Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945

    Nokian NBX Lite 2.0 versus 2.2

    So, with all i've read i'm left wondering this (as pointed out in the title).

    Everyone say's wider tires roll faster - so why isn't the 2.2 more popular? Actually, come to think of it (and I may be wrong with this), why doesn't the 2.2 even show up in tests?

    What's the scoop? Anyone ever compared the two?

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

    ... and cookies.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    182

    Good Question....

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTO
    So, with all i've read i'm left wondering this (as pointed out in the title).

    Everyone say's wider tires roll faster - so why isn't the 2.2 more popular? Actually, come to think of it (and I may be wrong with this), why doesn't the 2.2 even show up in tests?

    What's the scoop? Anyone ever compared the two?

    PATIA!
    Just today I ordered a set of the 2.2's. Very happy with the 2.0 but for some conditions I think the wider footprint may provide better handling charecteristics. In the right conditions the 2.0 is amazingly fast - but if the surface is at all loose - the 2.0 requires a lot of concentration -- maybe even a bit of hesitation. This board is very focused on weight -hence the preference to 2.0's.

  3. #3
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by jtc1
    Just today I ordered a set of the 2.2's. Very happy with the 2.0 but for some conditions I think the wider footprint may provide better handling charecteristics. In the right conditions the 2.0 is amazingly fast - but if the surface is at all loose - the 2.0 requires a lot of concentration -- maybe even a bit of hesitation. This board is very focused on weight -hence the preference to 2.0's.
    Oh hey, I truly understand the weight thing, nooooo problem there. Thanks for sharing your input.

    NO ONE will even comment on the RR comparison? REALLY?!?!?!?!?!? Geez, I thought throwing that in my original post would get ..... something.
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies.

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

    2.0 is still probably better in RR

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTO
    Oh hey, I truly understand the weight thing, nooooo problem there. Thanks for sharing your input.

    NO ONE will even comment on the RR comparison? REALLY?!?!?!?!?!? Geez, I thought throwing that in my original post would get ..... something.

    Well, if you are talking about the NBX Lite-S which is a 2.2 tire with the center knobs missing, then it weighs about 540g versus about 480 for the 2.0 Lite which has the center row of knobs.
    There is also a heavier 2.1 NBX tire. See all the data
    http://www.gazzatyres.com/show.php?o...es&instance=14

    Now I don't think there is any test to substantiate that the 2.2 will have a lower rolling resistance than the 2.0.
    There were some tests on other tires that suggested that on certain surfaces, under certain conditions, a larger tire would roll faster, but if you ride a loop, or cross country race, it may be very doubtful that the 2.2 would roll faster overall.

    In other words, if I wanted the tire with the lower RR, then I would choose the 2.0....
    IF it gave you sufficient grip.
    Really depends on what your intended use is.
    BTW, I'd choose RR over weight in almost all instances. If I thought the 2.2 would really roll faster, I get one, but I have not.

  5. #5
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester
    Well, if you are talking about the NBX Lite-S which is a 2.2 tire with the center knobs missing, then it weighs about 540g versus about 480 for the 2.0 Lite which has the center row of knobs.
    There is also a heavier 2.1 NBX tire. See all the data
    http://www.gazzatyres.com/show.php?o...es&instance=14

    Now I don't think there is any test to substantiate that the 2.2 will have a lower rolling resistance than the 2.0.
    There were some tests on other tires that suggested that on certain surfaces, under certain conditions, a larger tire would roll faster, but if you ride a loop, or cross country race, it may be very doubtful that the 2.2 would roll faster overall.

    In other words, if I wanted the tire with the lower RR, then I would choose the 2.0....
    IF it gave you sufficient grip.
    Really depends on what your intended use is.
    BTW, I'd choose RR over weight in almost all instances. If I thought the 2.2 would really roll faster, I get one, but I have not.

    Whaaaaaaaa? Ummmm, okay, we're looking at different sites then. I'M looking here;

    http://www.suomityres.fi/bike/images/nbxlite.jpg

    The NBX Lite 2.2, with center knobs. I didn't even know about the S version untill you mentioned it now ..... nor did I know about the Gazza site. Oh, btw, no pic in the link you provided, but thanks for the heads-up on that site. Interesting!
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies.

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

    I see your pic but is it a 2.2?

    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTO
    Whaaaaaaaa? Ummmm, okay, we're looking at different sites then. I'M looking here;

    http://www.suomityres.fi/bike/images/nbxlite.jpg

    The NBX Lite 2.2, with center knobs. I didn't even know about the S version untill you mentioned it now ..... nor did I know about the Gazza site. Oh, btw, no pic in the link you provided, but thanks for the heads-up on that site. Interesting!
    Just wondering what make you think that pic you have is a 2.2?

  7. #7
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester
    Just wondering what make you think that pic you have is a 2.2?
    Well, actually, the truth behind the matter is simple - I have no idea. For all I know it's a pic of a 2.0. The two tires look the same, with only the width/height of the carcas changing. I've seen the 2.0 in person and have compared it to the 2.2 on my bike. Same, but bigger.

    Same can be said of the NBX 2.1/2.3 tires, really.


    Just because - I had a chance to put in a decent ride on the 2.2 yesterday (first time in owning the tire for about 8 months!). Had it on the front of my NRS. Low RR. High volume. Respectable weight (relative, I know!). And oooooh, the compound! Mmmm, nice and grippy!!!!! I felt more comfortable with it than most tired i've tried. Didn't get onto all the trails I wanted to, to call it a "really good ride", but so far so good. Sorry, excited, can't help it! (shrug)

    No more Conti's for me.
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies.

  8. #8
    Hell it's a Vet!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47


    >Chester

    Here you have 2,2 Lite and 2,2 Lite S side by side. For shure.

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    here's a german test...

    here's a german test of the 2,3 Nokian NBX. as you can see it is also pretty fast (2nd in that test)
    just for comparison below the test of the smaller 2,0" size.

    just don't compare the numbers 1:1 since these are different tests.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #10
    Yannbzh
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8
    I have the 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 versions.

    Generaly I use the 2.1 at the front.
    For me, the 2.0 and the 2.2 have the same rolling resistance. I only use the 2.2 for mountain conditions. I think the 2.2 is a very good tire for a hardtail frame (as the RR 2.25), but you can use it during wet conditions.

    For suspension frame, I think the RR 2.0 is a better choise.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    Using quadratic analysis and Bernoulli fractals.......I have calculated the following

    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    here's a german test of the 2,3 Nokian NBX. as you can see it is also pretty fast (2nd in that test)
    just for comparison below the test of the smaller 2,0" size.

    just don't compare the numbers 1:1 since these are different tests.
    Thanks for the new test results and the "comparative" old ones..

    Like you said these are different tests........although perhaps we can do some rough comparisons...

    I took 3 tires that seemed to be on both tests and did the math.
    The Michlen Comp S Light, The Ritchy Moto Vader, and the Schwalbe Fat Albert.
    Getting the ratio/percent from the new test and comparing it to the old test, and then transfering those factors over to the Nokian 2.3, I come up with the following spread...

    BTW, the ratio from new test to old test went from .917 to. 0.0 to 1.019
    So using the 26.8w reading on the new test for the Nokian 2.3 and translating it to a comparable reading to the older test I come up with the following range for the Nokian 2.3 were it being (theoretically) done under the old test...

    26.8 turns into.....from 24.57w to 26.8w to 27.3w..........

    Now, if you compare even the best of those to the 21.2 watt reading for the Nokian 2.0 , you can see it is still superior (using my loose assumptions)

    Of course the Nokian 2.2 and Nokian 2.2 S Lite would probably be a bit lower than the 2.3.
    Especially right out of the box, the 2.2 S Lite would be lower than the 2.2 but I still doubt it would be lower than the 2.0.
    Now, one other point. I've only seen the 2.0 and 2.3 in person. When I saw the 2.3 in person it appears that the knobs are bulkier.....etc.
    I'm wondering if the knob size and weight and etc on the 2.0, 2.2 and 2.3 are all porportional such that one can draw comparisons on a resonable basis.

    Still, all in all, I doubt any of the tires are lower than the orginal NBX 2.0 Lite.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,273

    Thank you, very good pics

    Quote Originally Posted by RHR38


    >Chester

    Here you have 2,2 Lite and 2,2 Lite S side by side. For shure.
    Thanks for the pics....... Good lighting and a better side by side comparison than I've seen before.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,652
    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    here's a german test of the 2,3 Nokian NBX. as you can see it is also pretty fast (2nd in that test)
    just for comparison below the test of the smaller 2,0" size.

    just don't compare the numbers 1:1 since these are different tests.
    That surprises me, since I can feel quite a buzz through the handlebar with an NBX 2.3 on the front (on smooth surfaces) so I just assumed it rolls slow (the grip is worth it anyway).

  14. #14
    I <3 29ers
    Reputation: AndrewTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,945
    you stupid computer! (sigh)

    RHR38 - yes, thank you for that indeed! Looks like Nokian changed the center section of the mold. Interesting approach. Those your's? Have you ridden it/them yet?

    nino - thanks for that. I've seen the last page you posted, but not the first two. Those two remind me of the McKramppi testing - maybe it's the same, I haven't looked that closely yet. The McKramppi testing is the exact reason I just bought a 2.3 - low RR, (hopefully) big grip ..... not too crazy with the weight at 643 grams, but we all have our compromise. (shrug)

    yannbzh - RR - as in Schwalbe's Racing Ralph, yes? Thanks for the info.

    Chester - my brain is bleeding again! LOL! j/k!!!! Okay, I understand what you are talking about. I'll agree - loosely comparable. Good work and neat take on it, really! I think of the 2.3 as a Lite 2.2 on steriods ..... or a Nevegal, but with less RR ..... waaay less (I can at least compare on pavement for now). I wonder what that would say for the 2.1????? Maybe not much change in RR, but surely weight.

    fsrxc - I read about that in the Reviews here and was a little "concerned" about it. So far not bad, but only one ride. Where's my fly swatter?!?!?!?! Had a short ride tonight (again, on pavement) and can certainly attest to this tire being no slouch where RR is concerned - feels similar to my Explorer/Vertical combo, but with a built-in hand massager.


    Thank all! At least I know i'm not the only one using the 2.2. I'll get a good ride with the combo this weekend and see if I can afford to go to the 2.0.
    I ..... need ..... DIRT!!!!!

    ... and cookies.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    99

    sidewall cuts from rocks?

    I got re-excited about the nbx because Notubes says that they put a better aramid bead on it and they now recomend it for tubeless. However, my understanding is that it cuts easily on sharp rocks versus a Racing Ralph (which does not holding up perfectly in utah either). Now keep in mind, I'm talking only of the light versions--the 2.0 and 2.2.

    What are people's experience with rock cuts/punctures and the 2.0 or 2.2?

    (BTW, the light versions should also roll much better (other things equal) than the heavier 2.1 and 2.3 because of the extra energy to flex a thicker carcass.)

  16. #16
    Yannbzh
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8
    RR = Racing ralf for me

  17. #17
    Hell it's a Vet!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    Yes NBX has better bead now, the old ones took pretty careful work with Stan's liquid to seal those edges, now it should be easy task to handle. I just did quick comparison in my local LBS with NBX Lite 2,2 and folding Nobby Nick 2,25 to see a possible weight gain. NBX was 570 g and Nikh 587 g. It was a first time I had NN in my hands, sidewalls were surprisingly thin! Makes me wonder them as a all mountain tyres, as I thought Nokian had pretty thin sidewalls already and now I've seen even thinner ones.

  18. #18
    banned
    Reputation: nino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,770

    Schwalbe sidewalls...

    Quote Originally Posted by RHR38
    Yes NBX has better bead now, the old ones took pretty careful work with Stan's liquid to seal those edges, now it should be easy task to handle. I just did quick comparison in my local LBS with NBX Lite 2,2 and folding Nobby Nick 2,25 to see a possible weight gain. NBX was 570 g and Nikh 587 g. It was a first time I had NN in my hands, sidewalls were surprisingly thin! Makes me wonder them as a all mountain tyres, as I thought Nokian had pretty thin sidewalls already and now I've seen even thinner ones.
    it's pretty well known Schwalbe tires have weak sidewalls. but they are light and roll fast. mabe it's time to do a comparison between the actual widths. the Nokians are usually really slim compared to other tires of the same size...

    by the way - my 2,25 Nobby Nic weighs just 541g. i had the opportunity to weigh a hole bunch of them and pick the lightest it has awesome grip. i ran it with Eclipse Tubelesskit at just 23 psi and it was as tacky as glue while still rolling smooth. a superb tire!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by fsrxc
    That surprises me, since I can feel quite a buzz through the handlebar with an NBX 2.3 on the front (on smooth surfaces) so I just assumed it rolls slow (the grip is worth it anyway).

    I feel the same way. Like the 2.3 tire, but the braking bite is terrible.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Strong Ti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    370

    Damn Nino!

    My 2.25 Nobby Nic came in at 577gms, you always get the good ones :-)

  21. #21
    Hell it's a Vet!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by nino
    by the way - my 2,25 Nobby Nic weighs just 541g. i had the opportunity to weigh a hole bunch of them and pick the lightest it has awesome grip. i ran it with Eclipse Tubelesskit at just 23 psi and it was as tacky as glue while still rolling smooth. a superb tire!
    Yeah right, I just randomly measured first ones I got in my hands, I know it can be different from tyre to tyre.

    Would NN and NBX be a good pair to mix? Which one would you put in front wheel? Or are they too uneven pair in airvolume/widht = NN much more bulky?

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

    Calling Nino

    You recently posted a rolling resistance test that included an NBX lite with the slick center and a Nobby Nic and a Racing Ralph and a IRC Mibro. Can you please tell us which width of Mibro, Ralph, and Nic they were using.

    Thanks

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    70
    I just had a set of NBX 2.2 installed on my rock hopper yesterday after much thought and if it ever stop raining and drys out some here in New England will try them on trails. I really do like the tires on asphalt compared to the stock that came with the bike. I was going to get the 2.0 set, but got the 2.2 on advise of the LBS and think he was right.
    Now he has a set of Mavic cross rides on sale for 200.and this looks like the next step.
    I was going to do both but wanted to evaluate one change at a time.

  24. #24
    The Ancient One
    Reputation: Steve from JH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,573
    There's a theoretical explanation of why a wider tire might have less rolling resistance if everything else is the same.

    The wider tire with same inflation and load will have the same size contact patch but the patch will be laterally wider and longitudinally shorter. The main cause of rolling resistance is the shift of the contact pressure center of the tire to a point ahead of the axial line. The farther ahead it shifts, the more resistance. It's like there's a longer lever arm trying to rotate the tire backwards. With a shorter contact patch, the pressure center can not shift as far forward.
    "Don't criticize what you can't understand."

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    70
    Steve - after reading your post about 5 times I think I see what you are saying. It makes sense, and of course the wider tire will have better grip on dirt. I still feel that what I like about the NBX comes from better tread pattern, and compound and less weight. As in auto tires you get what you pay for and most car drivers like beer drinkers don't or cant appreciate quality.

Posting Permissions

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