Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 54
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824

    What tires are you using?

    Well, my Continental Verticals are worn out and I'm interested in finding a new tire that can handle the forest singletrack. Hopefully a solid all around tire, something that can handle mud, loose gravel, and hardpack. A bunch of friends ride Nevegal's here and like them for the traction, but I'd like to stay a bit lighter than 700-800 grams per tire if possible. Most likely a 2.3-2.4 up front, and a 2.1 or 2.2 in the rear.

    What tires do you love for front and back? (and what do they weigh if you know)

  2. #2
    Live 2 Ride
    Reputation: Kona0197's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,962
    IRC Mythros 2.1 for me. My favorite is Panaracer Fire XC Pro 2.1.
    My Bike: '15 Trek FX 7.2
    My Blog: http://http://kona0197.wordpress.com/

  3. #3
    Ride More Work Less
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    372
    I rode 2.3 Vertical Pros for several years and they worked well for me. I mostly ride Brown's Camp, Gales, and WRT, with occasional trips to MRT and Surveryors Ridge. I gave 2.1 Nevegals a try, but I found they were not good in any wet conditions. The thin sidewalls of the Nevegals gave out on the lava at MRT so I'm not certain I'll try them again. I have been running 2.4 Mountain Kings with black chili(Protection in back, Supersonic in front, both tubeless with Stan's) since August and I have really liked them. I really did not want the added weight, but have not really noticed the increase. The SS are very thin sidewall, but I have not had them in the lava yet. The Stan's continues to weep through the SS sidewalls even after 5 months, but it does hold air just fine.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by avam
    I rode 2.3 Vertical Pros for several years and they worked well for me. I mostly ride Brown's Camp, Gales, and WRT, with occasional trips to MRT and Surveryors Ridge. I gave 2.1 Nevegals a try, but I found they were not good in any wet conditions. The thin sidewalls of the Nevegals gave out on the lava at MRT so I'm not certain I'll try them again. I have been running 2.4 Mountain Kings with black chili(Protection in back, Supersonic in front, both tubeless with Stan's) since August and I have really liked them. I really did not want the added weight, but have not really noticed the increase. The SS are very thin sidewall, but I have not had them in the lava yet. The Stan's continues to weep through the SS sidewalls even after 5 months, but it does hold air just fine.
    Going from the ultra knobby Verticals to the MK's, how does the traction compare? I've read great things about the black chili compound, but I was sceptical about the tread pattern on the MK's in wet and loose conditions. Any experience on wet roots with them?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ttrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    389
    I would certainly like to know the opinions to this question as well. Currently I use 2.35 Intense Fro Lites which are super good tires, never had a flat or any condition........ and the horrible downside to these double walled training weight tires the the porky weight of 1460 grams!!!! I am looking to replace tires with something tough and good in mud with less weight.

    I tried nevegals last spring and they didn't last three months. Also had some bad luck WTBs. Some of the best luck I have had besides the Intense tires was the stock Specialized tires that came on my enduro.

    Anyhow, please chime in.

  6. #6
    troubled economist
    Reputation: toowacky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    593
    I find the Scwalbe tires a great combination of lightweight and a decent casing. I ran a 2.4 Big Betty (non-DH-casing) on my hardtail last year everywhere, including Black Rock, and didn't have any issues w/ the casing. In contrast the single-ply Nevegals are light, but the sidewalls are less than ideal for aggressive riding or terrain, IMO. I would look there if you want to try something new.

  7. #7
    ride the moment
    Reputation: Dogbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by avam
    I gave 2.1 Nevegals a try, but I found they were not good in any wet conditions. .
    Well I ride Nevegals because they hook up nice when its wet, but I guess it could just be my riding style. They are hard to push but the traction is nice.
    Hey Butthead, are we gonna die? - Beavis

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    296

    tires

    I've ridden Panaracer Rampage 2.35s for a couple of years in all seasons and all locations. Have loved them. They are worn now and I've been thinking about buying another set, but the weight on the Schwalbe Rocket Rons is giving me pause. Anyone have any experience with the Rocket Rons 2.4s?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    24
    I have had good luck with the Rocket Ron's but have only been using them for 2 months or so now.

  10. #10
    Ride More Work Less
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    372
    It seems rare that any of us have the same experience with tires. I have done a lot of winter riding the past 5 years and think I'm better in the wet every year. I thought the Nevegals rolled fine compared to Vert. Pros, but they did not hook up in the wet as well. I probably gave up too quickly on them in the rear. I do not think the MKs are as good as Vert Pros in the wet, but the larger volume (and running lower pressure) has proven to work very well overall for me in all conditions. They definitely corner better that Vert Pros and are much better downhill.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by alembical
    I have had good luck with the Rocket Ron's but have only been using them for 2 months or so now.
    What part of the state are you riding in, and has this been during the winter?

    In terms of sidewall durability, other than a few trips each summer to a place like MRT, there's nothing here (Corvallis) that would rip a tire, so I'm not too worried about durability, just grip and weight.

  12. #12
    Tree Hugger
    Reputation: Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,946
    Schwalbe Black Shark Mud 2.1 in the front
    Kenda KOT in the rear
    I love mankind - it's people I can't stand. ~Charles M. Schulz

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,224
    The Schwalbe Muddy Mary is the best tire I have tried for Western Oregon winters. They are better than Nevs in just about every capacity. They roll better, grip better, wear better and have better sidewalls. It's too bad they aren't a bit cheaper.
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,210
    How about 29er riders? I live on the coast and need a good mud tire.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    95
    I ripped the sidewalls out of three Nevegals before I could bring myself to try the Mountain King 2.4 because the tread didn't "look" like it was good enough and where did they get "2.4"? Sorry I took so long, they out perform the nevegal in every way, yeah 29er SS fully ridged.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Hey Avam, how does the width of the 2.4 Mountain King compare to other tires like the 2.35 Nevegal and the 2.3 Conti Vertical?

    Alembical, I've read that the Rocket Ron's are on the small side for a 2.4, is that true? Can you compare it to some of the other tires mentioned in terms of air volume and width?

  17. #17
    Ride More Work Less
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    372
    My 2.3 Conti Verticals seemed to measure about 2.1. My Nevegals were 2.1 and measured about 2.1. The 2.4 MKs measure between 2.25 and 2.3.

  18. #18
    ronbo613
    Guest
    I rode Continental Vertical Pros for awhile; good all around tire, they last a long time; very durable. Rode Kenda Nevegal 2.1 that came on my new bike; they were OK. I didn't ride them very long before switching to Nevegal 2.35. I really like them. I ride over varied terrain; including some pretty rocky stuff and have not had any sidewall issues. I've had a couple thorn flats and some of the side knobs have been ripped away from the casing so I glued them back with superglue. This is not just a Nevegal deal; I remember Panaracer Smokes doing the same thing. Softer rubber gets shredded; that's the way it goes. I reckon the 2.35s are heavier than smaller tires; but I'm so slow already it probably is not a factor. They are great handling tires; very secure.
    When I wear out the Nevegals; I have another set of Vertical Pros ready to go; if I put them on and feel bad about it; I'll go back to the Nevegals or try another tire that is 2.25-2.35; I like the bigger skins.

  19. #19
    On wuss patrol
    Reputation: Glide the Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,876
    For the past 3 months, Nev 2.1s that came with the bike. Seem great in the slimy transition (between rains) stuff I ride quite a bit within an hour of PDX. I reversed the rear for a little more forward bite. Both are 2.1s so I rotate them every 150-200 miles to keep the wear even and make the set last a little longer--I wear out rears faster with braking over occasional rocky stuff.

    I like 'em but thinking about a 2.1 Panaracer Fire XC Pro replacement set.
    Last edited by Glide the Clyde; 01-05-2010 at 10:57 PM.

  20. #20
    On wuss patrol
    Reputation: Glide the Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,876
    Quote Originally Posted by tool addict
    I ripped the sidewalls out of three Nevegals...
    What kind of pressures were you running in the Nevs? Tubeless?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    95
    What kind of pressures were you running in the Nevs? Tubeless?
    Don't know exactly my fingers have been out of cal. for some time now. But most people think its too low for a guy as big as me. But I don't pinch flat very often

  22. #22
    On wuss patrol
    Reputation: Glide the Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,876
    Quote Originally Posted by tool addict
    Don't know exactly my fingers have been out of cal. for some time now. But most people think its too low for a guy as big as me. But I don't pinch flat very often

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    95
    Malibu412
    I do not use a gauge and a number in psi is meaningless unless you know the rider weight and are familiar with the particular tire. 20psi in a downhill tire is very different than in a nevegal and 20 psi for a 140lb rider is very different than for a 240lb rider. I was trying to convey that I am a large guy 6'2" and anywhere from 210 to 250lbs depending on the time of year and what I had for breakfast. My tires are my suspension, and the pressures I usually run are very low for my weight . The Nevegals did not stand up for me when I gave them that much of sidewall work out. It seemed like they sort of unraveled, the material in the side wall could not stand up to the amount of flexing that low pressure and my enlarged liver put on them. None of the people I ride with have had the same problems with the Nevegals. The few riders I know who use similar pressure weight ratio do not use the Nevegals. The Mountain King 2.4 is really about the same size as a 2.3 and has so far stood up to low pressure and fat rider, and in my opinion has better all around grip less weight and perceived rolling resistance. And pinch flat referred to tubes.

  24. #24
    On wuss patrol
    Reputation: Glide the Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,876
    Thanks addict--that gives some clarity. From what you wrote in this and others posts, I sorta guessed you were likely running sub-20 pressures and tubes (few pinch flats) as a 6'er + over 200#. Pretty much what I see on rigid SS 29ers.

    I ride with some guys who share your tire philosophy--tires are suspension--and only go by keeping the pressure just above the pinch flat level. No gauges. I am 6'7", 235 and ride my Nevs at about 35 in certain conditions, 40-45 in others. My riding buds think I need to drop pressure but at my weight and with the flimsy sidewalls, I am about as low as I want to go. I have FS and occasionally pinch flat at 35. Like anyone, I try to make it through a ride without too many flat hassles so perhaps I give up some vertical flex and lateral grip for that. To go lower, I would change tires and go a little wider. What I am finding with this particular tire is that it is not the right tool for those who go low and I believe many who do not like it or find it does not work (pealed knobs, sketchy handling, blown sidewalls and such) are not using it as it was designed--a reasonably priced, grippy compound, medium weight XC/AM tire. You obviously switched to something that suits your style better and that is a good thing.
    Sometimes, you need to go fast enough that the trail is a blur to find clarity. -- Wild Bill

  25. #25
    I got nothin'
    Reputation: hydrogeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    737
    I have been riding on Neve's for two years now on my SS and FS. I am about 165lbs and run them at about 25psi (2.35) front and 30 psi (1.95) rear on my SS. On my FS I run front and rear at about 30 psi (2.1 both). I have really liked them in most conditions. I have ridden them on both the dry and wet side and even up in central WA with no flats, lost knobs, or torn sidewalls.

    I put on a set of Hutchison Spyder Airlights on my SS and went on my a$$ three times on a semi-wet ride out at Scapposse. They didn't work for me. I have ridden IRC Mythos but they pack up in mud quick and don't release well. I am now riding some Maxxis Medusa's on my SS but they are really narrow, but they grip like mad in muddy-wet conditions.

    I'd like to try the Mountain Kings some day when I wear out the Nevegals. I wish they had a true 2.4 or 2.5 for the front of my SS.
    I ride at ludicrous speed

  26. #26
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,185
    On the front I've been running Specialized Resolutions (sorry, discontinued) ever since they came out a few years ago. They work so well in such a range of conditions that I hardly ever bother swapping them out. Again, VERY sorry they are no longer made.

    On the back, Maxxis Cross+Mark for dry conditions. Very fast, almost as fast as a semislick on hardpack but much grippier. I wouldn't particularly recommend them for wet conditions but unlike most "fast" tires they aren't completely useless in the mud.

    Panaracer Rampage in back during the winter months. Maybe slightly faster and less grippy than the Nevegal, but a good compromise IMO. Not the balls-out grippiest mud tire, but will get you through just about anything and is very durable.

    For extreme mud, I still haven't heard of anything that beats the Kenda Klaw. It's a pretty slow roller, but that's the price to be paid for really serious traction. And unlike some mud-oriented tires (such as the Conti Survival) when it does start to slip it is extremely easy to modulate and stay on the bike. It'll warn you when it starts to slip, and usually give you a chance to back off the power and stay on the bike.

    These are all 29" tires (I've been on 29"ers since 2003) but I believe these are all available in 26" versions.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrogeek
    I have been riding on Neve's for two years now on my SS and FS. I am about 165lbs and run them at about 25psi (2.35) front and 30 psi (1.95) rear on my SS. On my FS I run front and rear at about 30 psi (2.1 both). I have really liked them in most conditions. I have ridden them on both the dry and wet side and even up in central WA with no flats, lost knobs, or torn sidewalls.

    I put on a set of Hutchison Spyder Airlights on my SS and went on my a$$ three times on a semi-wet ride out at Scapposse. They didn't work for me. I have ridden IRC Mythos but they pack up in mud quick and don't release well. I am now riding some Maxxis Medusa's on my SS but they are really narrow, but they grip like mad in muddy-wet conditions.

    I'd like to try the Mountain Kings some day when I wear out the Nevegals. I wish they had a true 2.4 or 2.5 for the front of my SS.
    Thanks for the info!

    I was under the impression that the Mountain Kings are pretty close to true size, like the 2.4 measures more like a 2.3, but yeah they don't make anything close to a true 2.5. Someone in a different thread said the Rocket Ron's, which are very light for a 2.4, are a real wide front tire.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jekramerjr51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    172

    tires

    i too have been in the market for new tires and was turned on to the wtb motoraptor2.24.all the reviews have been stellar. wheelworld has them on clearance for $12.99 apiece! i ordered a couple and under $33.00 a pair w/shipping and handling what more can you ask for? i was ready to buy conti verts but the price was a little hard to pass up in these hard economic times.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by jekramerjr51
    i too have been in the market for new tires and was turned on to the wtb motoraptor2.24.all the reviews have been stellar. wheelworld has them on clearance for $12.99 apiece! i ordered a couple and under $33.00 a pair w/shipping and handling what more can you ask for? i was ready to buy conti verts but the price was a little hard to pass up in these hard economic times.
    You'll have to let us know if they are a true 2.24 and how they perform. They look pretty knobby, which I like, but I wouldn't want to run a 2.24 on the front unless it's a full 2.24.

  30. #30
    ronbo613
    Guest
    After riding the Nevegal 2.35's; I'm sold on fatties. I'll sacrifice a few grams.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    201
    I go light but I don't ride that hard. I have Conti Speed King Supersonics which clear mud very well hauling around Forest Park in the winter and give decent traction in Bend in the summer and fall. The dark side took me and I have been spending more time on the road than the dirt lately but the Contis were recommended by Fat Tire Farm and so far so good except for one pinch flat in a rock garden in Sun River.
    2009 Redline Conquest Pro, 2008 Trek Fuel Ex8
    2007 Kona Cinder Cone utility bike
    Yes I spent too much on bikes.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jaewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by mightymouse
    You'll have to let us know if they are a true 2.24 and how they perform. They look pretty knobby, which I like, but I wouldn't want to run a 2.24 on the front unless it's a full 2.24.
    I just put these tires on, have not rode on them yet. I'm disapointed in the measurements, 1.98" sidewall measurement, the largest measurement even lug to lug was 2.06", so no they are not even close to 2.24. Riding saturday morning will let ya know how they perform.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by jaewannabe
    I just put these tires on, have not rode on them yet. I'm disapointed in the measurements, 1.98" sidewall measurement, the largest measurement even lug to lug was 2.06", so no they are not even close to 2.24. Riding saturday morning will let ya know how they perform.
    There's another thread specific to MK's in the wheels/tires thread, and some reports were around 2.35-2.38 for the 2.4's. I wonder if it's a 2010 model vs older model difference, or if you're running them on a vastly different rim? How wide is your rim, and are you using tubes or going tubeless?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jaewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by mightymouse
    There's another thread specific to MK's in the wheels/tires thread, and some reports were around 2.35-2.38 for the 2.4's. I wonder if it's a 2010 model vs older model difference, or if you're running them on a vastly different rim? How wide is your rim, and are you using tubes or going tubeless?
    I'm running mavic dee tracks, they measure 1.25". I'm running tubes, my old tires were specialized roll x 2.0 and they measured 2.0 sidewalls. I am using the same tubes which are rated to 2.125, maybe thats the difference but i couldn't believe that the tubes would make that much difference.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jaewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by mightymouse
    You'll have to let us know if they are a true 2.24 and how they perform. They look pretty knobby, which I like, but I wouldn't want to run a 2.24 on the front unless it's a full 2.24.
    Even though they were not 2.24 and looked very skinny, with 15 miles on them on saturday i was happy with them. they hooked up in the mud, where i was slipping before i did not with these. On the wet logs no slippage so so far so good. Planning on riding at the ACM on sunday this week so we will see if i still like them.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    345
    After rolling my 29er shod in Exiwolf front, Mutano Raptor rear for a couple of years I jumped over to the Nevegals. They were better. Then in a trade I ended up with Panaracer Rampages 2.35 (Tread is very similar to Nevegals) and have been super happy with them.

    Worst tire I ever took into the mud was a Maxxis Larsen TT in a sticky compound. I tried it again the following summer up front, and took it off right away (and stuck it on the wife's bike, that way it's sure not to get used much). On the way to the trailhead, it was sandblasting my downtube and shins, and didn't offer anything as a worthwhile tradeoff (WRT traction).

    Nokian Boazobena (can't remember how that one is spelled) was not good in dust. I also have a tubeless Mythos XC that I am anxious to get away from. At 2.1 it just feels too skinny for a front. The Michalin Hot tires do decent when they are new, but seem to turn to crap in short order (and red tires are so... eww).

    On 26ers, In the dust, Weirwolfs have done well up front, and the Panaracer XC Pro 2.1 in the rear has been amazing in all conditions. I've heard that in the softer looser dirt, the Panaracer XC PRO 2.4 tends to dig too much and augers in in corners. I ran a Tyrannoraptor up front for 3 years, and it was very consistent until the knobs got too rounded to really hang on. It may have been an OE thing, because it doesn't exist anywhere

    Anyone running Timberwolfs?

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by jaewannabe
    Even though they were not 2.24 and looked very skinny, with 15 miles on them on saturday i was happy with them. they hooked up in the mud, where i was slipping before i did not with these. On the wet logs no slippage so so far so good. Planning on riding at the ACM on sunday this week so we will see if i still like them.
    Any more updates on how they are performing? I'm leaning towards an MK SS 2.4 up front and either a MK SS 2.2 or RK SS 2.2 in rear.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jaewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    329
    With about 50 miles on them my impressions of them are great. I have had a couple of front wheel washouts on flat corners, maybe due to their narrow size or just my lack of riding skills? Their traction has been great in the mud and on wet rocks/logs, so overall I'm happy. If i would have paid more of a retail price for them it might change my opinion of them and would have complained more about not meeting up to their width specs.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbrain
    Well I ride Nevegals because they hook up nice when its wet, but I guess it could just be my riding style. They are hard to push but the traction is nice.
    I was thinking the same thing. I didn't even like them till it started raining.

  40. #40
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,730

    WTB Stout

    Are great tires. I like them WAY better then the Rampages, but they are a bit slow climbing.

  41. #41
    Tree Hugger
    Reputation: Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,946
    I liked the Stouts ok in the summertime, but they were miserable at handling mud like we have in the Southern Willamette Valley.
    I love mankind - it's people I can't stand. ~Charles M. Schulz

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    296

    New treads

    Threw on a pair of Scott Stroke 2.35s a few weeks ago. So far, pretty impressed. Grippy and sheds mud very well. A bit taller and skinnier than the old Rampages, but 40g lighter. So far so good.

  43. #43
    Calm like a Bomb
    Reputation: stunzeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,070
    I have been running my 575 in full XC mode since its flat in Florida where I come from. I do plan on some more aggressive XC and mainly trail riding now that I live in Oregon. Should I consider running a 2.35 in front now? I still want to keep the bike light and fast rolling.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by stunzeed
    I have been running my 575 in full XC mode since its flat in Florida where I come from. I do plan on some more aggressive XC and mainly trail riding now that I live in Oregon. Should I consider running a 2.35 in front now? I still want to keep the bike light and fast rolling.
    Just ride it, don't overthink it yet. If it isn't enough traction or volume, you'll soon know. I think generally speaking, as an average dude on a bike, we tend to think about gear too much and forget that it's 90% skillz 10% equipment. Plus we are on MTBR, a consumer review site, being bombarded with ads and everyone nerding it up over the latest and greatest. While we can all agree that fresh rubber is great, you're going to get a million opinions here from riders of all different types on which style of tire to run, and we are all biased. I've ridden trails out here on a 40 pound freeride bike with fat tires, dual crown fork, and big travel, and also on a full rigid 29er with pinner tires, and it's fun both ways. Granted neither is optimal for trails at the extreme ends of the spectrum, but on your average MTB trail, they both work great. It's just a bike.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by mightymouse
    What part of the state are you riding in, and has this been during the winter?

    In terms of sidewall durability, other than a few trips each summer to a place like MRT, there's nothing here (Corvallis) that would rip a tire, so I'm not too worried about durability, just grip and weight.
    Sorry about the delay in getting back with you. I just noticed this. I am riding out of Portland, but have ridden Eastern Oregon and Coast range as well. The weight seems real good on these (especially since I am running them tubeless) and they grip well. In an ideal world, I would have as many MTB wheelsets as I do cyclocross and would change depending on conditions, but for now, I have one set and these are what I have mounted. The do well in the mud. They shed the mud well and grip well (especially around 25 psi for me). They grip wheel, corner well, relatively fast, etc... but probably do not excel in anyone thing.

  46. #46
    Calm like a Bomb
    Reputation: stunzeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,070
    Quote Originally Posted by ride_nw
    Just ride it, don't overthink it yet. If it isn't enough traction or volume, you'll soon know. I think generally speaking, as an average dude on a bike, we tend to think about gear too much and forget that it's 90% skillz 10% equipment. Plus we are on MTBR, a consumer review site, being bombarded with ads and everyone nerding it up over the latest and greatest. While we can all agree that fresh rubber is great, you're going to get a million opinions here from riders of all different types on which style of tire to run, and we are all biased. I've ridden trails out here on a 40 pound freeride bike with fat tires, dual crown fork, and big travel, and also on a full rigid 29er with pinner tires, and it's fun both ways. Granted neither is optimal for trails at the extreme ends of the spectrum, but on your average MTB trail, they both work great. It's just a bike.

    I hear ya, but I look at tires more of a necessity thing since it can change the ride for you when you have drastic condition changes like I will. I don't look at tires as a gear lust thing

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by stunzeed
    I hear ya, but I look at tires more of a necessity thing since it can change the ride for you when you have drastic condition changes like I will. I don't look at tires as a gear lust thing
    If I had to pick a single set of tires for an all around trail bike setup for Oregon... kenda small block 8 rear 2.3 paired with a kenda nevegal 2.3 sticky front.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,442
    I don't see them on WTB's website anymore, but I'm using a pair of Moto Raptors in the 2.4 size on my big bike and really like them. Also have a pair of Kenda Small Block 8's on my Superlight and the Kenda Klaw's on my 29er.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    824
    Quote Originally Posted by stunzeed
    I have been running my 575 in full XC mode since its flat in Florida where I come from. I do plan on some more aggressive XC and mainly trail riding now that I live in Oregon. Should I consider running a 2.35 in front now? I still want to keep the bike light and fast rolling.
    definitely worth considering. I'm running the new Bontrager XR4 2.35 team up front, it's huge volume, rolls well, and has big side knobs. At only 735g tubeless ready, it's 0.58 lbs less than a Tubeless 2.35 Nevegal.

  50. #50
    Calm like a Bomb
    Reputation: stunzeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,070
    so took a ride today out @ Sandys Ridge...awesome trail but as expected my tires were awful...slipped everywhere, hard time braking and slowing down today in the somewhat wet and a little muddy conditions ..may go with the conti Mtn Kings or Nevegals

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
  •