Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    154

    tougher alternative to RR?

    I really loved the size, rolling resistance and traction of the RR 2.25 performance tire but 3 rides and 1/4" cut on the top of the tread on a not too gnarly downhill in the wet. The HD 2.25 looks like a possible alt for the front but I've read hear that the trailstar compound will roll much slower. WTB Wolverine 2.25 was too tall a tire at almost 28" for my frame and 2.35 is bigger than I want and possibly too would have fit issues.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,405
    Maxxis Ardent 2.25 EXO
    Been running them front and rear on my Nickel...EXO sidewalls, and the tires overall have taken serious abuse and work almost everywhere.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    516
    Either the Snakeskin EVO version of the tire or a Maxxis Ardent EXO 2.25 . The Schwalbe sidewalls are paper without snakeskin

    Quote Originally Posted by kburati View Post
    I really loved the size, rolling resistance and traction of the RR 2.25 performance tire but 3 rides and 1/4" cut on the top of the tread on a not too gnarly downhill in the wet. The HD 2.25 looks like a possible alt for the front but I've read hear that the trailstar compound will roll much slower. WTB Wolverine 2.25 was too tall a tire at almost 28" for my frame and 2.35 is bigger than I want and possibly too would have fit issues.
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
    - Arthur C. Clarke

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,885
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie View Post
    Maxxis Ardent 2.25 EXO
    Been running them front and rear on my Nickel...EXO sidewalls, and the tires overall have taken serious abuse and work almost everywhere.
    I had a RR 2.25 tire and it seemed like a small 2.25" tire (volume & height). Isn't the Ardent 2.25 a large sized tire? I read it was bigger than the Wolverine 2.2 & Nevegal 2.35.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,405
    Quote Originally Posted by keen View Post
    I had a RR 2.25 tire and it seemed like a small 2.25" tire (volume & height). Isn't the Ardent 2.25 a large sized tire? I read it was bigger than the Wolverine 2.2 & Nevegal 2.35.
    I think it might be slightly bigger than the RR, but not drastically so...
    IIRC, the Wolverine was a bigger volume, but honestly, it has been awhile since I had that mounted and don't want to mislead you.

    It is way more durable than the RR. That much I am sure of. I have had several of the standard sidewall RRs, and they scare me every time I hit a rock garden. Not sure how much the snakeskin adds, but I doubt they are anything like the EXO.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    83
    + 1 on Ardent EXO. (and almost everything already posted) If you found Racing Ralphs to be good, then the ardent should be noticeable improvement for you in traction dept. a small compromise in rolling but almost negligible.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,262

    tougher alternative to RR?

    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie View Post
    I think it might be slightly bigger than the RR, but not drastically so...
    IIRC, the Wolverine was a bigger volume, but honestly, it has been awhile since I had that mounted and don't want to mislead you.

    It is way more durable than the RR. That much I am sure of. I have had several of the standard sidewall RRs, and they scare me every time I hit a rock garden. Not sure how much the snakeskin adds, but I doubt they are anything like the EXO.
    At least in a 26" wheel, the Wolverines measure exactly to spec, at 54mm casing with on a 19mm rim. Great tires except for being a bit heavy.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,776
    According to this thread....
    http://forums.mtbr.com/650b-27-5/27-...ce-833399.html

    the Ardent is even taller than the Wolverine... it's kind of known for being really tall relative to its width. The guy in post #24 says it's 27.88" in diameter.

    Consider the Pacenti Neo Moto 2.1. It's similar in size and height to the RR, rolls well, has good all-rounder performance, and is quite a bit tougher.

  9. #9
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,938
    Take a look at what V Rubber has to offer. I've been running a 2.4" Trail Taker, and while it seems to be directed at heavy trail riding, it rolls really fast. I'd guess their more XC oriented tires might posses similar traits.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vizsladog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,287
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie View Post
    I think it might be slightly bigger than the RR, but not drastically so...
    IIRC, the Wolverine was a bigger volume, but honestly, it has been awhile since I had that mounted and don't want to mislead you.

    It is way more durable than the RR. That much I am sure of. I have had several of the standard sidewall RRs, and they scare me every time I hit a rock garden. Not sure how much the snakeskin adds, but I doubt they are anything like the EXO.
    The ardent is massive compared to the rr. I had the ardent on the front and it was huge. It was however 700 grams. I rn the rocket Ron front and rr on the rear. Neither comes close to the size of the ardent. Also the crossmark is a solid tire. Volume wise it's very close to the rr.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,024
    Quote Originally Posted by kburati View Post
    I really loved the size, rolling resistance and traction of the RR 2.25 performance tire but 3 rides and 1/4" cut on the top of the tread on a not too gnarly downhill in the wet. The HD 2.25 looks like a possible alt for the front but I've read hear that the trailstar compound will roll much slower. WTB Wolverine 2.25 was too tall a tire at almost 28" for my frame and 2.35 is bigger than I want and possibly too would have fit issues.
    You're looking for something tougher and size no taller than the RR so it fits your frame right? I have not seen a list that shows tire height @ that 27.1" tall size. Only thing I can think of is Quasi moto, but have never measured myself. Think all the recommendations in this thread are much taller

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    154
    How about the new Hutchinson Cougar 2.2? Guessing nobody has much time on these yet but in 26" form they were quite durable when I ran the 2.4. Heavier tire though, listed at 710g but Hutchinson always run a bit heavier than listed:

    Amazon.com: Hutchinson Cougar Hardskin TLR Tire - 650B x 2.2, 66 TPI: Sports & Outdoors

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Deerhill View Post
    You're looking for something tougher and size no taller than the RR so it fits your frame right? I have not seen a list that shows tire height @ that 27.1" tall size. Only thing I can think of is Quasi moto, but have never measured myself. Think all the recommendations in this thread are much taller
    Where is "that 27.1" tall" measurement coming from? Are you referring to a Racing Ralph? I may have missed something, but that sounds undersized... would make it a full 1/2" smaller dia than a Neo Moto? It's been a while (2 yrs +-) since I tried a RR, but at that time it was REALLY close in size to a Neo 2.3, maybe even a little bigger, but I pulled it off pretty quickly, and I think Schwalbe's made some revisions since then too.

    kburati.... I'm really interested in the Cougar 2.2 also... hopefully someone will try some out soon and report.

    I've got a Maxxis Crossmark 2.1 mounted up on a 28mm wide Flow that I'll be putting on the bike after some shock tuning...never run this tire before, but it certainly looks like it might fit the OP's needs....can't say how much tougher it will be than a RR, if at all, and I believe the RR has a little more volume. The Cmark measures 27 3/8", or 695mm in diameter, and 52mm (2.05") wide.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,024
    Quote Originally Posted by doismellbacon View Post
    Where is "that 27.1" tall" measurement coming from? Are you referring to a Racing Ralph? I may have missed something, but that sounds undersized... would make it a full 1/2" smaller dia than a Neo Moto? It's been a while (2 yrs +-) since I tried a RR, but at that time it was REALLY close in size to a Neo 2.3, maybe even a little bigger, but I pulled it off pretty quickly, and I think Schwalbe's made some revisions since then too.kburati.... I'm really interested in the Cougar 2.2 also... hopefully someone will try some out soon and report.I've got a Maxxis Crossmark 2.1 mounted up on a 28mm wide Flow that I'll be putting on the bike after some shock tuning...never run this tire before, but it certainly looks like it might fit the OP's needs....can't say how much tougher it will be than a RR, if at all, and I believe the RR has a little more volume. The Cmark measures 27 3/8", or 695mm in diameter, and 52mm (2.05") wide.
    From the OP, it sounds like his frame is restricting tread height. I was thinking of the numbers posted on shiggys site, think the quasi moto is listed 345mm tread height?

  15. #15
    www.EpicCyclist.com
    Reputation: team_wee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by doismellbacon View Post
    Where is "that 27.1" tall" measurement coming from? Are you referring to a Racing Ralph? I may have missed something, but that sounds undersized...
    My RR on a Pacenti CL25 rim is exactly 27.5"

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,776
    Right, and the RR per Shiggy is 349 tread height, or 27.48" diameter.... so just about identical to the Neo Motos. I was doubting my experience because it was so long ago and I didn't record any measurements, but Shiggy's numbers support my recollection that the RR and Neo's were pretty much interchangeable, size-wise.

    kburati, I highly recommend the Neo Moto 2.1... I think it's got what you're looking for. Besides, if you're running 650b and haven't tried one of Kirk's tires, well....shame on you!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Deerhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,024
    Anyone know the tread height on the Fire XC ? I remember that 2.1" Panaracer from a while back, tough tire and tons of grip.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by team_wee View Post
    My RR on a Pacenti CL25 rim is exactly 27.5"
    My RR also measured exactly 27.5" on LB Carbon rims. This height is fine, just can't go any taller.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: RSAmerica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    74
    Nobby Nic 2.35!

Similar Threads

  1. 29er XC race tires with tougher sidewalls
    By dthomp325 in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-29-2014, 02:46 PM
  2. Like a Ikon EXO but tougher?
    By Nutball in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 05:02 PM
  3. ID the bike quiz, little tougher one this time (maybe)?
    By First Flight in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-29-2011, 01:36 PM
  4. Looking For An Alternative
    By Stylishxone767 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-12-2011, 08:16 AM
  5. 5.10 alternative?
    By freeriderB in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-29-2011, 02:46 PM

Posting Permissions

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