Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    143

    Kendal Nevegal or Panaracer Fire XC pro (japan)

    I've tried to research based on past threads, but I'm still up in the air. In the back, I run the panaracer fire xc pro 2.1 (127 tpi), which I've always had good experiences with. In front, I've narrowed it down to that, or a Kenda Nevegal 2.1. It seems some people don't like the Nevegal in front.

    It is for dry and dusty socal singletrack and fire roads, with no mud.
    Any thoughts or advice is appreciated!

  2. #2
    Single(Pivot)and Happy
    Reputation: Boulder Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,412
    Out of you're two choices, I'd run the Panaracer.
    The suspension of your bike sucks if it's different than mine. Really. It sucks. Big time.

  3. #3
    Master of the Face Plant
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,865
    Panaracer, The Neva is a good tire but I like the pana for the cornering bite and stiffer sidewall. And they are cheaper and better for running tubeless.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nightops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    341
    I've ridden both and once i got the Kenda - I'll never buy anything else. I climb and corner better than any other tire combo i've ridden. they are expensive however..

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    146
    You're probably just going to get just as many responses for the Panaracer as the Kenda. Not sure what your conditions are, but i've always found the Nevegal to be a better tire for dry hardpack, and its amazing in sand compared to just about anything i've tried (I run the 1.95). Jenson has the Nevegal for $32, and I think its a pretty good tire which you will like, but if you don't, just run it 'til it wears out and switch back to the Fire XC. If you completely hate it, I bet one of your friends will take it

  6. #6
    Lord of the Chainrings
    Reputation: Mudd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,926
    Love my 2.5 Nevegals!
    "Hesitation is the Mother of Failure!"

    ~~ 951 for Dirt & Roadster for Asphalt ~~

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    143
    Does it make sense to put a the bigger 2.3 Nevegal in front and 2.1 FireXC pro in back?

  8. #8
    Lurking sounds so dirty
    Reputation: Solo 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    32
    It's kinda like asking "salt or pepper", both are good but add something completely different to the mix.

    Although both are technically the same 2.1 size, the Fire XCs are a much lower volume tire compared to the Nevegals. They're also much faster due to the reduced footprint and lower rolling resistance.

    The Nevegals (DTC or StickE) seem to work much better in the loose stuff and I have yet to find a better cornering tire.

    If you're really set on these two tires, a good compromise might be the Nevegal up front to help cornering and the FIre XC in back for less rolling resistance.
    You'll know it's me when you see me at Calaveras carrying my 12" Kabar.

  9. #9
    That's gonna leave a mark
    Reputation: Upchuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,629
    Another vote for Nevegals for SoCal conditions. Best all around tire IMO. Make sure you get the tubeless version if you're running them on a Stan's conversion setup.

    Tires I've ridden extensively that don't measure up in SoCal (IMO):
    Panaracer FireXC (pretty unimpressive tire for aggressive riding)
    WTB Mutano (fast but poor cornering traction and thin sidewalls)
    WTB Motoraptor (decent cornering but thin sidewalls)
    Maxxis Highroller (good traction but slow rolling)
    Maxxis Minion (good traction but only rec'd for DH/FR)

    If you're looking for a fast general XC tire with good SoCal performance, I'd recommend Specialized Roll-X. If you want a great race tire in SoCal conditions I'd recommend Specialized Fast Trak. If you can handle the loose cornering, go with Fast Trak LK.
    Fat fanatic.

    "Where the Fox Hat?" Endurance Team
    SoCal Colavita Road/MTB club

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    143
    I went with the Nev 2.10 DTC up front, and rode Chesebro/Gaspipe last night. It was great and sticky. It also seemed to absorb the bumps better (is that just me?). Loved it. I know the Nev has more rolling resistance than the panaracer fire xc pro, but I'm trying to figure out how much. I do a lot of climbing, but I would sacrifice more resistance for cornering ability coming back down. Maybe I could even run the Nev 2.1 in front, and the Nev1.90 in back for a little less resistance and less weight.

  11. #11
    Team Hardcore Cornbread
    Reputation: Phishin Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    525

    Try Larsen TT for rear tire

    I have run both and was not a fan of the Fire. I think the Nev is a better tire for the rear and I feel it wears better. If you are still shopping for the rear tire I have used the Larsen TT for the last 2 years and love it. I think the cornering is close to the Nev but it rolls much faster. I do run the UST if it matters to you. Good luck.
    "Set the gearshift for the high gear of your soul".

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    18
    I like a 2.5 blue groove in the front and the 2.3 Nev dtc in the rear.I might switch to a 2.3 in the front and 2.1 in the rear to see if there is much of a loss in grip compared to less drag.I do as much climbing as descending so maybe the slightly smaller size will be be a better compromise.The dtc lasts a lot longer if you do any street riding to get to your spot.There is no comparison to the panaracer if your looking for performance.

    No traction No action!

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    223
    Ever since I tried 'em - I'm hooked on the kenda's - the rear wears out faster than some other, harder rubber - but it's worth it, imo.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    143

    As your attorney I'd highly recommend

    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdan
    I've tried to research based on past threads, but I'm still up in the air. In the back, I run the panaracer fire xc pro 2.1 (127 tpi), which I've always had good experiences with. In front, I've narrowed it down to that, or a Kenda Nevegal 2.1. It seems some people don't like the Nevegal in front.

    It is for dry and dusty socal singletrack and fire roads, with no mud.
    Any thoughts or advice is appreciated!
    a Kenda Nevegal 2.35 DTC up FRT and 2.1 small block 8 in the back.

  15. #15
    Lurking sounds so dirty
    Reputation: Solo 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwad
    a Kenda Nevegal 2.35 DTC up FRT and 2.1 small block 8 in the back.
    A tried and true combination in So Cal.
    You'll know it's me when you see me at Calaveras carrying my 12" Kabar.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    4

    Re: Kenda or Panaracer

    I rode with the Panaracers for years and during the last year have used the Kendas. I would favor the Kendas. Really the only down side with the Kendas is they are soft and tend to wear faster but otherwise they are excellent tires.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    102

    Kenda Nevegal

    I used Pan XC pro's for years. The XC pinch flatted all the friggin time.....I ran 55-60 psi to keep from flatting and still got flats....horrible tire for aggressive riders or those >190#.

    Most importantly the XC Pros are a much lower volume casing tire, so the ride is much better on Nevegals, and there is a reason that MtbReview rated them so highly.

    SB8's are an awesome tire but have really thin sidewalls......tore one after one week of riding, so I cannot rec them. I use Maxxis crossmark and TT Larsen 2.35 tires for better rolling now.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    913
    I disagree with rathbone. I am 250#. I never pinch flatted the ones I used. I ran 40ish psi. I used the lighter weight ones.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by OLD BONES
    I rode with the Panaracers for years and during the last year have used the Kendas. I would favor the Kendas. Really the only down side with the Kendas is they are soft and tend to wear faster but otherwise they are excellent tires.
    how would you compare the rolling resistance between the two?

  20. #20
    Team Chilidog!
    Reputation: Stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Solo 1
    A tried and true combination in So Cal.
    And in NorCal, but I wouldn't run the small block 8s during the winter.
    MTB4Her.com: mountain bike site for women, by women

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    143
    so the Nevegal front/SB8 Rear is a good combo. what about the Small Block 8's in the front and back. How's the rolling resistance compared to the Fire XC Pro and the Nevegal?

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: oscarc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdan
    so the Nevegal front/SB8 Rear is a good combo. what about the Small Block 8's in the front and back. How's the rolling resistance compared to the Fire XC Pro and the Nevegal?
    Well it seems that your really looking for good rolling resistance...You remind me of me...I come from a road bike and have only been riding a mountain bike for about 3 years but only 1% of the time. I still spend 99% of my time on my road bike where I feel at home. On the mountain bike I too was in a quest for the best rolling resistance. I was looking for low RR because I need more advantage in the climbing during races to make up for my severe handicap at going downhill. My search for a faster tire started me at the Kenda Nevegal, 1.95 front and back, then 1.95 back and 2.1 front. Now I have settled on the 2.1 back and 2.35 front. I did timed steep 1hr climbs and found that I could be just as fast with 2.1 back/ 2.35 front as with the 1.95 front /back. Simply because with the larger tires and less pressure, I could ride a straigter less bouncy line than with the 1.95's. With the 1.95's, I would have to fight uphill and with the higher pressure I would fight the steering more becuase the terrain would deflect the tires more. The big difference when arriving at my marker was that I was more relaxed and less tired up around my neck and arms and back from not figthing the steering. As for downhill, I still suck anyways but I definitly have more control and don't crash or wash out as much.
    If I'm not climbing, I'm not riding.

  23. #23
    Team Hardcore Cornbread
    Reputation: Phishin Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdan
    so the Nevegal front/SB8 Rear is a good combo. what about the Small Block 8's in the front and back. How's the rolling resistance compared to the Fire XC Pro and the Nevegal?


    When you check out the SB8 you are going to ask yourself how it hooks up at all. I have heard good things about that tire especially on our hard dusty terrain. The tread pattern is just that, "small". I don't know anyone running them front/back but a friend of mine ran Larson TT on front/back and liked the way they hooked up. I only throw that out there because the Larsen TT and SM8 are somewhat similar treads so it could be a good combo.
    "Set the gearshift for the high gear of your soul".

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    143

    Small blocks freaking roll

    Quote Originally Posted by mtbdan
    so the Nevegal front/SB8 Rear is a good combo. what about the Small Block 8's in the front and back. How's the rolling resistance compared to the Fire XC Pro and the Nevegal?
    better than fire XCpro which IMO are still a real good all rounder.
    My 3 favorite all time tires

    Nevegals 2.3s
    Panaracer XC 2.1 (kevlar beads)
    Small block 8s, 2.3

    Small blocks are the best rollers, come in 3rd/last though for down hill but for their petite tread, stick surprisingly well on the sketchy downs but I don't push them too hard in the turns (forget using them in mud)

    Panaracers roll decent and stick good, a no brainer if they are on sale.

    And then the beloved Nevegals, even though they are heavier and roll with noticeable more resistance, they roll good but these tires have saved my ass many a times when riding over my head or just getting plain old wheezy, tired, jittery and/or lazy on nasty downs after brutal climbs.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    102

    SB8's

    SB8's roll really fast and are light.......pretty cool feeling to have virtually no friction. Going back to knobbies one can instantly feel the DRAG. I had no issues with hook-up considering the small tread. I ran them front and back too.

    I could care less about AM riding, just want to cruise XC fast, but could not justify using them since the sidewalls are just too thin. I have to have a reliable tire when I am out 4-6 hours and on 35 - 50 mile rides. I can fix sidewall tears easily....carry sections of cut-up road tires and tubes, but still.

    All I can say to Pana XC Pro people is to try other tires. They are the worst of the ones I have tried in my experience. I loved the Nevegals after switching....no contest for ride comfort, faster rolling and better traction, and no flats.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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