Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Ride Instigator
    Reputation: Ricko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,129

    Fire FR Pro or Cinder?....

    I'v been running Fire XC Pro 2.1 my last few sets of skins and like 'em ...a lot. I'm going with a new wheelset, 28mm wide rims rather then my old 23mm VXC Disk rims and want to go with some wider rubber but am torn between FR Pro and Cinder.

    Can anyone offer some input to help me decide? I ride rooty techical singletrack in the upper midwest and tend to stay off the trails when it's muddy. For what it's worth...the FR Pros will save me a few bucks.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    12
    I'd say Cinder for technical off-road, I'm running Fire XC's on both my bikes and would buy Cinder if I wanted a fatter tread. Seen nothing but great reviews here in the UK and believe the compound should give a slight grip advantage over the FR's on those roots. They also have a symmetrical tread and should give better breaking response than the FR's on the rear, whereas the FR's are a directionally biased pattern like the XC's

    Av.

  3. #3
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricko
    I'v been running Fire XC Pro 2.1 my last few sets of skins and like 'em ...a lot. I'm going with a new wheelset, 28mm wide rims rather then my old 23mm VXC Disk rims and want to go with some wider rubber but am torn between FR Pro and Cinder.

    Can anyone offer some input to help me decide? I ride rooty techical singletrack in the upper midwest and tend to stay off the trails when it's muddy. For what it's worth...the FR Pros will save me a few bucks.

    Thanks!
    The Cinder uses a grippier rubber than the Fire FR and is very good on hardpack to loose-ish, rocks and roots.
    The FR may be better on the really loose stuff and is good overall. Its tread is basically a scaled up version of the Fire XC Pro. Big, open and deep.
    The bigger issue may be the tire sizes. The FR 2.4 is HUGE. It is more than 8 mm wider than the Cinder 2.25. You may not be able to fit the FR in the rear of your bike and it could be close in the fork. Full specs are on my Tire Site.
    I would suggest the Cinder 2.25 on both ends or the FR on the front and Cinder rear.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  4. #4
    Ride Instigator
    Reputation: Ricko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,129

    Good job! Thanks for your input guys...

    Yeah, I think I'm going to try the Cinders. While the XC pros have always served me well, I'd like to try something completely different.

    Wow Shiggy, thanks for pointing that out about the width, I didn't realize the FRs were so chubby . For the record, I have an 03 Isis frame and an 02 Vanilla forx...do you think I'd have clearance issues if I did use the FRs?

  5. #5
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricko
    ... I have an 03 Isis frame and an 02 Vanilla forx...do you think I'd have clearance issues if I did use the FRs?
    I do not know. That is what my tire spec charts are for.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  6. #6
    Beyond the stars
    Reputation: RedDwarf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    745

    Some things I agree with, and some things I don't

    I have a set of Panaracer FR 2.4's and a Cinder 2.25. So I've run both.

    Yes, FR 2.4 is HUGE didn't fit in the back of my bike without hitting front deraillier (sp) on small ring, so I went with a different brand 2.35 in the rear. 2.4 FR is a major energy-suck tread pattern, drains all your energy, not a fast rolling tire (just my opinion) works good on the front, feels like a boat anchor in the back.

    Cinder 2.25 (just my opinion) rides like a 2.1, not a big volume tire, feels "squrime" unless it's maxed out with air, and then it don't work as well.

    Didn't like the cinder on the back, and generally felt too small for my conditions. I wanted a large volume tire to handle the rocks here in Phoenix (desert) and weekend rides in Flagstaff (mountain, roots, rocks and sticks)

    So I tried the Kenda Nevagal 2.35 in the rear and a 2.5 in the front, I like it, works great, tires are a little bit heavy, but they are "big" and worked in both conditions.

    The Nevagal's didn't "feel" as heavy as the FR 2.4's (I think thats the tread pattern), anyway. . . I fit the 2.4 FR on the front of my bike with a Fox Vanilla 125R without cleareance issues, works fine, doesn't rub and uses full travel (so it don't hit the brace either) I also put the Nevagal 2.5 on the front of my bike with a Fox Float TALAS with it in 125 mode and again no rubbing, works fine.

  7. #7
    Ride Instigator
    Reputation: Ricko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,129

    Duh...

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    I do not know. That is what my tire spec charts are for.
    After I posted that I pulled up your site and it answered my question, The Cinders will fit up fine and the FRs would be too close for comfort on the rear. Excellant site by the way.

  8. #8
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,315
    Quote Originally Posted by DJBiker
    ... Cinder 2.25 (just my opinion) rides like a 2.1, not a big volume tire, feels "squrime" unless it's maxed out with air, and then it don't work as well...
    Yes, it does depend on where and how you ride.
    I think the Cinder rides "bigger" than its casing volume. I have ridden the 2.25 as low as 20 psi on both ends and found it very stable and it still performs well at 30 psi.

    Of course it is no match for the cush of the FR's huge casing.

    My praise of the Blue Groove and Nevegal are well known.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2

    TB or Cinder???

    Im curious too as how the Cinder will stack up in various XC conditions. Im a die-hard Panaracer guy. I think for an XC application they make the best performing tires out there.

    I picked up a pair of 1.95 Fire XC Pros when they first came out, I like them. I did notice however, the mud shedding wasnt all I expected it to be, but they were a lot better then anything I had tried. Now, enters the Trail Blasters. I really enjoy those tires. Mud shedding is great, grip is great, and their construction is great. My question remains as to if the Cinders will be better. Anybody have thoughts or experience on it?

  10. #10
    I like Monkeys
    Reputation: VaughnA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by steely_jam
    I�m curious too as how the Cinder will stack up in various XC conditions. I�m a die-hard Panaracer guy. I think for an XC application they make the best performing tires out there.

    I picked up a pair of 1.95 Fire XC Pros when they first came out, I like them. I did notice however, the mud shedding wasn�t all I expected it to be, but they were a lot better then anything I had tried. Now, enters the Trail Blasters. I really enjoy those tires. Mud shedding is great, grip is great, and their construction is great. My question remains as to if the Cinders will be better. Anybody have thoughts or experience on it?
    Like you I'm a longtime Trailblaster user and lover. I got a set of 1.95 Cinders a couple of months ago. Overall a great tire, like the TB they shed mud well and are a good tire in almost all conditions. Main difference to me is that the TB had very low rolling resistance compared to the cinders. Otherwise very similar tires.
    What do I want to be when I grow up.....Dead!

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,315
    Quote Originally Posted by steely_jam
    Im curious too as how the Cinder will stack up in various XC conditions. Im a die-hard Panaracer guy. I think for an XC application they make the best performing tires out there.

    I picked up a pair of 1.95 Fire XC Pros when they first came out, I like them. I did notice however, the mud shedding wasnt all I expected it to be, but they were a lot better then anything I had tried. Now, enters the Trail Blasters. I really enjoy those tires. Mud shedding is great, grip is great, and their construction is great. My question remains as to if the Cinders will be better. Anybody have thoughts or experience on it?
    You guys should really get a set of Pana TrailRakers for the winter/mud. They make the TrailBlasters look like greased slicks on a ball-bearing covered velodrome by comparison.
    The Cinders are a better dry all-rounder, too.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by VaughnA
    Like you I'm a longtime Trailblaster user and lover. I got a set of 1.95 Cinders a couple of months ago. Overall a great tire, like the TB they shed mud well and are a good tire in almost all conditions. Main difference to me is that the TB had very low rolling resistance compared to the cinders. Otherwise very similar tires.

    Thanks VaughnA - I'll give them a shot.

    Thanks for the input Shiggy.

  13. #13
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,794
    I hated the 2.1 Fire xc's, I love the 2.4 FR's.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJBiker
    2.4 FR is a major energy-suck tread pattern, drains all your energy, not a fast rolling tire (just my opinion) works good on the front, feels like a boat anchor in the back.

    So I tried the Kenda Nevagal 2.35 in the rear and a 2.5 in the front, I like it, works great, tires are a little bit heavy, but they are "big" and worked in both conditions.

    The Nevagal's didn't "feel" as heavy as the FR 2.4's (I think thats the tread pattern.
    It's interesting to hear all the different comments.
    I think the 2.4 FR is a good roller, but I also don't think the Nevegals are slow either and people have been commenting about that. The nevegals are lighter than the FR's.

    I value traction and control over rolling resistance, It's really hard to rate rolling resistance pushing 1000g tires along with a 35lb bike, and if I'm going to suffer up, I'd better make up for it coming down.

Similar Threads

  1. Panaracer Fire FR Pro Actual Width
    By WpgRider in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2004, 09:50 AM
  2. Panaracer Fire FR 2.4 + rigid fork?
    By Earthpig in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 05:57 PM
  3. Panaracer Fire FR 2.4 + rigid fork (SS x-post)
    By Earthpig in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-2004, 08:07 AM
  4. Q:Pana racer Cinder Vs.Continental vertical pro?
    By airwave in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-17-2004, 11:19 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-03-2004, 12:27 AM

Posting Permissions

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