Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Scott479
    Guest

    Fast Freds vs Twister Pro, what are your thoughts

    I rode the Twisters here in New England in dry and a full on rain race (rear only in rain) and found them acceptable-now I'm wondering if the lighter Fast Freds have similar traction or lack of I should say! What have you found the + & -'s to be of these two?

  2. #2
    Boj
    Boj is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Boj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott479
    I rode the Twisters here in New England in dry and a full on rain race (rear only in rain) and found them acceptable-now I'm wondering if the lighter Fast Freds have similar traction or lack of I should say! What have you found the + & -'s to be of these two?
    I ride Twisters SS front and rear tubeless and while I haven't had a chance to put a lot of hard miles on them, I feel they really aren't a sub performing tire comparing to a full treaded models. You could try them in place of Fast Freds as they weigh about the same. They are both fast rolling, minimal tread and weak tire wall tires (fast freads and twister SS) so if you like one you'd likely like the other. Haven't tried the Fast Freds though but have heard similar experiences here.
    If in doubt - pedal harder!!!

  3. #3
    -> SickLines.com <-
    Reputation: mtb_biker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,213
    I just got a fast freedy 2.0 tire. Its really light and i guess could be used on some courses but its pretty thin as far as tire width goes. I haven't had time to check it out, besdies once in the snow. If the course wasn't very technical and was pretty smooth i think this tire would be pretty good. The sidewall feels pretty strong for how light the tire is in comparison to my conti ss's. I'll proably switch between the fast freddy and my Explorer SS depending on condtions but i think i'll be using my Explorere SS a lot more.

  4. #4
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott479
    I rode the Twisters here in New England in dry and a full on rain race (rear only in rain) and found them acceptable-now I'm wondering if the lighter Fast Freds have similar traction or lack of I should say! What have you found the + & -'s to be of these two?
    Only tried bigger 2.25 Fast Fred. Would be a very good tire for hardpack and hardtail. Will keep them on the set of winter road/fireroad training wheels for the old hardtail. (winter does not always mean mud around here).

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: XC Jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    59

    I have rode both and I like the Fast Fred better

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott479
    I rode the Twisters here in New England in dry and a full on rain race (rear only in rain) and found them acceptable-now I'm wondering if the lighter Fast Freds have similar traction or lack of I should say! What have you found the + & -'s to be of these two?
    They both feel fast, but I liked the Fast Fred much better. It seems a little faster and I even used it with Stans, although it had a million pinholes and probably would not seal a small hole very well. It gripped O.K., better than the Twister SS on the local hardpack. I would use the Fast Fred in a race on dry hardpack. I would not use the Twister SS in a race, just cuz the one I had didn't hold up very well. With either one, I would only use it on the rear, and will probably buy another Fast Fred if one comes up on Ebay or a good deal is offered by a shop.

  6. #6
    j w
    j w is offline
    monkey
    Reputation: j w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott479
    I rode the Twisters here in New England in dry and a full on rain race (rear only in rain) and found them acceptable-now I'm wondering if the lighter Fast Freds have similar traction or lack of I should say! What have you found the + & -'s to be of these two?
    FF are surprisingly grippy and extremely light. Very very fast (low rolling resistance). The tyre is a bit thin but works well with Eclipse Tubelesskits (and presumably Stans). Maybe the tubelesskit gives it that bit extra grip; in dry or slightly damp conditions I found it to be excellent although there is barely any tread on the things.

    The one problem I almost had was climbing a short gravel climb aggressively in a race, I spun the wheel hard and it sliced the tyre a bit sending a small jet of sealant out. I held my breath (not literally, I was puffing as it was) and luckily it sealed after losing only 5-10psi.

    I used them in some mud and they weren't great, quite slippy. I used the front one in Iceland on some sweet singletrack and some rocky downhills and it was great. The rear Skinny Jimmy didn't take well to old lava fields though.

    jon2

  7. #7
    Scott479
    Guest

    Great info. all around-what PSI/BAR is everyone riding

    and what's your weight? I'm right at the 60kg/132 lb range so don't think these thin sidewalls will be too weak for my rider input!

    Thanks,
    Scott

  8. #8
    j w
    j w is offline
    monkey
    Reputation: j w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6

    lightweight

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott479
    and what's your weight? I'm right at the 60kg/132 lb range so don't think these thin sidewalls will be too weak for my rider input!
    63kg, about 45psi (with tubeless conversion kit).


    jw
    ¬¬I live here¬¬www.justridingalong.com¬¬www.tubelesskit.co. uk¬¬www.openhouseit.com¬¬

  9. #9
    Jed Peters
    Reputation: Zonic Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,328
    My thoughts are that both of those tires suck, and that you should get some decent tires.

    The Racing Ralph and Explorer SS are much better at a comparable weight.

  10. #10
    Just passing through....
    Reputation: DaFireMedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,331

    I haven't tried either of those but

    Quote Originally Posted by Zonic Man
    My thoughts are that both of those tires suck, and that you should get some decent tires.

    The Racing Ralph and Explorer SS are much better at a comparable weight.
    Neither are at a comparable weight (about 100 g's more per tire, not that it makes that much of a difference) and have higher rolling resistance. Both the RR and the Explorer probably better grip though and at least the RR will almost certainly hold up better. (I've heard that the Explorer does not hold up much better than the Twister).

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,309
    Speeking of the Racing Ralphs, does anyone know what the difference is between the RR and the Little Albersts in Terms of traction, intended use and rolling resistance?


    Thanks

Similar Threads

  1. Paging Fast Freddy...Fast Freddy?
    By Shiftless in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-04-2004, 07:23 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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