week.
> ...


I look forward to the Conti X-King info! Thanks for your work, Henry!


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

You can download the report in German.
http://translate.googleusercontent.....co.nz&usg=ALkJrhiZFV0XAX7rfLi7WXfIFPrksj7ohg


----------



## athomedale (Mar 30, 2010)

*small block 8*

Can the sb8 rolling res really be up in the 30's with tread that small?
I'm a new racer and was going to use the sb8 but there must be better choices if thats the case. Any imput very welcome!


----------



## mattotoole (Jan 26, 2009)

athomedale said:


> Can the sb8 rolling res really be up in the 30's with tread that small?
> I'm a new racer and was going to use the sb8 but there must be better choices if thats the case. Any imput very welcome!


How the casing is constructed is a bigger factor. Look at how many tires with fairly big, squirmy knobs still score pretty well on RR tests.

So yes, if you want to go fast there are definitely better choices.


----------



## getbusyliving (Mar 9, 2007)

athomedale said:


> Can the sb8 rolling res really be up in the 30's with tread that small?
> I'm a new racer and was going to use the sb8 but there must be better choices if thats the case. Any imput very welcome!


Take these results with a grain of salt, as the test is done on "paved-like" surface, so the real life dirt experience may be quite different. I only race a couple times a year in sport category, so no expert, but all I can say is when I take my usual trail nobbies off and install the SB8's for races, they feel SUPER fast, and have pretty good grip too.


----------



## athomedale (Mar 30, 2010)

I do want to go fast! 
Well I just started racing and did an xc race that was only 75 minutes but i'm doing 4 long events this summer, 1 60mile, 1 50mile, 1 30mile, and a 24 hour two man team race. So i'm looking for something light that will seal up with stans and roll well for hardpack forest to dry conditions. I want grip like everybody but I think for endurance events I'm just as concerned about rolling well.
Any sugestions?


----------



## Trond (Mar 7, 2004)

Thanks for the great uploads.kinda disappointed with 29x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Watt measurement. I'd thought it would be faster than the Crossmark and comperative to the Racing Ralph.


----------



## jianxing (Feb 23, 2011)

are those racing ralph the new pacestar TL rdy type? snakeskin?

wanted to get the maxxis ikon 29x2.2 but now i'm not sure if i should get the racing ralph 29er instead..
can they fit the Stans Notube ZTR Crest 29er rims?


----------



## Veda (Dec 17, 2009)

Now that the Ikon's RR is out, I'd like to see Kenda Slant Six's...


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

Did we ever get X-King numbers?


----------



## PureBlue0229 (Jul 16, 2011)

Has anyone heard how the Michelin WildGripR tires rate?


----------



## PureBlue0229 (Jul 16, 2011)

*Michelin WildGripR*

I just bought the WildGripR tires. While looking at reviews on line one review said they make a good rear tire. Is there a difference between front and back tires and are these not made as a front tire? I'm also wondering if the tires can be installed either way or is there a dedicated rotation direction.


----------



## Mishtar (Jun 3, 2011)

PureBlue0229 said:


> I just bought the WildGripR tires. While looking at reviews on line one review said they make a good rear tire. Is there a difference between front and back tires and are these not made as a front tire? I'm also wondering if the tires can be installed either way or is there a dedicated rotation direction.


Normally if tires are directional you will see the little arrow on the side wall showing the direction. As well yes some tires are made for just the front or just the rear. Others can be used for both but you have to run them in different directions. There are so many different rules for tires!


----------



## PureBlue0229 (Jul 16, 2011)

*Tire direction*

Thanks for the info, but what do you mean run them in different directions?


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

LightMiner said:


> Did we ever get X-King numbers?


Not too bad actually.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

ritoh said:


> Not too bad actually.


ritoh, if you have all the numbers as a spreadsheet, can you output a PDF or Zip it up and upload as an image to a post?

Unfortunately, someone ruined the Google doc and all the numbers are off. If you upload a PDF or zip we can have correct data in one place.

Thanks,

P


----------



## ritoh (Nov 14, 2009)

I'm not sure if I have all of the tires (that were on the previous list) on there, but here you go.

If anyone wants to create/maintain the spreadsheet on Google Docs, PM me and I'll send you the excel file.


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

PureBlue0229 said:


> Thanks for the info, but what do you mean run them in different directions?


as Mishtar said, there's an arrow on the sidewall that indicates the direction to run the tire as a front tire or as a rear tire. essentially if you flip it 180° it changes the direction of the tread.

when I got my wild gripp'r advanced I ran them in the rear in the indicated direction. i wasn't impressed at all. They would slide out really easily of off camber roots. I ended up unseating the tire landing badly off a small drop (on an Arch rim), and re-installed them in the opposite direction by mistake. But, I was astounded in the difference in traction, especially in off-camber situations. there's maybe a little less grip in wide-open sweeping turns, but it still rails a corner beautifully. I will also add that its a very supple tire. I'm used to running 60tpi UST tires, usually with 32 psi. this tire is 120 tpi and i suspect the sidewalls are fairly thin. I find it's pinching a lot more over roots and rocks, so i have to run much more pressure (38 psi - which may have led to my blowing it off the rim). I'm still not 100% sold on them for my desired use.

oh, and another thing, they're a big 2.25. I measured them at 44mm sidewall to sidewall on my Arch rim, whereas my 2.3 Specialized Eskar measured in at 41mm on the same rim.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

ritoh said:


> I'm not sure if I have all of the tires (that were on the previous list) on there, but here you go.
> 
> If anyone wants to create/maintain the spreadsheet on Google Docs, PM me and I'll send you the excel file.


Thanks ritoh!

P


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Trond said:


> Thanks for the great uploads.kinda disappointed with 29x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Watt measurement. I'd thought it would be faster than the Crossmark and comperative to the Racing Ralph.


It actually is faster than the CrossMark in real-world conditions. As I understand it, the rolling resistance testing is done on a smooth roller at a single pressure and a single load. Far from the best method to measure RR of mtb tires.

Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

bholwell said:


> It actually is faster than the CrossMark in real-world conditions. As I understand it, the rolling resistance testing is done on a smooth roller at a single pressure and a single load. Far from the best method to measure RR of mtb tires.
> 
> Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...


Yeah, ordinarily I'd hesitate to question test results that seem at odds with perception, but I've got to agree here. A smooth roller test won't give a very complete picture but it should at least show something interesting, yet it doesn't appear to do that. How does the Ikon test so poorly when it seems to roll so well?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

PureBlue0229 said:


> Has anyone heard how the Michelin WildGripR tires rate?


They tested the 2.1 and gave it similar rolling resistance to Racing Ralph 2.25. And that's the std 67 tpi version. I believe the 127 softer rubber version is slower.Don't believe all you read about requiring 127 tpi for a fast tire. The low Tpi is heavier though.


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

gvs_nz said:


> They tested the 2.1 and gave it similar rolling resistance to Racing Ralph 2.25.


Just a quick update of my Wild Grip'R Advanced. I've run it a dozen or so more rides now since my last post. Things have been really dry here in the North East so I still can't comment on outright grip in the wet. I've settled on 36 or 37 psi and seem to have found the sweet spot for the tire. I'm still running on my back wheel mounted in the front tire direction (i,e, backwards from the recommended direction for the back wheel). I'm very impressed with how fast it rolls. I can really notice it when coasting behind my buddies. I catch up to them pretty quick. Cornering grip is outstanding. I can lean on the knobs and really hold a line, and yet it "cutties" really nicely and then finds grip once you hit the apex of the turn. I also have no worries throwing it into a flat corner because I know those side knobs will catch me and hold me up. very confidence inspiring. I also find that in this direction, I have no more problems with off-camber roots and rocks.

So far, this has proven to be a really good dry conditions tire. Looks like there'll be a bit of rain next week, I'll see how it does in the wet then.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Hold your breath. Things turn ugly on wet tree roots with the standard rubber version.


----------



## Mlok (May 16, 2006)

Please someone post result for Hans Dampf from Bike magazin 8/11. Thanks


----------



## Mlok (May 16, 2006)

Hans Dampf PaceStar - 29.7W
Hans Dampf TrailStar - 41.8W


----------



## Unbrokenchain (Mar 14, 2011)

Mlok said:


> Hans Dampf PaceStar - 29.7W
> Hans Dampf TrailStar - 41.8W


But it only comes in TrailStar.

Hans Dampf | Schwalbe North America


----------



## Mlok (May 16, 2006)

In a few weeks will be pacestar version in shops...


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Mlok said:


> In a few weeks will be pacestar version in shops...


I'm trying to figure out when my next smooth metal roller or XC race on pavement is on the race schedule so I can get my Racing Ralphs aired up and ready for that. Not to mention, I need to figure out how to apply even pressure on the tires to achieve optimum performance. :madman::madman:


----------



## Tjay (Oct 17, 2006)

Panaracer FR 2.4 vs Nobby Nic 2.4

I'm guessing the FR has more RR? Do you guys know if it is pass 30 RR? Thx


----------



## jathanas (Dec 9, 2009)

Trond said:


> Thanks for the great uploads.kinda disappointed with 29x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Watt measurement. I'd thought it would be faster than the Crossmark and comperative to the Racing Ralph.


After riding the IKON a few times I agree with the test result. I found that the Ralph rolls way better than the IKON. This was noticed by my training partner too.


----------



## LightMiner (Aug 6, 2008)

The top rolling-resistance tire is tubeless - do they test ones marked as tubeless?

The X-King comes in at 25 along with a few others - in the RS version it is tubeless ready, I wonder if some of those 25 ones would be 20 if they were tested with no tube?

Anyone know definitively if all are done with the same tube, or how they decide which ones to test tubeless?


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2011)

BruceBrown said:


> I'm trying to figure out when my next smooth metal roller or XC race on pavement is on the race schedule so I can get my Racing Ralphs aired up and ready for that. Not to mention, I need to figure out how to apply even pressure on the tires to achieve optimum performance. :madman::madman:


This same criticism has been made regarding roller tests and road tires for as long as it's been done, yet recently it's been shown that roller tests correlate strongly with actual road results. I've haven't heard of the same comparisons being done with MTB tires (I'd like to see it) but I see little reason why it wouldn't hold true. Rollers won't demonstrate pneumatic benefits and road riders have to factor that in as well.


----------



## tmc1171 (Nov 10, 2010)

subscribed


----------



## TX Flash (Jan 26, 2010)

Henry,
Have there been any tests on the updtaed 2012 Schwalbe Racing Ralphs? Schwalbe claims 30g less weight and 20% lower rolling resistance. That would make the rolling resistance on the 2.25 X 29 about 21.3w. Amazing if that is true. I am trying a pair now. They do seem to roll fast already and they are barely broken in. I'm sure they will get faster after a few more rides.


----------



## pk1 (Mar 25, 2010)

craigsj said:


> This same criticism has been made regarding roller tests and road tires for as long as it's been done, yet recently it's been shown that roller tests correlate strongly with actual road results. I've haven't heard of the same comparisons being done with MTB tires (I'd like to see it) but I see little reason why it wouldn't hold true. Rollers won't demonstrate pneumatic benefits and road riders have to factor that in as well.


i'd figure the roller test primarily tests deformation resistance which is consistent on any hard surface. if the surface is uneven (eg rocks/roots) then it just becomes more significant as the tire has to deform massively to roll over a rock smoothly.

deformation resistance is influenced by the tire compounds and the knob shape more than knob size, including the way the knob shape (and effective size) change as the tire deforms.

where it falls down for mtb is soft surfaces where the tire and knobs sink into the mud etc and don't need to deform as much. but then traction is what you want to worry about rather than rolling resistance. the resistance you get comes from the tires size and the mud it has to displace to move forwards (hence the debate between wide and grippy or narrow and fast in mud)

i wouldn't trust these tests as gospel but its useful to put some semi-objective numbers alongside thoughts and opinions, especially in cutting down to a short list to try for yourself

another point to bear in mind is that both RR and traction can vary significantly for a given tire depending on the pressure in it and the pressure on it - that is to say rider weight. within a sensible range that probably tracks reasonably consistently between different models but sometimes the test pressures will hit right on the sweet spot for one model and well off for another giving a significant discrepancy in results


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2011)

Rolling resistance measurements have been done for a long time. Textured rollers and road testing have been tried and, contrary to what many might expect, the results don't change over smooth rollers. What happens is the results become increasingly uncertain and reproducibility is lost. 

The first requirement of any testing is to have confidence in the data. Data that tells you less than you want to know is better than data that tells you nothing.


----------



## Taz8 (Aug 3, 2006)

Gman086 said:


> Lets see some figs for the Maxxis Minion 2.35 single plys please!
> 
> Have FUN!
> 
> G MAN


Anything on the Minion 2.35 single plys yet?


----------



## MrIndy (Aug 9, 2008)

Suprised to see very little difference in the tests between the 29 and 26 tires with similiar widths and treads. I thought that in theory the 29er tire would deflect less so should have lower RR but the test don't seem to show that result. 

Also, I wonder if a textured roller would for the case of 29 vs 26 tires show a different result. I read there's a bike testing lab in Finland that uses textured rollers (but unfortunately don't publish these results). I also saw in another test by Schwalbe I think that rolling resistance was highly dependent on ground texture and that for parameters like tire pressure and tire width, on uneven ground like gravel and grass, rolling resistance decreased with increasing width and decreasing tire pressure, opposite from smooth surfaces. 

Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2012)

MrIndy said:


> Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.


You can get lab data that demonstrates that larger wheels have lower rolling resistance but that's not really what people are talking about.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

MrIndy said:


> Suprised to see very little difference in the tests between the 29 and 26 tires with similiar widths and treads. I thought that in theory the 29er tire would deflect less so should have lower RR but the test don't seem to show that result.
> 
> Also, I wonder if a textured roller would for the case of 29 vs 26 tires show a different result. I read there's a bike testing lab in Finland that uses textured rollers (but unfortunately don't publish these results). I also saw in another test by Schwalbe I think that rolling resistance was highly dependent on ground texture and that for parameters like tire pressure and tire width, on uneven ground like gravel and grass, rolling resistance decreased with increasing width and decreasing tire pressure, opposite from smooth surfaces.
> 
> Would be nice at some point to get some proof behind all the 29er anecdotes that rolling resistance is better.


Like narrow tires, Ii would expect 29er tires to have higher rolling resistance on smooth surfaces due to contact patch shape. This doesn't take in to effect roll over effect over obstacles.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2012)

gvs_nz said:


> Like narrow tires, Ii would expect 29er tires to have higher rolling resistance on smooth surfaces due to contact patch shape.


Rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of wheel diameter.

Also, drum testing tends to neutralize differences in wheel diameter unless specifically compensated for. Also documented in that article. The Bike Tech Review guys specifically compensate for this in their calculations.


----------



## PedalFasterJonathan (Feb 6, 2012)

Don't happen to have anything on the Panaracer Razer, do you? Great thread, thanks!


----------



## pat6192 (Mar 4, 2012)

*Race Ripost compound*

Does anyone have something about Hutchinson tyres using Race Ripost compound ?
About Cougar TLR RR 2.25 or Cobra TLR RR 2.25 ?

Thanks for this post and those technical datas changing from marketing arguments.


----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)




----------



## painless (Mar 10, 2008)




----------



## pat6192 (Mar 4, 2012)

Thanks to Painless. Technically interesting. Surprised by Continental very good results


----------



## pat6192 (Mar 4, 2012)

It seems Bike tests above are about tubetype tires.
The rolling resistance is provided by the tread but also by the sides (?)
Continental, Schwalbe and Hutchinson have tires in the three versions, tubetype, TLR and tubeless.
Once again, does any have information about side effect on rolling resistance ?


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

craigsj said:


> Rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of wheel diameter.
> 
> Also, drum testing tends to neutralize differences in wheel diameter unless specifically compensated for. Also documented in that article. The Bike Tech Review guys specifically compensate for this in their calculations.


That's a little disingenuous.
Yes for solid wheels. But that is offset by contact patch shape / size in wheels with pneumatic tires.

Rolling drum test results I've seen show 29er tires slower than than equivalent 26" tires.I presume that is after they have compensated for wheel size? If not then it's just a simple calculation to get the nett result. if they haven't compensated , then your right , it should favour the 29er especially when you take in to account rollover effect of the 29er if using equivalent width tires.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

pat6192 said:


> It seems Bike tests above are about tubetype tires.
> The rolling resistance is provided by the tread but also by the sides (?)
> Continental, Schwalbe and Hutchinson have tires in the three versions, tubetype, TLR and tubeless.
> Once again, does any have information about side effect on rolling resistance ?


Previous testing a few years ago showed about 1 watt lower ghetto tubeless on the drum with a Ra Ra 2.25. That's at that the tested speed, load and tire pressure.Don't know what tube they used .They did tests on tubes and there was about a 5 watt spread between latex and heavier AM butyl tube.


----------



## pat6192 (Mar 4, 2012)

If we take the results above:
Rocket Ron 26*2.1 evo 25,9 W
Rocket Ron 29*2.25 evo 26,4 W
Theorically the wider Rocket Ron should have less rolling resistance, so it appears with Schwalbe tires 29er have more resistance than 26. The difference is weak...


----------



## kimare (Oct 5, 2011)

I'm suprise when comparing the Michelin Wild Race'r and Michelin Wild Grip'r

The heavier AM Grip'r have lower rolling resitance than the XC Race'r. But the Race'r have better grip in turns, wouldn't it be more normal if the results where the other way around. AM tire with better grip and XC tire with lower rolling resistance?


----------



## Benuki (Feb 21, 2009)

I'm surprised by the big difference between between two tires I just compared back-to-back out on the trail: the Captain (39 watts) and the X-King (25 watts). While the X-King did seem to roll easier, it was only a little easier, and I stress LITTLE. I should stated that the Captain was 29x2.2 and the X-King was 29x2.4. That being said, the Captain seems to roll really easy to me, and I've read numerous reviews stating how good they roll considering the amount of grip they provide. Surely there are other parameters (the obvious one being contact surface) that's coming to play here that just can't be re-created in the lab. I dunno, I know this is all very debatable, but I just have a hard time believing these results are applicable to real world use. Or, maybe I'm just not very perceptive when it comes to rolling resistance.

bk


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

Rivet said:


> Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.


I think it is the other way around. The Euros have been focused on hysteresis for low rolling resistance for a long time. And that includes Michelin (French; using Silica) and Schwalbe with elastic base compound. They have the tradition, and they are the actual tire manufacturing companies with research resources - not a brand that contracts out manufacturing to a tire company.

Other companies are now bringing their focus on RR and we all benefit.

Regardless, as stated repeatedly in this thread, this is the best information we have right now and it is much better than Mountain Bike Action's stamp of hyperbole 

P


----------



## Mack-tiger (Feb 9, 2012)

Thats always the same!, it depends on who make the test, if do germans. then germasn tire will win.
Its simply

i think the only way to know what tire its best to you its to prove to many tires until you find the tire that fits well on your riding style.

And whats fit on you, may not fit on your friends.

Discussion about tires its like football, we will never agree!


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Rivet said:


> Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.


Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

Mack-tiger said:


> Thats always the same!, it depends on who make the test, if do germans. then germasn tire will win.
> Its simply


BS. Typical xenophobia.


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

gvs_nz said:


> Other mfgs have also done well. But the tires you may think are fast because of marketing misconception may not do so well. Learn from that. It's mostly about the casing technology not tread height or spacing.


Well that doesn't explain why German, Austrian and Swiss companies also win every other type of test they perform.


----------



## gvs_nz (Dec 13, 2009)

There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.

Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.

European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.
The fact that they even test tire speeds in their magazines must tell you something. It is useful info but, at the end of the day, it is only one factor in choosing a tire.

Their Freeride magazine had tires like Maxxis Ardent 2.6 , Specialized Clutch Sx win out over Rubber Queen and Big Betty 2.4 for overall freeride tires and maxxis minion F 2.5 and specialized Chunder and DH 2.3 win against Der Kaiser and Wicked Will.

It's an off shoot of BIke magazine so they do the same tests on Rolling resistance, cornering traction and puncture resistance.


----------



## Gman086 (Jul 4, 2004)

gvs_nz said:


> There's very few other tires they do test. Look at the price and availabilty of tires llike Maxxis in Europe.
> 
> Look at the depth of research that has gone in to the best road tires[European] that have been availalble for what seems like centuries.
> 
> ...


I remember seeing that. Don't have a link to it do you?

Thanks,

G


----------



## AllMountain4Me (Jun 21, 2012)

Any reviews yet on the new 2012 Bonty XR4 or Spesh Ground Control ?? Just bought one of each for my all mountain ride.


----------



## JeroenK (Oct 3, 2005)

gvs_nz said:


> European tires also traditionally have lighter casing construction and sketchy handling. That in part is due to local trail conditions and their road history. Their designs put empahisis on speed and grip from supple casings rather than throwing them in to corners and relying on huge shoulder blocks.


Yup, that's true and I would like to add that it's not just trail conditions, but also the typical style of riding.

But... it's not the whole of Europe though. For example, Germany seems to emphasise the physical endurance side of mountainbiking, while France is much more involved in the bike handling side.

I know this is a gross generalisation, but you get that when you try to pin down bike-cultural differences. What I observe at XC racing events is very clear to me. Again French and German XC events: On one hand 'At your own risk, walk or climb down if you have to', on the other hand 'Everybody has to be able to bike 99,9% of the course safely, or it'll be considered too dangerous and we'll get sued or won't get permissions for next year if someone gets into an accident'.

So what you end up with in Germany is lots of fireroad climbing/descending and the corresponding Schwalbe/Conti tires. In France: Techy, rocky singletrack and hey, everybody is on something beefier. Much more Hutchinson and Maxxis. Also the German brands, but the UST or snakeskin/protection varieties.

I do not think there is test bias based on patriotism. German made tires _are_ better at rolling _on a rotating solid drum_... I just wished they performed more tests like this one from a few years back, but with different brands: Mountain Bike Tyre Rolling Resitance - MtbOnline

To me, that is still the benchmark test for translating tire characteristics to real world application.


----------



## YT (Feb 23, 2009)

Any info on Maxxis Aspens or Specialiazed Sworks renegades


----------



## vonbonbon (Apr 11, 2012)

Thanks for posting this data. I can see clearly why all my mates pull away so easily from me on my high rollers. Well thats my excuse from now on


----------



## 3narf (Nov 21, 2012)

Thanks for these.

That's post 2!


----------



## xtoph (Sep 11, 2012)

Rivet said:


> Bike (German) magazine tests are a joke. For the last 10 years nearly every test they have performed was won by a German manufacturer, coincidence, I don't think so.


I agree. It's mostly driven by tire manufacturers.

************
xtoph - endorfin


----------



## Tally Ho (May 23, 2012)

A question. How can nobby nic's (RR.28.0 watt) possibly have a better rolling resistance (be faster rolling) than kendra small block 8's (RR 34.2 watt). Something seems amiss there.


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

Tally Ho said:


> A question. How can nobby nic's (RR.28.0 watt) possibly have a better rolling resistance (be faster rolling) than kendra small block 8's (RR 34.2 watt). Something seems amiss there.


I'm not 100% sure that Small Block 8's actually have more rolling resistance than Nobby Nics, but here's how it could be true:

*Rubber Compounds* The rolling resistance of a tire primarily is generated from the flexing of the rubber compounds in the tread and sidewall. When rubber flexes, some of that energy is stored (like in a spring) and is returned when it flexes back to its natural, 'unflexed' state. But some of that energy is transformed into heat, and is obviously not returned. Not all rubber compounds are created equally. Schwalbe uses a silica filler in their bicycle tire compounds, and silica compounds generally have less hysteresis than carbon black compounds. The polymer used in the compound also plays an important role in the compound's hysteresis and loss modulus.

*Tread Pattern* The tread pattern of a mountain bike tire also plays a role. Imagine a mountain bike tire with tall, widely spaced knobs. As the tire rolls, these knobs come into contact with the ground. They exert regions of high pressure onto the tire's casing, causing additional, localized flex. In addition, tall knobs can 'squirm' and flex as they come into contact with the ground. As explained above, additional flex equates to additional energy loss. The tire's high rate of speed means this is happening pretty fast, resulting in vibration (obviously more noticeable on hard surfaces). This vibration travels through the tire, rim, spokes, and hubs to the bicycle. If you can feel this vibration through the saddle, imagine how much energy is being wasted. Of course on soft surfaces, this is not so much of an issue.

Now the Nobby Nic obviously has a more aggressive tread pattern than the Small Block 8, so it has this going against it for rolling resistance on a smooth drum. But we know that the Nobby Nic uses a compound that I'm 99% sure has less hysteresis than Kenda's. We also know that the undertread thickness (i.e. the amount of rubber underneath the knobs and on top of the casing) of the Nobby Nic is less than the Small Block 8. So as the tire rolls, less rubber is being flexed. So theoretically, less rubber being flexed and a compound with lower hysteresis equates to less rolling resistance, all other things being equal.



bholwell said:


> [The Ikon] actually is faster than the CrossMark in real-world conditions. As I understand it, the rolling resistance testing is done on a smooth roller at a single pressure and a single load. Far from the best method to measure RR of mtb tires.
> 
> Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...


The above is why I question the validity of the magazine's data. I know for a fact that the DHF 26x2.35 has more rolling resistance than the Ikon 26x2.2. So I don't trust their data at all.

Another issue is that all testing was conducted on a smooth drum at a constant pressure. Do you ride on a completely smooth surface, and do you ride every tire at the same pressure? Neither do I. On a rocky, bumpy surface, a larger (wider) tire run at a lower pressure will be able to absorb the impacts better, and less energy will be transmitted to the bike and rider. On a very rocky, rooty trail a Racing Ralph 2.25 will be faster than a Furious Fred 1.9, even though the FF would have lower rolling resistance on a smooth drum test. And on a loose trail, an aggressive tread pattern is less of a hindrance than on a smooth, hard trail.

*Bottom line* Take the Bike Magazine's rolling resistance numbers with a huge grain of salt. Pick the tire that is right for the trail, right for _you_, and don't sweat a difference of 8 watts of questionable rolling resistance data.


----------



## Tjay (Oct 17, 2006)

Can we get a test on WTB Bronson 2.3 for 26"? Thanks!


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

bholwell said:


> bholwell said:
> 
> 
> > Have a look at the results: the Ikon tests nearly the same in RR as the Minion DHF 2.35, yet the Ikon uses much less rubber, the rubber compound used has less hysteresis, uses a higher tpi casing, and the knobs have a much lower profile. Doesn't take a tire engineer to conclude something is fishy...
> ...


German Bike mag have the
Ikon 2.2 at 32.9w
Minion 2.35 F/R at 35.9w/39.8w
which is a fair amount of difference (note that the google doc has been tampered with I have a pre-tampered PDF I'll attach)



bholwell said:


> Another issue is that all testing was conducted on a smooth drum at a constant pressure. Do you ride on a completely smooth surface, and do you ride every tire at the same pressure? Neither do I. On a rocky, bumpy surface, a larger (wider) tire run at a lower pressure will be able to absorb the impacts better, and less energy will be transmitted to the bike and rider. On a very rocky, rooty trail a Racing Ralph 2.25 will be faster than a Furious Fred 1.9, even though the FF would have lower rolling resistance on a smooth drum test. And on a loose trail, an aggressive tread pattern is less of a hindrance than on a smooth, hard trail.
> 
> *Bottom line* Take the Bike Magazine's rolling resistance numbers with a huge grain of salt. Pick the tire that is right for the trail, right for _you_, and don't sweat a difference of 8 watts of questionable rolling resistance data.


I appreciate your thorough thoughts on the topic, but have to counter that outside of these tests, consumers have no information on RR outside of fads, hearsay and bike media hyperbole. So as flawed as these tests may be they still provide some quality insight for us.

I'll also say they they are at least trying to create an environment that isolates RR into a metric and is repeatable. Neither is possible to to match our individual riding conditions, styles, pressures, etc.

In their articles I do believe that they state bigger tires and lower pressures roll better on rough terrain, they even split the categories so your type of riding tires (XC/AM/DH) should not be compared to the other categories (don't compare XC RR to AM RR as it is unrealistic) I believe they also state that a drum is not the real world. (it's been a while) Copy & paste multiple article text into Google translator to read.

So until we get better data, this is all we've got and my experience with a good rolling tire vs a poor rolling tire has been the difference between coasting on the flats (even light downhills) vs pedaling. So I find RR to be pretty significant.

But I do think your assertion is a good one: Pick the best tire for you, your riding style, your terrain.

And I'll accept the +/- 8 watt error range.

P


----------



## Salespunk (Sep 15, 2005)

Any updates on the list?


----------



## Techspec360 (Jun 21, 2011)

An updated list would be really cool......did some web searching but couldn't come up with anything.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

Personally, I find those tests rather meaningless. However, those are the most recent ones. Depending on your German skills you may want to run them through google translate.

Testbericht über 23 Fahrradreifen verschiedener Dimensionen und Hersteller in MountainBIKE 3/2014

Testbericht über 11 Fahrradreifen für unterschiedliche Einsatzbereiche in bike 10/2013

Testbericht über Fahrradreifen in bike 1/2014


----------



## sundace (Jan 22, 2009)

does the magazine have the rolling resistance (watt) of the 2.4 trail king (rubber queen)?


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Some new stuff, which might go well to this thread:
Mountain Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

grumpy old biker said:


> Some new stuff, which might go well to this thread:
> Mountain Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews


very interesting read. I like his layout. It's easy to compare.

He still does not have too many mtb tires, but getting there.


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

love to see some renegades and fastrak


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Some thoughts on rolling resistance from our recent XC tire test:

Pacific Northwest Summer 2015 XC Tire Comparison Test: X-King, Rocket Ron, Ardent, Neo-moto, Hans Dampf & Nobby Nic ? DIRT MERCHANT BIKES

For the rear tire, the factor that was most important to testers was "usable" rolling resistance which I will define. "Usable" rolling resistance was a balance of good rolling resistance with sufficient climbing traction. A good example of how this factor came into play was the climbing performance of the X-King. The X-King was perceived overall as the fastest rolling rear tire, but had a tendency to lose climbing traction on rocks and loose dirt even on the moderate grades of the trails used in this comparison test. The Rocket Ron, in contrast, rolled almost as quickly as the X-King but had unshakeable climbing traction on par with the more aggressive and slower rolling Nobby Nic. Though the X-King was clearly the faster rolling tire, the Rocket Ron's split times for the uphill segment were only slightly slower than the X-King (and statistically equivalent as the difference was within the statistical margin of error).


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Spectre said:


> Some thoughts on rolling resistance from our recent XC tire test:
> 
> Pacific Northwest Summer 2015 XC Tire Comparison Test: X-King, Rocket Ron, Ardent, Neo-moto, Hans Dampf & Nobby Nic ? DIRT MERCHANT BIKES
> 
> For the rear tire, the factor that was most important to testers was "usable" rolling resistance which I will define. "Usable" rolling resistance was a balance of good rolling resistance with sufficient climbing traction. A good example of how this factor came into play was the climbing performance of the X-King. The X-King was perceived overall as the fastest rolling rear tire, but had a tendency to lose climbing traction on rocks and loose dirt even on the moderate grades of the trails used in this comparison test. The Rocket Ron, in contrast, rolled almost as quickly as the X-King but had unshakeable climbing traction on par with the more aggressive and slower rolling Nobby Nic. Though the X-King was clearly the faster rolling tire, the Rocket Ron's split times for the uphill segment were only slightly slower than the X-King (and statistically equivalent as the difference was within the statistical margin of error).


Thank you, it is very interesting read even point of view / use of tire is quite different from my use, report has enough information to adjust information to my specific situation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2015)

Spectre said:


> For the rear tire, the factor that was most important to testers was "usable" rolling resistance which I will define.


It's hard not appreciate the effort you make in producing these subjective tire tests, not to mention the tireless efforts you make in promoting your website here, but you need to stop advancing the idea that you are quantifying your results objectively and by NOT coining terms like "usable rolling resistance" as though you're providing some fundamental metric.

Rolling resistance is never "usable" anyway so the term is embarrassing, and by using it you are suggesting that rolling resistance is exclusively a rear wheel concern, which it is not, and that it is a dominant one which is not always so.

A rear tire can have "good" climbing traction and "good" rolling resistance or be bad at both. A rider may care a great deal about rolling resistance but not place a high priority on climbing traction. Combining these two traits into a single metric makes no sense.

Both tires have rolling resistance; if you want a fast rolling bike you need to pay attention to both ends. The rear matters _more_ but both ends matter.


----------



## J. Random Psycho (Apr 20, 2008)

My first thought was that by usable rolling resistance Spectre means the rolling resistance the tire has at usable (practical) air pressure. For off road that pressure is much lower than the ones that result in least rolling resistance as measured by the smooth drum test linked to above.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

If usable word is substituted with word tolerable, i think Spectre's thought in that sentence becomes more clear?


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Several responses:

1. I am not coining a new metric as you claim. Note that I do not have testers rate "usable" rolling resistance, but rather "climbing traction" and "rolling resistance" separately as you endorse.

2. I am proposing a new way of looking at rolling resistance instead of the perception of lower rolling resistance always being better.

3. Whether one tire is a faster climber than another tire can be tested scientifically taking into account all relevant factors, but I don't have the budget to do so. Getting proof that both rolling resistance and climbing traction are important in climbing speed requires a large data collection program of a large sample size of lap times (The same riders ride multiple tires on the same same with random assignment of testing order to eliminate 1st position or early position bias). If test riders consistently have a faster climbing speed on a given tire than on another tire AND enough data is collected for enough riders to have a big enough sample size to show a statistically significant difference, one tire IS faster than another in climbing taking both rolling resistance and climbing traction into account. I don't have the funds to do this level of testing so I present my findings as directional rather than as being supported by statistics.

4. I measured rolling resistance as a rear tire because it's much more difficult to gauge subjective rolling resistance for a front tire. You can always use the German magazines' measurements of rolling resistance. As with climbing grip for rear tires, cornering traction would matter for a front tire if you are going for the "fastest" tire for a given course rather than just the lowest rolling resistance tire.

4. I test with 4 other riders (that I do not know personally) to get a broader view on what riders like and don't like. I get what you are saying in that a rider with less power might not be able to break traction easily and might prefer a faster rolling tire, while other super strong riders might want something like a high grip High Roller to maintain enough climbing traction. That is why I don't even try to provide a measurement of "usable" rolling resistance or grip as that will vary by rider.

6. Within the scope of my funds, I am trying to provide useful evidence of what tires might be faster for our local conditions. Riders buy tires to get specific benefits such as being faster, being able to corner harder. I am looking to find out which tires best convey those benefits.

7. I have created the best testing methodology that I am able to create with my the level of knowledge that I have. If you look at just about any other magazine tire test, these "tests" are typically the feedback from one rider with no A/B testing component. *I welcome feedback on how to make these tests better. *As an example, I incorporated lap times into this edition of testing based on feedback that I received from my customer database. I added it in, looked to see if the data triangulated with the other data I collected, and decided to include the data because it did correlate with the other data collected.

8. My goal as a retailer is to make my customers' experience on a bike better with cost a secondary consideration. Most retailers are just "order takers" for whatever is the hot product of the day. Bike shops used to be the providers of expertise and knowledge and I am building up my business to do that. I want to get my customers to the best experience that they can have with mountain bikes as just as much enjoyment on their part in the buying process. These tire tests are just a part of doing this. I'm interested in sharing as a catalyst to get others' perspectives and to test my own assumptions so I do appreciate your feedback. Thank you.

My test does note: This is not intended to be a scientific test: Though this test includes quantitative data, the numerical data is intended only to help interpret rider feedback.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Exactly, I'm not looking to split hairs, but rather to cut to the chase on what tire might get you to the top of the climb fastest on average. General idea, however it might be phrased, is that climbing traction is also important for climbing speed in addition to rolling resistance. I'm too lazy to write that out multiple times so coined a phrase to describe that idea! I'm not proposing at all that this is rocket science!

BTW, just to spark more debate (LOL), I also coined a phrase "usable" traction to describe the combination of front tire traction/steering feel/predictability at the limit. You know, race car teams do tire optimization (pressures, compound, suspension geometry) with a human driver at the wheel because there are so many intangibles and compromises that go into what make a tire work well.

OK, I think I've run out of new phrases.


----------

