Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,327

    Maxxis Lust Tire review

    Per Duly's request-
    I recently installed a Maxxis LUST HighRoller 2.10 in the rear and a LUST 2.35 Ignitor on the front. Both tires run a little small, 1.97 vs.2.10 and 2.16 vs.2.35. Their weights were pretty close to advertised, 700 grams for the 2.10 and 795grams for the 2.35.
    So far I am impressed, I'd like to see a bit more rubber on the front tire, I'm used to a 2.35 Nevegal on the front, so the smaller tire doesnt do much for your confidence, but the Ignitor has a very "spikey" design to it and so far it corners like it is on rails. The HighRoller rear looks similar to a Nevegal except the blocks are spaced farther apart, seemingly leaving more unprotected area for a puncture. Most of the riding in my area is either loose talcum powder type dirt over hardpack or sandy decomposed granite, so I was worried how well this rear tire was going to perform, so far it has been a trooper, I've had no problems climbing in the loose conditions, it seems to dig down to the harder soil underneath. I did notice a decrease in rolling resistance vs. the nevegals I was using, which is always nice. The sidewalls seem tough, definately tougher than the tubeless converted Nevegals, so I am hoping I wont have the sidewall tearing issue anymore. I have 50+ miles on these tires and so far not a sign of wear, in the past the Nevegals would be showing some wear by now. I am actually considering pulling of my FR lowers and putting the standards back on because the size of the 2.10 HighRoller would not be an issue, maybe I could recuperate some of the weight gain of the UST tires.

  2. #2
    ಠ_ಠ
    Reputation: dulyebr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,189
    Thanks - nice review. I agree about the smaller tire digging in under the loose stuff. It's a bit counter-intuitive thinking about a smaller adding traction.

    Yes, I think the LUST version tires will solve your sidewall tearing problem for sure.

  3. #3
    searcher
    Reputation: kovi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    875
    Good review , thanks.
    Is it common to use bigger tires on the front than on the rear? I use the same size...
    Kovi

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    283
    Yes ,using a larger front is quite common although using the same size is fine as well.

    When going with larger size tires (2.35, 2.5 etc) you really start to feel the added rolling resistance and weight. Having only a large front is a good compromise, you get most of the benefits while keeping the negative traits to a minimum.

  5. #5
    ಠ_ಠ
    Reputation: dulyebr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,189
    I like using an all-moutain tire in the front with a race tire in the back - sort of a reverse bike mullet (party in the front / business in back). I feel you get most of the benefits of the higher traction up front where you need it for braking and steering. The rear tire is where you want to put a lighter tire, which generally means a little smaller. A race tire should have lower rolling resistance, and steering traction is less important here. However, drive traction is obviouly key, so it can be tough to find that balance between the two, but it is possible.

  6. #6
    thats right living legend
    Reputation: blackagness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,378
    Quote Originally Posted by dulyebr
    I like using an all-moutain tire in the front with a race tire in the back - sort of a reverse bike mullet (party in the front / business in back). I feel you get most of the benefits of the higher traction up front where you need it for braking and steering. The rear tire is where you want to put a lighter tire, which generally means a little smaller. A race tire should have lower rolling resistance, and steering traction is less important here. However, drive traction is obviouly key, so it can be tough to find that balance between the two, but it is possible.

    Never decide to go to a bigger tire in back then. Once you get used to peddaling it, you'll never be able to go back. Super traction, and stability. When my 2.35 nev died recently I ran an old 2.1 I had. One ride ripped the sidwall, went to the LBS cause I "needed" that ride feel of the 2.35 again. They only had a 2.1. So ok that's cool, brand new tire outta be better anyway. Two rides ripped the side wall. Now I've got 2.35 on again "ahhh".

    Only problem is one section of center knobs are extra tall "or something" and it's been rubbing the seatstay bridge a bit, and driving me crazy with worry.

  7. #7
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,844
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr
    Per Duly's request-
    I recently installed a Maxxis LUST HighRoller 2.10 in the rear and a LUST 2.35 Ignitor on the front. Both tires run a little small, 1.97 vs.2.10 and 2.16 vs.2.35. Their weights were pretty close to advertised, 700 grams for the 2.10 and 795grams for the 2.35.
    So far I am impressed, I'd like to see a bit more rubber on the front tire, I'm used to a 2.35 Nevegal on the front, so the smaller tire doesnt do much for your confidence, but the Ignitor has a very "spikey" design to it and so far it corners like it is on rails. The HighRoller rear looks similar to a Nevegal except the blocks are spaced farther apart, seemingly leaving more unprotected area for a puncture. Most of the riding in my area is either loose talcum powder type dirt over hardpack or sandy decomposed granite, so I was worried how well this rear tire was going to perform, so far it has been a trooper, I've had no problems climbing in the loose conditions, it seems to dig down to the harder soil underneath. I did notice a decrease in rolling resistance vs. the nevegals I was using, which is always nice. The sidewalls seem tough, definately tougher than the tubeless converted Nevegals, so I am hoping I wont have the sidewall tearing issue anymore. I have 50+ miles on these tires and so far not a sign of wear, in the past the Nevegals would be showing some wear by now. I am actually considering pulling of my FR lowers and putting the standards back on because the size of the 2.10 HighRoller would not be an issue, maybe I could recuperate some of the weight gain of the UST tires.
    It sounds like basically the Highroller 2.35 is the same size as the Nevegal 2.1 at a 150gr penalty (I use Stan's). Tough choice, but I guess it'd be worth it if I were tearing sidewalls like BA.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,327

    Tearing sidewalls

    I have torn 4 sidewalls in two months, all on the tires second or third ride, so almost a brand new tire, I had three rear 2.10's go and one 2.35 on the front tear. How much Stans do you put in your tires??? I bet its 3-4 ounces, plus the rim strip. I only put in 2 ounces and my Crossmax's dont need a rim strip. So I think I am paying a very slight weight penalty for longetivity and not having the hassle of having rides ruined by torn tires not to mention having to buy $45 tires every other week.

  9. #9
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,844
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr
    I have torn 4 sidewalls in two months, all on the tires second or third ride, so almost a brand new tire, I had three rear 2.10's go and one 2.35 on the front tear. How much Stans do you put in your tires??? I bet its 3-4 ounces, plus the rim strip. I only put in 2 ounces and my Crossmax's dont need a rim strip. So I think I am paying a very slight weight penalty for longetivity and not having the hassle of having rides ruined by torn tires not to mention having to buy $45 tires every other week.
    That makes sense. I put about 1.5 cup of Stan in my tires. I'm just leary of putting such a heavy tire on my wheel. I used to run an Intense System 4 2.25, a great tire with plenty of grips, but it made the front end feel heavy (around 800 gr or so).
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

Posting Permissions

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