# 2017 XC Race Tire Thread



## superlightracer (Feb 11, 2004)

_*So what rubber will everyone be running this year? *_

I have run Racing Ralphs 2.0 -2.25 for the last decade. However I am making the switch to Maxxis Ikon's with the Evo casing this year. I found that Schwalbe's snakeskin just wasnt tough enough for some of the rocky sharp stuff I've been riding. Losing $100 tires to sidewall tears, sucks!

I am debating 2.2 Front and Rear, or even throwing a 2.35 in the front.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

2.35 Ikons front and rear will be my go to tires. In the wet I will either use a 2.25 ForeCaster.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

superlightracer said:


> _*So what rubber will everyone be running this year? *_
> 
> I have run Racing Ralphs 2.0 -2.25 for the last decade. However I am making the switch to Maxxis Ikon's with the Evo casing this year. I found that Schwalbe's snakeskin just wasnt tough enough for some of the rocky sharp stuff I've been riding. Losing $100 tires to sidewall tears, sucks!
> 
> I am debating 2.2 Front and Rear, or even throwing a 2.35 in the front.


Now not only will you be losing tires to rocks youll be slowing yourself down by about 15 watts minimum.

Also, who pays 100 for a tire? Ralphs are 45 all day to your door. Ikons are actually more!!!

My race setup for hardpack will be 2.35 xr2 front 2.2 raceking protection rear

For rougher stuff it will be 2.35 xr3 front 2.35 xr2 rear

I9ultralite 235 rear wheel
Duroc 40 front wheel

Carl Decker says go for volume over protection. Just something i heard him say and passing along. Hes ridden it all. 
Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

Ikon exo 2.2 front and rear for me.

Have tried bonti xr2's but found i had less cornering grip but the sidewall casing was nice. Also tried racing ralphs snakeskin but i too cut them much easier.

Where i race in australia it seems ikons dominate the fields. often 50% or more will be on them. Very rocky courses with some loose over hard. I'ts also worth noting ikons are about half the price of racing ralphs in australia.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Now not only will you be losing tires to rocks youll be slowing yourself down by about 15 watts minimum.
> 
> Also, who pays 100 for a tire? Ralphs are 45 all day to your door. Ikons are actually more!!!


Canadians do. Tires are expensive in Canada.

For years I use to say the Racing Ralph was the gold standard for XC tires. But more and more people are going away from them, they just don't offer the durability.

The incredibly capable bike we race nowadays put a lot of demands on tires. Tires that use to work well no longer cut it.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> Canadians do. Tires are expensive in Canada.
> 
> For years I use to say the Racing Ralph was the gold standard for XC tires. But more and more people are going away from them, they just don't offer the durability.


Im not advocating for RR im just saying wow a 100 no wonder you are wanting to stop wasting them. If they are 45 who cares if they rip now and then. I dont like them personally they are dull. The 2.35 RR snake rolls fast grips decent but it bounces like a basketball along the trail to me.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Currently SWorks Renegades 29x1.95 (actually measure 2.15 on 23mm internal rims) but looking at the new Kenda Saber Pro XC 29x2.2. They look good for my area (southern Cal)...light, hi vol, attractive tread pattern. Anyone have any info on these?

Kenda Tires | Bicycle | Saber Pro


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Do the 2.2 Ikons actually pump up to 2.2? I'm using some 2.25 Rocket Rons and they pump up to ~2.1 with 18F/21R.


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

Personally I've not measured mine, by just by eyeballing the ikon 2.2, xr2 2.2 and racing ralph 2.25 all look about the same on my rims. But my wheels are the first edition (2012) sram rise 60 wheelset that are only 19mm internal which rules me out from using 2.35 as they get squirmy.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

My 2.25 Racing Ralphs pump up to 2.3. Kinda disappointed when the RoRo's measured out to 2.1.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

superlightracer said:


> _*So what rubber will everyone be running this year? *_
> 
> I have run Racing Ralphs 2.0 -2.25 for the last decade. However I am making the switch to Maxxis Ikon's with the Evo casing this year. I found that Schwalbe's snakeskin just wasnt tough enough for some of the rocky sharp stuff I've been riding. Losing $100 tires to sidewall tears, sucks!
> 
> I am debating 2.2 Front and Rear, or even throwing a 2.35 in the front.


When Ikon EXOs were the great new thing a couple of years back, I took a brand new set to El Paso to race through the endlessly rocky, thorny Franklin mountains. They supposedly were as tough as Racing Ralph Snakeskins, but lighter. Unfortunately I cut a sidewall and didn't have much fun that day.

In the photo below I'm actually running Nevegals, but it gives you an idea of the harsh environment. I've gotten through this course fine with Racing Ralph Snakeskins. As mentioned, they are generally heavier in 2.2(5) than Ikon EXOs, which should lend some credence to my opinion that RR's are probably more durable, not less.


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

LMN said:


> 2.35 Ikons front and rear will be my go to tires. In the wet I will either use a 2.25 ForeCaster.


This is my plan, too. May I ask what rim width you'll be using with these two tires? 29er?


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I've raced (my definition of raced i.e. there for post ride beers), Ikon 2.35 (F) & Ardent Race 2.2 (R) both Exo.

The Ikon gave the width & enough grip w/ it's ok side lugs.

As a Clyde, AR 2.2 is as narrow as I'd want to go (it's a true 2.2 tire). OK rolling w/ good braking.

I've maintained AR 2.2 outback for race (aka beer) day. It's also my preferred mid summer rear tire.

After the Ikon 2.35 left, I used an AR 2.35 in Exo. I liked it up front, but not out back (go figure).

For up coming events I'll either use my Maxxis Forekaster 2.35 Exo -=or=- Bontrager XR4 2.4, up front. There's only a 1mm difference between these two tires.

i.e. they're both undersized, the XR4 more so...

Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

PlanB said:


> This is my plan, too. May I ask what rim width you'll be using with these two tires? 29er?


27.5 Stans Crest Rims.


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm still loving the volume of my 2.2 racekings. Wearing really well tread wise but sidewalks look really rough. Lots of cords showing. May try fastraks but I will gain a good amount of weight.


----------



## Timon (May 11, 2008)

2.35 ikons in Colorado and the SW have been my go-to's for awhile now. very few issues, particularly since going from stans to orangeseal.


----------



## Kili-Ti (Jan 2, 2017)

Check out the WTB trail boss, they are a very similar tread to the ralphs but i've found the grip and the casings to be better.

They carry a small weight penalty but there has to be a compromise somewhere.


----------



## hey_poolboy (Jul 16, 2012)

I've raced Ikon 2.35 front and 2.2 rear in the past. Last year i tried Fast track controls. they seemed to roll considerably faster and i like the way they corner better than the ikons. Can't really speak to durability because I haven't really had any issues with either one. I've cut sidewalls on both of them in some exceptionally sharp rocky sections where I can't really blame the tire. 

My confidence in the corners is much greater on the fast tracks than the ikons. It's been a while since I checked, but if i recall the ikons inflated to just under the stated dimensions quite on 23mm internal width rims.


----------



## mackdhagen (Jun 17, 2011)

just go a wheelset off of fleebay (stans race gold) and they came with a pair of Bonti Xr2's in 2.2. They are light and look like they'd be worth a try. My go to is RaRa's F and RoRo's R (2.25's) but might switch to RoRo's all the way around as i've heard the rolling resistance on the rons are better


----------



## Litemike (Sep 13, 2007)

2.25 Ralph SS - I tend to replace them often 3 sets per year, not due to wear but they seem to dry out. A new set seems soo sticky.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I had good luck the last couple of years with a Spec Ground Control 2.3 in front, I wore out my X-king 2.2 I had in the rear, and I went with a GC 2.3 rear (now on both ends), both Control casing, - they measure closer to 2.2. Not the fastest rolling or lightest I'm sure, but we get wet races early season (first race is in 10 days), and there's lots of roots. I'm considering a faster tire set for when it starts to dry out, but I don't like the idea of predicting the weather and changing tires 2 days before a race, so I'll probably just stick with these.


----------



## mackdhagen (Jun 17, 2011)

One thing to keep tires fresh does anyone use the black tire or wet tire? One guy here commented on how Schwables tend to dry out which I agree. Treating them now and the. Keeps em sticky.. I think. Anyone heard different?


----------



## Litemike (Sep 13, 2007)

mackdhagen said:


> One thing to keep tires fresh does anyone use the black tire or wet tire? One guy here commented on how Schwables tend to dry out which I agree. Treating them now and the. Keeps em sticky.. I think. Anyone heard different?


Interesting, from my automotive applications, however, I notice some of the product spins off- which I would worry about contaminating my discs / pads with?


----------



## superlightracer (Feb 11, 2004)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Now not only will you be losing tires to rocks youll be slowing yourself down by about 15 watts minimum.
> 
> Also, who pays 100 for a tire? Ralphs are 45 all day to your door. Ikons are actually more!!!


In Canadian dollars, and our brutal distribution system.. those tires come in at $80 at least...

Schwalbe snakeskins come across as fairly delicate compared to other reinforced tires IMO. The Ikons are better suited for some of the rougher terrain out west, a small weight/resistance penalty will be more than worth it on the chunky terrain and fast descents.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

They're $55CAD at Chain Reaction, and even cheaper at Bike24 (but no free shipping).


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

superlightracer said:


> In Canadian dollars, and our brutal distribution system.. those tires come in at $80 at least...
> 
> Schwalbe snakeskins come across as fairly delicate compared to other reinforced tires IMO. The Ikons are better suited for some of the rougher terrain out west, a small weight/resistance penalty will be more than worth it on the chunky terrain and fast descents.


Again, I disagree, having raced out West. A Racing Ralph 2.25 Snakeskin is considerably heavier than an Ikon EXO, so one can reasonably expect that it is more durable. And that has been my experience. If you prefer the lightness or tread pattern of an Ikon that's one thing, but you can't really say they're more durable.

View attachment 1119102


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Right now I have a 2.35 Ikon TR/3C up front and a 2.25 RaRa on the rear. This spring I'm going to take the 2.35 Ikon off and put on a new 2.3 Specialized Fast Trak 2bliss. I've tried the old 2.2 Fast Trak on the front and it grips better than it looks. I hope the same is true for the new 2.3 size. I'm happy with the 2.25 RaRa on the rear...it rolls fast and grips well for a rear tire.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

I'd love to try a 2.3ish Aspen EXO. Get on it, Maxxis


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Hoping they bring out those 2.25 Aspen protos Nino rode in Olympics soon!


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

RS VR6 said:


> Do the 2.2 Ikons actually pump up to 2.2? I'm using some 2.25 Rocket Rons and they pump up to ~2.1 with 18F/21R.


They do almost exactly on my 27.5 Nox Skylines (23mm internal), 25-28 psi.


----------



## 7daysaweek (May 7, 2008)

superlightracer said:


> _*So what rubber will everyone be running this year? *_
> 
> I have run Racing Ralphs 2.0 -2.25 for the last decade. However I am making the switch to Maxxis Ikon's with the Evo casing this year. I found that Schwalbe's snakeskin just wasnt tough enough for some of the rocky sharp stuff I've been riding. Losing $100 tires to sidewall tears, sucks!
> 
> I am debating 2.2 Front and Rear, or even throwing a 2.35 in the front.


Just recently bought a Trek that has XR1's on it. Haven't usually been a fan of Bontrager tires but initially I like them so I think I'll ride them til they need to be replaced.

Really like the Rocket Ron/Racing Ralph combo as well as Ikons. Actually tried an Aspen as a front tire for a while and really like that too so who knows.


----------



## twobigwheels (Nov 24, 2014)

2.35 Ikon made a huge difference in front end traction over 2.2 RaRa's for me.

Once I put the Ikon on the front and picked up corner speed,,, the 2.2 RaRa on the rear started sliding out


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

chomxxo said:


> A Racing Ralph 2.25 Snakeskin is considerably heavier than an Ikon EXO, so one can reasonably expect that it is more durable.


Claimed weight for a 29 2.25 racing ralph snakeskin is 630g
Claimed weight for a 29 2.2 ikon 3C/EXO/TR is 640G

Are you finding the schwalbles under reporting or is maxis overstating their weight?


----------



## Unbrockenchain (Aug 21, 2015)

From fast trak 2.2 grid f/r to a Vittoria Barzo 2.35 front and fast trak rear. Maybe put a saguaro 2.35 (if I can find one) on rear--Vittoria rubber seems real grippy


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

chestr said:


> Claimed weight for a 29 2.25 racing ralph snakeskin is 630g
> Claimed weight for a 29 2.2 ikon 3C/EXO/TR is 640G
> 
> Are you finding the schwalbles under reporting or is maxis overstating their weight?


The Ikon EXO 2.2 that I rode and punctured back in 2013 had a factory-claimed weight of 575g. Perhaps they've changed and toughened up their compound with the "TR" version. That said I've always had good races with Schwalbe Snakeskins. I've put them through some very tough terrain, including the rocks of West Texas and mountains of Pennsylvania.

I think it's the paper-thin EXO race version of Schwalbe's MTB tires that gives them a bad name in some racer's mind.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chestr said:


> Claimed weight for a 29 2.25 racing ralph snakeskin is 630g
> Claimed weight for a 29 2.2 ikon 3C/EXO/TR is 640G
> 
> Are you finding the schwalbles under reporting or is maxis overstating their weight?


At 2.35 its even more tilted in favor of RAra. Rara snakeskin 2.35 705 and ikon 2.35 740. The Bontrager xr2/3 2.35 is 690 and the biggest. The xking 2.4 protection is smaller and about 740 also. All these 29er.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> The Ikon EXO 2.2 that I rode and punctured back in 2013 had a factory-claimed weight of 575g. Perhaps they've changed and toughened up their compound with the "TR" version. That said I've always had good races with Schwalbe Snakeskins. I've put them through some very tough terrain, including the rocks of West Texas and mountains of Pennsylvania.
> 
> I think it's the paper-thin EXO race version of Schwalbe's MTB tires that gives them a bad name in some racer's mind.


Ikon's have definitely gone up in weight, and along with that the durability has increased dramatically.

It seems that racers at all levels are now biasing toward durability over weight.


----------



## darth tracer (Jan 13, 2004)

I have run the Vittoria Mezcal 2.25 all last season and just got another set. I ran them all over Northern California for endurance and shorter events. No flats all year, roll awesome, a little heavier but a true set it and forget it tire. It has worked well everywhere that I have ran it.


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

LMN said:


> 2.35 Ikons front and rear will be my go to tires. In the wet I will either use a 2.25 ForeCaster.


Will those clear the rear of an Oiz, (2.35 ikon that is) or you going with the HT?


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

briscoelab said:


> Will those clear the rear of an Oiz, (2.35 ikon that is) or you going with the HT?


Or is he planning to ride/race an Occam? Hmmm...

What's the plan LMN?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

brentos said:


> Or is he planning to ride/race an Occam? Hmmm...
> 
> What's the plan LMN?


Well.... the answer to that is both. It will really depend on the course as to which I choose.

My Oiz is 23lbs with 2.35 tires and a dropper, really hard to not race a bike that capable at that weight. My Occam does not have that light of a build on it. I could spend some money and get it down to that 24-25lb mark but it hard to dish out that cash when I already have a super light bike.

To answer about the Oiz, the new Boost rear end makes it easy to fit larger tires.


----------



## hammonjj (Jun 29, 2016)

superlightracer said:


> In Canadian dollars, and our brutal distribution system.. those tires come in at $80 at least...


Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "brutal distribution system"? I'm moving for a job outside of Vancouver in a few months and am trying to figure out how stuff works!


----------



## TheOger (Oct 12, 2012)

I´m done with RR:s...my new love since last year is Thunder Burt...they work fine until it´s "fertelizer weather" and you need to scoop mud...enter Spez Purgatory...if they don´t bite you need a paddle!


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

TheOger said:


> I´m done with RR:s...my new love since last year is Thunder Burt...they work fine until it´s "fertelizer weather" and you need to scoop mud...enter Spez Purgatory...if they don´t bite you need a paddle!


So, I'm transitioning to a new shop sponsor that's all-Specialized, but uh, the Rocket Ron is a pretty nice wet conditions tire too


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

Same as last year Bontrager XR2 Front/ XR1 Rear. Both 2.2 Team Issues. Lightish, nice volume and good grip. It doesn't hurt that they're always cheap on eBay too.


----------



## TheOger (Oct 12, 2012)

chomxxo said:


> So, I'm transitioning to a new shop sponsor that's all
> 
> Haven´t had a Rocket Ron´s for ages...have a fuzzy memory that the blocks were a tad soft?? Worked fine on soft/muddy soil but sucked on crags?


----------



## TheOger (Oct 12, 2012)

Has anyone got a opinion/tried Conti Speed King? Thoughts about them as a superdry/superpacked course comp tyre?


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

The new Rons are much better than the old soft knob ones. Shorter and stiffer.


----------



## bopApocalypse (Aug 27, 2005)

After going through 4 Race Kings last year (one cut pretty bad on a square edge, one casing 'failed' [big wobble in the inflated tire] in a crash), I'm trying to decide which direction to go for this year...

Two of the choices are Specialized - Renegade and Fast Trak. I ran the Fast Trak (Control casing, when it existed) 2 years ago and was reasonably happy with it, although the sidewalls wore faster than I'd like. Little bit of chatter I've heard has said that the new-for-2016 compounds and tread patterns are an improvement, but that the casings have gotten smaller, with the '2.3' measuring out a bit smaller than that. Maybe less an issue for the Fast Trak that was only a 2.25 before, but I _was_ leaning towards the 'big' Renegade.

Third option would be Ikon - (not counting the one wire-bead one I won in a raffle that has done ~5 miles on the front of my SS) never ran 'em, but they're obviously popular. Seems like they'd fall somewhere in between the Renegade and Fast Trak as far as tread depth/aggressiveness etc - not that the Fast Trak is a particularly deep treaded tire.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

bopApocalypse said:


> After going through 4 Race Kings last year (one cut pretty bad on a square edge, one casing 'failed' [big wobble in the inflated tire] in a crash), I'm trying to decide which direction to go for this year...
> 
> Two of the choices are Specialized - Renegade and Fast Trak. I ran the Fast Trak (Control casing, when it existed) 2 years ago and was reasonably happy with it, although the sidewalls wore faster than I'd like. Little bit of chatter I've heard has said that the new-for-2016 compounds and tread patterns are an improvement, but that the casings have gotten smaller, with the '2.3' measuring out a bit smaller than that. Maybe less an issue for the Fast Trak that was only a 2.25 before, but I _was_ leaning towards the 'big' Renegade.
> 
> Third option would be Ikon - (not counting the one wire-bead one I won in a raffle that has done ~5 miles on the front of my SS) never ran 'em, but they're obviously popular. Seems like they'd fall somewhere in between the Renegade and Fast Trak as far as tread depth/aggressiveness etc - not that the Fast Trak is a particularly deep treaded tire.


As a fellow race king rider. Dont you dare even think about those tires you mentioned. No. No. Those are SSLOWWW tires.

Bontrager xr2. Heck even a xking is better than those and faster. Youre going to feel like the brake is on with them tires after race kings.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> As a fellow race king rider. Dont you dare even think about those tires you mentioned. No. No. Those are SSLOWWW tires.
> 
> Bontrager xr2. Heck even a xking is better than those and faster. Youre going to feel like the brake is on with them tires after race kings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I think the Silver medalist in the Olympics was running Specialized Renegades while the Bronze medalist was running Ikons. We all know the Gold medalist was riding Aspens. I'm not sure you can say the Renegades and Ikons are slow. A steel drum rolling resistance test doesn't mean much when racing in the dirt.


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> As a fellow race king rider. Dont you dare even think about those tires you mentioned. No. No. Those are SSLOWWW tires.
> 
> Bontrager xr2. Heck even a xking is better than those and faster. Youre going to feel like the brake is on with them tires after race kings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


The Renegade is not a slow tire. I felt the Race kings were a tad faster and offer a nice boost in volume. but hardly a "slow tire" I dont know about Ikons but they seem to be popular and many races are won on them.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

hammonjj said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "brutal distribution system"? I'm moving for a job outside of Vancouver in a few months and am trying to figure out how stuff works!


All the bike shops in Canada rely on 3 main suppliers for all their parts & accessories, I'd guess that 90% if not more of all bike parts go through one of the big 3. Which means prices are on the high side and availability can be questionable at times. And if you mail order the goods from CRC or some other online outfit, shipping costs are often high and Canada Customs is getting increasingly efficient at collecting duties & taxes. Plus the exchange rates suck. In short, be prepared to have your wallet emptied.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

machine4321 said:


> The Renegade is not a slow tire. I felt the Race kings were a tad faster and offer a nice boost in volume. but hardly a "slow tire" I dont know about Ikons but they seem to be popular and many races are won on them.


The Renegades are not even close to the Race King. Yes a renegade is faster than an ikon and probably even a xr1,2. However how it achieves that speed is totally different. The Race King uses diamond knobs and the Renegade uses ramped knobs. Ramped knobs sacrifice everything for speed. The Race King is amazing in the wet and dry. The renegade is a brown pavement tire.

Were the racekings being complained about protection? Or racesport. RS is a waste of time. Youll see the cords after a couple rides .

A steel drum test isnt the only factor but its a baseline. Raceking and Thunderburt, then RoRo,RaRa,Xking,Nobby Nic....then after tires like Hans Dampf, Mountain King etc, you get to the Fast trak and ikon. Sssssllooowwww. The renegade is medium fast. Nowhere near a race king.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Stonerider said:


> I think the Silver medalist in the Olympics was running Specialized Renegades while the Bronze medalist was running Ikons. We all know the Gold medalist was riding Aspens. I'm not sure you can say the Renegades and Ikons are slow. A steel drum rolling resistance test doesn't mean much when racing in the dirt.


And next youll tell me they got paid to use certain tires and they are pros. Ask Sagan about them Spesh tires. LITERALLY, they stopped making sworks after the olympic debacle

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> As a fellow race king rider. Dont you dare even think about those tires you mentioned. No. No. Those are SSLOWWW tires.
> 
> Bontrager xr2. Heck even a xking is better than those and faster. Youre going to feel like the brake is on with them tires after race kings.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I have trying to not interject on your Maxxis rant but I can't help myself.

Riders who are sponsored by other companies, like Bontrager, Schwalby, Conti, ect.. often buy Maxxis tires scratch out the labeling and race them.

Just pause and think about what you are saying for a bit. If Maxxis tire were as slow and as crappy as you claim then anybody racing them would be at a significant disadvantage. Enough of a disadvantage that winning on the world stage would be nearly impossible. Clearly this is not the case.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> I have trying to not interject on your Maxxis rant but I can't help myself.
> 
> Riders who are sponsored by other companies, like Bontrager, Schwalby, Conti, ect.. often buy Maxxis tires scratch out the labeling and race them.
> 
> Just pause and think about what you are saying for a bit. If Maxxis tire were as slow and as crappy as you claim then anybody racing them would be at a significant disadvantage. Enough of a disadvantage that winning on the world stage would be nearly impossible. Clearly this is not the case.


I cant argue with you cause you live it. They are heavier, slower, and a lower quality rubber than Scwalbe and Conti. I guess that is irrelevant when it comes to results in the real world. I never said they dont get results. I said they are heavier, slower, and a lower quality rubber. Results are much more than tires.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

In my experience Race Kings/X-Kings "work great on paper" but are pretty much useless on my rocky/hardpack trails. The steel drum tests yield promising results and the dimensions (high volume!) sound great, but even the Protection casings look completely horrible after a few rides. The threads get exposed so easily. Almost like they're defective. Which wouldn't be at all surprising, actually. Didn't Continental halt MTB tire production about six years ago? Something about getting production quality under control and returning to Germany? Maybe I'm remembering this wrong. Either way, I no longer even consider their tires.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

PlanB said:


> In my experience Race Kings/X-Kings "work great on paper" but are pretty much useless on my rocky/hardpack trails. The steel drum tests yield promising results and the dimensions (high volume!) sound great, but even the Protection casings look completely horrible after a few rides. The threads get exposed so easily. Almost like they're defective. Which wouldn't be at all surprising, actually. Didn't Continental halt MTB tire production about six years ago? Something about getting production quality under control and returning to Germany? Maybe I'm remembering this wrong. Either way, I no longer even consider their tires.


Which is why i now use bonty xr. I have at least 25 tires in a pile. Every tire mentioned. Its Bonty all day, maybe a race king on the back on a dry fast trail. They have the best sidewall comfort and durability ive found. My trails are easy.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Oops meant to pm that


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

Tufo XC4, tubeless tubular. No real advantage to a good clincher set up tubeless (some disadvantages llike a lack of variety in tread choices) but I already have a nice set of carbon tubular wheels.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Which is why i now use bonty xr. I have at least 25 tires in a pile. Every tire mentioned. Its Bonty all day, maybe a race king on the back on a dry fast trail. They have the best sidewall comfort and durability ive found. My trails are easy.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Your trails are easy but you shred a set of Continental Race King Race Sports in a couple of rides? Doesn't add up...


----------



## Litemike (Sep 13, 2007)

New Bonty? They changed everything last year. I hove found the prior to 2016 Bonties to be the easiest tubeless to set up on DT SWISS rims. Wear is also outstanding. I have not used the new vendor yet, they look much softer. This would be on my two sons Treks, they are set up as factory ht 9.8's


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

The guy in Detroit sounds like the same guy that does that rolling resistance test website. I'd rather listen to a bunch of real-world anecdotes from successful racers than some pseudo-scientific results from some clown with an ax to grind. Nobby Nic faster than an Ikon? Not on real trails... RaRa more puncture-proof than an EXO Ardent Race? Not in my world...


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

MessagefromTate said:


> Your trails are easy but you shred a set of Continental Race King Race Sports in a couple of rides? Doesn't add up...


Youve obviously never used a race king racesport. A few rides on my front yard grass would make the threads show. I also never said ive "shredded" a race king. I said it shows the cords after a few rides. Ill post a picture of a racesport and a protection th exact same miles in a few minutes.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> The guy in Detroit sounds like the same guy that does that rolling resistance test website. I'd rather listen to a bunch of real-world anecdotes from successful racers than some pseudo-scientific results from some clown with an ax to grind. Nobby Nic faster than an Ikon? Not on real trails... RaRa more puncture-proof than an EXO Ardent Race? Not in my world...


Ya, we dont have real trails. Just fake ones. I can see the benefit of using E rated truck tires in harsh environments. This is xc racing. Most races arent harsh. So give me the fastest rolling most comfortable tire i can with just enough grip to not crash. Now remember we dont have rocks to deal with so i dont need to worry about that. A Nobby Nic is faster in the rough conditions than a Ikon. All day. In a straight line on smoothed out singketrack maybe not. In "real trails" its faster. Its also lighter and better puncture proof.

I will never change my opinion on maxxis. I know their story.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

MessagefromTate said:


> Tufo XC4, tubeless tubular. No real advantage to a good clincher set up tubeless (some disadvantages llike a lack of variety in tread choices) but I already have a nice set of carbon tubular wheels.


Quite a while I had a couple of sets of Dugast Tubular with a variety of Maxxis tread glued on them. There were some stuff they did well but I found that overall they were no where as good as a standard tubeless set-up. And they were ridiculously fragile.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

MessagefromTate said:


> Your trails are easy but you shred a set of Continental Race King Race Sports in a couple of rides? Doesn't add up...


Here you go big mouth. Raceking racesport with the nubbies still on them. Compared to a protection with a few hundred more miles by now.










Heres my current tire pile which is down about 20 tires ive moved on. Ive tried them all.










And yes i know all about renegades. They are okay fast not blazing. Heres whats on my bike currently.










I study tires.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

Didn't know you've ridden the new gription compound fast traks and renegades. 

Ikon do measure slow in RR tests... on a steel drum. But they seem to be able to win world cups just fine. So what do I know! 

I like Racing Ralphs. 

Race kings are great though, but they as so thin in the Race Sport version and always proved hard to seal tubeless. The protection is actually a decent tire and not too heavy.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

Wow, I would have never guessed given the weight difference between the Race Sport and the Protection series that they were using a thinner layer over the reinforcement (rolling eyes), have you had a failure on the sidewall due to that? I haven't and I used those tires for years when I used clinchers. I even used the World Cup casing on 26" (replaced the Supersonic several years ago and was even lighter than the Race Sport) and still no issues. The Protection series is a tubelss ready casing whereas the Race Sport is a standard clincher. Big surprise that one has more rubber and a different bead shape as well, the key is whether the lighter tire is exhibiting a much higher rate of failure to warrant going to the thicker casing. It's not magic, more material yields more durability generally.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

MessagefromTate said:


> Wow, I would have never guessed given the weight difference between the Race Sport and the Protection series that they were using a thinner layer over the reinforcement (rolling eyes), have you had a failure on the sidewall due to that? I haven't and I used those tires for years when I used clinchers. I even used the World Cup casing on 26" (replaced the Supersonic several years ago and was even lighter than the Race Sport) and still no issues. The Protection series is a tubelss ready casing whereas the Race Sport is a standard clincher. Big surprise that one has more rubber and a different bead shape as well, the key is whether the lighter tire is exhibiting a much higher rate of failure to warrant going to the thicker casing. It's not magic, more material yields more durability generally.


Youre literally the only person including Julien Absalon who ive heard talk good about a racesport raceking. If it works use it. Ride on.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Youre literally the only person including Julien Absalon who ive heard talk good about a racesport raceking. If it works use it. Ride on.
> 
> Sent from my SM
> 
> ...


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Youre literally the only person including Julien Absalon who ive heard talk good about a racesport raceking. If it works use it. Ride on.
> 
> Sent from my SM
> 
> So Julien Absalon gave you direct feedback on his tire choices? The only time I really give credence to a sponsored pro selection on equipement is when they deviate from their sponsorship. That signals an issue.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

MessagefromTate said:


> LaneDetroitCity said:
> 
> 
> > Youre literally the only person including Julien Absalon who ive heard talk good about a racesport raceking. If it works use it. Ride on.
> ...


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

LMN said:


> Quite a while I had a couple of sets of Dugast Tubular with a variety of Maxxis tread glued on them. There were some stuff they did well but I found that overall they were no where as good as a standard tubeless set-up. And they were ridiculously fragile.


I've not had issues with the Tufo being fragile but I would agree no real advantage at all, not even on pressure (maybe 1-2 psi lower than a climcher, maybe...). I'm surprised Nino stuck with them as long as he did-maybe Layne will ask him why he did next time he speaks with him. In hindsight I wish I had bought carbon clinchers instead.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

MessagefromTate said:


> I've not had issues with the Tufo being fragile but I would agree no real advantage at all, not even on pressure (maybe 1-2 psi lower than a climcher, maybe...). I'm surprised Nino stuck with them as long as he did-maybe Layne will ask him why he did next time he speaks with him. In hindsight I wish I had bought carbon clinchers instead.


A local guy uses them, he was in the lead group at lumberjack last year and the valve messed up or something silly. I always ask him why but he says the ride comfort is better. Then when i asked about using them i was told how dumb an idea it is with 1300 gram wheelsets and 500gm tubeless tires.

I only ride with Nino im not allowed to ask questions.  
Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## slowride454 (Jan 11, 2014)

A point of reference. I do most of my training on a rigid SS. The stock wheelset is setup with tubeless 2.3 RaRas. My other wheelset is heavier and wider. It is setup with a Bonty Chupacabra 29x3.0 in front and a 29x2.35 XR2 Team Issue in back with tubes. I am faster on the much heavier Bonty setup everywhere. Rolling resistance is noticeably better and cornering traction is much better. Really the only thing I don't like about the XR2 in back is braking performance. I run XR2 F/R on my full suspension rig and it has the same braking issues, for me anyway. I think it is the square knobs. Actually the best rear braking tire I've used was a Kenda Slant 6 2.2 but it didn't corner all that well. I'm a slowish Clyde though. The slowest tires I've used are my trusty old wire bead Conti Trail King 2.4s they have lasted for forever and have tons of traction, but feel like I threw an anchor out behind me.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

slowride454 said:


> A point of reference. I do most of my training on a rigid SS. The stock wheelset is setup with tubeless 2.3 RaRas. My other wheelset is heavier and wider. It is setup with a Bonty Chupacabra 29x3.0 in front and a 29x2.35 XR2 Team Issue in back with tubes. I am faster on the much heavier Bonty setup everywhere. Rolling resistance is noticeably better and cornering traction is much better. Really the only thing I don't like about the XR2 in back is braking performance. I run XR2 F/R on my full suspension rig and it has the same braking issues, for me anyway. I think it is the square knobs. Actually the best rear braking tire I've used was a Kenda Slant 6 2.2 but it didn't corner all that well. I'm a slowish Clyde though. The slowest tires I've used are my trusty old wire bead Conti Trail King 2.4s they have lasted for forever and have tons of traction, but feel like I threw an anchor out behind me.


Good info. Thats my planned SS race tire setup. Chupa/xr2. Tubeless on i9 305 enduro front and 235 ultralite rear. As far as braking traction thats good info also because i hate to tap the brakes and get nothing. Then have to touch them harder and its trying to break loose.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

PlanB said:


> In my experience Race Kings/X-Kings The threads get exposed so easily. Almost like they're defective. Which wouldn't be at all surprising, actually. Didn't Continental halt MTB tire production about six years ago? Something about getting production quality under control and returning to Germany? Maybe I'm remembering this wrong. Either way, I no longer even consider their tires.


Yeah they've been saying made in Germany on them for a while now. A lot of riders seem to talk about the casing showing through the sidewall, and seem concerned but it really doesn't matter. I've been riding race kings and x-kings for years (since before they had race sport, just supersonic) and yeah, they show the nylon or whatever but apart from appearance I can't see any real negative effect to it. I think they just put the rubber on very thin at the exterior sidewall to save weight. They are light tires.

The main problem I've had with the x-kings is that they wear out quickly. They still appear to have a bunch of tread but once that siping starts to go the grip is reduced by a bunch. 6 months maximum life is what I give them. Then again, if you order them online you can get them super cheap ($35 each), so even replacing them twice as often it's basically the same cost.

Supersonics were the old lightweight tires. Race sport replaced them and they weigh slightly more or the same (depends tire to tire, the difference is small) but the tire seals better/easier. The protection is as far as I can tell just a reinforced race sport. I can clearly feel that the protection is stiffer when riding. I couldn't tell a difference between the supersonic and race sport when riding.

I use race sport because here in so-cal we don't really have a lot of sharp rocks. I probably get a flat once a year from either bottoming the tire really bad (rim cuts the tire near the bead) or on vacation riding through crazy shale gardens of doom. Even then, I've ridden through miles of pointy, pokey, sharp little rocks and been ok. Just keep fingers crossed  I do know people who have warped the casing of a race sport just by braking really hard/landing awkward and thus ruined the tire. I am a lighter rider though so I get away with that stuff so I use it to my advantage. Not everyone is a 200lb gorilla who only rides off 10' drops onto cacti and knives.

I have been trying to find a better tire though, I bought some Maxxis Ardent Race that I need to test out next.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> The Renegades are not even close to the Race King. Yes a renegade is faster than an ikon and probably even a xr1,2. However how it achieves that speed is totally different. The Race King uses diamond knobs and the Renegade uses ramped knobs. Ramped knobs sacrifice everything for speed. The Race King is amazing in the wet and dry. The renegade is a brown pavement tire.
> 
> Were the racekings being complained about protection? Or racesport. RS is a waste of time. Youll see the cords after a couple rides .
> 
> ...


Not that I'm any xc pro, But I'm a Schwalbe nut, the HD rolls better the the NoNi in the back (and bot feel like tacky drag mats honestly), but a heavy FR Muddy or MagicMary is way better then the NoNi or HD. Just sayin.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Results of tires have more to do with sponsorships, although Neff has had top results on Schwalbe. LMN mentioned a while back a team study on tires being done and how it contributed to Schurter switching from 2.1 tubulars to 2.2 prototype Aspens. The scientific drum tests and these studies are showing that semi-slicks such as Thunder Burt and Aspen are faster, even though Ikons and Ralphs are more popular. And some knobby tires like Rocket Ron and Nobby Nic are fast even though they don't appear to be. I'll take good scientific testing over big sponsor budgets and racers' subjective opinions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

For what it's worth, this is a link to our XC tire comparison test conducted in loose dry conditions that included 2.25 Rocket Rons and X-kings: https://www.dirtmerchantbikes.com/s...northwest-summer-2015-xc-tire-comparison-test

Our usual focus is more on trail riding so most of the tires mentioned in this thread are lighter and faster rolling than our usual range of tires.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Spectre said:


> For what it's worth, this is a link to our XC tire comparison test conducted in loose dry conditions that included 2.25 Rocket Rons and X-kings: https://www.dirtmerchantbikes.com/s...northwest-summer-2015-xc-tire-comparison-test
> 
> Our usual focus is more on trail riding so most of the tires mentioned in this thread are lighter and faster rolling than our usual range of tires.


Awesome to see. A NN front would have been a contender with the RR. On the drum it would be RR,XK,NN,Ardent in order.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Results of tires have more to do with sponsorships, although Neff has had top results on Schwalbe. LMN mentioned a while back a team study on tires being done and how it contributed to Schurter switching from 2.1 tubulars to 2.2 prototype Aspens. The scientific drum tests and these studies are showing that semi-slicks such as Thunder Burt and Aspen are faster, even though Ikons and Ralphs are more popular. And some knobby tires like Rocket Ron and Nobby Nic are fast even though they don't appear to be. I'll take good scientific testing over big sponsor budgets and racers' subjective opinions.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The rocket ron rolls faster at trail pressures than a racing Ralph. Tell a group of riders that at the trailhead and watch them tell you how dumb you are lol. I guess ignorance is bliss.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

I have no reason to not use my race kings. Im hard on them, yea they show threads pretty quick but hasnt been an issue. Id be fine if they had a slightly thicker sidewall while not having to go to the protection as I find them a bit to stiff and lifeless. I live in a rocky area and I have yeat to tear any sidewalls on my race kings or sworks tires.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> The rocket ron rolls faster at trail pressures than a racing Ralph. Tell a group of riders that at the trailhead and watch them tell you how dumb you are lol. I guess ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Tell a group of trail riders that your gonna ride all day on a pair of 1.9 either and watch the laughs fly, just sayin 😉


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

mattyice said:


> Tell a group of trail riders that your gonna ride all day on a pair of 1.9 either and watch the laughs fly, just sayin 😉


I usually just show up and ride my 1.8s. Then they start asking me if im crazy. I rode 1.8s in the snow for 3hrs on a trail the other day. I was out climbing a elite rider on his fatbike. Hee haw

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I usually just show up and ride my 1.8s. Then they start asking me if im crazy. I rode 1.8s in the snow for 3hrs on a trail the other day. I was out climbing a elite rider on his fatbike. Hee haw
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I'm not taking a dig, the fastest kid in our crew rides 1.8 Tioga's on a SS kameleon. I think, yes the science applies to WC riders, where there's a lot of equalizers, similar body styles, same athletic training, same bike setups, but for the rest of us you may find that yes at 6'6" 250 tires will react differently on your bike then someone that's 5'8" 145. Different strokes for different folks in the real world.

And I'm with ya, I rock 2.3's all year round and I'm not scared to show someone up on a fatty


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I will never change my opinion on maxxis. I know their story.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Do tell...


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

mattyice said:


> I'm not taking a dig, the fastest kid in our crew rides 1.8 Tioga's on a SS kameleon. I think, yes the science applies to WC riders, where there's a lot of equalizers, similar body styles, same athletic training, same bike setups, but for the rest of us you may find that yes at 6'6" 250 tires will react differently on your bike then someone that's 5'8" 145. Different strokes for different folks in the real world.
> 
> And I'm with ya, I rock 2.3's all year round and I'm not scared to show someone up on a fatty


The reason Maxxis is so popular is both fanboys and also they are for sure a durable tire. I only complain about Maxxis XC tires in the XC thread. Their trail tires are amazing. They make E rated truck tires and the pros are riding at speeds on insane courses. I race XC. We barely have a root or rock at any race in Michigan. Why would i want heavy slow durable tires to try and go 16mph for 2.5 hours on cement hard sand. The funniest part are the Ikon amd the Ardent arent even tires Maxxis considers XC race tires. They are more like aggresive XC style tires. Style not race. Its like the people who drive around in a lifted jeep on 38 mud wranglers and the jeep has never left the cement. Some cooper at3 do just as good. 


mattyice said:


> I'm not taking a dig, the fastest kid in our crew rides 1.8 Tioga's on a SS kameleon. I think, yes the science applies to WC riders, where there's a lot of equalizers, similar body styles, same athletic training, same bike setups, but for the rest of us you may find that yes at 6'6" 250 tires will react differently on your bike then someone that's 5'8" 145. Different strokes for different folks in the real world.
> 
> And I'm with ya, I rock 2.3's all year round and I'm not scared to show someone up on a fatty


Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> Do tell...


Search my posts. Its all there. China, low quality, etc. XC tires. Ya in pisgah going 6mph all day ill ride and ardent. Xc race? Come on now. I like to roll fast. You can sacrifice grip if you carry more speed into the hills youll roll farther up them before laying the watts

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Search my posts. Its all there. China, low quality, etc. XC tires. Ya in pisgah going 6mph all day ill ride and ardent. Xc race? Come on now. I like to roll fast. You can sacrifice grip if you carry more speed into the hills youll roll farther up them before laying the watts
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


And here's the difference between a purpose built xc course and your local race, ride the tires that fit the terrain. I wish I could get away with riding something light like a RaRA or a RoRo, but in NE, it's thick and fat for 6-7mph slogs 8 if you're a beast. You cannot sacrifice grip and durability because won't finish a casual ride, let alone a race out here on anything insubstantial.


----------



## sgtrobo (Aug 19, 2014)

2.2" Spec FastTrak in the rear, 2.3" Ground Controls up front, on a set of Crest MK3s


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I usually just show up and ride my 1.8s. Then they start asking me if im crazy. I rode 1.8s in the snow for 3hrs on a trail the other day. I was out climbing a elite rider on his fatbike. Hee haw
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


 i like to show up with my worn our Race King 2.2 up front and bald XR1 2.2 out back and fly. That wheelset is used for gravel/pavement but interestingly stick rock on the trail.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

After rolling Racing Ralph all last year as a Front and some of the year as a rear... I'm ditching the front one for an X-King. Just not a fan of the Ralph and I prefered the Ground Control i had in the rear over it before i slashed the sidewall. 

I had a set of Rocket Rons (oem wirebead) and thought they were great albiet slow rolling in some situations. Also terrible as a front in snow. 

Also loved Race Kings... like them a lot better than Ralphs. 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Search my posts. Its all there. China, low quality, etc. XC tires. Ya in pisgah going 6mph all day ill ride and ardent. Xc race? Come on now. I like to roll fast. You can sacrifice grip if you carry more speed into the hills youll roll farther up them before laying the watts
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


"The Ikon is for true racers looking for a true lightweight race tire."

Lifted straight from Maxxis' website. And in your next post you say "China, low quality, blah blah" but earlier rave about their trail tires. So their XC tires are low quality but their "trail" tires are the bomb? You're losing the argument.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> "The Ikon is for true racers looking for a true lightweight race tire."
> 
> Lifted straight from Maxxis' website. And in your next post you say "China, low quality, blah blah" but earlier rave about their trail tires. So their XC tires are low quality but their "trail" tires are the bomb? You're losing the argument.


HAHAHA.

lightweight race tire? Its the heaviest "xc" tire made.

What are you failing to comprehend. This is the xc racing and training forum. Maxxis XC racing tires is what i said are slow, heavy, durable. Who cares if your trail tire is low quality slow heavy and durable. That would be a bonus wouldnt it? I dont "trail ride". I race, or train. Xc racing and training forum. When i go ride pisgah or Breckenridge ya ill for sure consider a maxxis. Would i put my life in the hands of a maxxis tire at high speeds in a xc race? No.

Maxxis is like Nextie. Some are cool with secondary labeled Chinese goods. Im not. Just give me the chiner or the cst.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

*Kenda Saber Pro 29x2.2*

Just picked up a pair of Kenda Saber Pro 29x2.2 on a whim. Can't remember ever seeing a tread quite like this. They aired up and set easily...pretty high volume, sidewall measures 2.19 at 30 lb on 23mm internal rim, knobs 2.12...I'm sure they'll stretch. Haven't been on Kendas since the days of Karma Pros on 26" which I loved. I'll report back when things dry out a bit here in so Cal.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Im done with this thread..Dont quote me. 

I bought about 40 different tires. Tried them all. 

I use Bontrager Xr2/3 or xking front and xr2 or raceking rear. 

I use Renegades for pavemnet/gravel so i can run low pressure. 

Ill mail these maxxis tires to someone for shipping. Then you can rub them and become one with them. 

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## splitendz (Nov 13, 2015)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Im done with this thread..Dont quote me.
> 
> I bought about 40 different tires. Tried them all.
> 
> ...


I'll pay the shipping. What ya got ?


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

MattMay said:


> Just picked up a pair of Kenda Saber Pro 29x2.2 on a whim. Can't remember ever seeing a tread quite like this. They aired up and set easily...pretty high volume, sidewall measures 2.19 at 30 lb on 23mm internal rim, knobs 2.12...I'm sure they'll stretch. Haven't been on Kendas since the days of Karma Pros on 26" which I loved. I'll report back when things dry out a bit here in so Cal.
> 
> View attachment 1120789
> 
> ...


I remember seeing these tires when they were announced and also thought they looked interesting but haven't seen them for sale anywhere.

I do like the Kenda Slant 6 even though it is not a super light tire nor does it seem very popular, but for trails where I am it sticks like glue in all conditions. I managed to get one a couple months ago on sale for $18, 29x2.35 so may play with it a bit this season.

Last year I raced with a Thunderburt on the rear and liked it and do have another on the shelf so we'll see.

Mattmay, I'll be paying attention to what you find.

D


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

I just don't get where this ikon in heavy stuff is coming from or the idea that maxxis don't intend it for racing???

I've just listed tyres that would fit my bike here. (29er, narrow rim)

Racing ralph snakeskin 29x2.25 - 605g
Rocket Ron snakeskin 29x2.25 - 605g
XR2 Team issue 29x2.2 - 630g
Ikon EXO TR 29x2.2 - 640g
Race King Protection 29x2.2 - 650g
X-king Protection 29x2.2 - 670g
XR1 Team Issue 29x2.2 - 690g
XR3 Team Issue 29x2.2 - 695g

All these tyres have decent sidewall protection and are similar size.

All i can say is personally ive used the first 4 listed and all were equally fast. I found i cut the rocket ron more than the rest however. I've also used a bonti XR3 but found it too slow of a roller for xc racing. To me it sits more where an ardent would and better suited on my trail bike.

Also its worth mentioning the spec tyres 
Fast trak 2.1 - 600g, grid - 670
fast trak 2.3 - 640g, grid - 720
new renegade 2.1 - 550g
new renegade 2.3 - 630g


----------



## Lahrs (Jun 7, 2008)

Ardent Race and Ikons for me. 

In one week I destroyed both of the lightweight maxxspeed Ikons that came on a new bike. Loved the tread so much, replaced them with EXO versions and have had zero problems since. 

Used for dry, rocky, loose over hard trails in BC. They just work. 

I have not found them to be slow as some (one) suggest. Probably terrain specific, one man's xc course is another man's enduro. 






Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

My wife was the first WC racer to start using Ikons. First time out on them she won a World Cup, over the next 2 years she won 8 world cups and a world championships on them. It is was the peak of her career. She theorizes that it Ikons that gave her an advantage.

She actually went away from them for quite a while. But this summer put them back on her bike and managed a 2nd a 1st and a 3rd at the world cups she used them.

They are an XC tire. And a damm good XC tire.



LaneDetroitCity said:


> The reason Maxxis is so popular is both fanboys and also they are for sure a durable tire. I only complain about Maxxis XC tires in the XC thread. Their trail tires are amazing. They make E rated truck tires and the pros are riding at speeds on insane courses. I race XC. We barely have a root or rock at any race in Michigan. Why would i want heavy slow durable tires to try and go 16mph for 2.5 hours on cement hard sand. The funniest part are the Ikon amd the Ardent arent even tires Maxxis considers XC race tires. They are more like aggresive XC style tires. Style not race. Its like the people who drive around in a lifted jeep on 38 mud wranglers and the jeep has never left the cement. Some cooper at3 do just as good.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Well, a friend of mine who doesn't like RaRa's gave me his OEM 2.25's (600g each), so I am running those at the start of the season (if I can get the sidewall to seal). I was trying to decide what to run after that, but I think I made up my mind...



LMN said:


> My wife was the first WC racer to start using Ikons. First time out on them she won a World Cup, over the next 2 years she won 8 world cups and a world championships on them. It is was the peak of her career. She theorizes that it Ikons that gave her an advantage.
> 
> She actually went away from them for quite a while. But this summer put them back on her bike and managed a 2nd a 1st and a 3rd at the world cups she used them.
> 
> They are an XC tire. And a damm good XC tire.


I'm racing some US Cup races this season, but not US Cup level. So I need all the help I can get not to get pulled!


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

I was surfing through the Canyon site since they're launching here this summer...lo and behold their top of the line race hardtail 29er (Exceed CF 9.9 SLX LTD) comes equipped with...wait for it...

Ikon exception silkworm 57mm front
Aspen exception silkworm 57mm rear

https://www.canyon.com/en/mtb/exceed/exceed-cf-slx-9-9-ltd.html

which means those 2.25 Aspens people are holding their breath for can't be too far off since the bikes are available in Europe.


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

However it looks like the photo is the old 2.1 aspen. So i guess not ready by the time of that photoshoot.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

dang you got good eyes!


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

chestr said:


> I just don't get where this ikon in heavy stuff is coming from or the idea that maxxis don't intend it for racing???
> 
> I've just listed tyres that would fit my bike here. (29er, narrow rim)
> 
> ...


Funny that race tires above 600g used to be considered prohibitively heavy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Funny that race tires above 600g used to be considered prohibitively heavy.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Remove 50-100g since you are not running a tube anymore.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

LMN said:


> My wife was the first WC racer to start using Ikons. First time out on them she won a World Cup, over the next 2 years she won 8 world cups and a world championships on them. It is was the peak of her career. She theorizes that it Ikons that gave her an advantage.
> 
> She actually went away from them for quite a while. But this summer put them back on her bike and managed a 2nd a 1st and a 3rd at the world cups she used them.
> 
> They are an XC tire. And a damm good XC tire.


Wow, she must be REALLY fast to make up for those slow, crappy, inferior, non-XC tires! 
haha


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> Wow, she must be REALLY fast to make up for those slow, crappy, inferior, non-XC tires!
> haha


Well at the only trail her and I have both ridden im at least as fast or faster on my SS. Thats all that matters to me. The trails I ride on. The tires I ride. Lets have some perspective. We are letting this tire thing spiral out of control. We all know that the psi matters more than anything else anyways. We can agree they all weigh about the same, all roll similar, all cost similar. It comes down personal choice. This stuff is turning into tribalism.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Well at the only trail her and I have both ridden im at least as fast or faster on my SS.


Ride the tires you prefer, I won't argue that.

But this statement, I kinda get a chuckle at.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> Ride the tires you prefer, I won't argue that.
> 
> But this statement, I kinda get a chuckle at.


We have both ridden one same trail. Im as fast or faster. Is that suprise? Does that make me a badass? No. Does that diminish her? No. Is that fact? Yes. Does it matter? No. The point of xc tires are to get you around the trail as fast as possible. My tires get me around my trail faster than her tires get her around my trail. Whoopty doo da. Lets not go here. Im just trying to say my tires get me around fast. Faster than the example he used. Lets let this die. I said i was done but people keep drawing it on. Lets talk about tires. We know what i like and dont. What others like and dont. Lets chill.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I said i was done but people keep drawing it on.


You lied, or you wouldn't respond. I'll set the example, I won't respond to you.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> We have both ridden one same trail. Im as fast or faster. Is that suprise? Does that make me a badass? No. Does that diminish her? No. Is that fact? Yes. Does it matter? No. The point of xc tires are to get you around the trail as fast as possible. My tires get me around my trail faster than her tires get her around my trail. Whoopty doo da. Lets not go here. Im just trying to say my tires get me around fast. Faster than the example he used. Lets let this die. I said i was done but people keep drawing it on. Lets talk about tires. We know what i like and dont. What others like and dont. Lets chill.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


One, you're probably a male. Two, maybe she rode that trail once with some friends on a casual ride. To say you're as fast or faster on a trail she has ridden ONCE, under who knows what circumstances, is ludicrous.

It's one thing to like and dislike tires, everyone has their favorites and ones they don't like. But the reason you keep being drawn back in is the way you belittle anyone who rides a tire that you deem inferior and slow. Your "heavy" argument, the only subjective one, was debunked by more than one person. But you keep insisting that they're slower and low quality, despite gobs of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

This won't die as long as you continue to brag and berate. I happen to think Schwalbe tires suck, and cut to shreds WAY too easily, but I'm not gonna sit here and tell someone they're a fool for riding them.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> One, you're probably a male. Two, maybe she rode that trail once with some friends on a casual ride. To say you're as fast or faster on a trail she has ridden ONCE, under who knows what circumstances, is ludicrous.
> 
> It's one thing to like and dislike tires, everyone has their favorites and ones they don't like. But the reason you keep being drawn back in is the way you belittle anyone who rides a tire that you deem inferior and slow. Your "heavy" argument, the only subjective one, was debunked by more than one person. But you keep insisting that they're slower and low quality, despite gobs of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
> 
> This won't die as long as you continue to brag and berate. I happen to think Schwalbe tires suck, and cut to shreds WAY too easily, but I'm not gonna sit here and tell someone they're a fool for riding them.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Actually it was race. And im done.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Before you leave please post the results for the both of you.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> Before you leave please post the results for the both of you.


What does this half to do with tires. Nobody wins cause its comparing apples to oranges. Nobody wins. Let it die.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> What does this half to do with tires. Nobody wins cause its comparing apples to oranges. Nobody wins. Let it die.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


What does it "HAVE" to do with tires? "My tires get me around my trail faster than her tires get her around my trail." That makes it sound as if the only variable was the tires.

But I DO like the photo you posted up there. lol


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> What does it "HAVE" to do with tires? "My tires get me around my trail faster than her tires get her around my trail." That makes it sound as if the only variable was the tires.
> 
> But I DO like the photo you posted up there. lol


I get carried away at times. Let's just let it die.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I get carried away at times. Let's just let it die.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Deal. But can I steal that meme up there?


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> Deal. But can I steal that meme up there?


I didnt make it. Someone made it to make fun of me

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Running the team issue xr1s. Thinking a xr3 up front... i like a meatier front tirez


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Sidewalk said:


> Remove 50-100g since you are not running a tube anymore.


It's been a long while since anyone used inner tubes in Pro/Cat 1, but it has only been a few years since 1.9" and 2.0" tires were popular. Plenty of tires were available under 500g. There's still a few out there, but none in 2.2 and 2.3.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Well at the only trail her and I have both ridden im at least as fast or faster on my SS. Thats all that matters to me. The trails I ride on. The tires I ride. Lets have some perspective. We are letting this tire thing spiral out of control. We all know that the psi matters more than anything else anyways. We can agree they all weigh about the same, all roll similar, all cost similar. It comes down personal choice. This stuff is turning into tribalism.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


first senstence: Are you serious?

after that good point. But using phrases like "on my trails these tires suck" are useful and much less arguementative then more general statements.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> first senstence: Are you serious?
> 
> after that good point. But using phrases like "on my trails these tires suck" are useful and much less arguementative then more general statements.


Im trying to let that die because im not good at providing context and im not going there trying to keep explaining what i meant. Im not bragging im faster than a woman. Or any of that. Im bad at making posts.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

tiretracks said:


> Before you leave please post the results for the both of you.


Race he's referring to must be Iceman Cometh, held in northern Michigan in November. I know Catherine Pendrel has raced it a couple of times. Lane is Lane Myers, go look up the results from the last two years and see if he beat her.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

MessagefromTate said:


> Race he's referring to must be Iceman Cometh, held in northern Michigan in November. I know Catherine Pendrel ahs raced it a couple of times. Layne is Layne Myers, go look up the results from the last two years and see if he beat her.


I never said i beat hear in a race. This is getting ridiculous taken out of context.

I said im faster on the only trail her and i have both ridden. The next guy said she was probably laughing with friends riding it and i rode it many times as fast as i want. I said she actually rode it in a race. Suddenly im saying i beat her in a race? Lol. Let. It. Die. Its bad form to compare men and women. This is going nowhere.

Also im Lane Myers. Not Layne.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> It's been a long while since anyone used inner tubes in Pro/Cat 1, but it has only been a few years since 1.9" and 2.0" tires were popular. Plenty of tires were available under 500g. There's still a few out there, but none in 2.2 and 2.3.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


True, but with Sagan getting two flats is a bit of a symptom of the changing courses. I'm new so I can't compare to older XC races with experience, only what others tell me. But it sounds like courses now are more demanding then a decade ago, and tires are matching those demands.

I do recall watching a clip of a DH race in the 90's and thinking about how it was no more challenging then the XC courses in some of my races. Then again, a modern XC FS bike has better DH performance than a 90's DH bike


----------



## Dphoward (Jul 29, 2013)

I posted a similar question in the wheels/tires thread, but has anyone compared the new xr1 to the new fast trak?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

No worries some times we post before we think. It is worth taking sometime before you write. I have the advantage/disadvantage of everybody knowing who I actually am which forces me to behave. That would be advice to you, always post like you are having a conversation with someone you respect.

plus it is the middle of winter we all getting a little squirrelly right now. (although i am in sedona right now and just heading out for my first ride of the year)



LaneDetroitCity said:


> Im trying to let that die because im not good at providing context and im not going there trying to keep explaining what i meant. Im not bragging im faster than a woman. Or any of that. Im bad at making posts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

LMN said:


> (although i am in sedona right now and just heading out for my first ride of the year)


Creep alert! - Was that a 29er in the back of the truck on Instagram?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

kevbikemad said:


> Creep alert! - Was that a 29er in the back of the truck on Instagram?


Nope both are 27.5.

And to keep in the interest of thread.
1 bike had 2.2 Forecasters, the other had a 2.35 Minion on the front and 2.2 Ardent on the rear.


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

I checked out the forecaster in my local shop the other day. Looks like it could be a good wet weather race tire. Maybe replacement for my X kings, cause I hate them.

Should said intermediate tire. For all out mid it's hard to beat a beaver


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> Nope both are 27.5.
> 
> And to keep in the interest of thread.
> 1 bike had 2.2 Forecasters, the other had a 2.35 Minion on the front and 2.2 Ardent on the rear.


One thing Ive meant to ask is do you get the exact same tires as Joe Public? Same rubber compound, same casing, same everything? I always wondered if Maxxis gives different tires to the pros than joes. Which would then be a huge variable when using pros for reference.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

LMN said:


> (although i am in sedona right now and just heading out for my first ride of the year)


Will you be out at Bonelli and/or Fontana this year?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> One thing Ive meant to ask is do you get the exact same tires as Joe Public? Same rubber compound, same casing, same everything? I always wondered if Maxxis gives different tires to the pros than joes. Which would then be a huge variable when using pros for reference.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Generally they are the same. Sometimes you get some tires early, or you get some tires that they don't decided to produce. That is the great thing about mountain biking the consumer can generally ride as nice or nicer bike then what the Pros race.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Sidewalk said:


> Will you be out at Bonelli and/or Fontana this year?


I will not be. Last year I dropped Catharine off at Fontana on my way back from Sedona. Gave me a chance to check our Fontana. Great course but the complete lack of grip in the dirt was terrifying. Definitely was uncomfortable on those trails.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

LMN said:


> I will not be. Last year I dropped Catharine off at Fontana on my way back from Sedona. Gave me a chance to check our Fontana. Great course but the complete lack of grip in the dirt was terrifying. Definitely was uncomfortable on those trails.


There is an unsanctioned series out there going on right now that I have been using for testing/training. With all the rain, the ground has felt like glue. Don't know how things will be on race day though, obviously.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

LMN said:


> Nope both are 27.5.
> 
> And to keep in the interest of thread.
> 1 bike had 2.2 Forecasters, the other had a 2.35 Minion on the front and 2.2 Ardent on the rear.


Optical illusion on the wheels.

Would you say Forecaster is better in mud / wet than the Beaver? I've used the Beaver for a mud race tire - GREAT mud tire, best I've used for our conditions. Even rolls fast. We don't have many rocks, so the 500g tire was fine. Forecaster does look like a good mud / trail option.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

My issue with the beaver is that it is too small and struggles on rocks and roots. The forecaster was designed for wet conditions not deep mud.

If the race is deep mud, like Cx racing kind of mud then the beaver is the way to go. Otherwise something like the forecaster should be used in the wet.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

machine4321 said:


> I checked out the forecaster in my local shop the other day. Looks like it could be a good wet weather race tire. Maybe replacement for my X kings, cause I hate them.
> 
> Should said intermediate tire. For all out mid it's hard to beat a beaver


I beat a beaver quite often.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Ok full disclosure: great race in Texas today while some of you Northern guys are obviously getting cabin fever  But on the preride at Rocky Hill Ranch I got not one, but two flats in Schwalbe tires (Snakeskin Burt and Performance Ron) from punctures in the tread! I was floored. A LBS on site hooked me up with a Race King Protection for the race. Not bad if not my favorite. At some point soon I need to decide whether a Renegade or Fast Trak is my tire of choice (new sponsor). Does Specialized have a good mud race tire ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I raced on Ground Control 2.3s today, it was the first race of the season near Seattle, and it has dried out a lot the last couple of days (there was a couple of inches of snow on the ground a week ago), I expect the GCs to be decent when we do get mud. I've had this front for 3 seasons, and just put a new one on the rear (replacing an x-king). Weird thing; the rear weeps sealant through the sidewall, both are control casing but a couple years apart, the front never weeped/seeped. Good tires; I put them on the podium in cat1 50+ today.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I run a Ground Control Grid on the rear as an adventuring tyre and no sidewall weeping.
Ardent 2.4 front to match.


----------



## khardrunner14 (Aug 16, 2010)

Ran GC's in some serious mud this weekend. Raced a short course half cx/half mtb sort of race. Small amount of snow we had was melting and everthing turned into soup and slush. GC's did pretty well, but everyone coulda used more grip.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

chomxxo said:


> Ok full disclosure: great race in Texas today while some of you Northern guys are obviously getting cabin fever  But on the preride at Rocky Hill Ranch I got not one, but two flats in Schwalbe tires (Snakeskin Burt and Performance Ron) from punctures in the tread! I was floored. A LBS on site hooked me up with a Race King Protection for the race. Not bad if not my favorite. At some point soon I need to decide whether a Renegade or Fast Trak is my tire of choice (new sponsor). Does Specialized have a good mud race tire ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Specialized has totally revamped the Ground Control, Fast Trak and Renegade for 2017. If you go to their website you can still get some of the old Ground Control's from their clearance section. I haven't tried any of the redesigned tires yet but I do have a new 2.3 Fast Trak that I'll be mounting up this spring.

I did have an old 2.3 S-Works Ground Control that I thought compared favorably to a 2.25 Rocket Ron. I thought the Ground Control had a little better cornering grip in the front than the Rocket Ron.


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

Very little mention of Vittoria tires. In road racing they are a top tire. Maybe because they are new kid on block? With the Barzo, mezcal & saguaro it seems they are throwing out some good tires. I guess time will tell.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

durkind said:


> Very little mention of Vittoria tires. In road racing they are a top tire. Maybe because they are new kid on block? With the Barzo, mezcal & saguaro it seems they are throwing out some good tires. I guess time will tell.


Do you have any experience with them? I can get them cheap and really like the look of the barzo. Similar to a rocket ron. I bought two bomboloni but never got to use them. They arent the lightest but not the heaviest brand but i never hear anybody bigging them up but i also never hear anybody dogging them.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

durkind said:


> Very little mention of Vittoria tires. In road racing they are a top tire. Maybe because they are new kid on block? With the Barzo, mezcal & saguaro it seems they are throwing out some good tires. I guess time will tell.


Vittoria is other companies' tires done right. The Peyote is a Rocket Ron with better side knobs that are angled in the correct direction. Bit heavier, but corners & brakes better and the knobs don't wear out and/or tear off after 2 weeks. Casing's not quite as supple, but it's more durable and seems to be about as fast as a RR. The Barzo is a better X-King, the braking still kinda sucks and isn't much improved from the X-King, but it doesn't wash out as badly in corners and feels more predictable overall. Finally, the Goma is what the Ardent should've been. The centre tread has a nice wide braking edge and rolls fast, while the side knobs are nice & thick so they don't fold over and kill you like the Ardent.

I haven't tried the Mezcal & Saguaro yet, the former looks promising for a fast dry condition tire, the latter looks like knob vomit. IMO the knobs on the Saguaro are too small and packed too close together to do their job. I believe it's one of their legacy tires from the old days.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Stonerider said:


> Specialized has totally revamped the Ground Control, Fast Trak and Renegade for 2017. If you go to their website you can still get some of the old Ground Control's from their clearance section. I haven't tried any of the redesigned tires yet but I do have a new 2.3 Fast Trak that I'll be mounting up this spring.
> 
> I did have an old 2.3 S-Works Ground Control that I thought compared favorably to a 2.25 Rocket Ron. I thought the Ground Control had a little better cornering grip in the front than the Rocket Ron.


Thanks for the tip; I just ordered a pair of 2.3 Renegades for dry days. They appear to be more of a semi-slick in the new design, with a slightly deeper tread, which is cool.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I like Vittorias. Had a Barzo on the front of my bike for 4-5 months. Wore out the cornering knobs, put on a Michelin Wild Race'r. Probably prefer the Barzo.

Good volume, speed, cornering.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

aerius said:


> Vittoria is other companies' tires done right. The Peyote is a Rocket Ron with better side knobs that are angled in the correct direction. Bit heavier, but corners & brakes better and the knobs don't wear out and/or tear off after 2 weeks. Casing's not quite as supple, but it's more durable and seems to be about as fast as a RR. The Barzo is a better X
> 
> The Saguaro is terrible, I ran the Geax branded 29 x 2.0 tubular for awhile. It rolls fast is about the only positive thing I can say about it. Maybe if they offered 2.2" width that would help but as is I'd never run them again.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Are you guys comparing the Barzo 2.25 to the xking 2.2 or the 2.4? I typically run the 2.4 and am wondering if the 2.25 Barzo can compete with the 2.4 xking.

For reference if I put calipers on the tire, just measuring the overall width, I get about ~2.3" on my 23mm internal rims with the xking 2.4.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

MessagefromTate said:


> The Saguaro is terrible, I ran the Geax branded 29 x 2.0 tubular for awhile. It rolls fast is about the only positive thing I can say about it. Maybe if they offered 2.2" width that would help but as is I'd never run them again.


I hated the Geax rubber compound, hopefully the newer Vittoria stuff is different/better?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

litany said:


> Are you guys comparing the Barzo 2.25 to the xking 2.2 or the 2.4? I typically run the 2.4 and am wondering if the 2.25 Barzo can compete with the 2.4 xking.
> 
> For reference if I put calipers on the tire, just measuring the overall width, I get about ~2.3" on my 23mm internal rims with the xking 2.4.


The Barzo 2.25 is about as big as an X-King 2.4.

I hated the X-King, FWIW. For as good as the RaceKing is, the X-King is just as bad.


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Do you have any experience with them? I can get them cheap and really like the look of the barzo. Similar to a rocket ron. I bought two bomboloni but never got to use them. They arent the lightest but not the heaviest brand but i never hear anybody bigging them up but i also never hear anybody dogging them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Only experience is with road tires. I like the looks so asked question


----------



## euro-trash (Feb 9, 2008)

spsoon said:


> I hated the Geax rubber compound, hopefully the newer Vittoria stuff is different/better?


Their new compound uses Graphene, which is all the rage. Whether it's .2% just for marketing purposes I have no idea. I haven't ridden them yet but a friend who owns a shop is happy with them. When Vittoria was Geax he didn't care for them, so I believe the compound is improved. Obviously this is 3 degrees of separation, so take it with a major grain of salt.

Based on the description, the Graphene sounds a lot like the Gripton that Spez is using.


----------



## mackdhagen (Jun 17, 2011)

Honestly have had such bad experiences with their road and CX tires that i'm skeptical of Vittoria (road tires compound was hard and slippery and cracked...cx were the same but with production issues and thin sidewalls).


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

spsoon said:


> I hated the Geax rubber compound, hopefully the newer Vittoria stuff is different/better?


Generally speaking, if it's dry they work awesome, fast and lots of grip, but on wet rocks & roots it gets rather sketchy. They don't stick to wet hard surfaces as well as Conti's Black Chili compound or the Maxx Terra and Trail Star compounds from the big 2, but it's not terrible either like the budget Conti rubber. Feels about the same as the dual compound rubber on Maxxis tires. Durability is good, I haven't had any issues with torn knobs, wobbly casings, or damaged sidewalls. For reference, I break a lot of tires, Schwalbes get the knobs torn off in a single weekend, Maxxis, Conti, and Specialized tires get casing damage & wobbles after a few weeks, Michelin & Vittoria are the only ones that last long enough for the tread to wear out.


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

Of the 3 Vittoria--Barzo, Mezcal & Peyote thoughts on which would be fastest (lowest rolling resistance).


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

durkind said:


> Of the 3 Vittoria--Barzo, Mezcal & Peyote thoughts on which would be fastest (lowest rolling resistance).


Mezcal, then Peyote, then Barzo.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## euro-trash (Feb 9, 2008)

chomxxo said:


> If you prefer the lightness or tread pattern of an Ikon that's one thing, but you can't really say they're more durable.


Maybe it comes down to the type of rock? In the very coarse basalt of the PNW EXO are substantially more durable than Snakeskins. I love the way Schwalbe ride and I don't mind the cost, but I do mind walking miles with a slashed sidewall, and that has happened to me too many times, even with a SnakeSkin casing.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

euro-trash said:


> Their new compound uses Graphene, which is all the rage. Whether it's .2% just for marketing purposes I have no idea. I haven't ridden them yet but a friend who owns a shop is happy with them. When Vittoria was Geax he didn't care for them, so I believe the compound is improved. Obviously this is 3 degrees of separation, so take it with a major grain of salt.
> 
> Based on the description, the Graphene sounds a lot like the Gripton that Spez is using.


According to drum tests, the graphene version of Vittoria road tires have 5% less rolling resistance. It's impressive to see a new technology being put to work relatively quickly. I'm sure we'll see more innovations. For those unfamiliar, graphene is a substance similar to pencil lead that can be manufactured in sheets as thin as 1 atom thick.

I'd like to see what they can do to produce lightweight but puncture-proof mountain bike tires with Graphene. Their weights for the Mezcal seem to be on the heavy side right now.

https://www.vittoria.com/tire/mezcal/


----------



## euro-trash (Feb 9, 2008)

chomxxo said:


> I'm sure we'll see more innovations. For those unfamiliar, graphene is a substance similar to pencil lead that can be manufactured in sheets as thin as 1 atom thick.


I'm super excited by this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170125120315.htm
and


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> The Barzo 2.25 is about as big as an X-King 2.4.
> 
> I hated the X-King, FWIW. For as good as the RaceKing is, the X-King is just as bad.


Completely agree


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

chomxxo said:


> According to drum tests, the graphene version of Vittoria road tires have 5% less rolling resistance. It's impressive to see a new technology being put to work relatively quickly. I'm sure we'll see more innovations. For those unfamiliar, graphene is a substance similar to pencil lead that can be manufactured in sheets as thin as 1 atom thick.
> 
> I'd like to see what they can do to produce lightweight but puncture-proof mountain bike tires with Graphene. Their weights for the Mezcal seem to be on the heavy side right now.
> 
> https://www.vittoria.com/tire/mezcal/


Their website says the 29x2.35 is lighter than the 29x2.25. Hmmmm


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

*Kenda Saber Pro 29x2.2 early review*

I'm 3 rides in on new Kenda Saber Pro 29x2.2s f/r, internal 23mm rim (Nox Skylines). I haven't ridden Kendas in ten years. In short: I'm a fan, at least so far.

The spec sheet (http://bicycle.kendatire.com/media/2457/saber_spec_sheet.pdf) is pretty spot on: they are light (actual weight ~570g), fast, and grippy. They do not like wet, but don't mind damp. Here in So Cal the trails are saturated, hero dirt abounds, but a few trails are dry and hard with some rocks here and there, so I got to test them on several surfaces, including road.

Braking is predictable, and they lean well. The graph shown on link above is accurate. For once it feels like the marketing material is not exaggerated. The knobs are actually bigger than they appear on the spec sheet. (look back a few posts for pics)

They remind of a slightly faster, slightly grippier, slightly heavier, slightly more aggressive, higher volume version of the SWorks Renegade 1.95s (which actually measured 2.1 on my rims) I took off to try these. They are definitely more comfortable and stable. I beat some segment times by several seconds, but I think you always make an extra effort on new tires, testing limits of speed and control. I certainly lost no time.

On that note: after 5 days and 3 rides (total about 45 miles) the sidewalls now measure 2.3 on the nose, the treads 2.21.

It did take a few days and 4 oz of Stans to keep them aired up overnite, so the one ding might be Kenda's "tubeless ready" but honestly not significantly different from other 120 tpi tires, at least in my experience. I'm sure the slightly heavier (~70-95g) KCST sidewall protection version hold air better.

I picked them up for $43/each...quick Google search will reveal a few sources...cheap enough to give em a go without breaking the bank!

Only time will tell if they're keepers.


----------



## splitendz (Nov 13, 2015)

Hmmm.. I have never considered Kenda tires; guess just too many options out there. Thanks for the write up, and I will now consider them more. The Saber looks competitive.


----------



## slowride454 (Jan 11, 2014)

I ran the Kenda Small Block 8 for a couple seasons and the Kenda Slant 6 for a couple seasons. They worked okay, nothing special.


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

Thanks MattMay, good write up on something that is new in the market, enough info to make it worth trying.

D


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

slowride454 said:


> I ran the Kenda Small Block 8 for a couple seasons and the Kenda Slant 6 for a couple seasons. They worked okay, nothing special.


Yeh neither of those have this new R3C compound that the Saber Pro and Kozmik Lite II Pro have.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Has anyone tried the Michelin Wild Racer Advanced (or ultimate)? Any opinions on it? How it compares to other tires like the ardent race, ikon or xking?

MICHELIN Wild Race'R Advanced Ultimate - Tires vtt | MICHELIN - Motorcycle - United States - Bike-website -->3
MICHELIN Wild Race'R Advanced - Tires vtt | MICHELIN - Motorcycle - United States - Bike-website -->3


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

litany said:


> Has anyone tried the Michelin Wild Racer Advanced (or ultimate)? Any opinions on it? How it compares to other tires like the ardent race, ikon or xking?
> 
> MICHELIN Wild Race'R Advanced Ultimate - Tires vtt | MICHELIN - Motorcycle - United States - Bike-website -->3
> MICHELIN Wild Race'R Advanced - Tires vtt | MICHELIN - Motorcycle - United States - Bike-website -->3


I have the standard version, not the Advanced or Ultimate version.

IIRC, it's ~740g, and measures a whopping 2.36" on a 26mm ID rim at 20psi.

I've heard (not seen) that the Ultimate version of the tire uses a different mold with substantially smaller cornering knobs.

Haven't heard anything about the Advanced model. Might order one up soon.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

litany said:


> Has anyone tried the Michelin Wild Racer Advanced (or ultimate)? Any opinions on it? How it compares to other tires like the ardent race, ikon or xking?


I ran the Advanced Ultimate on my Stumpy hardtail 26er for a couple of races.
The air in the tyre weighs more than the tyre. They roll REALLY well.
They roll better than the AR, Ikon or X-King. The knobs are really small and short. They brake worse than anything bar a complete slick.

Man they made the bike feel lively though.


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

...


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

for Arizona Trail Race last year
my Nobby Nic snake skins did better than others on Ikons
I saw Ikons in Pine (~500 mile point) down to the casings
I think because the knobs are taller and new edition of Nics have different rubber so that knobs do not tear off



superlightracer said:


> _*So what rubber will everyone be running this year? *_
> 
> I have run Racing Ralphs 2.0 -2.25 for the last decade. However I am making the switch to Maxxis Ikon's with the Evo casing this year. I found that Schwalbe's snakeskin just wasnt tough enough for some of the rocky sharp stuff I've been riding. Losing $100 tires to sidewall tears, sucks!
> 
> I am debating 2.2 Front and Rear, or even throwing a 2.35 in the front.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Been running Specy Ground Control 2.1 (front) and Fast Trak 2.0 (rear) both in the S-Works casing with no drama for years. Just ordered up some Maxxis Ikon 2.2s with the EXO casing...they are slightly heavier but not a big deal to get a little more protection. I have fairly narrow/old-school rims (~21 inner width) so going with these newer huge tires (2.3s) just won't do much for me.


----------



## Joe Handlebar (Apr 12, 2016)

I've used the Mezcal here on the front range of Colorado. I liked it quite a bit. It does roll fast and is great for hardpack and big, long rock faces. It gets a little sketchy when things get loose though. They do wear pretty quick as well.


----------



## darth tracer (Jan 13, 2004)

I love the Mezcal, just bought a new set to replace last years set. They are awesome. I've used them everywhere on the West Coast and yet to be disappointed. The new G+ rolls great and is every bit as fast feeling as many of the other tires you guys are mentioning. They also have a good sidewall as I ran them for 2k miles with no issues no flats and excellent wear.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Just ordered a Maxxis Ikon 29x2.2 3C/EXO/TR for the rear and a Maxxis Ikon 29x2.35 3C/TR (non-EXO) for the front. Should be 640 rear/695 front...a skosh more than the setup I was running but I really want to try a little wider tire. I was on the fence with just going 2.2 EXOs front and rear. I couldn't bring myself to put a 700g+ tire on the front of my 22 pound HT so went with the 2.35 in the non-EXO


----------



## Unbrockenchain (Aug 21, 2015)

So now people have posted what tires they like and don't like. A trend I see is going with fatter tires (2.3/2.35). My question is is the added weight weight worth it? What are the benefits--maybe lower rolling resistance, better grip. Thoughts?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Unbrockenchain said:


> So now people have posted what tires they like and don't like. A trend I see is going with fatter tires (2.3/2.35). My question is is the added weight weight worth it? What are the benefits--maybe lower rolling resistance, better grip. Thoughts?


That's my take.

I feel like a 2.2-2.3" tire has more cornering grip and better rolling resistance than a <2.2 tire. I think any losses in climbing speed from the weight (200g out of a 75000g system) would be very small (given a linear relationship between climbing speed, weight and power), but Crr is going to be there going up, down and on the flats.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> That's my take.
> 
> I feel like a 2.2-2.3" tire has more cornering grip and better rolling resistance than a <2.2 tire. I think any losses in climbing speed from the weight (200g out of a 75000g system) would be very small (given a linear relationship between climbing speed, weight and power), but Crr is going to be there going up, down and on the flats.


If you get knocked off your line less and carry more speed into a hill you make up the difference in time lost to grams of a tire. My experience.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Drider85 (Jan 12, 2009)

@ Le Duke at risk of a rabbit trail... How would you say your tubular setup compares in speed to a wide tubeless in terms of rolling resistance?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> That's my take.
> 
> I feel like a 2.2-2.3" tire has more cornering grip and better rolling resistance than a <2.2 tire. I think any losses in climbing speed from the weight (200g out of a 75000g system) would be very small (given a linear relationship between climbing speed, weight and power), but Crr is going to be there going up, down and on the flats.


Even though Ikon 2.35s are much heavier, they tested as faster uphill. #science.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Timon (May 11, 2008)

Unbrockenchain said:


> So now people have posted what tires they like and don't like. A trend I see is going with fatter tires (2.3/2.35). My question is is the added weight weight worth it? What are the benefits--maybe lower rolling resistance, better grip. Thoughts?


My experience is that with the 2.2 Ikon's I'd have to run really high pressure to not pinch flat (yes, tubeless pinch flatting the casing). That made them bounce around over everything.

I can run lower pressures on the 2.35, get better grip up the steeps/corners and not get bashed around over every little stone in the trail. Makes for much smoother pedaling.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Unbrockenchain said:


> So now people have posted what tires they like and don't like. A trend I see is going with fatter tires (2.3/2.35). My question is is the added weight weight worth it? What are the benefits--maybe lower rolling resistance, better grip. Thoughts?


I think a lot of us are beginning to suspect that a fatter tire might be a bit quicker. But I believe we only are only at the suspect stage.

The added grip is noticeable, however for typical XC racing additional grip only makes you quicker on well under 1% perfect of the course. But if the grip is the difference between cleaning a climb and not then it makes a significant difference.

Theoretically the wider tires should roll quicker off road, how much quicker (or quicker at all) is the unknown part. The rolling resistance advantage will depend on air pressure. You get the air pressure wrong then wider tire is slower. As an example lets say you normally ride a 2.2 Ikon at 20psi and you run a 2.35 Ikon at 20psi I expect (haven't tested) the 2.35 will be slower. The pressure in the 2.35 would probably have to be 2 to 3 psi lower to gain an advantage.

The weight does matter. All things equal the heavier tire will be slower, in mountain biking where we are constantly changing speed weight does matters a fair bit. The time cost of 200g should be small, but so would be the theoretical gains in rolling resistance and grip.

I think that when you put them all together the bigger tire will come out ahead but if there was a race tomorrow that I really cared about, I would probably play it safe and race a lighter 2.1 or 2.2. I just don't have enough data to confidently recommend a larger tire.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> Even though Ikon 2.35s are much heavier, they tested as faster uphill. #science.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Any chance you got a link that study? Wouldn't mind having a look at it.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

One of the biking YouTube channels just did a narrow vs wide XC tire test. It wasn't comprehensive, and they point out their testing flaws. But the results basically skewed towards wider = better. It was of course an XC bike so no plus tires.

A friend gave me a pair of RaRa 2.25's that came with his bike (he prefers Continental and isn't a serious racer) so I put those on my new carbon wheels. I can't make any comparison since the wheels alone were a huge change and the old tires were the low spec RR's.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Schwalbe's technology section has some good info on this subject...helped me wrap my head around the whole wider is faster concept. https://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I'm curious to see what the local pros are running next weekend. I'll try and see what Tinker has, I forgot to look last race. I noticed a lot of Small Block 8's and Ikon's yesterday technical, sticky, but low hazard course).


----------



## arc (Sep 9, 2004)

LMN said:


> Any chance you got a link that study? Would mind having a look at it.


Would you have any faith in the testing methods and results of that study?

You'd probably be better off putting the fast lady on a not so powerful e-bike and do timed runs up a three minute climb on terrain that matters to you. Full power, no pedaling and top the battery off between runs, probably best to do it late in the evening when the wind and temperature settles down. She can give feedback about how the tires felt on the ride back down. Once the best tire/pressure combo is found it can be dropped down on the race bike to a similar feel as a starting point.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

arc said:


> Would you have any faith in the testing methods and results of that study?


I have seen very few tests which don't have serious flaws in their methods. Testing bike components is really hard to do well. But it never hurts to see what others have done and what their results are.


----------



## kylef (Feb 10, 2015)

I have been using the Ikons 2.2 front and rear but NOT the TR versions for the last three years. I run them tubeless (Orange Seal) and they set up fast and flawless on the LB, Stans, and the Rise 60s rims. I usually run 22 psi rear and 20 front but I have gone as low as 18psi.

I also have not had a flat of any kind in three years over a wide variety of terrain in the WORS races in WI and some rough trails and a 100 miler in MT.


----------



## kylef (Feb 10, 2015)

kylef said:


> I have been using the Ikons 2.2 front and rear but NOT the TR versions for the last three years. I run them tubeless (Orange Seal) and they set up fast and flawless on the LB, Stans, and the Rise 60s rims. I usually run 22 psi rear and 20 front but I have gone as low as 18psi.
> 
> I also have not had a flat of any kind in three years over a wide variety of terrain in the WORS races in WI and some rough trails and a 100 miler in MT.


I forgot to mention that the non TR versions weigh around 580-85 gms.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

LMN said:


> Any chance you got a link that study? Wouldn't mind having a look at it.


Might be this video - Ikons 2.0 vs 2.35.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Yes that's it, you found it before I could. Very interesting yes? 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Just to throw my two cents in because I run nothing but 2.35 high volumes. They feel like absolute sludge at 20 psi and you're probably running a serious risk of pinch flitting if you ride in anything other than that dirt carpet test track. 22x24 is good for smooth 24x26 is good for techy stuffs.

One thing to note is the high volumes add a lot of dampening at all speeds. 

Slow, the tire is supple and forgiving in rock and root gardens, you don't bounce as much and they seem to roll over nicer than a 1.95 or 2.00.

Fast and jumps and drops, it's like having an extra 10mil of travel to take the brunt of the start of the hit.

20 psi is hell, do yourself a favor and don't ever do that.

I do like how the tester is like 'here's a bit of a technical climb' and he literally rolls over a fallen down twig and there's some 6"- stone in totally embedded in the trail. Make sure you bike tires don't hit any of that.

If that's what our trails and courses looked like, I would ride a rigid carbon bike with 1.5 tires. I'd actually probably just ride a cx bike.


----------



## bikeguy0 (Aug 5, 2007)

mattyice said:


> Just to throw my two cents in because I run nothing but 2.35 high volumes. They feel like absolute sludge at 20 psi and you're probably running a serious risk of pinch flitting if you ride in anything other than that dirt carpet test track. 22x24 is good for smooth 24x26 is good for techy stuffs.
> 
> One thing to note is the high volumes add a lot of dampening at all speeds.
> 
> ...


So you should have qualified how much you weigh, types of trails you ride, and if you ride "light" or "heavy" on the bike.

I run the exact same tires, on a hard tail, in Colorado, at 175 lbs, ride light on the bike and run 18 front 19.5-20psi on the rear. I bump up 1 psi on rockier trails.

Pressure has a lot to do with how people ride; meaning do they plow through things vs more body movement to get over or around objects? Neither are right or wrong, just one can run lower pressure and can get away with thinner sidewalls.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

mattyice said:


> Just to throw my two cents in because I run nothing but 2.35 high volumes. They feel like absolute sludge at 20 psi and you're probably running a serious risk of pinch flitting if you ride in anything other than that dirt carpet test track. 22x24 is good for smooth 24x26 is good for techy stuffs.


Air pressure highly depends on body weight. The rule of thumb is divide your weight in pounds by 7 and that puts you in the ball park. I have a really light touch on a bike and typically run 17-19psi in a 2.3 tire, I am 140lbs.

My pressures are pretty constant regardless of the terrain. When I go some place like Sedona or Moab I have no problems running those pressures.


----------



## DeeZee (Jan 26, 2005)

Has anyone tried the new Specialized Renegades...? I really like the look of the tread pattern.

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/equipment/components/renegade-2bliss-ready/128531


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

bikeguy0 said:


> So you should have qualified how much you weigh, types of trails you ride, and if you ride "light" or "heavy" on the bike.
> 
> I run the exact same tires, on a hard tail, in Colorado, at 175 lbs, ride light on the bike and run 18 front 19.5-20psi on the rear. I bump up 1 psi on rockier trails.
> 
> ...


I'm 180 and very light handed on the bike, riding technical mass trails.

It's not so much working the bike through stuff, bit there's a noticeable effort difference. I'd say run as low a pressure as you can get away with without pinching if your running pure dh's, anything over 12 miles run as high a pressure as you feel comfortable without slipping or sacrificing peformance.

There's no reason to run any Schwalbe or Maxxis 2.35/2.4 sub 20 unless you absolutely have to. The traction gains and descending performance aren't worth peddling the sludge puddles around for 2 hours.

I really don't see the logic running them so low unless you were expecting tons of insane corners or trails and courses that are relentless off camber dowhill switchbacks and relentless tech descents.

There's a nice balance of letting the tire spread and work and not peddling the **** out of yourself with under inflated sneaks.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Whoah, IMO you guys are way off. Once again the conversation heads towards "feel." Have you tested whether >20psi is faster than <=20psi?

The feeling of sluggishness is proving to be false, in both road and mountain. The tire deformation, especially if it's supple, is faster than a tire that deflects all the trail obstacles, even if they're minor. 

The feel of sluggishness is just a feeling and you shouldn't trust it, as the 2.0 vs 2.35 climbing test proved. Also pressure is not only relative to your weight, but the tire size as well. Several years ago I raced Racing Ralph 29x2.4s and ran them at 15-18psi, when I weighed ~180lbs. 

Ask any pro cross racer the pressure they run and they'll tell you "as low as possible." I couldn't get away with running tubeless 32mm tires at 30psi, but they ride tubulars at those pressures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Again, weight has a lot to do with it. I am also in the 140's and was running 21 PSI on 2.1's on front. I haven't found the sweat spot yet on my new set up since I have only ridden the bike once with the 2.25's and new wheels. I am a very heavy handed rider, I appreciate any opportunity to get my bike in the air. I have to run a lot more pressure in the rear or I'll hit the rim.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

If you really want to geek out you set your tire pressure by sag. I read years ago that ideal sag for a tire was about 15%. I of course went and measured this and found that that I was just about bang on that mark. Now when ever I switch tire size, wheel size or tire construction I always do a sag check to see if I am in the ball park.

For instance going from 26inch -> 29 meant dropping the pressure 2psi to get the same sag in the same tire. Switching from UST tires to Exception series tires meant increasing the pressure by 3psi. On a 26x4.8 I have to run 5.5psi to get 15% sag.



chomxxo said:


> Several years ago I raced Racing Ralph 29x2.4s and ran them at 15-18psi, when I weighed ~180lbs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Installed the Ikons tonight. 2.35 front non-Exo weighed in at 690g. 2.2 rear Exo weighed in at 610g. Measured 2.2 front and 2.0 back on the older 19mm inner rims I have....I'll re-lace my hubs to some wider rims this year for sure! Test ride tomorrow!


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

DeeZee said:


> Has anyone tried the new Specialized Renegades...? I really like the look of the tread pattern.
> 
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/equipment/components/renegade-2bliss-ready/128531


No Sworks branding anymore or are they being crafty as the myth the Sworks casing rip apart if you look at them to hard?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Ran S-works front and back for a long time...cut one tire (front) in 5 years. They are fine unless you are going all #enduro.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Whoah, IMO you guys are way off. Once again the conversation heads towards "feel." Have you tested whether >20psi is faster than <=20psi?
> 
> The feeling of sluggishness is proving to be false, in both road and mountain. The tire deformation, especially if it's supple, is faster than a tire that deflects all the trail obstacles, even if they're minor.
> 
> ...


I never claimed to be right, I'm just surprised to hear this from the xc camp.

And believe me, I'm from the as low as functionally possible way of thinking. I'm just surprised you can get away with 18. I'd probably rip the bead off the rim in a corner, I've done worse to more.


----------



## pk1 (Mar 25, 2010)

LMN said:


> If you really want to geek out you set your tire pressure by sag. I read years ago that ideal sag for a tire was about 15%. I of course went and measured this and found that that I was just about bang on that mark. Now when ever I switch tire size, wheel size or tire construction I always do a sag check to see if I am in the ball park.
> 
> For instance going from 26inch -> 29 meant dropping the pressure 2psi to get the same sag in the same tire. Switching from UST tires to Exception series tires meant increasing the pressure by 3psi. On a 26x4.8 I have to run 5.5psi to get 15% sag.


that makes a lot of sense
how do you measure this accurately though?


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

LMN said:


> If you really want to geek out you set your tire pressure by sag. I read years ago that ideal sag for a tire was about 15%. I of course went and measured this and found that that I was just about bang on that mark. Now when ever I switch tire size, wheel size or tire construction I always do a sag check to see if I am in the ball park.
> 
> For instance going from 26inch -> 29 meant dropping the pressure 2psi to get the same sag in the same tire. Switching from UST tires to Exception series tires meant increasing the pressure by 3psi. On a 26x4.8 I have to run 5.5psi to get 15% sag.


How do you measure sag in a tire?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

durkind said:


> How do you measure sag in a tire?


Measure the height of tire without you on the bike. Then have a friend measure the height of tire with you on the bike. Easy enough to find the percent sag from there.


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

TiGeo said:


> Ran S-works front and back for a long time...cut one tire (front) in 5 years. They are fine unless you are going all #enduro.


Sorry. I was being sarcastic. Ive ran them for years and never an issue.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

I rode the new 2.3 Specialized Fast Trak 2bliss for the first time yesterday on the front of my 29er Scale hardtail and set a PR on my home track that I ride at least weekly. It replaced a 2.35 Ikon 3C/TR. It grips well and rolls fast...plus it's lighter than the Ikon. Just FYI, I'm running a 2.25 Racing Ralph Snakeskin on the rear as it is my favorite rear tire at the moment.


----------



## DeeZee (Jan 26, 2005)

machine4321 said:


> No Sworks branding anymore or are they being crafty as the myth the Sworks casing rip apart if you look at them to hard?


Picked up a Renegade and Fast Track yesterday. Brought them home and compared them to the S-Works tires we already run for some courses. The new tires have a much thicker sidewall.

My son runs the S-Works tires for some of his races....no issues but not designed for every trail.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

The new Specy casings are all 60 tpi which blows....they should have just done a 120 with a slightly beefier sidewall if that was the concern. It was between the Ikons and the Fast Track/Rene combo for me.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

DeeZee said:


> Picked up a Renegade and Fast Track yesterday. Brought them home and compared them to the S-Works tires we already run for some courses. The new tires have a much thinker sidewall.
> 
> My son runs the S-Works tires for some of his races....no issues but not designed for every trail.


I'd be interested in hearing how the new 2.3 Renegade compares to the old Renegade as far as cornering grip and climbing traction. The reason I run the 2.25 RaRa on the rear is for better cornering grip and climbing traction compared to the old 2.3 Renegade.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Stonerider said:


> I'd be interested in hearing how the new 2.3 Renegade compares to the old Renegade as far as cornering grip and climbing traction. The reason I run the 2.25 RaRa on the rear is for better cornering grip and climbing traction compared to the old 2.3 Renegade.


Just got them today. Like last year's model of Renegade, it's not a true 2.3, even with stretching. It's a 2.2 at best. We verified this with calipers. On the positive side, the tread pattern is deeper, and the side knobs are decent. I'd prefer a 29x2.2" at less than 600g, but I'll be confident in rough terrain this Spring season.



LMN said:


> If you really want to geek out you set your tire pressure by sag. I read years ago that ideal sag for a tire was about 15%. I of course went and measured this and found that that I was just about bang on that mark. Now when ever I switch tire size, wheel size or tire construction I always do a sag check to see if I am in the ball park.
> 
> For instance going from 26inch -> 29 meant dropping the pressure 2psi to get the same sag in the same tire. Switching from UST tires to Exception series tires meant increasing the pressure by 3psi. On a 26x4.8 I have to run 5.5psi to get 15% sag.


True that, good points all. There was a great podcast about road tire pressure that gives a lot of good info to mountain bikers. Their main point was that if the tires are adequately supple (always a risk of puncture), then pressure and width appears to be unlimited.

https://cyclingtips.com/2016/08/cyc...ethinking-road-bike-tire-sizes-and-pressures/

Is a 30mm tire at 70psi faster than a 23 at 100psi? This would be where Graphene can make a big improvement with fat, thin tires that are faster than narrow, thicker models.

Also I shop-tested the new Specialized road bikes with head tube suspension today; fun to play with.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I have changed my ways on my road bike w/r to pressure as well over the last few years. Used to run 23s at ~110+ now am on 25s in the mid-70s. So much more comfortable and no noticeable change in speed/resistance.


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

DeeZee said:


> Picked up a Renegade and Fast Track yesterday. Brought them home and compared them to the S-Works tires we already run for some courses. The new tires have a much thinker sidewall.
> 
> My son runs the S-Works tires for some of his races....no issues but not designed for every trail.


Did you get the non-Grid version? Is basically like the old Control versions?


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Pinkbike is reporting new tires from Michelin are coming out, I'm interested to see how they turn out:

Randoms - Frostbike 2017 - Pinkbike

All 4 look targeted at cross country.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

litany said:


> Pinkbike is reporting new tires from Michelin are coming out, I'm interested to see how they turn out:
> 
> Randoms - Frostbike 2017 - Pinkbike
> 
> All 4 look targeted at cross country.


Two of them are marketed as AM tires.

Wild AM
Force AM
Force XC
Jet XCR

The Jet XCR could be nice if those cornering knobs are tall, stiff and grippy enough.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> \
> 
> The Jet XCR could be nice if those cornering knobs are tall, stiff and grippy enough.
> \


Looks like a rather large gap from the intermediates to the edge knobs though. I've found that often those type of tyres have a bit vagueness before they bite.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> Two of them are marketed as AM tires.
> 
> Wild AM
> Force AM
> ...


Yeah but look at the force AM. In the pictures the center and intermediate nobs look pretty low profile, similar to like a race king, but with bigger side nobs. It might even do what you are hoping the Jet does. The Jet is probably just an even faster version.

The problem for me here in so cal is that there is often enough deep sand and dust where a tire like a race king just doesn't have hardly any grip, so it can be hard to go forward at all. The only real advantage of the x-king is it still works in the deeper sand/dust. Which is especially a problem when a trail just got pounded by 100 riders doing laps.

Here are more pics:
JER_7976 | FORCE AM | MICHELIN MEDIA EVENT

4 nouvelles gammes de pneus VTT MICHELIN pour 2 pratiques | Michelin

PDF with sizes and release dates: http://www.michelin.com/eng/content/download/19127/413842/version/2/file/MICHELIN-CP+VTT+2017_EN.pdf

Force XC: May 2017
26x2.10
27.5x2.10
27.5x2.25
29x2.10
29x2.25

Force AM: May 2017
26x2.25
27.5x2.25
27.5x2.35
27.5x2.60
29x2.25
29x2.35

Wild AM: June 2017
27.5x2.35
29x2.35

Jet XCR: October 2017
27.5x2.25
29x2.25
29x2.10

Why do tire companies think people still on 26 want skinny tires? They are probably right but its really too bad.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

If the Force AM is anything like their other "Enduro" tires, it's 1000g+.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

That would be a big disappointment. I like thin and light tires.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Here's a Wild Race'R Advanced Reinforced Enduro model tire I bought. It's 340g heavier than the regular XC version.










Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I used to love my green Wild Gripper's in the '90s...


----------



## sniperf350 (Feb 3, 2017)

Kenda slant 6's for me, this year anyway.(that's what came on my new bike, but I'm too cheap to go and replace new tires just yet lol)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Rocket Rons. 

Best combination of volume, grip, weight, and speed that I have ever tried for SE Michigan trails.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

I guess I could post this on the "2017 race rig" thread as well...

I rode a client's Kona Hei Hei DL Carbon 29 over the weekend. It had 2.35" Nobby Nic front/2.25" Ralph rear, 120mm Fox 32 fork (so ~68.5 head angle). Size large, so really long reach/front center with the 51mm offset fork and long TT/steep seat angle combo.

That bike freaking ripped. Dead legs after a week of intervals, and I almost KOM'd (missed by 16 seconds) the local race course lap (I have the current KOM, set last summer on a perfect soil day) in February. Lap is sub-20 minutes for good riders; KOM is 16:30-ish.

What clinched it for me is that the only climb section is also a Strava segment. I didn't nail it as I was tired, and thus lost 10 seconds to my best lap's climb time right there (over about 2 minutes of climbing). I only lost 6 seconds TOTAL on the rest of the lap - on a bike I hadn't touched until an hour earlier.

There were entire rolling sections where I was realizing I'd never gone that fast without having to brake. I overshot 2 doubles accidentally as a result of just carrying more speed than I thought I had. 

Funny thing - the bike didn't feel faster. Kind of like a rigid bike "feels fast" because you have so much trail feedback - this thing just rolls and hooks up.

25.3 lbs with pedals. Tires were on I9 Trail rims, so 25.6mm or so internal width.

I took the bike out again the next day with my fork and wheelset on it, with the intent of making it more XC-ish (100mm Fox 32, 2.25" Ralph front/2.2" Thunder Burt rear).

Failed experiment. All the awesome momentum and cornering ability - gone. Back was the familiar 29er feeling of "just waiting for the front wheel to tuck up under me and fold" when cornering hard. Less traction and no faster climbing, despite weighing 1.6 lbs. less.

I know the fork contributed to the feel as well - but I want that cornering and rollover feeling when racing this year, Going to run 2.35" Nic in front and alternate 2.35" or 2.25" Ralph in rear for conditions.

And the Kona fits 27.5+ as well... dammit...


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm having a hard time dropping tire pressure, I'm 170-175 pounds on 2.3 GroundControls, I have been running about 28psi. Overnight before the last race my rear tire went nearly flat so I was spooked about losing pressure during the race, I went a little higher rear for that one. I also always seem to imagine I'm getting a low rear tire during the race, - I haven't had a tire issue in a race since I've been back at it over 4 years now. I hear/see guys burping and having drama on course, so I'm really hesitant to go lower, but I'll try to ease it down. I used to run about 35psi on tubed 26ers 25 years ago to eliminate pinch flats.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

jimPacNW said:


> I'm having a hard time dropping tire pressure, I'm 170-175 pounds on 2.3 GroundControls, I have been running about 28psi. Overnight before the last race my rear tire went nearly flat so I was spooked about losing pressure during the race, I went a little higher rear for that one. I also always seem to imagine I'm getting a low rear tire during the race, - I haven't had a tire issue in a race since I've been back at it over 4 years now. I hear/see guys burping and having drama on course, so I'm really hesitant to go lower, but I'll try to ease it down. I used to run about 35psi on tubed 26ers 25 years ago to eliminate pinch flats.


Tubeless, of course. You might also try a different sealant. Orange Seal and Bontrager TLR have tested as two of the best. You should set up new tires, or refill old ones with sealant at least a week before your first race so that they can get fully sealed. At your weight, you should be able to ride 2.3s at 22-25psi.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Tubeless, of course. You might also try a different sealant. Orange Seal and Bontrager TLR have tested as two of the best. You should set up new tires, or refill old ones with sealant at least a week before your first race so that they can get fully sealed. At your weight, you should be able to ride 2.3s at 22-25psi.


I ride 2.3 at 24 rear 23 front tubeless 29 i24 rear and i27 front same weight

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

I may only do a couple of XC races and use these as a gravel setup for mud season on my full sus 29er. They are a bit heavier and only measure out at 2.0, but you can't beat the price!

Duro Miner 29" Tire > Components > Tires > Dirt Tires | Jenson USA

One of the most popular tires in the Duro line, the Miner 29er has won a XC national championships in 2009. The low profile tread make the Miner a fast tire in a variety of conditions.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

jimPacNW said:


> I'm having a hard time dropping tire pressure, I'm 170-175 pounds on 2.3 GroundControls, I have been running about 28psi. Overnight before the last race my rear tire went nearly flat so I was spooked about losing pressure during the race, I went a little higher rear for that one. I also always seem to imagine I'm getting a low rear tire during the race, - I haven't had a tire issue in a race since I've been back at it over 4 years now. I hear/see guys burping and having drama on course, so I'm really hesitant to go lower, but I'll try to ease it down.


Seems about normal to me, I'm 150 lbs and running 26-28psi on my 2.2-2.3" tires. I can go lower on XC courses but I don't really gain anything and I lose the ability to take creative cornering & passing lines. Maybe it's just me, but it sometimes feels like there's a sausage waving contest going on for who can run the lowest tire pressure, and it's not unusual for me to see a DNF or someone pumping up their tires on the side of the trail after a tire burp.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

Where were you guys a little ways back when everyone jumped down my throat for saying 18psi in a 2.4 was like pushing sludge puddles?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

mattyice said:


> Where were you guys a little ways back when everyone jumped down my throat for saying 18psi in a 2.4 was like pushing sludge puddles?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


Lol, that's actually perfect. And I guarantee that it will test to be faster downhill than 24psi.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Lol, that's actually perfect. And I guarantee that it will test to be faster downhill than 24psi.


Oh it will absolutely roll faster downhill, I sure as schnitzel don't want to push em up a 500ft hill though.


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

Re: Tire Pressure

I run 18/19 absolute max in my tires, have not seen 20 psi in a couple years now. I'm 175 with a 23 lbs FS XC bike. With that said, it is very dependent on your gauge, my 18 psi might be your 23.

I'm firmly in the camp of lower the better. You cant fly into a corner, slide in and square up and bank off of a berm, but you can track over trail chatter better, flat corner much better and climb roots/rocks/offcambers better. 

I also race cross, tubeless, 33mm tires. Again by my pressure guage, I'm normally in the 23 to 27 psi. It took me a few years to learn how to do this, struggled with tubulars and flats here and there and have flatted tubeless tires too, but rarely have a problem now. I think learning how to do this has helped with the lower psi MTB thing, but there are limitations and need to be aware of where the tires rolls/squirms. Also not something you can just do and test without really learning how the ride the bike to take advantage of it. Same can be said the other way around too, I've never experimented with HIGHER pressures, maybe I'd be faster, but would probably need to re-learn how to take advantage of it though.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

mattyice said:


> Oh it will absolutely roll faster downhill, I sure as schnitzel don't want to push em up a 500ft hill though.


If I push them up a 500 foot hill faster at 18psi than 24, will you buy me a beer? I just got power meters on both my mountain bikes. And I like stouts


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Whoah, IMO you guys are way off. Once again the conversation heads towards "feel." Have you tested whether >20psi is faster than <=20psi?
> 
> The feeling of sluggishness is proving to be false, in both road and mountain. The tire deformation, especially if it's supple, is faster than a tire that deflects all the trail obstacles, even if they're minor.
> 
> ...


Domestic pros vs Euro pros, the Euros are in the high teens in a lot of cases, I bet their gauges don't go over 20, in part due to them being lighter riders, but also years of learning how to ride at those pressures. BUT, their courses are also not makeshift cx in the middle of a park with sharp gravel, concrete side walk edges, etc....case in point, 2017 Worlds held on a 'non' dedicated CX course, MVDP had (4) flats...$800 in tires in an hour.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> If I push them up a 500 foot hill faster at 18psi than 24, will you buy me a beer? I just got power meters on both my mountain bikes. And I like stouts


If we're pushing up a hill together and I run at 22psi and bring my backpack with beers in it then you can have a couple.

Maybe I'm used to running the tires at 22 because I'm used to a backpack with 2l of water and 4 beers in it?

But we push up together, we drink together.

Honestly I've never tried running my xc bike so low (maybe I'll try). I would never run my trail bike at such a ludicrous low volume.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I don't care what pressure anyone runs. I try and test to see what feels best. If I bottom out or feel squirm, then I have too little pressure. But if the tire is bouncing off rocks, I have too much. I play around until I find a setting that works well for me and stick with it for consistency.


----------



## jamas1395 (Jun 27, 2009)

I raced on Ikons for 5/6 years until this year. I'm on Conti for this year and so far they seem great. 

I have been running the race king on the back and the X King on the front. I noticed the Conti likes a little less pressure because of their thicker side walls. 

Just today I got to test them out on a fast sharp rock infested trail and they made it through unscathed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DeeZee (Jan 26, 2005)

durkind said:


> Did you get the non-Grid version? Is basically like the old Control versions?


Yes similar. Going to give it a run this weekend


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

mattyice said:


> Oh it will absolutely roll faster downhill, I sure as schnitzel don't want to push em up a 500ft hill though.


18f/20r and I love climbing. Above 22psi in the back and I'm losing too much traction.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

NordieBoy said:


> 18f/20r and I love climbing. Above 22psi in the back and I'm losing too much traction.


I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying from perceived exertion. My Banshee can in 2 lbs go from super fun and poppy, to I'm a sludge tortoise and this ride is gonna suck, plus I've 'burped' it ( and by burped I mean I've let all the air out of the tire in one corner) on more than one occasion.

My trance generally feels like crap for New England, buts it's so xc race it must be right, because it's light.


----------



## louit32 (Jul 20, 2014)

chomxxo said:


> Just got them today. Like last year's model of Renegade, it's not a true 2.3, even with stretching. It's a 2.2 at best. We verified this with calipers. On the positive side, the tread pattern is deeper, and the side knobs are decent. I'd prefer a 29x2.2" at less than 600g, but I'll be confident in rough terrain this Spring season.
> 
> hi, I mount 2 month ago a new fast track gripton 2.3 as a rear tyre. I like the grip, it seems to be better than the former fastrack that I use to have in 2.2 control just before. I am considering mounting the new fast track as a front tyre and maybe the new renegade as a rear tyre.
> did you ride a former fast track before and maybe your feeling in comparaison with the new renegade? (old renegade seems too specific for me, I have the feeling that the new one is less)


----------



## Jacobus (Jul 23, 2006)

Great info MattMay. Any updated pics of the tire profile now that it has stretched? How the tread wear? Did it use 4 oz in each tire to seal?


----------



## Jacobus (Jul 23, 2006)

MattMay said:


> I'm 3 rides in on new Kenda Saber Pro 29x2.2s f/r, internal 23mm rim (Nox Skylines). I haven't ridden Kendas in ten years. In short: I'm a fan, at least so far.
> 
> The spec sheet (http://bicycle.kendatire.com/media/2457/saber_spec_sheet.pdf) is pretty spot on: they are light (actual weight ~570g), fast, and grippy. They do not like wet, but don't mind damp. Here in So Cal the trails are saturated, hero dirt abounds, but a few trails are dry and hard with some rocks here and there, so I got to test them on several surfaces, including road.
> 
> ...


Great info MattMay. Any updated pics of the tire profile now that it has stretched? How the tread wear? Did it use 4 oz in each tire to seal?


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Here you go. I love these tires for So Cal...even in the wet conditions. They are keepers for me. I'm lowering psi each ride, now around 20/22 f/r and I weigh 170.

After another 60-70 miles on mixed surface (from stream crossings to tarmac) the casing is 2.3 and the knobs are 2.2. No sign of wear yet. It's a wider, higher volume and faster 2.2 tire than the Ikon 2.2s which my wife has on her Juliana (27.5). Also lighter (571g). We both have Nox Skyline rims, so internal width is apples to apples. As soon as 27.5s come on the market I'm slapping them on her bike.

They sealed fine now with 4 oz, little air loss. No weeping. 2oz didn't cut it, fwiw.

Profile:









Casing:









Treads:


----------



## Jacobus (Jul 23, 2006)

Thanks MattMay 👍


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

Yep, thanks MattMay! going to have to order these...

D


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

Hey MattMay - just thinking seeing as you have been testing out tires, have you tried Thunderburts? if so, thoughts? in comparison to the Saber Pro's? 

D


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

I have but it's been a about a year and half. I liked them okay but they wore out too fast and weren't so cheap! I personally like a little more volume and grip. With the trend toward wider and grippier xc rubber, they're sorta on the other end of the scale. Don't think I've ever disliked a Schwalbe, just can't afford the upkeep! My LBS actually stopped stocking them for that reason.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I was pretty happy with the Ground Control 2.3s in mud/slush today, it was really rooty and slick, I'm not sure anything would have been great. I ran a little lower pressure with no issues.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Pretty unhappy with the Ralph's today. First actual race with the performance model (600g) 2.25's. The rear has a random slow leak, but holds plenty to get through a race. But that could be a number of things. But even though they are wider and more compliant, I felt like I was giving up traction compared to the 2.1 budget model. Though, it could just be that I was going much faster then in the past and exceeded the limits (I was going faster then someone who consistently beat me last season). Conditions were mostly good being damp, minor amounts of sand, and occasional rocks that are normal on this course and to be expected.

I'll run the next race with these tires and see how they feel. Next race is a US Cup event so the Course will be extra groomed to reduce some of those variables. I don't want to pull off nearly new tires, but also don't want to lose positions from crashing either (crashed twice and gave up a position by 7 seconds).


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

MattMay said:


> I have but it's been a about a year and half. I liked them okay but they wore out too fast and weren't so cheap! I personally like a little more volume and grip. With the trend toward wider and grippier xc rubber, they're sorta on the other end of the scale. Don't think I've ever disliked a Schwalbe, just can't afford the upkeep! My LBS actually stopped stocking them for that reason.


Thanks. Riding my Stache with its 29+ tires I've been enjoying just that, the extra volume and grip and I wouldn't be surprised if my ride times on are similar because of it.
Guess I'll order up some Saber's and check them out.

D


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

Sidewalk said:


> Pretty unhappy with the Ralph's today. First actual race with the *performance model* (600g) 2.25's. The rear has a random slow leak, but holds plenty to get through a race. But that could be a number of things. But even though they are wider and more compliant, I felt like I was giving up traction compared to the 2.1 budget model. Though, it could just be that I was going much faster then in the past and exceeded the limits (I was going faster then someone who consistently beat me last season). Conditions were mostly good being damp, minor amounts of sand, and occasional rocks that are normal on this course and to be expected.
> 
> I'll run the next race with these tires and see how they feel. Next race is a US Cup event so the Course will be extra groomed to reduce some of those variables. I don't want to pull off nearly new tires, but also don't want to lose positions from crashing either (crashed twice and gave up a position by 7 seconds).


Why would you do that to yourself?


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

louit32 said:


> hi, I mount 2 month ago a new fast track gripton 2.3 as a rear tyre. I like the grip, it seems to be better than the former fastrack that I use to have in 2.2 control just before. I am considering mounting the new fast track as a front tyre and maybe the new renegade as a rear tyre.
> did you ride a former fast track before and maybe your feeling in comparaison with the new renegade? (old renegade seems too specific for me, I have the feeling that the new one is less)


In my opinion, the new Renegade 2.3 (2.2) is a legitimately good all-around race tire. Good volume, toughness, speed, and tread depth. My teammate and I agree that it's a worthy rival to the Fast Trak now, vs being a low-profile, fast but sketchy tire before.

It just depends upon which tread pattern you prefer. I raced it in Texas limestone and it stuck pretty well; not too confident in the corners, but I haven't found any tire yet that is with loose scree and gravel. In dirt and dry rock gardens, it's great.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

^that does look good!


----------



## Dphoward (Jul 29, 2013)

jimPacNW said:


> I was pretty happy with the Ground Control 2.3s in mud/slush today, it was really rooty and slick, I'm not sure anything would have been great. I ran a little lower pressure with no issues.


We're you at the budu race?


----------



## sgtrobo (Aug 19, 2014)

jimPacNW said:


> I was pretty happy with the Ground Control 2.3s in mud/slush today, it was really rooty and slick, I'm not sure anything would have been great. I ran a little lower pressure with no issues.


I have the FastTrak in the rear and the GC up front for Budu, and the FastTrak sucked, but the Ground Control wasn't bad.

of course my main issue in the snow/slush was the darn slush getting frozen inside my cleats and pedals


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

spsoon said:


> Why would you do that to yourself?


Yep isnt the performance model the basic entry level stuff?

Evolution line is the stuff for racing on.

https://www.schwalbetires.com/bike_tires/off-road_tires/racing_ralph_425


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Confusing, they say Performance on the sidewall, but come out at 600g (598g and 605g) which is is the weight of the Snakeskin. But the tires were free, which is well in my budget. They came on his Scalpel but he doesn't like RaRa's so he gave them to me. I was running the budget version of the 2.1 before, and it is a good 100g heavier.

Schwalbe Racing Ralph 29" Tire > S > Schwalbe | Jenson USA


----------



## smitty39 (Sep 8, 2016)

*Kenda Saber Pro 2.2 Sealing*



MattMay said:


> They sealed fine now with 4 oz, little air loss. No weeping. 2oz didn't cut it, fwiw.


I got one based on your review and had the exact same deal with sealing up - 2 oz wasn't enough but 4 oz did the trick. Looking forward to getting it on the trail when things dry up again.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

smitty39 said:


> I got one based on your review and had the exact same deal with sealing up - 2 oz wasn't enough but 4 oz did the trick. Looking forward to getting it on the trail when things dry up again.


Cool. Hope your mileage doesn't vary so much from mine, but even so the learning will be good...look forward to your report!


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

In an interesting twist, I decided to throw on a 'Gasp" new 2.35 Evo SS Hans Dampf up front. After preriding the course conditions at Mellow Johnnies Classic and seeing the amount of seeping springs and mud along with the forecast for more I figured it was a calculated measure. I sure was glad to give up 100 grams for the downright silly front traction the HD has. I had grown so used to running the Ikon front that there were plenty of turns I said to myself "damn I could have really pushed harder." My thoughts were the change in rolling resistance would be completely offset by energy conservation from added cornering speed and removing the risk of a high speed washout. I was definitely happy with the results. Will I run it every race? Certainly not, but I can tell you having that kind of traction up front lets you put lots of pressure on people and force mistakes. Something else that cant be measured in a test. 


With that said, when I picked up the HD, I grabbed a RoRo 2.25 SS for the rear (wanted a RaRa). I didn't end up installing it because I wanted a rear tire I was used to for that race. Also, I am looking at this thing and it is TINY. The tread is a half inch inch more narrow than the ikon 2.35. Its kind of ridiculous. 

Is this a much smaller tire than the Ra Ra? 
Is the Ra Ra a better suited rear?

What I really want to try out is the Thunder burt Evo, but they aren't available locally. I am semi confident I could race well on that rear since I already roll on a bald Ikon. 

Does anyone consistently run a thunder burt in aggressive rocky terrain? 

Its very hard for me to part with my Ikons 3c exo because I know that they can take everything I can throw at them. I'm not really sure how anyone pops these unless you are riding through razors and glass in the dark. I'm 200 pounds in gear and don't feel like I am the smoothest rider. 

Thanks to anyone who can share their experience with the Ra Ra and especially Thunderburt. No one around here I speak with that races and rides our trails seems to have any confidence in their sidewall protection.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

FJSnoozer said:


> What I really want to try out is the Thunder burt Evo, but they aren't available locally. I am semi confident I could race well on that rear since I already roll on a bald Ikon.
> 
> Does anyone consistently run a thunder burt in aggressive rocky terrain?


I've ridden that tire a few times and it's a horror show. It's way too light & flimsy and very prone to burps, punctures, and cuts, I wouldn't ride it on anything other than smooth hardpack. I'm a pretty smooth rider when I need to be, I can nurse a lightweight XC rim & tire down black DH trails at a bike park and have them come out in one piece, and I had to use every bit of that skill to keep the Thunder Burt on unholed and on the rim on moderate trails where I normally never think twice about my tires. I was running close to 35psi (150 lbs rider) to keep the tires from burping every time I clipped the side of a rock or angled tree root.

Not to mention traction was unacceptable. On anything other than concrete-like hardpack or hero dirt the tires washed out if I looked at them wrong, it was pretty much like riding on snow. Scary as hell, no confidence under cornering or braking, have to ride super cautiously to keep them in one piece, I guess it's better than riding a commuter slick on the trails but that's not saying much. I'd rather race XC on a set of Maxxis HR2, they roll like doggy doo but at least they'll stay in one piece and won't try to kill me in every corner and braking zone.


----------



## mevnet (Oct 4, 2013)

FJSnoozer said:


> Thanks to anyone who can share their experience with the Ra Ra and especially Thunderburt. No one around here I speak with that races and rides our trails seems to have any confidence in their sidewall protection.


For mostly hardpack and a bit of wet I did run RaRa front and TB rear. They are not bike park tires for sure but if the conditions are right and you know their limit you're going to be fast. Rock gardens...it's where I destroyed my TB and dinged the rim, not the best combination for that and low tire pressure. I usually run 21F and 25R, 165lbs rider.
Here is how they looked like after about 1100km


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

FjSnoozer, the Thunder burt even gets poo pooed around these parts where it should be a shining star. Its black listed around here. Racing ralph is the most popular hands down. We dont have rocks to give any of that feedback. 

Ill share and antidote from the fastest rider in Michigan though. For races with rocks in the up he uses 2.2 race kings, for brown cement he uses 2.3 ralphs. I would think it would be the opposite but thats his take. He would know best around here. 

I would say try the race king protection before any ralph ron burt. I use the race king and it hooks up on wet roots and that just as good as brown cement. 
Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

FJSnoozer said:


> What I really want to try out is the Thunder burt Evo, but they aren't available locally. I am semi confident I could race well on that rear since I already roll on a bald Ikon.


How about a Minion SS?


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

I wasnt sure if you were teasing me or not at first. I thought it was a shot at my usage of the HD. That tire is heavier than the Ikon. Is it really fast?

I'm very happy with the big Ikon, I just wanted to try out a weight weenie tire for some of low tech races, but retain strength for my every day training and my Gnar commute. 

Thank you guys for your input. I can sleep soundly at night with my trusty Ikon.


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

FJSnoozer said:


> I wasnt sure if you were teasing me or not at first. I thought it was a shot at my usage of the HD. That tire is heavier than the Ikon. Is it really fast?
> 
> I'm very happy with the big Ikon, I just wanted to try out a weight weenie tire for some of low tech races, but retain strength for my every day training and my Gnar commute.
> 
> Thank you guys for your input. I can sleep soundly at night with my trusty Ikon.


Hey FJSnoozer, I was trying to find your original post on this, I have a ThunderBurt new in a box, but can't get a Saber Pro around here, I'd be willing to make a trade if interested? Shoot me a PM if so.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Try these guys for a Saber Pro: worldwidecyclery.com


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I'm racing in the _Kenda Cup West_ series, needless to say they have a booth at the events. Pretty sure I can get anything. I want to try some, since they are the title sponsor.


----------



## craigebaker (Nov 19, 2010)

I raced RaRa 2.25 EVO front and ThunderBurt 2.25 Tubeless Easy last season. The TB has sidewall protection. They weigh similar. This combo works fine for midwest/Indiana. You have to be comfortable with a slightly loose rear though. In loose, it will break free in a corner and then suddenly hookup when leaned over further. You eventually learn how to lean it over more smoothly to compensate. It's a compromise. I ran RaRa fr/rear previously and really like it a lot too. It was more stable in corners, but I think the TB rear is a bit faster.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

craigebaker said:


> I raced RaRa 2.25 EVO front and ThunderBurt 2.25 Tubeless Easy last season. The TB has sidewall protection. They weigh similar. This combo works fine for midwest/Indiana. You have to be comfortable with a slightly loose rear though. In loose, it will break free in a corner and then suddenly hookup when leaned over further. You eventually learn how to lean it over more smoothly to compensate. It's a compromise. I ran RaRa fr/rear previously and really like it a lot too. It was more stable in corners, but I think the TB rear is a bit faster.


My experience is similar. The Burt just a faster version of a Ralph (always snakeskin). Equal in terms of reliability, corners fine, and has just enough climbing traction for me. Wouldn't run it on the front in any sort of loose conditions though. The only downside is quick wear.


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

FJSnoozer said:


> In an interesting twist, I decided to throw on a 'Gasp" new 2.35 Evo SS Hans Dampf up front. .


Favorite front tire for just about everything. Not the best handling front on the planet, but for it's weight and tread it does have epic amounts of grab. Rolls pretty good too. Don't ever throw it in the back.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt Disney's Frozen Head (Jan 9, 2008)

spsoon said:


> ...The only downside is quick wear.


Braking? I use it for Wednesday worlds on my SS and it's kinda fun there but not very inspiring in our typical conditions (Front range CO) although it's more capable in "moist" conditions than i'd have thought.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

Hmm, I dunno, I've never had rear braking traction issues. Maybe I'm not a heavy rear brake user.


----------



## osteo (Sep 9, 2010)

MattMay said:


> Try these guys for a Saber Pro: worldwidecyclery.com


Thanks!:thumbsup:


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

NordieBoy said:


> How about a Minion SS?


It's actually rather slow compared to other XC tires and it's also darn heavy.
Unfortunately a semi-slick tire for XC that's fast, light and has good cornering knobs doesn't exist as far as I know. 
You get 2 out of 3 if you're lucky and that's it.

What I'd want is a Kenda BBG or Happy Medium with Vittoria's casings & rubber compounds.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

aerius said:


> It's actually rather slow compared to other XC tires and it's also darn heavy.
> Unfortunately a semi-slick tire for XC that's fast, light and has good cornering knobs doesn't exist as far as I know.
> You get 2 out of 3 if you're lucky and that's it.
> 
> What I'd want is a Kenda BBG or Happy Medium with Vittoria's casings & rubber compounds.


I thought it rolled as well as an Ikon with better cornering. Just not enough out of saddle climbing grip for me.


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

Just got some new Racing Ralph tires. 29x2.25 lite skins came in at 550 and 570grams. ie overweight

29x2.35 SS 640 and 670g. Way under claimed. I wish I could get some more like these! I'v have 2.25 SS weigh more. 

Got some 27.5x2.25 Liteskin for my wife's bikes and they were 530 and 540grams. 

Ikon 27.5x2.35 exo were 700g. Really wish Schwalbe made the 27.5 ralph in a 2.35 or that Maxxis make a non-Exo Ikon.


----------



## Commonaeros (May 28, 2015)

*Tyre choice for BC bike race*

Meant to be PM


----------



## mccartney7499 (Jul 18, 2004)

Planning to do some racing this year here in Western Pennsylvania.

Went with a Vittoria Barzo 2.25 front (non-TNT), and Vittoria Mezcal 2.1 TNT G+ rear combo. Both set up tubeless w/ Stans on a Niner Jet 9.

Did a test ride this morning. They roll fast, and hooked up everywhere. Time will tell how durable they are...


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

racing ralphs rear / nobby nic front for life. I hate paying the premium for a tire that barely lasts 500 miles, but dang they are worth it.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> FjSnoozer, the Thunder burt even gets poo pooed around these parts where it should be a shining star. Its black listed around here. Racing ralph is the most popular hands down. We dont have rocks to give any of that feedback.
> 
> Ill share and antidote from the fastest rider in Michigan though. For races with rocks in the up he uses 2.2 race kings, for brown cement he uses 2.3 ralphs. I would think it would be the opposite but thats his take. He would know best around here.
> 
> ...


So it's your automatic assumption that the fastest guy is making the absolute best equipment choices?


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

Details on the 170tpi Aspen and Ikons. Not going to sold to public, racers only.

Don't shoot the messenger.

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/03/0...ikon-aspen-xc-race-tires-plus-casing-details/


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

> The good news is, there's a new 29×2.25 Maxxis Aspen, which is a slight increase from the 29×2.20 currently offered.


Am I missing something, or is the Aspen currently offered in 29x2.10?


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

spsoon said:


> Am I missing something, or is the Aspen currently offered in 29x2.10?


Must be a typo, Aspen is 2.1


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

mrbadwrench said:


> racing ralphs rear / nobby nic front for life. I hate paying the premium for a tire that barely lasts 500 miles, but dang they are worth it.


I got 3x NNs from a UK webshop for $106. Burn 'em and toss 'em.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## bopApocalypse (Aug 27, 2005)

kevbikemad said:


> Details on the 170tpi Aspen and Ikons. Not going to sold to public, racers only.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger.
> 
> https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/03/0...ikon-aspen-xc-race-tires-plus-casing-details/


[quote='Duncan' in the comments from the bikerumor link]
So&#8230;the 120tpi 29×2.25 Aspen that consumers can purchase is the exact same updated design [...] without the indicated hefty price tag and slightly more supple(and fragile) casing[/quote]

I suppose it's nice to see that they're planning on releasing an updated Aspen, even if it doesn't have a high-zoot casing.

Closer to home on the "Tires I'm actually running" topic, I'm pretty amazed that my new Ikons mounted, sealed and are holding air seemingly perfectly without a drop of sealant being added - never had that before!


----------



## DeeZee (Jan 26, 2005)

MattMay said:


> I'm 3 rides in on new Kenda Saber Pro 29x2.2s f/r, internal 23mm rim (Nox Skylines). I haven't ridden Kendas in ten years. In short: I'm a fan, at least so far.
> 
> The spec sheet (http://bicycle.kendatire.com/media/2457/saber_spec_sheet.pdf) is pretty spot on: they are light (actual weight ~570g), fast, and grippy. They do not like wet, but don't mind damp. Here in So Cal the trails are saturated, hero dirt abounds, but a few trails are dry and hard with some rocks here and there, so I got to test them on several surfaces, including road.
> 
> ...


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

FJSnoozer said:


> In an interesting twist, I decided to throw on a 'Gasp" new 2.35 Evo SS Hans Dampf up front. After preriding the course conditions at Mellow Johnnies Classic and seeing the amount of seeping springs and mud along with the forecast for more I figured it was a calculated measure. I sure was glad to give up 100 grams for the downright silly front traction the HD has. I had grown so used to running the Ikon front that there were plenty of turns I said to myself "damn I could have really pushed harder." My thoughts were the change in rolling resistance would be completely offset by energy conservation from added cornering speed and removing the risk of a high speed washout. I was definitely happy with the results. Will I run it every race? Certainly not, but I can tell you having that kind of traction up front lets you put lots of pressure on people and force mistakes. Something else that cant be measured in a test.
> 
> With that said, when I picked up the HD, I grabbed a RoRo 2.25 SS for the rear (wanted a RaRa). I didn't end up installing it because I wanted a rear tire I was used to for that race. Also, I am looking at this thing and it is TINY. The tread is a half inch inch more narrow than the ikon 2.35. Its kind of ridiculous.
> 
> ...


I've had good durability with the TB and RR around here, but not a ton of rocks. I've gotten to where I vastly prefer a Nobby Nic front/RR rear to my old fave RR front/TB rear simply because it rolls almost as fast and is SO much better in the corners it's not even funny. Plus, a big RR in the rear gives decent braking traction; the TB, not so much.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

tommyrod74 said:


> I've had good durability with the TB and RR around here, but not a ton of rocks. I've gotten to where I vastly prefer a Nobby Nic front/RR rear to my old fave RR front/TB rear simply because it rolls almost as fast and is SO much better in the corners it's not even funny. Plus, a big RR in the rear gives decent braking traction; the TB, not so much.


No love for Rocket Ron Snakeskin? Nobby Nic is great on my trail bike but pretty heavy for racing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

The Rocket Ron is a pretty narrow tire. I'm using them now. My 2.25 measure out to about 2.1 knob to knob. The RaRa 2.25 measured out almost 2.3 k to k. They are on some 22mm IW Roval carbon.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

chomxxo said:


> No love for Rocket Ron Snakeskin? Nobby Nic is great on my trail bike but pretty heavy for racing
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I honestly haven't tried the latest RoRo editions. The older ones left me cold so I've stayed away.

I've been so happy with the Nic in the front that I don't mind the weight. DOesn't seem to be a drawback in actual racing.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> No love for Rocket Ron Snakeskin? Nobby Nic is great on my trail bike but pretty heavy for racing


For our summer trail conditions in the Seattle area especially when we get a layer of dust on the trails, the Rocket Rons actually seem to hook up in corners than the Nobby Nic while also being faster rolling. Our comparison test details are at: https://www.dirtmerchantbikes.com/s...northwest-summer-2015-xc-tire-comparison-test


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

RS VR6 said:


> The Rocket Ron is a pretty narrow tire. I'm using them now. My 2.25 measure out to about 2.1 knob to knob. The RaRa 2.25 measured out almost 2.3 k to k. They are on some 22mm IW Roval carbon.


I've heard that before but I don't think it's true. I rode a Rocket Ron front and Racing Ralph Rear and didn't see a significant difference. See the test below, they measure it at 2.25.



Spectre said:


> For our summer trail conditions in the Seattle area especially when we get a layer of dust on the trails, the Rocket Rons actually seem to hook up in corners than the Nobby Nic while also being faster rolling. Our comparison test details are at: https://www.dirtmerchantbikes.com/s...northwest-summer-2015-xc-tire-comparison-test


Great tests! Love your methods and the results are pretty astounding.


----------



## dokker (Sep 25, 2013)

Absalon now on Vittoria tyres. Does anyone know if he uses 2,1" or 2,25" width tyres?


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Interesting...

Rocket Ron is a great tire. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Why, because it rolls fast, has a ton of traction on dry, damp, roots, rocks, and is one of the lightest tires out there. Oh, yeah I guess you're right.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm running Rocket Ron front and Racing Ralph Rear. Both 2.1 but have a Rocket Ron 2.25 waiting for the front. Super fast, light and plenty of grip. I'm on a soft sandy course, so rocks aren't an issue. On Enve m60's they measure true to size.
edit.
They look absolutely tiny when I switch from the 2.6 nobby nic's on my tallboy.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I wish the side knobs on Rocket Rons were a bit larger/stiffer. I've been using other non-Schwalbe tires (AR, Barzo, Wild Race'R) for a while now on a 28mm ID front wheel. I'd be interested to try the RoRo again but, just pressing on the knobs with my fingers, I fear they will fold and release too easily. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Rocket Rons are a surprisingly good tire. I have leaned mine over pretty far. Still an XC tire though. The Racing Ralphs not so much. They don't feel any faster or lighter than the Rons and have far less grip. Good enough for the rear, but i'll never buy one again.
I can't wait until they start making Rons in 29x2.6.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

alexbn921 said:


> Rocket Rons are a surprisingly good tire. I have leaned mine over pretty far. Still an XC tire though. The Racing Ralphs not so much. They don't feel any faster or lighter than the Rons and have far less grip. Good enough for the rear, but i'll never buy one again.
> I can't wait until they start making Rons in 29x2.6.


I'd love to try a Ron 2.35, on the Ralph 2.35 casing.

For straight line speed, it's hard to beat a Schwalbe. I might try a Nic/Ron combo.

I have to imagine my 28mm ID rims would completely transform a tire compared to the same tire on my old 18mm ID ENVE XCs, which are on HT/CX/gravel duty now.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

alexbn921 said:


> Rocket Rons are a surprisingly good tire. I have leaned mine over pretty far. Still an XC tire though. The Racing Ralphs not so much. They don't feel any faster or lighter than the Rons and have far less grip. Good enough for the rear, but i'll never buy one again.
> I can't wait until they start making Rons in 29x2.6.


This is absolutely comical.

Racing Ralphs have much more grip than a Rocket Ron. Rocket Ron lets go at will when pushed hard. Completely unpredictable. A Racing Ralph never lets go.

A rocket ron on wet roots? Lol. Those knobs are useless. Where are some of you riding these tires. These tires are good for a rear tire on brown cement. Dont use on the front unless you like drifting front tires.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> I've heard that before but I don't think it's true. I rode a Rocket Ron front and Racing Ralph Rear and didn't see a significant difference. See the test below, they measure it at 2.25.


This is my rear aired up to about ~21psi .

Stretched to a whopping 2.12.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> This is absolutely comical.
> 
> Racing Ralphs have much more grip than a Rocket Ron. Rocket Ron lets go at will when pushed hard. Completely unpredictable. A Racing Ralph never lets go.
> 
> ...


This discussion of the Rocket Ron needs some context of trail conditions in which they are being used. I think its a great tire in loose over hardpack that we have here in the Seattle area in the summer and also in Bend, OR, but I can imagine that there are conditions in which the Racing Ralph with its shorter knobs is better such as on rock solid hardpack as you might find in California. Also, I don't really see using the Rocket Ron in rocky areas such as in the Southwest.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

I think the Rons are great for loose over hard pack, loose, and greasy/wet/slick conditions. For straight hardpack or hard surfaces I don't think the Rons are ideal with their more open knob pattern. I do agree with wishing they had better side knobs. I don't think the Rons are as fast as Ralphs due to the open spacing, especially on soft/wet surfaces where they get sucked in, plus I can feel those knobs hit as I roll. 

I'm not a fan of the Ralphs though, they feel too sketchy, squirmy, and get upset too easily by debris. Even as a rear tire, I remember having to replace a Ground Control I slashed with a Ralph and not liking it in the first outing. The only time I ever really liked them were in tacky conditions (where any tire should be good), and weirdly snow. For hard pack I'd rather be on a Race King.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

zephxiii said:


> For straight hardpack or hard surfaces I don't think the Rons are ideal with their more open knob pattern.


I think that is exactly what drives the difference in opinion on the Rocket Rons. The small cornering knobs can get flexy especially under higher cornering forces.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Maxxis now has the 2.25 Aspen listed in the 29er size on their website: Aspen | Maxxis Tires USA

I don't think I have the skills to use that as a front tire but it looks like a good rear tire.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Catharine raced the Forecaster last weekend at the Bear Mountain Canada Cup. She was really happy with how it gripped in the snow and mud in woods while still to rolling quick enough for her to ride away on the hardpacked/paved climb.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Stonerider said:


> Maxxis now has the 2.25 Aspen listed in the 29er size on their website: Aspen | Maxxis Tires USA
> 
> I don't think I have the skills to use that as a front tire but it looks like a good rear tire.


with an Ikon 2.35 up front might be a killer combo


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

LMN said:


> Catharine raced the Forecaster last weekend at the Bear Mountain Canada Cup. She was really happy with how it gripped in the snow and mud in woods while still to rolling quick enough for her to ride away on the hardpacked/paved climb.


I'm guessing these are a faster option then beavers? Are beavers needed anymore?

Also wondering , is the aspen considered the faster tire then the ikon? I'm liking the side the look of the side knobs on the aspen. Ive never really had a tire with good side knobs(usually run renegade or race kings/X kings.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

machine4321 said:


> Also wondering , is the aspen considered the faster tire then the ikon? I'm liking the side the look of the side knobs on the aspen. Ive never really had a tire with good side knobs(usually run renegade or race kings/X kings.


Allegedly, Swiss Cycling did a test of several tires for Nino Shurter and found the Aspen to be the fastest tire for him. That is why he ditched the tubulars last year and switched to the tubeless Aspens. Your results may vary.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

machine4321 said:


> I'm guessing these are a faster option then beavers? Are beavers needed anymore?


I wouldn't say it is a faster option then a beaver. It is a more versitile tire then a beaver. The beaver is pure mud tire, it is narrow with tall knobs. Works well in deep mud, but sketchy on any hard surface.

The forecaster is a wet tire. Sheds mud well, and still works on hard surfaces. And at 2.2 you can run it at a reasonable air pressure.



machine4321 said:


> Also wondering , is the aspen considered the faster tire then the ikon? I'm liking the side the look of the side knobs on the aspen. Ive never really had a tire with good side knobs(usually run renegade or race kings/X kings.


The Aspen has always been one of their faster tires. But I have found it needs perfect conditions to work well. I am curious if the redesign of it has given it some needed cornering grip.


----------



## Chippertheripper (Sep 10, 2014)

MattMay said:


> with an Ikon 2.35 up front might be a killer combo


looking at the aspen doesn't have me wanting to deviate from my current ikon2.35/ikon2.2 setup. only if its going to be muddy, I suppose.
edit: but mud certainly won't have me wanting an aspen either.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Stonerider said:


> Allegedly, Swiss Cycling did a test of several tires for Nino Shurter and found the Aspen to be the fastest tire for him. That is why he ditched the tubulars last year and switched to the tubeless Aspens. Your results may vary.


That was a special PRO only 170 tpi tire. Not something we can buy.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> This is absolutely comical.
> 
> Racing Ralphs have much more grip than a Rocket Ron. Rocket Ron lets go at will when pushed hard. Completely unpredictable. A Racing Ralph never lets go.
> 
> ...


Rocket Ron is generally considered an excellent wet conditions tire. Besides other tires up into the "trail" segment, it's the best cornering XC race tire I've ever ridden. One thing I love about the Ron is that when leaned hard, it lets go predictably, giving and then regaining traction, whereas the Racing Ralph just lets go completely and you go down. This is covered in the review.

While the open pattern might slip on wet roots, some conditions like that are just going to be tough, no matter the tire. It certainly clears mud better than a Racing Ralph.



RS VR6 said:


> This is my rear aired up to about ~21psi .
> 
> Stretched to a whopping 2.12.
> View attachment 1126195


Note that you measured the casing and not the max width of the tire at the side knobs, which is the criteria for measuring mountain bike tires. The side knobs will add the extra width.



zephxiii said:


> I think the Rons are great for loose over hard pack, loose, and greasy/wet/slick conditions. For straight hardpack or hard surfaces I don't think the Rons are ideal with their more open knob pattern. I do agree with wishing they had better side knobs. I don't think the Rons are as fast as Ralphs due to the open spacing, especially on soft/wet surfaces where they get sucked in, plus I can feel those knobs hit as I roll.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the Ralphs though, they feel too sketchy, squirmy, and get upset too easily by debris. Even as a rear tire, I remember having to replace a Ground Control I slashed with a Ralph and not liking it in the first outing. The only time I ever really liked them were in tacky conditions (where any tire should be good), and weirdly snow. For hard pack I'd rather be on a Race King.


I did a little experiment this weekend with some old Rocket Rons. I have a pretty good knob lopper, and I trimmed down the center knobs to turn them into a semi-slick. It was muddy this weekend and I gave them a shot. Climbing traction definitely decreased, but this is what the normal Rons have in spades, and it can be sacrificed a little to get faster rolling. We'll have to see how it goes in dry conditions, I'm curious as to whether they remain predictable.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I have to admit that I am hesitant to try anything. I am not normally like that, but with a limited budget to throw away on tires and so much success on the RaRa's, I don't know if I want to try test something else. Maybe in the off season next year I will.

In my first local pro XC racing a hardtail I had little trouble keeping up with the full suspension (B group) guys in anything less then super technical stuff (and the time lost was easily recovered in the climb before or after). In high speed descents, I was equal to my friend who beat me all last season in Cat 1 and who also races enduro. I also noticed when chasing Tinker down a descent in a race yesterday that we were nearly equal (I was faster, but it is easier to follow then lead). Looks like Tinker runs WTB, but I don't know what model he is running. And he certainly knows more about XC racing then...all of us combined (no offence LMN)? 

I unfortunately need to swap out the rear tire since it won't hold good air it seems. I have a spare tire I can put on that holds fine.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> Note that you measured the casing and not the max width of the tire at the side knobs, which is the criteria for measuring mountain bike tires. The side knobs will add the extra width.


Trust me...its the side knobs.

I'm not saying its a bad tire...that it just measures a bit narrow.

Here is a better pic. I set the caliper at 2.25 and you can see the gap from the knob to caliper arm.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Sidewalk said:


> I have to admit that I am hesitant to try anything. I am not normally like that, but with a limited budget to throw away on tires and so much success on the RaRa's, I don't know if I want to try test something else. Maybe in the off season next year I will.
> 
> In my first local pro XC racing a hardtail I had little trouble keeping up with the full suspension (B group) guys in anything less then super technical stuff (and the time lost was easily recovered in the climb before or after). In high speed descents, I was equal to my friend who beat me all last season in Cat 1 and who also races enduro. I also noticed when chasing Tinker down a descent in a race yesterday that we were nearly equal (I was faster, but it is easier to follow then lead). Looks like Tinker runs WTB, but I don't know what model he is running. And he certainly knows more about XC racing then...all of us combined (no offence LMN)?
> 
> I unfortunately need to swap out the rear tire since it won't hold good air it seems. I have a spare tire I can put on that holds fine.


Feel trumps everything. If you made it to pro with a tire you know, stay with it. I'm going back to my favorite tire, too. Guys don't realize the skill level you're dealing with. Tinker could probably go with beach cruiser tires and still out-ride most guys downhill. I've read that Tinker doesn't really like tubeless, despite the facts, he rides 35psi.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Tinker could probably go with beach cruiser tires and still out-ride most guys downhill.


Truth



chomxxo said:


> I've read that Tinker doesn't really like tubeless, despite the facts, he rides 35psi.


Hmmm...interesting. I'll ask his support crew next race, if I can. Next time I know I'll cross paths is 5/7 and 5/20. I don't know if he'll try and hit the local small series, he doesn't do short stuff anymore. He lives in my area.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Michelin's 4 new tires...Force XC looks good...side knobs look grippy.

https://m.pinkbike.com/news/four-new-tires-from-michelin-first-ride.html

closeup of tread from the Mich site:


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

MattMay said:


> Michelin's 4 new tires...Force XC looks good...side knobs look grippy.
> 
> https://m.pinkbike.com/news/four-new-tires-from-michelin-first-ride.html


The Force XC showing in stock here, low price (actually, strangely low prices all over the site).. anyone bought from these folks?

https://www.bikeinn.com/bike/michel...OcPlAgZznaWkuNMoSKUFbxoCXf3w_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

tommyrod74 said:


> The Force XC showing in stock here, low price (actually, strangely low prices all over the site).. anyone bought from these folks?
> 
> https://www.bikeinn.com/bike/michel...OcPlAgZznaWkuNMoSKUFbxoCXf3w_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


does "bead hard" mean wire bead?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

My Nobby Nic 29x2.25 SS measures 2.144" on an Enve XC (18mm ID) rim. Outside of knob to outside of knob. 21psi.

29x2.25 Rocket Ron SS, 2.139". 22psi. Same wheelset. 

Given that they are both made on the same casing, this makes sense. I'm not sure what pressure I'd have to ride them at to get a true 2.25 on those rims, but I don't think I'd like to find out.

A wider rim would help. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

Similar measurements for me except that the Rocket Ron is shorter in height than the Nobby Nic (measured on a Stans Arch EX rim with 21 mm internal width):

Schwalbe Nobby Nic: 27.5" x 2.25, Pacestar compound, Snakeskin casing
Claimed Weight: 610 g
Actual Weight: 670 g (avg of 4 tires weighed with range of 660-710g)
Tire Height: 55 mm
Casing Width: 56 mm
Knob Width: 56 mm

Schwalbe Rocket Ron: 27.5” x 2.25 Pacestar compound, Snakeskin casing

Claimed Weight: 550 g
Actual Weight: 625 g (avg of 2 tires weighed with range of 610-640g)
Tire Height: 52 mm
Casing Width: 57 mm
Knob Width: 55 mm


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Anyone running the Vittoria Mezcal G+ TNT 29x2.25? 

Looks like it might tick all my boxes.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

fyi, from Vittoria Mezcal G+ 29 Tire
"Actual weight:
2.10: 652 grams
2.25: 718 grams
Actual width: (measured on a 23 mm internal width rim)
2.1 - Tread: 1.94 in, Casing: 2.04 in
2.25 - Tread: 2.08 in, Casing: 2.16 in"


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> I wish the side knobs on Rocket Rons were a bit larger/stiffer. I've been using other non-Schwalbe tires (AR, Barzo, Wild Race'R) for a while now on a 28mm ID front wheel. I'd be interested to try the RoRo again but, just pressing on the knobs with my fingers, I fear they will fold and release too easily.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Try the Vittoria Peyote, it's pretty much a Rocket Ron with bigger and better supported side knobs. Every 2nd cornering knob is also angled inwards slightly which gives the tire a more predictable breakaway and better drift recovery characteristics.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

aerius said:


> Try the Vittoria Peyote, it's pretty much a Rocket Ron with bigger and better supported side knobs. Every 2nd cornering knob is also angled inwards slightly which gives the tire a more predictable breakaway and better drift recovery characteristics.


I'm hoping they make a G+ model soon.

Is the Peyote sized similarly to the Barzo?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Unbrockenchain (Aug 21, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> I'm hoping they make a G+ model soon.
> 
> Is the Peyote sized similarly to the Barzo?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


I recent got but not mounted:
Barzo 2.35 714 grams
Mezcal 2.35 711 grams
G+ TNT
Still too much snow to test


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> I'm hoping they make a G+ model soon.
> 
> Is the Peyote sized similarly to the Barzo?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


I just received both a Peyote and a Barzo although I have not mounted them.

The Barzo weighed in at 570 grams, and the Peyote was heavier at 600.

The Barzo looks like more capable tire for trail riding, and the Peyote seems like a more XC tire. I'm a bit confused how the Peyote could be heavier, but it is what it is.

Unfortunately my Rocket Rons weight around the 520 mark so chances are I may not even mount these.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Was the Barzo G+ TNT as well???

I thought the Mezcal was the only G+ XC tire right now.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> Was the Barzo G+ TNT as well???
> 
> I thought the Mezcal was the only G+ XC tire right now.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


No, neither tires are G+


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

The Barzo is a better tire than the RoRo in every aspect but weight. More puncture proof, better cornering, better braking. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> The Barzo is a better tire than the RoRo in every aspect but weight. More puncture proof, better cornering, better braking.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Possibly, but I have never had one problem with the RoRo in either cornering or braking.

I've used my RoRo in every situation that is possible here in MI including deep and wet leaves, snow, dry and wet dirt and they just flat out hook unless I get stupid. But then it's my fault, not the tires.

It would have to roll better for me to make the switch.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Zerort said:


> Possibly, but I have never had one problem with the RoRo in either cornering or braking.
> 
> I've used my RoRo in every situation that is possible here in MI including deep and wet leaves, snow, dry and wet dirt and they just flat out hook unless I get stupid. But then it's my fault, not the tires.
> 
> It would have to roll better for me to make the switch.


Makes sense.

I liked the RoRo in IL/WI. Much prefer Maxxis and Vittoria tires in western VA/NC and CO/UT.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Unbrockenchain (Aug 21, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> Was the Barzo G+ TNT as well???
> 
> I thought the Mezcal was the only G+ XC tire right now.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Stand corrected. Your right just Mezcal G+


----------



## craigebaker (Nov 19, 2010)

Just ordered RaRa 2.25 Light Skin for front and Thunder Burt 2.25 Tubeless Easy for rear. Same as last year. I'm still not 100% sold on the TB. It's borderline sketchy, but even with the snake skin sidewalls and tubeless easy setup, it's pretty light and fast. Might go back to my old setup of RaRa fr/rear again at some point though.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

craigebaker said:


> Just ordered RaRa 2.25 Light Skin for front and Thunder Burt 2.25 Tubeless Easy for rear. Same as last year. I'm still not 100% sold on the TB. It's borderline sketchy, but even with the snake skin sidewalls and tubeless easy setup, it's pretty light and fast. Might go back to my old setup of RaRa fr/rear again at some point though.


I'm telling you, I ran that combo for a long time before trying No Ni front/Ra Ra rear. No slower rolling (if so it's unnoticeable) and SO MUCH MORE cornering traction. Try it and see.


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

im running nobby nic 2.25 ss in front and for regular riding i use a rocket ron ss in the rear and switch to a racing ralph ss for races. very very fast and grippy setup.


----------



## craigebaker (Nov 19, 2010)

Well, I knew this would happen. The Aspen 29x2.25 wasn't available until I ordered my Schwalbe tires. As soon as they shipped, bam, the Aspens are available:

Bicycle, Mountain, Aspen*

Anyone want to buy a RaRa Lightskin and TB, Tubeless Easy?


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

My buddy just gave me a new Hutchinson Black Mamba 29 x 2.0. Anyone have any experience on these?


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

craigebaker said:


> Well, I knew this would happen. The Aspen 29x2.25 wasn't available until I ordered my Schwalbe tires. As soon as they shipped, bam, the Aspens are available:
> 
> Bicycle, Mountain, Aspen*
> 
> Anyone want to buy a RaRa Lightskin and TB, Tubeless Easy?


Keep em in case you hate the Aspens!


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

MattMay said:


> Keep em in case you hate the Aspens!


To me, it looks like the Aspen should handle and roll similar to the Racing Ralph. I could be wrong though because I have no experience with the Aspen other than looking at internet pictures.


----------



## TTUB (Nov 9, 2010)

New tire added to my list this weekend... Panaracer Driver Pro
Fast, light and appears to be reasonably durable. Fast center tread with "wing knobs" for cornering.

Spent the week prior trying to get a Schwalbe RaRa to hold air... that poor fragile little thing inspired 0 confidence coming in to my race weekend. A friend tossed me a Driver Pro and I'm never looking back (at Schwalbe) again... (except for the G-One... love that tire on my Slate).

The Driver Pro aired right up with just a standard floor pump and no sealant.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

TTUB said:


> New tire added to my list this weekend... Panaracer Driver Pro
> Fast, light and appears to be reasonably durable. Fast center tread with "wing knobs" for cornering.
> 
> Spent the week prior trying to get a Schwalbe RaRa to hold air... that poor fragile little thing inspired 0 confidence coming in to my race weekend. A friend tossed me a Driver Pro and I'm never looking back (at Schwalbe) again... (except for the G-One... love that tire on my Slate).
> ...


Ra Ra snakeskin, or liteskin?

Snakeskin tires air up for me minus sealant and hold air without it overnight. I use sealant, of course, anyway... not that I run a Ra Ra on front anymore (No Ni is a much better front tire)...

Post your experiences with the Driver Pro, I'm curious.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

TTUB said:


> New tire added to my list this weekend... Panaracer Driver Pro
> Fast, light and appears to be reasonably durable. Fast center tread with "wing knobs" for cornering.


Good to know...Panaracers were my first tire 20+ yrs ago (FireXC Pro)!


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Well, I guess the Maxxis Aspen is more durable than Specialized's new Renegade tire. Punctures (I heard 6) ruined Kulhavy/Sauser's bid at the overall GC championship at the Apsa Cape Epic Stage race. Nino/Matthias took the overall win with no punctures to my knowledge.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Stonerider said:


> Well, I guess the Maxxis Aspen is more durable than Specialized's new Renegade tire. Punctures (I heard 6) ruined Kulhavy/Sauser's bid at the overall GC championship at the Apsa Cape Epic Stage race. Nina/Matthias took the overall win with no punctures to my knowledge.


In my personal experience this surprises me. While the new Renegade is not one of my favorites, I've raced it in 2.3 with success. It doesn't seem flimsy by any means, and I raced it through rocky terrain. After all it's 60tpi.

Perhaps the Specialized team is getting a more supple experimental version, like the pro-only 170tpi Aspen.

On paper, 60tpi Renegades should be much more durable than 170tpi Aspens.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

It's starting to dry out a little, and I'm looking at faster rolling tires than my 2.3 Ground Controls. They've been quite good so far with mostly wet conditions (6 c1 masters podiums in 6 races, 4 of them very wet/muddy). 
3 weeks ago we were talking tires at the start line, and it was going to be a muddy/slick race, my main competition had Fast Traks, that gave me some added confidence, I think he slid around a lot more than I did (and I put a couple of minutes on him). The fat bike guys described it like a slick-track, - just sliding all over the place.
Several of my friends have had to walk out their Schwalbes, so I can't stomach those, but I know lots of guys have had better luck. 

There's so many tire choices, my heads going to explode! I have run a X-king rear and liked it, I'm considering a pair of 2.2 X-kings for possible wet conditions, but hopefully mostly dry. It should be dirt/loam (decayed Fir tree debris) with mostly 1" or less round rock to sand mixed in. 
My main concern at the moment (having got 2nd by 40seconds yesterday to Fast Trak guy in soft but mostly dry conditions) is that I'm giving up some speed with the GCs as it drys out. It was just soft enough to leave tread-marks in a lot of the trails, would the GCs have their worst rolling resistance there?
I'm looking for lower rolling resistance that will still hook up a bit if it unexpectedly rains the night before and I don't have time to change back to the GCs. Suggestions?


----------



## mackdhagen (Jun 17, 2011)

JPNW i was going to suggest the Schwabies but yes know of their rep. But honestly so do x-kings and race kings for flatting (i know racers that will not touch conti's because of their rep alone...yet i (and sound like you) really like 'em) yet both have been my go-to tire for years...just saying to reconsider the rocket ron's. They are not as wispy as the racing ralphs and just as good if not better rolling resistance and more bite than race kings and on par with x-kings. IMHO


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

My Xkings are hit and miss for me. I bought them as intermediates and I think they work well in those conditions. They do feel some what "dead" and they are very picky on pressures. I think for most conditions fastrak would be a great hardpack and slightly wet course tire and the xkings for the wet races. 

But I haven't really had them in any type of loamy type conditions other then fall leaves ect and they do well there.


----------



## broeli (Feb 15, 2008)

mackdhagen said:


> JPNW i was going to suggest the Schwabies but yes know of their rep. But honestly so do x-kings and race kings for flatting (i know racers that will not touch conti's because of their rep alone...yet i (and sound like you) really like 'em) yet both have been my go-to tire for years...just saying to reconsider the rocket ron's. They are not as wispy as the racing ralphs and just as good if not better rolling resistance and more bite than race kings and on par with x-kings. IMHO


I've had good luck for most part with Schwalbe. Race King race sport tires cost me a win yesterday. Got a flat..shot co2 to it. Stans didn't seal it. Spent several minutes putting in a tube. Went from a minute lead to dead last. Luckily I was able to come back and still get 3rd. That was my first race on the brand new Race Kings. Now I'm skeptical if I should even give them another shot. I loved my rocket ron/racing Ralph and RoRo/Thunder Burt combos. Ikons are pretty good but the Schwalbes have been my most reliable which is weird because a lot of people say just the opposite


----------



## smitty39 (Sep 8, 2016)

*Kenda Saber Pro Update*

With some time on the 2.2 Saber Pro, I have to say it's not a tire that will work for me. Any sort of loose dirt whatsoever is a no-go with this tire, especially on the front. My trails are mostly hardpack with the occasional sand wash. On the front it's unworkable in the loose stuff. It works okay on the rear, but I've noticed these tires aren't available as cheaply as they once were, so that is no longer a positive for them.

I've never held a Thunder Burt or Furious Fred in my hand, but the Saber seems more akin to one of those as opposed to a Racing Ralph or Ikon.

This is just my experience, but I'm going back to 2.25 Racing Ralph's on both ends and think about other things.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

My personal experience has been positive on Schwalbe as well. My rides are mostly rough single, packed terrain, mildly rocky, sand and very dry. Maybe its because I have always used the UST version of Racing Ralphs, but those have been bombproof to flats and they roll amazingly well with very good grip. Only drawback is its price. 

Recently I have tried the Geax Mezcal TNT G+ which are great tires as well, I would say on par with RR's.

The specialized GC I have used seem to be inferior than RR in all ways.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

broeli said:


> I've had good luck for most part with Schwalbe. Race King race sport tires cost me a win yesterday. Got a flat..shot co2 to it. Stans didn't seal it. Spent several minutes putting in a tube.


If it were me I would decide based on how it went flat. What kind of flat did you get? I think all of my flats on continental race sport tires have been sidewall cuts due to sharp rocks, except for one where it cut a 1/4" long hole right where the bead becomes the sidewall. I think the rim cut it under a hard bottom out. Stans has never helped with a cut. Then I got a flat a month ago and I have no idea why. Replaced the tire, didn't really investigate but it wasn't obvious.

My flats are infrequent enough that I don't run protection tires.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Stan's was first mistake. Only time I ever flatted w/ Race King was when my sealant had fully dried out... And I'm talking at least 4000 miles. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

machine4321 said:


> My Xkings are hit and miss for me. I bought them as intermediates and I think they work well in those conditions. They do feel some what "dead" and they are very picky on pressures. I think for most conditions fastrak would be a great hardpack and slightly wet course tire and the xkings for the wet races.
> 
> But I haven't really had them in any type of loamy type conditions other then fall leaves ect and they do well there.


Intermediate conditions is exactly what they are for.

When it comes to hardpack-ish conditions the FasTrack, Renegade, Race King, and XR1 (now 29-1) Excel. But when it gets too loose or greasy that's where they start to struggle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## jepva (Aug 29, 2016)

Any recommendations for a faster XCish tire that is still durable for Rocky and gnarly trails? I've heard a lot of people recommend the racing Ralph's but also hear they are not durable.

I'm racing in our state XC series but the trails vary so much and some have pretty gnarly  conditions (and typically lots of water/Creek crossings) , I really need a somewhat do it all tire. I've been using the mavic crossmax tires that came with my wheelset but they are more all mountain / Enduro oriented so looking to shed a little weight and get something faster rolling (they are also 29x2.35)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Vittoria Barzo, Peyote, Mezcal. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## jepva (Aug 29, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Vittoria Barzo, Peyote, Mezcal.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


The vittorias do look good. I had my eye on them and see nothing but good reviews. Are you running barzo for both front and rear ?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

You guys now have me seriously looking at Vittoria. Musta been living in a cave not consider. G+ is "real deal" according to Bicycle Rolling Resistance: Vittoria Mezcal TNT G+.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

My wife won an aspen 2.25 at the Pace bend race. Cant wait to give it a go!


----------



## MNSnoPro (Mar 1, 2016)

Has anyone tried the Maxis Pace? I don't see much mention of them here.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

MNSnoPro said:


> Has anyone tried the Maxis Pace? I don't see much mention of them here.


I like Maxxis tires, but the Pace seems like a low tech tire - 6o tpi, single compound.


----------



## Dphoward (Jul 29, 2013)

set up the anthem with the 2.25 tnt vittoria mezcals and took them out to tiger mountain here in seattle. set PRs on literally every trail i rode today. they were noticeably faster than the 2.3 fast traks i had been riding and hooked up really well in some of the most technical trails around. couldn't get them to break loose and rode everything from rock gardens, to mud, to hero dirt. 

i may have found my new 'go to' tire.


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

Dphoward said:


> set up the anthem with the 2.25 tnt vittoria mezcals and took them out to tiger mountain here in seattle. set PRs on literally every trail i rode today. they were noticeably faster than the 2.3 fast traks i had been riding and hooked up really well in some of the most technical trails around. couldn't get them to break loose and rode everything from rock gardens, to mud, to hero dirt.
> 
> i may have found my new 'go to' tire.


what do those suckers weigh?


----------



## Dphoward (Jul 29, 2013)

640 and 660. Pretty close to what was advertised


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

Those Mezcals look good, I like the look of the tread pattern, they look like they would do ok in some wet.


----------



## Dphoward (Jul 29, 2013)

jimPacNW said:


> Those Mezcals look good, I like the look of the tread pattern, they look like they would do ok in some wet.


Yeah, I think they'll do great here in the pnw. They'd probably gunk up in really muddy situations.


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

https://cyclingindustry.news/schwalbe-takes-ambitious-step-with-launch-of-new-addix-compound/

Thoughts on the new schwalbe compounds? Id like to get my hands on a "speed" racing ralph for the rear and a "speed grip" for front.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

Sounds promising. I like Schwalbe tires, but I feel they have a lot of catching up to do in the compound area.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

mrbadwrench said:


> https://cyclingindustry.news/schwalbe-takes-ambitious-step-with-launch-of-new-addix-compound/
> 
> Thoughts on the new schwalbe compounds? Id like to get my hands on a "speed" racing ralph for the rear and a "speed grip" for front.


Very nice. Schwalbe tires are actually leaders in low rolling resistance. However they took PR hits from people expecting everyday use out of a non-Snakeskin reinforced racing compound.

I have no idea what the "Addix" marketing term means, but Vittoria is headed in the right direction being first to market with graphene. Introducing miniscule grains of graphene into rubber compounds mean that the tire is stronger and lighter, but most importantly, more supple than a tire without.

Mountain bikers and roadies both need durable, supple tires. Stiffer rubber compounds in the exact same tire designs will roll slower and ride harsher.

For an example of this that you can feel, try riding the Continental Touring Plus or Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires some time. Or the positively awful Kenda "Nevergo" Nevegal and Kenda Small Block Eight, which, despite looking fast and having minimal grip, rolled very slow.

Kenda Small Block Eight Rolling Resistance Review


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

*Aspen 29x2.25*

One week new Aspens 29x2.25 (TR, non EXO) on 23mm internal Nox Skylines aired to 22psi. Weight was 579g and 583g.

Casing:









Tread:









Mini-review: nice volume, good grip on Southern Cal dry hardpack spring conditions. They feel much faster and are more quiet (on tarmac) than Ikons, better/bigger side knobs.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Anyone try the Clement FRJ? The 60tpi version is 12.60 + shipping and tax. They were under 12 before the 10% off expired. Does not specify if its tubless compatible.

https://www.competitivecyclist.com/...udGFpbiBCaWtlIFRpcmVzOjE6MTpjY0NhdDEwMDExNw==


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

The Aspen 2.25 looks like a good rear XC race tire. How does it grip in the turns on the front?


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Seems to grip better than Ikon, Saber Pro, XR1 Team, Renegade...more like Racing Ralph/Rocket Ron. That goes for sides and center...climbed some sketchy loose stuff where others have slipped it held...could be just the new rubber effect. But I haven't truly leaned it yet.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Mere mortals can't get the 170 tpi version, but...


----------



## MrEconomics (Aug 23, 2004)

No love for No-Tubes Raven or Crow? Those tires use to be 'the tire to race on' when they first came out.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

MrEconomics said:


> No love for No-Tubes Raven or Crow? Those tires use to be 'the tire to race on' when they first came out.


No, none at all! Heh. Other tires have embraced what Notubes was pushing first with these tires, without all the drawbacks that they presented.

Example: you can't really run a Raven 2.2 at lower PSI than a Racing Ralph 2.25, so you get less grip and about equal durability.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I bought a Fast Trak 2.2 Sworks at the bike swap near my house (gently used) for $8, and sort of impulse purchased a Vittoria Peyote 2.25 off ebay for $28 (new), it doesn't look like the Peyote comes in G+ (but it is now avail 29x2.35), - it is a good looking tire and setup tubeless super easy. 
New race rubber for $36, I need to complain to my friends that race cars about the cost of my race tires.

My points series is over, there's one more race that will likely be dry with actual hardpack dirt/small rocks (Swan Creek park in Tacoma). There's a couple of strava segments I've got in mind too where I'm only a few seconds back while not using my race bike. 
I put the Fast Trak on the rear, Peyote on the front.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Stonerider said:


> The Aspen 2.25 looks like a good rear XC race tire. How does it grip in the turns on the front?


I am one week in using the 2.25 Aspen on the rear. I am an avid 2.35 Ikon user.

I can tell you that The tight corner cornering grip is much higher than my current ikons. I have yet to push them to find the break away yet because the fade and drift point are clearly higher and I am so used to the exact point the IKONs will two wheel drift and this tire clearly has a higher cornering speed.

The only thing influencing my experience is the fact that the Ikons are on my FS anthem advanced and the aspen is on the much lighter XTC advanced hardtail. Terrain has been dry hard pack moon dust trails and fresh black. dirt.

On a completely unrelated note that may or may not interest anyone in this section. I had posted that I went back to my Enduro front tire for a few races. because the terrain was aggressive and loose rocky enough that wanted the grip over the loss in rolling weight. Well all be damned will you look at this:

They reviewed the Hans Dampf Pacestar and it is significantly faster on the dyno than the trailstar and in line with other tires like the FastTrack. Its also LIGHTER than advertised unlike most Schwalbe. I run the pace star on the front most of the year. Still too much tire for most of y'all, but a great tire to throw on your XC bike in at least the offseason and not lose a step. I have not lost speed on the street and continue to improve segment times on 20 minute wide open bike path segments.

Schwalbe Hans Dampf PaceStar Rolling Resistance Review
Mountain Bike Tires Rolling Resistance Reviews


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

Hey y'all, I'm sorry but I don't have time to browse the whole thread--wondering if anyone has figured out a great front tire for racing on kitty litter! I.e., the Hundo/Hundito at Buff Creek. 

I'm going to try to keep my Ardent Race on the back (frankly it sucks at BC but I can't throw my whole budget at new race tires right now). 

Thanks!


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Lucy Juice, see above


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

FJSnoozer said:


> I am one week in using the 2.25 Aspen on the rear. I am an avid 2.35 Ikon user.
> 
> I can tell you that The tight corner cornering grip is much higher than my current ikons. I have yet to push them to find the break away yet because the fade and drift point are clearly higher and I am so used to the exact point the IKONs will two wheel drift and this tire clearly has a higher cornering speed.
> 
> ...





FJSnoozer said:


> Lucy Juice, see above


Thanks. Are you recommending the Aspen or the Hans Dampf?

Unfortunately, I think we're riding different trail surfaces. I wish this race was on dry hard pack or black dirt!


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Ha, That's just because I'm tooling around on a specific trail network and sprinting on beginner/intermediate flowy trails that you can hammer on for 40 miles while I dial in the new bike before the last race. Have been testing that aspen on my new hardtail that I will ride on the last race of our season which I consider a 1.5 of 10 on the technical scale. It seems to have more side knob grip period than my Ikon when pushed. I will still be riding on the IKONs on my normal bike because the high volume is so much faster than the 2.25 on normal trails we have which are very rocky and loose 

Most of our trails and our recent races are quite loose and far more technical than the trails in other series. When you say Kitty litter I am picturing something loose like crushed granite where you can be playing with fire if you lay a standard XC tire over on it's side. I would want something with lots of bite and if There was extremely punch climbs where you risk spinning out, I would definitely look at something like the new Aspen. If the climbs don't get too nasty, ride something with a good side knob and a fast center like a Racing ralph, etc.


I have gotten to where I may change tires between prerides to see what prefer. keep a Tubeless charger pump in my truck.


----------



## Lucy Juice (Dec 29, 2010)

FJSnoozer said:


> Ha, That's just riding around on a trail network and sprinting on beginner/intermediate flowy trails that you can hammer on for 40 miles. Have been testing that aspen on my new hardtail that I will ride on the last race of our season which I consider a 1.5 of 10 on the technical scale. It seems to have more side knob grip period than my Ikon when pushed. I will still be riding on the IKONs on my normal bike because the high volume is so much faster than the 2.25 on normal trails we have which are very rocky and loose
> 
> Most of our trails and our recent races are quite loose and far more technical than the trails in other series. *When you say Kitty litter I am picturing something loose like crushed granite where you can be playing with fire if you lay a standard XC tire over on it's side.* I would want something with lots of bite and if There was extremely punch climbs where you risk spinning out, I would definitely look at something like the new Aspen. If the climbs don't get too nasty, ride something with a good side knob and a fast center like a Racing ralph, etc.


Yes, exactly that (bolded), with potential for spinning out on climbs. I'll look at the Aspen, thanks!


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Loving my 2.25 Aspens for Southern Cal hard and loose over hard...now all we need is Maxxis to offer it in 2.35.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

MattMay said:


> Loving my 2.25 Aspens for Southern Cal hard and loose over hard...now all we need is Maxxis to offer it in 2.35.


That's what I'm waiting for too.
Looks like a good fast rolling single speed rear that still climbs well out of the saddle.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Does anyone have any insight as to how the 2.25 Aspen EXO/TR compares to the 2.25 Racing Ralph SnakeSkin? I'm currently using the RaRa as a rear tire and like it a lot but I'm not opposed to trying something else if it's better for my conditions and skill level.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

One significant difference is Aspens are 120tpi vs 67 for RaRa.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I rode the Peyote 2.25 on mostly fir needles and pine cone trails last night, until the used fast trak leaked enough air from the sidewall damage I didn't see previously made me head home. I liked the Peyote a lot.
Got some courage up last night and ordered a pair of Mezcal 2.25 G+.


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

Anyone on the kenda saber pro's? ANyone using the 2.05 in the back? front?


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

slimphatty said:


> Anyone on the kenda saber pro's? ANyone using the 2.05 in the back? front?


My friend tried them:


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm not sure why anyone would purposefully ride/race a Kenda tire. That tire makes an Ikon or XR-1 look like a mud spike.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

I tried them just to taste-test because I do a lot of mixed surface stuff but eventually came to the same conclusion as Sidewalk's friend (I ride the same So Cal trails as in the vid)...the tires are light, high volume (more 2.3 than 2.2), very fast, but not enough grip, as his slideout at Sea Otter demonstrates.


----------



## smitty39 (Sep 8, 2016)

It sounds like we all reached the same conclusion:  Rolls great on pavement but has zero grip in real dirt. I bought one based on a positive review I saw in this thread, and now it hangs in the basement.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> I'm not sure why anyone would purposefully ride/race a Kenda tire. That tire makes an Ikon or XR-1 look like a mud spike.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Agreed that Kenda makes the worst tires, all of them.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I've noticed a lot of local pros running Kenda. But it could be sponsor obligations. Some are US Cup racers, so fast guys.

I have an HD 2.35 a friend wants me to try. I am going to mount it to a spare Crest to compare with. But I am really liking the RaRa 2.25's I'm still running. And the same friend gave me a 2.35 version I'm going to mount up soon.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

The Mezcal G+ 2.25s came in today and I got them mounted up, tight bead fit and pretty easy setup. I don't have a proper scale, but my bike is about a half pound lighter with those than with the 2.3 Ground Controls. 

They feel really fast, I don't know if I'm just imagining it, but they feel like they roll really easy. I did a partial lap on my regular trails, which are soggy but not muddy, they seem to have a lot of grip too, both lateral and climbing. So far I'm really-really liking these.
They measure about 2.18 actual width on a regular old stans ztr rim. The knobs seem bigger in real life than the listing photos show. On one of them, the center knobs did not quite get even in the mold (a little higher on one half, and not quite even fore/aft), so there's some fairly minor qc imperfections.
Actual test will be at the series ending race a week from Sunday.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

jimPacNW said:


> The Mezcal G+ 2.25s came in today.......Actual test will be at the series ending race a week from Sunday.


You could still make Stottlemeyer, if you leave NOW!


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

wife still recovering from foot surgery, - nice day for Stottlemeyer, good luck! I think Jeremy will give you some trouble today


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

jimPacNW said:


> wife still recovering from foot surgery, - nice day for Stottlemeyer, good luck! I think Jeremy will give you some trouble today


Saving all my matches for Suntop this year!

Speedy recovery to your missus.

Back to tires: A few days ago, I had a 2.35 Snakeskin RaRa "relax" on a portion of the bead, and start leaking slowly.

Very odd. The small ridge of rubber that runs around the circumference of the tire right next to the rim was further from the rim in that area than the rest of the way around, but the tire wasn't noticeably bulged.

I removed the tire, and the bead isn't visibly broken or really damaged. Remounted it on another wheel and same story. Recycled tire, and realized immediately afterwards that I should have snapped a pic.

It was an old, but nearly unused, tire. Maybe 6 years old, but just mounted onto my real mtb this spring.

This has caused me to second guess my faith in these as infallible endurance racing tires (13 hundreds/sixties/fifties without a hiccup).


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

Saber pros has gone out the window. I've really been eyeing those vittoria tires. I have been very impressed with my 2.35 ikon in front and my 2.2 ikon out back. They are beefy and roll very well. Only thing is the braking is a bit lacking out back BUT it is a xc tire.


----------



## kylef (Feb 10, 2015)

Yeah, I have never tried Kenda's off-road tires because a road team that I was on about 10 years ago gave us road tires. In some of the crits I did on them I was actually sliding (drifting) around numerous corners and I quit using them.

My go to racing tires are still Ikons. I have been using them exclusively for about three years now and have them of 4 sets of wheels. I have never (knock on wood) gotten a flat, burped or anything like that. I wiegh 135 -138 and run them at 22-12 rear and 18-20 in front. I have found them to be great in the mid-west (WI and MN) out west in Montana (lots of rocks) and really nice in the AK regions such as Bentonville with all the chert etc. They are not the best when it gets really muddy or in the sand however.

I am looking forward to trying the Aspens however.


----------



## Ketzal (Oct 30, 2016)

Anybody try Schwalbe's new Addix compounds? I'm thinking of running a RaRa in back in Speed compound and a RaRa or RoRo in front in Speed & Grip compound. Could be a killer combo for wet races.


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

kylef said:


> Yeah, I have never tried Kenda's off-road tires because a road team that I was on about 10 years ago gave us road tires. In some of the crits I did on them I was actually sliding (drifting) around numerous corners and I quit using them.
> 
> My go to racing tires are still Ikons. I have been using them exclusively for about three years now and have them of 4 sets of wheels. I have never (knock on wood) gotten a flat, burped or anything like that. I wiegh 135 -138 and run them at 22-12 rear and 18-20 in front. I have found them to be great in the mid-west (WI and MN) out west in Montana (lots of rocks) and really nice in the AK regions such as Bentonville with all the chert etc. They are not the best when it gets really muddy or in the sand however.
> 
> I am looking forward to trying the Aspens however.


Look at you all feather light!!! I weifght 185lbs wet so maybe with gear and all around 190lbs and running 28psi rear and 25ish front. I agree with everything you said about the ikons. My ikons have been great. I haven't burped or gotten a flat on my set. I can't complain my self and really will have a hard time trying out any other tire when these wear out. The back is is getting there.


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

Does anyone have any experience on the ardent race? If so what compound? 3c? 3c and exo? Beefier side knobbed ikon pretty much? I'd put my 2.35 ikon in the rear and stick the ardent race in front once the rear ikon is dead. I live in so cal. Thanks!


----------



## Walt Disney's Frozen Head (Jan 9, 2008)

slimphatty said:


> Does anyone have any experience on the ardent race? If so what compound? 3c? 3c and exo? Beefier side knobbed ikon pretty much? I'd put my 2.35 ikon in the rear and stick the ardent race in front once the rear ikon is dead. I live in so cal. Thanks!


I've been running a 2.2(5? - whatever, the smaller one) for a few seasons on my dry/fast race wheels and honestly can't really tell the difference between that and the ikon. Have a 2.35 but waiting on an ikon to wear out. Both seem to roll well and are (IMO) pretty versatile & competent dry to "moist", loose over hardpack --> firm/loamy conditions tire. I'm in CO and would imagine we have similar conditions.

edit - 2.2 ardent race is currently in the front. 2.35 will go in the rear. have run the smaller tire front and rear but feel more comfortable with the known quantity of the Ikon out back. as far as compound, I've never seen it available in anything other than 3c but I always run EXO and TR.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

How much faster over an hour course is a 'fast' rolling tire than a slow tire?, has this been covered? (probably, - tired and trying to get some work done). 1 second faster per 60 seconds of course would equal a minute on an hour course, that would be huge.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jimPacNW said:


> How much faster over an hour course is a 'fast' rolling tire than a slow tire?, has this been covered? (probably, - tired and trying to get some work done). 1 second faster per 60 seconds of course would equal a minute on an hour course, that would be huge.


The calculation is easy to do if you know the coefficient of rolling resistance. But finding that coefficient for a rough dirt surface is not easy by any means. If we were to assume that the smooth drum test are accurate (which they are not) we can do some quick calculations.

According to some test data I have read a fast tire is 20 watts and a slow tire 36 watts at 20mph. 20mph = 8.9m/s. => a force of rolling resistance of 2.25N for the fast and 4.00 for the slow. This works out for a rider who averages 220 watts a cost of about 8s per kilometer or 13s per mile.

Of course all those calculations are based off smooth drum tests.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

20mph = 3min miles (my races are typically half that speed); 13 seconds per 3 min = 4.3 seconds faster per minute; or 4.3 minutes faster for a 60minute race! That's right isn't it?, it's hard to believe it could be that much, even if it's a lot less on real dirt it's worth buying fast tires. I'm anxious to race on my new rubber on Sunday!, my spring races are typically around 80 minutes.
I guess I will be in the market for new cx tires for fall.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Just remember a couple of facts:

Which do you think is going to be much faster on a drum, a 25mm road tire or your favorite MTB race tire? 

If we all did best with the fastest MTB race tire, we'd be running something like the Crow or Big Apple.

I'm all for testing and I think gravel roll-down and climb-ups with a power meter are valid tests. But ultimately, depending upon how technical your trails are, you have to gauge your confidence with the tires you're willing to ride. Semi-slicks (Aspen, Thunder Burt) appear to real-world test as the fastest.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Aspens considered semi-slick?? I get the Thunderburts, but...


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Hutchinson Black Mamba. Much faster than Thunder Burt. 

Coming from a guy who only runs Schwalbe.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

jimPacNW said:


> 20mph = 3min miles (my races are typically half that speed); 13 seconds per 3 min = 4.3 seconds faster per minute; or 4.3 minutes faster for a 60minute race! That's right isn't it?, it's hard to believe it could be that much, even if it's a lot less on real dirt it's worth buying fast tires. I'm anxious to race on my new rubber on Sunday!, my spring races are typically around 80 minutes.
> I guess I will be in the market for new cx tires for fall.


That might be right when you only take into account rolling resistance, which would be a complete flat road with no turns. Once you start adding variables such as technical terrain or fast turns in varying terrain its clear the fastest rolling tire won't have as much grip as the slower tire, so everything is a trade off. On very flat and consistent terrain a low rolling resistance tire makes sense, but on technical terrain most will choose something more intermediate.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Zerort said:


> Hutchinson Black Mamba. Much faster than Thunder Burt.
> 
> Coming from a guy who only runs Schwalbe.


Not too many people consider 2.0s to be fast anymore. I'm calling deflection bias. Try the Thunder Burt 2.25s. And yes I'd consider the Aspen to be Semi-Slick, and another forgotten tire, the WTB Vulpine.

Semi-slick means only a distinctly fast rolling center but with side knobs that are available to give extra traction for mud, hard hits, or cornering.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mattyice (Dec 31, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Which do you think is going to be much faster on a drum, a 25mm road tire or your favorite MTB race tire?


I've brought my road bike on a jeep road once with the 25mm Conti Ultra Sport 2's. It was pretty goddam quick.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

chomxxo said:


> Just remember a couple of facts:
> 
> Which do you think is going to be much faster on a drum, a 25mm road tire or your favorite MTB race tire?.


At 25 PSI, my bet is on my favorite MTB tire.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I have been racing on Ground Controls, which most consider to be a slow tire, but I had good luck with then in the mud. I don't believe a faster tire would actually be 4 minutes faster per hour, but any measurable difference would really help on those races where I finished 30 seconds or 45 seconds behind, - plus the weight savings. 
I heard from Libby White's sister (East Coast pro, just recently got a win) that she's running a Peyote front and Mezcal rear. 
A minute faster on an hour course would put me in the top ten in my cyclocross group (cat 1/2 masters are tough), I have not been able to get better than 11th in that group on my tubed The Captains, choosing a faster tire and converting that bike to tubeless will be my next project.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

brentos said:


> At 25 PSI, my bet is on my favorite MTB tire.


Lol, gotta love the internet, speak it into being like Lavar Ball?

10 of the fastest road tires/tyres lab tested - BikeRadar USA


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

jimPacNW said:


> I have been racing on Ground Controls, which most consider to be a slow tire, but I had good luck with then in the mud. I don't believe a faster tire would actually be 4 minutes faster per hour, but any measurable difference would really help on those races where I finished 30 seconds or 45 seconds behind, - plus the weight savings.
> I heard from Libby White's sister (East Coast pro, just recently got a win) that she's running a Peyote front and Mezcal rear.
> A minute faster on an hour course would put me in the top ten in my cyclocross group (cat 1/2 masters are tough), I have not been able to get better than 11th in that group on my tubed The Captains, choosing a faster tire and converting that bike to tubeless will be my next project.


For CX tubeless choose your rims and tires carefully. All specialized CX 2bliss tires have a great bead and seal up nicely by the way.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

chomxxo said:


> I'd consider the Aspen to be Semi-Slick


Well then Nino is running semi slicks this weekend (Aspen 2.1, according to this bike check https://m.pinkbike.com/news/nino-sc...spark-rc-xc-world-cup-round-1-nove-mesto.html) on what appears to be one of the more rocky and rooty World Cup courses.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

MattMay said:


> Well then Nino is running semi slicks this weekend (Aspen 2.1, according to this bike check https://m.pinkbike.com/news/nino-sc...spark-rc-xc-world-cup-round-1-nove-mesto.html) on what appears to be one of the more rocky and rooty World Cup courses.


Nino has the skills to make those tires work in those conditions...I wish I did.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

MattMay said:


> Well then Nino is running semi slicks this weekend (Aspen 2.1, according to this bike check https://m.pinkbike.com/news/nino-sc...spark-rc-xc-world-cup-round-1-nove-mesto.html) on what appears to be one of the more rocky and rooty World Cup courses.


Semi-slicks are amazing on rocks and roots. it is loose dirt that they don't work so well on.


----------



## Hermes475 (Mar 1, 2007)

kylef said:


> They are not the best when it gets really muddy or in the sand however.


What do you like for racing in the sand? I just moved to Florida and I can't figure out what tires to use. I have used ikon 2.2 f/r, nobby nic f/ikon 2.2r, racing ralph 2.25f/r, and even michelin wild rock'r2 2.35 f/nobby nic. The traditional xc tires seem to grip really poorly on mix of sand, packed sand, and ground-up leaves that Florida trails seem to consist of.

The michelin wild rock'r2/nn combo worked fairly well in terms of traction but was very slow rolling and the rock'r2 is almost a 1200g tire in 29r which is just too heavy for xc.

I moved to FL from the mountains of VA. My main concern for the rocky VA trails was not flatting as all tires that I tried seemed to grip pretty well on those types of surfaces as long as it was dry. Now that I am in FL, there is just about nothing that can tear or pinch flat a tubeless tire but the traction is so sketchy. It reminds me of riding in mud or packed snow.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Hermes475 said:


> What do you like for racing in the sand? I just moved to Florida and I can't figure out what tires to use. I have used ikon 2.2 f/r, nobby nic f/ikon 2.2r, racing ralph 2.25f/r, and even michelin wild rock'r2 2.35 f/nobby nic. The traditional xc tires seem to grip really poorly on mix of sand, packed sand, and ground-up leaves that Florida trails seem to consist of.
> 
> The michelin wild rock'r2/nn combo worked fairly well in terms of traction but was very slow rolling and the rock'r2 is almost a 1200g tire in 29r which is just too heavy for xc.
> 
> I moved to FL from the mountains of VA. My main concern for the rocky VA trails was not flatting as all tires that I tried seemed to grip pretty well on those types of surfaces as long as it was dry. Now that I am in FL, there is just about nothing that can tear or pinch flat a tubeless tire but the traction is so sketchy. It reminds me of riding in mud or packed snow.


Try a 2.3-2.4 with minimal tread like the Ikon or Racing Ralph. You have to float over sand.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

A plus tire/bike seems like it would be ideal for sand. A couple of years ago at a cross race I had brought my old 26er (I had just got back into racing and didn't have a 29er), I was chasing my kid on his 24 mtb, he weighed about 50 pounds at that time, he didn't sink in at all, while I plowed through with difficulty, that got my attention because that race had a lot of sand, going both ways on a beach at a lakeshore, and I decided I needed a 29er. The next season I had the 29er with 2.2rr 2.3 front, and I won by quite a bit against the guys on cx bikes. The 29er was a lot better than the 26er on sand, I imagine a 29+ with even wider tires would be great on sand.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I demo'ed a fat bike (3.8") for a couple of weeks and did a lot of riding in the sandy horse trails at the river in my town. I can't ride any of those trails on my 2.4" tire bike.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I raced the Mezcals today, 25psi (I'm 175#), I felt I should have been a little lower psi a few times, my Ground Controls feel much softer at that psi. It was mostly hard pack, dry, lots of round rocks locked into the dirt, some marbles. 
The Mezcals are not slow, I got first in my group and 3rd overall, -some of the fastest guys were absent. I really like the Mezcal, lateral grip is really good and predictable. I felt slow in a couple of spots (very tight, twisty course), but strava gave me several top 10's in those spots I felt slow and awkward. They hold air really well too.


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

new to the dirt...have a yeti 4.5 and plan to use it for the mohican 100mi and wilderness 101. it came with continental mountain kings, but i feel like those might be slow. i weigh 205lbs. do i have a decent tire or do i need something faster? they are mounted on m60/40's.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'd get something faster rolling. MKs are nice tires but they'd be painful over 100mi.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> I'd get something faster rolling. MKs are nice tires but they'd be painful over 100mi.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


like what? i havent a clue on anything in the dirt.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Big fan of Vittoria at the moment. 

Mezcal 2.35 G+.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

me too. My 2.25 Mezcal's are as wide as my 2.3 Ground Controls, quite a bit wider than the 2.2 Xking I had been running. Make sure you have room enough for a 2.35.


----------



## durkind (Jul 8, 2005)

jimPacNW said:


> me too. My 2.25 Mezcal's are as wide as my 2.3 Ground Controls, quite a bit wider than the 2.2 Xking I had been running. Make sure you have room enough for a 2.35.


Huh. My 2.35 mezcal are not as wide as my 2.3 ground control and they are on a wider rim


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

jayzoll said:


> like what? i havent a clue on anything in the dirt.


Personal opinion, don't worry about it. Just ride and have fun.

My first MTB race was a 12 hour solo race. I borrowed a friends 26", $400, 40 pound hard tail with what ever crap 1.95" tires were on it. I did 8 hours before breaking the chain.

https://www.strava.com/activities/248825942


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

thank you for the feedback! and i hear ya sidewalk, but i also dont want to be out there any longer than i have to be. i am reasonably fit, i would like to give my best effort. if i saved 5w, which is about 1.5% i would finish 18min faster. doesnt sound like much but thats likely my time spent at aid stations - just from running different tires.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

My 29x2.25 Mezcals measure 2.22 (knob and sidewall are about the same width), on older stans rims that measure 2.5mm outer. I can't measure the GCs, since they are off.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

jayzoll said:


> thank you for the feedback! and i hear ya sidewalk, but i also dont want to be out there any longer than i have to be. i am reasonably fit, i would like to give my best effort. if i saved 5w, which is about 1.5% i would finish 18min faster. doesnt sound like much but thats likely my time spent at aid stations - just from running different tires.


I like the Schwalbe Nobby Nic snakeskin. Try the 2.35" and have fun, they roll rather well and grip better than any fast rolling tire should.


----------



## markus_krk (Jul 27, 2013)

I'm currently running the old S-works Fast Trak (2.2F/2.0R) and I'm pretty happy with it.
Still I'd like to move the 2.2 to the rear and get new front with a little more cornering grip.
I run mostly hardpack with some roots and planted rocks, sometimes wet. Nothing loose, no big mud.
My rims are pretty narrow(21mm internal) and I also must run some pavement with this setup.
What are your recommendations?
Ardent Race 2.2.?
Barzo 2.25?


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

ended up with a 2.4 ardent up front and 2.35 ikon in the rear...its what the LBS had in stock that fit.


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

markus_krk said:


> I'm currently running the old S-works Fast Trak (2.2F/2.0R) and I'm pretty happy with it.
> Still I'd like to move the 2.2 to the rear and get new front with a little more cornering grip.
> I run mostly hardpack with some roots and planted rocks, sometimes wet. Nothing loose, no big mud.
> My rims are pretty narrow(21mm internal) and I also must run some pavement with this setup.
> ...


I have a Barzo as a front tire, Peyote as a rear.

This is not my standard setup but I thought I would try Vittoria tires just for fun.

The Barzo is a decent tire, and lighter than the Peyote by about 10 or 20 grams. Can't recall exactly. I just don't like these two tires though. They provide nothing new or better than any other tire I have tried from almost every major brand.

Honestly, in the 2.25 size you can't go wrong with the Schwalbe Rocket Ron. I run the same type of trails you do and it grips great in the hardpack and wet/ damp.

They also seem to be a bit more plush and fit the narrower wheels great. I've never had one wash out on me in the front, but I have had a Nobby Nic wash out, if that says anything.

Try one in the front. If you like it, buy another for the rear.


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

jimPacNW said:


> 20mph = 3min miles (my races are typically half that speed); 13 seconds per 3 min = 4.3 seconds faster per minute; or 4.3 minutes faster for a 60minute race! That's right isn't it?, it's hard to believe it could be that much, even if it's a lot less on real dirt it's worth buying fast tires. I'm anxious to race on my new rubber on Sunday!, my spring races are typically around 80 minutes.
> I guess I will be in the market for new cx tires for fall.


These times reflect the time differences I've seen before when switching tires from the low end of rolling resistance (Thunder Burt) to the higher end of rolling resistance (High Roller II)

Once the trail gets curvy, steep, or loose/rocky though, that time difference often closes to zero.


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

I loath the Ardent, but the race version is a bit better than the regular. Too vague in transition for me and the knobs squirm. I'd much rather just be on an Ikon in nearly every condition, especially if it's a 2.35! The Forekaster is a good intermediate condition tire, if you are partial to Maxxis and want some more bite. 

But, I'm on Racing Ralph SS 2.35 at the moment. Got luck and snagged a set that came in at ~640g each.


----------



## markus_krk (Jul 27, 2013)

If I had wider rims, I'd just put Ikon 2.35 but for 21mm rim I think it's too much.
Don't really need that much of a tire as the Forekaster, just bigger side knobs for more aggressive cornering and some off-camber situations.

Not a fan of Schwalbe compunds - on the soil I ride they tend to slide, especially if it's even a tiny bit of moisture, plus they wear out really fast.

Also new Michelin Force XC looks interesting, but didn't come across any real world reviews yet.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

I've been riding the RocketRon in a 2.2 so far this year. I have access to a 2nd set of wheels, is there something I could add as a tire combo to compliment the Rocket's ? Something more agressive for wet ? More volume for rocks and roots ? Wheelset options are ArchEx(21mmID) and EC90XC(19mm ID). EC90XC are currently for CX duties but thinking about options.


----------



## chilla13 (Mar 27, 2017)

Since last week I am running 2.35 Ikons front and rear. They offer tons of grip on my dry and packed trails but the rolling resistance seems to be pretty high. They feel slow balloony. Maybe I will try Renegades next.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

chilla13 said:


> Since last week I am running 2.35 Ikons front and rear. They offer tons of grip on my dry and packed trails but the rolling resistance seems to be pretty high. They feel slow balloony.


Same result I had. Grip yes, speed, not really.


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

I took my xc bike to the bike park yesterday since my enduro is getting all lovely dovey with my mechanic. Ikons do not disappoint in terms of grip! I love these tires more and more each day. Rolling resistance? I'm not sure since these are the only xc tires I've ever used but I'm willing to give that up over grip any day. Front ikon saved my ass twice and was inflated at 35psi for sandy/loose over packed conditions up at snow summit


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

I was running NN 2.35/Racing Ralph 2.2 combo. Got them used on a pair of rims I picked up. Love the NN, the ralph was a little worn and it was always sliding. The tread disappeared so I threw a Ardent race out back. I'm excited to try it out. 

I'm debating what tire to put up front when the NN gives. I was originally going to put a 2.35 ardent race up front but I have liked the NN. I'd like to stick to Maxxis because they are abundant around here. I'm wondering if the Forekaster would be equivalent to the NN or if the 2.35 ardent race would hold up well. I ride moslty hardpack and loose over hard but throw in sandy, rocky, rooty terrain as well.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

I've had a disappointing experience in the past races with the Geax Mezcals, I liked the tire and the grip along with the rolling resistance, but having multiple flats on them and really struggling to get them to seal up punctures is not worth it. 

Today I flatted just before race begun, struggled to seal them up, then flatted again in lap 2. I think I'm returning to schwalbe, at least it has been a consistent and positive experience since I have used them.

Anyone have comments on Maxxis Lust versions? In my team almost all use maxxis and swear by them, but I don't think anyone uses the Lust version, except for 1 guy.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

TDLover said:


> I've had a disappointing experience in the past races with the Geax Mezcals, I liked the tire and the grip along with the rolling resistance, but having multiple flats on them and really struggling to get them to seal up punctures is not worth it.
> 
> Today I flatted just before race begun, struggled to seal them up, then flatted again in lap 2. I think I'm returning to schwalbe, at least it has been a consistent and positive experience since I have used them.
> 
> Anyone have comments on Maxxis Lust versions? In my team almost all use maxxis and swear by them, but I don't think anyone uses the Lust version, except for 1 guy.


TNT?

Mine hold air for weeks without sealant.

What wheels are they on?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> TNT?
> 
> Mine hold air for weeks without sealant.
> 
> ...


Yes they are the TNT version, not the newest G+. They are mounted on UST XTR rims. By the way, what I meant was puncture resistance seemed to be poor on my tires along with the fact that sealant and my tires don't seem to be getting along well. Punctures don't seal well or resurface after rolling, sidewalls to rim haven't been an issue.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

jayzoll said:


> ended up with a 2.4 ardent up front and 2.35 ikon in the rear...its what the LBS had in stock that fit.


There goes all those watts and minutes you were trying to save. Big time. The mountain kings rolled faster than both. You should have went online and ordered your own tires. Bontrager xr1,2,3 scwhalbe racing ralph, rocket ron, nobby nic, mezcal, xking, something. Anything other than what you did. Put that ikon on the front and get something faster for the back or you spent money to go slower.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## newking (Nov 6, 2007)

Rocket Ron on Front and Ikon on Rear both 2.2's is the set up I am digging at the moment


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

newking said:


> Rocket Ron on Front and Ikon on Rear both 2.2's is the set up I am digging at the moment


Thats interesting. You have one of the fastest xc tires made on the front and slowest on rear. Thats quite the opposite of "conventional" wisdom. Do you like your front end to drift in corners? I would think if you need as much traction as an Ikon on the rear the Rocket Ron on the front would just slide everywhere in the conditions they are ideal for.

I was using the Raceking 2.2 protection on the rear but after 3 failures im going to try a XR1 on the back.

Has anybody ridden both the new and old XR1 and have any feedback on the updated version? Thanks

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Does anybody have an opinion about Bontrager XR2 team issue vs XR3 TI for the front? (29x2.35 vs 29x2.3) Is the cornering grip on the XR3 worth the tradeoff in rolling resistance?


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Has anybody ridden both the new and old XR1 and have any feedback on the updated version? Thanks
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I've only used the XR1 Expert not the team issues. They are a bit heavy and grip is okay not spectacular. Durable as hell though. Couldn't wear them out.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

midwestmtb said:


> Does anybody have an opinion about Bontrager XR2 team issue vs XR3 TI for the front? (29x2.35 vs 29x2.3) Is the cornering grip on the XR3 worth the tradeoff in rolling resistance?


It depends on conditions. I use both of those exclusively. The xr2 lets go then bites back in so if the ground is hard and predictable you can get a feel for the drift. If the ground is loose the xr2 is too unpredictable. The xr3 then shines because it takes longer for the center knobs to let go and the side knobs bite quicker. They honestly roll about the same speed its far from a noticeable difference. Unless its loose, then you can carry more speed into corners on the xr3. But thats your speed not exactly the rolling resistance. The xr3 and xr2 also weigh the same. I have an xr2 2.35 669gms, and xr3 2.35 674gms.

So if you like a tire that "never" breaks loose get the 3, if you want to have "some" drift get the 2. They do the same in the wet relative to what they are designed for. The casing is super comfy and bombproof also.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Thanks. That's exactly the feedback I was looking for. Sounds like if the rolling resistance is similar, the XR3 is what I'm looking for.

Edit: One more question: Were the actual sizes of your tires about the same?


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

midwestmtb said:


> Thanks. That's exactly the feedback I was looking for. Sounds like if the rolling resistance is similar, the XR3 is what I'm looking for.
> 
> Edit: One more question: Were the actual sizes of your tires about the same?


Ive never measured them. They are the biggest 2.3 ive ever mounted though and they are the same size next to each other on the same interal and external width wheel. Ive mounted the Racing Ralph, Ardent,Ikon,Xking,Xr 2/3/4,Nobby Nic, Renegade in 2.3/4. They are as big or bigger than all those for sure on 23.5 and 26 internal.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> There goes all those watts and minutes you were trying to save. Big time. The mountain kings rolled faster than both. You should have went online and ordered your own tires. Bontrager xr1,2,3 scwhalbe racing ralph, rocket ron, nobby nic, mezcal, xking, something. Anything other than what you did. Put that ikon on the front and get something faster for the back or you spent money to go slower.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


i dont disagree with you, but the bike really feels like rolls much better now. not sure how much difference the size of the lugs make, but the maxxis are much smaller than the MK i had on it.

part of me going to the shop was to check my tubeless setup because i was losing more air than i thought i should. the tape job was fine, but the valves were over tightened and leaked. they tried telling me 'the drive train is trashed'...meanwhile the bike has 100mi of single track and 100mi of rail trail on it - some wear but FAR from trashed.

possible placebo affect? maybe the new tires are lighter? or am i confusing rolling resistance with a smoother ride? could also be ive been in taper mode the last 10days and my fatigue is gone.

i was considering switching back to the MK because the weather forecast looks like a bunch of rain days prior and day of.

i leave fri morning. did i seriously slow myself down? if so, ill order new stuff now.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

jayzoll said:


> i dont disagree with you, but the bike really feels like rolls much better now. not sure how much difference the size of the lugs make, but the maxxis are much smaller than the MK i had on it.
> 
> part of me going to the shop was to check my tubeless setup because i was losing more air than i thought i should. the tape job was fine, but the valves were over tightened and leaked. they tried telling me 'the drive train is trashed'...meanwhile the bike has 100mi of single track and 100mi of rail trail on it - some wear but FAR from trashed.
> 
> ...


Have you ridden Mohican? The fastest ive ever ridden it was with an xr1 front, raceking rear. In the race there are lots of gravel roads, rail trails, grass fields, etc. The last tires i personally would choose are the ones you did. I could see the ikon on front but its heavy and slow and if its wet then forget about it. Im just one guy giving my opinion, ill be riding xr2 front and rear. Not only are the tires you chose slow, they are heavy too. Youre riding a full suspension yeti on a fairly smooth race. Fast rolling 2.2 is all you need. You responded to a poster about watts and speed and all that so you painted yourself as being worried about tires then just took whatever the shop had. So if you are worried about the tires dont then just take whatever someone gives you. The tires all weigh about the same. Between 740 and 800. Way too heavy. Get some 650 gm xc tires. Ikon is not xc, its aggresive xc light trail, ive argued enough about that tire im over it. They suck to me. Others love them. Ardent? In a gravel grinder with some trail? No.

You can ruin a drive train in 200 miles very easily. So dont just assume you cant.

The tires you got are perfect for wilderness 101 though. So use those in that race. In mohican you want speeeeeeedddddd. Not rock crawling tires. 
Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Have you ridden Mohican? The fastest ive ever ridden it was with an xr1 front, raceking rear. In the race there are lots of gravel roads, rail trails, grass fields, etc. The last tires i personally would choose are the ones you did. I could see the ikon on front but its heavy and slow and if its wet then forget about it. Im just one guy giving my opinion, ill be riding xr2 front and rear. Not only are the tires you chose slow, they are heavy too. Youre riding a full suspension yeti on a fairly smooth race. Fast rolling 2.2 is all you need. You responded to a poster about watts and speed and all that so you painted yourself as being worried about tires then just took whatever the shop had. So if you are worried about the tires dont then just take whatever someone gives you. The tires all weigh about the same. Between 740 and 800. Way too heavy. Get some 650 gm xc tires. Ikon is not xc, its aggresive xc light trail, ive argued enough about that tire im over it. They suck to me. Others love them. Ardent? In a gravel grinder with some trail? No.
> 
> You can ruin a drive train in 200 miles very easily. So dont just assume you cant.
> 
> ...


i definitely appreciate the feedback. i am concerned about 'free' speed and would not like to work harder than necessary considering my bike already weighs 26.3lbs (xl)...if i can save energy without sacrificing much of grip/failure by a choice in tires - i am very open.

you think i should ride xr2 in the front/rear? both 2.2? or 2.4 up front and 2.2 rear?

i have not been on the mohican at all. all i know of it is what i could read in race reports. it does read like the 2nd half is a lot of gravel trail/road.

its a shop i been to many times. i trusted their opinion. the chain is not worn as bad as they said. the rings/cassette is not trashed. i had another guy check it after they told me that. the friend just laughed and told me the shop must of picked up that i dont know anything about mtb, seen my rig, and said they just want to take you for $800 because they think they can.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

jayzoll said:


> i definitely appreciate the feedback. i am concerned about 'free' speed and would not like to work harder than necessary considering my bike already weighs 26.3lbs (xl)...if i can save energy without sacrificing much of grip/failure by a choice in tires - i am very open.
> 
> you think i should ride xr2 in the front/rear? both 2.2? or 2.4 up front and 2.2 rear?
> 
> ...


Thats what i was trying to say politely. Dont be a stooge. Of course they saw your bike and wanted your black card.

My bike weighs the same. Giant anthem. The tires and wheels are what matter. You have the wheels.

I would buy a 2.3 xr2,3, or a racing ralph 2.2, or xr1 2.2 for the front. All about 670 grams and fast and reliable.

For the back 
2.2 xr 1,2 or racing ralph 2.2

Any bontrager team issue, and any schwalbe snakeskin.

You can pay less online but you are cutting it close for shipping.

My buddy runs rocket ron liteskins and he is trying to win the 100kc my gf dad runs rocket ron front, thunder burt rear, my gf runs xking front, rocket ron rear, i run xr2 front and back. All the Michigan racers will be on racing ralphs, rocket rons, few ikons, xkings, xr1,2. Its smooth trail, no sharp edge rocks, and lots of gravel, seasonal road. Go for the lightest fastest tire you can bike handle the best.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Thats what i was trying to say politely. Dont be a stooge. Of course they saw your bike and wanted your black card.
> 
> My bike weighs the same. Giant anthem. The tires and wheels are what matter. You have the wheels.
> 
> ...


i can take brutal honesty as long as its not BS lol. im not afraid to admit i know i dont know, but i am also not a clueless sucker.

considering time, i think i have 2 options:

1)
the local trek shop has xr3 comp in 2.3 and 2.2 for $44/each.

2)
i could amazon prime some racing ralph snake skins in 2.25 and 2.3 for $60/each.

i also misstated the weather. looks decent through the week and now possible rain late the day of.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

jayzoll said:


> i can take brutal honesty as long as its not BS lol. im not afraid to admit i know i dont know, but i am also not a clueless sucker.
> 
> considering time, i think i have 2 options:
> 
> ...


Im going to pm you. So the thread is still about tires in general.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

jayzoll said:


> i can take brutal honesty as long as its not BS lol. im not afraid to admit i know i dont know, but i am also not a clueless sucker.
> 
> considering time, i think i have 2 options:
> 
> ...


The tires you bought are great. Don't waste your money on random advice on the internet from some guy who may or may not know what he is talking about.

Other tires may roll quicker then what you bought, but the difference in race time, if it exists, is likely less then 10s over the entire race.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> The tires you bought are great. Don't waste your money on random advice on the internet from some guy who may or may not know what he is talking about.
> 
> Other tires may roll quicker then what you bought, but the difference in race time, if it exists, is likely less then 10s over the entire race.


Like you? Youre a random guy on the internet who may or may not know what he is talking about. And youre paid by maxxis. So keep it real. Youve never ridden this race or trail and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Using a 2.4 ardent in a gravel race is plain stupid. The difference will be minutes/hours not seconds. Stick to what you know. The world cup/b.c. trails. Ill stick to what i know. Mohican.

I want your wife to race iceman on Maxxis Minion dhr this year. Then ill believe what you say. Otherwise you are speaking in generalizations and im speaking in facts of this trail and race.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

If saving 10-15 watts per tire over a 100 mile race is only worth 10s then there would only be one tire in existence. They wouldnt need 200 choices. 

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Jayzoll, 
You want the XR2,3 "Team Issues" not any random XRs. Don't let them sell you the Comps or the Experts.

And LaneDetroit knows what he is talking about. A lot of what he says confirms a lot of what I've learned from researching tires. The Maxxis are generally great tires for general trail riding but tend to be slower rolling then the Team Issues, Rocket Ron's, Racing Ralph's, etc.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

midwestmtb said:


> Jayzoll,
> You want the XR2,3 "Team Issues" not any random XRs. Don't let them sell you the Comps or the Experts.
> 
> And LaneDetroit knows what he is talking about. A lot of what he says confirms a lot of what I've learned from researching tires. The Maxxis are generally great tires for general trail riding but tend to be slower rolling then the Team Issues, Rocket Ron's, Racing Ralph's, etc.


It goes by area and terrain. Maxxis are bomproof and with that comes heavier and slower. So when world titles are on the line people go for bombproof. When its a 70pct not trail, 30pct trail race in the midwest, with no sharp rocks rolling speed matters. The most.

I understand the Ikons. But Nino uses Aspens so he must want faster rolling tires too. Since what the pros use is what we should all use....not.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

jayzoll said:


> i can take brutal honesty as long as its not BS lol. im not afraid to admit i know i dont know, but i am also not a clueless sucker.
> 
> considering time, i think i have 2 options:
> 
> ...


Just how competitive you are? Cat 1?

If you aren't at the top of your local field I would keep the maxxis tires you just bought. I think those are a solid choice and while they won't be the fastest tire you won't really notice the few seconds you will lose as LMN pointed out. Additionally you get a durable tire with great grip.

I mean you already bought the tires, just use them and when its time to change tires again you can try those other suggestions you are being given. My 2 cents.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

TDLover said:


> Just how competitive you are? Cat 1?
> 
> If you aren't at the top of your local field I would keep the maxxis tires you just bought. I think those are a solid choice and while they won't be the fastest tire you won't really notice the few seconds you will lose as LMN pointed out. Additionally you get a durable tire with great grip.
> 
> I mean you already bought the tires, just use them and when its time to change tires again you can try those other suggestions you are being given. My 2 cents.


Hes doing a 100 mile race on a trail bike. This isnt general tire needs. He asked what tires for mohican 100. Thats mostly gravel, seasonal road, bike paths, and some not techinical, rooty, no sharp rock, fast, flowing singletrack in Ohio. Not pisgah, or bc, or nove mesto.

The watts he will save will be huge. Especially for someone not trying to podium who probably doesnt have many extra watts to waste over 10 hours. Saying he should not save 10-15 watts per tire while losing nothing in grip or durability is bad advice. Especially from a "world cup coach". Ya the pros can overcome small details. Regular Joe needs to save as many watts as they can just to survive the race.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Hes doing a 100 mile race on a trail bike. This isnt general tire needs. He asked what tires for mohican 100. Thats mostly gravel, seasonal road, bike paths, and some not techinical, rooty, no sharp rock, fast, flowing singletrack in Ohio. Not pisgah, or bc, or nove mesto.
> 
> The watts he will save will be huge. Especially for someone not trying to podium who probably doesnt have many extra watts to waste over 10 hours. Saying he should not save 10-15 watts per tire while losing nothing in grip or durability is bad advice. Especially from a "world cup coach". Ya the pros can overcome small details. Regular Joe needs to save as many watts as they can just to survive the race.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Last year winner at Mohican had a average speed of just 24km/hr, so the average rider will be even slower. That means rolling resistance is even lower between tires as they roll less.

I'm not sure where you are getting the 10-15 watts figure, but between a RR or Raceking and the maxxis mentioned there is less that that. Probably around 4-7 watts at considerable speed. Even better advice is just to have the tire pumped up to a higher pressure for the race.

Of course this is just my advice and so is yours. If I were "jayzoll" I would just listen to the "world cup coach" instead of the two other random dudes debating about it.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Most people base their opinions on the rolling resistance of tires on pavement performance or on smooth rolling drum resistance. How tires roll on a rough dirt surface is complete difference then how they roll on road. A tire rolls super fast on pavement may be quite slow off road.

My experience is that when off road tires tend to converge in rolling resistance. The difference between tire A and tire B is much less what is believed. I have done a lot of testing of rolling resistance over the years. On pavement there is a significant difference but on dirt the difference is quite small.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

TDLover said:


> Last year winner at Mohican had a average speed of just 24km/hr, so the average rider will be even slower. That means rolling resistance is even lower between tires as they roll less.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are getting the 10-15 watts figure, but between a RR or Raceking and the maxxis mentioned there is less that that. Probably around 4-7 watts at considerable speed. Even better advice is just to have the tire pumped up to a higher pressure for the race.
> 
> Of course this is just my advice and so is yours. If I were "jayzoll" I would just listen to the "world cup coach" instead of the two other random dudes debating about it.


Listen. The race has 10-18pct grade gravel road climbs. No downhill segments. Few rocks and all on flat ground not on downhills.

Racing ralph is a 24 watt tire the ikon is 35 and the ardent higher. Do the math. Dont tell me ya buts thats on a steel drum. The race is closer to the steel drum than not. He doesn't need to raise air pressure and have a crap ride comfort and traction. He needs to get "Midwest xc tires". Which means fast rolling. Racing ralphs and that type.

You dont need credentials to have ridden this trail and these roads to be able to give tire feedback. They should ride 40c nanos in the tour de france then if its not that much of a difference.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

TDLover said:


> I'm not sure where you are getting the 10-15 watts figure, but between a RR or Raceking and the maxxis mentioned there is less that that. Probably around 4-7 watts at considerable speed. Even better advice is just to have the tire pumped up to a higher pressure for the race.


My pet peeve is people referring to rolling resistance in watts. The amount of watts required to overcome friction is directly proportionate to speed. If you want to say an extra 14 watts you need to say the speed too, for example 14 watts at 7m/s. But the best way to say it would be an extra 2N of rolling resistance. That way someone can easily figure out the power demands based on their expected average speed.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> My pet peeve is people referring to rolling resistance in watts. The amount of watts required to overcome friction is directly proportionate to speed. If you want to say an extra 14 watts you need to say the speed too, for example 14 watts at 7m/s. But the best way to say it would be an extra 2N of rolling resistance. That way someone can easily figure out the power demands based on their expected average speed.


I think we can agree that a lighter faster rolling tire takes less watts. In a 10 hour race for the average Joe he has zero watts to burn not on making the bike remain at optimum not maximum speed.

Ive made it clear that Ikons and Ardents are a good tire in their element. This race is about rolling resistance on brown cement. I tried Ikons at this trail and they were slower. They were unecessary to carry that much grip and durability around. That sucks power from the avg guy like me.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Listen. The race has 10-18pct grade gravel road climbs. No downhill segments. Few rocks and all on flat ground not on downhills.
> 
> Racing ralph is a 24 watt tire the ikon is 35 and the ardent higher. Do the math. Dont tell me ya buts thats on a steel drum. The race is closer to the steel drum than not. He doesn't need to raise air pressure and have a crap ride comfort and traction. He needs to get "Midwest xc tires". Which means fast rolling. Racing ralphs and that type.
> 
> ...


I have ridden in the Mid-west. The dirt is dirt, like found in most places. Nothing special or unique about it.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I think we can agree that a lighter faster rolling tire takes less watts. In a 10 hour race for the average Joe he has zero watts to burn not on making the bike remain at optimum not maximum speed.
> 
> Ive made it clear that Ikons and Ardents are a good tire in their element. This race is about rolling resistance on brown cement. I tried Ikons at this trail and they were slower. They were unecessary to carry that much grip and durability around. That sucks power from the avg guy like me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I am not saying that I would choose those tires for that race. But if I had just bought a set I wouldn't go and buy another set. Someone looking to win the race overall, where a change in tires may make the difference between 1st and 2nd would. But for an average racer (myself included) changing tires would make no meaningful difference in race performance.

But lets get to the heart of the issue. You don't like Maxxis tires and rant at anybody who disagrees with you. I don't really care. But when someone starts thinking about wasting money because of your rants I am going to share my opinion.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> I am not saying that I would choose those tires for that race. But if I had just bought a set I wouldn't go and buy another set. Someone looking to win the race overall, where a change in tires may make the difference between 1st and 2nd would. But for an average racer (myself included) changing tires would make no meaningful difference in race performance.
> 
> But lets get to the heart of the issue. You don't like Maxxis tires and rant at anybody who disagrees with you. I don't really care. But when someone starts thinking about wasting money because of your rants I going share my opinion.


I never said i dont like Maxxis!! Haha. I said they are heavy and slow and durable semi truck tires. I said maxxis is a marketing name for a chinese tire factory. Thats all.

Some guys ride around with super swampers on their jeep rubicons and dont even have an orv sticker so we know they should be on some decent all terrains saving mpg. Since they dont go off road. Im a realist above all else. He doesnt need semi truck tires in this race. He needs those in his next race at wilderness 101. Where youre going 8 the whole time trying not to get a flat.

I give my money to maxxis thats not issue i have ikons, maxxlite, crossmark and they all have their use but this race is not it.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Do you know how much "14 watt" parasitic drag is over a 1:30 race. Are you ready to claim that type of performance improvement on dirt from a mere change in rubber? It just doesn't translate on the trail.


On the street I have yet to see this either. I'm currently averaging 18mph on solo nonstop 1:30 efforts with gravel/road. Soon, I will test the extreme of this when I try the Schwalbe Big Ones.


There are too many variables for a human being to test the difference between tires the way you mention. But, I think we can all agree that an Ardent 2.4 is not the best choice for a front tire on an XC bike or any bike for that matter. Hell, I raced my entire first season with one up front before moving on from Ardents for good.


----------



## euro-trash (Feb 9, 2008)

That's a great setup. I've been on the overall podium in 100s on that combo. Recently I switched from the Ardent 2.4 to a 2.35 Forekaster for the front, but they are very similar. Ordering new tires is overkill. 
I don't know that course, so it might be slightly overkill, but you did not get suckered. There is such a low penalty for being over-tired in the front that it's a worthwhile default when you aren't familiar with the course, particularly when you are fatigued. If you can roll corners even .5 mph faster with a beefier tire then any difference in rolling resistance (claims of 10-15 watts off-road are spurious) is negated. The big Ikon rocks for endurance races. Good luck!


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

I hope my competition is as dumb as some of you sound. Trying to tell somebody that saving ANY watts over ten hours isnt worth changing tires. Cause you superheroes have unlimited watts to burn. Keep spinning those slow 800 gram tires up 15pct gravel climbs while im spinning 670 gm fast rolling tires. He never said he didnt want to buy new tires. Imagine this. Some people like to have different tires for different races. Imagine that. 

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

I've used some of the tires discussed here (Ikons, Ardent Races, RaRa's, Aspens) on a local trail with a power meter to keep the effort exactly the same and conclude that there is not more than a few seconds to maybe a minute difference in any of these over a 2-hour ride at around 160 watts (or 2.5 w/kg's). It sure as HELL isn't 7 watts harder to keep the Ikon up to the speed of the Racing Ralph; that rolling resistance test people like to refer to has little relevance on actual dirt. If you just wanna talk about weight, that's one thing. The 2.4 Ardent is a pretty heavy tire compared to some others, but the rolling resistance is being blown out of proportion. Especially when talking Schwalbe viv-a-vis Maxxis. And the fact that that guy's rolling test also loves the Schwalbe tires vs. Maxxis in regards to puncture resistance, after everything I've ever experienced/seen/heard about Schwalbes, leads me to think he must be some shill for them.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

^ good point...I suspect rotational weight/mass and rolling resistance are being conflated in the rants above.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Maxxis Ardent Race 3C EXO TR Rolling Resistance Review
His comparison for the Schwalbe pacestar vs trailstar seems spot on too.
There is a notable difference in speed. Not hating on Maxxis in any way. They make great tires just not fast ones.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

alexbn921 said:


> Maxxis Ardent Race 3C EXO TR Rolling Resistance Review
> His comparison for the Schwalbe pacestar vs trailstar seems spot on too.
> There is a notable difference in speed. Not hating on Maxxis in any way. They make great tires just not fast ones.


Nearly every experienced mountain biker knows a tire with 55psi is going to roll quite slow off road. Yet when you read those test you can't help but come to the conclusion that 55psi is the way to go. That alone should show how deeply flawed the testing methods are.

The only test(s) I am interested in reading are ones where they test on a dirt surface.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Well, to say that he only tests at 55psi isn't the whole story. He performs measurements at 55, 45, 35 and 25psi for every MTB tire.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

BmanInTheD said:


> I've used some of the tires discussed here (Ikons, Ardent Races, RaRa's, Aspens) on a local trail with a power meter to keep the effort exactly the same and conclude that there is not more than a few seconds to maybe a minute difference in any of these over a 2-hour ride at around 160 watts (or 2.5 w/kg's). It sure as HELL isn't 7 watts harder to keep the Ikon up to the speed of the Racing Ralph; that rolling resistance test people like to refer to has little relevance on actual dirt. If you just wanna talk about weight, that's one thing. The 2.4 Ardent is a pretty heavy tire compared to some others, but the rolling resistance is being blown out of proportion. Especially when talking Schwalbe viv-a-vis Maxxis. And the fact that that guy's rolling test also loves the Schwalbe tires vs. Maxxis in regards to puncture resistance, after everything I've ever experienced/seen/heard about Schwalbes, leads me to think he must be some shill for them.


Your test is a good start. However a higher wattage is needed for a 2-hour XC race test, more like 3 w/kg or better. That will increase the rolling resistance.

Secondly, to cite your observation, a few seconds in a race using a low-profile vs your favorite tire may not be worth it, but a full minute? That to me starts to be worth it, especially at higher effort levels.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Actually, rolling resistance is a static force. It doesn't change at higher speeds. 

In other words, don't think of it as a percentage of power; think of it as subtracting a number that doesn't change, regardless of speed. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

chomxxo said:


> Your test is a good start. However a higher wattage is needed for a 2-hour XC race test, more like 3 w/kg or better. That will increase the rolling resistance.
> 
> Secondly, to cite your observation, a few seconds in a race using a low-profile vs your favorite tire may not be worth it, but a full minute? That to me starts to be worth it, especially at higher effort levels.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


These were just training rides so I wasn't "racing", just thought I'd add an observation. And the only tire that approached being a minute slower was the Ardent, which isn't really an XC tire at all. The others (RoRo, RaRa, Ikon, Aspen) were all pretty damn close in speed at a given wattage. You can turn your nose up at 2.5 w/kg all you want, but I doubt the poster that is asking for advice is throwing down more than 2.5 w/kg over a 10-hour period or whatever the hell it is.


----------



## jayzoll (Dec 14, 2016)

BmanInTheD said:


> These were just training rides so I wasn't "racing", just thought I'd add an observation. And the only tire that approached being a minute slower was the Ardent, which isn't really an XC tire at all. The others (RoRo, RaRa, Ikon, Aspen) were all pretty damn close in speed at a given wattage. You can turn your nose up at 2.5 w/kg all you want, but I doubt the poster that is asking for advice is throwing down more than 2.5 w/kg over a 10-hour period or whatever the hell it is.


2.74w/kg is my 75% and planned NP for the race. maybe i will finish around 10hrs, i really have no real good estimate as its my 2nd ever mtb race (and bike race for that matter)

i appreciate all the feedback and will test the tires later this summer.

i am not a podium contender. but i still love compete against myself. if i can buy some time simply by choosing a different tire, im in. at some point none of that matters because i still gotta pedal the bike.

cheers


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> Actually, rolling resistance is a static force. It doesn't change at higher speeds.
> 
> In other words, don't think of it as a percentage of power; think of it as subtracting a number that doesn't change, regardless of speed.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


This is a complicated question, moreso than I would have thought. Theoretically you're correct but effectively you might be incorrect. Short answer would be to do some trail tests at race pace and record the differences.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...nship-between-rolling-resistance-and-velocity

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Actually, rolling resistance is a static force. It doesn't change at higher speeds.
> 
> In other words, don't think of it as a percentage of power; think of it as subtracting a number that doesn't change, regardless of speed.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


I'm sorry, but you are mixing terms.

What you are referring to is coefficient of rolling resistance which doesn't change, yet it is determined empirically at given speeds. With that coefficient you can calculate the force only for the basic forces (rubber friction).

Rolling resistance as a whole depends on speed, wheel diameter, load of the wheel, sliding and surface adhesion among other factors that can be neglected. For example, slippage due to torque (pedaling) even if very low <5% represents about 200% more rolling resistance than basic forces (rubber friction).

This is why those rolling resistances tests are not correlating well to real life, they are basically taking the Crr of the rubber and comparing it, while true rolling resistance forces depends on many other things, mainly in them, pedaling forces, speed and plastic deformation (terrain deformation).


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> Well, to say that he only tests at 55psi isn't the whole story. He performs measurements at 55, 45, 35 and 25psi for every MTB tire.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Did I say he only tested at 55psi?

I think I said according to his test the lowest rolling resistance is found at 55psi. Which both of us know is not true for a tire that ridden off road. I suspect it isn't even true for a MTB tire ridden on the road.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

LMN said:


> Did I say he only tested at 55psi?
> 
> I think I said according to his test the lowest rolling resistance is found at 55psi. Which both of us know is not true for a tire that ridden off road. I suspect it isn't even true for a MTB tire ridden on the road.


No. And, I realize that testing at 55psi serves no purpose. But, it was the only thing you mentioned, which made me think that you might have missed the other tests performed.

I was just attempting to clarify that he did multiple tests, ranging from 25-55psi.


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

I've found the rolling resistance test results a little far fetched, and maybe it is the dirt that makes the difference from the test and reality. I have ridden Ralph's and Ron's a lot and always found them fast, and have also ridden Nic's and did not find them fast but they certainly had traction advantages in certain conditions. I think the most shocking numbers to me were for the Ikon, which I've not ridden much but it seemed fast, and I think it's hard to believe that so many good XC racers would be on a "slow" tire.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

scottg said:


> I've found the rolling resistance test results a little far fetched, and maybe it is the dirt that makes the difference from the test and reality. I have ridden Ralph's and Ron's a lot and always found them fast, and have also ridden Nic's and did not find them fast but they certainly had traction advantages in certain conditions. I think the most shocking numbers to me were for the Ikon, which I've not ridden much but it seemed fast, and I think it's hard to believe that so many good XC racers would be on a "slow" tire.


No kidding, they wouldn't.

He's got the RaRa at 24 watts, Nobby Nic at 25, and Ikon at 31.5. If there was any validity in that, given the traction advantages, why the hell wouldn't everyone run a Nobby Nic? I don't remember EVER seeing a NoNi at an XC race. Does anybody really believe that an Ikon rolls slower than a Nic on a mountain bike trail?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I regularly run the Nobby Nic. So does TommyRod74. 

It's definitely saved my bacon a couple of times recently.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Has anybody tried the new Michelin Force XC or seen any reviews on them?


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> I regularly run the Nobby Nic. So does TommyRod74.
> 
> It's definitely saved my bacon a couple of times recently.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


What kind of situation would a Nobby Nic be advantageous? Thanks.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Rocket Ron is the racer's Nobby Nic. They really should make a 2.35 version. Then everyone would be happy  But I agree that the Nobby Nic is probably the finest all-around tire out there. Try a Nevegal and you'll see how slow a trail tire can be.


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

BmanInTheD said:


> No kidding, they wouldn't.
> 
> He's got the RaRa at 24 watts, Nobby Nic at 25, and Ikon at 31.5. If there was any validity in that, given the traction advantages, why the hell wouldn't everyone run a Nobby Nic? I don't remember EVER seeing a NoNi at an XC race. Does anybody really believe that an Ikon rolls slower than a Nic on a mountain bike trail?


Im interested to know this. I currently run nn up front and it's fine. I replaced a worn out rear Racing Ralph with an Ardent Race and it feels more resistant, but I actually have grip now. I want to put an Ardent Race up front and an Ikon on back but still want that fast feeling I had with the nn/rr.


----------



## euro-trash (Feb 9, 2008)

Ksanman said:


> I want to put an ardent race up front and ikon on back but still want that fast feeling I had with the nn/rr.


I'd flip that combo, big Ikon Front, Ardent Race rear (I'd go 2.35 rear too). NN front/RaRa rear is a damn good combo too. 
Anyone try the Addix compounds yet?


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I can't directly compare the Maxxis to the Schwalbe as I don't have enough time on the Maxxis tires. I can compare the Racing Ralph, Nobby Nic (2.25,2.4,2.6,2.8) in various compounds and Rocket Ron's.

Ron's are my favorite race tire. They don't feel any slower than the Ralphs and have better grip. The NN in the pacestar always surprise me at how fast they are for a knobby tire. There is a significant penalty switching from the pacestar to the trailstar compound. The grip is outstanding, but even on my trail bike I'm not sure it's worth it.

Casing and compound seem to effect rolling resistance more than tread pattern, although it plays a roll too.

Most XC racers including myself are willing to give up grip to get speed. We are slowing coming around to the idea the 2.25 is faster that 1.9 or 2.1 tires. A lot goes into this and this is just my observations.

The couple times I tried DHF and Highroller tires, I was impressed with there grip. They felt so slow and I just couldn't get over it.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

wheelzqc said:


> What kind of situation would a Nobby Nic be advantageous? Thanks.


I won't answer for Tommy, but we both ride in similar conditions.

I live in western VA, which is similar to Pisgah NF and the trails there. Lots of roots and rocks. Plenty of loose turns and off camber stuff as well. The Rocket Ron doesn't corner nearly as well as the Nobby Nic does up front. The side knobs are way too flimsy for that. The Nobby Nic is an incredibly fast rolling tire for how well it grips. I'm guessing that's because it uses the same casing as the Rocket Ron.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> I won't answer for Tommy, but we both ride in similar conditions.
> 
> I live in western VA, which is similar to Pisgah NF and the trails there. Lots of roots and rocks. Plenty of loose turns and off camber stuff as well. The Rocket Ron doesn't corner nearly as well as the Nobby Nic does up front. The side knobs are way too flimsy for that. The Nobby Nic is an incredibly fast rolling tire for how well it grips. I'm guessing that's because it uses the same casing as the Rocket Ron.


I'll third this. I had a nobby nic I used to throw on for Pisgah rides and it was a killer front tire even as a 2.25. I'm using a 2.2 Bontrager XR3 for those duties now and it's similar.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

csteven71 said:


> I'll third this. I had a nobby nic I used to throw on for Pisgah rides and it was a killer front tire even as a 2.25. I'm using a 2.2 Bontrager XR3 for those duties now and it's similar. I've run 2.2 Ikons, 2.25 SS Ralphs, XR2s and XR1s. They're all pretty similar to me. I'll be putting on Ikons when my current Bontrager set wears out, I got a good deal on them and they got me through SM100 in the past without issues. If the Ikon is fast and grippy enough that a handful of world cup XCO folks, Kabush, Wells, Jeremiah and Finsty all run them, they're probably good enough for me to use.


FWIW Wells runs a 2.1 Maxxis Pace front, Aspen rear.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Le Duke said:


> I won't answer for Tommy, but we both ride in similar conditions.
> 
> I live in western VA, which is similar to Pisgah NF and the trails there. Lots of roots and rocks. Plenty of loose turns and off camber stuff as well. The Rocket Ron doesn't corner nearly as well as the Nobby Nic does up front. The side knobs are way too flimsy for that. The Nobby Nic is an incredibly fast rolling tire for how well it grips. I'm guessing that's because it uses the same casing as the Rocket Ron.


Maybe Le Duke didn't answer for me, but he might as well have, as that's my experience as well. Damn front end just sticks even when leaned over hard in loose conditions. Great front tire that rolls faster than it has any right to.

I have ridden the Ikon but found it lackluster; that was the 2.2 and thought it was similar to a RaRa but felt slower. The Schwalbe tires fit my riding style and terrain.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

chomxxo said:


> FWIW Wells runs a 2.1 Maxxis Pace front, Aspen rear.


That's fair. I'd like to try both those, but unfortunately no one wants to give me free tires.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

csteven71 said:


> I'll third this. I had a nobby nic I used to throw on for Pisgah rides and it was a killer front tire even as a 2.25. I'm using a 2.2 Bontrager XR3 for those duties now and it's similar. I've run 2.2 Ikons, 2.25 SS Ralphs, XR2s and XR1s. They're all pretty similar to me. I'll be putting on Ikons when my current Bontrager set wears out, I got a good deal on them and they got me through SM100 in the past without issues. If the Ikon is fast and grippy enough that a handful of world cup XCO folks, Kabush, Wells, Jeremiah and Finsty all run them, they're probably good enough for me to use.


World cup racers don't use the same tires you and I can buy. They have a different casing and most likely special rubber compounds. Both of which greatly influence the the rolling resistance.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

BmanInTheD said:


> No kidding, they wouldn't.
> 
> He's got the RaRa at 24 watts, Nobby Nic at 25, and Ikon at 31.5. If there was any validity in that, given the traction advantages, why the hell wouldn't everyone run a Nobby Nic? I don't remember EVER seeing a NoNi at an XC race. Does anybody really believe that an Ikon rolls slower than a Nic on a mountain bike trail?


FWIW, the Nic was on (it seemed) half the bikes at Pisgah Stage Race.


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

If this were my 2nd race ever, I was just hoping to finish, and I already had Ikons on my bike... I wouldn't change anything.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

alexbn921 said:


> World cup racers don't use the same tires you and I can buy. They have a different casing and most likely special rubber compounds. Both of which greatly influence the the rolling resistance.


Fair enough, it'd be nice to get a set to play with.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

The Nobby nic is a great xc tire when it has something to bite into. Otherwise its dangerous on hardpack or gravely or sandy. 

The rocket ron is faster than the ralph so it should feel faster, literally. 

Anybody that claims a ikon rolls as fast as a racing ralph obviously hasnt ridden either tire. They are more durable and have more traction which directly lead to them being slower. 

I cant understand how people can dispute the results of the rolling test with a sane mind. Nobody is saying that those test directly translate to the dirt. They are just showing how fast they roll on the drum. When you hit dirt the ikon doesnt suddenly become just as fast as the racing ralph. Its still just that tad bit slower. Slower means more watts to push it. Ive ridden every tire that i speak about. I dont think many of you have actually ridden the tires you are talking about. A lot have, but its easy to tell who just goes by what the pros use. Which is just silly. They can either run a lighter casing because they can bike handle better or they can run a heavier tire because they have more watts. 

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

Lets see if I'm close: Wattage output would affect efficiency of energy transfer (different from rolling resistance) in the rear depending on the tire tread design and riding surface (I'm no engineer, so correct me as necessary): The more power you're putting down on a loose or soft surface to overcome drag, the efficiency of grip would affect the 'ease of roll', or power to sustain a given speed, which would change as the wattage goes up (lower wattage output is closer to simple rolling resistance, higher wattage gets closer to throwing a little roost like a moto). Coasting a bike to see how far it would go on a trail would be good rolling resistance test. Imagine running a 'fast' small knob tire on a slightly slick surface, losing a couple of percent of each turn to slip would be a huge loss compared to any gain from rolling resistance.
My point; As much as possible, run a tire (especially rear) with good enough forward grip for the riding surface and worry about rolling resistance after that.
I'm reminded of this from reading about the Bugatti Veyron years ago, and how fast the tires would wear at speed, because at 240+ mph all 1000+ hp is going through the 4 contact patches to overcome drag (substitute vehicle of choice, all the hp/wattage goes through the contact patch-es to act against drag and/or acceleration). 
As it relates to the bike, all your wattage is transferred to the ground through that 4-6 square cm contact patch, efficient transfer of energy (rear) would be more important than low rolling resistance. Makes my head hurt just a little. - I got 2 koms and a good close 2nd, on tough segments with the Mezcals the other day.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

jimPacNW said:


> Lets see if I'm close: Wattage output would affect efficiency of energy transfer (different from rolling resistance) in the rear depending on the tire tread design and riding surface (I'm no engineer, so correct me as necessary): The more power you're putting down on a loose or soft surface to overcome drag, the efficiency of grip would affect the 'ease of roll', or power to sustain a given speed, which would change as the wattage goes up (lower wattage output is closer to simple rolling resistance, higher wattage gets closer to throwing a little roost like a moto). Coasting a bike to see how far it would go on a trail would be good rolling resistance test. Imagine running a 'fast' small knob tire on a slightly slick surface, losing a couple of percent of each turn to slip would be a huge loss compared to any gain from rolling resistance.
> My point; As much as possible, run a tire (especially rear) with good enough forward grip for the riding surface and worry about rolling resistance after that.
> I'm reminded of this from reading about the Bugatti Veyron years ago, and how fast the tires would wear at speed, because at 240+ mph all 1000+ hp is going through the 4 contact patches to overcome drag (substitute vehicle of choice, all the hp/wattage goes through the contact patch-es to act against drag and/or acceleration).
> As it relates to the bike, all your wattage is transferred to the ground through that 4-6 square cm contact patch, efficient transfer of energy (rear) would be more important than low rolling resistance. Makes my head hurt just a little. - I got 2 koms and a good close 2nd, on tough segments with the Mezcals the other day.


I would rather have some light slip when i put the power down if it keeps me rolling faster everywhere else. I like drift. So there are so many variables its easy to just start calling each other dumb. I was specifically referring to one race. Some people buy multiple sets of tires some just run what you brung for the season. This guy wants to have a few sets of tires for different conditions. His ardent and ikon will crush wilderness 101 and the ralphs would probably flat. In mohican the ground is hard, so roll fast.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> No kidding, they wouldn't.
> 
> He's got the RaRa at 24 watts, Nobby Nic at 25, and Ikon at 31.5. If there was any validity in that, given the traction advantages, why the hell wouldn't everyone run a Nobby Nic? I don't remember EVER seeing a NoNi at an XC race. Does anybody really believe that an Ikon rolls slower than a Nic on a mountain bike trail?


An ikon is slower than a nobby nic. Try them for yourself so you dont have to speculate. A whole bunch of the Ohio xc racers run Nobby Nics.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

jimPacNW said:


> Lets see if I'm close: Wattage output would affect efficiency of energy transfer (different from rolling resistance) in the rear depending on the tire tread design and riding surface (I'm no engineer, so correct me as necessary): The more power you're putting down on a loose or soft surface to overcome drag, the efficiency of grip would affect the 'ease of roll', or power to sustain a given speed, which would change as the wattage goes up (lower wattage output is closer to simple rolling resistance, higher wattage gets closer to throwing a little roost like a moto). Coasting a bike to see how far it would go on a trail would be good rolling resistance test. Imagine running a 'fast' small knob tire on a slightly slick surface, losing a couple of percent of each turn to slip would be a huge loss compared to any gain from rolling resistance.
> My point; As much as possible, run a tire (especially rear) with good enough forward grip for the riding surface and worry about rolling resistance after that.
> I'm reminded of this from reading about the Bugatti Veyron years ago, and how fast the tires would wear at speed, because at 240+ mph all 1000+ hp is going through the 4 contact patches to overcome drag (substitute vehicle of choice, all the hp/wattage goes through the contact patch-es to act against drag and/or acceleration).
> As it relates to the bike, all your wattage is transferred to the ground through that 4-6 square cm contact patch, efficient transfer of energy (rear) would be more important than low rolling resistance. Makes my head hurt just a little. - I got 2 koms and a good close 2nd, on tough segments with the Mezcals the other day.


If we follow your logic then a DHF would be just as fast as a icon. There is a big enough gap to know that this is not the case. I am heavy and put out a lot of power, but rarely have a tire slip under me. The casing will give/wrinkle under power, but this seems to play into of a faster rolling tire. This of course only works if the tire has enough grip to handle the power level. Even the slick big apples seem to be okay on dirt, so I don't think traction is a problem.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

I think one of the issues with testing rolling resistance is often people is the wrong protocol. Just about every test I have ever read they use the same air pressure. The problem with this is "right" air-pressure is different for every tire.

If we are testing tires with same tread on a smooth drum then then tires that are larger in size and have stiffer casing will test better. I suspect on a smooth drum the key variables are size and casing rigidity.

One way to control this is to set air pressures so all tire have the same percentage sag. We all do this automatically to a certain extent, if we change tire size, tire type, or wheel size we all adjust to find the air pressure to work.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Read a little last night, because this is the second most entertaining thing to do besides racing an MTB. Perhaps I could get a showdown at BC Bike Race with LMN, or Pisgah with Le Duke 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...nship-between-rolling-resistance-and-velocity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance

Calculating rolling resistance is complicated. A lot more complicated than some basic lap, roll-down, or climbing tests with a power meter, or at least a stopwatch, would tell you. I try to ride everything until it breaks, but I have a large collection of tires, having tried a lot. I've settled into Rocket Ron front and Racing Ralph rear, both 2.25 Snakeskin. This works well for Texas in general, and just about any racing environment.

I liked the Thunder Burt and it's been great on some buff courses that I know well. It is without a doubt, in tests, feel, and results, one of the fastest tires you can buy. However, traveling to races, you never know when you might be bringing a knife to a gun fight on racer boy tires in technical terrain, or at least mud, and that's not a good feeling. Also, a little more knob is a little more puncture protection, like wearing boots instead of moccasins, and finishing makes for a much more fun weekend.


----------



## Walt Disney's Frozen Head (Jan 9, 2008)

chomxxo said:


> Read a little last night, because this is the second most entertaining thing to do besides racing an MTB. Perhaps I could get a showdown at BC Bike Race with LMN, or Pisgah with Le Duke
> 
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...nship-between-rolling-resistance-and-velocity
> 
> ...


It's actually fairly easy using aerolab in Golden Cheetah but.... like most models, garbage in = garbage out. Now how do the results of the test translate to "your" race course... tbd.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Walt Disney's Frozen Head said:


> It's actually fairly easy using aerolab in Golden Cheetah but.... like most models, garbage in = garbage out. Now how do the results of the test translate to "your" race course... tbd.


Rob Bell: Using Golden Cheetah Aerolab

That doesn't sound too easy to me, especially on a mountain bike, but I welcome the guy that posts a comprehensive chart. "I" race all over the country, see you in Breckenridge!


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> FWIW Wells runs a 2.1 Maxxis Pace front, Aspen rear.


Marathon Nats - Pace front, Aspen rear.
Whisky 50 - Ikons.
Sea Otter - Paces.
Bonelli, Short track - Paces, XC - Ikons.

It's cool to see what a top rider does use, right down to tyre pressures and even what shock/fork pressures they ran.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> Read a little last night, because this is the second most entertaining thing to do besides racing an MTB. Perhaps I could get a showdown at BC Bike Race with LMN, or Pisgah with Le Duke


Single Track Six this summer. Rossland and Nelson riding that beyond imagination good. Make sure you put a dropper on you bike and bring durable tires.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

jayzoll said:


> i am not a podium contender. but i still love compete against myself. if i can buy some time simply by choosing a different tire, im in. at some point none of that matters because i still gotta pedal the bike.
> 
> cheers


If that's the case, then you are racing against your tires, not yourself.

Last year I got the overall win at a 12 hour race running the basic budget RaRa 2.1's that come with your lower speced bikes. Unfortunately, Tinker has taken a liking to using this race series as practice, and just destroys everyone...

I'm going to go outside now and mount up my 2.35 RaRa and move the 2.25 front to the back. Both free tires (friends gave them to me).


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

Sidewalk said:


> If that's the case, then you are racing against your tires, not yourself.
> 
> Last year I got the overall win at a 12 hour race running the basic budget RaRa 2.1's that come with your lower speced bikes. Unfortunately, Tinker has taken a liking to using this race series as practice, and just destroys everyone...
> 
> I'm going to go outside now and mount up my 2.35 RaRa and move the 2.25 front to the back. Both free tires (friends gave them to me).


i think there is a smaller difference between these 2 than any other 2.25 and 2.35 i have ever touched. it's like what? 2-3mm?


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

.1" = 2.5mm


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

chomxxo said:


> I liked the Thunder Burt and it's been great on some buff courses that I know well. It is without a doubt, in tests, feel, and results, one of the fastest tires you can buy. However, traveling to races, you never know when you might be bringing a knife to a gun fight on racer boy tires in technical terrain, or at least mud, and that's not a good feeling. Also, a little more knob is a little more puncture protection, like wearing boots instead of moccasins, and finishing makes for a much more fun weekend.


Need your votes on my tire combination for this weekend's race. 25km of undulating/downhill-ish tar (I know, heresy) and 50km of undulating loose over hard with one 2km steep climb which may be decisive.

Running 27.5 wheels on a Scott Spark. Typically do TB rear and RaRa front (worked fine for the Cape Epic this year) but pre-rode the climbing section yesterday and it was hard to control rear wheel slippage. TB will be fine for all other sections.

I have 2x RaRa 1x RoRo and 2x TB available to choose from. All snakeskin. I suppose the question is whether the speed penalty for a rear tire with more traction is worth the tradeoff to get up that climb more quickly. I know in principle there will be a penalty, I just haven't run enough side-by-side field tests to have a sense of exactly how much. And before we start rehashing posts, I have read through the rolling resistance data; I'd prefer to have field experience/examples if possible.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> Need your votes on my tire combination for this weekend's race. 25km of undulating/downhill-ish tar (I know, heresy) and 50km of undulating loose over hard with one 2km steep climb which may be decisive.
> 
> Running 27.5 wheels on a Scott Spark. Typically do TB rear and RaRa front (worked fine for the Cape Epic this year) but pre-rode the climbing section yesterday and it was hard to control rear wheel slippage. TB will be fine for all other sections.
> 
> I have 2x RaRa 1x RoRo and 2x TB available to choose from. All snakeskin. I suppose the question is whether the speed penalty for a rear tire with more traction is worth the tradeoff to get up that climb more quickly. I know in principle there will be a penalty, I just haven't run enough side-by-side field tests to have a sense of exactly how much. And before we start rehashing posts, I have read through the rolling resistance data; I'd prefer to have field experience/examples if possible.


Racing ralph front, rocket ron rear

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

How steep of a climb are we talking about?

Before upgrading wheels I had a certain climb at one of my 12 hour race events that I usually walked up. It seems silly but the spike in heart rate wasn't worth the penalty later in the day when it is 110 degrees and I am cramping. I lose about 30 seconds on one of the fastest guys out there. So it may be worth jumping off and running if you get stuck with traction issues.

That said, I have never run TB and don't see myself doing so. I would like to test one out of curiosity, but too many of my climbs need traction. I've only seen one mounted on a bike in person, until he ripped a sidewall and said never again would he run one.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

winters.benjamin said:


> Need your votes on my tire combination for this weekend's race. 25km of undulating/downhill-ish tar (I know, heresy) and 50km of undulating loose over hard with one 2km steep climb which may be decisive.
> 
> Running 27.5 wheels on a Scott Spark. Typically do TB rear and RaRa front (worked fine for the Cape Epic this year) but pre-rode the climbing section yesterday and it was hard to control rear wheel slippage. TB will be fine for all other sections.
> 
> I have 2x RaRa 1x RoRo and 2x TB available to choose from. All snakeskin. I suppose the question is whether the speed penalty for a rear tire with more traction is worth the tradeoff to get up that climb more quickly. I know in principle there will be a penalty, I just haven't run enough side-by-side field tests to have a sense of exactly how much. And before we start rehashing posts, I have read through the rolling resistance data; I'd prefer to have field experience/examples if possible.


A fellow Schwalbe fan. Well if you have only one Rocket Ron it should be on the front for the skills upgrade in the corners. I find that you can stand up completely on technical climbs with a Ron rear, midway crouch with a Ralph, and sit on the nose with a Burt.

Most of the course sounds like it would suit speed from semi-slicks like the Burt, and yes, at this point I race only Snakeskin. If you're used to climbing with Thunder Burt, the Ralph rear should improve your hook up well enough.

If it were me I'd go Ralph/Ralph for speed and confidence, which will make you faster.

Only with wet or steep rooty climbing courses do you really need the Rocket Ron rear, but it is a marked upgrade in climbing traction even to the Ralph.

The area I live in can ride surprisingly like a steamier, shorter BC North Shore 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Messing with tires this week. 

Few actual weights. 29er

Fast trak 2.3 gripton 717
Fasttrak 2.1 gripton 634

Racing ralph 2.35 730 (oink) 

XR2 team 2.35 671

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Messing with tires this week.
> 
> Few actual weights. 29er
> 
> ...


Fast Trak	29	2.00	Control 2Bliss 580g
Ikon 29	2.20	3C EXO TR 665g
Ikon 29	2.35	3C EXO TR 760g
Ardent	29	2.25	EXO TR 790g
Race King	29	2.20	Wirebead 795g
Minion SS	29	2.30	Silkworm EXO TR	820g

Would like to have a play with FastTrak and Renegade Gripton 2.35's.
Running 2.0 FastTrak Control's for the 6-hour in 3 days.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> How steep of a climb are we talking about?
> 
> Before upgrading wheels I had a certain climb at one of my 12 hour race events that I usually walked up. It seems silly but the spike in heart rate wasn't worth the penalty later in the day when it is 110 degrees and I am cramping. I lose about 30 seconds on one of the fastest guys out there. So it may be worth jumping off and running if you get stuck with traction issues.
> 
> That said, I have never run TB and don't see myself doing so. I would like to test one out of curiosity, but too many of my climbs need traction. I've only seen one mounted on a bike in person, until he ripped a sidewall and said never again would he run one.


11% avg for the total climb, but the sections that give me trouble are in the high teens, low twenties. I find I can slop my way through, back tire spinning then gripping then spinning etc., but it's not pretty and I'm certainly spending too much energy making it happen.

I don't climb out of the saddle very much. I try to stay planted, low, and moving up or down the saddle as gradient requires.

On using TBs, I've just switched over this past year. I was a little nervous looking at the center tread (or shall we say 'balding pattern') but frankly it hasn't been a problem up until now. I run a little softer than the 15% sag that LMN recommends, and haven't had much trouble in high speed cornering or braking. I'm a lightweight - 66kg after beer and burgers - so that might explain why I don't have as many sidewall issues as others seem to report. But one would think that lighter riders would have more trouble maintaining traction on TB. I haven't for the most part.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

chomxxo said:


> A fellow Schwalbe fan. Well if you have only one Rocket Ron it should be on the front for the skills upgrade in the corners. I find that you can stand up completely on technical climbs with a Ron rear, midway crouch with a Ralph, and sit on the nose with a Burt.
> 
> Most of the course sounds like it would suit speed from semi-slicks like the Burt, and yes, at this point I race only Snakeskin. If you're used to climbing with Thunder Burt, the Ralph rear should improve your hook up well enough.
> 
> ...


On using the Ron up front: I assumed as much. Never considered it out back. Something inside of me says 'why in god's name are you putting a wheat combine on your rear wheel' - just feels like it's going to be slower.

RaRa on F and R is what I ran before switching to TB on R, so if I don't get any more votes I'll probably use that for the race and report back to all of you.

You all are welcome to join. Racing from just outside Lusaka to the bottom of the Zambezi River Basin in Zambia. You'll have to hop on a plane today but if so you'll just make the start time.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I have 24 hr race (New Mexico) coming up where I will be part of 4 man team. MY 22lbs SC Highball is currently setup with 2.35 Ikon EXO TR front and 2.2 XR3 team in the back. The XR3 is getting worn down a bit and I also have 2.1 Rocket Ron laying around. The bike's previous owner had that up front and I promptly removed it since it felt less stable in the corner vs 2.35 Ikon. I am thinking about putting this in the rear for the 24 hr race replacing XR3. Conditions will dry and loose. A few rocks, but not that much at least compared to my normal Az desert trails. 

So any advice on this?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

JoePAz said:


> I have 24 hr race (New Mexico) coming up where I will be part of 4 man team. MY 22lbs SC Highball is currently setup with 2.35 Ikon EXO TR front and 2.2 XR3 team in the back. The XR3 is getting worn down a bit and I also have 2.1 Rocket Ron laying around. The bike's previous owner had that up front and I promptly removed it since it felt less stable in the corner vs 2.35 Ikon. I am thinking about putting this in the rear for the 24 hr race replacing XR3. Conditions will dry and loose. A few rocks, but not that much at least compared to my normal Az desert trails.
> 
> So any advice on this?


You might be in for a little bit of a shock going from a worn down XR3 team to a Rocket Ron in the back.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

winters.benjamin said:


> You might be in for a little bit of a shock going from a worn down XR3 team to a Rocket Ron in the back.


Good or bad.. My worry is 2.2 XR3 to 2.1 RoRo... Just checked my XR3 has 717 miles on it. That is why it is a bit worn down. No idea on mileage on the RoRo, but plenty of tread. Only downside is that it had been sitting in the garage for about a year. Hope it not going to get dry rotted.

Plan to do a recon lap on the tire the day before the race and will bring the XR3 as backup because I know it will work. Plus I have spare set of wheels. Front has another Ikon 2.35, but rear has Fast Track 2.2 I think. Rear wheel would need brake rotor and cassette moved over to work. Front is off my single speed and rear is off bike I bought for parts.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

JoePAz said:


> I have 24 hr race (New Mexico) coming up where I will be part of 4 man team. MY 22lbs SC Highball is currently setup with 2.35 Ikon EXO TR front and 2.2 XR3 team in the back. The XR3 is getting worn down a bit and I also have 2.1 Rocket Ron laying around. The bike's previous owner had that up front and I promptly removed it since it felt less stable in the corner vs 2.35 Ikon. I am thinking about putting this in the rear for the 24 hr race replacing XR3. Conditions will dry and loose. A few rocks, but not that much at least compared to my normal Az desert trails.
> 
> So any advice on this?


The words loose and rocket ron in sentence equal hospital

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Just mounted my RoRo Addix Speed 29 x 2.25 today. Ride report this weekend.

One short note - these are the liteskin versions and they were mounted without sealant and haven't leaked.


----------



## Blackies Pasture (Mar 3, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Most of the course sounds like it would suit speed from semi-slicks like the Burt, and yes, at this point I race only Snakeskin. If you're used to climbing with Thunder Burt, the Ralph rear should improve your hook up well enough.


Try the Thunder Burt reversed. It makes a huge difference in any climbing, but the Continental race King racesport is even better, but needs a lot of air (27 lbs for me) to keep it from rolling sideways.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

JoePAz said:


> Good or bad.. My worry is 2.2 XR3 to 2.1 RoRo... Just checked my XR3 has 717 miles on it. That is why it is a bit worn down. No idea on mileage on the RoRo, but plenty of tread. Only downside is that it had been sitting in the garage for about a year. Hope it not going to get dry rotted.
> 
> Plan to do a recon lap on the tire the day before the race and will bring the XR3 as backup because I know it will work. Plus I have spare set of wheels. Front has another Ikon 2.35, but rear has Fast Track 2.2 I think. Rear wheel would need brake rotor and cassette moved over to work. Front is off my single speed and rear is off bike I bought for parts.


Not sure good or bad are the right terms necessarily. I haven't ridden RoRo in loose before so can't speak to Detroit's comment below, but from experience it's going to stick more than a worn down XR3 on the rear. So you're looking at potential speed loss and traction gain all at the same time.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

If I recall correctly, the RoRo in 2.1 is a SMALL tire. Like a fair bit less air volume than the RaRa in 2.1, which isn't huge either.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

tommyrod74 said:


> If I recall correctly, the RoRo in 2.1 is a SMALL tire. Like a fair bit less air volume than the RaRa in 2.1, which isn't huge either.


That is a big reason I removed it from front when I got the bike. BTW... when I say "loose" I mean soft dusty dirt. Not so much loose over hard, but probably just loose fine dirt. Race course will be getting lots of traffic so the dirt will be soft. Not sure how it has been since any rain.

Here are my 3 rear tire options.

Left, 2.2 XR3 worn, Middle Fast Track 2.2 worn, Right Rocket Ron 2.1 (unmounted)


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

winters.benjamin said:


> 11% avg for the total climb, but the sections that give me trouble are in the high teens, low twenties. I find I can slop my way through, back tire spinning then gripping then spinning etc., but it's not pretty and I'm certainly spending too much energy making it happen.
> 
> I don't climb out of the saddle very much. I try to stay planted, low, and moving up or down the saddle as gradient requires.
> 
> On using TBs, I've just switched over this past year. I was a little nervous looking at the center tread (or shall we say 'balding pattern') but frankly it hasn't been a problem up until now. I run a little softer than the 15% sag that LMN recommends, and haven't had much trouble in high speed cornering or braking. I'm a lightweight - 66kg after beer and burgers - so that might explain why I don't have as many sidewall issues as others seem to report. But one would think that lighter riders would have more trouble maintaining traction on TB. I haven't for the most part.


To update everyone: I kept TB on the rear, RaRa on the front. Dropped the pressure on the rear by 2psi. It was a good choice in terms of rolling speed. Led the race on the opening 25km or so on tarmac until I rolled over a piece of glass and punctured. Chased hard and almost regained contact after the decisive climb, then punctured the TB again on the descent.

Lesson learned. +1 for faster rolling, -100 for puncture resistance.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> To update everyone: I kept TB on the rear, RaRa on the front. Dropped the pressure on the rear by 2psi. It was a good choice in terms of rolling speed. Led the race on the opening 25km or so on tarmac until I rolled over a piece of glass and punctured. Chased hard and almost regained contact after the decisive climb, then punctured the TB again on the descent.
> 
> Lesson learned. +1 for faster rolling, -100 for puncture resistance.


That sucks. Were you running tubeless and just shot in some CO2?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> That sucks. Were you running tubeless and just shot in some CO2?


Yes. Actually the story got a hell of a lot worse/funny. Shot CO2 for the first two punctures. Put in a tube for the third (yes, three, but read on). Bummed another tube for the fourth puncture, rode my rim for 20km on dirt when I punctured again, then bummed another tube to get me to the finish.

I blame the TBs for the first two punctures. I blame the tube for my third. The fourth and fifth were all my fault. I've forgotten how to ride with tubes - too low of pressure caused the fourth (pinch flat) and careless riding caused the fifth (thorn). What a day.

Oh yeah, then my Garmin died bc I had inadvertently left the backlight on - I usually train in morning darkness so this is my default - and the 5+ hour saga killed the battery. :madmax::madmax:

In fairness to myself, I had only planned to be running in the red for about 2hr30min, maaaybe 2:45.

Lessons learned in pain are not easily forgotten, so I've got that going for me. Which is nice.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

winters.benjamin said:


> Lessons learned in pain are not easily forgotten, so I've got that going for me. Which is nice.


Well, that and total consciousness, of course.


----------



## Goran_injo (Jul 4, 2007)

Most of us try inappropriately light tires, and regret it, usually with a waisted entry fee, and if not lucky, an injury.

I don't mind the extra weight any more, reliability and confidence in equipment is key.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

Like LMN, I've found that the aggressive lines and high speeds that modern bikes allow me pretty much disqualify any flimsy or low-traction tire. I know it's all relative, and the Nic/Ralph combos I run are considered "pinner tires" by non-XC folks, but (in the larger sizes) they are a big step up in traction, stability, and durability (at least in my region) from traditional XC tires - and they aren't slow rolling, either. 

I can't win any race I can't finish.


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

Last year I ran 2.25 nic up front and 2.25 ralph in the rear. snakeskin for both. Grip and speed were amazing. durability and longetivity SUCKED. I got maybe 150 miles out of the ralph and both tires would get pin holes in the tread that stans wouldnt seal all the time.

This year im currently running ardent race exo 2.35 up front and 2.25 in back. They feel just a very touch slower, and a little less grip in the front, but they feel so far like they will last a lot longer and be a lot more durable. at some point i will swap in a 2.4 regular ardent to the front for more grip.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

mrbadwrench said:


> Last year I ran 2.25 nic up front and 2.25 ralph in the rear. snakeskin for both. Grip and speed were amazing. durability and longetivity SUCKED. I got maybe 150 miles out of the ralph and both tires would get pin holes in the tread that stans wouldnt seal all the time.
> 
> This year im currently running ardent race exo 2.35 up front and 2.25 in back. They feel just a very touch slower, and a little less grip in the front, but they feel so far like they will last a lot longer and be a lot more durable. at some point i will swap in a 2.4 regular ardent to the front for more grip.


Schwalbe tires are great east of the Mississippi and West of the Cascades.

In between, Maxxis or Vittoria.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

mrbadwrench said:


> Last year I ran 2.25 nic up front and 2.25 ralph in the rear. snakeskin for both. Grip and speed were amazing. durability and longetivity SUCKED. I got maybe 150 miles out of the ralph and both tires would get pin holes in the tread that stans wouldnt seal all the time.
> 
> This year im currently running ardent race exo 2.35 up front and 2.25 in back. They feel just a very touch slower, and a little less grip in the front, but they feel so far like they will last a lot longer and be a lot more durable. at some point i will swap in a 2.4 regular ardent to the front for more grip.


If you are thinking of a 2.4 ardent, do yourself a favor and get the Schwalbe Hans Dampf Pace star.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

tommyrod74 said:


> Well, that and total consciousness, of course.


phew. thought no one would catch that. :thumbsup:


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

winters.benjamin said:


> To update everyone: I kept TB on the rear, RaRa on the front. Dropped the pressure on the rear by 2psi. It was a good choice in terms of rolling speed. Led the race on the opening 25km or so on tarmac until I rolled over a piece of glass and punctured. Chased hard and almost regained contact after the decisive climb, then punctured the TB again on the descent.
> 
> Lesson learned. +1 for faster rolling, -100 for puncture resistance.


Man...thought we agreed on the Ralph/Ralph :madman:



Le Duke said:


> Schwalbe tires are great east of the Mississippi and West of the Cascades.
> 
> In between, Maxxis or Vittoria.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


I know a little something about racing on both sides of the river, and I'd say that dirt is dirt, roots are roots, and rocks are rocks. You'd be well-served to bring durable tires to Birmingham, AL, Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Austin, TX.

I appreciate Vittoria's experiments in graphene, even though we aren't seeing any weight/durability advantages from it yet. I think they're on the right track.

Maxxis is just gonna have to get a better tread pattern to go with their durability. No matter how many Ikon fans there are out there, its tread isn't in the same class as the Ralph or Rocket Ron. I'd put the Aspen and Thunder Burt on par however.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> Man...thought we agreed on the Ralph/Ralph :madman:
> 
> I know a little something about racing on both sides of the river, and I'd say that dirt is dirt, roots are roots, and rocks are rocks. You'd be well-served to bring durable tires to Birmingham, AL, Hot Springs, Arkansas, and Austin, TX.
> 
> ...


Only 25 people told him those tires suck and they flat if you look at them.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

chomxxo said:


> Man...thought we agreed on the Ralph/Ralph :madman:


We did. I changed my mind at the last minute. Better to roll faster for 2/3 of the course and struggle with traction on one climb than the other way around. I wasn't factoring puncture resistance in this thread, which was obviously a mistake.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Only 25 people told him those tires suck and they flat if you look at them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


25 = (1 x (your fuzzy math))


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> 25 = (1 x (your fuzzy math))


This thread is how many pages long? I guarantee there are 25 instances of someone saying Thunder Burts flat too easy to trust them. You took what i said as since you made your post asking what to do. Read the whole thread and youll understand.

Thunder burts are a fast timebomb

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

winters.benjamin said:


> 25 = (1 x (your fuzzy math))


There is no better teacher than personal experience. Besides, the risk you took could have payed off big time.


----------



## galedhduck (Feb 4, 2004)

*Get faster*



jayzoll said:


> new to the dirt...have a yeti 4.5 and plan to use it for the mohican 100mi and wilderness 101. it came with continental mountain kings, but i feel like those might be slow. i weigh 205lbs. do i have a decent tire or do i need something faster? they are mounted on m60/40's.


At 180# last year, I ran the Race King Protections in a dry W101 (90 F hot) and they were bomb proof and fast (top 15 Open). 22 PSI should be good if you remember it's a long day and don't go stupid enduro on Croyle trail (which has smoothed out since the re-route in January/new trail and water bars). RK's then lasted 8 more months of PA rocks ROCKS and more rocks, races, road rides, etc., lost two side knobs down to the cord, frayed the ever loving crap out of the sidewalls, and still would have run a while, but was too ugly to look at. I bought another set. Highly recommend for W101 and I'm not sponsored by Conti. I think tire choice depends on skill level, like someone said, Nino was rolling aspen 2.1 on root/rock. Beginners, go with knobs, you'll be slow anyway and with knobs, not slow and in the hospital??


----------



## galedhduck (Feb 4, 2004)

What tire is comparable to a Race King Protection (small knobs, durable) in rocks and better in wet, rooty conditions? I'm thinking something like a RaceKingProtection 2.3 with a one-day compound would be awesome ... 
After a few weeks of talking to people, and reading I'm wondering about the Saber Pro (Kenda) with KSCT protection, and I need to look at the aspen (prob not wide enuff, not sure of grip), something else.


----------



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Schwalbe tires are great east of the Mississippi and West of the Cascades.
> 
> In between, Maxxis or Vittoria.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


This is the Vittoria front in 2.25 you're currently hot over for Utah/Colorado terrain? https://r2-bike.com/VITTORIA-Tire-Mezcal-29-x-225-TNT-TL-Ready-G-4C

About to place DT350 boost rear hub order anyway....

Or the 2.35: Vittoria Mezcal Iii TNT G+ 29 Tire > Components > Tires > Dirt Tires | Jenson USA


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I was starting to think that maybe I need to move on from the RaRa's (which I will eventually at least try something else). I was getting to the point that I am just sliding all over the place in my last couple of races, and feeling I am taking a huge risk of wrecking. Then I look at my list of PR's after the fact and realize...that's probably why I am sliding everywhere 



FJSnoozer said:


> If you are thinking of a 2.4 ardent, do yourself a favor and get the Schwalbe Hans Dampf Pace star.


I plan to test out an HD at my next XC race on the front, see how it feels. Trails will be plenty blown out by then. I just have to push the extra weight up the hill (which I think will be plenty worth it).



winters.benjamin said:


> 25 = (1 x (your fuzzy math))


I never even considered puncture resistance, I mainly thought about traction!



TDLover said:


> There is no better teacher than personal experience. Besides, the risk you took could have payed off big time.


I agree. If it wasn't for the flats, it could have been a huge advantage.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> I was starting to think that maybe I need to move on from the RaRa's (which I will eventually at least try something else).


Flipping back through the thread it seems some folks who don't like Maxxis Ikons prefer the traction of RaRa. I'd be interested in: (a) hearing from Vittoria users (b) hearing from users of the new Addix compound and (c) hearing from Maxxis users on the relative merits of higher volume casing if that is what they run. Note that I am on 27.5, so I don't get a 2.35 in RaRa.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> I agree. If it wasn't for the flats, it could have been a huge advantage.


You'll probably all laugh, but I actually sat down with my wife the night before and weighed the pros and cons. Couldn't make up my mind. I wanted to crush that decisive climb for sure, and RaRa would have made that easier. I told her you all voted for RaRa F and R. She was like 'of course use the TB, isn't this a race?'. Her only rule was that I not come home with anything broken so that I could celebrate my 40th that night.


----------



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

tommyrod74 said:


> Like LMN, I've found that the aggressive lines and high speeds that modern bikes allow me pretty much disqualify any flimsy or low-traction tire. I know it's all relative, and the Nic/Ralph combos I run are considered "pinner tires" by non-XC folks, but (in the larger sizes) they are a big step up in traction, stability, and durability (at least in my region) from traditional XC tires - and they aren't slow rolling, either.
> 
> I can't win any race I can't finish.


What is your rim's inner width?


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

danK said:


> What is your rim's inner width?


Depends on the wheelset I'm on, but I usually race on I9 Ultralights (24-25mm internal, I think).

I have Ibis carbon wheels (942) that are far wider, and I have to run higher pressures on those with 2.35" tires (vs. the 2.25" on the I9 set) to avoid rimstrikes and sidewall folding in corners.

I run slightly higher than some anyway - never below 20 psi, and usually 23 in the rear for racing, as at those speeds I don't like the feel of ultra-low pressure except in a straight line. I think a lot of people who love sub-20 psi aren't riding at race speeds or cornering as aggressively as they'd like to believe.

I'm 140 lbs, for reference.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> Depends on the wheelset I'm on, but I usually race on I9 Ultralights (24-25mm internal, I think).
> 
> I have Ibis carbon wheels (942) that are far wider, and I have to run higher pressures on those with 2.35" tires (vs. the 2.25" on the I9 set) to avoid rimstrikes and sidewall folding in corners.
> 
> ...


I use i9 ultralites also. They are 23.5 internal. Perfect for 2.25. I run 22fr/23rear. Im 170, but in Michigan. Less worry about strikes. For oramm i will run a bit higher pressure.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I use i9 ultralites also. They are 23.5 internal. Perfect for 2.25. I run 22fr/23rear. Im 170, but in Michigan. Less worry about strikes. For oramm i will run a bit higher pressure.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I'll likely be at ORAMM this year again after a couple of years off. You spend 3/4 of the day climbing in that race, but 2 of the downhills (Kitsuma twice, and Heartbreak Ridge - especially Heartbreak Ridge) make it tough to run lightweight tires without risking flats.

The front of the race is full of guys who can rip DH as well as climb, so the option of nursing the downhills really loses you a ton of time.

I went from 6th overall to 2nd overall the last time I was there simply from people slightly ahead of me flatting on Heartbreak. It's a rough DH.

Bonked slightly on the final Kitsuma climb, so that brought me back to 6th  Lesson learned there, too.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> You'll probably all laugh, but I actually sat down with my wife the night before and weighed the pros and cons. Couldn't make up my mind. I wanted to crush that decisive climb for sure, and RaRa would have made that easier. I told her you all voted for RaRa F and R. She was like 'of course use the TB, isn't this a race?'. Her only rule was that I not come home with anything broken so that I could celebrate my 40th that night.


I would love to laugh, but my wife is pretty supportive. But she is more "Go fast, don't be a pu$$y" and doesn't care about the details supportive.



tommyrod74 said:


> D
> I run slightly higher than some anyway - never below 20 psi, and usually 23 in the rear for racing, as at those speeds I don't like the feel of ultra-low pressure except in a straight line. I think a lot of people who love sub-20 psi aren't riding at race speeds or cornering as aggressively as they'd like to believe.
> 
> I'm 140 lbs, for reference.


I'm about the same weight and run the same pressure for the same reason. I tried 19/21 and didn't like the tires rolling. I prefer 21 up front but my last race started at 7000 and went to 8000 so I would have higher pressure when I started the several mile long single track downhill to the 6500' finish.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> I'll likely be at ORAMM this year again after a couple of years off. You spend 3/4 of the day climbing in that race, but 2 of the downhills (Kitsuma twice, and Heartbreak Ridge - especially Heartbreak Ridge) make it tough to run lightweight tires without risking flats.
> 
> The front of the race is full of guys who can rip DH as well as climb, so the option of nursing the downhills really loses you a ton of time.
> 
> ...


Have you used Bontrager?

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Have you used Bontrager?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Not in several years. I hear good things from local riders, though.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

tommyrod74 said:


> Not in several years. I hear good things from local riders, though.


I trust them to hold air without sealant in them, they are super comfortable, super durable, very fast rolling, lightweight for size, big for size. They are also the only tire ive never saw sealant seep out the sidewall. Ill be running xr3 fr/ xr2 rear at oramm.

Schwalbes rubbber compound is now engineered by the guy who created black chili at conti. Be interesting to hear how things are once long term use of the new compounds. If the same great performance holds true. I would use Ra Ra here in Michigan but i bought a 2.35 and it weighed 730, my xr2 2.35 674, fast trak 2.3 710.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I trust them to hold air without sealant in them, they are super comfortable, super durable, very fast rolling, lightweight for size, big for size. They are also the only tire ive never saw sealant seep out the sidewall. Ill be running xr3 fr/ xr2 rear at oramm.
> 
> Schwalbes rubbber compound is now engineered by the guy who created black chili at conti. Be interesting to hear how things are once long term use of the new compounds. If the same great performance holds true. I would use Ra Ra here in Michigan but i bought a 2.35 and it weighed 730, my xr2 2.35 674, fast trak 2.3 710.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Sounds like they would be a good choice, the big concern on the DH is sidewall protection. If that is good then I'd run what you are used to.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm hoping Conti brings out a new intermediate tire soon. 

The RaceKing is spectacular for what it is. The X-King is the opposite.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I trust them to hold air without sealant in them, they are super comfortable, super durable, very fast rolling, lightweight for size, big for size. They are also the only tire ive never saw sealant seep out the sidewall. Ill be running xr3 fr/ xr2 rear at oramm.


Not familiar with ORAMM but am interested in finding an alternative to RaRa F and R, or RoRo F and RaRa R. Is your XR3 comparable to RoRo? How does XR3 corner in loose over hard? The tread looks like it nearly wraps around the entire sidewall from pics on Trek's site.

Have you run the XR1 on R and if so how does it behave compared to an Aspen or TB?

I'm heading to the US next week and am considering picking up a few of these Bontys to give them a try.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> Not familiar with ORAMM but am interested in finding an alternative to RaRa F and R, or RoRo F and RaRa R. Is your XR3 comparable to RoRo? How does XR3 corner in loose over hard? The tread looks like it nearly wraps around the entire sidewall from pics on Trek's site.
> 
> Have you run the XR1 on R and if so how does it behave compared to an Aspen or TB?
> 
> I'm heading to the US next week and am considering picking up a few of these Bontys to give them a try.


I run xr2 2.35 front and now xr1 2.2 rear. I used to use a Raceking 2.2 protection rear. I use a xr3 2.35 in loose stuff like you are talking about. Marble sized rocks and sandy stuff etc. No big sharp rocks. I used the racing ralph front, raceking rear last year most of the year before i tried bontrager. The racing ralph snake, and raceking protection is like a basketball compared to the bontrager tires. I have never got a puncture flat in 2+ years of riding any tires so i cant comment on punctures.

The rocket ron is a unique tire that cant really be compared to other tires. If it works in your conditions its amazing, if it doesnt its ambulance. The weight, and rolling speed are umatched.

The new xr1 team is a different tread now and is more directional like a fast trak where it used to be littel ramped knobs and then chunky side knobs sorta like a renegade. The racing ralph is square knobs tha either bite in or your sliding. It also is a unique tire. The raceking grips better in the back i think. Lots of people run them in front even though schwalbe recommends it as a rear.

In your little situation where you ran thunderburt, the race king would have done everything that tire did and with protection. The xr1 is almost as fast but way more comfortable.

I would pick up a 2.35 xr3, 2.25 xr1, both team issue. That covers all things. The xr3 is not slow or heavy. The xr2 is faster because it has less absolute traction. Just slightly though.

The next tire i try is the mezcal 2.25 as a front tire. 
Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Toot3344556 (Apr 25, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I run xr2 2.35 front and now xr1 2.2 rear. I used to use a Raceking 2.2 protection rear. I use a xr3 2.35 in loose stuff like you are talking about. Marble sized rocks and sandy stuff etc. No big sharp rocks. I used the racing ralph front, raceking rear last year most of the year before i tried bontrager. The racing ralph snake, and raceking protection is like a basketball compared to the bontrager tires. I have never got a puncture flat in 2+ years of riding any tires so i cant comment on punctures.
> 
> The rocket ron is a unique tire that cant really be compared to other tires. If it works in your conditions its amazing, if it doesnt its ambulance. The weight, and rolling speed are umatched.
> 
> ...


Maybe you can elaborate on why Schwalbe recommends a RaRa in the rear and a Ron up front. Seems counterintuitive because everyone wants to run a Ralph up front because it looks like a trimmed down Nobby nic.

Also, Schwables site's bar graphs are counterintuitive when comparing the Rons to the Ralph. I think it says that the Ron rolls faster but also has more grip than the ralphs... doesn't make sense....


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Toot3344556 said:


> Maybe you can elaborate on why Schwalbe recommends a RaRa in the rear and a Ron up front. Seems counterintuitive because everyone wants to run a Ralph up front because it looks like a trimmed down Nobby nic.
> 
> Also, Schwables site's bar graphs are counterintuitive when comparing the Rons to the Ralph. I think it says that the Ron rolls faster but also has more grip than the ralphs... doesn't make sense....


The Rons do roll faster and do have more grip than the Ralph's. At least in damp hero dirt conditions.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> The racing ralph snake, and raceking protection is like a basketball compared to the bontrager tires.
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Basketball as in "damn these tires are smooth and slippery" or as in "damn these tires are bouncy"?

This is all very helpful, many thanks.


----------



## brent701 (Sep 17, 2012)

superlightracer said:


> _*So what rubber will everyone be running this year? *_


20lb Trek Procal. I ran Maxxis Ardent 2.4 front and Maxxis Ikon 2.35 rear.
I switched have way through to Ardent Race front.

My 22lb Ti SS bike I use Ardent 2.4 front Ikon 2.35 rear.

I do not have a lot of sidewall tears running Maxxis. 
If I didn't run Maxxis, I'd run Bontrager XR4 front XR3 rear. Or XR3 front XR2 rear


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> Basketball as in "damn these tires are smooth and slippery" or as in "damn these tires are bouncy"?
> 
> This is all very helpful, many thanks.


Bouncy. The snakeskin and protection make the sidewalls very stiff.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Zerort said:


> The Rons do roll faster and do have more grip than the Ralph's. At least in damp hero dirt conditions.


I think you all have it reversed. The Ron is based upon the Nobby Nic. Its slightly slower than the Ralph but is the grippiest racing tire on the market. I love my 2.6" Nics on the trail bike that make me feel unstoppable in any conditions, but my 32lb bike isn't exactly racy.

The Ralph and Thunder Burt design are somewhat related. I've finished the Wilderness 101 in sharp Pennsylvania rocks on Thunder Burt 2.1 Snakeskins, but double flatted mercilessly in practice laps at Rocky Hill Ranch. Any semi-full slick tire (Burt, Aspen, XR3, Renegade, Small Block 8) has less tread between the ground and the casing, so flatting is going to be more risky. The sidewall strength between Burt, Ralph, and Ron is the same.

To me the tire choice is almost never about climbing prowess or grip in tech, but cornering speed.

On a 100-miler with long sections of fire road, you'd be better served to pay close attention to rolling resistance. Interesting how popular the old-school WTB Nanoraptor was for Tour Divide racers, for so long. It has an almost solid center ridge that's great on the road.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> I think you all have it reversed. The Ron is based upon the Nobby Nic. Its slightly slower than the Ralph but is the grippiest racing tire on the market. I love my 2.6" Nics on the trail bike that make me feel unstoppable in any conditions, but my 32lb bike isn't exactly racy.
> 
> The Ralph and Thunder Burt design are somewhat related. I've finished the Wilderness 101 in sharp Pennsylvania rocks on Thunder Burt 2.1 Snakeskins, but double flatted mercilessly in practice laps at Rocky Hill Ranch. Any semi-full slick tire (Burt, Aspen, XR3, Renegade, Small Block 8) has less tread between the ground and the casing, so flatting is going to be more risky. The sidewall strength between Burt, Ralph, and Ron is the same.
> 
> ...


Youre wrong. I was going to get into a discussion with you when you posted that you use ron on front ralph rear. Just didnt feel like listening to you go on for paragraphs being wrong.

One last time for the people that cant comprehend.....

Rocket Ron rolls faster both on dirt and the drum than the Racing Ralph at trail pressure. The end of discussion. Have a nice day.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Rocket Ron rolls faster both on dirt and the drum than the Racing Ralph at trail pressure. The end of discussion. Have a nice day.


The Rolling Resistance website shows the Rocket Ron at 23.7 and the Racing Ralph at 24.0, but that is for the Liteskin RoRo and Snakeskin RaRa.

Too bad he didn't compare Snake to Snake versions.


----------



## craigebaker (Nov 19, 2010)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Youre wrong. I was going to get into a discussion with you when you posted that you use ron on front ralph rear. Just didnt feel like listening to you go on for paragraphs being wrong.
> 
> One last time for the people that cant comprehend.....
> 
> ...


Ron rolls faster than RaRa on a drum test. You can't say definitively it rolls faster on a trail. Way too many variables for that statement to be fact.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

craigebaker said:


> Ron rolls faster than RaRa on a drum test. You can't say definitively it rolls faster on a trail. Way too many variables for that statement to be fact.


Mount both tires up and then get back to me. The ron is bordeline unsafe its so fast in some conditions. The ralph has more grip which equals more resistance. Takes one 5 mile ride to have your own data.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## craigebaker (Nov 19, 2010)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Mount both tires up and then get back to me. The ron is bordeline unsafe its so fast in some conditions. The ralph has more grip which equals more resistance. Takes one 5 mile ride to have your own data.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I don't believe anyone can really tell the difference in rolling resistance between the two. What data? Perception isn't data. I'd love to see a Coke vs. Pepsi style blind test of the two.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

It's comments like this why so many people block you, and you caused a thread to be shut down. You make some valid points between completely overstating your point of view. I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise, but you should have just posted this excerpt:

Schwalbe Rocket Ron LiteSkin Rolling Resistance Review

"At very high air pressures, the Rocket Ron has a slightly higher rolling resistance than the Racing Ralph. At lower air pressures, the tables turn in favor of the Rocket Ron and rolling resistance is slightly lower. The rolling resistance curve of the Rocket Ron is very flat with rolling resistance increasing just 3 watts when dropping air pressure from 55 to 25 psi. Never go over 35 psi with the Ron as it doesn't help you go faster.

The classic Rocket Ron/Racing Ralph front/rear combo doesn't seem to make sense. At a realistic off-road air pressure of 25 psi, the Rocket Ron has less rolling resistance than the Racing Ralph. A Racing Ralph only makes sense when you ride lots of asphalt roads; it probably wears less on asphalt as well."



LaneDetroitCity said:


> Youre wrong. I was going to get into a discussion with you when you posted that you use ron on front ralph rear. Just didnt feel like listening to you go on for paragraphs being wrong.
> 
> One last time for the people that cant comprehend.....
> 
> ...





LaneDetroitCity said:


> Mount both tires up and then get back to me. The ron is bordeline unsafe its so fast in some conditions. The ralph has more grip which equals more resistance. Takes one 5 mile ride to have your own data.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> It's comments like this why so many people block you, and you caused a thread to be shut down. You make some valid points between completely overstating your point of view. I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise, but you should have just posted this excerpt:
> 
> Schwalbe Rocket Ron LiteSkin Rolling Resistance Review
> 
> ...


Ive ridden both tires on both the front and back in several casings and sizes. Along with several friends. Which was before i even knew about that website. Then when i saw that website and it confirmed what i experienced i put more faith in his tests which led me to trying all the tires i could and seeing if what he said matched what i felt. It did.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I just last night took my worn 2.2 XR3 off the rear of my SC Highball and put on a fresh looking Rocket Ron 2.1. Wow that RoRo is narrow. measures 1.95 wide on the casing. I will do a recon lap on the 24 hr Enchanted Forest course on Friday and if I like it I will keep it. If I don't I can put the XR3 back on. Front is going to be 2.35 Ikon as always. 

I still have the 2.2 Fast Track mounted to the spare rear wheel, but only plan to use that if I have wheel problem.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

JoePAz said:


> I just last night took my worn 2.2 XR3 off the rear of my SC Highball and put on a fresh looking Rocket Ron 2.1. Wow that RoRo is narrow. measures 1.95 wide on the casing. I will do a recon lap on the 24 hr Enchanted Forest course on Friday and if I like it I will keep it. If I don't I can put the XR3 back on. Front is going to be 2.35 Ikon as always.
> 
> I still have the 2.2 Fast Track mounted to the spare rear wheel, but only plan to use that if I have wheel problem.


The RoRo seems to be a fairly low volume tire. I have some 2.25's on i22 rims. They measure around 2.12 - 2.14. It does roll quite well though. Traction is fairly good compared to the "2.3" S-Works Ground Control they replaced.


----------



## broeli (Feb 15, 2008)

I have a lot of experience with a lot of the tires listed as a high level expert rider. I will say that I've never had durability problems with snakeskin schwalbe tires.. not even TB.. and I'm not light at 180lbs. TB's are the fastest but you give up grip for sure unless it's dry hardback. Now that I race predominantly ss I have gone away from the TB unless its dry hardpack as i need more out of saddle grip. I think roro/rara is a good combo. I also like bontrager xr2/ race king. For Bailey Hundo i ran an x king in rear. Good grip but is small low volume for a 2.2. I ran Ikon for about a year but found the offerings from conti and schwalbe to be faster.. and actually had worse luck with durability with the Ikon. I don't use racesport compound or light skin compound. The one race I used race sport I sliced it. I have used light skin with no problems but prefer extra durability now over saving some grams. My bontrager front tire is on my full rigid ss and has been very durable. It's all preference though. Some may find something like the TB to be too sketchy with braking and cornering. Some like more grip to carry more speed into and out of corners.. while some like the low rolling resistance and fast spin up of a light minimal TB or RK


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

*A fan of supple semi-slick race tires...*

I'm a pretty big fan of Jan Heine (Bicycle Quarterly, Compass Cycles) and his philosophy and data on tires and tire pressure. Granted, it's centered on riding on paved and gravel roads but I find his ideas applicable to my off-road riding conditions and terrain. In short, because my conditions are largely rocks and hard pack, if I have a tire with a flexible casing then big knobs just generally get in the way.

Here's some of Jan's thought provoking articles:
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2015/...e-performance/
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/...tire-pressure/
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/...tire-pressure/
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2017/...e-gravel-tires

I needed new tires for the mtb and bought a set of Continential Race King Protection. Good lord but they have stiff casings! I couldn't stand the thought of mounting them (except on the shelf) and bought a pair of Stan's Crows (2.2) instead. They have such a pliable casing they were quite difficult to get mounted tubeless, but once seated they have had zero leakage. The Crows come in at 525 grams, so 125 grams less than the lightest of the Race Kings I have. I've got maybe 250 miles on them and I'm impressed - run at around 22.2375 psi (on my pump's gauge) and they're comfortable and (seem) to roll fast. I have no less traction than on any other tire I've run over the past 5 years (Racing Ralphs, Fast Tracks, Nanoraptor, Ikons, Crossmark, Ignitor). Tuesday night's race was an unusual combination of conditions as it rained for a short time midway through - the early portion of the race was dusty and loose climbs over roots and rocks, then wet rocks and roots, back to dusty. Those almost knobless Crows just weren't a limiter for me.

As Jan Heine notes, knobs aren't necessary for riding on gravel (or loose over hard, my typical conditions) because without semi-firm ground to dig into, knobs can't do anything. When you slide, it's because gravel is sliding on gravel or the underlying hardpack, not because your tires are sliding on the top layer of rocks. On firm surfaces (hardpack or pavement) a supple tire will give the best traction as it conforms to the surface more effectively.

I also note that a knob on a very firm surface also reduces traction as it decreases the amount of rubber in contact with the surface and creates uneven forces at the track/tire interface as knobs compress and rebound. About the only time knobs increase traction in my terrain is when there's snow on it - it's either too "gravely" (loose over hard) or too hard (solid rock or super hard packed clay-imbued soil). I vaguely remember riding on soft loamy soil two decades ago, conditions where I imagine lugs matter, back when I lived in upstate New York&#8230;

With respect to durability, low profile lugs certainly help the tire last as it's always the taller lugs on my tires that ripped first and created a tear in the rubber or casing. A more supple casing or sidewall will deflect as it hits a rock decreasing the chance for getting a cut - I swear that some of this sidewall protection we all get excited about is only necessary because of casings that won't conform around rocks as they roll up against them. I know that there are places with sharper and more plentiful rocks, but I have plenty and am not having any issues with the durability of light, supple Crows.

Clearly, people's mileage and terrain vary. And since during all of my rides and races I spend far more time climbing or riding level ground than doing anything else, I see no logical reason to do anything other than optimize for those parts of my ride - and that means a light, fast rolling tire.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I do like my old 26" Renegade 2.1's


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I cant understand how people can dispute the results of the rolling test with a sane mind. Nobody is saying that those test directly translate to the dirt. They are just showing how fast they roll on the drum. When you hit dirt the ikon doesnt suddenly become just as fast as the racing ralph.
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


The problem isn't disputing rolling test results, but rather extrapolating drum findings to non-lab settings. You've said elsewhere that we must be careful doing this, since none of us race on a steel drum, but that at least a steel drum can be used as a baseline. But even that is an extrapolation.

Maybe a steel drum can't be used as a baseline. Maybe tire behavior changes on highly irregular surfaces, rendering moot indicators like 'steel-drum-rolling-resistance' in favor of tire suspension losses/gains, stored energy and release from deform/reform action (through bumps, accelerations, etc.). Maybe we aren't creative enough to imagine all of the determinants of tire speed such that we can replicate those in a lab environment. Science requires creativity and an open imagination, otherwise you'll get stuck halfway down the path and never find the real reason explaining the observations.

Of course this should give us all some pause when responding to those who have diverse viewpoints. Maybe they are right, in spite of what our lab tests tell us. Maybe they are wrong and the lab is partially right. Maybe all of us are wrong. Regardless, the best we can do is log and share our observations and keep pushing to understand.

Ptor shared some links from Jan Heine. One finding he shared which unseated some of my prior theories is that high pressure tires roll faster over rough pavement, and similarly that low pressure tires roll faster over smooth pavement.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/tire-pressure-data-and-details/

Not that anyone here is interested in riding on pavement, but I share this more to encourage us to keep open minds and not be arrogant in how we are sharing our thoughts. The behavior of the natural world is terribly complex, and the more experience and data we can bring to the table the better our chances of understanding it.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Not everyone races equally either. MTB racing is about who completes the course first. Not who hucks best, or climbs seated more efficiently. It's the one who is most rounded. I on my hard tail try to take advantage of my climbing in order to make gaps that I'll lose in technical areas, or use those areas to gain ground (or even recover). Crashing on a loose descent kind of kills all that advantage of a fast rolling tire.

That said, I just mounted a 2.4 Hans on the front to match a 2.25 RaRa. I'll roll that from now and for the season finale in a few weeks and compare my race times to my rivals. I've compared race times to all I've raced against this season looking for a trend in my riding, so I'll be curious to see if that one change makes a substantial difference.


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

Sidewalk said:


> Not everyone races equally either. MTB racing is about who completes the course first. Not who hucks best, or climbs seated more efficiently. It's the one who is most rounded. I on my hard tail try to take advantage of my climbing in order to make gaps that I'll lose in technical areas, or use those areas to gain ground (or even recover). Crashing on a loose descent kind of kills all that advantage of a fast rolling tire.
> 
> That said, I just mounted a 2.4 Hans on the front to match a 2.25 RaRa. I'll roll that from now and for the season finale in a few weeks and compare my race times to my rivals. I've compared race times to all I've raced against this season looking for a trend in my riding, so I'll be curious to see if that one change makes a substantial difference.


rolling resistance for most all these is online. trailstar is a LOT slower but much stickier. in pacestar hans is only a few watts behind RaRa and a nobby nic is only 1 watt behind a RaRa


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Arts cyclery currently has Vittoria Mezcals and Michelin Force XC on sale at around $42 for 29ers. Any opinions about which tire you'd choose?


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Do most opt for 2.35 size tire instead of 2.25 or smaller ? Possible gains/advatanges ?


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

wheelzqc said:


> Do most opt for 2.35 size tire instead of 2.25 or smaller ? Possible gains/advatanges ?


It completely depends on the course.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

OK. When would I prefer a 2.35 versus a 2.25 ? thanks.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

wheelzqc said:


> OK. When would I prefer a 2.35 versus a 2.25 ? thanks.


If you are having traction problems or are looking for a little more comfort than the 2.25 tire provides, then the 2.35 tire may work better for you. The tradeoff is it "may" roll a little slower and it will be a little heavier.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

wheelzqc said:


> OK. When would I prefer a 2.35 versus a 2.25 ? thanks.


There are so many variables at play here, it's hard to answer this in the abstract. Take a look at this video to understand a little more about total volume and tire behavior:


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Stonerider said:


> If you are having traction problems or are looking for a little more comfort than the 2.25 tire provides, then the 2.35 tire may work better for you. The tradeoff is it "may" roll a little slower and it will be a little heavier.


This is a pretty good explanation. In addition to traction and comfort, I might also add that a 2.35 adds a bit of undamped suspension action. Helps absorb some terrain/trail features, which can enhance the points made above, in addition to providing some extra speed.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

midwestmtb said:


> Arts cyclery currently has Vittoria Mezcals and Michelin Force XC on sale at around $42 for 29ers. Any opinions about which tire you'd choose?


Hey bud. Im going to try a mezcal 2.25 in the same vein as a raceking or xr1. As my rear in these current drier hardpack conditions. I was telling you about Bontrager and i will still be using them the most but i need to find a new rear tire instead of a raceking protection or xr1. Those both have their flaws on my rear.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

wheelzqc said:


> Do most opt for 2.35 size tire instead of 2.25 or smaller ? Possible gains/advatanges ?


Really the only disadvantage is weight.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Good points. Im Racing/riding a hardtail so it could add comfort to the lack of suspension. What's a good larger volume tire all around to try out. I've been on 2.25 Rocket Ron that measure about 2.16. I have ArchEx rims, I believe that year they were 21id. I was looking at the Barzo(2.25 but do they grow big) or RaRa at 2.35.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

wheelzqc said:


> Good points. Im Racing/riding a hardtail so it could add comfort to the lack of suspension. What's a good larger volume tire all around to try out. I've been on 2.25 Rocket Ron that measure about 2.16. I have ArchEx rims, I believe that year they were 21id. I was looking at the Barzo(2.25 but do they grow big) or RaRa at 2.35.


Start at the beginning and read the thread

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Hey bud. Im going to try a mezcal 2.25 in the same vein as a raceking or xr1. As my rear in these current drier hardpack conditions. I was telling you about Bontrager and i will still be using them the most but i need to find a new rear tire instead of a raceking protection or xr1. Those both have their flaws on my rear.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Thanks. I'm still going to go with an XR3 Team Issue on the front as you suggested. But I figured at $42, it might be a good time to test out the new Michelin Force XC for the rear. The Mezcal in 2.25 is already out of stock. Guess $42 was too good to pass up for a lot of people.


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Really the only disadvantage is weight.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


and a smidgen of rolling resistance. typically compound is the #1 thing for resistance but it depends on what you're doing on if you want to give that up. a smoothish longer ride will be quicker on a smaller / lighter tire.

wider means more traction, more cush, less chatter

many guys have multiple tires and set the bike for what they are riding that day


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

any suggestions on new compound racing ralphs vs vittorias? im running ardent races right now and while i enjoy the puncture resistance i want a little lower rolling resistance for racing.


----------



## funnyjr (Oct 31, 2009)

RaRa's are super fast tire however sidewalls are so flimsy that if you run then low pressure below 20psi guaranteed to bottom out rim. I dented a rim thus way but when i switched to Maxxis Ikon I could run low pressures below 20psi no problem thus I like maxxis over schwalbe 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

funnyjr said:


> RaRa's are super fast tire however sidewalls are so flimsy that if you run then low pressure below 20psi guaranteed to bottom out rim. I dented a rim thus way but when i switched to Maxxis Ikon I could run low pressures below 20psi no problem thus I like maxxis over schwalbe
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why would you ever run a tire like this at such low pressure? rolling resistance skyrockets. These are mileage tires. The flexible sidewall is a major bonus because people that put in hours and hours on hardtail or even a small full suspension bike appreciate that compliance period I have never even dreamed of running one of these under 28 if I'm going to run a Ralph or burt. This tire does really well 28 to 35


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Wow. I consider 25psi on a 26" 2.2 Ikon rear to be high. A 2.35 on the front of my 29er would usually be at 18-20psi.


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

racebum said:


> Why would you ever run a tire like this at such low pressure? rolling resistance skyrockets. These are mileage tires. The flexible sidewall is a major bonus because people that put in hours and hours on hardtail or even a small full suspension bike appreciate that compliance period I have never even dreamed of running one of these under 28 if I'm going to run a Ralph or burt. This tire does really well 28 to 35


That's basically my setup (26 or 27psi on front 2.25x29 Schwalbe Rocket Ron Liteskin and 29 to 30psi on rear 2.2x29 Conti Race King protection). Ok I admit I'm probably super heavy with my 75kg (165lbs) compared to average mtb rider, but if I go under 26psi on front Rocket Ron, I have feeling tire is just "folding" in every corner and it's just a question of time when it will tear off the wheel. Rolling resistance is much higher, and for my taste grip is much worse when I go lower with pressure. And I have absolutely no idea how it would be even possible to run on asphalt and even less anywhere else off road with 20psi.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

racebum said:


> Why would you ever run a tire like this at such low pressure? rolling resistance skyrockets. These are mileage tires. The flexible sidewall is a major bonus because people that put in hours and hours on hardtail or even a small full suspension bike appreciate that compliance period I have never even dreamed of running one of these under 28 if I'm going to run a Ralph or burt. This tire does really well 28 to 35


How much do you weigh? I might as well be on a road bike if I'm running anywhere close to 30psi.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

funnyjr said:


> RaRa's are super fast tire however sidewalls are so flimsy that if you run then low pressure below 20psi guaranteed to bottom out rim. I dented a rim thus way but when i switched to Maxxis Ikon I could run low pressures below 20psi no problem thus I like maxxis over schwalbe.


RaRa snakeskin version do not have a flimsy sidewall and they still test well on the rolling resistance drum test. They weigh a little more than the liteskin version but are pretty durable.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

primoz said:


> That's basically my setup (26 or 27psi on front 2.25x29 Schwalbe Rocket Ron Liteskin and 29 to 30psi on rear 2.2x29 Conti Race King protection). Ok I admit I'm probably super heavy with my 75kg (165lbs) compared to average mtb rider, but if I go under 26psi on front Rocket Ron, I have feeling tire is just "folding" in every corner and it's just a question of time when it will tear off the wheel. Rolling resistance is much higher, and for my taste grip is much worse when I go lower with pressure. And I have absolutely no idea how it would be even possible to run on asphalt and even less anywhere else off road with 20psi.


I weigh 77kg and run no more than 22 in the rear on the same tire. Xr1 i run 21. In the front i try and get as close to 20 as possible on a 2.35 xr2.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I run my front RaRa at 20, rear 2.25 at 23 (HT).

Drum tests don't mean **** if I don't have traction.


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

winters.benjamin said:


> How much do you weigh? I might as well be on a road bike if I'm running anywhere close to 30psi.


185. Road bike gets ran at 90 to 100psi tubeless.

At 20 o would think that you have sidewall roll if you dive in a corner hard.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

racebum said:


> 185. Road bike gets ran at 90 to 100psi tubeless.
> 
> At 20 o would think that you have sidewall roll if you dive in a corner hard.


This is where PSI discussions get a little wonky. Tire performance at a given PSI depends on the total carriage weight: bike, rider, downward force, etc.

I race right around 145. At 185, a 20psi tire on the front is going to behave pretty scary for you, but pretty solid for me.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> This is where PSI discussions get a little wonky. Tire performance at a given PSI depends on the total carriage weight: bike, rider, downward force, etc.
> 
> I race right around 145. At 185, a 20psi tire on the front is going to behave pretty scary for you, but pretty solid for me.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to winters.benjamin again."


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

...


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

Sidewalk said:


> Drum tests don't mean ****...


Fixed it for you. Unless you ride on steel drums.


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

winters.benjamin said:


> This is where PSI discussions get a little wonky. Tire performance at a given PSI depends on the total carriage weight: bike, rider, downward force, etc.
> 
> I race right around 145. At 185, a 20psi tire on the front is going to behave pretty scary for you, but pretty solid for me.


totally agree. what i feel at 26-28 is probably similar to what you do at 20-22


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

BmanInTheD said:


> Fixed it for you. Unless you ride on steel drums.


You never know...


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Anyone has been using the Vittorial Mezcal in the last weeks/months ? Wondering about longevity of the thread compared to other brands (mostly a Schwalbe !) How about the grip in damp/wet conditions for a racing tire ?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to winters.benjamin again."


:thumbsup:


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

wheelzqc said:


> Anyone has been using the Vittorial Mezcal in the last weeks/months ? Wondering about longevity of the thread compared to other brands (mostly a Schwalbe !) How about the grip in damp/wet conditions for a racing tire ?


A lot of SA pros seem evenly split between Maxxis and Vittorias. Reports on longevity are good compared to Schwalbes, though we don't get much wet racing around here.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

In real world findings what is the....

Biggest
Lightest
Fastest

2.2/25 29 tire. The rocket ron is like a 2.1

Id say the xr1 is the biggest but 665, raceking is pretty big 660. Sworks fast trak 570 but not that fast and not quite 2.2. 

A lot of brands are calling them 2.2 then making them more like 2.1 to save weight. 

Just curious if there are any tires as big and lighter than the xr1 or raceking. Even the racing ralph snake 2.25 is like 650. 

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

According to the Trek website, the XR2 TI is 630g in the 29x2.2 whereas the XR1 is 690g. Of course, actual weights may differ or it's just a misprint.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

midwestmtb said:


> According to the Trek website, the XR2 TI is 630g in the 29x2.2 whereas the XR1 is 690g. Of course, actual weights may differ or it's just a misprint.


The xr1 team 2.2 is closer to 2.3. The xr2 team 2.2 is closer to 2.18. So it may be true. I dont have a xr2 2.2 to weigh but the old xr1 team is 664 in 2.2.

On my i9 enduro wheels the xr1 team 2.2 is bigger than a xr3 2.3 team.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I just got a pair of 28mm Vitorria's for my roadie, does that count?


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

Whoever approves of the Vittoria mtb tire names is deep into all the good things in life!


----------



## sgtrobo (Aug 19, 2014)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> In real world findings what is the....
> 
> Biggest
> Lightest
> ...


S-Works Renegade 2.3" = 570g
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/components/sworks-renegade-2bliss-ready/105802


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

sgtrobo said:


> S-Works Renegade 2.3" = 570g
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/components/sworks-renegade-2bliss-ready/105802


Ooh. I like. I use the 1.8 and 1.9s for gravel. They dont make the sworks any more so will have to make a stash. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

winters.benjamin said:


> This is where PSI discussions get a little wonky. Tire performance at a given PSI depends on the total carriage weight: bike, rider, downward force, etc.
> 
> I race right around 145. At 185, a 20psi tire on the front is going to behave pretty scary for you, but pretty solid for me.


With the added variable of tire volume, this is correct. In the offseason I'm 185lbs and I can ride 29x2.6s aggressively at 18psi, 2.4s at around 20, 2.2s at around 24psi, 2.1s at 25psi, 40mm commuter tires at 50psi, and road tubeless 25mm tires at 90psi.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> With the added variable of tire volume, this is correct. In the offseason I'm 185lbs and I can ride 29x2.6s aggressively at 18psi, 2.4s at around 20, 2.2s at around 24psi, 2.1s at 25psi, 40mm commuter tires at 50psi, and road tubeless 25mm tires at 90psi.


Seems legit. Im 170 and would use those same numbers maybe 1lb less. 2.3f/2.2r

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## sgtrobo (Aug 19, 2014)

chomxxo said:


> With the added variable of tire volume, this is correct. In the offseason I'm 185lbs and I can ride 29x2.6s aggressively at 18psi, 2.4s at around 20, 2.2s at around 24psi, 2.1s at 25psi, 40mm commuter tires at 50psi, and road tubeless 25mm tires at 90psi.


and I'm 250ish and I ride 29x2.3 @ 28, 40ishmm "commuter" tires (Sawtooths and/or Trigger Pros) @ 55 and road 28c @ 90-95 psi


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Just received my Michelin Force XC 29x2.25. Weighed the tire with my luggage carrier, which may or may not be accurate at such low weight. The weight fluctuated between 630g-650g depending on how steady my hand was. If this is accurate, they came in under the 670g claimed weight.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> With the added variable of tire volume, this is correct. In the offseason I'm 185lbs and I can ride 29x2.6s aggressively at 18psi, 2.4s at around 20, 2.2s at around 24psi, 2.1s at 25psi, 40mm commuter tires at 50psi, and road tubeless 25mm tires at 90psi.


Ran across a cool formula the other day to adjust for tire width.

(Pressure of Tire A)*(Width of Tire A) = (Pressure of Tire B) *(Width of Tire B)

For example lets say for the 2.6->2.4: (18*2.6)/2.4 = 19.5


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

midwestmtb said:


> Just received my Michelin Force XC 29x2.25. Weighed the tire with my luggage carrier, which may or may not be accurate at such low weight. The weight fluctuated between 630g-650g depending on how steady my hand was. If this is accurate, they came in under the 670g claimed weight.


What do they measure out at, when installed?

The Michelin WildRace'r 29x2.25 were gigantic. Almost a 2.4. Had a weird transition when I leaned them over, though. Would be decent tires for an area like Moab, at least the rockier trails with little to no loose over hard. Or a place with nothing but fast, tacky, moist soil.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> What do they measure out at, when installed?
> 
> The Michelin WildRace'r 29x2.25 were gigantic. Almost a 2.4. Had a weird transition when I leaned them over, though. Would be decent tires for an area like Moab, at least the rockier trails with little to no loose over hard. Or a place with nothing but fast, tacky, moist soil.


Will let you know after I install the tire this weekend.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Slashed my rear RaRa 2.25 in a race Sunday. Mounted up 2.2 Race King Protection a friend gave me. I'll see how that goes. 

The Hans Dampf up front was handy on that course, it was very loose. Didn't need the center knobs as much as the side though.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

LMN said:


> Ran across a cool formula the other day to adjust for tire width.
> 
> (Pressure of Tire A)*(Width of Tire A) = (Pressure of Tire B) *(Width of Tire B)
> 
> For example lets say for the 2.6->2.4: (18*2.6)/2.4 = 19.5


The tension in the tire varies with the square of the width. Also, if you assume a similar sag with the width of the contact patch being proportional to the width of the tire, then the area of the contact patch would also vary approximately with the square of the width. So I would guess that a better estimate would be:
(Pressure of Tire A)*(Width of Tire A)^2 = (Pressure of Tire B) *(Width of Tire B)^2

For example, you might run 5psi in a 5" tire. Translating that to a 2.5" with your formula would give 10psi. Using the squaring factor gives a much more realistic 20psi.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> Slashed my rear RaRa 2.25 in a race Sunday. Mounted up 2.2 Race King Protection a friend gave me. I'll see how that goes.
> 
> The Hans Dampf up front was handy on that course, it was very loose. Didn't need the center knobs as much as the side though.


Be careful when you lean it over the first few times. It is totally different than a racing ralph. It has more drift. It also has more traction wet. When a ralph hits a wet root it slides the raceking grips.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## m3bas (Dec 24, 2011)

Just swapped out my 2.3 Ground Control/ Renegade combo (new version) for an Sworks Fast Trak 2.2 front/ Renegade 2.3 rear. Saved over 400g of rotating weight (actual as both weigh above spec)! That is huge. 50km race this weekend which will be a good chance to try and work out if traction trumps weight. Will either be the best thing or the worst thing I've ever done...


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

m3bas said:


> Just swapped out my 2.3 Ground Control/ Renegade combo (new version) for an Sworks Fast Trak 2.2 front/ Renegade 2.3 rear. Saved over 400g of rotating weight (actual as both weigh above spec)! That is huge. 50km race this weekend which will be a good chance to try and work out if traction trumps weight. Will either be the best thing or the worst thing I've ever done...


Report back and let us know how it goes.


----------



## RadBartTaylor (Dec 1, 2004)

racebum said:


> totally agree. what i feel at 26-28 is probably similar to what you do at 20-22


I'm 170 pounds and run 17-19 in the front and 18-20 in the back, for XC courses/racing. Someplace that has a lot of big bermed corners (like Whistler or a bike park) I can see running mid to high 20's, but can't fathom doing that on a XC bike.

On my cross bike on 33c tires tubeless I'm never more than 27/28 psi in races. Even really rocky ones. Tubulars I used to run 22-25. Top Euro pros are well below that in many cases...even at my weight.

I think there is an element of technique involved running low pressure, not saying it's better necessarily. I personally feel like the benefits outweigh the negatives, but YMMV.

Also....pressure gauges can vary quite a bit.....


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I always use the same gauge for tire pressures just for that reason. Though decent gauges are always fairly close. I'll gain and lose a psi just from the climbing of a race course!

I imagine running that low of pressure (what ever works for you of course) and I'm 25 pounds lighter! I tried 19 with a 2.35 Hans Dampf up front and it was too vague, but 20 is fine. I'll probably replace it with a RoRo unless my LBS still has some Mountain Kings he wants to get rid of. 

I never to run a lot of pressure in back since I'm on the hard tail, hits just go through the tire too easily. But since my trail bike is broken, I've been riding my XC a bit aggressively...


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> What do they measure out at, when installed?


The 29x2.25 Force XCs came in at nearly exactly 2.25 width. So pretty good.

Update on the weight: I learned to use the luggage scale a little better. Noticed that I have to turn it off first for each item I weigh to get accurate readings that don't fluctuate. In any case, the tires weigh 660g (vs claimed 670). I was able to repeat this across five weighings so it's fairly accurate.

In contrast, my Bontrager XR1 Experts 29x2.2 being replaced came in at 740g (vs claimed 720)


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

midwestmtb said:


> The 29x2.25 Force XCs came in at nearly exactly 2.25 width. So pretty good.
> 
> Update on the weight: I learned to use the luggage scale a little better. Noticed that I have to turn it off first for each item I weigh to get accurate readings that don't fluctuate. In any case, the tires weigh 660g (vs claimed 670). I was able to repeat this across five weighings so it's fairly accurate.
> 
> In contrast, my Bontrager XR1 Experts 29x2.2 being replaced came in at 740g (vs claimed 720)


The xr1 2.2 is more like a 2.3 so that adds a little weight. Plus expert casing. Mine are 674 in team

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> The xr1 2.2 is more like a 2.3 so that adds a little weight. Plus expert casing. Mine are 674 in team
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Yeah the Team Issues are a different animal from the Experts. After my first ride on the Michelins, I came to appreciate how much the Experts suck on anything but bone dry trails. They are sketchy even in hero dirt whereas the Michelins just grip and require less front end weighting.


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

I've just put an Ikon 2.35 on the front, and have a Ron 2.25 on the back. The difference in size is staggering. Unweighted, my 650b front wheel measures at 28 inches - seems to create a noticeable geometry difference when riding it around near home but that might be more due to the visual cue that I'm reacting to because I didn't notice the difference on the trail. In dry conditions it sure seems solid. Other than the weight difference over the Ron I previously had on the front it seems like a big improvement. I'd love to find a Mezcal 2.35 for the back. 

I race a little so I want something raceworthy, but riding fast for fun is more of a priority for me.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Bought a pair of Vittoria Mezcal - 730g. I will measure the width tomorrow after a few hours of stretching. tried them quickly around the block, feeling is definitely different then what I had (Schwalbe Rocket Ron)


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Mezcal seem to measure near 2.25 on my ARCH EX rims. The Rocket were around 2.15. So 60-70grams more but up a size.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

What's the size of the Mezcals? 2.35? I've heard they can run a bit narrow (assuming 2.35)


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

Hey guys, I'm running an Ardent Race 2.2 as a rear tire. It's was super awesome about a month ago but now everything turned to pixy dust and loose. I find I'm struggling to find traction where I could before on climbs. I'm 180, and tried reducing the psi to 24-25 which seemed to work for a bit. Any suggestions on a fast rear tire in looser conditions?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

My Mezcal measures exactly 2.25 on a Nox Teocalli 26mm ID rim.

Feels better, and faster, than the Bontrager XR1 TI it replaced.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

Running Racing Ralph's (Evo/Snake 2.25") on 29" Stan Crests @150lbs. w/21psi front, 24psi rear. On a fast hard-packed trail, it feels great. However I've crashed twice on another loop, in a softer/gravel section.

I'm happy to blame the rider, but any input on front pressures that might help? The whole trail felt skittish last night. Several PR's in there, but I'm thinking about bumping up the front pressure a bit ...


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Ksanman said:


> Hey guys, I'm running an Ardent Race 2.2 as a rear tire. It's was super awesome about a month ago but now everything turned to pixy dust and loose. I find I'm struggling to find traction where I could before on climbs. I'm 180, and tried reducing the psi to 24-25 which seemed to work for a bit. Any suggestions on a fast rear tire in looser conditions?


Ralphs.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

ekraft84 said:


> Running Racing Ralph's (Evo/Snake 2.25") on 29" Stan Crests @150lbs. w/21psi front, 24psi rear. On a fast hard-packed trail, it feels great. However I've crashed twice on another loop, in a softer/gravel section.
> 
> I'm happy to blame the rider, but any input on front pressures that might help? The whole trail felt skittish last night. Several PR's in there, but I'm thinking about bumping up the front pressure a bit ...


How exactly did you crash?


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

winters.benjamin said:


> How exactly did you crash?


Not enough weight on the front, with a little lean angle. I hit gravel in a single track and the tire washed out.

Typically, the front will push or move around slightly, but these last two times have been abrupt. Even the guy behind me said in other spots, it looks like it was losing traction numerous times (not just on gravel)..


----------



## brentos (May 19, 2006)

ekraft84 said:


> Not enough weight on the front, with a little lean angle. I hit gravel in a single track and the tire washed out.
> 
> Typically, the front will push or move around slightly, but these last two times have been abrupt. Even the guy behind me said in other spots, it looks like it was losing traction numerous times (not just on gravel)..


I wouldn't go up in pressure. If you were skittish the whole ride, I'd go down in pressure. Try 2 PSI below where you've been riding them. Keep in mind that your gauge could be inaccurate, and you may not be able to compare tire pressures to other people, especially if you're using a pump-mounted gauge.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

brentos said:


> I wouldn't go up in pressure. If you were skittish the whole ride, I'd go down in pressure. Try 2 PSI below where you've been riding them. Keep in mind that your gauge could be inaccurate, and you may not be able to compare tire pressures to other people, especially if you're using a pump-mounted gauge.


Thanks. It's a good, known Motion Pro gauge. But always worth double checking.


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

Trying to decide whether to go with a Mezcal 2.35 or 2.25 on the rear. Currently running 2.35 Ikons on 21mm ID rims. Anyone running the 2.35 on the rear ? Is it a huge tire ? Anyone have experience with both ?


----------



## euro-trash (Feb 9, 2008)

ridetheridge said:


> Trying to decide whether to go with a Mezcal 2.35 or 2.25 on the rear. Currently running 2.35 Ikons on 21mm ID rims. Anyone running the 2.35 on the rear ? Is it a huge tire ? Anyone have experience with both ?


No experience with the 2.35, but the 2.25 is quite voluminous. With a 21 I.d. rim that's what I'd go with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

Curious about actual measurements of the Mezcal 2.35 as well.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

brentos said:


> I wouldn't go up in pressure. If you were skittish the whole ride, I'd go down in pressure. Try 2 PSI below where you've been riding them. Keep in mind that your gauge could be inaccurate, and you may not be able to compare tire pressures to other people, especially if you're using a pump-mounted gauge.


This is the approach I would take. If you're losing traction, increasing pressure is not going to help.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Lol LMN I applaud your patience with this self proclaimed god of all tires under the sun. Whoever says that one should put RoRo on the back and RaRa on the front - run away from this person as he knows... you know what, about tires...

To the @150 lb rider on SS RaRa - 24 in the back is way too much. I run 22 and I am 195 pounds. Even less on the front. I'd try 19/21 and take from there.

Nobby Nic faster tire than Ikon? Lol. Got another joke? Maxxis tires not good other than Aspen? Lol. Don't tell WC racers please. But they do have access to 180 tpi new Aspen that we mere mortals dont. 

Been on Schwalbe for almost all my life. All flavours. SS TB is tough as nail and puncture resistant. I just never felt that SS is as fast as LS. Switched to heavier Mezcals 2.25 G+ and they are faster than RaRa or RoRo in all but wet conditions. Plus super compliant and flat resistant. My current favourite. Run them front and back. Better cornering than RaRa in dry. 

RaRa back/ RoRo front is a bullet proof combo for great variety of conditions (except of course mud, but then no tires really shine in mud). 

Rolling resistance measured on steel drum is fine input but far from deciding factor and really, on its own, means very very little. Any SANE person realizes that. 

Really - who is this guy...


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

I really like the performance of Schwalbe tires when they are fresh.....with my one issue being that the side knobs have little durability and once they get a bit undercut they are pretty awful.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

osokolo said:


> To the @150 lb rider on SS RaRa - 24 in the back is way too much. I run 22 and I am 195 pounds. Even less on the front. I'd try 19/21 and take from there.


I don't think you were referring to me, but it does apply...

Riding style does play into it. I CAN'T run lower then 25 PSI when I am trail riding or I will rim strike. I did race yesterday on a Race King 2.2 at 23 PSI and it felt perfect right there. But I am no where near as aggressive with hits and jumps in a race compared to trail riding. Big air isn't usually the fast route.

On that note, I finally did an actual race on the Hans Dampf 2.35 front. I went with the RK in back since a friend gave it to me a while back and I slashed the sidewall of my RaRa 2.25 rear a couple of weeks ago. I can't give a judgement based on any numbers, it is feel only as I rode too much the day before and felt a little weak on race day. But I LOVED this set up. I did not feel it was slowing me down at all with the extra weight (I don't think I would be able to feel it anyway), but I am sure any losses were easily returned with just how loose the course was by maintaining corner speed. And on the long decent at the end, where the course was most blown out (there was an enduro the day before) having all that grip on the front tire to brake at the last second, and carry speed was fantastic. Going by the Strava times, it showed.

Still not sure what tires I will race next year. I think I will actually buy some decent ones, maybe


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

I race Master Expert cat and am aggressive but (I think) skilled racer. Even at 22 with SS it felt a bit too much. Maybe my digital pump is off but can't imagine how it is possible that you @150 can rim the wheel @24 psi. I raced on very rocky technical course in Canadian rocky shield and didn't come close to pushing the limit with the pressure. However - if you hit the rim at 24 psi that is all that matters and you can't go lower obviously. I am running Mezcals at 22/21 for my next race. Tried them at 23/22 while training and felt I could go lower to get even more traction. By the way - RoRo are awful on hard pack. RaRa are much better. Trend is now - wider and a bit heavier. 650grams is new light XC racing tire weight. I chose Mezcal over Schwalbe - gotta try them in racing conditions where rolling resistance tests on steel roller really mean rats arse.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm 190 on a rocket ron 27.5x2.25 front at 23 and a 27x2.1 racing ralph rear at 28. Anything less in the rear and it wallows all over the place. On the front I rim strike way to much at 21 psi. This is the minimum that I can get away.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> I don't think you were referring to me, but it does apply...
> 
> Riding style does play into it. I CAN'T run lower then 25 PSI when I am trail riding or I will rim strike. I did race yesterday on a Race King 2.2 at 23 PSI and it felt perfect right there. But I am no where near as aggressive with hits and jumps in a race compared to trail riding. Big air isn't usually the fast route.
> 
> ...


Any problems climbing in the loose with RK on the back?


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

The new bike came with thunder burt ss 2.25s; I'm surprised by how much I like them, my trails have a lot of fir needles, fir cones, and madrona leaves at the moment, some hardpack and a few loose sandy spots. I put a Peyote 2.25 on the front for a little more bite in the loose sections. 
As of now, I plan to run the 2.25 Mezcals for the Feb-May race season, our mud is pretty watery, usually not peanut-buttery, I think those will be good for slick and watery, not gooey mud.

I'm still debating about how much to use my aging hardtail for the soon coming cx season, ours does not require a license and mtbs are allowed in all cats; the TB especially on the rear seems like it would be good for early season cx, maybe I should move the Peyote to the front on that bike for cx season, that seems like a good grass/gravely combo.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

I raced this weekend on xr2 2.3 front and rear. 17 front 18.5 rear. Im 174 pounds. Unlimited traction. Never even close to a rim strike. 

Ordering a mezcal 2.25 today. Try in the back. My new xr1 team 2.2 are 624 and 633 grams. They are 690 claimed. Hard to beat that.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

osokolo said:


> Lol LMN I applaud your patience with this self proclaimed god of all tires under the sun. Whoever says that one should put RoRo on the back and RaRa on the front - run away from this person as he knows... you know what, about tires...


Are you referring to this article?
Schwalbe Rocket Ron LiteSkin Rolling Resistance Review

That's where they say that at 25psi (no one would run higher really), the RoRo is the way to go on the rear, with an RaRa front. Agreed, on a drum can be different than on real trails.



osokolo said:


> To the @150 lb rider on SS RaRa - 24 in the back is way too much. I run 22 and I am 195 pounds. Even less on the front. I'd try 19/21 and take from there.


Good to know, thanks. Will give that a go.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

osokolo said:


> I race Master Expert cat and am aggressive but (I think) skilled racer. Even at 22 with SS it felt a bit too much. Maybe my digital pump is off but can't imagine how it is possible that you @150 can rim the wheel @24 psi. I raced on very rocky technical course in Canadian rocky shield and didn't come close to pushing the limit with the pressure. However - if you hit the rim at 24 psi that is all that matters and you can't go lower obviously. I am running Mezcals at 22/21 for my next race. Tried them at 23/22 while training and felt I could go lower to get even more traction. By the way - RoRo are awful on hard pack. RaRa are much better. Trend is now - wider and a bit heavier. 650grams is new light XC racing tire weight. I chose Mezcal over Schwalbe - gotta try them in racing conditions where rolling resistance tests on steel roller really mean rats arse.


I'm on NoNi front and rear now and can't tell a rolling speed difference from RaRa at all. I CAN tell a massive traction difference, though - and even at Nats in the mud and wet roots and rocks - great traction.

Re: pressure... I'm 138 before putting on gear and run 23-25 PSI even in bigger tires unless it's so muddy that cornering speeds are very slow. Former BMX racer, pretty smooth (relatively) on the bike, and I corner much better without tire roll.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

ekraft84 said:


> Are you referring to this article?
> Schwalbe Rocket Ron LiteSkin Rolling Resistance Review
> 
> That's where they say that at 25psi (no one would run higher really), the RoRo is the way to go on the rear, with an RaRa front. Agreed, on a drum can be different than on real trails.
> ...


I read that article with mild amusement. Those rolling resistance measurements are accurate and applicable ONLY if you were riding on a steel plate. How often do you ride on steel plate? Hmm, I didn't think so. 

I have about a dozen of racing friends who use Schwalbe. None of them, including me, ever used RoRo as rear while RaRa was front. None. That's real life experience and race conditions testing that yielded our conclusions. RoRo is a great all conditions tire which will not slow you down even in dry, plus they are oh so light. However, RaRa has more traction on hard packed course as well as rocky and boulder technical sections. RoRo is not as good as knobs are more spaced and tend to flex on rocks. On hardpack - RoRo just doesn't have enough rubber on the dirt as opposed to RaRa whose knobs are more tightly arranged. Hence I was using three combos: RoRo on both ends - this was my wet setup. Rear RaRa front RoRo was my all around and loose setup. RaRa on both ends was my hardpack setup. I tried TB as well in SS flavor 2.25 but didn't like them as much as RaRa. May be a bit faster but not enough traction. Plus I didn't like how SS rolled as compared to LS. And TB is not available in 2.25 with LS. 2.1 LS TB is too squirmy.

I run both LS RoRo and RaRa 24 rear and 23 front. SS RaRa I run at 22/21. I am 195 pounds racing weight.

The method used to "calculate" rolling resistance on this site is totally unscientific. Case in point: SS RaRa and LS RaRa have almost the same rolling resistance. How is that possible when SS version has 60tpi sidewall and LS is at 120tpi. Rolling resistance severely depends on the plushness of the tire and its ability to absorb bumps and not bounce (go up) but keep going forward - for simplicity. How can a 60tpi sidewall tire be as plush as 120tpi tire? It can't. But on steel drum it really doesn't matter does it? Hence these tests are not really applicable to dirt riding conditions. As LMN correctly pointed out many times.

Experiment with tire pressure. You want to go as low as possible without rimming out or squirming or burping. Once you hit that point - go 2 psi higher and you are golden.

If Schwalbe changed to 120tpi SS version - I'd never try anything else. Except just for fun. Hence I am on Mezcals now and I am liking them. Width wise - 2.25 appears to be the sweet spot. Going to 2.35 would not give any advantage and would add more weight. That seems to be the current consensus.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

osokolo said:


> I read that article with mild amusement. Those rolling resistance measurements are accurate and applicable ONLY if you were riding on a steel plate. How often do you ride on steel plate? Hmm, I didn't think so.
> 
> I have about a dozen of racing friends who use Schwalbe. None of them, including me, ever used RoRo as rear while RaRa was front. None. That's real life experience and race conditions testing that yielded our conclusions. RoRo is a great all conditions tire which will not slow you down even in dry, plus they are oh so light. However, RaRa has more traction on hard packed course as well as rocky and boulder technical sections. RoRo is not as good as knobs are more spaced and tend to flex on rocks. On hardpack - RoRo just doesn't have enough rubber on the dirt as opposed to RaRa whose knobs are more tightly arranged. Hence I was using three combos: RoRo on both ends - this was my wet setup. Rear RaRa front RoRo was my all around and loose setup. RaRa on both ends was my hardpack setup. I tried TB as well in SS flavor 2.25 but didn't like them as much as RaRa. May be a bit faster but not enough traction. Plus I didn't like how SS rolled as compared to LS. And TB is not available in 2.25 with LS. 2.1 LS TB is too squirmy.
> 
> ...


So you know a ron on the back with a ralph is dumb but youve never tried it. Seems like most of the science on here.

You say the ralph has better grip for hardpack right? You said the ron is a great tire for loose right? So what are most climbs like in areas where the trail is hardpack? How is hardpack? Packed down loose stuff lol. So you have the ralph up front because it never lets go and the ron in the rear so you can drift a bit in corners then when you stand and hammer uphill the tire has more bite in the looser soil than the hardpack trail. Its from real actual using these tires and combo. So you are talking from a place of never using something telling people who have its a bad idea. Get a clue then talk.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

osokolo said:


> However - if you hit the rim at 24 psi that is all that matters and you can't go lower obviously.


I think the important part, which we can easily agree on is, don't be afraid to drop your pressure and test it out! I did try lower, just found the limit. The lowest I got with the HD front was 19 and started getting squirm, but 20 was fine.

I call myself "Sub Pro". I'm racing as a local pro but really not at that level. But if I were to drop back to Cat 1 I'd have podiumed every race, if not flat out won. I don't race for trophies, I race for the challenge.



winters.benjamin said:


> Any problems climbing in the loose with RK on the back?


I haven't had any problems yet at Sycamore Canyon in Riverside or this Big Bear race. Rim Nordic will be a true test as the last climb is super steep and slick (sometimes faster to run). I'll let you know you know how it does.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> So you know a ron on the back with a ralph is dumb but youve never tried it. Seems like most of the science on here.
> 
> You say the ralph has better grip for hardpack right? You said the ron is a great tire for loose right? So what are most climbs like in areas where the trail is hardpack? How is hardpack? Packed down loose stuff lol. So you have the ralph up front because it never lets go and the ron in the rear so you can drift a bit in corners then when you stand and hammer uphill the tire has more bite in the looser soil than the hardpack trail. Its from real actual using these tires and combo. So you are talking from a place of never using something telling people who have its a bad idea. Get a clue then talk.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Lane or whatever is your name - you know nothing about conditions that I race in. Don't judge please.

You are making ridiculous statements about tires and I hope that readers can see through that. I also never put Hans Dampf front and rear in any of my races but KNOW that it'd be slower than my preferred setup. Please don't talk like your statements are the ultimate facts and everyone else is wrong. Having RoRo in the back and RaRa in the front is just plain stupid and only the site that tests rolling resistance on a steel drum for MTB tires can suggest that maybe one should use RoRo in the back with RaRa in the front because RoRo has 0.3W less resistance on steel drum at 25psi than RaRa. Lol

People who race for living made their opinion about that site by ignoring it. As dozen out of dozen top racers that I know, some of which race WC, use RaRa in the back and RoRo front. Maybe you should tell them they got it wrong.

Hardpack is hardpack - it is almost like concrete - just dirt. It is a buffed trail that is for the most part free from loose stuff. In such conditions RaRa has more rubber on the dirt and there is no need for knobs to "dig in" for traction as the surface is too hard. In these conditions RaRa is way better choice for traction than RoRo. On soft trails where knobs need and can dig in for traction - RoRo is better. It will also not pack in with loose dirt like RaRa tends to do and will provide better traction. Hence we put it on the front, where one needs traction for fast cornering. RoRo is also a good choice for marathon races where one does not know the trail well and doesn't want to be surprised with some mud or loose sections.

I am glad that RoRo rear and RaRa front work for you. Tires are like food. You don't tell other people they are wrong for liking medium rare steak better than medium well. Because it just plain ignorant and stupid. But you wouldn't know it.

I will tell my top level racer friends that there is one guy in North America who is using RoRo in the back so that he can hammer out of the saddle on loose climbs and have more traction with RaRa in the front on the hardpack. I hope you climb loose climbs at least 50% of the course and race at least other 50% on hardpack going down or flat, as that would justify your combo. Which trail/course was that again? Sounds like it is on Mars.

But wait - didn't you just buy Mezcal for rear? Is your dream combo with RoRo in the back and RaRa front not working now?

Lane - chill dude. Respect other people opinions. What works for you doesn't have to work for others. Acknowledge obvious flaws of these tests. In real life - these tests are useless. Look at what WC racers use. Or even elite racers in your neck of the woods. They use what works for them or what they are told by sponsors. Trash talking Maxxis makes you look weird as many top WC racers and many of my top level racing friends use Maxxis. And are very successful with them. Acknowledge that you are not the supreme MTB tire ayatollah leader of the MTBR. Get some cheap humble pie and chill.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

osokolo said:


> Lane or whatever is your name - you know nothing about conditions that I race in. Don't judge please.
> 
> You are making ridiculous statements about tires and I hope that readers can see through that. I also never put Hans Dampf front and rear in any of my races but KNOW that it'd be slower than my preferred setup. Please don't talk like your statements are the ultimate facts and everyone else is wrong. Having RoRo in the back and RaRa in the front is just plain stupid and only the site that tests rolling resistance on a steel drum for MTB tires can suggest that maybe one should use RoRo in the back with RaRa in the front because RoRo has 0.3W less resistance on steel drum at 25psi than RaRa. Lol
> 
> ...


This post defines internet forums.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

I suspect that all the tires discussed have some merit....and I don't put a ton of stock into the lab tests on rolling resistance. And, while with top pros there's certainly going to a $$$ element to tire choice due to sponsor influence, I certainly find Nino's tire choice interesting last year. In the ramp-up to the olympics he switched to the Aspen. I find it hard to believe that his tire choice was driven by anything other than a desire to win the one title that had previously eluded him. 

Personally I actually like the performance of the RoRo on the back, but with the light casing and spaced knobs I found it too susceptible to tread punctures to use it as a rear tire. And I've also had a rim strike in a race with a RaceKing 2.2 at about 21 PSI and I'm about 150 pounds.....I find that I need to increase pressures a bit when racing just because I'm more likely to pound over rocks more recklessly. But what works for one guy doesn't work for everybody - not sure why that's such a hard concept to get.


----------



## tommyrod74 (Jul 3, 2002)

scottg said:


> I suspect that all the tires discussed have some merit..
> 
> ..and I've also had a rim strike in a race with a RaceKing 2.2 at about 21 PSI and I'm about 150 pounds.....I find that I need to increase pressures a bit when racing just because I'm more likely to pound over rocks more recklessly. But what works for one guy doesn't work for everybody - not sure why that's such a hard concept to get.


This. Everyone's trails are different. Traction and cornering grip make "slower rolling" tires faster on some trails. And the faster I get (and the more I practice handling and technique vs. just fitness), the more aggressively I corner and make line selections. I KILLED a RaRa 2.35 at 23 PSI on the rear in practice at Nats. Rim strike, huge gash. At 26 PSI the ride would have been a bit rougher, but likely no dead tire.I can live with that tradeoff to avoid a DNF in a race I care about.


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

tommyrod74 said:


> This. Everyone's trails are different. Traction and cornering grip make "slower rolling" tires faster on some trails. And the faster I get (and the more I practice handling and technique vs. just fitness), the more aggressively I corner and make line selections. I KILLED a RaRa 2.35 at 23 PSI on the rear in practice at Nats. Rim strike, huge gash. At 26 PSI the ride would have been a bit rougher, but likely no dead tire.I can live with that tradeoff to avoid a DNF in a race I care about.


My rim strike with the RaceKing Protection didn't even damage the tire.....but it dented the rim and it wouldn't hold tubeless anymore.....which effectively ended the 25km race for me after one of the better race starts I've ever had.

I also think that picking tires that help you with whatever costs you more time is the better choice. I used to be further back in the pack and found that I was faster downhill and slower uphill than the racers near me so I picked the lightest option. Now that my fitness is better I'm going for something larger, heavier, more durable - something that is more about preventing disaster than saving a bit of energy on a climb.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

osokolo said:


> I have about a dozen of racing friends who use Schwalbe. None of them, including me, ever used RoRo as rear while RaRa was front. None. That's real life experience and race conditions testing that yielded our conclusions. RoRo is a great all conditions tire which will not slow you down even in dry, plus they are oh so light. However, RaRa has more traction on hard packed course as well as rocky and boulder technical sections. RoRo is not as good as knobs are more spaced and tend to flex on rocks. On hardpack - RoRo just doesn't have enough rubber on the dirt as opposed to RaRa whose knobs are more tightly arranged. Hence I was using three combos: RoRo on both ends - this was my wet setup. Rear RaRa front RoRo was my all around and loose setup. RaRa on both ends was my hardpack setup. I tried TB as well in SS flavor 2.25 but didn't like them as much as RaRa. May be a bit faster but not enough traction. Plus I didn't like how SS rolled as compared to LS. And TB is not available in 2.25 with LS. 2.1 LS TB is too squirmy.


This might explain why I've often lost the front in soft/gravel sections at speed, with a RaRa front. On the hard packed stuff, barely any issues. This is with me @150lbs. with 21/24psi front/rear. SS RaRa front and rear.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> So you have the ralph up front because it never lets go and the ron in the rear so you can drift a bit in corners then when you stand and hammer uphill the tire has more bite in the looser soil than the hardpack trail.


Yeah, see this made sense too. Imma gonna try both and just see what works.

Can we agree on pressure ranges at least?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

My go to setup on my HT bike was RoRo front and back. It is a great compromise for a wide spectrum of conditions. I am not dissing the RoRo in the back - just the combo with RaRa in the front. I just don't see the course or conditions that it'd be better than other compromises. But that's just me and all my racing buddies. If it works for anyone - even if it is only Lane - I am happy for him. I switched RoRo setup to Mezcal setup only because my next two races include long hard pack double track sections. Mezcal is faster than RoRo or RaRa. And has the same amount of side bite compared to LS. Beats SS easily grip and speed wise. Love the size too. Nice and plush yet bombproof sidewalls. 

Many pros (and Nino) are using the new 2.25 Aspens. Allegedly they are the new tire sheriff in town. If you can get EXO version. I couldn't find it in North America yet. When I do - I will play with it. For sure. They improved it significantly. Taller side knobs just as the doctor prescribed it. Super fast middle section. 630 grams


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

osokolo said:


> *Please don't talk like your statements are the ultimate facts and everyone else is wrong.*
> 
> _Having RoRo in the back and RaRa in the front is just plain stupid.
> 
> I am glad that RoRo rear and RaRa front work for you. Tires are like food. You don't tell other people they are wrong for liking medium rare steak better than medium well. Because it just plain ignorant and stupid. But you wouldn't know it. _





osokolo said:


> _Whoever says that one should put RoRo on the back and RaRa on the front - run away from this person as he knows... you know what, about tires..._





osokolo said:


> _I have about a dozen of racing friends who use Schwalbe. None of them, including me, ever used RoRo as rear while RaRa was front. None. _


You should take your own advice first man, you suddenly came here and have the ultimate word in tire choice?

So instead of having 1 guy, the one you referred to, now we have 2 with opposite opinions, believing they have all the facts straight and want to shove them to everyone else.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

I'm really getting tired of this thread, despite being in it good information and advice. In part, its because everyone is just spewing their opinions without much thought or simply based on their limited experience.

I suggest, for the sake of this thread and all of us, that whoever wants to express their opinion on a tire choice at least provide the following minimum information along with their tire opinion:

*Weight of rider
Type of rims & width
Model of the tire (Brand, Width, Compound, Weight)
Pressure used (front & rear)
Terrain ridden (Fireroads, hardpack, rocks, mud, sand, etc)
Type of bike (XC, AM, Enduro)
Usual temperature of rides 
Style of riding: (Steady, Aggressive)
Time using the tire being reviewed: *

This should at least give us a better overall review of the tire for everyone to make good use of the information, rather than just blindly accepting someone else's opinion when it might not even apply to us.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

TDLover said:


> You should take your own advice first man, you suddenly came here and have the ultimate word in tire choice?
> 
> So instead of having 1 guy, the one you referred to, now we have 2 with opposite opinions, believing they all the facts straight and want to shove them to everyone else.


You are right. I got too excited.

Not shoving anything down anyone's throat except Lane's. Don't tell him please though.

Just sharing my experience (and a large group of racing buddies) with the disclaimer that what works for me (us) does not necessarily work for someone else.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

ekraft84 said:


> Yeah, see this made sense too. Imma gonna try both and just see what works.
> 
> Can we agree on pressure ranges at least?


What's your logic behind this setup?

Every tire setup is put together with intention to achieve something.

Without saying "don't do it", out of curiosity what are you trying to achieve with this setup?


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

Science is so awesome. AKA, you can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

Trying to stay slim (175lbs goal weight) for next month's Breck Epic so I can get up the mountain quicker with less air in my lungs. I'm going to be counting on the old Snakeskin Rocket Ron front, Racing Ralph rear 2.25 combo. I'll be carrying Dynaplugs too, just in case. As a bigger guy that tries to keep pace with the little guys, my style of riding is generally pretty aggressive and I usually take it out on the bike 

I'm open to recommendations from Epic belt buckle holders though!



TDLover said:


> I'm really getting tired of this thread, despite being in it good information and advice. In part, its because everyone is just spewing their opinions without much thought or simply based on their limited experience.
> 
> I suggest, for the sake of this thread and all of us, that whoever wants to express their opinion on a tire choice at least provide the following minimum information along with their tire opinion:
> 
> ...


----------



## Walt Disney's Frozen Head (Jan 9, 2008)

chomxxo said:


> Science is so awesome. AKA, you can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
> 
> Trying to stay slim (175lbs goal weight) for next month's Breck Epic so I can get up the mountain quicker with less air in my lungs. I'm going to be counting on the old Snakeskin Rocket Ron front, Racing Ralph rear 2.25 combo. I'll be carrying Dynaplugs too, just in case. As a bigger guy that tries to keep pace with the little guys, my style of riding is generally pretty aggressive and I usually take it out on the bike
> 
> I'm open to recommendations from Epic belt buckle holders though!


That combo will work great IMO, but protection is more or less mandatory. The course is brand agnostic but I know people that put tires in their aid bags just in case. Most of the stuff is pretty buff, especially with the rain we've been getting lately.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

TDLover said:


> I'm really getting tired of this thread, despite being in it good information and advice. In part, its because everyone is just spewing their opinions without much thought or simply based on their limited experience.
> 
> I suggest, for the sake of this thread and all of us, that whoever wants to express their opinion on a tire choice at least provide the following minimum information along with their tire opinion:
> 
> ...


Or let's just argue about Mac vs PC or platform vs clipless

Whomever is "blindly accepting the advice" from the Internet forum most likely deserves all the consequences that may happen. I think that MTBR readers are smarter than that in general. However the suggestion makes sense. I try to include it in my comments.

Breck Epic: I didn't race it. I raced Transrockies and Crank the Shield (7 times I think). I believe that Crank the Shield is close to Breck in that it includes everything: rocks, gravel, hardpack singletrack, mud, asphalt, tech climbs, tech descents, can be cold, can be hot etc.

If the weather forecast is dry - I'd go with RaRa SS front and back.

If the weather forecast is wet - is go RoRo SS front and back but RaRa in the Back is not too bad for stage races, unless it is really really muddy.

I think that setup that you have is totally fine and bulletproof for whatever you encounter on the course. I raced all 7 Crank the Shields on LS RaRa front and back. One flat - my fault. Hit the rock going down at high speed. If I had to race it again on Schwalbe - it'd be SS. It's really hard to flat those babies. I wouldn't spend money on anything else if you already have them. If not - I'd consider Vittoria Mezcal in the Back and Peyote front. Or if totally dry (probably) Mezcal front and back.

I raced my races on Spesh S-Works Epic WC, pressure 25 rear and 23 front, 195 pounds racing weight, Roval Control SL wheels...


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I put Lane in ignore a long time ago as his posts did not seem to provide any useful information but stirred up arguments that went nowhere. I'm over internet arguing culture and just put anyone on block I don't did useful, just like how I walk away from those people in real life.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

TDLover said:


> I'm really getting tired of this thread, despite being in it good information and advice. In part, its because everyone is just spewing their opinions without much thought or simply based on their limited experience.
> 
> I suggest, for the sake of this thread and all of us, that whoever wants to express their opinion on a tire choice at least provide the following minimum information along with their tire opinion:
> 
> ...


I find that how well I am riding also has an a significant impact on the pressures I choose. When I am sharp and really loading the bike my pressures go up by 2 to 4 psi, where as when I am not feeling it the pressure are quite a bit lower.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

Do any of you feel like you're ever overthinking the tire thing a bit? I have been switching around every once in a while the past couple of years and it just seems like I get used to a tire after a few rides, maybe mess around with the pressure a bit, and then the performance is exactly the same as the last tire I tried but maybe it slides around the turns a bit different or has a little more/less grip when climbing which I can adjust my riding to accommodate. It's starting to seem like tires are just pretty close in performance, except for say the difference between a 2.0" tire and a 2.3" tire or one that has gigantic knobs vs. a slick. So I am starting to think that I should just stick with what I have and ride them into the ground. It beats reading internet forums where people are berating each other about which rubbers they use.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

ohmygato said:


> Do any of you feel like you're ever overthinking the tire thing a bit? I have been switching around every once in a while the past couple of years and it just seems like I get used to a tire after a few rides, maybe mess around with the pressure a bit, and then the performance is exactly the same as the last tire I tried but maybe it slides around the turns a bit different or has a little more/less grip when climbing which I can adjust my riding to accommodate. It's starting to seem like tires are just pretty close in performance, except for say the difference between a 2.0" tire and a 2.3" tire or one that has gigantic knobs vs. a slick. So I am starting to think that I should just stick with what I have and ride them into the ground. It beats reading internet forums where people are berating each other about which rubbers they use.


Oops you are still reading the internet and different characters berating each other...

Yes we are overthinking the tires IMO too. But why not. This is our passion and most of us are looking for ways to be those elusive few seconds faster and climb one spot higher in any given race. It is kinda as fun as building the bike that one would race or ride in the upcoming season. Beats watching Trump or CNN on TV.

Many racers I know just stick with the same set or two of tires throughout the season. But which tires can do that? What do you think.

And the debate starts again.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

osokolo said:


> Yes we are overthinking the tires IMO too. But why not.


Because as guys who don't get paid to do this there are much better things we could be doing, like riding our bicycles.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

osokolo said:


> Many pros (and Nino) are using the new 2.25 Aspens. Allegedly they are the new tire sheriff in town. If you can get EXO version. I couldn't find it in North America yet. When I do - I will play with it. For sure. They improved it significantly. Taller side knobs just as the doctor prescribed it. Super fast middle section. 630 grams


I've had the Aspen 2.25 non EXO on my '18 Epic HT (Nox Skylines 23mm internal) f/r for two months and I love them. I ride in southern Cal which is all hard pack and some rocky stuff (not big gardens) without issue. This past weekend I rode all the Big Bear CA Enduro Series stages with my son in law as he practiced for the pro race (he placed 10th, Brian Lopes won comfortably) and ran the Kenda Cup course too...had no problem. Many of the stages had washed out super soft corners and they gripped fine. They weigh in at 585. (I'm 170, not a super aggressive descender, and run them at 22/24). Plenty of volume, very comfortable, and they air up easily. If they made a 2.35 I'd have slapped them on for sure. Even tho he's sponsored by Maxxis he can't get the 170 tpi version. Must be reserved for the big names. But they are great sturdy and durable tires and for now I don't have the need for the EXO. Might be worth a go if the EXO remain rare for a long time.


----------



## Toot3344556 (Apr 25, 2016)

My issue with the ron in rear is that it likes lower pressures than the ralph. But by doing this you loose more energy when cranking because the tire has more give 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

ohmygato said:


> Because as guys who don't get paid to do this there are much better things we could be doing, like riding our bicycles.


But - we do ride our bicycles. What makes you say that if we like to experiment with different tires - we don't ride bikes.

Quite the opposite. Because I like to ride my bicycles I am always on the outlook for the tires that will provide the most fun riding. And racing. I race twice per week from beginning of May to the end of August. Spend time in the saddle another 2-3 days on the same week. Need few tires every season. Why not experiment? It's fun.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> My Mezcal measures exactly 2.25 on a Nox Teocalli 26mm ID rim.
> 
> Feels better, and faster, than the Bontrager XR1 TI it replaced.


Would be interested to hear more details from you on using Mezcal, Barzo or Saguaro combos for Rocky Mountain-like terrain. Been on Ralphs, Thunderburts and Rons for a long time but wanting to make a switch. Live in Africa and Vittoria has good distribution here. Terrain is rough and ranges from hardpack to loose over hard pretty often. Particularly interested in cornering characteristics and overall rolling speed. I know these are subjective matters.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

osokolo said:


> What's your logic behind this setup?
> 
> Every tire setup is put together with intention to achieve something.
> 
> Without saying "don't do it", out of curiosity what are you trying to achieve with this setup?


My intention is to achieve better front grip and go faster, in an upcoming race. Am I in the right place?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

ekraft84 said:


> My intention is to achieve better front grip and go faster, in an upcoming race. Am I in the right place?


Please let us know your experience with this setup after your race.


----------



## quax (Feb 21, 2009)

fyi

What's the best Maxxis tyre for bike racing? | MarathonMTB.com


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

It is really easy to get focused on a particular tire, but for an XC race season you really need three different tires.

1. You need a light fast tire for smooth courses with where there is good grip. As a Maxxis tire guy, I choose an Aspen or Crossmark for these courses.

2. You need an intermediate durable tire for course with mixed conditions. I choose an Ikon with EXO protection.

3. You need a Knobby tire for dry and loose and mud, depending on the tire design one tire can cover this. I choose a Forecaster for these conditions.

I think some of the differences in opinions comes from people choosing tires for trail conditions they are not optimal for. For example, Ikon's for smooth hardpack, or Racing Ralphs for courses with sharp rocks.


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

Hey Guys, just had a sidewall tear on my Ardent Race (non exo). Luckily I had a tube so I could finish the ride. I have a spare tire I can throw on for my race but I think this could be an opportunity to try a different rear tire. 

I'm riding an yeti asrc, enve twenty9 xc rims (24mm width I think) in Northern Utah. Conditions here have turned to moon dust, but normally trails are hard pack to loose over hard with lots of rocks roots. 

I've been eyeing the following tire combos: Ardent Race 2.35F/2.25R, Ardent Race 2.35F/Ikon 2.2R, Forekaster 2.35F/Ardent race or ikon 2.2R, Ikon 2.35F/Aspen 2.2R (I'm skeptical about this tire in my current conditions), my spring Combe of Nobby Nick 2.35F/Racing Ralph 2.25R. If you all could offer some insight, it would help. I have been reading through this thread, but haven't found anything on hard pack to loose conditions.


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

Those Enve rims are (by modern standards) extremely narrow. 19mm inner I believe. 

I have had them in the past and really didn't' like anything bigger than a 2.2" on them. I don't even really like running 2.35" on a 21mm ID rim. 

Some Rocket Ron Snake Skin 2.25" front and rear might work really well for you though. I'm not a big fan of the Ardent, but the Ardent race is better.


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

LMN said:


> It is really easy to get focused on a particular tire, but for an XC race season you really need three different tires.
> 
> 1. You need a light fast tire for smooth courses with where there is good grip. As a Maxxis tire guy, I choose an Aspen or Crossmark for these courses.
> 
> ...


This! _Every_ Racing Ralph I've flatted (both SS and regular) has been through the tread. So, the Snake Skin version doesn't even really help.

Oddly I've had better luck with the Rocket Ron. Probably just that though... luck, combined with more time on Ralphs. My light weight wife has ran Ralphs for years with like 1 flat that sealant didn't fix (also through tread).

The new Aspen in 2.25 is really nice and has me rethinking low profile tires again. I've been opting for a bit more traction and running intermediates most of the time for a couple of years now. The (now) old style 120tpi S-works Fast Trak and Control Fast Trak 2.2" were great across a wide range of conditions and soil type. The new ones are heavy garbage. A mix of 2.2" and 2.35" Ikons has been serving me well recently.


----------



## zgxtreme (Mar 25, 2007)

LMN said:


> It is really easy to get focused on a particular tire, but for an XC race season you really need three different tires.
> 
> 1. You need a light fast tire for smooth courses with where there is good grip. As a Maxxis tire guy, I choose an Aspen or Crossmark for these courses.
> 
> ...


Thank you. After reading 725 posts of drama with random gems of info this one post nailed it. Very helpful for another Maxxis guy planning my return to racing.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

osokolo said:


> But - we do ride our bicycles. What makes you say that if we like to experiment with different tires - we don't ride bikes.
> 
> Quite the opposite. Because I like to ride my bicycles I am always on the outlook for the tires that will provide the most fun riding. And racing. I race twice per week from beginning of May to the end of August. Spend time in the saddle another 2-3 days on the same week. Need few tires every season. Why not experiment? It's fun.


I work 50+ hours a week, ride/race 12-16 hours a week, work on my bikes 2-4 hours a week, and I try to devote a decent amount of time to family, working on my house, and sleep. If you have more disposable time than that then maybe there is more value in you reading through a long list of posts that each contradict one another rather than getting in another set of intervals.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

LMN said:


> 1. You need a light fast tire for smooth courses with where there is good grip. As a Maxxis tire guy, I choose an Aspen or Crossmark for these courses.


What makes someone a Maxxis tire guy as opposed to a Schwalbe/Vittoria/Bontrager/etc. tire guy? I guess I thought there would be one "best" tire for every rider/condition irrespective of brand, but if there is some good reason to be brand loyal this would certainly simplify things.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

briscoelab said:


> This! _Every_ Racing Ralph I've flatted (both SS and regular) has been through the tread. So, the Snake Skin version doesn't even really help.


Interesting... I just had my first cut through the tread on a snakeskin Racing Ralph. It wasn't catastrophic and I've actually been able to get along on it for the past three races. It sounds like they're susceptible to that issue though.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

ohmygato said:


> What makes someone a Maxxis tire guy as opposed to a Schwalbe/Vittoria/Bontrager/etc. tire guy? I guess I thought there would be one "best" tire for every rider/condition irrespective of brand, but if there is some good reason to be brand loyal this would certainly simplify things.


I don't think that there is one "best" tire for rider/conditions etc. Though some may believe that there is. Sometime it is easier to stick with one great manufacturer and use their tires for various conditions.

Each brand makes some advances at different times. I was with Schwalbe for the longest time but now trying Vittoria. That graphene layer that they are using is intriguing. So far it looks promising.

There are a lot of great choices out there.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

Winters.benjamin; I think you would like the Mezcal for what you describe, especially as a front. I went after some strava segments yesterday on terrain that sounds similar (hard pack, some loose sand/marble sections, with some rough areas, - it was relatively hot too!!), with a Peyote fr and TB rr both 29x2.25. I was thinking I'd like a little more lateral grip, mostly in the front, so I plan to put a Mezcal up front, but the Peyote did acceptably well (24psi ea, one kom & a couple top 5s). I plan to race the Peyote/TB combo tonight at our 'wednesday night worlds' near Seattle, - no age groups so cat1 open for me. 
The Mezcal really seems to deliver fast rolling and a lot of lateral grip when you need it, I've got a pair of 2.25 mezcals on my hardtail at the moment. 
Yesterday the TB rear stepped out a couple of times, but came back and hung on quite well, - there's not much you can do when you hit some loose sand or gravel mixed in with hardpack. 
My scale showed 165 pounds last night (I'm training hard right now, eating a lot, and did not expect to lose any weight, -probably dehydrated), fast/smooth masters cat1, if I may say so myself.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

ohmygato said:


> What makes someone a Maxxis tire guy as opposed to a Schwalbe/Vittoria/Bontrager/etc. tire guy? I guess I thought there would be one "best" tire for every rider/condition irrespective of brand, but if there is some good reason to be brand loyal this would certainly simplify things.


I believe his wife collects a paycheck from Maxxis (I haven't verified). If so, that is a great reason to have a brand loyalty.

I'm loyal to my friends for giving me their take-offs.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I raced this weekend on xr2 2.3 front and rear. 17 front 18.5 rear. Im 174 pounds. Unlimited traction. Never even close to a rim strike.


Massively under rated tire, IMO (except among Trek guys). If Schwalbe made this tire, they couldn't keep them in stock.



chomxxo said:


> I'm going to be counting on the old Snakeskin Rocket Ron front, Racing Ralph rear 2.25 combo.


I've moved on, but this combo has never let me down, over the course of around a dozen 100s, including the Butte 100, parts of which are rocky mofos. I did find the RoRo a bit "knifey" in deep-ish sand, up front.



ohmygato said:


> What makes someone a Maxxis tire guy as opposed to a Schwalbe/Vittoria/Bontrager/etc. tire guy?


Maybe those old posters they used to give away?


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

ohmygato said:


> What makes someone a Maxxis tire guy as opposed to a Schwalbe/Vittoria/Bontrager/etc. tire guy? I guess I thought there would be one "best" tire for every rider/condition irrespective of brand, but if there is some good reason to be brand loyal this would certainly simplify things.


Sponsorship, for one.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

ohmygato said:


> What makes someone a Maxxis tire guy as opposed to a Schwalbe/Vittoria/Bontrager/etc. tire guy? I guess I thought there would be one "best" tire for every rider/condition irrespective of brand, but if there is some good reason to be brand loyal this would certainly simplify things.


As other mentioned, sponsorship. My wife is sponsored by Maxxis, I did tire testing for Maxxis, there is a lot of loyalty to the brand. And it is a good brand. There are a lot of racers who are being paid by other tire companies who are racing on blacked out Maxxis tires.


----------



## splitendz (Nov 13, 2015)

osokolo said:


> I don't think that there is one "best" tire for rider/conditions etc. Though some may believe that there is. Sometime it is easier to stick with one great manufacturer and use their tires for various conditions.
> 
> Each brand makes some advances at different times. I was with Schwalbe for the longest time but now trying Vittoria. That graphene layer that they are using is intriguing. So far it looks promising.
> 
> There are a lot of great choices out there.


I'm curious how you compare the Mezcals to the RaRa RoRo combo? Mezcals are a bit heavier, so, are you concerned with giving up some weight ?


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

LMN said:


> As other mentioned, sponsorship. My wife is sponsored by Maxxis, I did tire testing for Maxxis, there is a lot of loyalty to the brand. And it is a good brand. There are a lot of racers who are being paid by other tire companies who are racing on blacked out Maxxis tires.


Don't you know that Maxxis is just a marketing company that pays Taiwan factories to build crap tires for them? And that not only are they crap tires, but they're slower than anything else? But OF COURSE it's true, I read it on the interwebs somewheres.


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

quax said:


> fyi
> 
> What's the best Maxxis tyre for bike racing? | MarathonMTB.com





LMN said:


> It is really easy to get focused on a particular tire, but for an XC race season you really need three different tires.
> 
> 1. You need a light fast tire for smooth courses with where there is good grip. As a Maxxis tire guy, I choose an Aspen or Crossmark for these courses.
> 
> ...


After reading the posts above, I decided to bite the bullet and try a new tire combo. I bought a Ikon 29 2.2 120TPI 3C/tr/EXO and pared it with my Ardent Race 29 2.2 120 TPI 3c tr up front. I was skeptical with this combo but I couldn't justify buying two new tires at the moment.

I must say I am impressed by this combo. Felt just like my old NN/RaRa combo before the RaRa went bald after two races. It definitely felt easier to pedal with the Ikon vs the AR I was running before.

The trail I rode was hero dirt, with a few muddy spots and some loose over hard pack, and rocks. I'm 180, and ran the recommended 24 psi front/26 rear on enve twenty9 xc rims with 17.5/18.5 internal width (couldn't find an exact measurement).

Uphill was great. I did notice the front bounced off and slide off rocks a lot more than with the nobby nick. It wasn't a huge deal but I felt it. I did feel the Ikon slipping up the loose over hard pack but it always found grip and I was able to keep going. Knocked a minute off my PR on most smaller uphill segments, 12-13 overall. To be fair some of those rides where with slower people but it was still significant when the smaller segments were added up.

Downhill was great once I got used to the tires. I also hit a PR downhill, though not as large. I didn't notice any sliding like I expected. Initially I was scared of sliding out but there was plenty of grip. The loose over hard into rocks was a little sketchy, but manageable.

I think most of the sketchy feelings/bouncing feelings can be resolved getting the right tire pressure dialed.

I did notice these tires are completely useless in mud. That was more of a hold on for dear life moment when all traction was lost. I'll do what was advised above and get a fall tireset, probably Forekaster's.

I also noticed the tires didn't have the same braking force I'm used to with the nobby nick up front. I actually found myself using brakes less because of this, which ment faster downhill. The Ikon locked up a lot sooner and I was able to skid the back end a bit more. This helped me because I'm used to the Ardent Race not locking and almost stopping during tight turns (A little too much traction for my riding style). I'm not saying skidding and power sliding are good techniques, but the point was less traction out back helped keep momentum through corners for me.

The front felt narrow at 2.2, but I am used to the 2.35 nn. Once the front ar tears or next season comes I'll go with an AR 2.35 exo. I think that setup will be the best.

Tomorrow I will dial in the tire pressure and since the trails will be back to late summer state and the tires will be stretched out. I'm curious to see how the tires act in normal conditions (hard pack/loose over hard/loose). I think they will be great. I'm excited to try a race on them.

I will say I was skeptical because my first year of racing a lot of guys told me to run wide tires with big knobs and low psi for traction. I was running 2.1 ground control on a specialized hardtail with tubes. It felt sketchy, and 2.3s felt better but I kept getting flats at low psi. Since then I always thought little knobs equalled no traction at all. I can say this year, with tubless and psi experimenting, there is tons of traction. I can see where a more agressive tire is needed, but understand a lot more how tires (and tubes) work. I still have a lot to learn though. Eventually I'll venture into semi slick territory.

Sorry for the rant, I just thought these two gems in the midst of a circle jerk could really help people like me have a fun time/race better.

Disclaimer: I'm a maxxis guy soley because my lbs only stocks xc tires from maxxis (Ikon and Ardent race), and I usually need a tire right away. Right now they work, but in the future when I have more $$$ for wheelset I'd like to try some other brands out.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I'm using Ikons (2.35&2.2) on the Kona Unit 29er for longer stuff and an Ikon 2.2 rear and Ardent Race 2.25 front on the 26" Chameleon for rougher/shorter stuff.
I like how smoothly the rear slides when it does lock up.


----------



## Pegleg81 (Aug 6, 2014)

briscoelab said:


> Those Enve rims are (by modern standards) extremely narrow. 19mm inner I believe.
> 
> I have had them in the past and really didn't' like anything bigger than a 2.2" on them. I don't even really like running 2.35" on a 21mm ID rim.
> 
> Some Rocket Ron Snake Skin 2.25" front and rear might work really well for you though. I'm not a big fan of the Ardent, but the Ardent race is better.


I have 2.35 ardent race on 22mm id rims and don't like how the side knobs are, as it seems that they'll fully engage only at extreme angles. Having a 28mm id front wheel coming in and hoping that it'll be better profile.

In comparison, the side knobs on the Rocket Rons 2.25 on same rims don't require as much lean angle to fully engage.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

LMN said:


> As other mentioned, sponsorship. My wife is sponsored by Maxxis, I did tire testing for Maxxis, there is a lot of loyalty to the brand. And it is a good brand. There are a lot of racers who are being paid by other tire companies who are racing on blacked out Maxxis tires.


Being sponsored in motorcycle roadracing from various companies, I find that situation dicey. Interesting how guys can get sponsored by one company, and get away running another brand.

I've been a Pirelli guy for years and if I ever was seen running a Dunlop or Michelin, it wouldn't take long for word of that to spread.


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

ekraft84 said:


> Being sponsored in motorcycle roadracing from various companies, I find that situation dicey. Interesting how guys can get sponsored by one company, and get away running another brand.
> 
> I've been a Pirelli guy for years and if I ever was seen running a Dunlop or Michelin, it wouldn't take long for word of that to spread.


Emily Batty is an example of this situation, as far as I can tell. When she started using Ikons a couple of years ago I assumed it'd be a short term thing, but I'm pretty certain she won Canadian nationals on them just a few days ago. Bontrager tires seem highly regarded... what gives? Is it a wheel size thing?


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

PlanB said:


> Emily Batty is an example of this situation, as far as I can tell. When she started using Ikons a couple of years ago I assumed it'd be a short term thing, but I'm pretty certain she won Canadian nationals on them just a few days ago. Bontrager tires seem highly regarded... what gives? Is it a wheel size thing?


Money. She likes money. She has makeup and fancy clothes to buy. To appeal to her "fans". Bontrager doesnt need to pay anybody to use their tires. People that have a clue know how good they are. Just follow the money.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Money. She likes money. She has makeup and fancy clothes to buy. To appeal to her "fans". Bontrager doesnt need to pay anybody to use their tires. People that have a clue know how good they are. Just follow the money.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I don't follow your logic. She's not getting paid by Maxxis. On the contrary, she's paid by the company that makes the tires she doesn't use.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

PlanB said:


> Emily Batty is an example of this situation, as far as I can tell. When she started using Ikons a couple of years ago I assumed it'd be a short term thing, but I'm pretty certain she won Canadian nationals on them just a few days ago. Bontrager tires seem highly regarded... what gives? Is it a wheel size thing?


Bontrager does off an excellent selection of tires. I would think the XR3 is a good alternative to the Ikon. I am guessing that she just likes the feel of them more and Trek is willing to let her buy the tires and race on them.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

PlanB said:


> I don't follow your logic. She's not getting paid by Maxxis. On the contrary, she's paid by the company that makes the tires she doesn't use.


She doesnt pay for tires. Maybe they dont pay her a salary but she gets free tires. They all do.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

PlanB said:


> Emily Batty is an example of this situation, as far as I can tell. When she started using Ikons a couple of years ago I assumed it'd be a short term thing, but I'm pretty certain she won Canadian nationals on them just a few days ago. Bontrager tires seem highly regarded... what gives? Is it a wheel size thing?


I saw that someone asserted that she's doing this a few posts back. Without better proof, I'd suggest that it may be a case of mistaken identity. The Bontrager XR4 has a similar tread pattern to an Ikon. Bontragers are pretty good tires on their own. I can't see a pro going against their sponsor/employer just for the sake of running a certain brand's tires.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> I saw that someone asserted that she's doing this a few posts back. Without better proof, I'd suggest that it may be a case of mistaken identity. The Bontrager XR4 has a similar tread pattern to an Ikon. Bontragers are pretty good tires on their own. I can't see a pro going against their sponsor/employer just for the sake of running a certain brand's tires.


100% on Ikons and has raced on them for the last 3 years.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

chomxxo said:


> I saw that someone asserted that she's doing this a few posts back. Without better proof, I'd suggest that it may be a case of mistaken identity. The Bontrager XR4 has a similar tread pattern to an Ikon. Bontragers are pretty good tires on their own. I can't see a pro going against their sponsor/employer just for the sake of running a certain brand's tires.


The xr3 does. She does use maxxis with black paint on the label. Or she would have bontrager without the label covered.

Some will say that bontrager, maxxis, and specialized tires are made in the same factory. You see some similar patterns.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> She doesnt pay for tires. Maybe they dont pay her a salary but she gets free tires. They all do.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Sure, but your original point still doesn't make sense.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

This is a somewhat unrelated question, but maybe fits into this thread still.

It sounds like I am riding tires way longer than most people here. I am on a rear RaRa 2.25 that I rotated from the front. On the front I probably got 20-30 rides on it before switching it to the rear. Now as a rear I probably have 30-40 rides on it, totalling maybe 500-800 miles or so as a rear tire with a mix of asphalt, hardpack, and loam. I ride what probably most here consider high pressure at about 26-27 psi. Very few rocky and muddy miles. I am only just now noticing that it is getting worn and I need to change it out.

Last year I rode a Thunder Burt on the rear for what seemed to be an eternity, like at least half a season including ~5-6 races.

What is the typical service life of these tires? Am I riding them way longer than they are intended for? It does seem like the handling on the RaRa changed a bit after around ~200 miles or so but I could still comfortably use it and it didn't seem like I was losing much.

Edit: I had my first two wins in expert single speed on that crappy old RaRa the past couple of races, so it can't be terrible.


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

chomxxo said:


> I saw that someone asserted that she's doing this a few posts back. Without better proof, I'd suggest that it may be a case of mistaken identity. The Bontrager XR4 has a similar tread pattern to an Ikon. Bontragers are pretty good tires on their own. I can't see a pro going against their sponsor/employer just for the sake of running a certain brand's tires.


Could be, but I don't think so. The pics from Canadian nationals seem to show a tire with actual Maxxis graphics (all the acronyms for the tire features - 3C etc.)


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

ohmygato said:


> This is a somewhat unrelated question, but maybe fits into this thread still.
> 
> It sounds like I am riding tires way longer than most people here. I am on a rear RaRa 2.25 that I rotated from the front. On the front I probably got 20-30 rides on it before switching it to the rear. Now as a rear I probably have 30-40 rides on it, totalling maybe 500-800 miles or so as a rear tire with a mix of asphalt, hardpack, and loam. I ride what probably most here consider high pressure at about 26-27 psi. Very few rocky and muddy miles. I am only just now noticing that it is getting worn and I need to change it out.
> 
> ...


I would use the performance version if you want them to last longer in those conditions. Some people get 1k dirt only miles from a ralph. Some 500.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> She doesnt pay for tires. Maybe they dont pay her a salary but she gets free tires. They all do.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Doesn't work that way. You get free equipment from your sponsor, outside of that you are buying it. Usually you are buying it at a major discount directly from the distributer but you are still paying.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> Doesn't work that way. You get free equipment from your sponsor, outside of that you are buying it. Usually you are buying it at a major discount directly from the distributer but you are still paying.


Okay, you would know more than me. I know she dont click on jenson or go to her bike shop she gets them somehow directly. I still believe she gets paid by maxxis but i am not her accountant.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

chomxxo said:


> I saw that someone asserted that she's doing this a few posts back. Without better proof, *I'd suggest that it may be a case of mistaken identity.* The Bontrager XR4 has a similar tread pattern to an Ikon. Bontragers are pretty good tires on their own. I can't see a pro going against their sponsor/employer just for the sake of running a certain brand's tires.


Well, you'd be completely wrong.

Ikons for sure. It's been well documented and discussed for _years_.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

LMN said:


> 100% on Ikons and has raced on them for the last 3 years.


Somebody pay the lady! She's a star.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Ikon and xr3. Id say some serious copying by maxxis. Plus the xr3 is faster and more comfortable and lighter. So if she uses ikon and not xr3 its not because of what hits the dirt.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> I would use the performance version if you want them to last longer in those conditions. Some people get 1k dirt only miles from a ralph. Some 500.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I don't want them to last longer, I just am surprised that they lasted as long as they have considering the way people are talking about tires on this thread. Hell I basically milked one tire for an entire season and have been totally satisfied with it except for when conditions change significantly.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

ohmygato said:


> I don't want them to last longer, I just am surprised that they lasted as long as they have considering the way people are talking about tires on this thread. Hell I basically milked one tire for an entire season and have been totally satisfied with it except for when conditions change significantly.


Oh okay. Ya my buddy gets about 500 hes elite level. So hes putting them through harder use. Lots of people go a whole season like you said. My gf went all year on 2.25 ralph snakeskin. Like 2k miles but weighs 105.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Ikon and xr3. Id say some serious copying by maxxis. Plus the xr3 is faster and more comfortable and lighter. So if she uses ikon and not xr3 its not because of what hits the dirt.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Really? You do know that the Ikon has been around since 2010. When it came out there was nothing like it any where. Catharine jokes that her dominance in the 2010 and 2011 season was because she was on way better tires then anybody else.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

LMN said:


> Really? You do know that the Ikon has been around since 2010. When it came out there was nothing like it any where. Catharine jokes that her dominance in the 2010 and 2011 season was because she was on way better tires then anybody else.


The xr3 has been around longer. Its from before trek even got the company.

I am not saying ikons arent effective. Weve went over this. I know they get results. They just dont work where i live.

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Service life on any tire depends on conditions and riding style. I find that in the summer heat when the trails are dry and loose I go through tires really quick. Where as in the fall, winter and spring tires last forever.

I also find that in the summer when tires wear quickly having fresh tires makes a huge difference, where as other times of the year a highly worn tire still works well.



ohmygato said:


> This is a somewhat unrelated question, but maybe fits into this thread still.
> 
> It sounds like I am riding tires way longer than most people here. I am on a rear RaRa 2.25 that I rotated from the front. On the front I probably got 20-30 rides on it before switching it to the rear. Now as a rear I probably have 30-40 rides on it, totalling maybe 500-800 miles or so as a rear tire with a mix of asphalt, hardpack, and loam. I ride what probably most here consider high pressure at about 26-27 psi. Very few rocky and muddy miles. I am only just now noticing that it is getting worn and I need to change it out.
> 
> ...


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

LMN said:


> Service life on any tire depends on conditions and riding style. I find that in the summer heat when the trails are dry and loose I go through tires really quick. Where as in the fall, winter and spring tires last forever.
> 
> I also find that in the summer when tires wear quickly having fresh tires makes a huge difference, where as other times of the year a highly worn tire still works well.


Can you give us some rough numbers? Like how many miles do you or Catharine get in the spring/fall or alternatively just the summer on one rear tire? I am just trying to find out if my service life is even in the realm of reality or if I am smoking crack by riding them way too long.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

ohmygato said:


> Can you give us some rough numbers? Like how many miles do you or Catharine get in the spring/fall or alternatively just the summer on one rear tire? I am just trying to find out if my service life is even in the realm of reality or if I am smoking crack by riding them way too long.


Catharine, replaces her tires very frequently. I on the other hand like to wear tires to bald.

In the cooler times of year I can get about 2000km out of an Ikon. Mid summer, 500km if I am lucky. However, my local trails are very abrasive in the summer. People who stay her for a couple of weeks often ask "how do people afford to ride here".


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

Like ksanman said; "I always thought little knobs equalled no traction at all", I was in the same boat until very recently; last night I raced the Peyote fr and TB rr (both 29x2.25, 23-24psi, I'm 170# 100mm fs bike) in mostly hardpack with some very loose including sand (some grass and a little road too), to a very 'respectable' cat1 finish, -that is a good summer tire combo imo.
However: I doubt I would have finished much differently on my 'slow' 2.3 ground controls; I like all my new tires, but I'm still a bit cynical about real world speed differences between tread patterns: grip = confidence which is faster than less confidence on a faster rolling tire. 

skidding will obviously shorten tire life and take the biggest chunks out of your tread, -another good reason to avoid skidding.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Coming November 1st...

Schwalbe Nobby Nic Evo Liteskin Addix speedgrip 2.25

That will be a light and super aggressive xc tire. The only downside of the nobby nic is weight. This should be under 700 grams. 

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

Anyone else think a 2.35 Thunder Burt would be awesome?


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

ohmygato said:


> This is a somewhat unrelated question, but maybe fits into this thread still.
> 
> It sounds like I am riding tires way longer than most people here. I am on a rear RaRa 2.25 that I rotated from the front. On the front I probably got 20-30 rides on it before switching it to the rear. Now as a rear I probably have 30-40 rides on it, totalling maybe 500-800 miles or so as a rear tire with a mix of asphalt, hardpack, and loam. I ride what probably most here consider high pressure at about 26-27 psi. Very few rocky and muddy miles. I am only just now noticing that it is getting worn and I need to change it out.
> 
> ...


I'm onboard with you.









I have done 3250km in my mtb bike, since I started using strava.

Of those 3250 the tire usage went like follows:

100km Mezcal Tire TNT (Terrible tire for me, punctured a lot and never sealed well, although great grip and thread).

200km Ground control Specialized

100km Ikon Exo

The rest was split in 2 sets of RR's for about 1425km each set.

Granted, the tire feels very different from new to used, but as someone else said in this thread, you just adjust accordingly to what you are riding and go on with your ride.

I suspect I get away with worn out threads because I live in a very hot climate and rubber grip is way higher than in colder climates.

On the other hand my road/conmute bike has done 3400km on the same heavy tires and they seem to have plenty of life left.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

TDLover said:


> I have done 3250km in my mtb bike, since I started using strava.
> 
> Of those 3250 the tire usage went like follows:
> 
> ...


Woah. Am I reading this right? Are you saying you got ~10X the life out of a RaRa than any of the other tires you tried? That doesn't sound right but if it is I am on the right tire for sure!


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

LMN said:


> Catharine, replaces her tires very frequently. I on the other hand like to wear tires to bald.
> 
> In the cooler times of year I can get about 2000km out of an Ikon. Mid summer, 500km if I am lucky. However, my local trails are very abrasive in the summer. People who stay her for a couple of weeks often ask "how do people afford to ride here".


Gotcha, thank you... probably pretty close to the life I am getting with the RaRas, considering you like to ride them until they're bald.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

spsoon said:


> Anyone else think a 2.35 Thunder Burt would be awesome?


Yeah I would love a 2.35 TB. I was actually thinking about that this morning. I like bigger volume true XC tires.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

ohmygato said:


> Woah. Am I reading this right? Are you saying you got ~10X the life out of a RaRa than any of the other tires you tried? That doesn't sound right but if it is I am on the right tire for sure!


Oh, lol, I'm not saying that, what I mean is that I'm a cheap bastard and refuse to change tires until they are pretty worn out.

Those other tires were a miss for me, for different reasons. The mezcal would not seal punctures with Stans and I suffered a couple of races with it that I decided to throw it away almost new.

The ikon was not sealing properly on my rim's sidewall I think it was a defective tire, because I never got it to work properly. The ground control 2.3 has big volume and is the spare tire in case anything happens.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

Here's a crazy idea if anyone is up for it... who wants to send me their old dead tires? I wouldn't mind trying some to see if there is a measurable difference from my current setup. They can be pretty dead as long as they can be run tubeless, have a few knobs left, and they hold air. I'll pay shipping plus whatever you think the tire is worth, up to maybe $10-$15/tire, or I'll trade you other stuff I'm not using if you want it. I have a brand new Thunder Burt 2.1 with the super minimal sidewalls (liteskin I think), claimed to be 490 grams I believe, still in the box, if anyone wants to trade for it.

Here's a list of some I want to try:

Rocket Ron
Mezcal
Peyote
Ikon
Aspen
Crossmark
Ardent Race
XR1
XR2
XR3

All 29", all 2.25" minimum. I am open to other suggestions if you have something you think i should try.


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

Has anyone ridden both the 2.25 Aspen and the 2.1 Aspen?

Based on this article the casing is the same, it is just the tread/knobs on the sides are taller (not even wider).

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/03/0...ikon-aspen-xc-race-tires-plus-casing-details/

I had a pair of Aspens about 5 years back, good tires, fast, predictable, lasted a long time. I like them better than Ikons for my local trails. Just wondering if the 2.25 really makes any difference since the casing/volume is the same.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

yep, see post above


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> The xr3 has been around longer. Its from before trek even got the company.
> 
> I am not saying ikons arent effective. Weve went over this. I know they get results. They just dont work where i live.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


Trek bought Bontrager in the late 90s or early 2000s dropping frame production and using Keith Bontrager to design components for the parent brand (replacing their Icon brand). I'd like to see that tread on a Bontrager branded tire prior to 2010 when the Ikon was introduced. I can't recall Bontrager having a tire that looked like the Ikon prior but maybe you will prove me wrong. The closest was the Super Revolt X which was kind of a Python ripoff with smaller knobs and large volume casing (relative to claimed size).


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

ohmygato said:


> Yeah I would love a 2.35 TB. I was actually thinking about that this morning. I like bigger volume true XC tires.


Another vote for this idea. But, as much as I'm a Schwalbe fanboy, they've got to do something about puncture protection in the tread. Snakeskin sidewalls are good, but as mentioned, the tread is particularly prone to puncture in all Schwalbe tires.

IMO Maxxis leads in race tire durability, but their tread patterns aren't as good. The Racing Ralph and Rocket Ron have better traction and speed than an Ikon, and the Thunder Burt has better traction and speed than the Aspen. Can't get to the finish line with no air in your tires though.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

chomxxo said:


> Another vote for this idea. But, as much as I'm a Schwalbe fanboy, they've got to do something about puncture protection in the tread. Snakeskin sidewalls are good, but as mentioned, the tread is particularly prone to puncture in all Schwalbe tires.
> 
> IMO Maxxis leads in race tire durability, but their tread patterns aren't as good. The Racing Ralph and Rocket Ron have better traction and speed than an Ikon, and the Thunder Burt has better traction and speed than the Aspen. Can't get to the finish line with no air in your tires though.


+1. Done with TB until Schwalbe can figure out puncture prevention.


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

kevbikemad said:


> Has anyone ridden both the 2.25 Aspen and the 2.1 Aspen?
> 
> Based on this article the casing is the same, it is just the tread/knobs on the sides are taller (not even wider).


Read the article again- it says the difference between the 2.25 and *previous 2.20* is due to side knob height. The 2.25 has a larger casing than the 2.1

Further explanation from Duncan @ Maxxis in the comments: "We started with a 29×2.10 Aspen. The new 29×2.25 aspen is a wider casing and optimized for a wider rim (24mm inner)."


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

A pair of 2.25 Aspens would not look out of place on my longer distance bike.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

splitendz said:


> I'm curious how you compare the Mezcals to the RaRa RoRo combo? Mezcals are a bit heavier, so, are you concerned with giving up some weight ?


Great question and one that I couldn't answer without spending some time on Mezcals. Just read that someone flatted them and couldn't get them to seal. In my case, they were the hardest tires ever to install on Roval Control SL wheels, inflated with an old pump and stayed inflated for couple of days without Stans.

Had my first race on them last Wednesday and to my horror it rained and the course was hilly 21 kms of clay singletrack with some roots and few rocks on a solid hard but wet ground. I thought Mezcals would be sketchy.

I am 195 pounds and was running 23/22 on hardtail. Mezcals provided more cornering traction than (LS) RaRa but less than RoRo in these conditions. They were a bit faster than RaRa/RoRo combo on doubletrack. Didn't feel the increased weight on some steep and long climbs. More comfortable than RaRa in the back as I could run it at a bit lower pressure. It is hard to tell if I could be faster on RaRa/RoRo combo in these conditions but I didn't care much as I need more speed for tomorrow's race on the same but bone dry course and two laps. It is a mix of fast and twisty singletrack, tight in places, punchy climbs with one killer climb called Green Monster and few fast DT sections. Total of over 44km over 2 laps. That will be the real test for Mezcals and I will report back on Sunday.

So far Mezcals are definitely winner over SS RaRa front and back - probably because SS RaRa are 60 tpi and not supple enough at lower pressures.

Tomorrow's race will provide better data for comparison with LS version of RaRa and RoRo.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

chomxxo said:


> Snakeskin sidewalls are good, but as mentioned, the tread is particularly prone to puncture in all Schwalbe tires.


Huh, never, ever had a puncture in a Racing Ralph Snakeskin, over thousands of miles in training and 100s.

Never.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I had one ripped sidewall on a Performance RaRa from a rock. I had about 3 dozen thorns go through the tread area, but they all sealed up with Stans just fine. I had one ripped when I went into a rock I couldn't see in some deep weeds after going off line, but I patched it from the inside and used it until it was bald.


----------



## 41ants (Jun 12, 2007)

I just ditched some 800 gram ikons (29x2.35 with stans) and swapped them out for some 600 grams renegade sworks (29x 2.3 with stans). The weight savings & much improved rolling resistance, although possibly placebo, seemed very noticeable on some short punchy climbs. Also, 18 mph on the fire road felt MUCH easier compared to the ikons. However, 
they definitely slide a bit more than the ikons in corners, but the renegades are much more predictable than what my thunderburts are.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

kosmo said:


> Huh, never, ever had a puncture in a Racing Ralph Snakeskin, over thousands of miles in training and 100s.
> 
> Never.


Same. But TB is about as puncture resistant as a piece of wet paper. My last two races were sunk bc of TB punctures.

Switching back to RaRa F/R for next weekend's race. And man, this is such a good combo for me. Run pretty close to 15% sag (which works out to 21R, 19F for me) and these things just rip on my terrain; hardpack + loose over hard. Take great compression in the corners, good transition when leaning over, feel quick on the flats, good enough traction on steep/loose climbs.

I've got some Ikons and Ardent Race coming in the mail. Going to see if they behave similarly and, if so, hoping that they last longer than the RaRas.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

winters.benjamin said:


> Same. But TB is about as puncture resistant as a piece of wet paper. My last two races were sunk bc of TB punctures.


I get that. It's mostly thanks to you guys on this thread that the new TB I bought this winter remains in the bike cabinet.

I'll try it on the hardtail for gravel road riding, this winter.


----------



## scooterman (Aug 10, 2004)

About the Mezcal G+ not that it's scientific but the first time I used them 2 weeks ago. I won a Cat1 30-39 race by 3 minutes. The other day I also KOMed/PR'ed a 10 minute long mostly downhill trail (few climbs in the middle)by a significant margin, which I have probably ridden over 100 times.

I'm not exactly sure what it is about them. But i think it has to do with the casings. I've always used schwalbe and conti MTB tires and the casing of those is very very stiff so I would run very low pressures. I'm a few PSI more in the mezcals to get the same ride quality and I feel a little more confident sending it through chunky stuff. Somehow the tires feel like the want to roll through stuff better. 

I think they added about a 1/2 pound to my bike, but in the end I don't think it matters that much.


----------



## scooterman (Aug 10, 2004)

Read my post about the mezcal. I feel the opposite of you as far as pressure. The schwalbes are not supple so you need LESS air to make up for the rough feel of the tire. The Mezcals are like wet noodles out of the package and need MORE air to feel the same stability. 

I feel this same way when it comes to CX tires. I run tubulars at 28-30 psi but I can run schwalbe tubeless tires at 22-26. The casing is so darn stiff you never get that fold over effect and you can drop the PSI to nothing.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

kosmo said:


> Huh, never, ever had a puncture in a Racing Ralph Snakeskin, over thousands of miles in training and 100s.
> 
> Never.


I think this has more to do with the amount of tread between the ground and the casing. Thunder Burt, Ralph, Ron, all are made from the same compounds. But like you I've chosen to go with the Racing Ralph in the rear; I'd say that its tightly-spaced medium size knobs make it the least puncture-prone of the three. Rocket Ron has the most aggressive knobs but they're spaced farther apart.

I've raced all over the country, and sharp edges will eventually bite you. I made it through the Wilderness 101 in Pennsylvania on Thunder Burt 2.1s, but double-flatted mercilessly with TB 2.25s just pre-riding Rocky Hill Ranch, Texas.


----------



## m3bas (Dec 24, 2011)

Just fitted a Nobby Nic snakeskin 2.25 to the front- 684g! Happy with that weight. Might buy another and weigh it, if its a lot heavier I'll swap them out and save the "lite" one for bigger races.
Looks like it should roll very slowly but doesn't feel it, good confidence though. Paired with Ralph in the rear which weighed about 660g.

Have previously had on a pair of sworks tyres- Fast Trak 2.2/ Renegade 2.3. Its very loose where i live, that combo rolls really well and is light but its sketchy as hell anywhere else.

Chose the Schwalbes in part from the testing of that rolling resistance web site. While I know its steel drum numbers might not have a whole lot of carryover to off road performance, there must be something in it.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

*What's wrong with Kenda?*

I know this has been discussed before in other threads, but what is it exactly that people don't like about Kenda tires? Weight? Rolling resistance? Lack of control?

Back in 2007 or so Karmas or Stan's The Crow were pretty much the tires to use.

Specifically, has anyone tried a Karma Saber Pro? It looks like a decent rear option for me.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

ohmygato said:


> I know this has been discussed before in other threads, but what is it exactly that people don't like about Kenda tires? Weight? Rolling resistance? Lack of control?
> 
> Back in 2007 or so Karmas or Stan's The Crow were pretty much the tires to use.
> 
> Specifically, has anyone tried a Karma Saber Pro? It looks like a decent rear option for me.


 My friend Ben runs Kenda. I can't remember which models he switches between for various races, but I remember the Kosmics. I plan to try some next time I need to buy a tire.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

ohmygato said:


> I know this has been discussed before in other threads, but what is it exactly that people don't like about Kenda tires? Weight? Rolling resistance? Lack of control?
> 
> Back in 2007 or so Karmas or Stan's The Crow were pretty much the tires to use.
> 
> Specifically, has anyone tried a Karma Saber Pro? It looks like a decent rear option for me.


That's a good question and I think I can give a little background. It's been said that Kenda makes the Notubes tires. I don't know whether that's true but the Crow and Raven are significantly different from the Karma. Although the tread pattern is vaguely similar, it's not the same, the tread depth is shallower, and the casing is very different. The Notubes compound is more supple and uniform, whereas the Kenda casing was old school stiff, pre-tubeless-ready.

Back in the day when tubeless was really getting seated, pun intended, the Stan's tires flaunted their ability to run low pressures. At the end of the day, no matter the tire, you can only run them so low. You can't run a 2.0 Crow at a much lower pressure than a 2.0 tire of another brand without dinging the rim. The moccasin-like tread was innovative, but with all the slipping and sliding, they soon followed with the Raven, which has side knobs. Ta-da, a semi-slick, which has since proven in tests to be the fastest MTB racing tire (See: Aspen).

Unfortunately the supple casing was more prone to puncture. Tires like the Thunder Burt have come along that remind me of an improved version of the Raven; It is faster in the middle and grippier on the side.

The Karma wasn't a bad tire; I ran the 1.9 back in the day and they were grippy and light; just a brutal ride on tires that narrow. The 2.2 was not competitive weight-wise although it might be worth reconsidering these days.

None of the old Kenda tires do well in drum tests, especially the abysmal Nevegal and my real-world tests echo that it's one of the slowest MTB tires. The Small Block 8 is shockingly slow rolling for a racy model. That said, the Saber Pro looks pretty good; maybe Kenda can earn back some market share.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

chomxxo said:


> The Karma wasn't a bad tire; I ran the 1.9 back in the day and they were grippy and light; just a brutal ride on tires that narrow. The 2.2 was not competitive weight-wise although it might be worth reconsidering these days.
> 
> None of the old Kenda tires do well in drum tests, especially the abysmal Nevegal and my real-world tests echo that it's one of the slowest MTB tires. The Small Block 8 is shockingly slow rolling for a racy model. That said, the Saber Pro looks pretty good; maybe Kenda can earn back some market share.


If I remember correctly we used to take a standard non-tubeless Karma and make it "tubeless" by giving it like 3 days to seal up completely, dicking with it nonstop to get the tire completely coated with sealant. This was back when none of us had air compressors so unless you had a bike shop down the street you had to take it to the gas station or really jam on the floor pump to get the bead to seat up. What a pain... When they were on there they were actually really good though, and we used to run them as low as 20 psi or so which was plenty low enough for me. When I put a pair of modern tubeless tires on a few years ago I was shocked at how easily they set up and held air, plus how light they were since the only other real tubeless option used to be super thick and stiff UST tires which I hated.

Nevegals never made the XC list although some guys ran them as all mountain tires like for Downieville and stuff. The fat guys used to use them around here on their grandpa bikes. I tried one once and it was terrible.

Small Block 8s were good for about 2 weeks out of the year, 1 in the late spring when all the trails had drained but were still a little tacky and 1 in the fall after the first rain. Aside from that they either packed so full of mud that you might as well be on slicks or they just skipped over all the gravel and cut through the moon dust like a knife they were so stiff.

So yes, Kenda definitely USED to suck overall. But I still wonder if any of the newer tires are worth trying out and so I think I'll get me one of them Saber Pros and see how it does.


----------



## wrjr (Jun 29, 2016)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Ikon and xr3. Id say some serious copying by maxxis. Plus the xr3 is faster and more comfortable and lighter. So if she uses ikon and not xr3 its not because of what hits the dirt.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


I know this is a few days old, but:
So your thinking here is that the tires are close enough to be identical, and Batty is being paid by Maxxis to run their tires and black them out just enough so that it's not blatantly obvious... but it's still clear it's a Maxxis tire - causing discussions like this essentially, right? 
As a frequent reader of this thread, I should throw in the disclaimer that this is a serious question and I'm not being a jerk 

I saw her running Ikons f&r at a local to me race recently, it was clear what they were...at first it made me reconsider swapping out my Ikon on the front as I planned, but then I decided I was over-thinking it 

Is there a general consensus here on the debate of running a wider tire in the front and narrower in the rear vs same width? 2.35f & 2.25r combo is what I'm using right now (on Enve M60forty... so a wider internal width rim that I'm using for XC racing) and I think I will try out a 2.25 front and rear for my next few rooty New England races (Mezcals if anyone cares).


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

wrjr said:


> Is there a general consensus here on the debate of running a wider tire in the front and narrower in the rear vs same width? 2.35f & 2.25r combo is what I'm using right now (on Enve M60forty... so a wider internal width rim that I'm using for XC racing) and I think I will try out a 2.25 front and rear for my next few rooty New England races (Mezcals if anyone cares).


Going to be difficult to generalize something like this. In optimizing tire performance, so much depends on casing, tread pattern and the sag you are running, combined with the ID of your rims (which you've already noted). My personal preference is on the higher volume end of the spectrum for F and R both, assuming I've already covered the above factors.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

In case anyone's considering Aspens, I just moved my 29 x 2.25 Aspens from 23mm internal rims to 26mm internal rims. Tire grew from 2.249 to 2.3 on the nose. Tires are 2 months old so stretched, not new.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Ikons will be my tire of choice in the future. 

Indestructible, great cornering with 2.35 up front, fast enough, on par with their weight, and wear well.


----------



## flynbryan19 (Sep 9, 2010)

Rod said:


> Ikons will be my tire of choice in the future.
> 
> Indestructible, great cornering with 2.35 up front, fast enough, on par with their weight, and wear well.


What rim inner width and air pressure are you running? I run the same front tire and feel that it is lacking in cornering traction.


----------



## jepva (Aug 29, 2016)

Been very impressed with the Vittoria Barzo. Haven't had one puncture yet in over 200 miles (and about 3 races in rocky terrain) and they give up little for the weight they are. Traction in rocky terrain is impressive for not having huge knobs and being a more XC oriented tire, I'm just amazed at the durability. And being tubeless, they lose very little air over time. I constantly had to pump up my old tires. 

Sent from my P01M using Tapatalk


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

From the E. Batty pit report, prior to MSA this weekend: "Her bikes are both equipped Bontrager Kovee XXX carbon wheels and Bontrager XR1 Team Issue tires."


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

flynbryan19 said:


> What rim inner width and air pressure are you running? I run the same front tire and feel that it is lacking in cornering traction.


21mm internal. I run them pretty low pressure. 18 on the rigid SS and around 20 on the geared bike. 22 at most. I weigh 155. This has been my go to tire on the front for the past couple of years. I've expected to crash, from my mistake, and they've hooked up. Could be the soil types, variation in trails, or riding style.


----------



## rocketfuel (Jun 16, 2004)

I have Spec Fasttrack front and Renegade rear for marathons and dry XC-races. When I ride wet and technical races the lack of grip is very apparent. What whould you switch to for those races?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

rocketfuel said:


> I have Spec Fasttrack front and Renegade rear for marathons and dry XC-races. When I ride wet and technical races the lack of grip is very apparent. What whould you switch to for those races?


My stage race partner runs that same combo. He switches to Ardent Race F / R when it gets wet and seems to do ok. Can't vouch for it personally, but he's pretty fast.


----------



## Goran_injo (Jul 4, 2007)

I don't like Ardent race for wet at all. 

Beaver 2.25 is my "rescue" tire for wet and difficult courses where extra weight does not really matter and when I fight barely to stay on the bike. 

TR version can be run at very low pressures.


----------



## flynbryan19 (Sep 9, 2010)

Rod said:


> 21mm internal. I run them pretty low pressure. 18 on the rigid SS and around 20 on the geared bike. 22 at most. I weigh 155. This has been my go to tire on the front for the past couple of years. I've expected to crash, from my mistake, and they've hooked up. Could be the soil types, variation in trails, or riding style.


Thanks for the info. My rims are the same internal and I'm only 5lbs lighter than you, so I'll have to give the tire pressure a try. I've been gradually going lower and am currently at 21lbs in the front with that tire. Have yet to burb a tire or pinch flat.


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

kosmo said:


> From the E. Batty pit report, prior to MSA this weekend: "Her bikes are both equipped Bontrager Kovee XXX carbon wheels and Bontrager XR1 Team Issue tires."


She's pretty clearly got Maxxis tires on her hardtail at MSA this weekend: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/emily-batty-procaliber-sltop-fuel-bike-check.html
The rear one's not even blacked out.


----------



## wrjr (Jun 29, 2016)

PlanB said:


> She's pretty clearly got Maxxis tires on her hardtail at MSA this weekend: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/emily-batty-procaliber-sltop-fuel-bike-check.html
> The rear one's not even blacked out.


She was running Ikons at a local to me UCI event last week also on her FS... Front was blacked out with marker, rear had some tape marks that show it was at one point taped over but that had since come off.

I just wonder if things like that are really over money, or the tire.


----------



## LaneDetroitCity (Nov 10, 2015)

Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk


.....riiight... You could even see the Maxxis graphics on her tires at MSA. Sharpie must have run dry....


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

LaneDetroitCity said:


> [URL]https://uploads.tapatalk[/URL]
> 
> that tire is on for photo shoots, look at what's on when she races.


----------



## zgxtreme (Mar 25, 2007)

Emily runs Ikons. Don't quite understand what is so difficult.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

Has anyone got any experience with the performance thread of schwalbe's tires? 

How do they compare to the EVO line?

I'm planning to ride just mtb the following months and I usually have to ride the road 8km to hit the trails and since I'm expecting a high mileage getting EVO tires seems like a very expensive choice.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

zgxtreme said:


> Emily runs Ikons. Don't quite understand what is so difficult.


What is difficult is that it does not fit the narrative of a certain know it all with his one year in the sport and the originator of the posting of "fake news" that he can't see right through...


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

TDLover said:


> Has anyone got any experience with the performance thread of schwalbe's tires?
> 
> How do they compare to the EVO line?
> 
> I'm planning to ride just mtb the following months and I usually have to ride the road 8km to hit the trails and since I'm expecting a high mileage getting EVO tires seems like a very expensive choice.


Pre-addix, I found performance to be a less supple casing, less grippy and more durable.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

zgxtreme said:


> Emily runs Ikons. Don't quite understand what is so difficult.


You don't?? Lane thinks Ikons, and any other Maxxis XC tire, is junk and no one should be riding them or they're gonna lose about 8 minutes a lap.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Lane makes me want to race with a DHR/F...


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

BmanInTheD said:


> You don't?? Lane thinks Ikons, and any other Maxxis XC tire, is junk and no one should be riding them or they're gonna lose about 8 minutes a lap.


I'm looking forward to changing back to Schwalbe and gaining 8 minutes per lap. I guess I'm just doing resistance training at the moment.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

What if I told you the XR2 setup lane recommended is not faster than my Hans Dampf/Ikon 2.35 ON THE STREET. 

The verdict is still out, but these small light tires aren't setting the world on fire for me yet.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

For my completely unscientific testing, I put my 2.3 Ground Controls (control casing) on in place of Peyote fr TB rr, the GCs appear to be mostly considered slow rolling, and they are not light. I've got 4 seasons on one and 1 season on the other GC. 
Raced last night in similar conditions to 2 weeks ago on the other tires (mostly hardpack, just a little loose and a few sandy spots mixed in, even some pavement transitions). I finished pretty much exactly the same against mostly the same guys. 

Unless you have seriously wrong tires for the conditions (tiny knobs for a muddy event, or skinny tires for sand), I'm thinking there's some cork sniffing going on here.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

zgxtreme said:


> Emily runs Ikons. Don't quite understand what is so difficult.


She clearly prefers the Ikon, which doesn't seem to be slowing her down.

I just pulled off a worn Bontrager XR2/XR1 combo and put on a set of EXO Ikons (All 2.2s) and I noticed three things:
-Ikons make more noise on pavement
-Tires that aren't worn out are very grippy
-The Ikons feel more supple at the same pressure (23F,25R 190lbs)

:thumbsup:


----------



## zgxtreme (Mar 25, 2007)

Sidewalk said:


> Lane makes me want to race with a DHR/F...


Given we just had our first baby before I decided to return to racing funds are tight... so that's exactly what I'll run my first race as it's what's on my Fuel. Will make sure to post a race pic of the monsters in action lol.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

jimPacNW said:


> Unless you have seriously wrong tires for the conditions (tiny knobs for a muddy event, or skinny tires for sand), I'm thinking there's some cork sniffing going on here.


That is what I am starting to think too.

Just for kicks this year in the off-season I am going to start testing a bunch of proven XC tires and see what I think. (Thank you Lane for the trades.) I will let you know know if I find any one tire significantly better or worse than the others including any obvious issues like durability concerns.

Then I am either going to try to be a brand loyalist or if there are marginal differences I am going to work with whatever I can get the best deals on through the shop I race for.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Sidewalk said:


> Lane makes me want to race with a DHR/F...


I actually raced a DHF in a race two weeks ago. But the race did have 1500m of climbing and 2300m of descending.

I don't think the DHF was the difference but looking at the race analysis afterwards I put almost 5 minutes into the guys who climbed with me on the descents.

And of all ironies it was a three day stage race and my best "climbing day" was the day I ran the DHF.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

"Fast rolling" is over rated.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Fast rolling, fast cornering and fast technical climbing are all different things.....


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> Fast rolling, fast cornering and fast technical climbing are all different things.....


Yep. And so is up/down roots, up/down rocks, and up/down loose sand (sand mostly being my area).


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

The Michelin Force XC just got tested by the rolling resistance site and got crushed for being one of the slowest tires tested. Still, I'm starting to rethink how much rolling resistance really matters since I set multiple PRs the week after installing a Force XC on the front. The old tire was a Bonty XR1 Expert. Of course, the Michelin weighs 80grams less so who knows....


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

midwestmtb said:


> The Michelin Force XC just got tested by the rolling resistance site and got crushed for being one of the slowest tires tested. Still, I'm starting to rethink how much rolling resistance really matters since I set multiple PRs the week after installing a Force XC on the front. The old tire was a Bonty XR1 Expert. Of course, the Michelin weighs 80grams less so who knows....


My experience is that a tire produces less RR on the front than it will on the back. But the steel wheel test don't line up with my personal real trail experiences either. Go with what works for you and don't worry about numbers on a website.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

My requirements for a race rear tire are: in order;
1. Must be able to be used tubeless
2. Traction
3. Must break loose before the front tire washes out in corners
4. Rolling resistance
5. Volume 2.2 or larger
6. Puncture resistance
7. Weight
8. Price
9. Wear

For a front Tire:
1. Must not break loose before the rear tire
2. Must work tubeless
3. Cornering
4. Volume at least 2.25
5. Rolling Resistance
6. Weight
7. Puncture resistance
8. Price
9. Wear

For me, tires make a huge difference. Every race involves trade offs and compromises. Fortunately I do not have to stick with any particular brand so I have many choices. Unfortunately, I have no tire sponsor so I must buy every tire I try. A few expensive tires I have tried have not survived a single race. I end up throwing a tube in the race causalities and run them on non race bikes or training wheel sets.


----------



## newking (Nov 6, 2007)

what is your overall impression of the Michelin tires. The Jet and Force look good on paper for size / weight but the Michelin website sucks.

Not may reviews on them
https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/03/17/michelin-back-mtb-four-new-tire-ranges-cover-riding-xc/


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I have Michelin Force XCs mounted on the front. Decent volume and good grip, although side knobs are already starting to show signs of wear after only about 10 hours on them. The weight for the 29x2.25 is 660grams which is very good. 

But according to the bicycle rolling resistance site, they are some of the slowest rollers tested. I haven't noticed any increase in drag compared to my Bontrager XR1s and my laptimes are a little faster if anything. Could be because I can corner more aggressively but I set PRs even on a fast singletrack with some extended double track. So who knows.....


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

midwestmtb said:


> Could be because I can corner more aggressively but I set PRs even on a fast singletrack with some extended double track. So who knows.....


A friend just set a few climbing PR's today and thought it was weird, since the only change was going from a 100mm cross country bike to a 150/135mm trail bike.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Nice Vittoria Mezcal review on YouTube by Clint Gibbs:


----------



## chestr (Oct 15, 2016)

I had one of my best results ever a few weeks ago running pair of force xc's. That rolling resistance page is not worth even looking at in my opinion.

I do think these force xc tyres will wear quick though. i already starting to see some knobs get eaten away after only 300km or so.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

*Redesigned Renegade 2.3 tires...*

Bike: Salsa Dos Niner XL
Rider Weight: 175
Tire Size: 29er 2.3 Renegade 2Bliss
Wheels: Specialized Roval Carbon
Pressure: 23 psi front/25 psi rear
Sauce: Stans

I finally decided my older Renegades had to go since the rear was totally bald after riding all Winter on pavement and gravel. I picked up a pair of the new Renegades earlier this year, but just got around to mounting them up last week.

Impressions so far....well, they are slower on pavement than my old bald Renegades were.

They were a MoFu to mount up as the bead is super tight. All that weight lifting finally was put to use last week to muscle these guys onto the rims. Good news - aired up with a floor pump.

They will hit dirt today, but before I do my initial impressions so far are these tires are more rounded and sit taller than the previous version of the 2.3 Renegades. Much larger knobs should provide ample traction, and improved braking over the "big velcro" previous version. Visually, or rather on sheer looks, they remind me of the Continental Race Kings in terms of profile, height, and knob length.

Anyway, looking forward to giving these a whirl today and using them in an upcoming race...



__
https://flic.kr/p/XK5GN2
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/



__
https://flic.kr/p/XEZkdo
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/



__
https://flic.kr/p/XK5GTx
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

BruceBrown said:


> Bike: Salsa Dos Niner XL
> Rider Weight: 175
> Tire Size: 29er 2.3 Renegade 2Bliss
> Wheels: Specialized Roval Carbon
> ...


I weigh 175 and had a pair of these on my bike for the whole marathon/endurance season down here in FL. Fantastic race tire for me, rolled fast and great in the sand where others struggled. Zero reliability issues other than me forgetting to add sealant mid season. I went down to a 2.1 Renegade in the rear for ORAMM to shave a little weight and add some grip as the rear 2.3 was looking a little bare after 1500+ miles. Only 50g savings so probably just go with the 2.3 if you're between the two sizes.

I'm going to try Mezcals for the upcoming XC season as an experiment, but the new Renegades set a pretty high bar for me with regards to durability, volume and grip.


----------



## 7daysaweek (May 7, 2008)

FWIW I had a race this weekend that was slightly slick on a flat/fast course and the Rocket Ron front, XR1 rear combo I ran seemed to work pretty well. 

Still not the worlds biggest fan of Bontrager tires but that combo worked well this time.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

pinkpowa said:


> I weigh 175 and had a pair of these on my bike for the whole marathon/endurance season down here in FL. Fantastic race tire for me, rolled fast and great in the sand where others struggled. Zero reliability issues other than me forgetting to add sealant mid season. I went down to a 2.1 Renegade in the rear for ORAMM to shave a little weight and add some grip as the rear 2.3 was looking a little bare after 1500+ miles. Only 50g savings so probably just go with the 2.3 if you're between the two sizes.
> 
> I'm going to try Mezcals for the upcoming XC season as an experiment, but the new Renegades set a pretty high bar for me with regards to durability, volume and grip.


I was very pleased with them on my initial dirt ride yesterday with them. One lap as warm up of my local stomping grounds, and one lap at race speed. Dirt is currently in nearly severe drought conditions (last time it was like this I needed a Knobby Nic front and rear to stay on the trail), so I did manage to lose the front wheel on a couple of corners that were loose, sandy dirt with small rocks about 2 inches deep at race speed - but that's too be expected in the current conditions on that particular course where I was riding (an old coal mine). In non-drought years, those same corners are baked clay which is like riding on cement. Braking on both wheels, and rear traction on climbs were all good. The Renegades felt every bit as fast, but with better traction, as the prior generation of Renegades. Now it's time to play with psi as it appears I might be able to go a pound or two lighter compared to the prior generation S-Works version.

Color me pleased thus far...


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

My local trail is typically loose over firm, with deep sugar sand in drought and firm concrete when it rains. New Renegade 2.3's do well in those conditions for me. I run them around the same pressure I ran the old Fast Trak Sworks at, within a pound or so.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I raced the Mezcals last night, typical mid-pack start in this group (all ages cat1), 100yards in there was a single track bottleneck where we stopped for a moment as everyone worked through, -a better start position would have helped me a few places. Very similar course conditions as with the other 2 times I've raced there as mentioned above (same bike with different tires); mostly hardpack, some 'marbles', dry bumpy grass, sand, and a few pavement sections, dusty and very dry right now. 

My finish position was pretty similar to the other races, but I was 2 minutes (hour race) closer to the leader than previous, I didn't feel like I really had a head for suffering and got stuck behind a couple of guys that were very strong in the straights and a bit slow in the twisties, everytime there was a place to pass their engine was bigger so I was stuck. But my achy legs afterwards indicated that I did a good effort.

The Mezcals felt very fast, with a lot of cornering confidence, I only washed out the front in the marbles once, -which can't be blamed on the tires. Afterwards I was talking to the guy who passed me late in the race and finished a second ahead of me (I finished just ahead of him last time), he had Mezcals too, and he raced them in our spring series in some mud. He was also very impressed and happy with the Mezcal in yesterdays dry conditions; fast rolling and very good cornering grip. He did not like them in the late-winter/early-spring muddy races (especially the snowy one shown in the race photos thread), his experience was that the close knobs got plugged with the stickier mud.

Overall I'm very pleased with the Mezcals; plenty fast with very good cornering grip (confidence is fast), and good climbing/braking grip as well. I'm sticking with the Mezcals as my dry tire. As of now I plan to switch to a more open knob (probably my Ground Control 2.3s) for the 2018 wet series that starts in February.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Has anyone weighed the Mezcal G+ TNT? I just picked up a set in 2.25 and was surprised they came in at 744g & 752g. That's 50g+ higher than advertised. I haven't mounted them up yet so we'll see how they actually feel on the trail, but I was definitely disappointed to see them come in ~100g heavier than the Renegade 2.3's they're replacing. Sidewalls on the Mezcals feel very substantial, so if it keeps me from flatting all XC season I suppose it's worth it.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Mine were 730g but they measure 2.25. my Rocket Ron were lighter but measure 2.15. The Mezcal seems fast and feels good.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

My Mezcal TNT 29x2.25 were 730g. 

I've only mounted one thus far. After a couple weeks of riding, on a 26mm ID Nox Teocalli rim, it measures 59mm.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

midwestmtb said:


> I have Michelin Force XCs mounted on the front. Decent volume and good grip, although side knobs are already starting to show signs of wear after only about 10 hours on them. The weight for the 29x2.25 is 660grams which is very good.
> 
> But according to the bicycle rolling resistance site, they are some of the slowest rollers tested. I haven't noticed any increase in drag compared to my Bontrager XR1s and my laptimes are a little faster if anything. Could be because I can corner more aggressively but I set PRs even on a fast singletrack with some extended double track. So who knows.....


I had good luck with Michelin Wild Race'R Advanced tires this year. Wore the rear down to nothing. They don't come with a lot of tread necessarily, but I like wearing a tire down rather than prematurely having it's life shortened due to some of the issues I've had with Schwalbe tires being punctured/getting cut and delaminating. The casing and bead seem to make up for the lack of tread, rather than sacrificing that to run a much lighter casing with more aggressive tread.


----------



## Little_twin (Feb 23, 2016)

LMN said:


> I actually raced a DHF in a race two weeks ago. But the race did have 1500m of climbing and 2300m of descending.
> 
> I don't think the DHF was the difference but looking at the race analysis afterwards I put almost 5 minutes into the guys who climbed with me on the descents.
> 
> And of all ironies it was a three day stage race and my best "climbing day" was the day I ran the DHF.


My favorite combo is a 27.5 2.35 dhf up front and a 27.5 2.35 ikon in the rear. I keep tossing around the idea of an ikon in the front but just don't know if I want to give up the edge grip of the dhf


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Little_twin said:


> My favorite combo is a 27.5 2.35 dhf up front and a 27.5 2.35 ikon in the rear. I keep tossing around the idea of an ikon in the front but just don't know if I want to give up the edge grip of the dhf


For XC racing?

Must admit, I'm tempted to try one, but they do weigh a bit...


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

The Race King was nice while it lasted...pretty sure I pinched the bead today.

Not the tires fault, I was running enduro trails where anything less then a 130 bike really shouldn't go, and I was on my 100mm HT clearing doubles. Oh well.

A friend gave me his "worn" Ardent Race 2.35. So I am thinking I'll put that up front, and put a RaRa back on the rear for my upcoming endurance race.

(Picture not where I flatted, I flatted in a rock garden)


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

This is probably drifting into a different topic, but do y'all use those Dynaplugs or Strips of Bacon (Genuine Innovation product) to solve your puncture problems? Any puncture in a race might be game over but I had good luck recently sealing a puncture on a Racing Ralph with a strip of bacon back at the shop when I had time to deal with it and the tire will live to see another day. I've heard Dynaplugs work even better because they self-expand around the hole so they won't pop out. I am definitely going to be bringing these in my tool kit next year as they weigh next to nothing and they are a super easy fix.


----------



## Walt Disney's Frozen Head (Jan 9, 2008)

ohmygato said:


> This is probably drifting into a different topic, but do y'all use those Dynaplugs...


fwiw, I carry them but (knock on wood) have yet to use them.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

ohmygato said:


> This is probably drifting into a different topic, but do y'all use those Dynaplugs or Strips of Bacon (Genuine Innovation product) to solve your puncture problems? Any puncture in a race might be game over but I had good luck recently sealing a puncture on a Racing Ralph with a strip of bacon back at the shop when I had time to deal with it and the tire will live to see another day. I've heard Dynaplugs work even better because they self-expand around the hole so they won't pop out. I am definitely going to be bringing these in my tool kit next year as they weigh next to nothing and they are a super easy fix.


I normally use thorns or whatever is around, seems to work well. On longer routes or dangerous ones I definitely recommend bacon or dynaplugs + airpump and extra tube.


----------



## KingShine (Mar 17, 2015)

I haven't seen a single opinion on Conti X-Kings 27.5 Folding Performance 2.2. Do u recommend them for XC racing / marathon?


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

Mezcal 29x2.25 TNT G+ initial impression is good after a 22 mile shakedown run yesterday. Riding some roots, but mostly loose over hard with spots of sand they handled it all well. Tons of grip compared to Fast Traks or Renegades which I had been running. Roll well, nice volume, tons of cornering grip. It's too early to fully review the tires, but I'm comfortable running them for the XC season this fall. I'll know more in a month or two...


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

tommyrod74 said:


> I guess I could post this on the "2017 race rig" thread as well...
> 
> I rode a client's Kona Hei Hei DL Carbon 29 over the weekend. It had 2.35" Nobby Nic front/2.25" Ralph rear, 120mm Fox 32 fork (so ~68.5 head angle). Size large, so really long reach/front center with the 51mm offset fork and long TT/steep seat angle combo.
> 
> ...


Okay, I know this is getting to be totally OCD, but since you nerds have turned me into a tire freak I need to ask...

How is that 2.35 Nobby Nic working out for you guys on the front? I have been thinking about putting mine on for a couple of months now and still have one fresh in the package. I am worried a bit about the weight penalty but looking to try something new... looking at 2.35 Nic front, 2.35 RaRa rear.


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

Where did you buy yours?


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

KingShine said:


> I haven't seen a single opinion on Conti X-Kings 27.5 Folding Performance 2.2. Do u recommend them for XC racing / marathon?


We did a test on the X-kings 2 summers ago and compared them to the following tires: Rocket Ron, Ardent, Neo-Moto and a Hans Dampf/Nobby Nic as a benchmark.

The link to the study results is at: https://www.dirtmerchantbikes.com/s...northwest-summer-2015-xc-tire-comparison-test

We weren't testing race tires, per se, but were testing faster rolling tires for dry summer conditions.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

KingShine said:


> I haven't seen a single opinion on Conti X-Kings 27.5 Folding Performance 2.2. Do u recommend them for XC racing / marathon?


The 2.2 is too small in my opinion. "Performance" indicates their cheaper rubber compound, which means less grip and higher rolling resistance. Grip is similar to a Rocket Ron, but a bit less predictable side grip in my experience. It's not a bad tire, but I would recommend the 2.4 and Black Chili compound (Protection or RaceSport varieties).


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

spsoon said:


> The 2.2 is too small in my opinion. "Performance" indicates their cheaper rubber compound, which means less grip and higher rolling resistance. Grip is similar to a Rocket Ron, but a bit less predictable side grip in my experience. It's not a bad tire, but I would recommend the 2.4 and Black Chili compound (Protection or RaceSport varieties).


Agreed from my experience as well, the X-king has a sharp cornering feel but tends to break away a bit unpredictably at the limit.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

X-King: I had the cheaper version (in 2.2x29) on the rear for 3 seasons, in a lot of wet. I was very happy with it, and won & podiumed a bunch of wet & rooty races (cat1 masters), also had some good performances in dry. Only 1 crash where the bike just disappeared out from under me, I can't really blame that on the tires specifically, but I would have rather not crashed and given more side grip on that slick sidehill I might have stayed upright, it think it broke loose on a root and that was it.
I can't say I'm any happier in mud on the Ground Control I ran this last season. I also remember a race with the X-king rear where the mud was very greasy and peanut-buttery, there was a lot of just sliding around on that course, I don't think very many guys brought the right tires that day, I remember passing a SS guy, then just sliding off the trail into the brush/trees, it was slow so it was more funny than anything (still 2nd in my group that day). The knobs are just widely spaced enough to not generally get packed tight, except in the worst sticky mud conditions.
That X-king did weep out of the sidewall, but held air fine and I never had a flat or burp. I know a couple of fast guys that have run the x-king and have been happy. I would run one or two of those again; a good 'do it all' tire in my opinion.


----------



## meschenbruch (Jan 15, 2017)

Has anyone considered a maxxis minion ss?? Last season (am in New Zealand so winter here at the moment) i went with a RaRo front and TB rear which i enjoyed. Will be trying a RaRa front this time around as reading through this thread i see that it's probably more suitable for the majority hard pack course that we run. 

Have just been trawling thru the auction sites and there's a couple minion ss' that are at half price so crossed my mind to give that a spin as a burlier TB.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Anyone seen any of the Vittoria 29x2.35 tires for sale anywhere? Just moved to an area with a LOT of sand and need more volume. The Mezcal 29x2.35 looks like the tool for the job.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## teleken (Jul 22, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> Anyone seen any of the Vittoria 29x2.35 tires for sale anywhere? Just moved to an area with a LOT of sand and need more volume. The Mezcal 29x2.35 looks like the tool for the job.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


I found some on Jenson. I just got a Barzo 2.35 but have not mounted it yet. Once you venture down to C. Springs and experience the deep decomposed granite you'll love a 2.35 front tire even more!

Vittoria Mezcal Iii TNT G+ 29 Tire | Jenson USA


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

Something strange I've found is that the 2.25 mezcal, which I'm running on the rear, is wider than the 2.25 barzo I have on the front. It ain't right. Need to pick up one of the barzo 2.35s. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

G-Choro said:


> Something strange I've found is that the 2.25 mezcal, which I'm running on the rear, is wider than the 2.25 barzo I have on the front. It ain't right. Need to pick up one of the barzo 2.35s.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Agreed, the Mezcal 2.25 is easily as wide as my Renegade 2.3 on the same rims. Nice big volume casing.


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Anyone seen any of the Vittoria 29x2.35 tires for sale anywhere? Just moved to an area with a LOT of sand and need more volume. The Mezcal 29x2.35 looks like the tool for the job.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Pro Bike Kit has them for $45. Spend $79 for free shipping. Get two!

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

meschenbruch said:


> Has anyone considered a maxxis minion ss?? Last season (am in New Zealand so winter here at the moment) i went with a RaRo front and TB rear which i enjoyed. Will be trying a RaRa front this time around as reading through this thread i see that it's probably more suitable for the majority hard pack course that we run.
> 
> Have just been trawling thru the auction sites and there's a couple minion ss' that are at half price so crossed my mind to give that a spin as a burlier TB.


I just tried this tire because I popped my first ever Ikon in Sedona while on a trip on a fluke. It was fine in Sedona on the sliderock. When I went to a more sandy/dirt area of Santa Fe on the way home it was good, in fact it railed on Winsor trail and would have been great at La tierra. When I got home, I promptly rode it around one of our race courses that is pretty chunky. It was so bad I took it off right away and traded it for a spare Hans Dampf which I run up front all off season.

In the loose over hard it was really exposed and would slide in a nasty way in slight turns where you could not lean it on the knobs. Its fine if the turn is more sweeping of if your dirt is softer. In the chunk it sucked! The 60tpi and much smaller casing compared to the IKON was a momentum killer. I promptly bought an Ikon 2.35 on the way home from the trail.

I thought I would right a review of it in case anyone was considering, but I thought I would be laughed at for reviewing a 810 gram 60 tpi rear tire in an XC forum.
You may want to try the Aspen 2.25 instead or the big volume Ikon.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

KingShine said:


> I haven't seen a single opinion on Conti X-Kings 27.5 Folding Performance 2.2. Do u recommend them for XC racing / marathon?


I hate the darn things, they're thoroughly mediocre in every way. They don't do anything well at all. They don't brake any better than a semi-slick, they don't roll particularly fast, and they sure as heck don't corner nor climb well. I'd rather ride a Race King, they may have questionable grip on anything other than hardpack but at least they roll really fast. I'd take a Ritchey Z-Max over an X-king, I'm not even joking.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I loved the x-king on the back of my single speed for climbing.
I've got a pair of 485g x-king racesport's to go on the 26er for the next race that doesn't need the Ikon/Ardent Race combo.


----------



## KingShine (Mar 17, 2015)

aerius said:


> I hate the darn things, they're thoroughly mediocre in every way. They don't do anything well at all. They don't brake any better than a semi-slick, they don't roll particularly fast, and they sure as heck don't corner nor climb well. I'd rather ride a Race King, they may have questionable grip on anything other than hardpack but at least they roll really fast. I'd take a Ritchey Z-Max over an X-king, I'm not even joking.


And what good tires would u recommend for marathon/XC racing for 27.5 ?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

KingShine said:


> And what good tires would u recommend for marathon/XC racing for 27.5 ?


All depends on conditions. I race in hardpack and loose over hard, and got really good results with TB R, RaRa F, except that TB flats way too easily. RaRa F and R works pretty well, but the old Schwalbe compounds didn't last very long. Haven't tried Addix yet. I'm moving over to Ikons or Ikon R, AR F in the looser stuff. Will see how that fares.


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

KingShine said:


> I haven't seen a single opinion on Conti X-Kings 27.5 Folding Performance 2.2. Do u recommend them for XC racing / marathon?


Personally I really hate this damn thing... with passion! It's complete **** of a tire. I got them on my bike, so I said I will use them as front tire this year, and it was mistake. I should have paid those few euros and got my standard front tire (Schwalbe Rocket Ron). X-king I'm using is 29" 2.20 RaceSport. It converts to tubeless relatively easy, even though nowhere near as easy as Race King Protection I'm using for rear, but still much much easier then Rocket Ron LiteSkin. But that's where good things of this tire ends. Compared to Rocket Ron, they roll slower, they are heavier and they have absolutely no grip on gravel. On forest trails they still work somehow ok (still worse then Rocket Ron), but as soon as you come to gravel it's like you are floating above stones and you have zero grip. I have been playing with air pressure for ages, I have been playing with suspension setup for ages, but nothing helps. Tire is complete crap.
On the other side, Race King is tire I love for rear tire, so not all Conti stuff is bad, and compared to X-king's grip, I would rather go with Race King even for front if you want to use same company rear and front. It can't be worse then Xking regarding grip, except it will roll a whole lot faster.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

KingShine said:


> And what good tires would u recommend for marathon/XC racing for 27.5 ?


Vittoria Mezcal or Peyote depending on trail conditions, Mezcal for hard & dry, Peyote if it gets softer & wet.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

*Maxxis Ikon 2.35 Front, 2.25 Rear*

I am a latecomer to the tire testing craze and I am trying to test as many takeoff/used tires that I can get my hands on in the offseason this year. Most of them are going to be classic XC racing tires. I have been riding RaRas the past two years and have been very happy with them. I started out on a TB rear but switched over to RaRa mid-2016. I am going to give my impressions here as I test.

I tried a pair of Ikons yesterday, 2.35 in front and 2.25 in the back. I forget the casing/compound details but I am pretty sure they are the higher end tires. I ran them at about 26 psi rear, 24 psi front. My conditions yesterday were almost exclusively very dry with a mix of hardpack, dust, sand, and loose over hard. I did ride an extended length of asphalt surface streets too.

In general I think these tires want to go fast in a straight line and they want at least a little soft soil to bite into. The rear tire did really well climbing for me and this was the most noticeable advantage over the RaRa, although I do wonder if my rear RaRa is just so worn out (probably about 50-60% tread left) that its climbing performance is now seriously diminished. I do a lot of position changes, varying cadence, and hard pushes when climbing and the rear Ikon did not once lose grip. It also just seemed to want to be pushed hard up the hills. I really liked the climbing performance of this tire.

I found the front tire to grip fine as long as I was moving fast and not making any sudden sharp turns. I got into a couple spots where I was moving slow and turning quickly and I started losing it. Once was in some dead grass. I was a little surprised at how unforgiving the front was to sharp turns. It could be that the side knobs just aren't meant for leaning it way over and relying on them. Or maybe my rims are too wide for this tire. I think I am going to experiment with dropping the pressure to as low as 20 psi and see how it does.

I was happy with the way the rear tire cornered relative to the front. I was able to slide it when I needed to without going out of control, otherwise it seemed grippy enough in the turns.

Both tires seemed to do really well in deep sand. They held a line well and did not fishtail even when pedaling hard and turning.

I didn't notice any problems with rolling resistance on the dirt, but rolling resistance seemed BAD on the asphalt. This was really surprising but I don't think there was any denying they were slow on the road. They seemed to sap a lot of speed when rolling down and they made a lot of audible noise. This was a bit of a bummer since I did really like the way the rear tire climbed and some courses I race do have extended road sections where the rolling resistance will make a difference, so this alone may prevent me from using it as a rear tire.

Overall I think these tires would be a great pair for fast courses composed mainly of dirt with few sharp turns. They would probably excel on courses that have short punchy dirt climbs. I think if there is a lot of asphalt, rocks/roots, or sharp turns there would be a better set of tires out there.


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

ohmygato said:


> Overall I think these tires would be a great pair for fast courses composed mainly of dirt with few sharp turns. They would probably excel on courses that have short punchy dirt climbs. I think if there is a lot of asphalt, rocks/roots, or sharp turns there would be a better set of tires out there.


Thanks for this timely post. I just ordered this exact combo and should get a chance to try it later this week. I was hoping for some improved cornering traction with the 2.35 up front (coming from a 2.25 Rocket Ron). It has been really dry in SE Michigan this year, and the trails are hard with lots of loose stuff over the top. Sketchy in the turns, and I wiped out again this weekend as the front washed out (potentially attributable to poor technique!)

What is the inner width of the rims you are running? I have two sets, both fairly narrow (21mm and 23mm).


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Had a pretty big race on Saturday, 8 hour endurance. I didn't get to check out the course before hand as it wasn't officially open to riding and new, but based on trails in the area and word of mouth, I kept the Hans Dampf 2.35 and replaced the rear Race King that I ruined with a RaRa 2.25.

The rear was barely adequate, almost regret running it. I should have gone with something heavier to grip in the soft, sandy climb and the couple of rock gardens (some of the course would be used on the Enduro the next day). But I was lucky and never had to dab anywhere, and the rear survived. 

But as I finished first overall, it's hard to complain. Definitely glad I had the HD up front to dig in to the soft corners , and the RaRa was perfect at being predictable about sliding.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

ohmygato said:


> I am a latecomer to the tire testing craze and I am trying to test as many takeoff/used tires that I can get my hands on in the offseason this year. Most of them are going to be classic XC racing tires. I have been riding RaRas the past two years and have been very happy with them. I started out on a TB rear but switched over to RaRa mid-2016. I am going to give my impressions here as I test.
> 
> I tried a pair of Ikons yesterday, 2.35 in front and 2.25 in the back. I forget the casing/compound details but I am pretty sure they are the higher end tires. I ran them at about 26 psi rear, 24 psi front. My conditions yesterday were almost exclusively very dry with a mix of hardpack, dust, sand, and loose over hard. I did ride an extended length of asphalt surface streets too.
> 
> ...


Great info, thanks for sharing. What sag are you running the tires? PSI doesn't help much comparing between riders and various bikes....

I just ordered the Ikon and AR for R and F respectively, both 2.35, at a friend's recommendation. Been exclusively on Schwalbes for the last two years, so will be very interesting to test this combo.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> Had a pretty big race on Saturday, 8 hour endurance. I didn't get to check out the course before hand as it wasn't officially open to riding and new, but based on trails in the area and word of mouth, I kept the Hans Dampf 2.35 and replaced the rear Race King that I ruined with a RaRa 2.25.
> 
> The rear was barely adequate, almost regret running it. I should have gone with something heavier to grip in the soft, sandy climb and the couple of rock gardens (some of the course would be used on the Enduro the next day). But I was lucky and never had to dab anywhere, and the rear survived.
> 
> But as I finished first overall, it's hard to complain. Definitely glad I had the HD up front to dig in to the soft corners , and the RaRa was perfect at being predictable about sliding.


Would't have predicted that RaRa performed worse than Race King.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

ohmygato said:


> I found the front tire to grip fine as long as I was moving fast and not making any sudden sharp turns.
> ...
> 
> I didn't notice any problems with rolling resistance on the dirt, but rolling resistance seemed BAD on the asphalt. This was really surprising but I don't think there was any denying they were slow on the road.


Yup, that was my Ikon EXO/EXC experience also. Ran them for a month, rolled slow without the corresponding cornering grip. Didn't even keep for a backup pair, just gave them away to someone who needed a new pair. Just not a good XC race tire at all IMO.


----------



## Walt Disney's Frozen Head (Jan 9, 2008)

ohmygato said:


> I tried a pair of Ikons yesterday, 2.35 in front and 2.25 in the back. I forget the casing/compound details but I am pretty sure they are the higher end tires. I ran them at about 26 psi rear, 24 psi front. My conditions yesterday were almost exclusively very dry with a mix of hardpack, dust, sand, and loose over hard. I did ride an extended length of asphalt surface streets too.
> 
> I found the front tire to grip fine as long as I was moving fast and not making any sudden sharp turns. I got into a couple spots where I was moving slow and turning quickly and I started losing it. Once was in some dead grass. I was a little surprised at how unforgiving the front was to sharp turns. It could be that the side knobs just aren't meant for leaning it way over and relying on them. Or maybe my rims are too wide for this tire. I think I am going to experiment with dropping the pressure to as low as 20 psi and see how it does.


depending on your weight and rim width I think your front tire pressure is a little high and your 20# would likely behave better. For reference I'm ~170 in my birthday suit and typically run some LB rims (25mm ID? give or take a mm) on the HT and a variety of I9 wheels on FS. I keep the front right at 20# by my pump and ~23-4# rear with 2.35 front/2.25 rear both exo.

Icons are my go to for places I haven't ridden as they're decent or better in a wide variety of conditions.


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

winters.benjamin said:


> Great info, thanks for sharing. What sag are you running the tires? PSI doesn't help much comparing between riders and various bikes....


I personally don't measure sag but I can tell you that I am on the new LB Flyweight rims at 22 mm inner (they work great by the way) and I weigh about 155-160 lbs. My bike is a little heavy at around 26-28 lbs right now just guessing.

I agree that I probably should be running the front at quite a bit lower pressure, probably down to 20 psi or so.

Note that I only said the rolling resistance was bad on asphalt. I did not notice a difference in rolling resistance on dirt between the Ikon and RaRa. I did notice, however, that the Ikon seemed to climb dirt quite a bit better with very little slipping. So if your course includes a lot of asphalt or perhaps a lot of flat hardpack sections I think there would be a better choice. I think if you have a lot of short punchy or loose climbs it would work really well as a rear tire.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> Would't have predicted that RaRa performed worse than Race King.


Not the tires fault. I was doing some pretty serious enduro style riding in some rock gardens and jumps. I didn't see anyone else clearing the doubles I was taking on my HT when everyone else was on a minimum of 130mm FS bikes (to be fair, my friend on his 180mm bike would have, but crashed after a bush grabbed his handlebar and tossed him, forcing him to leave).

I bought a 160mm bike the next day. N+1


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Pressure is more critical for grip on more supple casing tires, like Maxxis eXC 120 tpi. Pump them up hard, or soft, they have about the same rolling resistance, since there's less damping from the casing itself. Too much and your tires will be pinging/bouncing, being off the ground, rather than sticking to the ground. Tires in the air offer no control; you just have to go with it and try to force any direction change/acceleration with any support you can find on the ground. There's also hysteresis from the rubber compound itself to consider--a harder compound rolls faster. A MaxxSpeed would be faster than a non-3C compound, but is also less grippy, especially on slick surfaces.

Get the pressure right, and you'll enjoy more traction, more comfort, better rolling resistance, at cost of lower puncture resistance. Pumping it up harder doesn't do much to help with the low puncture resistance issue--it might actually make it worse, since the tire will feel more out of control. With less control, you'll be less able to limit puncture risk with better line choice, since you'll be busy trying to hold things together.

Race King (Black Chili) is better than RaRa in the dry. I have no doubt about this. Schwalbe's old compounds are more suited to dirt with more moisture. Think canopied forest dirt, as opposed to exposed sun baked dirt. Sidewalk's RK was ProTection, which has a thicker casing, and more suited to handling bigger hits. He's a bike abuser... he's someone I'd hire to find weaknesses in a bike.

Back to the topic on tires, basically everything's a compromise. You need to know more about all the details to know what to pick according to conditions. You can't really just pick one tire and call it your favorite for everything. You have to just know what specific tires are good for a certain trail, terrain type, riding style demands (race, casual, etc.), climate conditions, etc. There's much strategy that can go into the preparation phase, yet people seem to not treat it seriously. Races are won and lost based on tire choice in all disciplines of riding. Isn't that enough reason to learn more about them besides the name on the side, the weight, who uses them or how popular they are? The quest to find the "best" tire, is one that will never end. Trying to settle on one tire that does better than average in categories that suits you is like giving up.

Tires are way more important than most realize. It's okay to think tires are limiting you in one way or another, because they are. They create artificial limits on speed and limit line choice options. It's okay to be thinking that one tire is better than another. It's okay to agonize over 5% differences in tire pressure (20 psi vs 21 psi). If you shunned tires for every bad experience you had on one or another, I don't expect you to be happy on any. Look for where tires excel and exploit that knowledge.

Oh, and I have one good experience using a "strip of bacon" plug on my hardtail's Vittoria rear tire that had a hole too big for TruckerCo sealant to plug. Did it at home and didn't cut it too flush, assuming the excess would get worn down. It didn't after 100s of miles, but the tire's holding air well, despite looking wet all over from sealant working on all the smaller punctures. Definitely saved me some $$$, and it was super easy; I just followed instructions on the back of the package.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Varaxis said:


> He's a bike abuser... he's someone I'd hire to find weaknesses in a bike.


My rates are low!


----------



## Little_twin (Feb 23, 2016)

NordieBoy said:


> For XC racing?
> 
> Must admit, I'm tempted to try one, but they do weigh a bit...


Yep. Got a 5th in a 35 mile race two weeks ago. The front is heavy, and at times I am tempted to try something a bit lighter and faster but the grip and protection is worth the penalty especially in the rocky and loose conditions that I race in.

I also use my anthem for all of my weekly trail riding which includes some very agrressive dh oriented trails and I'm lazy and don't like swapping tires.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Little_twin said:


> I also use my anthem for all of my weekly trail riding which includes some very agrressive dh oriented trails and I'm lazy and don't like swapping tires.


Same here, but it's a Kona Unit single speed with Ikon's front and rear


----------



## Little_twin (Feb 23, 2016)

NordieBoy said:


> Same here, but it's a Kona Unit single speed with Ikon's front and rear


I am thinking about a set of 29x2.35 ikon's for my rigid singlespeed


----------



## honkonbobo (Nov 18, 2006)

MattMay said:


> In case anyone's considering Aspens, I just moved my 29 x 2.25 Aspens from 23mm internal rims to 26mm internal rims. Tire grew from 2.249 to 2.3 on the nose. Tires are 2 months old so stretched, not new.


yours must have stretched or be at a higher pressure...

my experience after 2 days installed:

30mm internal/35mm external carbon hookless rim - after 2 days installed

aspen 29x2.25 EXO/TR @ 22psi - 2.10"/53.3mm knob - 2.26"/57.4mm casing

ardent race 29x2.35 EXO/TR @ 21psi - 2.3"/58.4mm knob - 2.33"/59.2mm casing

i thought i read the ardent race used the same casing as the 29x2.35 ikon but the ikon seems significantly wider and taller on the same rim.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Yes, they stretched. Measured at 2 months, per my post. Pressure 21 and 23. Also, non EXO so sidewalls not as stiff. Good news is sizing is accurate, per your own measure (2.26).


----------



## honkonbobo (Nov 18, 2006)

MattMay said:


> Yes, they stretched. Measured at 2 months, per my post. Pressure 21 and 23. Also, non EXO so sidewalls not as stiff. Good news is sizing is accurate, per your own measure (2.26).


good to know. thanks.

the other good news is tread life is good. i just completed the trans north georgia 360+ mile race with a few shakedown rides before with the aspen on the rear and the tread is holding up well with significant paved and gravel road sections. no issue with the sidewalls (EXO/TR) on the rocky stuff.

i found the tire surprisingly capable over alot of different (dry) trail conditions with good cornering but lacking a bit in straight up braking traction which isnt a surprise given the tread pattern. havent had it in mud yet but obviously not expecting great things.

so far a fast and durable anything but mud tire for me.


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

MattMay said:


> Yes, they stretched. Measured at 2 months, per my post. Pressure 21 and 23. Also, non EXO so sidewalls not as stiff. Good news is sizing is accurate, per your own measure (2.26).


Where did you find them in stock?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I suppose this fits in this thread: does rolling resistance increase as a tire ages?, is tire noise an indicator or higher rolling resistance? I've noticed my old cx tires are noisier on the road than I remember them being before, and I have some really old specialized tires on my vintage mtb that really howl on pavement.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

G-Choro said:


> Where did you find them in stock?


I bought direct from Maxxis at the time. Looks like only EXO version available right now: Bicycle, Mountain, Aspen


----------



## ohmygato (Mar 8, 2011)

jimPacNW said:


> I suppose this fits in this thread: does rolling resistance increase as a tire ages?, is tire noise an indicator or higher rolling resistance? I've noticed my old cx tires are noisier on the road than I remember them being before, and I have some really old specialized tires on my vintage mtb that really howl on pavement.


I would be really surprised if it wasn't the opposite; Rolling resistance (on pavement/lab test at least) decreases as a tire ages because you wear down the tread.

I think of noise as one of at least a couple forms of energy that a power loss creates, the other main one being heat.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

yeah, I think you're right; noise doesn't require a lot of energy, like the leaf stuck on the bike rubbing against the tire, it can be loud but probably doesn't slow you down at all. But it is annoying!


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

I've been on Mezcal this year, very fast. But lately I tried Specialized Ground Control 's(in rainy days) and really enjoyed my ride (braking grip and cornering). Waiting for a set of Barzo (2.25), I just read that they don't have as much volume as the Mezcal ?! I'm hoping they are close to 2.25 like the Mezcal. In the meantime I've been riding X-King at the front and Race at the back, very nice grip cornering at the front ! But it measures 2.1 for the X-King and 2.25 for the RaceKing (both are 2.2)


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

wheelzqc said:


> I've been on Mezcal this year, very fast. But lately I tried Specialized Ground Control 's(in rainy days) and really enjoyed my ride (braking grip and cornering). Waiting for a set of Barzo (2.25), I just read that they don't have as much volume as the Mezcal ?! I'm hoping they are close to 2.25 like the Mezcal. In the meantime I've been riding X-King at the front and Race at the back, very nice grip cornering at the front ! But it measures 2.1 for the X-King and 2.25 for the RaceKing (both are 2.2)


Mezcal is definitely wider than the Barzo. I'll be moving to 2.35 barzo up front, as I'm mentally unprepared to have a wider tire in the rear than is on the front.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

I guess that's why they seem to weight less ! Like the Rocket Ron, measuring smaller.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Switched my X-King/RaceKing combo for my Mezcal that I had. I think I preferred the Continental combo ! Front and rear. Waiting for a Barzo set in the mail any day now. I'm anxious to test them. Mezcal on 22.5 rims were 2.28ish. The X-King 2.15 at best but had great front grip ! I'm sure I used the break less because of that. Good tests before next season.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

Raced my hardtail mtb on a rough/bumpy grass cx course yesterday; Peyote front and TB rear, both 29x2.25 on old stans ztrs, 24psi (I'm just under 170# now). Really great tire combo for dry grass and hardpack with some loose; fast and really good corner grip, I especially liked the Peyote front. It feels really weird (and good) to pass cat1s on level grass on their cx bikes while on a 29er mtb. I think I will go with Peyote fr&rr when the TB wears out for this sort of course.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

jimPacNW said:


> Raced my hardtail mtb on a rough/bumpy grass cx course yesterday; Peyote front and TB rear, both 29x2.25 on old stans ztrs, 24psi (I'm just under 170# now). Really great tire combo for dry grass and hardpack with some loose; fast and really good corner grip, I especially liked the Peyote front. It feels really weird (and good) to pass cat1s on level grass on their cx bikes while on a 29er mtb. I think I will go with Peyote fr&rr when the TB wears out for this sort of course.


I'd be interested to see how the Peyote compares to the Mezcal for rolling resistance. The Mezcals seem to have great grip, I'd be interested in trading some grip for weight in the rear for race day. I've been thinking the Renegade 2.3 would be a good rear option for me to pair with the Mezcal 2.25 G+ TNT up front, might try that after a few rounds of fall XC season. Starts this weekend!


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

I've been testing sets back and forth lately. Just by feeling, nothing scientific. My thoughts lately have been that the Mezcal is really fast but does give away in the grip department. I still set PRs when I go full gas on some segments (with the Mezcal) but I end up being surprised seeing the the times since I usually find that I was not as much in control of my lines. Conditions are dry at the moment. Their 2.25 does have good volume. I'll test in the next few days (again, its been a few months) a pair of Rocket Ron (measuring a bit over 2.2 on my rims). Still waiting for the Barzo in the mail ... My plan with the Barzo is to start with a fresh one at the front and the Mezcal at the back.


----------



## Little_twin (Feb 23, 2016)

My new bike came with an ardent race front ikon rear. Both 29x2.2 in the 3c exo maxspeed flavor. I am impressed with the grip the ardent has up front. I am running the on i23 rims and pressures are 22 psi front 24 psi rear.


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

Little_twin said:


> My new bike came with an ardent race front ikon rear. Both 29x2.2 in the 3c exo maxspeed flavor. I am impressed with the grip the ardent has up front. I am running the on i23 rims and pressures are 22 psi front 24 psi rear.


That's almost my setup ( different rims). How do you feel about the Ikon rear? I have to say it's the best dry hardpack tire combo I've ran, but I've had slippage problems on rocky terrain and climbing rock gardens. And if the rocks are wet forget about it, traction out back.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

wheelzqc said:


> I've been testing sets back and forth lately. Just by feeling, nothing scientific. My thoughts lately have been that the Mezcal is really fast but does give away in the grip department. I still set PRs when I go full gas on some segments (with the Mezcal) but I end up being surprised seeing the the times since I usually find that I was not as much in control of my lines. Conditions are dry at the moment. Their 2.25 does have good volume. I'll test in the next few days (again, its been a few months) a pair of Rocket Ron (measuring a bit over 2.2 on my rims). Still waiting for the Barzo in the mail ... My plan with the Barzo is to start with a fresh one at the front and the Mezcal at the back.


The barzo 2.35 tnt is my favorite dry front tire. It's not the new G+. True size on 26mm id rim. Like it so much it pulls double duty on my xc race bike and new trail bike.
Based on forum input I have a set of 2.35 Mezcal G+ tnt 4C coming. Will be on back of two bikes one of which has Ikon 2.2 exo tr 3c. I like the 2.2 Ikon as a rear, but hype and mag reviews made me pull the mezcal g+ trigger.
My trails have too much loose over hardpack and many think a mezcal front is sketchy in those conditions. 
I have a 2.25 rocket ron evo ls, and it is my least favorite front tire on any bike in any condition at any psi. Maybe I got spooked when it let me down on every ride over a 2 week period (24mm id rims) during the deep loose dry summer trails which it's not made for, but the mezcal reviews are so stellar that I'll take the extra weight. Vittoria has moved up my favorite tire list equaling or surpassing Maxxis in many models. I'm done with Schwalbe (and I get them at employee price).


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Quick update: I've run the Ikon 2.35 R and Ardent Race 2.35 F combo for one easy and two hard rides on hardpack and loose over hard. Some steep-ish climbing, fast descending and a good amount of tight singletrack. No complaints at all. My prior combinations were either Racing Ralph F/R or RaRa F, Thunder Burt R. The Maxxis volume appears larger than either of the Schwalbe combos, though I haven't taken the calipers to verify. Knob transition in cornering is pretty smooth, and sliding is predictable. And, best of all, I haven't flatted yet. On the Schwalbes, even with snakeskin, I would have flatted twice already if not more.


----------



## Little_twin (Feb 23, 2016)

Ksanman said:


> That's almost my setup ( different rims). How do you feel about the Ikon rear? I have to say it's the best dry hardpack tire combo I've ran, but I've had slippage problems on rocky terrain and climbing rock gardens. And if the rocks are wet forget about it, traction out back.


I love the icon rear. I have the 2.2 on my race bike and a 2.35 on my trail bike. I started running it at the beginning of the summer so I can't comment on its wet performance but would assume it to be fairly poor. I do find that in bare rocks it doesn't have the most grip, but that with good technique and gear selection I can climb just about anything. I plan on replacing the ikon with a forkaster this winter as I suspect it will perform well in the wet.


----------



## dokker (Sep 25, 2013)

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/09/26/continental/

New tires from Continental.

New Race King protection is looking very interesting. 574g for 29" 2,2" tire with reinforced sidewalls. Improved design for wider rims.

I just wonder if protection version is as ridig as previous versions.


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

X-king is now spelled out as a cross king and they replaced the 2.4 with a 2.3. I hope it’s not actually any smaller than the 2.4. The 2.4 was big enough that I’d get some flotation in sand and be able to do sandy climbs with it (its main advantage over the race king imo).


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

I liked the X-King even if the 2.2 blew smaller. I'll follow their new models for sure.

Just got a ride in with the Vittoria Barzo TNT not G+. Have a pair but only installed the front paired with a Mezcal rear, both in 2.25. The Barzo weights in at 660g and measures out of the box [email protected] and [email protected] on a 22.5mm rim. Profil is very round for the Barzo, looks like a good cornering tire Conditions are dry and loose over hard right now. The Barzo replaced a front Mezcal. 

It was a very fun ride. It feels smooths riding, even on pavement you don't feel the knob height. Great grip on little rocks and in turns. It felt like the Mezcal behind was begging to stop, barely holding the Barzo lines on fast sections. Steering felt more precise and confident with the Barzo upfront. I'd be curious to try Barzo front and rear, see how fast it can be. So far the Barzo-Mezcal combo feels fast. Had compliments from my riding partner about how smooth I was cornering and nailing the technical sections. I'd like to bring it more in rocky technical terrain! and also try it in more wet conditions.

tubeless setup wise, the Barzo had no issues to hold air over night even without sealant. Very easy to setup; same with the Mezcal that I could do with a floor pump.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

re Vittoria and tubeless setup; I've been swapping tires around, and just converted my cx bike to tubeless (vittoria cross xl pro 33s, -those were super tight getting over the Neugent rim!), I've done all the setups/changes with just a floor pump. 
I ordered another Peyote off ebay, I'm going to put my pair of those on my 13 yr olds 29er for the rest of the cx season, I think he will stay on top of a lot of the soft wet grass at his 120# on 29x2.25s. 
For the rough drain-rock and grass cx race coming up in about a month I'm going to move my Mezcals to my 29er hardtail. The Peyotes show up on ebay in the $32 range pretty often it seems, just be aware that not all are the TNT (tubeless) version, - that's all I've been dealing with, I've not tried the non TNT.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

So I came from Racing Ralphs, to Bonty XR1 Team Issue tires w/a Trek ProCal bike I now have. I don't love the XR1's so far. They feel fast rolling, but the grip leaves a bit to be desired. Mostly hardpack stuff, but soft stuff also. Maybe I just need to ride better .. I can adjust around them, but don't have the confidence in the corners that I had previously.

So I started looking back at the Racing Ralph/Rocket Ron's and the new Addix compounds. Looks like they are actually lighter than the XR1's I have now - and are wider to boot (2.25" vs. TI's 2.2").

Any reason I shouldn't give the new Addix's a try? RaRa front / RoRo rear, or visa versa?

Thanks.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

ekraft84 said:


> Any reason I shouldn't give the new Addix's a try? RaRa front / RoRo rear, or visa versa?
> 
> Thanks.


Most prefer the RoRo front / RaRa rear. I love the RaRa as a rear tire because it rolls fast and doesn't puncture as easy as the RoRo. The RoRo's knobs are spaced further apart which leaves the tires exposed to punctures easier. At least that's been my experience with the RoRo. But my next front tire will be a Nobby Nic as it also rolls fast but it grips in the turns better than the RoRo.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Going through my list of hand me down tires in my garage for my race this Saturday. Thinking about the pro's and con's of each, thinking about going with a RaRa PS 2.35 up front, 2.25 Performance in the rear. I already have the rear mounted from the past couple of races, including my 8 hour and it was fine. I will be swapping the Hans Dampf 2.35 to drop 200g. The race will be 60 miles and 9000' of climbing over a mix of hard and soft, not much in the way of rocks or roots. The 2.35 should help for the soft parts of the course, but the one 9 mile, 3000' climb I think is mostly hard pack dirt roadie style climb.

I'll let you know if it was a mistake or not


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

Sidewalk said:


> Going through my list of hand me down tires in my garage for my race this Saturday. Thinking about the pro's and con's of each, thinking about going with a RaRa PS 2.35 up front, 2.25 Performance in the rear. I already have the rear mounted from the past couple of races, including my 8 hour and it was fine. I will be swapping the Hans Dampf 2.35 to drop 200g. The race will be 60 miles and 9000' of climbing over a mix of hard and soft, not much in the way of rocks or roots. The 2.35 should help for the soft parts of the course, but the one 9 mile, 3000' climb I think is mostly hard pack dirt roadie style climb.
> 
> I'll let you know if it was a mistake or not


Major props josh! I'm participating in the 50km ride as I've been training more for my triathlon coming up in two weeks. It's not a valid excuse but anyways, I'll be running my tried and true ikons 2.35 front and 2.2 rear. They're both 3c, exo, and tr flavor. I'm hoping these new rubbers save my ass as many times as my last pair.

I don't want to derail this thread but what's your nutrition plan for the grizzly? If I see you, I'll be sure to say hi again.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

Stonerider said:


> Most prefer the RoRo front / RaRa rear. I love the RaRa as a rear tire because it rolls fast and doesn't puncture as easy as the RoRo. The RoRo's knobs are spaced further apart which leaves the tires exposed to punctures easier. At least that's been my experience with the RoRo. But my next front tire will be a Nobby Nic as it also rolls fast but it grips in the turns better than the RoRo.


You're right, I was flipped. I think I'll try the RoRo front, RaRa rear combo.

Thanks.


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

ekraft84 said:


> You're right, I was flipped. I think I'll try the RoRo front, RaRa rear combo.
> 
> Thanks.


I'm going to list a new never installed Rocket Ron 29x2.25 Liteskin EVO Pacestar. $45 via paypal friends and family (so I don't eat the fee) shipped anywhere in US.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

ekraft84 said:


> You're right, I was flipped. I think I'll try the RoRo front, RaRa rear combo.
> 
> Thanks.


Actually if I've got a RoRo and RaRa, I put the RoRo on the rear. I don't like how the RoRo behaves on the front.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

slimphatty said:


> Major props josh! I'm participating in the 50km ride as I've been training more for my triathlon coming up in two weeks. It's not a valid excuse but anyways, I'll be running my tried and true ikons 2.35 front and 2.2 rear.


Which tri? I love triathlon, I just suck at it. Really looking forward to Wildflower next year!

I'm going to get my ass kicked Saturday. Tinker, Chad Hall, Pacheco, I'm fracked.



slimphatty said:


> They're both 3c, exo, and tr flavor. I'm hoping these new rubbers save my ass as many times as my last pair.


I thought about running the Ardent Race I have Maxx Speed 3c/EXO, but it is relatively heavy. My friend loves that tire though. I might put it on the back of my Enduro when the rear wears out.



slimphatty said:


> I don't want to derail this thread but what's your nutrition plan for the grizzly? If I see you, I'll be sure to say hi again.


Probably start with two bottles of Hammer Perpetuem that I have a near lifetime supply of, then use what is on course to restock. I have an iron gut, so I can eat/drink just about anything. I just can't over eat in high temps (see my failure at the Temecula 8 hour this summer...).

I'll be dressed in the same gear, maybe see you there. Look for the guy in last!


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

Anyone have actual measurements of a Mezcal 2.35? Thanks!


----------



## ashwinearl (Jan 2, 2004)

westin said:


> Vittoria has moved up my favorite tire list equaling or surpassing Maxxis in many models.


I've been testing a Morza 2.3 on the rear with 24.5Interal width rim. I am starting to like it. The only issue, if it can be considered an issue, is the lower tire pressure it likes.

I've heard this said about several Vittoria tires.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> Going through my list of hand me down tires in my garage for my race this Saturday. Thinking about the pro's and con's of each, thinking about going with a RaRa PS 2.35 up front, 2.25 Performance in the rear. I already have the rear mounted from the past couple of races, including my 8 hour and it was fine. I will be swapping the Hans Dampf 2.35 to drop 200g. The race will be 60 miles and 9000' of climbing over a mix of hard and soft, not much in the way of rocks or roots. The 2.35 should help for the soft parts of the course, but the one 9 mile, 3000' climb I think is mostly hard pack dirt roadie style climb.
> 
> I'll let you know if it was a mistake or not


Mixed emotions. Course was really loose and I spent a lot of time wishing I had more grip. But by the time I was up to 7000' of climbing my body was toast, so the extra rotating mass was not missed.

I want my cake, and I want to eat it too!


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

Depending how Saturday's SuperD goes, I'll be using either Icons or High Roller 2's for Sunday's XC.
The conditions in the area could suit either, depending on the specific trails.

It's our local Masters Games and I'm doing a road hill climb, TT, SuperD and XC over 3 days.

Monday is going to be hard


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I was super happy with the Mezcal 29x2.25s on my race over the weekend; mostly damp hardpack with a little loose, plus roots. Lots of strava PRs (4 top fives and 1 kom-tie), fast rolling and very good grip.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

Went double Barzo for more woods/technical riding and some fast single track. Mmm I do love how it holds the line and grips on climbs. I'll again do a few runs with the Mezcal behind and Barzo front. Barzo measures 2.2 on 22.5 DTSwiss rims. Feels soft and at the same time indestructible.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

Anyone has any opinion on Saguaro's? I tried the TNT version and it rolls fairly good, but traction is not very good and grip at the sides is awful, anything off camber and the tire would wash out, lateral grip was non existent, worse tyre I have tried so far. It was the opposite experience to the mezcal.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

The Saguaro along with most of Vittoria's legacy tires are horrible, it's not surprising you hated them. The good XC tires are the Peyote, Mezcal, and Barzo. The Gato is also of the new generation and should be good too, but no one I know has ridden one yet.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Questions about Racing Ralph. is the 2.35 as fast rolling as the 2.25? I cant find Jack squat on google images about real weights of the 2.35 snakeskin. I am really looking to try out some of these magical tires that roll incredibly faster than my Ikons, however, My trails aren't conducive to fast rolling low volume and you end up being slower than a high volume tire with low psi. Hence my curiosity about the 2.35 Ra Ra. I dont see people mention it.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

I can't answer your question, but will say that I feel much less stable on the 2.25 RaRa than I do on the 2.35, especially on the front. I've been trying to set tire pressure by sag, which means the 2.35 ends up with lower PSI than 2.25. It just feels stickier in the corners. But I'm now trying out Ikon R / AR F. And so far I love it. I'm setting PRs. And I don't trust how I 'feel' enough to judge whether rolling resistance in a straight line is going up or down with a tire selection (obvious extremes excluded). Knob transition in corners and slippage on steep climbs is more important to me. So I'm probably not the best perspective here. 

Also I run 27.5s so take all this with a grain of salt.


----------



## steelhmr (Sep 30, 2011)

aerius said:


> The Saguaro along with most of Vittoria's legacy tires are horrible, it's not surprising you hated them. The good XC tires are the Peyote, Mezcal, and Barzo. The *Gato* is also of the new generation and should be good too, but no one I know has ridden one yet.


I use a Gato 2.3 on my RW and Goma 2.25 on my FW. I like the Gato a lot. I have a surplus of Goma 2.25's and only recently began running it on the FW after my last Goma 2.4 bit the dust (it lasted a long time). My last 2 races are the best I've ever ridden in terms of overall speed and handling, so I'm certainly liking them. From my experience and from what I've read, the Gato works better on a wider rim. Mine is 29mm ID. Much better than it was on my old Stan's Arch rims.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

....and while I'm thinking about it, I'm going to give a shout out to Maxxis for making a tubeless tire that seated up straight off the rack with no shenanigans, and no air compressor. Man. That was so gratifying.


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

winters.benjamin said:


> ....and while I'm thinking about it, I'm going to give a shout out to Maxxis for making a tubeless tire that seated up straight off the rack with no shenanigans, and no air compressor. Man. That was so gratifying.


+1 to this. Ikons went on so easy I couldn't believe it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## litany (Nov 25, 2009)

wheelzqc said:


> Went double Barzo for more woods/technical riding and some fast single track. Mmm I do love how it holds the line and grips on climbs.  I'll again do a few runs with the Mezcal behind and Barzo front. Barzo measures 2.2 on 22.5 DTSwiss rims. Feels soft and at the same time indestructible.


How does the Barzo compare to the x-king? They look like similar tread patterns, and according to bicyclerollingresistance.com the rolling resistance is probably pretty similar too (their G+ compound seems to be in the same ballpark as black chili).

It's a good bit heavier than a X-King, does it have more grip?


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I haven't tried the Barzo, but I've run an X-king for a couple of seasons; The Peyote looks pretty similar to the x-king to me (similar height and size knobs), but with slightly more open tread. 
Barzo looks to have slightly taller knobs than the Peyote, is that true?, Otherwise the Barzo and Peyote don't look hugely different, the tread pattern and knob shape are a bit different, - vittoria gives the Barzo '1 better' wet rating than the Peyote.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

G-Choro said:


> +1 to this. Ikons went on so easy I couldn't believe it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


every time I set up My wife's tires and other's non Maxxis tires I just don't understand why it is so difficult. Then my wife reminds me it is always a storm of cursing and dislocated Fingers when setting up Snakeskin tires, especially on her Roval Carbons.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

litany said:


> How does the Barzo compare to the x-king? They look like similar tread patterns, and according to bicyclerollingresistance.com the rolling resistance is probably pretty similar too (their G+ compound seems to be in the same ballpark as black chili).
> 
> It's a good bit heavier than a X-King, does it have more grip?


A bit more grip and a bit more predictable, but the big difference is how well the casings hold up. Conti's casings are on the weak side and they get deformed & warped too easily when you slam the tires into things, land sideways off jumps, or otherwise put heavy side loads on them. Do that too often and the casings end up with wobbles all over the place. Vittoria's TNT casings are heavier but a lot more solid, it takes a lot of dumb stuff that most people won't do on an XC bike to put even a slight wobble into them.



jimPacNW said:


> I haven't tried the Barzo, but I've run an X-king for a couple of seasons; The Peyote looks pretty similar to the x-king to me (similar height and size knobs), but with slightly more open tread.
> Barzo looks to have slightly taller knobs than the Peyote, is that true?, Otherwise the Barzo and Peyote don't look hugely different, the tread pattern and knob shape are a bit different, - vittoria gives the Barzo '1 better' wet rating than the Peyote.


The Peyote is a Rocket Ron clone but with better side knobs that are angled in the correct direction. Works like a RR for the most part, but corners better and breaks loose more predictably when it does let go. Barzo is an X-king with a better casing and slightly improved side knobs, personally it's my least favourite of the new Vittorias since I absolutely hate the X-King.


----------



## martinPL (Sep 6, 2017)

FJSnoozer said:


> Questions about Racing Ralph. is the 2.35 as fast rolling as the 2.25? I cant find Jack squat on google images about real weights of the 2.35 snakeskin. I am really looking to try out some of these magical tires that roll incredibly faster than my Ikons, however, My trails aren't conducive to fast rolling low volume and you end up being slower than a high volume tire with low psi. Hence my curiosity about the 2.35 Ra Ra. I dont see people mention it.


Lightest RaRa 29X2.35 Addix SS Speed I have is 700 grams even. Have not ridden on 2.35 so cannot compare to 2.25.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

The Barzo has more volume (2.15 for X-King on same wheels) and bigger knobs than the X-King. It was also easy to mount and hold air without sealant. I did enjoy the X-King handling while going on single track but less in rocky section probably because of the lack of volume. It definitely has more grip than the Mezcal. Barzo is good on off camber and on rocks. I'd say they are right about their description of being a technical XC tire. I find I can come into turns with more speed and also come out on the gas quicker.

Never tried a Peyote. Looks light but probably not as wide as the Mezcal.

@aerius Why didn't you like the X-King and Barzo ?


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

Wheelzqc; your guess is correct, I just measured on same width rims (25.5mm external), at the sidewall mezcal 29 x 2.25 is 2.25, 29x2.25 peyote is 2.18.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

wheelzqc said:


> @aerius Why didn't you like the X-King and Barzo ?


They don't work for my riding style. If I'm riding a fast low knob tire like a Racing Ralph I know that there's not much traction to be had and I instinctively adjust my riding accordingly, if a tire feels really fast I know I can't get stupid. The X-King/Barzo has enough rolling resistance that it doesn't feel like a fast, low grip XC tire so I forget to ride it like one. Which leads to me running into its limits a lot, and in bad ways. I end up braking too late and locking up the front tire and/or sliding wildly into a turn and blowing right off the trail.

I could probably adjust to it given enough time, but frankly I'd just stick a set of 2.25" Gomas on my bike and deal with the added weight and slight increase in rolling resistance in exchange for much better grip and more predictable handling. Give me a fast tire or give me a grippy one, tires that are neither confuse my brain.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Just placed an order for a bunch of tires from Germany. 

2.25 and 2.35 Snakeskin RaRa (rear tire for my wife and I to race on)
2.35 NoNi (may try as front for myself/backup tire for Wife's front because her brand new one chunked off 2 knobs in a recent gnarly marathon)
2.35 ForeKaster (going to test as my new front tire for year round. If grip is great, may race on foreKaster front aspen 2.25 rear on the Anthem)

Most excited about:
2.35 Big Ones (going to put on my XTC hardtail and do some silly things on the road and gravel)

I will report back on how much faster they are on my FTP testing grounds. If they are fast enough, I will throw a big ring up front and push it on some Group road rides. My fairly flat route I average 18 mph over 30 miles on an ikon and HAns Dampf. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

This could be my new race setup:

2.35 NoNi Addix SS - 751 g
2.35 RaRa Addix Speed SS - 680 g!

2.35 BigOne SS - 550/551 g
These air up a hair bigger all other 2.35s. I installed them on my hardtail. a half pedal stroke took me a full city block with ease. I don't have a road bike, so this sensation is strange to me. Looking forward to riding them tonight and setting some serious PRs.

Edit: Rode one of my normal routes. Not only were these barely faster. I am wonder what this says for all of the dynos www.bicyclerollingresistance.com . Not sure were the extra watts are. It certainly does NOT translate speed. Could areo dynamics be absorbing all of my energy on he MTB past 18-20 mph? At low speeds the feel insanely fast and smooth More testing to follow.

For comparison of other tires I have current off bikes:
Dirty specialized purgatory - 845 g 
Magic Mary - 904 g

Air up casing width for those who prefer high volume.

60 - Big one
59 - Ikon 2.35
58.5 - Hans Dampf/NoNi 2.35
57 - 2.25 Aspen/ 2.35 forkaster (looks to be identical casing)
56 - 2.2 XR2 Team issue.

I just bought a caliper and scale so I went a little crazy. Some surprising findings. Now time to have fun.


----------



## ekraft84 (Apr 18, 2013)

2017 Trek ProCaliber, just switched from the Bonty XR1/XR1 Team Issues to a RoRo/RaRa combo. Speed Addix compound, 2.25" at both ends. 

The difference is huge. I was sliding all over the place with the Bonty's, trying a variety of pressures, in various hard-pack and softer conditions. These Schwalbe's are so much better. They aren't heavier (weight is nearly identical when weighed). Grip level - night and day better. I can't tell any difference in rolling resistance. The knobs on the centers of the tire actually look similar to the Bonty's, only better - if that makes any sense.

I have no idea why anyone would run the XR1's, unless it's a hard packed gravel layout - and even then, I'm not sure they're better. 

The front RoRo grips so well, I wonder if I could have gotten away with a RaRa/RaRa combo. Either way, these tires have transformed the bike and it's all on the rider now.

(And no, not sponsored by any tire brand - bought them). 

Cheers.


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

what compound schwalbe's are you running ekgraft? width?


----------



## Carioca_XC (Dec 30, 2014)

Can anybody share their thoughts on the new Maxxis Aspens 29x2.25 EXO/TR?


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

Go back a few pages/months...Julyish. I shared my thoughts, for one.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Carioca_XC said:


> Can anybody share their thoughts on the new Maxxis Aspens 29x2.25 EXO/TR?


You will find MattMays and you will find mine I believe.

Its a great rear tire for me. Hooks very well in hard pack. It weighs as advertised. I just weighed mine with 6 months of dried and crusted stans at 651 grams. I really am surprised at how well this tire hooks. Part of me axtually thinks it hooks better than my IKON 2.35, but I use them on different trails so I have no comparison. Volume is correct. Its going to be bigger than a 2.25 Schwalbe and is about the same volume casing as the 2.35 forecaster, which I believe is about the same as the rest of Maxxis' 2.3 casings they have on their trail tires.

On pavement it rolls Fast for all of the drum test dummies. Minimal difference between it and my schwalbe Big One slicks on pavement. Minimal. Go figure. So much for Drum testing and 20 watts...


----------



## honkonbobo (Nov 18, 2006)

@Carioca... this is what i wrote back in September. i am currently rotating between ardent 2.4/ardent race 2.35/ikon 2.35/aspen 2.25 all EXO/TR depending on conditions.

tire width/volume on my 30mm internal rims seems to be (big to small) ikon 2.35 > ardent 2.4 > ardent race 2.35 > aspen 2.25.



honkonbobo said:


> ...the other good news is tread life is good. i just completed the trans north georgia 360+ mile race with a few shakedown rides before with the aspen on the rear and the tread is holding up well with significant paved and gravel road sections. no issue with the sidewalls (EXO/TR) on the rocky stuff.
> 
> i found the tire surprisingly capable over alot of different (dry) trail conditions with good cornering but lacking a bit in straight up braking traction which isnt a surprise given the tread pattern. havent had it in mud yet but obviously not expecting great things.
> 
> so far a fast and durable anything but mud tire for me.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

IMO the Aspen 2.25 hooks up as well as an Ikon 2.2 for climbing and braking, and easily rolls faster. But my trails are not a steel drum so I may be wrong.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

It's time for a new front tire for XC riding and racing in and around NC, SC, VA, TN. I want a fast rolling tire with good cornering grip and right now I'm looking at either a 2.25 to 2.35 Nobby Nic Speedgrip or Vittoria Barzo G+. They are similar weights so lets take that out of the equation. Does anyone have any experience with their cornering abilities? My current front is a Fast Trak 2.3 Gripton and I'd like a little more cornering grip. Thanks in advance.


----------



## wheelzqc (Aug 31, 2016)

I've set some good PRs when I added the Barzo front 2.25. braking less and keeping my speed through turns. A friend added a Nobby Nic and he's been enjoying it as well. Maybe the Barzo is better in wet weather? Looks like two options that will add grip at the front.


----------



## bogeydog (Apr 13, 2015)

Stonerider said:


> It's time for a new front tire for XC riding and racing in and around NC, SC, VA, TN. I want a fast rolling tire with good cornering grip and right now I'm looking at either a 2.25 to 2.35 Nobby Nic Speedgrip or Vittoria Barzo G+. They are similar weights so lets take that out of the equation. Does anyone have any experience with their cornering abilities? My current front is a Fast Trak 2.3 Gripton and I'd like a little more cornering grip. Thanks in advance.


Barzo isn't G+ yet. At least as of last week. Let me know if you find something different. The website was wrong as confirmed by Vittoria in USA.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

BmanInTheD said:


> IMO the Aspen 2.25 hooks up as well as an Ikon 2.2 for climbing and braking, and easily rolls faster. But my trails are not a steel drum so I may be wrong.


Guy I ride with has had aspens all season. Hardly any wear and he has as much grip if not more then my Xkings it wet leafy conditions. He is also a much more skilled rider but seeing what he can climb on them while I'm hating my xkings says a lot. I'm going to try them out for next season. My xkings are quickly becoming my most hated tire. Casing feel dead and I feel like if dropped an anchor.

I'm getting rid of my race kings 2.2 as well. It's a shame cause volume wise they are the best tire I've used. Hardly and wear but the sidewall looked like it's was toast 4 months in. I also couldn't right the pressure I liked with out the tire squirming and making that tearing sound that sounds like I have a flat. Even going up to a 26mm internal rim didn't fix the squirm. My fast trak renegade combo felt much more stable but not as fast.


----------



## PlanB (Nov 22, 2007)

^^^ I’m with you on the X-Kings. I put a pair of 2.4 Protections on for the fall, and wow, there is really nothing good about them. They roll pretty fast on pavement, there’s that, but the casing feels like plastic on the trail and the sidewalls were threadbare immediately (though still holding air fine).


----------



## machine4321 (Jun 3, 2011)

PlanB said:


> ^^^ I'm with you on the X-Kings. I put a pair of 2.4 Protections on for the fall, and wow, there is really nothing good about them. They roll pretty fast on pavement, there's that, but the casing feels like plastic on the trail and the sidewalls were threadbare immediately (though still holding air fine).


Yeah, they are fast on the way to the trail lol. Im down to 18-19 psi to get any cushion out of them and they just get slower with less pressure it seems. Mine arent protection either.


----------



## csteven71 (Jan 15, 2009)

Has anyone tried the Ardent Race 29x2.35? I'm in between that and the Barzo 2.35 to go up front with a rear Ikon 2.2.


----------



## bogeydog (Apr 13, 2015)

csteven71 said:


> Has anyone tried the Ardent Race 29x2.35? I'm in between that and the Barzo 2.35 to go up front with a rear Ikon 2.2.


Barzo by far. AR is horrible if any wetness

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

So I am thinking going into next year about switching between a RaRa, AR, and Hans (all 2.35) up front depending on the course. 

Hard packed fast = RaRa (Bonelli, Fontana, Temecula maybe)
Moderate loose = AR (Southridge series, endurance races)
Loose = Hans (Big Bear, Rim Nordic)

All matched up to a 2.25 RaRa in the (for now).


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

csteven71 said:


> Has anyone tried the Ardent Race 29x2.35? I'm in between that and the Barzo 2.35 to go up front with a rear Ikon 2.2.


Ardent Race AR 2.35 was so bad for me I scrubbed all of the stans and dirt off returned it after the 1st ride.

It still has the terrible transition gap that plagues the Ardent. I have raced this course on an Ikon 2.35 front and it is much better. I have also raced on Hans Dampf pace star, which provides more grip in the loose turns or course, but I can feel the knobs snagging all of the rock gardens and popping and pinging.

The new Forekaster 2.35 is worth your time to try. Its not too far behind the HD in its knob that can really dig into the loose and it is a reasonable weight at around 735 G for a 2.35 (smaller casing than IKON 2.35 but same as AR)

When I test Tires, I ride them hard on trails I have raced a lot to get a feel for real world application. The day I rode the AR it was in normal conditions so it wasn't just that day. High speed slight turns I would have to wait for the side knobs to engage as the tire slid. No thanks. I think it would be a fine rear tire.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

FJSnoozer said:


> Ardent Race AR 2.35 was so bad for me I scrubbed all of the stans and dirt off returned it after the 1st ride.
> 
> It still has the terrible transition gap that plagues the Ardent. I have raced this course on an Ikon 2.35 front and it is much better. I have also raced on Hans Dampf pace star, which provides more grip in the loose turns or course, but I can feel the knobs snagging all of the rock gardens and popping and pinging.
> 
> ...


I run AR 27.5x2.35 up front and I find the transition to be as good as RaRa up front. I'm riding a lot of hardpack and loose over hard, no real wet stuff.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> I run AR 27.5x2.35 up front and I find the transition to be as good as RaRa up front. I'm riding a lot of hardpack and loose over hard, no real wet stuff.


Sorry, I should have prefaced that. I too find that almost all tires discussed in this thread work well in hardpack and dirt. (everything except big squirmy knobs and X kings!)

Few of our Race courses have more than small stretches of hard pack. Its hard pack clay-black dirt with dust covered Limestone rocks everywhere both Large loose and planted OR its Loose over hard (clay hard with decomposed limestone or granite fragments). We also do not contend with the wet roots like the Northern states.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'd check out the Barzo 2.35. Seriously. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## G-Choro (Jul 30, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> I'd check out the Barzo 2.35. Seriously.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Agree. I've got the 2.25 on there now, and I plan to make the 2.35 my front marathon tire, paired to 2.25 mezcal in the back. Personal favorite combo right now.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

I raced the Barzo 2.25s in about 5 cx races on my hardtail this fall. I was very happy overall, they are fast and have very good grip in all directions. In dry I could keep up quite well with the cx guys, one that I race mtb with in the spring series, - the Barzo will not make you slow on hard ground.
I did find the wet limit at the last race, it was one of those greasy 2-3" of peanut buttery sod courses; I slid around quite a bit there, and they got loaded up in a few spots, but I don't think anything other than skinny tires to get down to the base layer were good there. The other guys I know who were on mtn bikes had a similar experience on other tires on that course.
The online place I got the Barzos from said they were G+, but they don't have the G+ markings on the sidewall like my Mezcals do.


----------



## bogeydog (Apr 13, 2015)

jimPacNW said:


> I raced the Barzo 2.25s in about 5 cx races on my hardtail this fall. I was very happy overall, they are fast and have very good grip in all directions. In dry I could keep up quite well with the cx guys, one that I race mtb with in the spring series, - the Barzo will not make you slow on hard ground.
> I did find the wet limit at the last race, it was one of those greasy 2-3" of peanut buttery sod courses; I slid around quite a bit there, and they got loaded up in a few spots, but I don't think anything other than skinny tires to get down to the base layer were good there. The other guys I know who were on mtn bikes had a similar experience on other tires on that course.
> The online place I got the Barzos from said they were G+, but they don't have the G+ markings on the sidewall like my Mezcals do.


Vittoria said the Barzo G+ isn't out yet.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## slimphatty (Sep 9, 2011)

G-Choro said:


> Agree. I've got the 2.25 on there now, and I plan to make the 2.35 my front marathon tire, paired to 2.25 mezcal in the back. Personal favorite combo right now.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


These tires seem to have come out of nowhere. Once I run through my current tires I will be giving this combo a shot.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

"Vittoria said the Barzo G+ isn't out yet." -yes, the online retailer I bought them from was apparently mistaken when they told me that their Barzos were G+.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I've been on the Mezcal front and rear for the last month. Surprisingly good in the loose decomposed rock over rock we have here. 

I do lose the front end occasionally, but I think that's unavoidable in some corners here, no matter what tire. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## steelhmr (Sep 30, 2011)

I, too, am considering the Barzo/Mezcal combo for next year. I'm a little confused about the weight for the Mezcal? The 29x2.1 foldable is listed on the Vittoria site at 600g and the TNT version is listed at 700g. Meanwhile, the 2.25 is listed as 690g for foldable and 710g for TNT? Seems like the 2.1 TNT should be lighter?


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

I've gotten 2 pairs of Mezcals: 29x2.25 and 29x2.35. TNT G+ in both.

The 2.35's were actually 20g lighter at 715-720g vs 730-740g. Crazy, I know.

Been running them this fall on my Top Fuel and Superfly SS, no complaints other than the weight. Roll fast, grip well in loose over hard and sand and shellrock.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

spsoon said:


> Anyone have actual measurements of a Mezcal 2.35? Thanks!


Width on Stans Arch mk3 was 59mm

Morsa 29x 2.3 was 61mm!


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

Has anyone read anything on the production status of Maxxis prototype tires Nino raced in Mont Sainte Anne in 2017?


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Going to get some Vittoria tires for my bike, any recommendations? I'm racing in southern California. I like a wide tire combo (2.35/2.25). As I will be trying these in XCO format races, a balance of weight and traction will be nice (not looking to either extreme, somewhere in the middle). I normally run RaRa for XCO format if it gives an idea. My LBS started carrying road Vittoria and wants to get me some for the MTB too, they just want to know model and size.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

kevbikemad said:


> Has anyone read anything on the production status of Maxxis prototype tires Nino raced in Mont Sainte Anne in 2017?


I read a while back that they won't be available to consumers cuz the 170 TPI casing is too expensive to make and thus would be priced too high to try to market. Don't know if that's changed or not but haven't heard anything else in a long time about them. I called them out on Facebook for them telling us we should be on the same tires as Nino and I said in the comments that I wished I could but they aren't for sale. They didn't respond.


----------



## bogeydog (Apr 13, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> Going to get some Vittoria tires for my bike, any recommendations? I'm racing in southern California. I like a wide tire combo (2.35/2.25). As I will be trying these in XCO format races, a balance of weight and traction will be nice (not looking to either extreme, somewhere in the middle). I normally run RaRa for XCO format if it gives an idea. My LBS started carrying road Vittoria and wants to get me some for the MTB too, they just want to know model and size.


Barzo front Mezcal rear

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## kevbikemad (Jan 2, 2006)

BmanInTheD said:


> I read a while back that they won't be available to consumers cuz the 170 TPI casing is too expensive to make and thus would be priced too high to try to market. Don't know if that's changed or not but haven't heard anything else in a long time about them. I called them out on Facebook for them telling us we should be on the same tires as Nino and I said in the comments that I wished I could but they aren't for sale. They didn't respond.


I was basically asking if the new tread pattern/tires will be available at all. I assumed it would be a 120 TPI since they don't sell the 170 TPI Aspens to the public.

Maxxis already has so many XC options, just wondering if this new tread design would hit the market at all.


----------



## pinkpowa (Jun 24, 2007)

bogeydog said:


> Barzo front Mezcal rear
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Make sure you get the TNT G+ version for the newest compound & mold with Graphene and all that.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

bogeydog said:


> Barzo front Mezcal rear
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Thanks



pinkpowa said:


> Make sure you get the TNT G+ version for the newest compound & mold with Graphene and all that.


Will do.


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

I'm planning on racing the True Grit Epic 50 this March. Last year I ran AR/Ikon 2.2 front and rear and really liked them here in Northern Utah, though I noticed the Ikon struggled on uphill rock gardens. I pre road the course with forekasters, but tore the sidewall of the rear tire before the end of the season. I'm thinking about replacing it with my old Ikon since it has an EXO casing. Does the Ikon have good traction on rock/slickrock/ loose of hard rock?


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Ksanman said:


> I'm planning on racing the True Grit Epic 50 this March. Last year I ran AR/Ikon 2.2 front and rear and really liked them here in Northern Utah, though I noticed the Ikon struggled on uphill rock gardens. I pre road the course with forekasters, but tore the sidewall of the rear tire before the end of the season. I'm thinking about replacing it with my old Ikon since it has an EXO casing. Does the Ikon have good traction on rock/slickrock/ loose of hard rock?


I'm having good luck with a 27.5x2.35 Ikon in the back. Loose over hard, some rocky stuff. AR in the front. Cornering is pretty solid and I've got no issues on technical climbs.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

The IKON 2.35 is a completely different tire than the 2.2. I ride up hill rock gardens and loose limestone gravel over hard in my regular riding and it works great at low PSI. I have ridden it all over Sedona as well and it worked great. 

Current racing combo is 2.35 Forekaster/IKON F/R

The 2.35 ikon will wrap the tread around more and protect those sidewalls. I have never ever torn an exo 2.35 ikon. I mostly ride chunk. Perhaps its my riding style.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Maybe time for a 2018 thread? 

First big'ish race of the year is Saturday (12 hour local event). Going to stick with the 2.35/2.25 RaRa combo I have on now since I'll probably be fighting with the climbing more than the loose.

My LBS is going to get me a Barzo/Mezcal setup to test out. And I've got an AR 2.35 in the garage I need to try out on one of these days. I might try out the AR with a Nobby Nic in a couple of weeks at one of the local series races (same course every other weekend for a couple of months).


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

FJSnoozer said:


> Current racing combo is 2.35 Forekaster/IKON F/R


How is Forekaster compared to AR cornering on the front? Fore looks like a Nobby Nic, which I could never get comfortable with on the front.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

Sidewalk said:


> Maybe time for a 2018 thread?


Ask and ye shall receive.

http://forums.mtbr.com/xc-racing-training/2018-xc-race-tires-1067402.html


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

winters.benjamin said:


> How is Forekaster compared to AR cornering on the front? Fore looks like a Nobby Nic, which I could never get comfortable with on the front.


Dramatically different.

Forekaster is like nobby nick and Rocket Ron had a love child but it came out with a maxxis skin. Hard spikey small knobs that do not squirm and do not pack mud. ~735 g in 2.35 Exo

I tried the AR 2.35 on the front on one of our most chunky/ loose over hard series race loops in the offseason. High speed turning was so bad I took the tire off, scrubbed it for an hour with a brush and returned it. Front wheel would unpredictably drift and understeer. I am one of those people that cant get over the Ardent dead spot that still remains with the AR.

I tried out the Forekaster after reviews from here. It is no Hans Dampf Velcro but it is pretty incredible. It digs and is progressive like a traditional XC tire. What surprised me is how well it does on Hard pack clay with Moondust (walnut creek).


----------



## nzambec2 (Jan 2, 2018)

In the lower peninsula of Michigan, we have fast trails, little to no rocks, and great dirt. I ran Thunderburt Liteskin 2.1 pacestar on the rear all year in 2017, and will continue to do so. I'm undecided on the front, but I currently have a new 2.1 Fast Trak Gripton up front, as it came with my new Epic. Running on 25mm internal rims. 

Until I slice the T'Burt, I'll keep riding them on the rear.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

FJSnoozer said:


> Dramatically different.
> 
> Forekaster is like nobby nick and Rocket Ron had a love child but it came out with a maxxis skin. Hard spikey small knobs that do not squirm and do not pack mud. ~735 g in 2.35 Exo
> 
> ...


Ok great. Putting one in my ordering basket now.


----------



## winters.benjamin (Feb 3, 2016)

nzambec2 said:


> In the lower peninsula of Michigan, we have fast trails, little to no rocks, and great dirt. I ran Thunderburt Liteskin 2.1 pacestar on the rear all year in 2017, and will continue to do so. I'm undecided on the front, but I currently have a new 2.1 Fast Trak Gripton up front, as it came with my new Epic. Running on 25mm internal rims.
> 
> Until I slice the T'Burt, I'll keep riding them on the rear.


If you do any events in the Rockies, take a different rear tire along. That TB has cost me dearly in 3 separate races. I'm convinced they built the casing from paper mache.


----------



## BmanInTheD (Sep 19, 2014)

winters.benjamin said:


> Ok great. Putting one in my ordering basket now.


Ardent Race works great as a front tire. It just has to be leaned instead of steered, just like DHF, DHR II, High Roller. It has a bit of a dead spot but hooks up great when leaned properly. Rolls faster than FK as well.


----------



## newking (Nov 6, 2007)

Definitely agree with this post. I was on Rocket Ron Front and Ardent Race rear. Now on Forecaster F/R great rear tire. Very grippy and goes up hill well. Been using them in mostly wet conditions we have had lately and they are light, fast and strong!!



FJSnoozer said:


> Dramatically different.
> 
> Forekaster is like nobby nick and Rocket Ron had a love child but it came out with a maxxis skin. Hard spikey small knobs that do not squirm and do not pack mud. ~735 g in 2.35 Exo
> 
> ...


----------



## Rist (Oct 15, 2009)

How well do Vittoria Mezcal G+ TNT 2.25 tyres do on a wet slippery roots and wet slippery dirt descents?

Considering getting Mezcals for my new XCM/XCO wheelset (i25mm carbon), but I'm not sure if the weight penalty and expense is worth it over Rocket Ron Addix 2.25 set I already have.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Rist said:


> How well do Vittoria Mezcal G+ TNT 2.25 tyres do on a wet slippery roots and wet slippery dirt descents?
> 
> Considering getting Mezcals for my new XCM/XCO wheelset (i25mm carbon), but I'm not sure if the weight penalty and expense is worth it over Rocket Ron Addix 2.25 set I already have.


They have a massive amount of volume compared to a RoRo. Which appeals to me, riding decomposed granite, exposed rock, sand, etc. between pine trees, aspens and Gamble oak. I've only ridden that bike in the wet out there a couple of times, but they seemed to do quite well on roots, rocks, etc. I think the volume really helps there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Not tire specific. But I find it interesting on just how much heavier XC tires are now. Going through my team tire supply; Aspen, Ikon and Forecasters, the average tire weight is 670 grams.

Eight years ago if you were running a 550 gram tire you were being conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I think our new tires are far superior mountain bike tires. But I question if the extra 1lb we are running in tires is in fact making us quicker.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

LMN said:


> Not tire specific. But I find it interesting on just how much heavier XC tires are now. Going through my team tire supply; Aspen, Ikon and Forecasters, the average tire weight is 670 grams.
> 
> Eight years ago if you were running a 550 gram tire you were being conservative.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think our new tires are far superior mountain bike tires. But I question if the extra 1lb we are running in tires is in fact making us quicker.


It's a balance, no? As technical challenges and downhill speeds increase, tires need more beef.

I'm guessing some people will try to run less protected versions of tires at Albstadt. Compared to other WCs, it appears a lot smoother and less technical. Longer climb, too, IIRC?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Drider85 (Jan 12, 2009)

LMN said:


> Not tire specific. But I find it interesting on just how much heavier XC tires are now. Going through my team tire supply; Aspen, Ikon and Forecasters, the average tire weight is 670 grams.
> 
> Eight years ago if you were running a 550 gram tire you were being conservative.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think our new tires are far superior mountain bike tires. But I question if the extra 1lb we are running in tires is in fact making us quicker.


In conjunction with more modern tubeless rims that we have now (wider and refined tubeless shape) it would be interesting to see how yesteryear tires would stack up.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Just a heads up: New Schwalbe Racing Ralph and Racing Ray are EXCELLENT. Schwalbe made changes to RaRa just as they listened to us, which they probably did in a way. Side knobs are now solid with no flex and middle knobs appear faster. Racing Ray is front specific and is working like a charm. More traction than RoRo on hardpack/loose over and at least as fast if not faster. Seat of the pants comments. I think Schwalbe finally nailed it.


----------



## spsoon (Jul 28, 2008)

I would try those out in 2.35 if they made them.


----------



## TDLover (Sep 14, 2014)

osokolo said:


> Just a heads up: New Schwalbe Racing Ralph and Racing Ray are EXCELLENT. Schwalbe made changes to RaRa just as they listened to us, which they probably did in a way. Side knobs are now solid with no flex and middle knobs appear faster. Racing Ray is front specific and is working like a charm. More traction than RoRo on hardpack/loose over and at least as fast if not faster. Seat of the pants comments. I think Schwalbe finally nailed it.


That is nice too hear, older options were already great in my opinion. Which compound do you have?


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

TDLover said:


> That is nice too hear, older options were already great in my opinion. Which compound do you have?


I think the Racing Ralph comes in Speed and the Racing Ray in Speedgrip. Speed for the rear and Speedgrip for the front. Makes sense.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Stonerider said:


> I think the Racing Ralph comes in Speed and the Racing Ray in Speedgrip. Speed for the rear and Speedgrip for the front. Makes sense.


Yup. That's what I got. Weights are in 610-620g for snakeskin versions


----------



## Rist (Oct 15, 2009)

osokolo said:


> Yup. That's what I got. Weights are in 610-620g for snakeskin versions


That's for both Racing Ray and Racing Ralph?


----------



## mrbadwrench (Sep 13, 2016)

Was really happy with the speed and durability of xr1s but got sick of the lack of grip so I picked up a ikon for front and aspen rear. Hoping they pick up the slack on grip without losing much speed.


----------



## Walt Disney's Frozen Head (Jan 9, 2008)

love the aspen but like many that lean toward the semi-slick style it'll really highlight bad technique but it's a pretty damn solid tire (imo).


----------



## splitendz (Nov 13, 2015)

osokolo said:


> Just a heads up: New Schwalbe Racing Ralph and Racing Ray are EXCELLENT. Schwalbe made changes to RaRa just as they listened to us, which they probably did in a way. Side knobs are now solid with no flex and middle knobs appear faster. Racing Ray is front specific and is working like a charm. More traction than RoRo on hardpack/loose over and at least as fast if not faster. Seat of the pants comments. I think Schwalbe finally nailed it.


Did you weigh the Racing Ray? Where's a good place to buy the new RRay & RaRa?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

splitendz said:


> Did you weigh the Racing Ray? Where's a good place to buy the new RRay & RaRa?


I did. They both are within 10g of each other. Ray is 610. Don't know where you can buy them - I got them on my new bike...


----------



## briscoelab (Oct 27, 2006)

Schwalbe is selling them direct right now in 29. Some places online have them in 27.5. 

I expect them to hit distributors this week.


----------



## chomxxo (Oct 15, 2008)

LMN said:


> Not tire specific. But I find it interesting on just how much heavier XC tires are now. Going through my team tire supply; Aspen, Ikon and Forecasters, the average tire weight is 670 grams.
> 
> Eight years ago if you were running a 550 gram tire you were being conservative.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think our new tires are far superior mountain bike tires. But I question if the extra 1lb we are running in tires is in fact making us quicker.


I think that deflection, not weight, is proving to be the key factor in XC racing, not unlike aero has overruled weight on the road.

I'd suggest that the wider tires prove faster uphill (where's that Ikon 2.35 uphill test link...)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## splitendz (Nov 13, 2015)

Received the new Schwalbe's. Ray in evo speedgrip is 649g. Ralph in evo speed is 632g


----------



## broeli (Feb 15, 2008)

Why is everybody posting in last years tire thread? There's a 2018 thread


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

broeli said:


> Why is everybody posting in last years tire thread? There's a 2018 thread


Still using last years tyres.


----------

