Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    139

    New IRD fire XC pro tire today

    On a whim, I bought a IRD fire xc pro 2.1 for the rear. I have had it sitting in my basement for several weeks and finally mounted and rode it today. I still left the 2.3 Nevegal up front.
    I have been running nevegals front and rear. Compared to the Nevegal, this seemed to roll a bit smoother and the traction was great. I was riding rooty terrain, loose rock, hard pack and with a few muddy spots.
    This tire grips better than the nevegal on roots and hard pack. There was not enough mud for me to evaluate, however, I think the nevegal would shine in the mud. Overall, I am impressed with this tire for the price point. I need to give it a few more rides, but I think this will replace my rear nevegal permanently.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,369
    I used to use these pre-tubeless and liked them. Are these UST?
    We Ride In God's Country!

  3. #3
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,323

    Don't think so

    Quote Originally Posted by myitch View Post
    I used to use these pre-tubeless and liked them. Are these UST?
    Obviously can be run set up tubeless. How well? Have to see. I'm thinking about getting one to run on my convert during winter if they run abit smaller then the Nevegal.
    Wait,who did he tell you that?....

  4. #4
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,323

    Curious?

    Quote Originally Posted by dhelm72 View Post
    On a whim, I bought a IRD fire xc pro 2.1 for the rear. I have had it sitting in my basement for several weeks and finally mounted and rode it today. I still left the 2.3 Nevegal up front.
    I have been running nevegals front and rear. Compared to the Nevegal, this seemed to roll a bit smoother and the traction was great. I was riding rooty terrain, loose rock, hard pack and with a few muddy spots.
    This tire grips better than the nevegal on roots and hard pack. There was not enough mud for me to evaluate, however, I think the nevegal would shine in the mud. Overall, I am impressed with this tire for the price point. I need to give it a few more rides, but I think this will replace my rear nevegal permanently.
    What size Nevegal were you running in back?

    Thanks in advance-JMac
    Wait,who did he tell you that?....

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    139
    I was running a 2.1 in the rear, so this was an apples to apples comparison. I don't know about running these tubeless since I run tubes.
    I would not call these tires fast. I would say it "feels" faster than the nevegal but still has great grip. This seems to be a good compromise between traction and rolling resistance. I only have two hours on the tire so this is only a first impression.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,369
    I looked up the Fire's. Not UST. I prefer tubeless ready as they have a better bead and thicker sidewalls. I've not had luck in the past using reg tires as tubeless. Too much flex and sometimes blow off the bead easily.

    I avoid Kenda's at all cost. I blew 3 beads on 3 of those tires. They're known for blowing beads in other reviews. I guess you folks have better luck than I or maybe the trails I ride have especially sharp rocks. The UST Fire's I've had in the past were good. Held up and I like their grip, aggressive knob pattern
    We Ride In God's Country!

  7. #7
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,323

    Size comparison?

    Quote Originally Posted by dhelm72 View Post
    I was running a 2.1 in the rear, so this was an apples to apples comparison. I don't know about running these tubeless since I run tubes.
    I would not call these tires fast. I would say it "feels" faster than the nevegal but still has great grip. This seems to be a good compromise between traction and rolling resistance. I only have two hours on the tire so this is only a first impression.
    How are they compared to the Nevegals in height/width? I've seen on here they are maybe smaller in casing but a little wider at the side knobs. Personal experience on that?

    Thanks in advance.
    Wait,who did he tell you that?....

  8. #8
    Genius_rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    132
    I have used them in 2 wheels for over a year with no problems at all. Both were easily converted to tubeless with Stans kit.

    With my Stan's Flow wheels, the IRC has smaller diameter than the 2.1 Nevegals (about 8 mm). I have not compared the width though.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by BiciMapas View Post

    With my Stan's Flow wheels, the IRC has smaller diameter than the 2.1 Nevegals (about 8 mm). I have not compared the width though.
    I agree that they are not quite as tall as the Nevegals. I really didn't pay attention to the width either. I have a Jamis 650b so they all fit and measurements aren't that critical in my case. Looking at the rear chainstay, it doesn't look noticeably wider at the side lugs. This is just an eyeball assessment and it is based on my memory of how the Nevegal fit. I should have measured the Nev. while it was still mounted. Sorry I can't help you.

  10. #10
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,383
    been ridin one of these out back on the Stumpy, likin it a lot.

  11. #11
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,323

    Good to know

    Quote Originally Posted by BiciMapas View Post
    I have used them in 2 wheels for over a year with no problems at all. Both were easily converted to tubeless with Stans kit.

    With my Stan's Flow wheels, the IRC has smaller diameter than the 2.1 Nevegals (about 8 mm). I have not compared the width though.
    Thanks for info Bici and dhelm!

    I do have both Neo and Quasi Pacenti's in 2.1/2.0, Wolverines and Nevegals in 2.1. Just put a 2.35 up front on WTB Laser Disc rim'd trailbike last night. Not sure I will need to go with a Flow rim for this tire or not, wasn't too much noticbly bigger then my 2.1.
    Wait,who did he tell you that?....

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pothole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    174
    I'm running a Fire XC on the rear with Stans Crest rims and it's running great tubeless. I don't think I've put any air in it since mounting over a month ago...unlike the RR on the front.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35

    actual Fire XC Pro height

    For those of you that have used these tires in 2.1 size, what is the height of the mounted tire (inches or mm is fine). Please specify the rim type too.

    Thanks much,
    Tom

  14. #14
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,323

    Compared to Nevegals

    Quote Originally Posted by kleinhead View Post
    For those of you that have used these tires in 2.1 size, what is the height of the mounted tire (inches or mm is fine). Please specify the rim type too.

    Thanks much,
    Tom
    About this much smaller.

    BiciMapas

    With my Stan's Flow wheels, the IRC has smaller diameter than the 2.1 Nevegals (about 8 mm). I have not compared the width though.
    Wait,who did he tell you that?....

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    yeah - I read that, but there's no info on the size of the mounted Nevegal. So let me rephrase the question.

    What the actual size of a mounted Fire XC Pro 2.1 and what rim did you use?

    OR

    What is the size of a mounted Nevegal 2.1 on a Stan's Flow?

    Thanks,
    Tom

  16. #16
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,323

    Curious also

    Quote Originally Posted by kleinhead View Post
    yeah - I read that, but there's no info on the size of the mounted Nevegal. So let me rephrase the question.

    What the actual size of a mounted Fire XC Pro 2.1 and what rim did you use?

    OR

    What is the size of a mounted Nevegal 2.1 on a Stan's Flow?

    Thanks,
    Tom
    Heh....

    I just got a CrossMark for the ht, but wouldn't mind a FXC for a little more grip on my fs if it gives close to the clearance the XMrk does..
    Wait,who did he tell you that?....

  17. #17
    Genius_rider
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    132

    Measurements with Flows

    Here you go.

    All measurements are in milimeters, taken with Stan's Flows, tires inflated @ 40 PSI and to the widest/tallest part of the tire (that means knobs included):

    FIRE XC 2.1
    Width: 54.71
    Height: 50.02

    NEVEGAL 2.1
    Width: 55.18
    Height: 52.76

    QUASIMOTO 2.0
    Width: 54.67
    Height: 53.76

    measured with Mitutoyo digital calipers.

    EDIT: all tires are tubeless with Stans kits.

  18. #18
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,323

    CrossMrk?....

    Quote Originally Posted by BiciMapas View Post
    Here you go.

    All measurements are in milimeters, taken with Stan's Flows, tires inflated @ 40 PSI and to the widest/tallest part of the tire (that means knobs included):

    FIRE XC 2.1
    Width: 54.71
    Height: 50.02

    NEVEGAL 2.1
    Width: 55.18
    Height: 52.76

    QUASIMOTO 2.0
    Width: 54.67
    Height: 53.76

    measured with Mitutoyo digital calipers.

    EDIT: all tires are tubeless with Stans kits.
    Wait,who did he tell you that?....

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35

    Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by BiciMapas View Post
    Here you go.

    All measurements are in milimeters, taken with Stan's Flows, tires inflated @ 40 PSI and to the widest/tallest part of the tire (that means knobs included):

    FIRE XC 2.1
    Width: 54.71
    Height: 50.02

    NEVEGAL 2.1
    Width: 55.18
    Height: 52.76

    QUASIMOTO 2.0
    Width: 54.67
    Height: 53.76

    measured with Mitutoyo digital calipers.

    EDIT: all tires are tubeless with Stans kits.
    Great info. Thanks very much.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •