Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    Clarification of German mag tests regarding Nokian NBX Lite 2.0 tires needed

    Look, that prior thread is very nice but for many of us, all we've been able to read is the tube tests...
    The part where the reports on the tires is suppose to be does not appear for what ever technical reasons.

    So I have been reduced to reading "tea leaves" and trying to figure out what the test results actually were.

    Bottom line, is that I want to know if the Nokian NBX 2.0 Lites ended up superior to all the other tires in rolling resistance? In other words, the lowest watts readings?
    And if so, at what tire pressure and weight were the tests done?

    The only three tires I can see discussed are the following...
    1. Specialized Rockster Pro at 43.6 watts
    2. Conti Explorer Supersonic at 31.3 watts
    3. Nokian NBX Lite 2.0" "? it had around 18 watts...." (what does "around 18 watts" mean?)

    What does this mean? Was the Nokian NBX Lite 2.0 in this current set of German data or are you referring to older tests in previous issues?
    I've never seen the Nokian NBX Lite 2.0 testing at 18 watts. In prior German mag data the Nokian 2.0 tested at 21.2 watts.

    So I don't know why the results are not able to be seen by many of us, but will someone please fill us in on what the current German Magazine data shows regarding the Nokian NBX 2.0 Lite.......and if possible what the results were for other low rolling resistance tires.

  2. #2
    midnight special
    Reputation: Roger G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    64

    not relevant

    You shouldn't put too much value on
    a) German bike mags
    b) rolling resistance

    These tests are all done "indoors" on a machine and not out on the trail.
    The values are real, of course, but their importance is highly overrated.

    I've got a mag here from July 2005 that says the Nokian 2.0" rolls
    about 0.5% "worse" than a 2.25" Racing Ralph. In this specific test,
    the 2.1" Continental Leader Pro had the least rolling resistance (marginally
    better than the Racing Ralph.

    I would strongly advise against choosing tyres by rolling resistance.
    The biggest asset of the Nokian is it's good grip and that is far more important.
    Last edited by Roger G; 05-04-2006 at 01:28 PM.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester
    Look, that prior thread is very nice but for many of us, all we've been able to read is the tube tests...
    The part where the reports on the tires is suppose to be does not appear for what ever technical reasons.

    So I have been reduced to reading "tea leaves" and trying to figure out what the test results actually were.

    Bottom line, is that I want to know if the Nokian NBX 2.0 Lites ended up superior to all the other tires in rolling resistance? In other words, the lowest watts readings?
    And if so, at what tire pressure and weight were the tests done?

    The only three tires I can see discussed are the following...
    1. Specialized Rockster Pro at 43.6 watts
    2. Conti Explorer Supersonic at 31.3 watts
    3. Nokian NBX Lite 2.0" "? it had around 18 watts...." (what does "around 18 watts" mean?)

    What does this mean? Was the Nokian NBX Lite 2.0 in this current set of German data or are you referring to older tests in previous issues?
    I've never seen the Nokian NBX Lite 2.0 testing at 18 watts. In prior German mag data the Nokian 2.0 tested at 21.2 watts.

    So I don't know why the results are not able to be seen by many of us, but will someone please fill us in on what the current German Magazine data shows regarding the Nokian NBX 2.0 Lite.......and if possible what the results were for other low rolling resistance tires.
    yes it's the fastest!

    see the test below where they tested all tires with the same inner tube except the one in green which was equipped with ECLIPSE TUBELESSKIT. the exact same tire got ca. 5 watts higher reading when tested with inner tube like all others (24,1 watts)

    all tires were tested at 2,5 bars and weighed with 50 kilos. the readings in watt show the power needed for ONE WHEEL to go 20 km/h.

    if you haven't tried the Nokian yet you missed what a fast tire is all about....just don't use it on rocky terrain! the soft rubber isn't very resistant.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    OK, thanks.......seems the Nokians are still best for me

    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    yes it's the fastest!

    if you haven't tried the Nokian yet you missed what a fast tire is all about....just don't use it on rocky terrain! the soft rubber isn't very resistant.

    Thanks, I've been using the Nokians ever since they came here a few years ago...
    I just wanted to know if the new German tests had shown anything different.
    I've been sold on them just like you. I might add that I tend to dismiss the doubters who always insist that the indoor tests aren't relevant. I believe that under most conditions the watts ratings are transferable.
    For some reason many riders just want to insist it cant be true. The word "relative" is the key. So the tend to throw out the entire German testing results and in a leap into the non-scientific, they instead rely on how the tire "feels" to them.
    Saying things like "it really seems to roll fast"......
    Pardon me, but when the alternative opinion is based on how the tire "feels" I think I stick with the German data.
    BTW, for those who are gonna pipe in and talk about grip.........the Nokians give me all the grip I desire.

    For those who want another look at one riders testing from a few years ago....look at this

    http://archive.mtbr.com/16/0EFCA827.php

    OK...........I'm sticking with Nokians until further evidence shows otherwise

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    OH, I'm a Bozo.......I now see the thread was from 2004

    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    yes it's the fastest!

    see the test below where they tested all tires with the same inner tube except the one in green which was equipped with ECLIPSE TUBELESSKIT. the exact same tire got ca. 5 watts higher reading when tested with inner tube like all others (24,1 watts)

    all tires were tested at 2,5 bars and weighed with 50 kilos. the readings in watt show the power needed for ONE WHEEL to go 20 km/h.

    if you haven't tried the Nokian yet you missed what a fast tire is all about....just don't use it on rocky terrain! the soft rubber isn't very resistant.
    Sorry, I just looked at the other thread and realized its a very old thread from 2004 !!!
    I thought there were some new German mag testing data.........
    I feel a bit foolish now.......
    Oh well............thanks for responding anyway...

    I'll try to be more careful to read the dates on the threads.........Who the heck is going back and resurrecting these old threads anyway?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    ONLY Germans are allowed to test rolling resistance. Its the law !

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger G
    You shouldn't put too much value on
    a) German bike mags
    b) rolling resistance

    These tests are all done "indoors" on a machine and not out on the trail.
    The values are real, of course, but their importance is highly overrated.

    I've got a mag here from July 2005 that says the Nokian 2.0" rolls
    about 0.5% "worse" than a 2.25" Racing Ralph. In this specific test,
    the 2.1" Continental Leader Pro had the least rolling resistance (marginally
    better than the Racing Ralph.

    I would strongly advise against choosing tyres by rolling resistance.
    The biggest asset of the Nokian is it's good grip and that is far more important.
    Well, I now have just realized that the thread in question is from 2004 and there are not any new testing data.
    As to the July 2005 magazine...........which magazine is that? I probably read that one also.
    I actually do choose my tire by rolling resistance because the Nokian supplies all the grip I need and is superior for me to the other low RR tires.
    BTW........if indeed someone (not sure who) found the Nokian 0.5% slower then that equals about .1 watt.........( like one tire being 21.1 and the other being 21.0 watts...)
    For that to be measured, that would have to be a very accurate testing procedure and I've not yet seen anyone doing any better testing than the Germans.

    I trust the indoor, small roller, smooth roller testing model. I don't have the intellectual problems that others seem to carry with them about doing "relative" testing.
    And besides, no one with much credible science is offering other testing as an alternative.

  7. #7
    midnight special
    Reputation: Roger G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    64

    made a mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by Chester
    And besides, no one with much credible science is offering other testing as an alternative.
    Well, there has been a test with an SRM power measuring crank done by a XC-racer
    on different terrain which showed that bigger tires with less pressure roll better.
    Regrettably, he only did it with 3 different tires and even that was quite a lot of work
    (all the different pressures etc.).

    The mag I quoted earlier was Mountain Bike.
    They did not give Watt-values but used some sort of
    system with 100 points max. (the more, the better).
    Leader Pro had 2.1" 97.8
    Michelin XCR Dry 2.0" had 97
    Oops - I actualy made a mistake - the Nokian only got 94.4 points
    Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25" 97.6
    A 2.25" Schwalbe Big Jim Light got 85.6 points

    The Nokian was by far the worst tire when snakebite resistance was tested
    and didn't do all that well in the puncture test.

    I've used NBX lite as a front tire in 23 races now and on my hardtail I was
    always pretty satisfied with it but on my fs-bike it somehow doesn't seem to work.
    Will change to Nobby Nic soon. I love it on the rear.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    I'm sticking with the Nokians....and will switch to the 2.2 if I want more tire

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger G
    The mag I quoted earlier was Mountain Bike.
    They did not give Watt-values but used some sort of
    system with 100 points max. (the more, the better).
    Leader Pro had 2.1" 97.8
    Michelin XCR Dry 2.0" had 97
    Oops - I actualy made a mistake - the Nokian only got 94.4 points
    Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.25" 97.6
    A 2.25" Schwalbe Big Jim Light got 85.6 points
    I don't trust any of those magazines where they don't have some scientific measurement involved in some part of the test.
    They are notorious for having results skewed by who is and who is NOT advertiser.
    But even putting that aside, I really suspect anything that can't be made to eliminate the bias.
    The one thing you can say about the German tests, is that they are what they are.
    They do the same test with each tire and they give you the result. From there, the reader can make his own decisions on how to interpret it for his own riding conditions.
    I alway view it as a "relative" test. It just tests each tire relative to the others.
    I believe that the relative watts readings will hold up fairly well, no matter what the conditions in the same general situation. Meaning, I'm not looking for something involving gravel, or sand, or really soft and loose stuff. Just general ground for the most part. If there are sections that are different, thats OK, but they normally won't make up a large percentage of the mileage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger G
    The Nokian was by far the worst tire when snakebite resistance was tested
    and didn't do all that well in the puncture test.
    Lucky for me, the areas in which I ride have very few snakes. Just the thought of riding among snakes makes me nervous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger G
    I've used NBX lite as a front tire in 23 races now and on my hardtail I was
    always pretty satisfied with it but on my fs-bike it somehow doesn't seem to work.
    Will change to Nobby Nic soon. I love it on the rear.
    Well, I agree that a fairly new NBX lite grips fairly well on the front....I use it on a hardtail.
    Nof facing much loose stuff I also use it on the back.

  9. #9
    Max
    Max is offline
    Velodramatic
    Reputation: Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    533
    just a side note on the German testing methods: Germans tend to heavily focus on lab testing and figures in order to declare a winner ("product A is better than B by 3 points"). The readers then go and buy product A because it won by a winning margin of 2 points of 300 points overall
    what matters to me is whether the component is somewhere within the first third of the samples or among the worst onoes, not whether it's on 3rd or 4th position.

    Also, while lab testing may seem to be the one and only objective testing method, i sometimes doubt its validity, especially when it comes to all this STW figures etc. People might read frame A is the stiffest frame and might think it's the best option. Reader XY (65 kg) then goes out to buy this frame, and hey - it's incredibly uncomfortable.

    What is more, i think it's difficult to rate a bike by measuring isolated properties such as BB or steerer tube deflection. You don't ride BB shells, you don't attack on steerer tubes. You're sitting on a complete frame, including a fork, stem, bar, wheels, cranks,... Each one of these components may have an incredible influence on the overall feel out on the streets.

    To come back to tire testing: IMHO it's one of the very few things you could probably test very well in the lab. But keep in mind that the magazine use companies' labs, for example Bohle's (=Schwalbe) or Conti's, and the relative results differ depending on the machine the components were tested on

    FWIW, i had a great laugh when the Germans tested cables and chain lubricants in a lab. Can't wait til they test which paint scheme is the fastest one


    Skinny guys fight 'til they're burger

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Max
    To come back to tire testing: IMHO it's one of the very few things you could probably test very well in the lab. But keep in mind that the magazine use companies' labs, for example Bohle's (=Schwalbe) or Conti's, and the relative results differ depending on the machine the components were tested on
    exactly the fact that a test done at Schwalbe or Conti showed the Nokian as the fastest tire made me try it!! i was soooo surprised to find out that it actually is really fast. so much faster than anything else i tried before. no one would believe there's so much difference in rollingresistance alone....yet it is there - ALL THE TIME

    now add a tubelesskit which again saves 5 watts per wheel of your precious energy and you get the feeling to ride a roadbike, not a bike on knobbies. the difference is simply amazing.

  11. #11
    Max
    Max is offline
    Velodramatic
    Reputation: Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    533
    yeah, but then again i'd rather go for a Michelin Comp S Light on the rear wheel. I wouldnt go as far as to say the rolling resistance is 1,9 watts higher. The only things this test proves is that the RR is about the same. As said before: to me it's important if the tire is among the best. Doesn't matter if it's 1st or 4th, you ain't gonna notive any difference on the trail
    And looking at the snakebite testing results the Michelin seems to be better, which allows me to run a lower pressure without risking a flat tire. That might also be a point that you ain't gonna be able to tell from pure lab results: Maybe because of the higher snakebite proofness you can run a lower and thus decrease the RR even more.

    Just my € 0.02 in order to make you aware of the fact that pure figures probably don't tell the whole story. But all in all i agree with you: The NBX lite is an amazing fast tire


    Skinny guys fight 'til they're burger

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    32
    Here's a nice analysis on the German data that I saw reading Turner forum. Go to this link. http://www.mckramppi.com/en/bike04re...asanalyysi.htm

    It seems that Michelin Comp S is one of the best overall tire together with Nokian NBX 2.3. I'm just surprised that the difference between Nokian 2.3 and 2.0 (from other post) RR is not that big

  13. #13
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by FloppyRN
    Here's a nice analysis on the German data that I saw reading Turner forum. Go to this link. http://www.mckramppi.com/en/bike04re...asanalyysi.htm

    It seems that Michelin Comp S is one of the best overall tire together with Nokian NBX 2.3. I'm just surprised that the difference between Nokian 2.3 and 2.0 (from other post) RR is not that big
    Sorry for the 5-day dig-up folks!

    I really have to ask about how some fellow members feel about the validity of the testing in Floppy's link. NOT that i'm saying what is offered is in any way poorly done, or anything negative at all! I just wanna know where that article stands with everyone. I'm finding some surprises with that link (NBX 2.3 almost as fast as the Comp S??????? ??????).

    Comments anyone? I'd love to hear what everyone has to say - positive, neutral, negative or otherwise.

    PATIA!
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,334
    It does NOT say that the NBX is almost as fast as the Michelin.

    It says the Rolling resistances are similar.

  15. #15
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by bhsavery
    It does NOT say that the NBX is almost as fast as the Michelin.

    It says the Rolling resistances are similar.
    Ah yes, apologies. My mistake. Two different things. Regardless, what do you think of that article/test? Valid? Bunch of hooey?
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies.

  16. #16
    SUBLIM8er
    Reputation: Axis II's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,195
    And looking at the snakebite testing results the Michelin seems to be better, which allows me to run a lower pressure without risking a flat tire. That might also be a point that you ain't gonna be able to tell from pure lab results: Maybe because of the higher snakebite proofness you can run a lower and thus decrease the RR even more.

    Your absolutely correct. The problem with any RR test is that it doesn't control for the huge volume of extraneous variables at work that can seriously skew outcome data. I agree that the Nokian is a fast roller and a decent cornering tire. I also agree that I am faster on the Sworks Fastrax or Racing Ralph, for instance, because I don't have to be so carefull about pinching-out and rock cuts. A fast RR tire is key BUT it's not the only thing needed in a tire in real world conditions to go fast. You also need the tire to hold air tubeless (not burp,) resist cuts and tears and stick to the corners like glue. A tire that will do all that AND has a low RR is the best overall tire for the stuff I ride IMO. Putting blinders on and narrowly focusing on one variable such as RR to choose a tire to go fast seems like handicaping yourself to going slower from my experience.
    Every man has inside himself a parasitic being who is acting not at all to his advantage.
    William S. Burroughs

  17. #17
    midnight special
    Reputation: Roger G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Scary
    German parts are best (In their minds this is absolutely indisputable).
    (The rest of) Western European parts are second (ie France, Italy, etc).
    Everybody else sucks.
    Well, it's nice that despite these interesting and well-founded facts about the German mind,
    a Finish and a French tire do so well in their tests, then.

    Germans set great value upon measurements and numbers,
    if you really need to promote a prejudice. This is not necessarily
    a good thing when it comes to testing the practical qualities of tires.

  18. #18
    Hell it's a Vet!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    Latest german BIKE-magazin shows some testing for touring (all mountain) and racing tyres. There were Nokian new Lite S too. As it is semi, it had very good rolling resistance readings, but not that good snakebite durability readings. Side grip was also ranked low, which is strange as side and mid-section knobbies are identical compared to basic 2,2 Lite, only centerline is honed to absolute minimum. For excample RR is awful in a in a off-camber turns where NBX goes like on rails and still they ranked it so much higher.

    There was one Finn athlete testing his limits in a MX World Cup (Greece) about 2 weeks ago. He's racing with NBX and NBX S tyres. At least in sandy and rocky Greece those tyres lasted well (he was 9th).

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    871

    imo, repeat imo

    i tried the nbx lite and for once agreed with mba, the tire was skinny, therefore
    very sketchy, and like the old michelin wildgripper the tire rides on the center knobs
    only which produces a very unstable ride unless going in a perfectly straight
    line. it does seem to roll pretty good because of this but it is a handful off road.

  20. #20
    Hell it's a Vet!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    Every single tyre rolls on it's center knobs, if air pressure is ramped way up (too high) Every single tyre goes like on rails, if all air is let out, indeed it rolls on a rim then

  21. #21
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    tires pressure...

    Quote Originally Posted by RHR38
    Every single tyre rolls on it's center knobs, if air pressure is ramped way up (too high) Every single tyre goes like on rails, if all air is let out, indeed it rolls on a rim then
    correct - the Nokian is very sketchy if ridden at too high or too low pressure. reading your impressions it seems to me as you used too much pressure. it indeed feels really sketchy and at higher settings and sure delivers a harsh ride because of it's rather slim size. you should have taken your time and tried different pressure settings. i use it with Eclipse Tubelesskit and always inflate around 36 psi (i'm 155 lbs, pressure on my gauge). too much and it feels exactly like your description, too little and it has a unprecise steering. if you fiddle around you'll get rewarded with excellent grip and fastest rolling.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    99

    Can You Post This Test?

    [QUOTE=RHR38]Latest german BIKE-magazin shows some testing for touring (all mountain) and racing tyres. There were Nokian new Lite S too. As it is semi, it had very good rolling resistance readings, but not that good snakebite durability readings. Side grip was also ranked low, which is strange as side and mid-section knobbies are identical compared to basic 2,2 Lite, only centerline is honed to absolute minimum.

    Can we see this test? Please with a cherry on top.

  23. #23
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,624

    I don't agree

    I agree that a watt or two difference in testing is not significant, but the difference between 20 and 25 watts is significant.

    When I first tried out a set of Python Gold Elites (550g or so) and switched off some IRC Mythos tires, the difference was night and day. Similar size and weight, but right off the bat, the first climb on my weekly training ride went up a gear or two the whole way. It was quite noticable.

    Granted, Mythos suck for rolling resistance, and Pythons kinda suck for traction once things get slightly loose, but the Pythons were so much faster the lost traction was way more than made up for in faster rolling. Once I leared to control them better, they were fine.

    My general trail bike tires don't roll with super low wattage, but I do choose light-ish easy rolling, but still with some meat. I've been happy with Panaracer Cinder 2.2s and Hutchinson Scorpions.

    Rolling resistance is not the end-all-be-all in tire choice, but for me, it is a major one. Who wants to fight thier tires up every climb?
    Last edited by pimpbot; 05-21-2006 at 11:59 AM.

  24. #24
    Hell it's a Vet!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47

    Cool-blue Rhythm

    [QUOTE=Jesseg]
    Quote Originally Posted by RHR38
    Can we see this test? Please with a cherry on top.
    No posible Senör.. Of course it's technically very possible, but I don't wanna support other tyre companies with that

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    The latest does NOT exist.

    [QUOTE=RHR38]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesseg

    No posible Senör.. Of course it's technically very possible, but I don't wanna support other tyre companies with that
    Well, perhaps I am missing something. If someone talks about a certain test, but refuses to post any details about the data, then I have to assume the test does not exist.
    The few sentences written about the supposed test are just a editorial and one person's biased opinion of some non existant results. (Hmm, can you be biased about non-existant results?)
    Why even bring it up? NO soup for you!

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
  •