Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    LFJ
    LFJ is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    217

    Fast rolling tire on the road

    Lately I find myself riding 8-10 miles on the road to get to the trails and then the same distance home. I am looking for a fast rolling rear tire. Currently I am using a Maxxis Ignitor. I have also used IRC mythos XC's 700 x 42 but don't like how narrow they are for the trails that I am riding once I get there. Any insight would be appreciated.

  2. #2
    hispanic mechanic
    Reputation: sslos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,238

    Nanoraptor...

    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ
    Lately I find myself riding 8-10 miles on the road to get to the trails and then the same distance home. I am looking for a fast rolling rear tire. Currently I am using a Maxxis Ignitor. I have also used IRC mythos XC's 700 x 42 but don't like how narrow they are for the trails that I am riding once I get there. Any insight would be appreciated.
    I don't think you could go wrong with a Nano, at least on the back. The vast majority of rolling resistance comes from the rear tire. My experience has been that the Nano is the best when riding to and from the trail.

    the los
    "Shut up body and do what I tell you."
    Jens Voight

    http://teamjva.com/jens-voigt-soundboard/

  3. #3
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    Dito the Nano rear, it's an allround performer as a rear offroader as well.

    But now you bring it up, what's with us MTB'ers wanting the best, smoothest, fastest rolling tires whenever we're off the trails? I have the same, but why? Even on a 10mile ride the difference is maybe a minute, or two, between a good and a bad rolling tire. Don't we have time for getting home 2 mins later? Is getting to the trails or back home some secret race at low heartrate?

    If the obsession gets worse, consider a Kenda Khan 50mm rear tire. ;-)

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    If the obsession gets worse, consider a Kenda Khan 50mm rear tire. ;-)

    Kenda Khan doesn't seem to be available in 29", at least on the North American website.

    Do you have some of these in 29"??

  5. #5
    paintbucket
    Reputation: wooglin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,825
    I would have guessed that the Ignitor is pretty good on the road with those tightly spaced knobs. In fact, I just bought one on that assumption. Hope I'm not wrong.
    When the going gets weird its bedtime.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by wooglin
    I would have guessed that the Ignitor is pretty good on the road with those tightly spaced knobs. In fact, I just bought one on that assumption. Hope I'm not wrong.

    I was thinking the same thing. Please let us know ho it works for you.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by wooglin
    I would have guessed that the Ignitor is pretty good on the road with those tightly spaced knobs. In fact, I just bought one on that assumption. Hope I'm not wrong.

    I was thinking the same thing. Please let us know how it works for you.

  8. #8
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    Kenda makes the Khan (codename : K935) in every imaginable size of 700c actually, 43, 47 and 50mm. Of course, up to the 47mm I can find them online for under 7 euro's, and the 50mm they don't offer. It's mostly an OEM tire for bikes like Nishiki's 29" tourers. I don't have it, it's a bit cheesy with thickish rubber and trekking tire technology, but it's an interesting tire nevertheless. MikeC once tried it as he was considering it for a long distance record attempt. I guess he eventually chose comfort, grip and traction over speed.

  9. #9
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,181

    Nano definitely faster on the road than Ignitor.

    I had high hopes for the Ignitor to be fast enough rolling that I could use it full-time on the front of my commute/adventure bike. Even at 60 psi it has way too much rolling resistance for commuting, and too much even for adventure rides that are more than 30-50% pavement. I'm currently running both tires you mentioned -- the Mythos 42c in front and the WormDrive 42c in back. The WormDrive is easily the fastest over-35mm tire I have ridden. The Mythos isn't bad, but provides a much buzzier ride (and has lousy wet-pavement grip) in addition to being a bit slower. I'm currently trying to decide between the Big Apple (fast & fat, but heavy and maybe not much offroad cornering grip), one of the fat Kenda trekking tires (not as wide as the BA, but similar drawbacks) and another WormDrive as a front tire ... until the true "race tire" we've all been awaiting finally comes along.

    Of course you want a real offroad tire that just happens to be reasonably fast on pavement. I'd go with the Nano if its grip profile suits you and you don't mind the extra weight versus the Ignitor. It definitely rolls faster, in my experience. The Kenda Karma might also be worth looking at.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    572
    The Kenda Kwick Roller EZ Ride, has a horrible name, but in the 45c width is indeed a quick roller. It weighs around 500g, and runs between 50 and 85 psi. Shaded more towards the road, I have taken it down some gnarly, rutted trails, and survived.

    When pumped up to 85psi, this thing flys.

    http://www.kendausa.com/bicycle/kwick.cfm

  11. #11
    LFJ
    LFJ is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    I had high hopes for the Ignitor to be fast enough rolling that I could use it full-time on the front of my commute/adventure bike. Even at 60 psi it has way too much rolling resistance for commuting, and too much even for adventure rides that are more than 30-50% pavement. I'm currently running both tires you mentioned -- the Mythos 42c in front and the WormDrive 42c in back. The WormDrive is easily the fastest over-35mm tire I have ridden. The Mythos isn't bad, but provides a much buzzier ride (and has lousy wet-pavement grip) in addition to being a bit slower. I'm currently trying to decide between the Big Apple (fast & fat, but heavy and maybe not much offroad cornering grip), one of the fat Kenda trekking tires (not as wide as the BA, but similar drawbacks) and another WormDrive as a front tire ... until the true "race tire" we've all been awaiting finally comes along.

    Of course you want a real offroad tire that just happens to be reasonably fast on pavement. I'd go with the Nano if its grip profile suits you and you don't mind the extra weight versus the Ignitor. It definitely rolls faster, in my experience. The Kenda Karma might also be worth looking at.
    I may just go with a nano. Probably will work best for what I am currently doing. I know it is heavier but it should roll faster. The ignitor just seems to really drag on the pavement. It is definitely a great work out getting the bike up to speed using the ignitor. I have also been considering a Jones ACX for the rear or maybe a Jones XR.
    On a side note I haven't been able to find a WormDrive in a 42 Kevlar. Is Maxxis still making these? It looks like it would be really fast for all out commuting and not real aggressive trail riding.

  12. #12
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,094

    Wow! I'm really working too hard!

    I've used Motoraptors and an Ignitor rear/ ExiWolf front for my short commute to work ( mostly paved 4-5 miles) and rides to the trailheads, (up to 10 miles of pavement each way) and I thought the combinations rolled just fine! Appears that maybe I should hook up with at least a rear Nano. I am running a single speed as well, so I probably should reconsider my Ignitor rear?

  13. #13
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    Solo contendre
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,687
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ
    I may just go with a nano. Probably will work best for what I am currently doing. I know it is heavier but it should roll faster. The ignitor just seems to really drag on the pavement. It is definitely a great work out getting the bike up to speed using the ignitor. I have also been considering a Jones ACX for the rear or maybe a Jones XR.
    On a side note I haven't been able to find a WormDrive in a 42 Kevlar. Is Maxxis still making these? It looks like it would be really fast for all out commuting and not real aggressive trail riding.
    I have the ACX's, the XR's, and the Nanos. The Nanos are the fastest rolling, followed by the XR's and then the ACX's.

  14. #14
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by the_eleven
    The Kenda Kwick Roller EZ Ride, has a horrible name, but in the 45c width is indeed a quick roller. It weighs around 500g, and runs between 50 and 85 psi. Shaded more towards the road, I have taken it down some gnarly, rutted trails, and survived.

    When pumped up to 85psi, this thing flys.

    http://www.kendausa.com/bicycle/kwick.cfm
    That looks like a great tire for some of my needs ... where'd you get it? The "Purchase Information" link on Kenda's site just directs me to the list of dealers, and I can't imagine many local dealers carry that particular tire in that size. Haven't been able to find it on any online sites either.

    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ
    On a side note I haven't been able to find a WormDrive in a 42 Kevlar. Is Maxxis still making these? It looks like it would be really fast for all out commuting and not real aggressive trail riding.
    Mine's a 42 Kevlar, and yes it is definitely fast on the road! I only wish they made it (with proportionally bigger side knobs) in a 700x50!
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  15. #15
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,144
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ
    ... On a side note I haven't been able to find a WormDrive in a 42 Kevlar. Is Maxxis still making these?
    the folding bead 700 x 42 Wormdrive is the only version in their current lineup.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  16. #16
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    Why, if I excersize on bikes for fun and try to get tiresd on solo rides to get better, do I want the very fastest tire for my grocerie getting and commutes? Tell me please...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    138

    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by sslos
    The vast majority of rolling resistance comes from the rear tire.
    the los
    Maybe a stupid question, but can you please elaborate on this a bit.
    YR.

  18. #18
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    I'll have a stab at that.

    It's due to weight distribution. Get a scale and a block of wood or a cuple of books to level the bike, sit on it, and see what the scale says for the load on front and rear wheel. The rear will show 60% or more.

    Furthermore, you spend more time climbng than descending. In a climb, even more weight is on the rear. If you have a hill handy, or a good plank, put the scale and books on that, and weigh again. Don't be surprised to see 90% of your weight on the rear wheel on steep climbs.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  19. #19
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,094

    It's also the "drive" wheel

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I'll have a stab at that.

    It's due to weight distribution. Get a scale and a block of wood or a cuple of books to level the bike, sit on it, and see what the scale says for the load on front and rear wheel. The rear will show 60% or more.

    Furthermore, you spend more time climbng than descending. In a climb, even more weight is on the rear. If you have a hill handy, or a good plank, put the scale and books on that, and weigh again. Don't be surprised to see 90% of your weight on the rear wheel on steep climbs.
    Along with what Cloxxki says, keep in mind that the rear wheel/tire have to handle your power output, getting your efforts translated into forward motion using friction between the tire and trail/road surface. This is another reason rear tires have more rolling resistance, and they will wear out faster than an identical tire used on a front wheel of a bike.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    348

    also....

    I know that sitting up/back is really comfortable and all, but if you can get used to having your hands a bit lower, it will put more of your body weight up front, and when you distribute your weight more evenly front/back your bike will be noticably faster. For what it's worth, don't even think about the ignitors for commuting. I have them, and not only are the knobs not tight, but the compound is soft, and they won't last at all. Why hasn't anyone mentioned the 44c Mutanos?? They're a little heavy but fantastic for road/light trail use.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    138

    I am not sure I agree

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    Along with what Cloxxki says, keep in mind that the rear wheel/tire have to handle your power output, getting your efforts translated into forward motion using friction between the tire and trail/road surface. This is another reason rear tires have more rolling resistance, and they will wear out faster than an identical tire used on a front wheel of a bike.

    I could find 2 reasons for the original statement:
    1. The more aggressive the tire is the more RR it produces and rear tires tend to be more aggressive.
    2. Since the rear tire carry more of the total weight it tends to squeeze down more which means more energy is absorbed by the rubber (hysterhesis effect).

    If 2 is what Cloxxki meant then I am cool with the statement. As for the above,
    I find it harder to swallow. Both wheels have to be accelerated at the same time and to
    the same speed so any friction in any of them will cause the same effect of requiring more
    energy from us.

  22. #22
    Nat
    Nat is online now
    Solo contendre
    Reputation: Nat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,687
    Quote Originally Posted by yr292
    Both wheels have to be accelerated at the same time and to
    the same speed so any friction in any of them will cause the same effect of requiring more
    energy from us.
    In my admittedly limited comprehension of physics,

    Friction = (coefficient of friction)(Normal force)

    Since normal force increases with the amount of weight you have on the rear tire, then the rear tire experiences more friction. Coefficient of friction would remain pretty much identical for both tires. Am I correct?

  23. #23
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    I agree, a more agressive rear tire should waste more energy (bending knobs, converting leg power into heat), especially being driven. Under hard acceleration, the front tire hardly touches the ground, thus experiences little friction.

    A wheel that's not pushed down hardly has friction, one that's pushed down hard barely rolls. Let a big truck wheel roll at 5mph, see how far it goes. Then a truck itself, go 5mph and hen hit the clutch. It will stop pretty quickly, despite the many tons trying to push the vehicle forward. Had the weight of the truck been off the wheel, but on a frictionless aircushion of sorts, it would need a landing strip to go from 5mph to standstill. The friction of an unweighted wheel is nothing compared to the weight of a vehicle.

    I'm still trying to understand how weight distribution affects rolling resistance though, implying identical wheels front a rear. Surely a 2-wheeler will roll better over wet sand than a one-wheeler? Then is 50/50 distribution fastest? Does a Bob trailer to share the loads actually make you faster?
    Someone tell us how it all works?

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    138

    I think we are getting there

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I agree, a more agressive rear tire should waste more energy (bending knobs, converting leg power into heat), especially being driven. Under hard acceleration, the front tire hardly touches the ground, thus experiences little friction.

    A wheel that's not pushed down hardly has friction, one that's pushed down hard barely rolls. Let a big truck wheel roll at 5mph, see how far it goes. Then a truck itself, go 5mph and hen hit the clutch. It will stop pretty quickly, despite the many tons trying to push the vehicle forward. Had the weight of the truck been off the wheel, but on a frictionless aircushion of sorts, it would need a landing strip to go from 5mph to standstill. The friction of an unweighted wheel is nothing compared to the weight of a vehicle.

    I'm still trying to understand how weight distribution affects rolling resistance though, implying identical wheels front a rear. Surely a 2-wheeler will roll better over wet sand than a one-wheeler? Then is 50/50 distribution fastest? Does a Bob trailer to share the loads actually make you faster?
    Someone tell us how it all works?
    It seems we are converging.
    First thing first - if the front tire is severly unweighted (as in strong acceleration or steep
    climb) it will not suffer from energy loss due to "bending the rubber". However, if you apply
    some breaking power it will slow you as much as if it was applied to the rear (as long as the tire doesn't slip on the ground but still roll on it)

    As for the BOB it should be ture with the exception of the added weight of the BOB.
    in other words, if you can get a weightless BOB and inflate the tires to an enormous pressure you should transfer all the unnecessary weight to it (camelback, tools, food, kidneys, spleen, appendix...)

    As for the firction formula by Nat - Sorry but this is kinetic friction. What we are experiencing between the tire and ground is static friction which is equal to the force applied forward (not the normal force). Static friction is what we are dealing with as long
    as the tire roll and not slip.

    My conclusion form all that is the the rear tire produces more RR due to the energy lost
    on bending the rubber which is larger due to the larger weight load on the rear.

    Thanks to all of you, Yoram.

  25. #25
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,021
    Nice conclusion Yoram!
    If more wheels are faster, out with the training wheels! I'm sure I could mount a pair of Lenfy 26" wheels to the rear on my bike :-)

    Now my remaining questions would be about weight distribution. Is 50/50 indeed the fastest, and if so : why? And would leaning forward on climbs save rolling resistance?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-08-2004, 02:21 PM
  2. Suggestions on a great 2.1+ tire (fast rolling)
    By KMan in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-29-2004, 08:56 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-25-2004, 02:53 PM
  4. 2.1" or larger fast rolling tire? Advice please.
    By R332 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-27-2004, 08:27 PM
  5. Fast rolling rear tire that can take a beating?
    By namaSSte in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-04-2004, 09:45 AM

Posting Permissions

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